CRITICISM TOWARD THE 18TH CENTURY FRENCH SOCIETY REVEALED IN PIEERE de BEAUMARCHAIS’ THE MARRIAGE of
FIGARO
AN UNDERGRADUTED THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English letters
By
XAVERIE TRIATMI KLEDEN
Student Number: 034214090
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA 2011
i
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude for all who support and help me finish
this thesis. First of all to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I thank Him for all that
He has bestowed upon me. I owe my deepest gratitude to my parents. I thank
both of you for your pray, patient and support. I also thank to my sister and
brother for their encouragement.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Ni luh
Putu Rosiandani, S.S., M. Hum. I thank her for being my advisor who has gave
her time and patience in guiding and encouraging me to finish this thesis. I also
would like to thank my co-advisor Dewi Widyastuti S.Pd., M.Hum for her
suggestions and inputs for my undergraduate thesis.
I also want to express my gratititude to all Sanata Dharama Lecturing staff.
I thank them for all the guidance, knowledge and support during my study. I also
want to thank the staff of English Letter Department and staff in the library.
My thanks and appreciations also go to all my 2003 friends. I thank them
for the friendship, love, laugh, cries, and support whenever I need them. For
everything that na, ndu and dewi share and give, I thank them. I would also want
to appreciate the Mansup crews for the rollercoaster experience in the longest
semester I had. Last, I thank Poppy for her support.
vii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ……… iv
STATEMENT OF THE WORK ORIGINALITY ……… v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……….. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS……….. vii
ABSTRACT……… ix
ABSTRAK……….. x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION... 1
A. Background of the Study………... 1
B. Problem Formulation……….. 4
C. Objectives of the Study………... 5
D. Definition of Terms……… 5
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW... 6
A. Review of Related Studies……….. 6
B. Review of Related Theories ………... 10
1. Theory of Character ………
B. Approach of the Study……… 24
C. Method of the Study……… 25
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS………. 28 A. The Characters of The Marriage of Figaro ………..
1. The Characters of Lower Class ……… 2. The Characters of Upper Class ……… B. The Criticism toward the 18th Century French Society ………... 1. The 18th Century French Government………... a. The Indifferent Louis XV………. b. The 18th Century French Ministry ……… c. The 18th Century French Parliament ……… 2. The 18th Century French Nobility……….
viii
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION……… 59
ix
ABSTRACT
XAVERIE TRIATMI KLEDEN (2011). Criticism Toward the 18th Centtury French Society Revealed in Beaumarchais’ he Marriage of Figaro.
Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University.
This thesis discusses the criticism revealed in the Beaumarchais‘ play The Marriage of Figaro. During the 18th century, behavior of the privilege society caused jealousy in the nation. In addition, the government treated the commoner unequally with the privilege people. This made the commoner felt oppressed and stared to criticize the government and the privilege society.
There are two problems formulation of this study. The first is how the characters in the play are described. The second is what criticisms are revealed in the play through the representation of the character.
This study applies library research method. Beside from books some data are taken from internet. Sociocultural historical approach is used in revealed the criticism in this study. The writer decided to use Beaumarchais’ play because it is considered as the milestone of French revolution. After read and reread, finding the second sources is necessary to find the topic of criticism. The next step is to make the problem formulation. Then make the analysis from the problem formulation. The last step is to make a conclusion from the analysis.
x
ABSTRAK
XAVERIE TRIATMI KLEDEN (2011). Criticism Toward the 18th Centtury French Society Revealed in Beaumarchais’ The Marriage of Figaro.
Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University.
Skripsi in membahas kritikan yang terdapat pada drama Beaumarchais The Marriage of Figaro. Selama abad ke-18, perilaku masyarakat yang memiliki hak istimewa membuat kecemburuan di negara ini. Selain itu, pemerintah memperlakukan rakyat biasa dan masyarakat yang memiliki hak khusus secara tidak adil. Hal ini membuat rakyat biasa yang merasa tertindas dan mulai mengkritik pemerintah dan masyarakat dengan hak istimewa.
Ada dua masalah yang dikemukan dalam penelitian ini. Yang pertama adalah bagaimana tokoh dalam drama digambarkan. Yang kedua adalah kritik apa yang terungkap dalam drama tersebut melalui representasi tokoh.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode studi pustaka. Pendekatan kultur social dan sejarah digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Penulis memutuskan untuk menggunakan drama milik Beaumarchais The Marriage of Figaro karena yang dianggap sebagai tonggak sejarah Revolusi Perancis. Setelah membaca dan membaca kembali drama tersebut, menemukan sumber-sumber kedua diperlukan untuk menemukan topik apa saja yang kritik. Langkah selanjutnya adalah membuat rumusan masalah. Kemudian membuat analisa dari perumusan masalah. Langkah terakhir adalah membuat kesimpulan dari analisa.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of The Study
In the 18th century, a movement that was known as enlightenment spread
out in the Europe. It was an intellectual movement that questioning the existing
dogmas such as the systems of moral, tradition and religion. It happened because
people started to think logically about the dogmas and tried to restructure them.
One of the nations that were influenced by the movement was France.
Romier stated in his book A History of French that the Frenchmen were
enlightened through the books they read which made them filled “with prejudice
against tradition and filled with that combativeness of mind which was not going
to be duped by anything” (1955: 317). Since they were enlightened, the
Frenchmen began to question the monarchy.
In the late 17th century, the territorial expansion and the immigration of Frenchmen brought the French culture to other countries. As the result, “French is
the tongue, arms, the entertainment, dynasties the theme off all that period”
(Belloc, 1919: 370). In addition, French also had the best administration due to the
central government that was created by Louis XIV. Those conditions made French
gain reputation as the center of Europe in the 18th century.
Although other countries respected the monarchy, the reputation of the
monarchy in French itself was declining. Through his principle of absolute
monarchy, the monarchy during Louis XIV reign was powerful but his successors
1
brought the monarchy to the end. The commoners were questioning the monarchy
about the role of the privilege society. The rights and obligations as citizen were
not equal. The privilege people could demand about their right without had to do
their obligation. On the other hand, the commoners had massive obligation and
barely had any right as citizens.
The major issue of the nation during that time was the financial crisis. Nor
Louis XV or Louis XVI managed to solve the problem. The only way to
overcome the crisis was to enforce tax for all Frenchmen. However, “no French
government had dared to impose upon the whole French people a uniform and
equitable system of taxation” (Fisher, 1955: 705). Because of their feudal right,
the nobles demanded to be free from taxation. The clergy refused to follow human
laws therefore they refused to pay the taxation. This left the commoners to take all
burden of financial crisis. The poor were obligated to pay massive taxes while
struggling with starvation. The privilege of the upper class and clergy suppressed
the commoner. This condition became a major theme for some writers of the 18th century.
In their book, A Short History of French Literature, Kastner and Atkins
described the 18th century literature as the writer’s instrument for propaganda of his view and aimed in political and social matters. “It was a revolt against the
traditional and established authority also in religious matters” (Kastner and
Atkins, 1907: 167).
Goezmans. Tallentyer, in his book Friend of Voltaire, said that Beaumarchais
gained the admiration of the King and Voltaire because his clever memoirs which
showed “gay surprises of situation, banter and mockery, parry and thrust —every
page as light and elusive as thistledown borne on a summer breeze” (1906:
244-245). Later, he gained his fame as a writer from his Figaro trilogy.
The Figaro trilogy is The Barber of Seville, The Marriage of Figaro and
The Guilty Mother. The plays are telling about Figaro who is smarter and wiser
than his master, Count Almaviva. In The Barber of Seville, Figaro manages to find
a way to help the Count meets his future wife who is being hidden by her
guardian. In The Marriage of Figaro, Figaro manages to avoid the Count’s plan to
enforce his noble right. In The Guilty Mother, Figaro manages to stop the
downfall of the Almavivas. From the trilogy, The Marriage of Figaro is
considered as his masterpiece because in this play “Beaumarchais, in works of
supreme merit, introduced upon the stage an original type of political and social
satire” (Kastner and Atkins, 1907: 165).
The Marriage of Figaro is much better play than the other Figaro plays.
Kastner and Atkins stated that The Marriage of Figaro is The Barber of Sevile
carried to a higher plane (1907: 181). Beaumarchais, using his writing skill, is
able to criticize the issue of public sentiment and at the same time entertained the
nobility and the Parisian. The play was considered as the milestone of the French
Revolution. Napoleon, quoted in Sainte-Beuve’s book, Portrait of 18th Century,
was seen as the first who started the revolution against the monarchy because he
presented the sensitive issues in the society under the king’s prohibition.
The Marriage of Figaro can be used to see the situation of the 18th century French society. “Although set in Spain to placate the censor, The Marriage of
Figaro was originally set in France, and it is his own society which is the target of
Beaumarchais criticism” (Kastner and Atkins, 1907: 181). Influenced by the
enlightenment ideas, Beaumarchais tried to question the existed society through
his play. In The History of Modern Civilization, John Verschoyle said that
Beaumarchais used his aggressive weapon, his comedy, “to place on the stage
social questions, which were becoming more and more burning” (1891: 322).
Because of burning social questions, the government applied numerous
censorships. Louis XVI called it immoral play and prohibited it to be performed.
However, the Queen and her court did not see anything wrong with the play and
helped Beaumarchais to bring the play to the stage (Sainte-Beuve, 1905: 404).
The reaction of toward the play brought a question of what were the subjects that
Beaumarchais tried to say through his play. Therefore, this study will examine
Beaumarchais’ play The Marriage of Figaro to identify his criticism toward the
18th century French society.
B. Problem Formulation
In order to see the how the play show the France condition during the 18th century which was criticized by Beaumarchais, there are two questions that need
1. How are the characters described in The Marriage of Figaro?
2. What are the criticisms toward the French society during the 18th century as revealed through the representation of the characters?
C. Objectives of The Study
This study has two objectives. The first is to examine how the characters in
The Marriage of Figaro are described. Not all characters in the play that will be
described in this study. From sixteen characters in the plays, the writers only used
five characters that have significant point to the criticism. The second objective is
to identify Beaumarchais’ criticism toward the 18th century French society. To achieve this objective, the characters’ conduct and dialogue will be examine to
point out the criticism of the 18th century French society.
D. Definition of Term
Based on Hornby’s Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, criticism is the
act of expressing disapproval of somebody or something and opinion about their
fault or bad qualities (2010: 348). In this thesis, the criticism is about
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Studies
In his article on American Bar Association Journal, Robert A.
Hendrickson reviewed the fight between Beaumarchais against the Goëzman
(1966: 559-563). At first, Beaumarchais problem was with Pâris-Duverney
grandnephew, Count de la Blache, but when the lawsuit was brought to the
parliament, it became the fight between Beaumarchais and Monsieur Goëzman.
This fight made him wrote his memoirs about the Goëzman and acquired
popularity among the Parisian.
In Tallentyre’s book Friend of Volitaire, the fight started when
Pâris-Duverney, before his death, promised to forget Beaumarchais debt and gave
fifteen thousand francs to him in a signed letter. However, his heir, the
grandnephew, accused Beaumarchais performed forgery therefore he sued
Beaumarchais. Dissatisfied with the court decision which favored Beaumarchais,
Blanche brought the case to the Parliament. Goëzman was appointed as the judge.
Beaumarchais tried to meet the judge in order to speak about his case. His tried to
reach M. Goëzman through his wife. He gave Mme. Goëzman a repeating-watch
set with the diamond and 100 louis. Then, she asked for 15 louis for his husband’s
secretary. Both agreed that all the ‘gifts’ would be returned to Beaumarchais if he
lost the case. He did lose the case. Mme. Goëzman returned the 100 louis and the
watch but not the 15 louis. When Beaumarchais asked her about the 15 louis, she
told him that she never received it. Soon after that Goëzman accused
Beaumarchais performed bribery and tried to destroy his reputation as a judge.
Disappointed with the Goëzmans, Beaumarchais wrote his famous Memoires
(Tallentyre, 1906: 243-244).
In his article, “Beaumarchais as Cross-Examiner”, Hendrickson explained
how the French playwright used his skill in writing to gain public sympathy. He
provided all the facts and his own view about his case. He received help from “a
small group of supporters who help with factual research and two man law factory
consisting of Maître Doe de Combault and Maître Malbeste, who checked his
work for libel and also pitched in from time to time as friendly witnesses, when
needed” (1966: 561). On September 5, 1773 the first memoire was released.
It brought the Goëzmans printed their own Memoires to counter attack
Beaumarchais. Even so, the public was already support Beaumarchais. This led
the Goëzmans filed a suit toward Beaumarchais. His defense was writing another
Memoires. It was a Memoires about the nobility. He questioned the facts about
someone being a noble. He was also a noble but he bought the title. He felt
uncertain because he would become a commoner again if the paper, that stated he
was a noble, was taken away. Besides nobility, he also talked about M.
Goëzman’s conduct. He doubted his nobility for the reason that he had a mistress
and illegitimate child. Even though the society supported Beaumarchais, the court
saw him guilty. He was not the only one that was guilty. The court also punished
Mme. Goëzman, M. Goëzman’s secretary and Pâris-Duverney. They were ordered
Hendrickson said that “in his Memoires against Goëzman, he attacks his
enemies with the only weapon he has left, his pen, and from here goes on to win a
significant place in the histories of France and the Unite Stated and the world of
music and drama” (1966: 559).
Beaumarchais works not only showed his talent in writing but also his
observation about his society. When he wrote the memoir, he examined his enemy
behavior and cross-examined the fact about them to other people. Then with his
writing talent, he produced a memoir that not only helped his case but also created
new perception toward the justice system at that time.
Today, The Marriage of Figaro is known mostly as an opera by Mozart
rather than a play by Beaumarchais. This happens due to the success of the opera
in Europe. Mozart’s Figaro was richer than the original one according to Allan
Woods in his article “Figaro and the French Revolution” which taken from
marxist.com. It was richer because of the influence of Italian comic opera.
Mozart worked together with Lorenzo da Ponte, an Italian libertine and a
Jew, to make Le Nozze di Figaro. To avoid the similar treatment with
Beaumarchais, both decided to change the content of Figaro’s monologue. The
King of Vienna at that time, Josef II, approved the opera to mock his aristocrat
citizen.
Woods compared Le Nozze de Figaro with another Mozart’s masterpiece
Don Giovanni. Both opera displayed the same theme, a social criticism by means
In Le Nozze de Figaro, the servant was brave enough to challenge his
master. It can be seen in the famous aria "Se vuol ballare, Signor Contino” of the
first act. Figaro refused the Csount’s right, the first night right. “Here the right of
the master clashes directly with the right of the servant. It is a conflict of wills in
which the servant eventually wins. What is being challenged here is the arbitrary
power of the feudal aristocracy” (
http://www.marxist.com/ArtAndLiterature-old/figaro.html). Leporello, the servant in Don Giovvani was “the archetypal
comic servant, is thus given a serious theme. His criticism of the dissolute
lifestyle of his master (and, by implication, of the aristocracy in general) is
continued in the famous "catalogue aria" where he ironically lists Don Giovanni's
amorous conquests” (http://www.marxist.com/ArtAndLiterature-old/figaro.html)
Woods said the difference was the attitude of the noble at the end of the
operas. Count Almaviva, Figaro’s boss, admitted his fault but there was a chance
that he would repeat his behavior. Meanwhile, Don Giovanni dropped his right,
joined the revolution and “fought for the Old Regime and went cheerfully to the
guillotine.”
Wood said that “the road to revolution was prepared by attempts at
reform.” Figaro was Beaumarchais’ attempt of revolution. He publicly showed a
play “which depicted the aristocracy as degenerate, lustful and depraved types.”
This kind of writing was unusual at that time, which made Figaro as the starting
point of French Revolution.
This study will add the facts to the two studies by Hendrickson and Woods
In addition there were also other things that were criticized seen in the play not
only the social gap between the master and his servant that was explained by
Woods.
B. Review of Related Theories 1. Theory of Character
Based on A Glossary of Literary Terms by Abrams, a character is the
person whose dialogue and action express their moral, disposition and emotional
qualities in dramatic or narrative works (2009: 42). The nature of the character
through the novel must remains stable unless there is a strong motivation why he
changes his character. If since the beginning of the work someone is characterized
as a brute, he is still a brute at the end of the novel. If he encounters a crisis in the
middle of the story and overcome it, his character can be changed into a more
civilized man. The same opinion about the consistency of character is express by
Rohrberger and Woods who said “A character’s behavior must be consistent with
his nature” (1971: 20). Robert and Jacobs, in their book Fiction, said that the
change can be considered as the growth of the character (1987: 121). Since the
beginning of the story, the character already exists but it is hidden. When the
crisis occurs, the person in the story develops which make his character change.
Henkle said that there are two type characters in a novel base on their
function, major characters and secondary characters. The major characters play an
important role in a novel because through them the author express and dramatize
they are given the amplitude and attention to present convincing dramatization of
the human issues of the book” (Henkle, 1977: 93). It means that the author must
creates the major characters which can convince the reader about certain idea and
the idea is dramatized trough their action or dialogue.
Second characters have several functions in novel. The first role is to
populate the novel which means they create a context which makes the reader
understand the setting and society of the novel through their ordinary activities.
They show the structure and nature of the society reflected in the novel. The
second function is as a point of reference. The minor characters represent the
behavior of common people at that particular time. Next, secondary characters act
as foils toward major characters. The minor characters will take the major
character into a critical decision using their weakness or strength. Secondary
character also functions as an analogue. The secondary cast is acting as the mirror
of the major one but in the end he will act just like the average people, unlike the
major character who does something different from the common people (Henkle,
1977: 94-95).
2. Theory of Characterization
Characterization is about how the writer can bring the characters in his
work to become more real to the reader. The plot, theme, setting, tone of a story
will influence the characters that are more realistic. In addition the diction that is
presented by the characters will enrich their personality (Abcarian, Metz and
In Abrams’s A Glossary of Literary Term, there are two methods that are
used for characterizing. The first is by showing. In showing, the author only
presents the characters talking and acting. By doing this the reader is interpreting
the motivation and disposition that left by the characters. The second is telling. In
this method, the author intervene the reader about the description of the character.
The author also often evaluates the motive and qualities of his character.
3. Literature and Society
From literature works, the readers could learn about the condition of a
society in a particular time, for example they learned the condition of American
society during the early settler through Nathaniel Hawthorne works, or about the
English society during the 19th century from Jane Austen works. However a
society in literature was not the complete reflection of the real society during a
period of time. The author used his experience or his understanding toward a
particular society to create his “civilization”. Therefore, as Wellek and Warren
said “if it assumes that literature, at any given time, mirrors the current social
situation ’correctly’, it is false” (1956: 95).
Literature should have great literary value to represent the truth of society
according to Hegel and Taine critics. Wellek and Warren said that those critics
saw an artist would present history and social facts in his work. However, only
outstanding literary work that showed the reality of society because it indicated its
time and social truth were the cause and result of great artistic value (1956: 95).
Luxemburg, Bal and Weststeijn said that the relation between literature
the writer position in his or her society. The second is the internal features relation
of the text with the structure in the society in order to examine the system of a
society (1984: 23-24). The observation of internal features was used by the
Marxism critics. They saw literature as cultural symptoms which reflected the
economy condition. The proletarian would determine the social life, politic,
intellectual and cultural of the upper class. The condition constructed a conflict
between bourgeois and the proletarian. The later used literature as their weapon
against the former to create a society without class. (1984: 24-25)
C. Review on the French Society in the 18th Century
In the 18th century, France was ruled by three Kings, Louis XIV, Louis XV
and Louis XVI. This study will focuses to the condition of French society during
the time of Louis XV.
1. Government Condition
Louis XV was the king of French in 1725 until 1774. He took the throne
when he was five years old. Because of his minority, someone must take over his
duty as a king. Louis XIV made a will which said that a council would perform
the king’s duty until Louis XV reached majority, but his brother, the Duke of
Orleans, challenged his will. With the help of the Parliament, who hated Louis
XIV because he took their right, the Duke became the Regent of the monarchy.
The Regent then abolished the old system of government. He made sure that the
bourgeois and the lawyers were replaced from their position in the government
(Grant, 1900:153).
The Parliament returned to its position and was allowed to supervise the
monarchy by the order of the Regent. He also supported the Jansenists who were
suppressed by the old King. They were released from the prison and allowed to
perform the religion. Some of the Jansenists later participated in the Parliament
(Grant, 1900: 154).
When Louis XIV died, he left “800 million livers of debts immediately
due, a budged deficit of 77 millions, all revenuers already anticipated” (Romier,
1955: 273). Because France could not pay the debt, the nation underwent a
financial crisis.
To solve the nation financial crisis, the Regent approved John Law
method to establish new banking system. His theory was to rearrange the method
of banking. Then, he built The Company of the Indies. He made the Capital of the
company in to stocks and sold them to public. These stocks dragged people to buy
it since the interest was high. The profit that the bank and the company received
was used to pay the nation debt (Romier, 1955: 274).
Initially, only the Parisians that were interested to buy the stock.
However, the news of huge fortune gained by them attracted people outside Paris.
Interested with the high profit, the company attracted not only Frenchmen but also
people in Europe. They began buying the stock. The value of the shares of 500
Meanwhile, Louis was raised with every precaution which made him unfit
for rule. “Spoiled by adoration, selfish in power, lazy and willful, Louis developed
into a bored and taciturn youth, forgivably shunning the surveillance of his
guardians— and later the ceremonies and servility of the court— to seek an outlet
in wood carving, needlework, milking cows, playing with dogs” (Durant and
Durant, 1965: 273).
After the Regent died and Louis had not yet reached majority, Duke of
Bourbon was appointed as the Prime Minister. Since the Duke had no interest in
any state matter he made all the policies and laws that were made by Louis XIV
were repeated under his authority. Duke of Bourbon also planned the royal
marriage. Since he was afraid the House of Orleans would take over the throne if
the King died childless, he chose the Maria Leszczyńska, the daughter of the
dethroned Poland king, instead of the King’s fiancé, the three years old Spanish
princess. He wished that the Queen would remember his action (Grant, 1900:
168).
Duke of Bourbon added more trouble to the nation crisis since he made the
nation paid his enormous expenditure. To overcome the crisis, the Duke in June
1725 was determined to enforce a tax of two per cent to all of Frenchmen
regardless their status. This policy was refused by the nobility and the clergy
because it violated their right. Back in 1710 the same tax was applied for war
fund. However, since France was not at war it could not be carry out. The protests
made the Prime Minister abolished the tax and changed it to voluntary
A confrontation of Duke of Bourbon and the King’s tutor, Fleury, made
him lose his position as the prime minister. Fleury then acted as the prime minster
of Louis XV in 1726. His main contribution toward the monarchy was the success
to overcome the financial crisis. Under his administration the France gained more
income from its commerce. He also made taxation smaller which made him
received support from Frenchmen. He also contributed to the raise of middle class
in France (Grant, 1900: 169).
These bourgeois then filled the position in the ministry except the
superior position which only could be filled by nobility. The bourgeois run the
ministry because they had the knowledge in economy because of their
experience. They made the French administration as the best throughout the
European countries (Durant and Durant, 1965: 266).
In his book, The History of the Eighteen Century and the Nineteen,
Schlosser said that the parliament was needed to communicate the royal edicts to
the nation and supervised the execution of the laws. However, during the reading
of the edicts, some parliament members would act that they were rejected the
edict. It was a pretention because the parliament knew that its right was never
accepted by the monarchy. If there was any objection occurred, the person who
done it would receive lettre de chacet and went straight to prison (1845: 123).
Louis XV decided not to have a Prime minister after Fleury died. At first,
Louis took every decision toward the nation subject. But later on, he became
bored and took no notice about the state. “He at time labored dutifully in council
(Durant and Durant, 1965: 275). “When the king would give no orders, each
minister was left to administer his department in accordance with his own
notions” (Perkins, 1897: 238).
The King’s mistress, Madame de Pompadour, took the role of prime
minister unofficially when the king ignored his role as a king since she became
the King’s favorite. Pompadour made herself as the genius of entertainment to
make the king happy. That made her as the main channel to the king. Any
appointments with the King, pensions, pardons, and other blessings from the King
should have her approval (Durant and Durant, 1965: 282).
Louis’ court criticized her for distracting the king from his duty and
making heavy burden on the nation revenues. Since Louis took no notice about
everything, he approved everything that she said. The minister of the offices was
replaced frequently.
In 1749, Maurepas was removed from the ministry of the marine, which he had filled for thirty years, because he wrote some offensive verses about the favorite. Bemis was made minister of foreign affairs in 1757 because he enjoyed the confidence of Mme. de Pompadour; he was removed a year later for advising a policy of which she disapproved. The Count of Argenson, who had been minister of war for fourteen years, and was one of the ablest of the king's advisers, was disgraced at the beginning of the Seven Years' war because he persistently refused the favorite's overtures (Perkins, 1897: 464).
At first the nation finance was stable since there was income from the
agriculture sector and taxes. However, the economy was falling due to the huge
expenditure to support the extravagant life of the royalty, bad government and the
downfall in the battlefield. “The table of Louis XV and of his children cost almost
enormous sums of money to entertain his court. The nobles would borrow money
from the King in a large number to afford their fashion. France had innumerable
of office that required massive amount of money to pay their salary. The amount
to pay the pensions was also large. The massive amount of offices was
unsupervised therefore the expenditures were not verified and often being swollen
by fraud and shiftlessness (Perkins, 1897: 14-15). In addition, Madam Pompadour
took a lot of money from the treasury.
She adorned her figure with the most costly costumes and gems. Her boudoir sparkled with toiletware of crystal, silver, and gold. Her rooms were embellished with lacquered or satinwood or buhlwork furniture, and the choicest potteries of Dresden, Sevres, China, and Japan; they were lighted with stately chandeliers of silver and glass, which were reflected in great mirrors on the walls; the ceilings were painted by Boucher and Vanloo with voluptuous goddesses of love. Feeling imprisoned even amid this luxury, she drew immense sums from the King or the treasury to build or furnish palaces, whose lavish equipment and extensive gardens she excused as required for entertaining majesty
(Durant and Durant, 1965: 281).
When the ministry was unable to solve the problem, the only way was to
forced taxation.
Taxes were both direct and indirect, levied upon every article of consumption, upon everything that was imported or exported, upon income, upon capital, upon the transmission of property, upon even the few privileges which were enjoyed (Lord, 1906: 20).
Even though everything was taxed, the sum received from it was not enough to
overcome the crisis. Since there was no controller, the tax collector used the tax
money for themselves.
The law at that time was confusing. Each region had different law. In
addition, new laws were made by the King under the ministers’ influence. New
inconsistent. As the result, the citizen had difficulty to know which law that was
used (Durant and Durant, 1965: 268).
Feudal courts were used for local law. It had a judge who was appointed
by the proprietary seigneur. It dealt petty cases and cold be solve with fine. Above
this court was the bailli and seneschal court which became the court in the town.
The presidial court was above the town court and it administered the royal law.
Lawyers swarmed in and around the various courts, profiting from a French
passion for litigation. (Durant and Durant, 1965: 268)
The rules were discriminating. Someone could be confined before his
trial. If someone was charged with major crime, he could not communicate with
his lawyers. The witnesses’ statement was taken outside the trial. Someone would
have to endure torment, if the judge believed that he was guilty but did not have
enough prove. The punishment ranged from fines to dismemberment. “Death was
the statutory penalty for a great variety of offenses, including sorcery, blasphemy,
incest, homosexuality, and bestiality” (Durant and Durant, 1965: 267-268).
2. Upper Class Condition
According to Seé, there was several ways to gain nobility status. First,
someone could be a noble by buying the status for 6000 livres. Second, he
occupied certain position in government such as chancellor, guardian of the seal,
secretary of the state, governor, commandant in chief and presiding judge of
sovereign court. The last, someone would had noble status if he had a nobleman’s
Their duty was to organize and defense their region, country and king.
They gain privileges such as tax exemption in order to make their life more
tolerable. Everything under the domain of landlord was belonging to him and the
peasants were forced to use the mill, bake-house, wine or oil presses that belong
to the lord and had to pay for it (Durant and Durant, 1965: 252-259).
Perkins said that the nobility was taught that social display was the most
important thing. “If a nobleman often grew up knowing very little else, at least he
was taught good manners, and for the career before him this was by far the most
useful accomplishment which he could acquire” (1897: 28).
The manner of nobility was how to presented oneself in the best way.
Will and Ariel Durant said men should wear a large three-cornered hat, with
feathers and gold braid, a long coat, a fluffy silk shirt, a wide cravat, colored Knee
breeches, white silk stockings, shoes with silver clasps and carried a sword or a
cane. Meanwhile the women should wear hoopskirt and high heels shoes. They
also used cosmetics on their hands, arms, face, and hair. Costly jewels used on
arms, throat, and ears, and in the hair (1965:292-293).
Beside dress, food was also important for nobility. Someone was
regarded as the upper class if he had more things to be eaten. The typical King’s
menu for dinner was soup, a roast of beef, a cut of veal, some chicken, a partridge,
a pigeon, fruit, and preserves. “Some grands seigneurs spent 500,000 livres a year
on their cuisine; one spent 72,000 on a dinner given to the King and the court”
Because their lifestyle was so expensive, some nobility became
bankrupt. If this happened, they would ask the king to give them loan. “The
Prince of Conti was given a million and a half livres to pay his debts; the Countess
of Polignac had four hundred thousand for the same purpose, and the list of
similar benefactions would be endless” The king took the money from the
treasury to help his nobility.
D. Theoretical Framework
In this study, the theory of character and characterization used to see how
the writer represented the characters in his play. In The Marriage of Figaro, there
were only a few of stage direction therefore the writer examined of the characters
of the play. In addition, Beaumarchais used dramatic characterization to bring the
figures became more real. Theory of society and literature was used because this
study tried to explain Beaumarchais’s criticism toward the French society. The
theory together with sociocultural-historical approach used to see the relationship
of the real society and the play’s society using history fact of French society and
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study
The object of this study is a play written by Pierre-Augustin Caron de
Beaumarchais entitles The Marriage of Figaro. The writer used the translation
version of Thomas Holcroft which he changed the title to The Follies of a Day
which printed in London by G.G. and J.J. Robinson in 1785.
Beaumarchais wrote the play in 1774-1775 after Prince de Conti asked
him to make the sequel of The Barber of Seville. He found it was difficult to bring
the play into the stage because ‘he had against him the king, the magistrates, the
lieutenant of police, the keeper of the seals,—all the powers of the State’
(Sainte-Beuve 1905: 403). His play received plenty of censors, performance
postponements and prohibitions.
Because of the repetition of prohibitions of the play, The Marriage of
Figaro became the most successful play of its era. When it finally presented in the
theater, all the Parisian waited in front of the theater from morning in order to be
able to watch the five hour and half play.
At eight o'clock in the morning a vast queue had formed outside the theatre. All the adjacent streets were completely blocked. The greatest lords and ladies in the land flocked to the performance. Three persons were said to have been suffocated in the crush—" one more than for Scudery," as La Harpe slily remarked. Society ladies shut themselves all day long in the actresses' dressing-rooms, dining with the players, in order to make sure of their places (River, 1922: 236).
When it finally began the room was so full with people, Beaumarchais had to
break the theater windows in order to bring air in the room for the three hundred
spectators. However, the room was so crowded that three people reported dead
because of suffocation.
The success of The Marriage of Figaro made Mozart created the opera
version with the helped of Italian libretto Lorenzo da Ponte. To prevent the same
treatment with the play, they changed the monologue of Figaro to aria against
unfaithful wife. The opera was the one of Mozart master piece. The overture of
the opera is famous because it is often performed in classical music concert which
made The Marriage of Figaro mostly known as opera rather than play.
The Marriage of Figaro is a five acts play. Using Spain as the setting, the
play tells about the servants and master who try to outwit each other. It opens with
Figaro conversation with Susan about the Count’s ill wish. He wants to have droit
de seigneur or "the lord's right". It is the right for a noble to spend a night with the
bride in her wedding night. Susan tells her future husband that the Count had
asked for his right. Figaro fells betrayed because the Count had promise him to
abolish the right. He promises her that he will do anything to prevent it happens.
A trap is designed for the Count with the help from his wife who felt that
her husband had neglected her. The plan is fail because The Countess confesses to
her husband. He is angry and tries to revenge Figaro by marrying him with an old
woman who turns out to be Figaro’s mother. This ends the Count’s plan.
The Countess still fells that her husband will still want to spend the night
garden. Figaro is angry when he heard the news because he does not know that
instead of Susan, the Count will meet with his wife. The play ends with both men
apologized to their wife when they learn that they misunderstood the ladies’
action.
B. Approach of the Study
This thesis uses sociocultural historical approach. Based Rohrberger and
Woods, the critic of this approach belief that the only way to find out the real
work of literature is by evaluating the society where it was made (1971:9). De
Bonald’s phrase ‘literature is an expression of society’ according to Wellek and
Warren means that the writer presents his experience and view of life through his
work whether he intends it or not. However, literature does not present the whole
fact about certain era. Therefore knowledge about the condition of the society
during a literature work create was important to understand the real work. Study
of social milieu is the object for critics of sociocultural-historical approach.
Rohrberger and Woods said that the critics ‘define civilization as the attitude and
action of specific group of people and point out that literature takes these attitude
and action as its subject matter.’ (1971: 9)
Since literature expresses part of the society, it also becomes documents of
history. Thomas Warton, said Wellek and Warren, believes that literature has the
ability to record its period characteristics. The historian critics will examine
analyze the writers’ attitude and social opinion in order to know about politic,
economy and social problems at that period.
Since sociocultural-historical examine the society and the writer wants to
analyze the social criticism, it is the best approach for the study. The play also
relates to the history of France during the reign of Louis XV.
C. Method of the Study
In writing this thesis the writer used the library research method. Besides
taking books as the data, there were some data which were taken from internet
about the play, French history and Beaumarchais.
The primary source of this study is Pierre-Augustin Caron de
Beaumarchais’ play entitles The Marriage of Figaro. The writer also took other
sources in writing this thesis such as Reading and Writing about Literature by
Mary Rohrberger and Samuel H. Woods, Theory of Literature by René Wellek
and Austin Warren, Society in the Novel by Elizabeth Langland, French The
French Monarchy by A. J. Grant, M.A, A Short history of French Literature by
Leon Emile Kastner, and Henry Gibson Atkins, French Under Louis XV Volume I
and Volume II by James Perkins, Economic and Social Conditions in France
during the Eighteenth Century by Henry See, The History of Civilization IX by
Will and Ariel Durant.
After deciding to use Beaumarchais’s play as the object of the thesis,
reread the text was necessary because the text of the play was in old English. The
the meaning of the words. After that, read the text again to understand the story of
the text. Next, the writer searched more information about the play, the author and
the French Society from books and internet. The secondary sources used to
determine what the writer wanted to study. After that the writer created questions
to become the problem formulation. Using the information from all the sources,
the writer then analyzed the questions. The last step was made a conclusion based
27
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS
This chapter will be divided into two parts; the first part is the description
of the characters of The Marriage of Figaro. In this study, from sixteen characters
in the play only five characters that will be used and described. The characters
that are chosen are the representation of the people during the 18th century. The
characters will be described in two part the lower class characters and the upper
class characters. The second part will be about the analysis about the objects of
Beaumarchais’ criticism.
A. The Characters of The Marriage of Figaro
Character in literature can represent a class of individual. As stated in
theory of characteristic in chapter II, there are two methods to show how the
character is described by the author: showing and telling. Because in the play
Beaumarchais only wrote few stage directions, the characters will be described
using showing method. The dialogue and behavior of the characters in the play are
used to show the characterization that they possess. In addition, dialogue of other
characters will also to show the characteristic of a certain characters.
1. The Characters of Lower Class a. Figaro
Figaro is Count Almaviva’s steward and Inspector-general of the Castle.
He gained the position after helping the Count freed Rosina, the Countess, from
Suſan. Thou knoweſt how our generous Count when he by thy help
obtained Roſina’s hand, and made her Counteſs of Almaviva
(Beaumarchais, 1785: 2)
Figaro. … the Count, who had made me Steward and Inſpector-general of the Caſtle (1785: 5)
At the beginning of the play, Figaro does not know who his parents are.
For years he has been tried to find them using the jewelry he has when he found
by the orphanage. After his court, he reunites with his parents, Doctor Bartholo
and Marcelina. Marcelina recognizes Figaro as her son when he tells about his
birth-mark (1785: 69-70).
Growing up in the street, Figaro becomes a cunning man. Before work as
Count’s servant, he lied to make money. He set up plots to trick people so he can
take their money. It can be seen from his fiancé following dialogue
Suſan.Hah! Now thou art in thy element—Gold and intrigue—Plots and purſes— (1785: 4).
Besides Susan, Doctor Bartholo’s dialogue also shows that Figaro is
cunning because he had deceived him when he was in Servile. Figaro made a plot
that make Doctor lost his future wife and money.
Doctor. By Galen, this is excellent! The raſcal ſhall marry my old Houſ e-keeper, and I ſhall be revenged for the tricks he lately played me, and the hundred piſtoles he contrived to cheat me of (1785: 24).
As a steward, Figaro is a clever man. This characteristic can be seen when
he counterattacks Doctor Bartholo during his trial. When he borrowed two
thousand piasters from Marcelina, Figaro promised to repay the money or to
marry her. The meaning of conjunction or becomes the problem in the court.
someone who has low status, will have little knowledge in literature or grammar
however Figaro proves it otherwise.
Doctor interprets the meaning of conjunction or is similar with wherefore.
He takes a quotation from a poet to prove it. The evident that is given by the
Doctor may be true because the word in poem has ambiguity meaning. He does
not give the real context of the entire poem therefore or can be interpreted as
wherefore. However, Figaro tries to show the exact meaning of the conjunction in
his promise. He shows that or can have the same meaning as wherefore at the
right context and when it does not have alternative options. His promise shows an
alternative option. His promise means that he will repay the money or if he is
unable to repay the money he will marry Marcelina (1785: 66-67). So, the
conjunction or cannot have the same meaning with wherefore. Figaro’s
explanation shows his skill in literature and grammar.
Figaro cleverness also can be seen through his reaction to answer Count
when the later finds out about his trick. Count Almaviva is busy pursing Susan
and neglects his wife, Countess Rosina. Therefore, Figaro, Susan and Countess
make a plot to shift Count’s attention. The plot fails when Countess tells
everything to her husband. When Count confronts the plan to Figaro, he cleverly
answer Count’s questions.
Counteſs. Nay, nay, Figaro, the Count knows all.
Suſan. Yes, yes, we have told my Lord every thing.—The jest is ended— Its all over.
Figaro. The jeſt is ended!—And its all over!
Count. Yes—Ended, ended, ended!—And all over—What have you to ſay to that?
underſtands ſomething by their ſigns, from not knowing how much they have told.)
Count. Ay, say.
Figaro. I—I—I wish I could ſay as much of my Marriage.
Count. And who wrote the pretty Letter?
Figaro. Not I, my Lord.
Count. If I did not know thou lieſt, I could read it in thy face.
Figaro. Indeed, my Lord!—Then it is my face that lies; and not I.
Counteſs. Pſhaw, Figaro! Why ſhould you endeavour to conceal anything, when I tell you we have confeſs’d all?
Suſan. (Making ſigns to Figaro) We have told my Lord of the Letter, which made him ſuſpect that Hannibal, the Page, who is far enough off by this, was hid in my Lady’s dreſſing-room, where I myself was lock’d in.
Figaro. Well, well, ſince my Lord will have it ſo, and my Lady will have it ſo, and you all will have it ſo, why then ſo let it be (1785: 44-45).
Susan and Countess tell Figaro that the plan is ended because Count knows about
it. However, since Figaro does not know how much information Count has from
both ladies, he tries to know about the information that Count has. He starts
saying about the information that everyone knows his marriage which provokes
Count to change the subject back to the plan to trick hm. When Figaro knows that
Count knows about the letter, he tries to deny because he knows Count does not
have other prove than Susan and Countess’ word. He can find another way so that
Count does not know about the writer of the letter. When Susan tells about what
happen before his arrival, he quickly reacts to the new information he receives to
avoid Count’s rage while trying to keep up with the plan.
Figaro is a bold person. His boldness is seen from his word and action. He
is unafraid to say his opinion about anything or anyone. Figaro’s boldness is also
seen during his conversation with Countess. Figaro tells her about his plot to trick
Count. She calls him out of his wit because he dares to challenge his master. She
against his master because as a noble Count is well educated and he surely will
know about the trick. In addition, when the plan fails, the angry Count will punish
Figaro. He might lose his job or even his life. However, Figaro tells her that he is
unafraid with him or his power. He also will win against Count (1785: 28).
Counteſs. To confeſs the truth, Figaro, your project exactly correſponds with the one I meant to practiſe—An anonymous Letter must be ſent, informing him, that a Gallant, meaning to profit by his neglect—
Figaro. And abſence—is at preſent with his beauteous Counteſs—The thing is already done, Madam.
Counteſs. How!—Have you dared to trifle thus with a Woman of Honor? (1785: 28-29)
The above dialogue also shows Figaro boldness toward Countess. Even though
both have the same intention, but Figaro acts without her approval. It makes her
mad because Figaro forgets that she is an honorable woman and what he did will
damage her reputation. He is after all just a servant who has no right using her as
his means. However, he is brave enough to jeopardize his master reputation.
Figaro is also characterized as a critical person. When he asks for the
Count’s blessing toward his marriage, Figaro criticizes the blessing.
Figaro. (Preſenting the cap to the Count) Our petition is, that the Bride may have the honor of receiving from our worthy Lord’s hand, this
Nuptial-Cap; ornamented with half-blown roſes, and white ribbands,
Symbols of the purity of his intentions (1785: 19).
Figaro knows that the Count is listless about the marriage because he is unable to
seduce Susan. He criticizes the Count’s blessing intention. Therefore, Figaro
presents the cap with white ribbands and half-blown roses. Figaro uses white
ribbands to remind the Count’s original intention when he abolished his right as
landlord, the droit de seigneur right. Figaro uses the half-blown roses to remind
knows about the Count’s intention to get his right back. He knows that the Count
pursues his fiancé and that makes him half-heartedly to approve the marriage
because Susan refuses his request.
Count. Servants, I think, are longer dreſſing than their Maſters.
Figaro. Well they may—They are obliged to dreſs themſelves (1785: 54).
The quotation above shows Figaro criticism toward the nobility. Count is upset
because he has to wait for Figaro who is taking too much time in changing his
clothes. Figaro explain to him that unlike Count he must prepare and wear the
clothes by himself. Figaro criticizes the nobility who does not have to everything
by themselve. All they have to do is order and everything will be done for them.
In addition, with the numerous servants that nobility have, everything is done
quickly.
b. Basil
Basil is the musician in the castle. If he does not entertain the Count and
his court, he teaches harpsichord to the Countess and mandolin to the maids.
Suſan. …the faithful Basil, honeſt agent of his pleaſures, and my moſt noble muſic maſter, every day repeats with my leſſon (1785: 3).
Baſil. … a man of my talents; who have the honour to teach my Lady the Harpſichord, the Mandoline to her Woman, and to entertain your Lordſhip,
and your Lordſhip’s good Company, with my Voice and my Guitar,
whenever your Lordſhip pleaſes to honor me with your Commands. (1785: 50)
Basil has wicked characterization. This is shown through his life principle
which is corrupted. In his conversation with Susan, Basil tries to influence Susan
with his vile principles. He says to Susan “that though you are obligated to faſt
He says that grace or privilege is the first thing that is concerned by someone. In
order to get the privilege, someone needs to have power which can be gained by
any means. Although one will have to fast or live miserably, if he or she is able to
be the favorite person of a powerful man, that person will live happily because
being feed. His concept of get everything by any means shows that he is wicked.
His wickedness is also shown through the other character opinion about
him. Both Figaro and Doctor call him rascal. Figaro calls him rascal because Basil
tries to impress the Count by influencing Susan to be a mistress (1785: 5). Doctor
says that Basil is a rascal because he stole things from him. Marcelina then adds
that, in Count’s castle, Basil is doing “all the mischief that he can” (1785: 7).
Basil is also wicked because he likes to lie. Because it becomes his habit,
Susan says that “it would be a greater miracle to see you honest” (1785: 15).
Count addresses Basil with prince of knave which is approved by Antonio
(1785:50).
Basil is also sycophantic. This characteristic is shows by his conduct to
please Count. When Count pursues Susan, Basil becomes the agent of Count who
does all the hard work to persuade her. He sells up Count to her so that she will
want to be Count’s mistress. He uses any means to make her yield to Count’s
request (1785: 15-16). When Count finds out there is someone who writing a
letter to his wife, he orders Basil to find that man. Basil goes to find the person
who wrote the love letter for Countess even though he is unwilling to do so. He
must obey to please his master (1785: 51). Not just follows every order of Count,
anything that hurt Figaro, Basil agrees even though he knows what Count says is
different from his action (1785: 18). Basil obeys every orders and word of Count
because he had hidden agenda. He wants to use Count’s power to get Marcelina
and maintain his position. Therefore, he must please Count.
Basil’s other characteristic is a conceited. He likes to brag about his
musical talent. It is shown during his fight with Figaro.
Baſil. “You hear, my Lord, how he inſults me! When, it is well known, there is not, in all Andaluſia, a more eminent!
Figaro. “Empty!
Baſil. “Able!
Figaro. “Abject!
Baſil. “Musician! (1785: 85)
Basil is angry at Figaro for insult his talent. He believes that he is already known
as musician by the people all over the city. He is acknowledged by them for being
the most talented musician around. He proves it by being hired as musician and
music teacher for the most distinguish person in Andalusia.
Baſil. My Office, in this Houſe, as your Lordſhip knows, is not to go of Errands! Think, my Lord, how that would degrade a man of my talents; who have the honour to teach my Lady the Harpſichord, the Mandoline to her Woman, and to entertain your Lordſhip, and your Lordſhip’s good Company, with my Voice and my Guitar, whenever your Lordship pleaſes to honor me with your Commands (1785: 50).
Basil also acts conceited because of his position as the musician of the
castle. He believes that his position in the castle is important since he is a very
talented person. Consequently, he begins to refuse to do things that require lots of
hard work. His job is to teach and entertains nobility. He will not do petty thing.
Therefore, he refuses Count’s order him to find the man that sent his wife a love
a great musician. Talented person should not do common thing because it will
injure his talent.
2. The Characters of Upper Class a. Count Almaviva
The Count is one of the Spanish nobility in Andalusia. He marries to
Rosina whom he stolen from her guardian doctor Bartholo. Although he claims to
love his wife, Count still seduces other girls. It makes him has unfaithful
characteristic.
His infidelity is known by his employee. Susan says that Count is
“prowling among ruſtic beauties of neighbourhood” (1785: 3). Marcelina and
Doctor also talk about Count’s infidelity since he falls in love every time he sees
new girl.
Marcelina. No, it is the Counteſs who is indiſpoſed.
Doctor. What the artful, the deceitful Roſina? What’s her diſorder?
Marcelina A faithleſs Huſband.
Doctor. A very common complaint indeed.
Marcelina. The Count forſakes her, and falls in love with every freſh face. (1785: 6-7)
The faithless characteristic of Count is also known by his wife. In her
conversation with Susan, she is angry with her husband behavior. She says that
his husband is ungrateful man because he forgets about his vow, protestation and
tenderness. It leads him to be unfaithful (1785: 26).
As the landlord, he has a supreme power toward his subjects. Because of
that he sometime uses his power abusively which makes him has authoritarian
Susan. After having conquered all girls in the countryside, he chooses Susan as
his next target. He picks her because she is bride to be and he can use his right to
get her. Although the droit de seigneur has been abolished by himself, with the
power he has he can make it exists again. When Susan rejects him, he starts to
threaten her. On her wedding day, the Count warns about what he is capable to do.
As the lord of the manor, his permission is needed to do any activity. It means she
needs his permission to get marry. He tells her that if she wants the permission,
she has to meet him at the garden pavilion secretly. If she refuses to go there, he
will never give his permission to the marriage (1785: 59). The way the Count
force his will toward Susan shows that he abusively uses his power.
Other evident that shows the Count authoritarian characteristic is when he
dislodges the Page from his castle. The Page sees Susan to talk about his
condition. On the night before, he was on Agnes’s room because he was teaching
Agnes her part in a play when the Count came. The part of the play is a love scene
and the Count has the intention to show Agnes how to do her part. Therefore, he
became furious when he saw the page. He used his authority to immediately
dislodge the Page (1785: 11-12).
Count Almavia other characteristic is hypocrite. His words and his actions
are contradictory. In the beginning of the play, Susan and Figaro talk about their
master’s hypocrite characteristic.
Suſan. Thou knoweſt how our generous Count when he by thy help
obtained Roſina’s hand, and made her Counteſs of Almaviva, during the firſt tranſports of love aboliſhed a certain gothic right—
Figaro. Of ſleeping the firſt night with every Bride.
Figaro. Know it!—To be sure I do, or I would not have married even my charming Suſan in his Domain.
Suſan. Tired of prowling among the ruſtic beauties of the neighbourhood he returned to the Castle—
Because of the euphoria of his wedding, the Count abolished one of his gothic
right. Sleeping with other women at that time was absurd because he has his
beloved wife. But since he is not a newlywed anymore, the Count is back to his
old routine. He wants to regain his right back but he cannot take back his word
because he has a reputation to maintain. Therefore, he prefers to chase girls in
countryside or secretly chase girls within his castle. This shows that Count only
pretends to be a faithful husband while the fact says he is unfaithful.
Count. And you, you little Villain, what you don’t intend to mend your manners then? But forgetting all reſpect for your friend Figaro, and for the Countesſs your Godmother, likewiſe, you are endeavouring here to ſeduce her favourite woman! I, however (turning towards Basil) ſhall not ſuffer Figaro, a man—whom—I eſteem—ſincerely—to fall the Victim of ſuch deceit (1785: 18).
The Count dialogue above is said when Count finds out the Page hiding
inside Susan room. Page is telling her about Count’s order for him to leave his
castle when Count comes to her room. Therefore, Page hides. Knowing Susan is
alone, Count is seducing Susan. However, Basil’s arrival makes Count hide
behind a chair. Count decides to come out when he hears Basil story about Page.
When the Count explains about what happened on the night before, he sees Page
is hiding behind Susan’s gown. He then scolds Page for seducing Susan. He says
Countess. He then tells Basil that he won’t do something like that. He sincerely
respects Figaro for what he had done in the past. Therefore he will never do
anything that will destroy their relationship. What he says to Basil is totally lie
because he is seducing Susan when Basil comes to the room. This shows that the
Count is being a hypocrite.
b. Doctor Bartholo
Doctor Bartholo is one of nobility and a doctor from Seville. He was
Countess Rosina guardian. He planned to marry her therefore he kept her hidden
in his house. But the plan failed because of Figaro’s trick.
He has inattentive characteristic. During his conversation with Doctor,
Figaro complains about Bartholo’s inattentive manner toward his patient.
Figaro. Most kind Doctor—But who takes care of your Mule? I know you have as much mercy on your Beaſt as you have on your Patient (1785: 6).
From Figaro dialogue, it can be seen that the way Bartholo treats his
patients is similar with his treatment toward his mule. As a doctor, Bartholo
should show his sympathy toward his patient in order to comfort the patient.
However, he does not see his patient as a human being. He treats his patients as an
object just like his mule. His mule is his tool when he needs to travel meanwhile
his patient is his tools to make money.
His inattentiveness is also shown toward his treatment to his former house
maid, Marcelina. When she still worked at Bartholo’s house, they had an affair.
They have a son from the affair but the baby was kidnapped by gipsy. Bartholo
Marcelina. Our long loſt ſon, Fernando! the dear pledge of my virgin love! were he but found, perhaps—
Doctor. And so you ſent for me to hear this ſtale rhodomontade? (1785: 7)
From Marcelina dialogue, she shows how inattentive Bartholo is. She hints
that Bartholo abandons their son. When the boy is stolen, Bartholo, as a noble,
won’t have difficulty to find any information. His relationship with Marcelina is
not serious since she is his housekeeper therefore the illegitimate son is not
important. Therefore, he does nothing because he does not care about the boy or
Marcelina. She wonders what will happen if the boy is found but Bartholo tells
her to stop. He tells her to stop bragging about their story or the boy because it
happened a long time ago. From his reaction, it shows that he does not care about
Marcelina or their missing son.
Other characteristic of Bartholo is egoist. This is shown when he decides
to help Marcelina with her case against Figaro.
Marcelina. Well—Since you are determined never to marry me yourſelf, will you have the complaiſance to aid me in marrying another?
Doctor. With all my heart!—With all my heart!—(1785: 8)
She asks him to help her marry Figaro. There are two reasons why he
agrees to help her. The first reason is because to make her stop bothering him with
their old romance. Since Doctor is her first love and they have a son from their
relationship, Marcelina wishes that he marry her. However, he is determined
never to marry her. Therefore, he fells relief when he hears that she find another
man so that he does not have to hear her talking about their story.
