, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 193–202

Latent disfigurations: Corneille’s paratextual mishaps



The “examens” that accompany Corneille’s dramatic opus are in fact, adjuvants, written after the fact. As defensive meta-commentaries wherein the focus rarely departs from an attempt to demonstrate how his plays do or do not conform to theoretical prescriptions, they are prefaces in name only: publishers have tended to displace them in advance of the work despite their “belated” appearance relative to the work. Displacement is, however, not to be overlooked. For if the pasted additives known as the “examens” suffer at the level of insightful texts, they do adopt significance as paratexts. In his extra textual writings, Corneille the theaterician and Corneille the theoretician jockey for discursive supremacy, and it is ultimately the theaterician who emerges victorious. The more he reviews his plays, the more muted becomes the voice of the disciplined theoretician, and conversely, the more assertive the voice of the theaterician. Shortly after Rodogune, it will be noted that Corneille becomes more eager to defend rather than condemn his creative instincts, and less hesitant to criticize the rules themselves. Corneille’s decision not to engage in a theoretical examination of his final works suggests that at the end of his career, as at the beginning, Corneille believed his primary commitment was to his own aesthetic vision.


Corneille Drama Dramatic theory Dramaturgical rules 


  1. Abraham, C. (1972). Pierre Corneille. New York: Twayne.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, W. (1951). Patriotism and Gloire in Corneille’s Horace. Modern Language Review, 46, 368–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berregard, S. (2008). Le Débat entre Corneille et d’Aubignac au sujet des didascalies: De la Théorie à la pratique. Revue d’Histoire du Théâtre, 2(238), 113–126.Google Scholar
  4. Calvet, J. (1932). Polyeucte, étude et analyse. Paris: Mellottée.Google Scholar
  5. Carlin, C. (1900). Corneille’s Trois Discours: A Reader’s Guide. Orbis Litterarum, 45, 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlin, C. (1998). Pierre Corneille Revisited. New York: Twayne.Google Scholar
  7. Corneille, P. (1963). Oeuvres completes. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  8. Doubrovsky, S. (1963). Corneille et la dialectique du héros. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  9. Forestier, G. (1996). Essai de génétique théâtrale: Corneille à l’oeuvre. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  10. Georges, A. (2006). Le Procès d’Horace. Revue d’Histoire du Théâtre, 4(232), 333–350.Google Scholar
  11. Georges, A. (2008). Observations sur Rodrigue et Chimène. Lettres Romanes, 62(1–2), 23–35.Google Scholar
  12. Gossip, C. J. (2001). Corneille as self-critic. Seventeenth Century French Studies, 23, 101–110.Google Scholar
  13. Herland, L. (1952). Horace ou la naissance de l’homme. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  14. Koch, P. (1985). Horace: Réponse cornélienne à la critique du XVIIe siècle. Romanic Review, 76(2), 148–161.Google Scholar
  15. Maskell, D. (1997). Corneille’s Examens Examined: The Case of Horace. French Studies, 51(3), 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stegmann, A. (1968). L’Héroïsme cornélien: Genèse et signification. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Romance Languages, 143 Arts and Science BuildingUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations