The debate about Side

The first edition of Cornell’s play was published on March 23, 1637 , just two months after being staged at the Marais Theater (an unheard-of speed for its time, regarded by many of his contemporaries as the playwright’s desire to derive sole benefit from the stunning success of the play). In the dedication addressed to the niece of Richelieu Marie-Madeleine de Vignro, the omnipotent cardinal saw the playwright displaying pride. Moreover, at the same time as Sid, Cornell published his earlier poem, An Apology Addressed to Arist, circulating in the manuscript, where he proudly declared that "he owes his glory only to himself." Apparently, it was precisely at the suggestion of Richelieu (at first he appreciated the innovation of the play) that a critical campaign was launched against the tragicomedy, which provoked the appearance of numerous pamphlets .

The most famous participants in the dispute were the writers Jean de Mere and Georges de Scudery . Once welcoming Cornell’s comedian Widow with a creditable epigram , Mere reproached the author of Sid for plagiarism . Meanwhile, in the 17th century , playwrights using someone else's text was common; Mere's reproaches related primarily to the fact that Cornel concealed his Spanish original source (which did not correspond to reality). At the same time, Mere himself clearly did not read this source and did not even really know the name of the author ( Guillen de Castro ) ^[1] . Not without personal insults: beating the inner form of the name of the playwright, Mere calls him a "plucked crow." Cornell answered Mere with a mocking rondo . After that, Skuderi intervened in the argument, wounded by the unprecedented success of Sid and the arrogant tone of its author; in his anonymous Remarks, he seeks to minimize the artistic merit of the play, plagiarizes the playwright again, criticizes the Cornellian verse, and also makes serious charges against Cornell of violating the canons of the “correct” dramatic poem. The stage success of Sid, according to Skuderi, is the success of the plebs , while the high drama should not take into account his opinion.

The writings of Cornell's supporters also appear: “The Defense of Sid” (its possible author is Nicola Fare ), “Public Opinion - to Mr. de Squider” and many others. Several anonymously published texts against Skuderi are most likely written by Cornell himself. As for critical pamphlets, the authorship of some of them was attributed to such major writers as Paul Scarron and Charles Sorel .

Richelieu closely watched the unfolding conflict: it was he who owned the idea of ​​involving the French Academy as an arbiter of the dispute. An important role in the outbreak of the conflict was played by the intervention of Buarober , who was jealous of the success of his fellow man ^[2] .

Skuderi called on the Academy to formulate his opinion on the play in May 1637 . At first, academics hesitated whether they should get involved in the discussion; “According to the charter of the Academy, she could only analyze the works of her colleagues or those writers who themselves request her opinion on their works. Thus, the Academy had to secure the consent of Cornell to parse his play. Cornel was forced to give his consent when he learned that the cardinal himself insists on this ” ^[3] . As a result, in June, three of the academicians - Abbot Amable de Bourzes, Jean Chaplin and Jean Demare - were instructed to study the play as a whole, and Abbot Serisi, Gombo , Baro and L'Etoile - verses.

Work moved slowly. Chaplen composed the first edition of Opinion ... in less than a month, then the cardinal asked for changes, so that the final version was worked out only by the end of the year. "Opinion ...", based on the principles of Aristotelianism (interpreted quite freely) and on the "authority of the mind" (that is, rationalism ), was balanced in nature and became one of the most important documents of the 17th century classic theory. For the most part, “Opinion ...” “is built as a response to the“ Comments ”, and their justice is by no means always recognized” ^[4] . Academics declare themselves to be the continuation of the tradition of "elegant disputes" that were conducted in the previous century in Italy (referring to discussions around Tasso 's poem " Liberated Jerusalem " and the pastoral tragicomedy B. Gvarini's "Faithful Shepherd"). From the point of view of academics, the criticism of Skuderi as a whole is justified, but at the same time, the skill in portraying passions earned the play a well-deserved success. In addition, academics condemned the supposedly inherent Cornel inconsistency of the characters and actions of the heroes. “Recognizing the individual merits of the play, the Academy meticulously criticized deviations from the rules - congestion in external events that required, according to her calculations, at least 36 hours (instead of 24 allowed), the introduction of a second storyline (the undivided love of the Infanta for Rodrigo), the use of free stanza forms , etc. But the main rebuke, after Skuderi, was addressed to the "immorality" of the heroine, who, in the opinion of the Academy, violated the plausibility of the play. ^[5]

In 1638 - 1639, three tragicomedies of little-known authors were published, which were sequels of "Sid" and in many ways parodying it: "The Continuation and Marriage of Sid" by Chevro, "The True Continuation of Sid" by Nicola Defontaine and "The Shadow of Count Gormas and Sid's Death" by Schillac (with pronounced anti-Spanish pathos).

After the publication of “Opinions ...”, a dejected Cornell became silent for a while. Nor did the high praise of the play by Gez de Balzac help, in the beginning of 1638 noted in a letter to Skuderi that “all of France is on the side of Cornell” ^[6] . When working on Horace, the author of Sid took into account the criticism made to him. In addition, he made adjustments to subsequent editions of the text of the play ( 1648 and 1660 ): for example, individual lines criticized by the Academy underwent changes, the scene that completely opened “Sida” completely fell (by its nature it was more like a comedy than a tragicomedy), the final has transformed. The author began to call the play " tragedy "; textual changes were aimed at conforming Sid to the doctrine of classicism ^[7] . Although during the discussion the problem of the tragicomedy genre was practically not touched.

• Chaplin J. Opinion of the French Academy about the tragicomedy Sid. Translation by G. K. Kosikov // Literary Manifestos of Western European Classicists. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1980. - S. 273-298.
• Civardi, Jean — Marc. La Querelle du Cid, 1637-1638. - P .: H. Champion, 2004 .-- 1216 p. - ISBN 2-7453-0965-X
• Corneille, Pierre . Le Cid. Chronologie, présentation, notes, dossier, bibliographie, lexique par B. Donné. - P .: Garnier Flammarion, 2002 .-- 379 p. - ISBN 2080710796
• Armand Gasté Hildesheim. La querelle du Cid: pièces et pamphlets publiés d'après les originaux. - New York: G. Olms, 1974.- 495 p. - ISBN 3487052490