The Heroes of Romances by Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux
"The Heroes of Romances" by Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux is a satirical commentary on the treatment of historical figures in seventeenth-century French literature. In the narrative, mythological characters like Pluto, Minos, and Rhadamanthus discuss the peculiarities of new arrivals in Hades, who have been transformed into sentimental lovers rather than heroic figures. Boileau critiques popular novelists of his time, such as Madeleine de Scudéry and Jean Chapelain, highlighting how they romanticize and trivialize iconic military leaders and heroines like Alexander the Great and Joan of Arc. The work emphasizes a disconnect between the revered histories known from classical sources and the emotional, often superficial representations found in contemporary literature. As characters lament lost loves and engage in trivial conversations, the story raises questions about the cultural impact of excessive gallantry in literature. Ultimately, Pluto suggests that forgetfulness may be the only remedy for their folly, illustrating a broader commentary on the value of true heroism versus sentimental portrayals. This exploration offers insights into the literary landscape of seventeenth-century France and critiques its evolving narrative style.
On this Page
The Heroes of Romances by Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux
First published:Dialogue des héros de roman, 1688 (English translation, 1713)
Type of work: Novel
Type of plot: Satire
Time of plot: 1660’s
Locale: Hades
Principal characters
Pluto , the Greek god of the underworldMinos , a judge in HadesRhadamanthus , another judge in HadesDiogenes , a Greek philosopherCyrus , a Persian kingHoratius Cocles , a Roman military heroClelia , a Roman noblewomanJoan of Arc , a French military heroine
The Story:
Pluto receives the dead after they have been judged by Minos and Rhadamanthus. Minos expresses his surprise that recent arrivals from Europe are speaking in an extremely artificial and sentimental manner. Pluto attributes this odd style to the pernicious effect of the excessive gallantry in seventeenth century French works written by popular novelists and poets such as Madeleine de Scudéry, Marin Le Roy de Gomberville, La Calprenède, and Jean Chapelain. He assures the incredulous Minos that French writers have transformed famous military heroes and heroines such as Alexander the Great, King Cyrus of Persia, and even Joan of Arc into little more than sentimental lovers. Minos refuses to believe that intelligent readers will accept such grotesque distortions of historical reality. Rhadamanthus and Pluto try to prove to him that it is, unfortunately, true. Rhadamanthus then states that even longtime residents of Hades, including Sisyphus, Ixion, and Prometheus, have complained bitterly about the inane prattle of these new arrivals from France. Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Pluto ask Diogenes to persuade some of these French fictional characters to speak with them.
The first person who comes to see them is King Cyrus. Pluto knows a great deal about this historical figure because he has read Herodotus. Pluto has heard that classical learning is greatly admired in seventeenth century France, and he cannot believe that French writers would ignore such an eminent authority as Herodotus. This fictional Cyrus, however, has changed his name to Artamenes, and his main goal is not to conquer large areas in the Middle East but rather to find his beloved Mandana, who is abducted eight times in Madeleine de Scudéry’s very popular ten-volume romance, titled Artamène: Ou, Le Grand Cyrus (1649-1653; Artamenes: Or, The Grand Cyrus, 1653-1655). When Cyrus informs Pluto of his complete lack of interest in anything other than his love for Mandana, Pluto reaches the conclusion that this eminent military conqueror has become little more than a sentimental and foolish lover who weeps and whines incessantly about his failure to win the hand of Mandana in marriage.
After the departure of Cyrus, two famous Roman historical figures appear, and Diogenes informs Pluto, Minos, and Rhadamanthus that they are Horatius Cocles and Clelia. Pluto has read about their exploits in Titus Livy’s Ab urbe condita libri (c. 26 b.c.e.-15 c.e.; The History of Rome, 1600). He remembers that Clelia swims across the Tiber River to escape from the soldiers of Porsena, and Horatius Cocles defends a bridge all by himself against a horde of soldiers. Pluto firmly expects Horatius Cocles and Clelia to be much more sensible than the sentimental Cyrus, but he is badly mistaken. His knowledge of the lives of Horatius Cocles and Clelia is based on a careful reading of a trustworthy and respected Roman historian and not on Madeleine de Scudéry’s immensely popular but highly imaginative ten-volume novel Clélie(1654-1660; Clelia, 1656-1661). Like Cyrus, Horatius Cocles laments his inability to win the love of his beloved, who prefersd another man to him. He keeps repeating two verses about the exquisite beauty of Clelia, and Pluto compares this foolish character to the mythological nymph Echo who speaks endlessly of her love for Narcissus. When Clelia comes to see them, both Pluto and Diogenes hope that this illustrious and brave Roman noblewoman will not be as superficial as Cyrus and Horatius Cocles, but, unfortunately, she also behaves in a very odd manner. In the first volume of her novel Clelia, Madeleine de Scudéry includes a map of the Kingdom of Tender Love. Clelia believes that she now lives in the Kingdom of Tender Love and not in the Elysian Fields, and she asks them for directions to the Country of Gallantry. Pluto suggests that she seek admission to an insane asylum instead of visiting the Country of Gallantry.
After conversations with equally superficial lovers from other contemporary novels and also characters from plays by Philippe Quinault, Pluto despairs of encountering a sensible person among the new arrivals in Hades. Diogenes, however, holds out some hope for sanity because the valiant French national heroine and martyr Joan of Arc agrees to speak with them. Pluto cannot believe that any French writer would dare portray such a heroine in other than reverential terms. Pluto, who knows a great deal about ancient and modern history, realizes that Joan of Arc lost her life as a result of her courageous efforts to free her homeland from English occupation. Pluto has once again made the mistake of relying on objective histories, and he has failed to read Jean Chapelain’s epic poem The Maid (1655). The main interest of Chapelain’s Joan of Arc is not to raise the siege of Orleans and to restore freedom to France but rather to be loved by a fellow warrior named Dunois. The Maid of Orleans, who liberated France from English domination, becomes in Chapelain’s turgid verse a sentimental lover indistinguishable from any other character in numerous French plays and novels from the seventeenth century. Near the end of this dialogue, an unnamed Frenchman appears and tells Pluto that these alleged heroes and heroines are, in fact, his neighbors. At the end of this satiric dialogue, Pluto recommends that they all be encouraged to drink from Lethe, a river in Hades whose water causes forgetfulness. This is, in Pluto’s opinion, the only possible cure for their foolishness.
Bibliography
Borgerhoff, Elbert B. O. The Freedom of French Classicism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950. Contains a solid assessment of Boileau-Despréaux’s central importance. Describes the numerous connections between originality and imitation in French classicism.
Brody, Jules. Boileau and Longinus. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1958. A thoughtful study of Boileau-Despréaux’s aesthetic theory. Describes the originality and the limits of Boileau-Despréaux’s approach to literature.
Duggan, Anne E. “Boileau and Perrault: The Public Sphere and Female Folly.” In Salonnières, Furies, and Fairies: The Politics of Gender and Cultural Change in Absolutist France. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005. Traces Boileau-Despréaux’s hostility toward Madeleine de Scudéry and the cultural changes that she and other women writers promoted; describes how he expressed his animosity in The Heroes of Romances.
France, Peter. Rhetoric and Truth in France: Descartes to Diderot. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1972. Describes the central role of classical rhetoric in major French literary works during the classical era and the Enlightenment. Explains why Boileau-Despréaux and many other eminent French writers from his era were uncomfortable with those writers who imitated classical sources freely.
Gilby, Emma. Sublime Worlds: Early Modern French Literature. London: Legenda, 2006. Critical analysis of works by Boileau-Despréaux, Pierre Corneille, and Blaise Pascal in which the three authors explored the concept of sublimity.
Kerslake, Lawrence. Essays on the Sublime: Analyses of French Writings on the Sublime from Boileau to La Harpe. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Examines Boileau-Despréaux’s translation of, and preface to, Longinus’s essay On the Sublime, published in 1674, and other seventeenth and eighteenth century French texts that dealt with the concept of the sublimity.
Pocock, Gordon. Boileau and the Nature of Neo-Classicism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Explains Boileau-Despréaux’s reasoning for modern writers’ close imitation of ancient works. Develops an original reading of Boileau-Despréaux’s influential L’Art poétique(1674; Art of Poetry, 1683).
White, Julian Eugene. Nicolas Boileau. New York: Twayne, 1969. A lucid introduction in English to the life and times of Boileau-Despréaux. Annotated bibliography.