Freedom, Slavery and Absolutism: Corneille, Pascal, Racine by Ziad Elmarsafy (review)

Abstract

814 Reviews Although Moriarty devotes pp. 102-21 to imagination in Pascal, he etiolates the tensions woven between social bonds based on forceand imagination and the ferocious onslaught against natural justice (pp. 128-29), neglecting Pascal's ironic accolade of the 'opinionsdu peuple saines' (Pensees, 101, ed. by Lafuma), whichcelebrates human gumption in establishing laws based on indisputable external signs, and devising the 'regle des partis'. This rule corroborates our rationality when we stake our all on uncertainty both in war and in faith. The Fall, which concusses reason, represents the only plausible hypothesis to synthezise our dualism. In overstating Descartes's and Pascal's criticism of men's flabby grip on the world Moriarty diminishes the audacious modernism of the methods they invented to enable us to resist the siren lure of imagination. In comparison Malebranche appears as a woolly emasculated apologist. His imagi? nation denotes both the soul's input in forming images as the animal spirits inscribe them upon our brain fibres and the body's response. Emotions linking physical traces with ideas are either natural or dependent on God's will (pp. 171-77). Again the soul-body union is explained by the Fall. Malebranche restates Augustine: 'The theory of the imagination and [. . .] communication between the mother's brain and that of the child provides a modern scientific explanation of the mysterious inheritance of sin' (p. 247). No proof is required. Moriarty concludes that in both Pascal and Malebranche imagination generates a phoney subordination, a 'suspicion of interpersonal relationships [. . .] a self-distancing from the social essentialism of [. . .] society (p. 250). None the less, the scaffolding of Augustinian theology may offerprecarious contact between their discourse and the modern age. It may fairlybe contended that Descartes and Pascal erect more robust bridging. University of Glasgow Elizabeth Moles Freedom, Slavery and Absolutism: Corneille, Pascal, Racine. By Ziad Elmarsafy. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press; London: Associated University Presses. 2003. 196 pp. ?34. ISBN 0-8387-5548-8. In this often stimulating study Ziad Elmarsafy sets out to read Corneille, Pascal, and Racine as (in his words) 'political theories in the guise of literature' (p. 18), arguing that all three, through their rich treatment of discourses on freedom and slavery, are apologists forabsolute monarchy as incarnated in the figureof Louis XIV. Elmarsafy's analysis of various theoretical treatises and his choice of lesser-known works, such as Corneille's later theatre, Pascal's Ecrits sur la grace, and Racine's Alexandre, are of especial interest. The chapter on Racine in particular offersvaluable insights, such as his idea that 'survival of the state depends on making the slaves disappear either through their sacrifice, as in Iphigenie, or through their emancipation and integration into the fabric of the family, as in Andromaque and Phedre' (p. 144). As rich as these interpretations are, Elmarsafy's keenness to map the works onto his theory of absolutism runs the attendant risk of oversimplification. How helpful, for example, is the comment that Corneille's 'Othon can be read as a substitute for Louis XIV (p. 49)? It is perhaps significant also in his chapter on Corneille that Elmarsafy refers to the 'reader' rather than the spectator, for he ignores the theatrical impact of a character like Othon. Moreover, to say that Pascal's God has much in common with Louis XIV because 'both are male and both defined by their absolute sovereignty' (pp. 61-62) seems both forced and potentially misleading. The hidden God ofPascal's theology is surely very differentfrom the omnipresence of the king. Similarly, to see Racine's Esther and Athalie as a 'comfortingparable about the absolute state' (p. 149) does not allow formany complexities, such as the reality that this liberating king was MLRy 100.3, 200S 815 in the process of destroying Port-Royal (to which Racine was now reconciled) and the mixed signals sent out by the fact that at the end of Athalie Joas will not be the liberating king that everyone hopes him to be, a factwhich is underlined by Racine in the text ofthe play and in the rare footnotes which he himself inserted. These quibbles aside, each chapter contains fresh and exciting interpretations of both familiar and less...