Molière and his Hypocrites

Text/Ma Jiajun

In the long river of European classical theater, the most outstanding writer was the 17th-century French comedy master Molière. His influence spread throughout Europe, was widespread, and continues to this day for hundreds of years. Not many classical comedians, even satirical playwrights of Enlightenment literature and realism, did not accept Molière's tradition, which shows that his influence was profound.

I. Molière's life and creation

Molière, whose real name was Jean-Batiste Baucland, was born on 13 January 1622 in Paris to a merchant family. He attended the school for the children of the nobility organized by the Jesuits. He learned Latin in secondary school, became familiar with ancient philosophy and the humanities, and translated the Roman philosopher Lucretius's Theory of Materiality. Molière was not interested in business and aspired to theatrical work. At that time, the actor was discriminated against by society, but he wanted to be an actor. In 1643 he organized the "Guangyao Troupe", which resulted in two years later being imprisoned in debt and disbanded. After that, he broke with his family and participated in the wandering comedy troupe in the provinces for 13 years (1645-1658). He traveled around France, came into contact with real life, endured poverty, honed his skills, and accumulated creative materials. In 1650 he became the leader of the troupe, and in order to establish his own repertoire, he began to write his own script. His early scripts have not survived. Most of these are farcical works. Later, he wrote "The Foolish Man" (a translation of "Daredevil", 1655) and "Love Vengeance" (1656), showing a clever and cunning servant, which was very successful. The troupe then returned to Paris.

On 24 October 1658, molière's troupe succeeded in performing The Amorous Doctor at the Louvre. Molière had a close relationship with King Louis XIV and was protected by the crown. A year later, Molière's comedy The Ridiculous Lady (1659) was staged in Paris. This is a script that ridicules the social fashion of France at that time, using traditional farce techniques, which is quite influential.

In 1661, Molière's troupe re-performed at the Palazzo Reale Theatre, and his "Husband's School" (1661) marked his transition from traditional farce to classical customary comedy, exploring bourgeois family problems and showing the conflict between the backward patriarchal worldview and the bourgeois humanistic worldview. At the end of 1662, Molière wrote another play, The School of the Lady, which was a success. The play depicts the story of an old bourgeois old man who tries to control the girl who will marry, and the result is that the girl has a successful love affair with someone else. The author opposes patriarchal morality and celebrates the humanitarian concept of free love. Apparently, Molière's play was influenced by Vio's (1590-1626) "The Barber of Severus" and later Bomacher's (1732-1799). "Mrs. School" is full of funny and witty events and language. But the author emphasized the educational role of the script, and he let the husbands of the time go to the wife's school for training. This play was rebuked by the reactionary nobility, so he wrote two plays, "Criticism of the Lady's School" (1663) and "Improvisation at Versailles" (1663), refuting his opponents, denouncing the false benevolence of the nobility, and touching on the dogma of classicism.

From 1664 onwards, Molière performed more and more in the royal palace, and he made up plays for the entertainment of the court. Among them, except for "Forced Marriage" (1664), which has progressive significance against forced marriage, the rest are mostly pastoral love comedies, leaving the Molière style of satirical reality, and is a detour and regression in Molière's dramatic creation. At the same time, however, he created a large number of excellent scripts with realistic elements. This contradiction shows that the author shows a kind of wavering in order to rely on the court.

In the five years from 1664 to 1669, Molière collaborated with the musician Lurie to write a number of love comedies that catered to the tastes of the king, such as Forced Marriage (1664), Princess Aleder (1664), The Doctor's Love (1665), and Monsieur Bussoire (1669). At the same time, and more importantly, he created a series of sharp satirical comedies: Hypocrites (1664, 1667, 1669), Don Juan (1665), Haters (1666), George Don Dan (1668), and The Sonorous Man (1668). In these plays, Molière ridicules and exposes the basic social forces on which the monarchy depends: the monks, the feudal aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie. He debunked the false benevolence and false righteousness of religion, the plundering and debauchery of feudal lords, the stupidity and hypocrisy of the nobility, the flattery of courtiers, the ruthlessness and greed of the propertied, and so on.

Don Juan is based on Spanish legend. Through the image of the aristocratic playboy, the work exposes the absurd, shameless, despicable and depraved characteristics of the feudal aristocracy, shows the decay of the French aristocratic class, and points out that it is in the abnormal decline of culture and morality. This script is satirical in a variety of ways, breaking through the limitations of the Trinity.

If you say, "Don. "Ying" is a work that exposes the nobility; then, "The Sonorous Man" is a work that exposes the bourgeoisie. The Sonorous Man is the finest of Molière's exposés of the bourgeoisie, vividly portraying the ugly image of Abba Gong, a wealth-loving slave who loves money as much as his life. He locked his wealth very tightly, guarding day and night, always thinking that others would plot his property, and when he saw the servants wearing lantern pants, he thought that there was something hidden in them and searched them. Even for their own children, on the issue of money, they are not at ease.

Abba Gong was known for his stinginess. He was rich, but he pretended to be poor, and often complained that life was difficult; although he was old, he still wanted to marry the young girl Maria, but because she did not marry, he devised a clever plan to marry his daughter to an old aristocratic man who did not want to marry to make up for the loss. His servant grasped the characteristics of his miserly man and said, "Verbal praise, respect and courtesy, and friendship can be given to you as much as you want, but the mention of money is simply not for thought." He never said I gave you a good morning, but said, 'I'll lend you a good morning.'" "He loves money more than fame, honor, and morality, and when he sees a man who asks him for money, he immediately gets cramps, and asking him for money is tantamount to stabbing him in the heart." ”

Abba Gong, a usurer, regarded lending money and collecting interest as the essence of life. He believes that "it would be blessed if all the money could be properly released, leaving only the necessary money for daily expenses at home." His practical methods of lending usury were even more frightening: even his son became his creditor, borrowing fifteen thousand francs for only twelve thousand, and the rest was offset by tatters.

Through the portrayal of the image of Abbagong, the author profoundly exposes the bourgeois worldview of money first: they live for money; money is their patron and happiness. In the heart of this upstart, the desire to get rich and stingy occupy an absolute dominance.

In his later years, Molière, despite his illness, continued to live an artistic life. His creation is slightly different from before, that is, the concentrated firepower is directed at the bourgeoisie, which effectively reflects the real situation of the French bourgeoisie at that time, which loved vanity and climbed the elite. In "The Little Citizen Intoxicated with the Nobility" (1670), the image of a rich and obsessive clinging to the power of the bourgeoisie is created. This bourgeois figure dreamed of the aristocratic way of life, and in order to imitate the nobility, he went to study music, swordsmanship, philosophy, wear aristocratic clothes, and make a series of jokes.

While satirizing the clergy, the nobility, and the bourgeoisie, Molière also created a series of clever, witty, righteous servants who could skillfully struggle against the old forces. This is a concentrated, summative manifestation in Skabbon's Trick (1671). Scarlett is no longer a clown in Italian professional comedy, but a positive character. Sjiappen's generosity, bravery, love of fighting, not afraid of hardship, and unwilling to be insulted, will be rewarded, and dare to offend the master and spread out his ugly deeds, which shows that Sjiaben is intelligent and capable, and is good at mastering the character of the master. Such characters later developed in the plays of the Enlightenment writer Bormascher.

Molière's last play was The Sick Man (1673). At that time, he was seriously ill, but he still tried his best to expose the extremely selfish nature of the bourgeoisie and ridiculed the unlearned people in the medical profession at that time.

Molière died on 17 February 1673.

Molière and Rationalism and Others

Molière's comedies were created within the scope of classical poetics, but the realist elements of his creations were strong, sometimes beyond the limits of classicism, such as: his works were not simulated Greco-Roman, not fictional characters but based on reality, writing about characters that existed in real life. Sometimes (such as Don Juan) breaks through the norms of the Trinity. Molière's comedy was bourgeois-democratic at the time, writing about folk figures, using folk language, and maintaining contact with folk drama, farce.

The reason for this is closely related to the following two points.

First, in terms of attitude towards rationalism, Molière and Gassandi's materialism are much closer than those of Descartes' dualism (substantive idealism). Of course, from the School of husbands (1661), Molière's transition to classicism was influenced by two aspects of Descartes's theory (the political embodiment of reason is enlightened monarchy and absolute monarchism; reason is artistically the simple rationality of the image). But Molière was closer to Gassandis, who accepted Gassandis's sensory empiricism. Enter into creation from the perspective of perceptual understanding or direct observation of the real life of society, rather than first formulating rational principles and starting from subjective wishes. So, on this subject, Molière was much more intelligent than Gownei and Racine, and the realism in his work was much stronger. Gassandra asserts that one can attain happiness by following "nature." This philosophy of reason, in line with or contains the common sense of ordinary people, is the basis of Which Molière relied for his creation. "Husband's School", "Wife's School", "Hypocrites", "Sonorous People", etc., all advocate that goodness should be achieved according to the nature of human nature. Dorina saw through Tardive's hypocrisy. The servant Scanalel said that Don Juan was a big bad guy, based on common sense, based on direct life experience, not from the dogma of some rational philosophy. Molière was convinced that truth could only be determined through testing and practice. This idea comes from Gasandis. Legend has it that Molière had listened to Gassandis's philosophical lessons, which may not be reliable, but molière respected Gassandis and, because of his relationship with Gassandi, loved the poems of the atomist Lucretius (Roman poet 99-55 BC), but it was reliable. Gassandre embraced materialism from the Renaissance, advocating "following nature," but in reality believed that religion made people violate nature, stifling and suppressing instincts. Molière's Hypocrites has a similar view.

On the contrary, Molière criticized Descartes several times in the script. In Forced Marriage, Molière writes about two comical philosophers, Poncras and Marfrès, who mimic the tedious philosophy of the academic school and the general skepticism of Descartes. In The Female Scholar (1672), three "female scholars" all worshiped Descartes. Molière ridiculed Descartes' dualistic metaphysics and his idealism against materialism (Ferramant's answer in seven acts and four acts in two acts), as well as Descartes' cosmology and doctrine of whirlwinds and meteors (Trisori's answer in three acts in four acts). Of particular importance is Molière's disapproval of Descartes' theism; for writing The Hypocrites and Don Juan, Molière was denounced by the reactionary conservatives of the time as an "overt school of atheism", and he became the antithesis of Descartes.

Molière favored the idea of materialism, and as a result, the element of realism in his creation was strong.

Second, in the literary tradition of the Renaissance, Molière was close to the democratic writers, but distinct from the neo-aristocratic and the compromisers. The humanist writers of the Renaissance were clearly divided into a school of writers who were close to the people and democratic, and a faction that was close to the nobility and compromised. During the Renaissance, the class struggle was fierce, and the democratic writers such as Rabelais, Shakespeare, and Cervantes could reflect the fierce struggle and show a fighting and radical spirit. But the other faction, representing the interests of the bourgeoisized new aristocracy, supports the enlightened monarch and is less competitive, such as Sidney, Lili, Nasch, and Grimm in England, and Ryunza and Jodale in France. Generally speaking, the classicists are close to Sidney and others, both of whom are loyal to the king and patriotic, pay attention to the logic of literature and art, and pay attention to the improvement of literary and artistic skills. There are similarities between Bovaro's The Art of Poetry and Sidney's Poetic Debate. Or rather, both of them are imitations of Greece (Aristotle's Poetics) and Rome (Horace's Poetry).

But Molière was a democratic writer of the classicists who had ideas for freedom. From the perspective of literary and artistic thought, the free-thinker Molière argued with the moderate Bouvais on a number of issues: (1) In The Art of Poetry, Bouvaldo attaches importance to hierarchy, strictly dividing tragedy and comedy, and promoting tragedy and devaluing comedy. In the seventh scene of "Criticism of the Lady School", Molière said through the mouth of the character Doronte: tragedy describes heroes (referring to ancient heroes), comedy describes people (referring to contemporary living people), and it is more difficult to write comedy than to write tragedy, because the protagonist in tragedy is "a portrait that can be described as you like." The image is written, and there is no need to ask whether it is realistic or not; you only need to describe it by imagination, and in order to achieve amazing results, imagination often abandons the truth." "When comedy describes people, it must describe images. Everyone demands a realistic image, and if you don't recognize the people of this century you live in, you're doing it in vain! (2) Bouvallo valued court or high life, despised "vulgar" society, and forbade vulgar figures, unseally actions, and comical colloquialisms on the stage. In his The Art of Poetry, he says:

Study the court and become familiar with the city;

They always provide objects for writing.

In this way, Molière's work has a brilliance,

Maybe he won the championship by his worldly skills,

If he were less of a friend of the people, neither would he

Make his exquisitely painted image often make a grimace,

For the sake of fighting, abandoning fun and elegance,

Insulting Sven, Take Tabalan with Terrence.

Inside the comical pocket of the Scarlett man,

I can no longer recognize the author of The Haters.

Bouillo admired Molière's The Haters because it was a work of comedy called "high", and the so-called "high" actually meant elegance and nobility. It suits the taste of Bouvalo. The Haters, however, are not Molière's masterpieces. Bouval used this "advanced" criterion to negate Molière's Sjiabon's Trick, because in the play, Sjiapern put Gilant in a cloth bag and then beats Gironde with a stick (two acts in three acts). This kind of scene of having his son's servant beat the old man is naturally not considered elegant by Bovaro. Poirot's conservatism can also be seen in Bovaro's elevation of the roman comedian Terrence to belittling the Early 17th-century French folk drama actor and heir to the medieval folk farce tradition.

In contrast, it can be seen that Molière's popularity is much higher than that of the compromised Bovareau. Molière was on the side of the bourgeois democrats, but Bovareau was on the side of the new aristocracy. Molière's popularity and realism inherited the virtues of the renaissance democratic writers. This is manifested in: First, Rabelais, Shakespeare, Cervantes, etc. all advocate "individual liberation", and Molière inherits this tradition, advocating the development of "nature" in human nature in the play, which is actually "individual liberation". His opposition to religious oppression, to the despotism of the feudal family, to hypocrisy and other vices is a new manifestation of the tradition of "emancipation of the individual." Second, Shakespeare's view of drama is very similar to Molière's view of drama. Neither writer wrote a theatrical treatise, but both expressed their views on the play through the mouths of the people in the play. Shakespeare's Hamlet talks about the purpose of the play, and has a common view with Molière's speech that the drama is to expose the shortcomings of contemporary people. Molière, like the masters of the Renaissance, valued and drew on folk art. Rabelais drew on folk literature to write The Legend of the Giants, Shakespeare drew nourishment from folk drama, and Molière also benefited from folk art. Shakespeare's comedies such as "Twelfth Night", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "Wish" and other folk heroes, Molière also sang the noble qualities, heroism and ingenuity of the people in the comedies "Sjiabbon's Trickery" and "Beaten into a Doctor". The literary masters of the Renaissance were satirists, and Molière was also a satirist. It is clear that Molière's fierce irony was derived from Rabelais. Engels said that the giants of the Renaissance were "not limited by the bourgeoisie" because they showed no mercy to the bourgeoisie, and they fiercely criticized the ugly nature of the bourgeoisie's lust for profit. Shakespeare's critique of money and usury in The Merchant of Venice and Timon of Athens is profound. Similarly, Molière satirizes the bourgeoisie in plays such as "The Sonorous Man" and "The Little Citizen Who Is Intoxicated with The Nobles". Sixth, in terms of language cultivation, Molière is also similar to the master of the Renaissance. Like Shakespeare, he did not learn Greek, only Latin, so they were all drawn from the Roman playwright Plautus. When Shakespeare began to write, he mainly adapted old plays, and Molière began with adaptations of Italian "civilized plays".

Molière inherited and, of course, lost the Renaissance tradition. His plays are not like the Renaissance, such as Shakespeare's plays, which have a romantic atmosphere, free and lively structure and plot, and multi-faceted character portrayals. Classicism abandons the perceptual aspect of the Renaissance and absolutizes the rational aspect, the character only highlights the dominant aspect and is single, one-sided, and typed, and the structural plot is bound, etc., which is a "reaction" to the Renaissance. Many classicalist writers in some respects regressed or formalized by the Renaissance, weakening realism. Among them, the best, such as Molière, although they have also been lost, have inherited many excellent traditions of the Renaissance.

It is precisely because of Molière's materialistic spirit and the inheritance of excellent traditions that he has become a masterpiece of extraordinary brilliance in the 200-year history of the development of classical theater and literature.

III. Molière's The Hypocrite

Molière's best work, the most prominent of the classical dramas, is The Hypocrite. This comedy exposes and satirizes the catholicism, the spiritual pillar of feudalism, very strongly. The social reaction after the performance, good and bad, was very intense. In 1664, during a performance at the Carnival, the reactionaries were furious, after which the Archbishop of Paris threatened the performance of "Hypocrites" by expelling him from the church. In order to defend the performance of the play, the author once went to King Louis XIV to seek refuge, and at the same time, he repeatedly revised the script. The first version of the script has only three acts, the protagonist is dressed in church costumes; in the second version, the protagonist changes his surname to Dardiff, takes off the church costume, and changes from three acts to five acts. On the surface, the script is only against a few bad priests, and at the end, it praises the king. However, the objective social effects of the script performance still have a strong anti-religious significance. It is a sharp debunking of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, which claims to be the spiritual master, pointing out the deceptive nature of its religious ethics and its anti-people essence. The "Eucharist" established in France in 1627 was a reactionary base camp established by the nobility and the monks in collusion, and many of the participants were princes and nobles, high-ranking officials, and even the queen consort was also a member of it. The organization plays the banner of charity, but it does the work of the secret police. Pagans, unbelievers, free-thinking and anti-church people are spied on and persecuted. This organization propagates reactionary religious ideas, hypocritically advocates asceticism, and so on. Molière's "Hypocrites" uses the agent of the "Eucharist" as the protagonist of the play, exposing the reactionary essence of the "Eucharist" by exposing its hypocritical face. Since the work is aimed at reality, naturally, its performance will be condemned by the reactionaries.

The protagonist of "The Hypocrite", Daltiev, is not the embodiment of abstract evil virtue, but a typical Catholic. This hypocrite epitomized the hypocrisy and evil deeds prevalent among catholic monks and indeed the entire feudal ruling class. Molière spent a lot of ink on the apparent goodness of Daltiev in order to finally reflect his essence. On the surface, Daldiov pretended to be pious and gentle, did not have a attachment to the world, had "noble" virtues, appeared to be very upright, and could strictly abide by the rules. In the church, he prayed with a pleasant face, suddenly sighed, suddenly meditated, kissed respectfully, and could direct all the eyes of the whole church to himself. Molière was good at grasping the details of this hypocrite, indicating that the priest tried his best to deliberate, criticize, and make a fuss about trivial matters in order to win the admiration of others: "One day he caught a flea while praying, and afterwards he complained that he should not be so angry and strangled it to death. "Since Dardiff appears holy and benevolent in the guise of religion, this makes it easier to deceive.

One of the most prominent features of the character of Taltiev is the inconsistency between words and deeds. Molière allows the character to tear off the sacred veil that covers his head with practical expression in his own actions, so that people can gradually see through his ugly soul. Tardeuf was not "an agent of the will of Heaven." The kind words of pure desire in his mouth conceal his great worldly pleasures. Dardiff was keen on wine and meat, chewing grouse and leg of lamb; when he was full of wine, he "lay down in a warm bed and slept peacefully until the next morning."

Dardyov's soul was despicable and dirty, he was not only a drunkard, but also a ghost, and when he saw a woman, his soul flew out of the sky, and what God's teachings had long been left behind the Yin Mountain. "If God is an obstacle to His lusts, it is not one thing to remove this obstacle." It was this devout Catholic who, when he saw The beauty of Umir, was so distraught that he could not suppress the demons of sex even by fasting and praying. He ignored Olgun's kindness and friendship to him, and did not use rumors, alienations, and oaths to seduce his wife, Ou mir.

The author not only compares the words and deeds of the characters to expose the hypocrisy of Daltiov, but also speaks of his true morality through the mouths of the characters: "A bad thing is only a bad thing when it is shouted down all over the city, so it is unpleasant, only because it is to be accused by the public; it is not a fault if it is not silently committed." These words powerfully expose the moral outlook of hypocrites in French society. The typicality of the characters is thus also enhanced by three points.

Thadyov was a typical hypocrite, but he was different from the average hypocrite. One of the characteristics of his character is that he is very treacherous, he is a religious liar with flexible means, and he can use the blindfold method to reverse black and white and avoid crisis at the first moment of a thousand guns. When he expressed his love to Umir and was discovered by Damis and informed his father Orgon, Thaldiv could not refute it, and said that he should panic and try to cover up; in fact, he was extremely calm, did not defend, but pretended to be wronged and confessed to Orgon, emptyly driving himself as a villain, begging Orgon to punish him and expel him. The half-believing Orgong, after his pretentious gesture, tossed and turned dizzy, but thought that it was really his son who framed Dardiov, so he was furious with Damis, but Dardiov at this time cleverly poured oil on the fire, persuading: "Alas, don't stop him, let him continue." "It seems that there is no cold disease in his heart, and he is not afraid to eat watermelon, but he confesses his seriousness and innocence." Here, true and false, pretentious, Thaldev's methods are extremely cunning, but they give the impression of being extremely virtuous.

Daldiv is not only duplicitous, but also fanned the flames, and he would alienate the Orgon family, so that Orgon would not trust his own son, did not trust his wife, but trusted him alone. And in order to comfort him as a "humiliated saint", Orgon transferred all his property to him. Thadyov was able to hide his joyful expression, pretended to be serious, and accepted the gift of property, saying, "Everything is God's will and should be obeyed." In this way, he not only cheated his property, but also gained a good reputation as a righteous gentleman who had no selfish intentions. Such high-ranking charlatans who speak of glorifying God and benefiting others to cover up the plundering of inheritance are extremely clever. His success is inseparable from the separation of other people's families and his own hypocrisy.

Daldiff is a villain whose methods are vicious and cruel, bringing great disaster to the Orgon family: he sabotages the marriage of Olgon's daughter, causes Damis to be driven away by his father, and he seduces Olgun's wife and seizes Orgon's property in the name of glorifying God. When Orgong, who was hiding under the table, revealed his ugly nature and ordered him to get out of the egg, Dardiff was fierce, turning from a devout believer into the eagle dog of the authorities and the owner of Orgon's property, saying: "Don't look at you as a master, but it is you who leave here, because this home is mine." "And on the basis of the property gift bill, he drove away the Orgong family by force." Not only that, he also reported the political secrets that Olgun told him to the authorities early, in order to persecute Olgun to prevent future troubles. This shows that Taltiev's hypocrisy is not only for his private life, but also for his political purposes.

In the finale, the author fails to make the hypocrite's deeds succeed, and let Dardiow be punished as he deserves his sins. But there are contradictions in the handling of the ending: on the one hand, the author hates the bones of the religious hypocrites who deceive people, so that they do not have a good end, so that the treatment is very pleasant; the second aspect is to praise the emperor and punish his slaves with the emperor, which is very reluctant.

The image of Olgun is created in the work, and he and Dardiff become a contradictory unity, becoming two inseparable aspects. This is a deceived figure, but it does not attract any sympathy, although he is not a hypocrite-like villain, but the author also satirizes him, and the author exposes the bourgeois face.

Olgun was an ignorant and fanatical religious superstition, and it was because of this that he was so confused that he did not believe in his family, but only in Tardiuf alone. He said that after he knotted Dardive, "I was completely changed, he taught me not to love anything, he took my soul out of love, and I can now watch my brothers, children, mothers, wives die one by one, and I will not be indifferent." Through a series of detailed descriptions, the author portrays Olgun's superstition of Daltiev: let the chief at dinner, the top dishes are distributed to him, and even Thaldiffe beats the child, and he quickly says "God bless you". He regarded the great deeds of Daltiev as a miracle, and he regarded every word as an oracle. Orgon's first concern when he returned to the countryside was Daldyov, asking left and right, and even his wife's illness could not reverse his topic.

What was the reason for Olgun's drunken superstition of Thaldev?

Although Orgon was a bourgeoisie, he was a feudal patriarch at home, stubborn, rude, and self-conscious, demanding that his family obey his will unconditionally. His casual ordering of his daughter to marry Dardief, the use of power to drive away his son, and the deprivation of his inheritance all show his backwardness and despotism. Olgun was a conservative who was heroic "when he served the king" and was terrified of "free thought" (e.g., surprised by the anti-authoritarian and hypocritical ideas of his son and brother-in-law). This shows that Olgun stands firmly in the position of the ruling class and defends it with all his might. Catholicism is the backbone of the ruling class, and of course the two are in the same vein. Orgon's faith in God is both for the sake of the ruling class and for the sake of personal desires. To elevate oneself to a sacred position, one cannot naturally leave the protection of religion.

Olgun's deception, in addition to the class roots, but also his character psychological reasons. Olgon had no rational faith in religion, nor did he have a deep understanding of his own beliefs. His piety was formalistic, he expressed his piety by worshipping "pious people", and he also loved to listen to flattering words, credulity and stupidity. Dardyov grasped his weakness. So effortlessly controlled the "man who led the nose". As a result, Olgun brought disaster to his family.

In contrast to the above-mentioned negative characters, the script writes about the struggle of the young bourgeois generation and servants against the reactionary backward forces, of which the image of Dorina is the most meaningful.

The servant of the "hypocrites", Dorina, has a distinct personality, is bold, right and wrong, optimistic, and resolute, brave and resourceful in the struggle against evil forces. There is no other cunning of a servant in a script. This image reflects the democratic nature of the author.

Dorina's good qualities are manifested in the fact that she has always stood in opposition to Daltiev and Orgon, exposing them and fighting them. To Daldiff, she exposes Daltiev's carnal desire for Umir and satirizes his "mentor of conscience" in front of his master, saying that he is a false piety and a hypocrite. At the same time, Dorina also dared to fight against her master Orgon without compromise. She objected to her master's arbitrary treatment of the lady's marriage, sympathized with Mariana's misfortune, laughed at her obedience, and encouraged her to oppose arranged marriages. Dorina was very determined to be anti-feudal. Her language is sharp, she is full of laughter, and she exposes the enemy to the point, and although this character does not appear much, she is a truly noble character in the script, dominating the plot.

The significance of Dorina's image is only in the anti-feudal point. Although she is against her master, and her master Olgon is bourgeois, it cannot be said that she is anti-capitalist. Because her anti-master is the feudal side of the anti-master, not against his capitalist exploitation. Although Dorina's social status is that of a laborer, she is not engaged in the struggle against exploitation and oppression waged by working people who directly create material wealth. Dorina could not oppose the oppression and exploitation of her by her master, and she also sided with the young lady, the young master, and the hostess. This is only to say that the author shows that the lowly person is upright and precious, and that his actions have no personal intentions, but are just good and courageous, similar to the red lady-like figures. Therefore, this image cannot be exaggerated and called anti-capitalist. In fact, her moral concepts, her views on the freedom of love, and the defense of the normal life of the master's family are also bourgeois.

Still, she is more vivid and believable than Krejante. Krejant is only a product of preaching, a representative of pure reason, not an artistic image.

"The Hypocrite" was written in a society where the French feudal system was still dominant, and because it was created within the framework of classicism, the author could not directly expose the feudal political system, but aimed at the ideological pillar of the feudal system, the reactionary church. The Church is closely associated with the aristocratic class, and it paralyzes the people ideologically. By exposing the hypocrites, the script points out the reactionaryism of the church, exposes those who have political purposes in the guise of religion, which not only makes people aware of the nature of the church, but also a blow to the ruling class of the feudal aristocracy. Bourgeois scholars believe that Molière exposed hypocrisy in order to defend the purity of religion. They are essentially defending religion, and this view is metaphysical. Whatever Molière's subjective attitude toward religion, there is no affirmation of religion in The Hypocrite. Although the script satirizes only one Daltiov, however, this is only a phenomenon, and Thaldiff is not an isolated phenomenon, through the phenomenon to see the essence, objectively, the script is an exposure to the Church itself, therefore, the script is militant and cognitive. If we look at the three masterpieces of "The Hypocrite", "Tang Ying" and "The Sonorous Man" in connection, Molière exposes the church, the nobility, and the bourgeoisie, which are not interrelated, which shows that "The Hypocrite" is an important part of the author's criticism of his society.

In "The Hypocrite", the narrow-mindedness, conservatism, compromise and patriarchal characteristics of the French bourgeoisie are also criticized, which makes people realize the negative side of the two sides of the French bourgeoisie at that time and its immature historical characteristics.

The democratic spirit of the work is not only in its critical exposure, but also in its positive affirmation. The author opposes patriarchy and affirms the emancipation of bourgeois individuality, pointing out that the lower classes have spiritual power and that the people and the ruling class are irreconcilable. This is profound. However, the resolution of the contradictions and conflicts in the whole script does not lie in the struggle, that is, it is not the conflicting party in the play to transform the contradictions, but the king comes forward to solve all problems, and the author makes a strong glorification and praise of the king. This also illustrates the limitations of the author's thinking, of the two-sidedness of the French bourgeoisie (including his writers) – both anti-feudal and appealing to the protection of the autocratic monarch. These dross should be criticized.

Although Molière's theatrical creation was intellectually limited, he was artistically creative. Molière was a master of comedy and an outstanding representative of classical drama, and his artistic skills were prominently expressed in the play "The Hypocrite".

From the perspective of the shaping of the character image, Molière's images such as Daltiev are typical, different from the typing of the characters written by ordinary classical writers. The images created by Molière exhibit important, social and individual characteristics, with a deep basis for life, drawn from real life rather than legendary or historical figures. These figures can summarize the characteristics of their times and thus have universal significance. This point has a deep realist element over other classical writers. However, Molière's characters also embody the classical requirement for the "one-sidedness" of the character, and his character has only one character, one passion. Any performance of Daltiev shows that he is a hypocrite. In such writing, the character is distinct, and the dominant aspect of the character is simple and prominent. Although the "one-sidedness" of this personality is a social model that summarizes hypocrites, all manifestations are directly related to the essence of personality (and only this one quality), which is simplistic and one-sided. This can be said to be a retrogression compared to the multifaceted and complex personality of Shakespeare's characters in the Renaissance, or an excessive manifestation of social centralization. It should be noted here that saying that the character personality is one-sided is not equivalent to saying that the character personality is common or anti-personal. One-sided personality refers to the single aspect of personality content, and commonality and personality refer to the universality and particularity of personality factors. Although Molière's personalities are one-sided rather than multi-faceted, the personality traits of some of the main characters are therefore prominent. In this respect, Molière surpassed the classicists whose characters were conceptualized and typed, and created a typical character. He was a realist of his time.

Judging from the image system represented by Molière, his characters have distinct personalities, are clear at a glance, and the relationship between them is clear and clear. His characters are either positive or negative, positive characters and negative characters are divided into two camps, and there are always kinship or master-servant relationships between the two types of characters. The characters always form a system between them. In addition, his script always has a "supporting role" outside or within the system, which makes a lot of sense, especially at the end of the story. This kind of figure is purely conceptual embodiment, which is lacking in artistry.

In terms of environmental configuration, Molière, unlike other classicists who wrote fantasies about ancient or mythological worlds, did not place characters in an unbelievable, abstract environment. His environment is typical, realistic and concrete. He depicts the daily life of the bourgeois family in French society, the master-servant relationship, the contradiction between parents and children, and so on. From these environments in which the characters are located, the characteristics of French social customs, times and regions are revealed. The details of customs and life are described in the script, and the environment is real and concrete, which is different from the Renaissance plays such as Shakespeare's play on the atmosphere of the court, the official residence, the wilderness, and the court, but only the overall outline. From the perspective of the history of the development of realism, the authenticity and concreteness of the environment in Molière's plays is a great improvement over the environmental depiction of Shakespeare's plays. However, Molière's works often adhere to the limitations of the classical "Trinity", such as from "The Hypocrite", only the home of Orgon can be seen, and there is no direct manifestation of the church and the broad social picture, which is not as good as Shakespeare's writing of a vast scene of life and a colorful Forstef-like background.

From the structural point of view, due to the requirements of the time, place and plot consistency of the "Trinity" of classicism, the arrangement of the plot of "Hypocrites" is relatively concentrated and the structure is also very strict. The first act of the script is an accounting. Goethe said: "What a great account of the first scene of this play... It gives a hunch that there are more important things to come. "The relationship between the characters is explained in the first act. The author uses the content of two acts to prepare the appearance of Daldov, and introduces the protagonist through the mouths of other characters. In Olgun's concern for Daldiff, people see Olgon's fainting, which lays the character foundation for the occurrence and development of the plot in the future. In the second act, Orgong forces his daughter to remarry Taltief, beginning the story, with the conflict unfolding one by one. In the third act, in the development of the story, Dardiff appears. The protagonist of a play does not appear until halfway through the play, which is still rare in the history of world theater. The first sentence of Daldov's appearance is to ask the servant to hide his bitter clothes and the whip, which immediately shows his hypocrisy, and since then, the plot has progressed on the basis of this hypocritical character, and the step-by-step plot development has perfected Daldiov's character. The first three acts deal only with the contradictions between the families of Daldiff and Orgon, and not with Daldiff and Orgon himself. In the fourth act, the contradiction between Taltiev and the head of the family is sharpened. Orgong, who had originally sided with Daltiev and contradicted his children, was caught up in the side of the children who recognized Daldiff and fought against him, exposing the hypocrites and reaching a climax. According to the development of the conflict between the two forces within the plot, the plot should be a tragic ending, ending with Orgong eating his own fruit due to his credulous belief in fainting. In the final scene, the hypocrite reveals his true face, but he manipulates Orgon's political secrets and property, killing Orgon's family, and the conflict ends naturally. But the author has a sudden twist, let the palace guards appear, punish the hypocrites, and the whole drama ends in comedy. Regarding the ending, it is worth studying: First, the author praises the "Sun King" Louis XIV according to the rules of classicism, and uses the power outside the characters in the play and the accidental factors of the plot to solve the contradictions and conflicts in the play. This shows the influence of the author's ideological limitations on the structure. Second, the author's praise of social justice and hatred of social evil, a valuable idea, cannot tolerate the church and feudal representatives such as Daldiov to do whatever they want, a kind of idea of punishing evil and promoting good, which determines that the author will not let the wicked succeed in his artistic treatment. Although this has a subjective component, under the balance and harmony of royal power, the contradiction between the feudal class and the bourgeoisie does not always end in favor of the old forces and the evil forces, and this realistic possibility is also the basis for the protagonist Tardov to finally have a good fate. Third, the script has been carried out in the style of comics and satire from the beginning, so the unity of the comedy genre is completely necessary. A comedy with a tragic ending is something that undermines the unity of art. In order to meet the requirements of genre and style, it is right to still end in comedy. Fourth, the audience watching the play has a kind of psychology that requires moral and aesthetic satisfaction, and from the perspective of comforting the audience and making the script obtain a complete social and artistic effect in the audience's psychology, the sudden turn in the ending of "Hypocrite" is understandable.

In terms of genre and technique, "Hypocrites" contains elements of farce, legendary comedy and genre comedy. The author uses a farce in which there are stupid and ridiculous old men (Orgon and his mother), clever and mouthy maids, and sad-faced unfortunate lovers. There are also funny, exaggerated pranks, such as Orgon chasing and beating his son, and the scene where he hides under the table to snoop and suddenly drills out to prevent Daldiff from kissing his wife. The play also has legendary comedy plots, such as Daltiev's plot to frame Orgon, and his courtship with both Umir and Mariana at the same time. The play also vividly depicts and ridicules the vulgarity of the backward forces in bourgeois family life and its internal contradictions. But looking more deeply, "The Hypocrite" is a character comedy, the ridiculous places in the plot development, some ridiculous scenes and the ridiculous words and deeds of the characters, and the roots of its ridiculousness are in the characters' personalities. For example, the seductress of Daldiov meets the maid Dolina and hypocritically allows her to cover her towering chest with a handkerchief, and the comedic effect of exposing the hypocrite here is strong. But this is not a deliberate gimmick, but caused by the character of the character.

Linguistically, Molière used folk language and brought the language of daily life to the stage, with a large number of proverbs and colloquialisms in his lines. At the same time, the characteristics of the personalization of the character language are also prominent. Taltiev's language is full of religious flavor, full of rhetoric, three sentences do not depart from God. Dorina's language is vivid, sharp and pungent.

In short, "The Hypocrite" is sharply satirical, creating a typical image with profound significance, using a variety of artistic techniques. Although bound by the precepts of purity, there are limitations from thought to art, but Molière wrote about the people, which is commendable. The artistic structure, writing skills and comedic art of his plays are still worth learning.

(Note: The author of this article has authorized this headline)

(Ma Jiajun, a native of Qingyuan, Hebei, born on October 5, 1929, is currently a professor at the College of Literature of Shaanxi Normal University, a member of the Chinese Writers Association, a member of the Chinese Dramatists Association, a member of the Chinese Filmmakers Association, an honorary president (former president) of the Shaanxi Foreign Literature Society, a principle of the Chinese Foreign Literature Society, a principle of the Chinese Russian Literature Research Society, a former president of the Shaanxi Provincial Higher Education Drama Research Society, a former consultant of the Shaanxi Poetry Society, and a former executive director of the Shaanxi Provincial Federation of Social Science Societies. Shaanxi Province to build socialist spiritual civilization advanced individuals, Shaanxi Province to teach and educate advanced teachers, etc., enjoy special allowances from the State Council.

He is the author of 12 kinds of "Nineteenth Century Russian Literature", "The New Stage of Aesthetic History", "Poetry Exploration", "Exploration of World Literature", etc.; 4 kinds of "The Essence of World Literature" and "History of Western Drama" co-authored with his daughter Ma Xiaoyi; 9 kinds of "History of World Literature" (3 volumes) and "Research on Gorky's Creation"; edited 4 kinds of "30 Lectures on European and American Modernist Literature"; co-edited and co-authored "100 Topics of Marxism-Leninism", "Cultural Research Methods", "50 Lectures on Oriental Literature", "Western Literature in the Twentieth Century", etc. and more than 40 kinds.

It has been listed in more than 40 kinds, such as the Dictionary of Chinese Writers, the Dictionary of Chinese Poets, the Dictionary of Chinese Social Science Scholars, the Cambridge Dictionary of International Biographies (27th Edition in English), the Directory of Experts in Russian Studies Abroad (Russian Edition) of the Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Classics of Shaanxi Century of Literature and Art. ）