NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ro, was a new incarnation of the character Figaro, where a man of relative humble birth succeeds in rising to power through strength of character, wit and determination once again representing the triumph of worth and intelligence over the gifts of birth and chance (Cox 154). Tarare, like Figaro, was a servant of a tyrant whose title was won by birth and whose status was undeserved. It was yet another strike at the imperfections and the injustices of the old regime (Chaudhuri 242).
It was infused with the philosophy and natural sciences popular at the time- especially with heady philosophes like Beaumarchais. Rivers points out that it was a very weak piece, in fact a monstrous and indigestible composition in second-rate verse. He attacks the piece for its weakness: It contains a little philosophy, physics, metaphysics, physical science, freethought, a new mythology -- a little of everything, in short, except the quenchless wit an humour which we find everywhere else in the work of Beaumarchais (287). The 1787 version ended in the evil ruler committing suicide and Tarare, the virtuous hero, assuming the throne. Beaumarchais drew on his own philosophy in writing Tarare to express that Frances problems should not be blamed on the of the monarchy, but by the mistakes and the incompetence of a single monarch, like the evil King At in his piece. Beaumarchais, conscious of political unrest, was trying to convince his audience that France need not abolish the monarchy, but find a ruler better suited to be King.
At the time the play was given, mobs of hungry, angry people were gathering and were planting the seed of fear in the hearts of wealthy bourgeois like Beaumarchais (Chaudhuri 243). This is likely why he so boldly enforced the value of the established monarchy, trying to preserve his position and his life. Tarare was met with considerable success and was remounted five times (Rivers 287). The overthrow of a tyrannical ruler was an appealing idea, but his support of the monarchy came as somewhat of a surprise to the revolutionaries, who had assumed him to be more liberal (Cox 156). In 1788, Beaumarchais was hoping to retire and drop out of the public eye. He had encountered many scandals and battles for his reputation and had been imprisoned far too many times to maintain his very vocal and visible position in society.
His popularity had been waning, having been affected by recent lawsuits and accusations on his character. He was becoming in fact the target of popular jealousy, hared and mistrust (Chaudhuri 243). He showed his ignorance to the political climate and the danger of revolution with his next move. When the Bastille was stormed on that fateful July 14, Beaumarchais was at the height of financial prosperity, engaged in building himself a sumptuous mansion in the very centre of unrest, facing the Bastille, in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine (Rivers 292).
How could the playwright, who had put himself in the most precarious and ridiculously ignorant of positions, have consciously contributed to the Revolution? It is yet further proof that Beaumarchais was simply an intellectual and a revolutionist by instinct rather than conviction (Rivers 292). Beaumarchais was caught completely off guard on when the Bastille was stormed. He, like many other aristocrats, had hoped that the taking Tennis Court Oath by members of the Third Estate on June 20 th of that year was a positive sign. He had hoped for France to achieve a smooth transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy and establish civil liberty (Chaudhuri 243). He praised the Third Estate when the swore the famous oath to establish a constitution, but began to lose hope as the situation, for him, took a turn for the worse.
The revolutionaries were becoming more powerful, and Beaumarchais could see he was in a position of danger. In 1790, he revived Tarare, changing the ending so that instead of an absolute monarch, Tarare became a constitutional monarch. The play still contained the controversial line which emphasized ones duty to be respectful toward the King, but to be expedient, he abandoned the Prologue which contained his precious philosophy. Even with the changes, it became evident that Tarare would not be accepted by the patriots as it was in 1787 as they now believed in the constitution, not the King, and that the King himself should obey the constitution.
Beaumarchais theories were not in compliance with those of the revolutionaries, and holding on to his theories was putting him in a very dangerous position indeed (Chaudhuri, 244). At this point, Beaumarchais knew that he would never have the dream of a peaceful retirement. His house was continually being ransacked by angry patriots as rumors of his loyalty kept him under perpetual suspicion (Rivers, 296). In spite of the danger to his family and his freedom he would not let go of the ideals of the Enlightenment. He was aghast when he saw the stage being used as a political platform for extremist patriots (admittedly somewhat hypocritical as he did the same, only substituting politics for philosophy). He showed himself to be against the methods and the unsound practices of the revolutionaries, speaking out boldly against an extremist production of Charles IX, and at the same time criticizing the leaders of the National assembly praised by the play, including Mirabeau and Danton (Chaudhuri 243).
By 1792 all hopes for a constitutional monarchy had been lost. The Republic was established in September of that year, and Beaumarchais was forced to spend the remainder of his life in mild to extreme self preservation, trying to keep his family and his freedom. He became involved in yet another gun deal, an undertaking that was to dominate the rest of his life (Perla 37). The gun deal put him into exile and he spent the remaining years of his life salvaging his fortune and his family, long abandoning any hope of preserving the ideals of the Enlightenment within what had become utter terror and anarchy. Was Beaumarchais a true revolutionary? When examining the development of his early writing, it might seem so, but in our analysis of his later works, the answer can only be no.
His was a revolution of the mind, not of action. He knew the power of literature and even then he compromised his writing to suit expediency, suggesting that he had fallen to political vacillation. He was a true philosophe, not a republican. His involvement in the American revolution suited his ideals, and that is why he became a patron of their cause. He did not become involved because he was a champion of freedom by any means, he favored their orderly revolution which involved the establishment of a constitution.
When he saw that France was losing her head and the high ideas of the Enlightenment were being abandoned, he could never support the republic. He felt they were fighting for nothing, fighting to destroy rather that establish a better society. Even though he was the first to defiantly attack the old regime with vigor and eloquence in his writing, he would never have wanted his plays to support the madness of the French Revolution. A philosophe of his hopes and ideals would never support a revolution that would become the end of civility and the entrance into utter terror and chaos.
Free research essays on topics related to: third estate, constitutional monarchy, monarchy, 243, rivers
Research essay sample on Constitutional Monarchy Third Estate
