Jean-Paul Sartre’s Les Mouches (1943).

A classical tragedy revised

as a pièce de résistance?
ZOË GHYSELINCK
Ghent University, Belgium
[email protected]

Until the present, the renewed interest in classical themes in French theatre at
the beginning of the 20th century has not been thoroughly subjected to the research
of the Nachleben of classical antiquity1. During the last decades, reception studies
somewhat overlooked the wide range of adaptations of classical myths and mytho-
logical themes, that already turned up in modern French theatre at the turn of the
20th century2. Classical stories were put into a radically new form, while contempo-
rary subjects and values were presented through classical outlines. This specific dia-
logue between the modern world and the classics was introduced by dramatists like
André Gide (1869-1951), Jean Giraudoux (1882-1944) and Jean Cocteau (1889-1963),
as they reconsidered ancient myths in order to criticize the conditions of contempo-
rary man and society3.
During the Second World War, classical themes were still rewritten in French
theatre4. In this article, a light will be shed on a particular play – conceived and
staged under the German occupation in Paris (1940-1944) – in which criticism on

1 The latest volumes of classical reception studies are primarily concerned with postcolonial

and poststructuralist contributions on the subject of reception of classical antiquity from the 1970’s.
Cf. L. HARDWICK, Reception Studies, Oxford, 2003; F. DECREUS - M. KOLK (edd.), Rereading Classics in
East and West: Post-colonial Perspectives on the Tragic, Gent, 2004; CH. MARTINDALE - R. F. THOMAS,
Classics and the Uses of Reception, Malden/Oxford, 2006; L. HARDWICK - C. GILLESPIE, Classics in post-
colonial Worlds, New York, 2007. WERNER FRICK, “Die mythische Methode”. Komparatistische Studien
zur Transformation der griechischen Tragödie im Drama der klassischen Moderne, Tübingen, 1998,
pp. 333-480; C. K. PRINCE, “‘Making It New’: André Gide’s Rewriting of Myth”, in L. HARDWICK - C. STRAY
(edd.), A Companion to Classical Receptions, Malden (Mass.), 2008, pp. 185-194, count as exceptions.
Consequently, mainly exploded research discusses the adaptation of classical myths on the European
stage at the beginning of the 20th century. G. HIGHET, “The Reinterpretations of the Myths”, Virginia
Quarterly Review, 25, 1949, 99-115; P. H. SIMON, Theâtre et destin: la signification de la renaissance
dramatique en France au XXe siècle: Montherlant, Giraudoux, Anouilh, Mauriac, Camus, Sartre, Claudel,
Salacrou, Paris, 1959; H. FLASHAR, Inszenierung der Antike. Das Griechische Drama auf den Bühne der
Neuzeit 1585-1990, München, 1991, pp. 164-180; R. ROBERT, Premières leçons sur le mythe antique dans
le théâtre contemporain, Mayenne, 1998.
2 Robert presents a summary of adaptations of classical tragedies on the French stage between

1922 and 1960. R. ROBERT, op. cit., p. 2.

3 I. GALSTER, Le théâtre de Jean-Paul Sartre devant ses premiers critiques, Paris, 2001b, p. 103;

R. REHM, Radical Theatre. Greek Tragedy and the Modern World, London, 2003, pp. 87-92.
4 L. O. FORKEY, “The Theatres of Paris during the Occupation”, French Review, 22/4, 1949, 303.

EVPHROSYNE, 39, 2011

360 ZOË GHYSELINCK

the prevailing Nazi-dominance seems to be veiled under the guise of a well-known

ancient story: In Les Mouches (1943)5, the French author and philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre (1905-1980) clearly adapted the classical myth of Orestes and Elektra, while he
less manifestly criticized certain modern conditions. The subject of the play is well-
known: after many years’ exile, Orestes, son of King Agamemnoon, returns home to
avenge his father, who has been murdered 20 years ago by his wife and her lover.
Together with his elder sister Elektra, who is also eager for revenge, Orestes kills his
own mother Klytaemnestra and her new husband Aigisthos.
After the war, Sartre apparently obtained the image of resistance hero6 and
explicitly ascribed this to the committed character, which he was convinced this play
carried out. In 1944, shortly after the liberation of Paris, Sartre declared in an inter-
view with the newspaper Carrefour: “Pourquoi faire déclamer des Grecs […] si ce
n’est pour déguiser sa pensée sous un régime fasciste?”7 In this account, Sartre seem-
ingly insinuates that Les Mouches intended to convey a clandestine message to the
French audience, in which he criticizes the German occupier. Even though this seems
to be a plausible explanation, there are Sartre’s own words, spoken after the occu-
pation. Moreover, there does exist much controversy8 about the explanation Sartre
put forward to justify the image he obtained after the war. Especially, the question
whether Les Mouches is carrying out (concealed) allusions to the political conditions
in contemporary occupied France, is subject to this discussion9. There seem to have
arisen some doubts concerning Sartre’s commitment, since his actual deeds of resis-
tance during the occupation10, can be limited to the following (literary(-committed))
realisations11: The foundation of the resistant group Socialisme et Liberté in 194112,
which was granted only a short life; His two plays (Les Mouches in 1943 and Huis
Clos in 1944) and some articles, which were published in the clandestine paper Les
Lettres Françaises13. Furthermore, Les Mouches consists of a highly complex content,
and this due to the creative influence of Sartre’s existentialist philosophy14, which
centers around the notion of freedom as a constant necessity. According to existen-
tialist thinking, man is “condamné à être libre”15, which implies that man is obliged
to design and to give meaning to one’s own life. The accessibility and comprehensi-

5 M. CONTAT (ed.), Jean-Paul Sartre. Théatre complet, Paris, 2005, pp. 1258-1263; All citations
from the text of Les Mouches come from this edition. I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 102-103.
6 M. WINOCK, “Sartre s’est-il toujours trompé?”, L’Histoire, 295, 2005, 34-45; R. SULEIMAN, “Choisir

son passé”, in I. GALSTER (ed.), La naissance du (raisons d’ un succès 1938-1945) ‘phènomène Sartre’,
Paris, 2001, pp. 215-223; I. GALSTER, “Que faisait Sartre sous l’Occupation”, L’Histoire, 248, 2000, 18-19.
7 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, Jean-Paul Sartre. Un théâtre de situations, Saint-Amand, 1973, p. 225.
8 “La Résistance de Sartre fait encore l’object d’interrogations”. M. WINOCK, loc.cit., p. 36.
9 M. WINOCK, loc. cit., pp. 36-38; I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 219; B.-H. LEVY, Le siècle de Sartre,

Paris, 2000, pp. 388-389; G. JOSEPH, Une si douce Occupation. Simone de Beauvoir et Jean-Paul Sartre
1940-1944, Paris, 1991, pp. 278-281.
10 More on Sartre’s other deeds of resistance, cf. M. WINOCK, loc. cit.; I. GALSTER, op. cit.;

I. GALSTER, loc.cit.
11 Apart from that, this situation did not do Sartre any harm. Among other things, he published

not only his philosophical mainwork L’ être et le néant (1943), but also literary articles in several jour-
nals. Besides, he wrote theatre- and filmreviews and meanwhile teached philosophy. S. CORCY, La vie
culturelle sous l’Occupation, Paris, 2005, p. 199; A. COHEN-SOLAL, Jean-Paul Sartre, Paris, 2005, p. 75.
12 This organization reacted against Vichy and the German occupation by way of literary resis-

tance. M. WINOCK, loc. cit., pp. 35-36; H. LEVY, op. cit., pp. 384-387.
13 M. WINOCK, loc .cit., pp. 35-38; I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 78-88.
14 J. P. SARTRE, L’être et le néant: essai d’ontologie phénoménologique, Paris, 1943.
15 J. P. SARTRE, op. cit., p. 515.
 JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’S LES MOUCHES (1943). 361

bility of Les Mouches in any case appears highly problematic, given the fact that the
dialogues of the play are severely immersed in Sartre’s philosophical thinking16.
The aim of this article is to elucidate which aspects of Les Mouches could be
argued to have contributed to the image of its author as a war hero, by examining not
only the perspective of the author, and the text, but also of the side of the spectator.
Did Sartre intentionally conceal a suspicious message in his play? What did he
himself testify? To what extent does the text alludes to resistance and did suchlike
allusions then have to be obfuscated to defy censorship? How plausible is it, finally,
to expect the audience at the time to have discerned a possible appeal for resistance.
Can we find evidence for it and to what extent? The following discussion aims at a
critical and extended evaluation of these concerns in order to make a valuable contri-
bution not only to the study of Les Mouches as a supposed resistance play, but also to
the study of the reception of classical antiquity in French theatre in the first decades
of the 20th century.
In order to analyze Sartre’s supposed commitment in Les Mouches, Serge
Added17 formulates a couple of conditions which the play has to meet so as to be
termed a pièce de résistance or résistant. According to Added, not only the reception
has to be taken into account to examine whether a play in its particular context car-
ries “un message hostile à l’occupation et favorable à la Résistance”18, but also the
intention of the author himself needs to be considered. As a consequence, the condi-
tion Added proposes, is twofold: On the one hand, the author himself has to intend
to incorporate a specific appeal to exhort resistance. On the other hand, the audience
or at least part of it likewise has to grasp the (presence of) these allusions19. Addeds
interpretation of the concept résistant and the question whether it is applicable to the
case of Les Mouches will be looked at in the following discussion.
From this twofold condition (intention and reception) follows, for the present,
the question whether Sartre really had the intention to disguise an appeal of resis-
tance in Les Mouches. Sartre’s own declarations after the liberation are manifest. His
attitude before his play during the war, nevertheless, is less transparent.
During his life, Sartre explicitly commented on his work and thoughts in
general. The accounts and interviews he gave about his theatre work have been
collected by Michel Contat and Michel Rybalka20. In 1943, the philosopher declares
in a preface of Les Mouches, edited by the Parisian publisher Gallimard: “La tragédie
est le miroir de la Fatalité. […] le Fatum antique n’est que la liberté retournée. […] je
l’<Orestes> ai montré en proie à la liberté comme Oedipe est en proie à son destin.”21
As becomes clear, Sartre grants his philosophical concept of freedom a central place
in this play. He transforms the ancient notion of destiny (Fatum) into the existen-
tialist idea of inescapable freedom. In an interview in Comoedia on the 24th of April
1943, Sartre interprets the subject of Les Mouches as follows: “Comment se comporte
un homme en face d’un acte qu’il a commis, dont il assume toutes les conséquences
et les responsabilités, même si par ailleurs cet acte lui fait horreur?”22 Next to the

16 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 28-29; J. IRELAND, Sartre. Un art déloyal. Théâtralité et engagement,
Paris, 1994, pp. 31-32.
17 S. ADDED, Le théâtre dans les années Vichy 1940-1944, Chatillon-Sous-Bagneux, 1992; S. ADDED,

“L’ euphorie théâtrale dans Paris occupé”, in J. P. RIOUX (ed.), La vie culturelle sous Vichy, Bruxelles,
1990, pp. 315-350.
18 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 255.
19 S. ADDED, op. cit., pp. 256-257.
20 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit.
21 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 223.
22 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., pp. 223-224.
362 ZOË GHYSELINCK

obvious emphasis on the existentialist notion of freedom as responsibility, these

accounts do not explicitly refer to the contemporary situation of war and oppression.
In 1944, however, after the liberation, Sartre states that Les Mouches actually consists
of a charge against Marshal Pétain’s (1856-1951) meaculpisme23. Moreover, the play
apparently should morally justify the guilty conscience of those who have committed
assaults on the occupiers. “J’y disais au Français: vous n’avez pas à vous repentir,
même ceux qui en un sens sont devenus des meurtriers; vous devez assumer vos
actes même s’ils ont causé la mort d’innocents.”24 Read like that, the testimony in
Comoedia can indeed be interpreted as an allusion to the contemporary situation.
As a consequence, the following question presents itself: is opportunism playing a
part in Sartre’s accounts? Presenting himself as a committed author after all could
have lent style to his image of a resistance hero25. However, where does this image
come from?
It certainly cannot be neglected that Les Mouches, which brims over with philo-
sophical influences26, confirms Sartre’s own accounts during the war. The word free-
dom (liberté) appears strikingly often in the text27 and has not only an ontological, but
also a moral connotation28. Already in L’être et le néant (1943), Sartre suggests that
human freedom can only fully be real when it is transformed in to moral commit-
ment. He defends that “l’homme, étant condamné à être libre, porte le poids du
monde tout entier sur ses épaules: il est responsable du monde et de lui-même en
tant que manière d’être.”29 This means that man – who is a free creature – constantly
has to realize his freedom for himself and others. On that account, the rather philo-
sophical explanations Sartre pushed forward during the occupation could also be
interpreted in a moral or even ideological way30. Moreover, some analogies can be
found in Les Mouches between Aigisthos, King of Argos and Marshal Pétain, through
whom the idea of guilt (repentir) – the meaculpa – is put forward: by reproaching
them for not having intervened when their King Agamemnoon was being killed by
himself and Klytaemnestra, Aigisthos makes the citizens of Argos to be weighed down
with a strong feeling of guilt (les remords). According to Sartre, the Vichyregime and
the German occupier were also eager “de nous plonger dans un état de repentir, de
honte”31. The possibility to interpret the play in a moral or political way could clear
Sartre of opportunism. Moreover, a convincing explanation could be given to his
denial of active resistance during the war: taken into consideration the censorship, it

23 During the armistice, Philippe Pétain constantly addressed messages to the French popula-

tion on the radio and in newspapers, in which he reproached the Frenchmen that they had been too
much involved in the decadence of the Third Republic. I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 55-56; S. ADDED, op. cit.,
p. 258; M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 231.
24 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 323.
25 Gilbert Joseph, Sartre’s biographer, is convinced that only after the war – when the coast was

clear – Sartre began to assume an attitude of resistance. G. JOSEPH, op. cit., pp. 278-281. Winock, also,
is not convinced of Sartre’s sincere resistance commitment. M. WINOCK, loc.cit., p. 38.
26 M. CONTAT, op. cit., pp. 1271-1274.
27 H. LEVY, op. cit., p. 369; G. JOSEPH, op. cit., p. 264; Cf. J. P. SARTRE, “Les Mouches”, in M. CONTAT,

op. cit., pp. 3-70.

28 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 54.
29 J. P. SARTRE, op. cit., p. 639.
30 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 57; S. ADDED, op. cit., pp. 258-259. For a political interpretation of this

play (une pièce ‘à clef’), see I. GALSTER, op. cit., p 54; S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 258; D. MCCALL, The Theatre of
Jean-Paul Sartre, New York & London, 1971, p. 12.
31 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 231.
 JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’S LES MOUCHES (1943). 363

ould be no surprise if Sartre had concealed ideological allusions. A constant threat of

arrest or execution could have been a crucial impediment for overt resistance32.
If one assumes that Les Mouches did allude clandestinely to resistance, the play
must have escaped the severe examination of the German censorship33. On the third
of June 194334, Sartre’s first official35 play Les Mouches, directed by Charles Dullin
(1885-1949), had its premiere in the Théâtre de la Cité36 in Paris – the former Theatre
Sarah Bernhardt, which was aryanized by the German occupiers in 1940 with the
consent of Dullin37. As a member of the director’s association ADTP (l’Association des
Directeurs de Théâtre de Paris) – a body that mediated between the theatres of Paris
and the German occupier – Dullin published mostly in the right-wing newspaper
La Gerbe38. As every play or literary work written and/or performed during the occu-
pation, Les Mouches had to deal with the severe examination of the censorship39,
which it seemingly endured successfully since the play was actually performed.
It is plausible to suppose that the censor has not completely understood the complex
philosophical ideas of the young and still unknown40 Sartre. In any case, the German
censorship, assisted by French straw men, could easily measure up to the linguistic
capacities of the French public41. As a consequence, possible confusion was indeed
more likely against philosophical contents. Furthermore, in 1943, the French public
had hardly heard of a Jean-Paul Sartre, who made his debut in the world of theatre.
The French spectators, therefore, could not have had the advantage over the German
censors to grasp possible allusions, although Sartre maintained the opposite after the
war42. Did Sartre then take advantage of the cooperation with Dullin? This could be a
plausible explanation, if the production of the play is not taken into account, for the
staging of Les Mouches can at least be called offensive43. Dullin staged a sensational
pseudo-ceremony with savage masks and barbarian costumes to evoke an aggressive
and wild side of ancient – not classical – Greece44. The presentation of corruption

32 This was the motive behind the dissolution of the resistancegroup Socialisme et Liberté.

I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 62. During the war, the Resistance in France could not expect much overt sym-
pathy from the majority of the French population, since there was much fear of reprisals. I. GALSTER,
op. cit., pp. 62-63.
33 The censorship in France was since 1906 abolished conscription, but was reintroduced and

reorganized during the German Occupation by one of the subsections of the Propaganda Staffel, which
at his turn stood under the command of the Propaganda Abteilung and the German Militärbefehlshaber
in Frankreich. S. CORCY, op. cit., p. 31; S. ADDED, op. cit., pp. 37 & 101; D. PESCHANSKI, “Une politique de
la censure”, in J. P. RIOUX, op. cit., p. 66. The inspection of theatre was twofold: both texts and perfor-
mances were submitted to control. P. MARSH, “Le théâtre à Paris sous l’occupation allemande”, Revue
d’Histoire du Théâtre Paris, 3, 1981, 273-274.
34 M. WINOCK, loc.cit., p. 36; I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 108; P. MARSH, loc.cit., p. 257; R. LORRIS,

Sartre dramaturge, Paris, 1975, p. 15.

35 Bariona, Sartre’s first play, is never officially performed. H. LEVY, op. cit., p. 367; R. LORRIS,

op. cit., p. 15.

36 The present Théâtre de la Ville on L’Île de la Cité in Paris. I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 67.
37 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 66-70; S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 261.
38 There is no doubt that Dullins position before the occupiers frequently has been questioned.

I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 70; H. LEVY, op. cit., p. 368.

39 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 70; H. LEVY, op. cit., p. 368.
40 Galster notices that three pressreviews wrote Sartre’s name inaccurately. I. GALSTER, op. cit.,

pp. 115-116; M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 226.

41 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 81-86 & 178; S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 255.
42 “Les collaborateurs ne s’y trompèrent point” (Sartre in La Croix. The 20th of January, 1951)

M. CONTAT, op. cit., p. 78.

43 M. CONTAT, op. cit., p. 1269.
44 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 90.
364 ZOË GHYSELINCK

certainly did not match with the interest of the German occupier in the purity and
beauty of classical Greece45. It may sound plausible that the censorship granted this
play its approval, since it was not really aware of the philosophical (or even political)
connotations. It is, however, difficult to believe that it took no offence at Dullins stage
direction46, as the most important objective of the German occupier was to preserve
rest and order47. As a consequence, a preferential treatment by the agency of Dullin
does not seem likely, all the more since Dullins position has not been completely
clarified so far. From another point of view, Dullins ambiguous attitude could also
have had an opportunistic aim, namely to maintain his not unsuccessful theatre
practice under hostile circumstances48.
The most defended thesis to explain the authorization of the German censor-
ship, is the belief that Sartre would have used an ancient Greek myth to cover a
message of resistance49. However, the ancient myth of Orestes seems to be more than
– or not just – a cover. The specific nature of myth creates the possibility to broach
general and at the same time current subjects50. For myths intend to give explana-
tions to phenomena, which man cannot explain51. Therefore, myths consist of uni-
versal ideas, feelings and opinions common to all men52. Sartre states that one can
easily create a myth by making an appeal to such universal subjects. “Il faut créer
des mythes qui transcendent le particulier et s’adressent à chacun de nous”53. Greek
tragedy, expressing these myths in a specific structure54, presents the idea of man
exposed to external powers (his Fatum). The unavoidable character of this ancient
notion of fate remarkably corresponds with that of Sartre’s existentialist idea of
freedom. By way of his adaptation of a classical tragedy in which fate plays a central
role, Sartre retells the myth in a play about freedom, in which Orestes represents no

45 Ancient Greece and imperial Rome were considered by Hitler as model civilizations. In these
classical models he saw an example of the political, ideological and artistic perspectives of National
Socialism. Cf. R. GRIFFIN, Modernism and Fascism. The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and
Hitler, New York, 2007; J. NELIS, “Hitler, Classicism and Antiquity”, in A. LEACH - G. MATTHEWSON (edd.),
Celebration (XXII Annual Conference of the Society of Architectural Historians Australia and New Zea-
land), Auckland, 2005, pp. 279-284; V. LOSEMANN, “The Nazi concept of Rome”, in C. EDWARDS (ed.),
Roman Presences. Receptions of Rome in European Culture, 1789-1945, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 221-235;
H. GROSSHANS, Hitler and the Artists, New York & London, 1983; G. L. MOSSE, The Nationalization of the
Masses. Political Symbolism and Mass Movements in Germany from the Napoleonic Wars through the
Third Reich, New York, 1975.
46 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 39; P. MARSH, loc. cit., p. 274.
47 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 73; S. ADDED, op. cit., pp. 98-107; H. ROUSSO, “Vichy: politique, idéologie

et culture”, in J.P. RIOUX, op. cit., p. 29; P. MARSH, loc.cit., p. 202. Even texts, which were too manifestly
favourable to the Nazi-ideology, were shunted off in order to keep the quiet under the French popu-
lation. S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 109. Theatre had to be in the first place “un lieu de divertissement”. Off
course, this also had to stimulate the public favour of the Germans. S. CORCY, op. cit., pp. 233 & 240;
I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 73.
48 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 71-72.
49 J. IRELAND, op. cit., p. 84; P. MARSH, loc. cit., p. 257; R. LORRIS, op. cit., p. 15.
50 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 164; I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 31; R. LORRIS, op. cit., pp. 15-16.
51 C. LEVI-STRAUSS, “The Structural Study of Myth”, The Journal of American Folklore, 68, 270,

1955, 428-444; R. MAY, The Cry for Myth, New York, 1991, pp. 15-16.
52 Cf. Mythology consists of “fundamental feelings common to the whole of mankind, such as

love, hate, revenge;” […] Myths “try to provide some kind of explanations for phenomena which they
cannot understand otherwise: astronomical, meteorological, and like.” C. LEVI-STRAUSS, loc. cit., p. 429.
53 R. LORRIS, op. cit., p. 12.
54 M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 154.
 JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’S LES MOUCHES (1943). 365

classical but an existentialist hero55, who is no longer prey to his fate, but to la liberté.
As a consequence, it is his freedom and not la fatalité, which makes Orestes kill his
mother56. This shift in concepts, however, does not seem to be a shift in meaning,
since – according to Sartre’s philosophy – man is in fact doomed to be free57. In L’être
et le néant (1943), freedom is defined as being not free not to be free, likewise this
freedom has not the freedom not to exist58. To take up one’s freedom and to realize
it continuously, becomes a human obligation and responsibility59. In Les Mouches,
Orestes obviously demonstrates how man has to realize his freedom in a given situ-
ation by acting. “J’ai fait mon acte, Électre, et cet acte était bon” (Acte II, IIe tableau,
scène VIII). When he murders his mother and Aigisthos, he is only taking away from
the citizens of Argos the body which cultivates the feeling of guilt. Nowhere in the
play, however, do we find the notion that his deed actually liberates the population. In
this way, Orestes only frees himself and he leaves at the end, without having obtained
any direct positive effect. The citizens then have the opportunity to be free. They only
have to grasp and realize their freedom themselves. “Il ne suffit pas d’être libre, il faut
encore assumer sa liberté.”60
By this, the classical myth pressed into the framework of classical tragedy,
reaches an adequate background for Sartre to illustrate his philosophical and com-
mitted notion of freedom. Without any doubt, Orestes’ attempt to render the citizens
conscious of the possibility to realize their freedom can be interpreted as a moral
appeal to the contemporary French audience. Due to the specific framework of
universally applicable myths and thanks to the emphasis on the notion of the inevi-
tability of freedom, Sartre could grant the committed character of his existentialist
freedom a specific political and contemporary connotation. The reason for using a
myth therefore does not in the first place appear to trick the censorship, but it helped
Sartre to conceptualize and actualize his difficult philosophical ideas61. Nevertheless,
this complex philosophical subject seems to have obstructed the interpretative task of
the censor, as appears from the testimony of the German Gerhard Heller (1909-1982),
who was censor in Paris between 1940 and 1942. Still in 1943, he claims to have been
involved in the inspection of Les Mouches.
Almost 40 years after date, in 1981, Heller claims in his diary Un Allemand
à Paris to have understood the real meaning of Les Mouches in 1943. According to
Heller, it was thanks to him that this play has not been banned at the time. Heller, a
historian and scholar in Germanic and Romanic languages, adored French literature
and culture62. He claims as a censor he had always been compliant and righteous
through which he obtained the image of résistant chez les collabos63. As a justification
for his flexibility in the presence of the Propaganda, Heller claims he did not want
to create martyrs in French culture. This way, he not only defended the French side,

55 M. CONTAT, op. cit.; L.W. LEADBEATER, “Greek Patterns in Sartre’s Les Mouches”, Classical
and Modern Literature, 16, 2, 1996, 107-118; R. LORRIS, op. cit.; D. MCCALL, op. cit.; F. JEANSON, op. cit.;
M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit., p. 223.
56 R. LORRIS, op. cit., p. 16.
57 M. CONTAT, op. cit., p. 1264; I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 62-63; M. CONTAT - M. RYBALKA, op. cit.,

pp. 223-224; D. MCCALL, op. cit., p. 13; L. GOLDMANN, “The Theatre of Sartre”, The Tulane Drama Review,
15, 1, 1970, 105-108.
58 J. P. SARTRE, op. cit., p. 567.
59 R. ROBERT, op. cit., pp. 78-79.
60 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 54.
61 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 258; S. CORCY, op. cit., p. 199.
62 G. HELLER, Un Allemand à Paris. 1940-1944, Paris, 1981, p. 15.
63 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 83; Ibid. p. 27 ; 32.
366 ZOË GHYSELINCK

he also met the needs of the occupiers in keeping the peace (la normalité) in the first
place64. Though he was no longer censor in 1943, his experienced opinion was asked,
when controversy appeared in the examination of Les Mouches65: the inspectors of
that time evidently scented danger, but could not indicate precisely what the problem
was66. Heller claims to have convinced the censorship at the time of the harmless
character of the play with the following statement: “Cela n’a rien à voir avec la Résis-
tance. C’est un sujet de L’Antiquité classique. C’est une grande pièce tout à l’honneur
de la littérature universelle.”67 However, Heller claims to have detected a concealed
message: “Sartre avait du courage: j’avais bien compris qu’à travers les paroles et
les actes d’Électre et d’Oreste, ce n’étaient pas seulement Égisthe et Clytemnestre qui
étaient visés.”68 Heller’s testimony may then serve as an answer to the question why
Les Mouches acquired the approval of the censorship. Still, it does not rely on scien-
tific accuracy. The academic world doubts the authenticity of what could be called
the myth Heller and rejects it as opportunism69. Heller’s subjective testimony after
all cannot be substantiated, since the archives of the German censorship have been
destroyed70. Still, it is not clear why the censorship granted its approval to the play,
especially because there existed doubts. Was it the complex philosophical subject
which finally made them approve it? Maybe this question can be elucidated by com-
paring it with the reception of the audience, of which one can know to a certain
degree how – at least a part of it – received the performance of the play. To what
extent did the public interpret the philosophical concepts and did it attribute ideo-
logical or current connotations, something which the censorship did not succeed in
doing on the basis of the text.
In order to interpret the specific reception of Les Mouches by the audience, the
studies of Added71 and Galster primarily analyze the reception of the play in journal
reviews that judge the premiere of Les Mouches. Basically, they rely on the reception
aesthetics of Hans Robert Jauss (1921-1997)72 and Wolfgang Iser (1926-2007)73, who
have stressed the importance of the reader in literary theory since the seventies of
the 20th century. However, the sociological emphasis in Galster’s and Added’s studies
is more tributary to Joseph Jurt’s sociological study La réception de la littérature par
la critique journalistique (1980), in which Jurt sets out the guidelines to approach
Jauss’ notion of the horizon of expectations74 of a given genre in a particular historical
moment and based on the analysis of empirical documents – in this case, “la presse
cotidienne et hebdomadaire”75.
These methodological conditions make it possible to shed a light on the social
compilation of the audience, on the way in which the play was received and on the

64 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 109.

65 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 178.
66 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 160.
67 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 160.
68 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 160.
69 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 85.
70 P. MARSH, loc. cit., pp. 273-274.
71 S. ADDED, op. cit.; S. ADDED, loc.cit.
72 H. R. JAUSS, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft, Konstanz, 19692.

This inaugural speech, originally titled Was as heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Literaturge-
schichte?, was read at the University of Konstanz in 1967.
73 W. ISER, Die Appellstruktur der Texte, Konstanz, 1971; W. ISER, Der implizite Leser: Kommuni-

kationsformen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett, München, 1972.

74 H. R. JAUSS, op. cit., pp. 36-50.
75 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 8.
 JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’S LES MOUCHES (1943). 367

reasons, which explain specific receptions76. Added emphasizes the efficiency of such
sociological reception analysis77, since reviews of critics – who are also part of the
audience – can be considered as interpretative mouthpieces of the (first reaction of
the) silent mass.
According to Galster78, the audience which attended the premiere of Les
Mouches was consisted of heterogeneous groups of people: next to the vast majority
of a regular theatre audience, there were young intellectuals and students, who were
interested in Sartre’s early philosophy or in Dullin’s theatre practice, and German
military men and press critics79. Since it is impossible today to determine the exact
reception of each of these groups, one has to rely on the reaction of a minority, of
which written sources are passed down: the critics. The study of their reception is
fundamentally based on a corpus of 33 reviews of the official80 Parisian press, which
were published in June and July 194381. In addition, the review of the non-official82
paper Les Lettres françaises (clandestines) is also taken into account83. As a result of
her empirical research of these reviews, there can be discerned two general recep-
tions. The bulk of the official press in the capital, on the one hand, judged the play
superficially and estimated the dramatic and aesthetic form negatively. Apparently,
it was mainly the heavy verbal character and the outstanding staging that appeared
to raise peevishness and commotion84. This group almost completely let any philo-
sophical, moral or political interpretation undisturbed85. On the other hand, a second
general reaction can be discerned from young intellectual critics: they seemed to
attribute a philosophical and sometimes original interpretation86, especially by refer-
ring to the general tragic condition of modern man87. Notwithstanding Sartre’s own
opinion concerning the reception of his play88, the majority of the French press in
Paris apparently did interpret Les Mouches neither in a philosophical, nor in any

76 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 20.

77 A marginal note: there is a difference between a reader, who reads the text of a play and
a spectator, who hears and sees the performance, without actually reading the text. Consequently,
this difference undoubtedly influences the nature of the understanding of any possible clandestine
message. I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 8. Moreover, theatre poses a huge problem for the construction of an
interpretation by the receiver, since not only the text, but also the circumstances, in which the perfor-
mance takes place, are important to take into consideration. I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 24; S. ADDED, op. cit.,
p. 254. Vu la nature dynamique du spectacle et le fait qu’aucune représentation n’est tout à fait identique
à l’autre, l’objet de la réception, dans notre cas, n’est donc pas complètement reconstructible. I. GALSTER,
op. cit., p. 7.
78 I. GALSTER, op. cit.
79 M. CONTAT, op. cit., p. 1269; I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 108.
80 That means the German and French pro-German, Vichyian or catholic papers. I. GALSTER,

op. cit., pp. 93-99; P. MARSH, loc. cit., pp. 222-230.

81 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p.15-16; for a summary of the reviews examined by Galster, see I. GALSTER,

op. cit., pp. 110-111.

82 Le Petit Parisien, Je suis Partout, La Gerbe en Comoedia were the most important papers of

this group. For a summary of the official and non-official press in France during the occupation, see
I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 93-100; P. MARSH, loc. cit., pp. 222-230.
83 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 169.
84 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 135-144; P. MARSH, loc. cit., p. 263.
85 Galster mentions two exceptions: the reviews in Le Cri du Peuple and in Les Nouveaux Temps

consider Les Mouches an example of individualism and anarchy. These accounts, however, also do not
specifically refer to the contemporary conditions. I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 120-122.
86 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 179.
87 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 119-120; P. MARSH, loc. cit., p. 264.
88 M. CONTAT, op. cit., p. 78.
368 ZOË GHYSELINCK

political way89. The French collaborating press would certainly have reacted if it had
thought to have discovered some sort of controversial content90, for there was no
reason at all not to proclaim attacks on Pétain. “Les attaques contre Vichy étaient
monnaie courante.”91 As becomes clear, not only the censorship had to pay the bill
of the complexity of the philosophical ideas. From an unexpected corner, however, a
very convincing reading of the play appeared: in his contribution on the 9th of June
1943 – which was published in the extreme right-winged paper Pariser Zeitung92 –
the German Albert Buesche, an expert on philosophy, interprets the philosophical
notions of freedom as actual claims for resistance under the contemporary condi-
tions and seemingly associates the task of the citizens of Argos to take up their free-
dom with the task of the contemporary audience93.
From this follows that a high level of education, especially a philosophical one,
could have been a great advantage to understand and interpret the play, even though
the problematic staging must have obstructed the process of meaning-giving even
more94. Besides, the specific nature of the reception of a play also depends on the
difference between watching a performance and reading its text95. One can assume
that the majority of the audience had not read the text of the play and that it had no
primary knowledge of the principles of philosophy. Also the critics, whose reviews
have been regarded as being representative for the majority of the silent mass, indeed
could not profit in general from these advantages96. Nevertheless, one has to be very
cautious with such conclusions, since subjective testimonies cannot without any
restriction be considered reliable sources97.
From this short and – due to the lack of sources – incomplete overview of the
reception of the audience of Les Mouches follows that probably a very small part of
the public has interpreted the philosophical subject as an appel à la liberté. Following
Added’s conditions, therefore, Sartre’s Les Mouches – strictly speaking – should not be
regarded as a pièce de résistance. Since only a few exceptions in the audience attrib-
uted some sort of political or general interpretation to the play, Les Mouches actually
cannot live up to the expectations of Added’s second condition, that the audience has
to grasp and understand possible allusions. Nevertheless, I would like to modify this
conclusion, since the discussion has disclosed some painful subjects in Added’s argu-

89 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 117; 177.

90 Supporters of the Vichyregime were not necessarily fascists. Rather, they were right-winged
patriots and anti-republicans. Instead of the pro-German French and fascists, who supported the
perspective of a New Europe under the domination of Germany, the Vichy-supporters were more eager
for an authentic future Etat Français.
91 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 94; S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 259.
92 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 123-127; H. LEVY, op. cit., p. 370.
93 An explanation for this possibly could be Buesche’s professionalism, of which there was a

great lack at the time. The intellectual Thierry Maulnier, a supporter of the Vichyregime, deplored
the incompetence of the French critics. “La critique dramatique parisienne, plus médiocre […] s’est
montrée radicalement incapable de comprendre le sens littéral, pourtant évident et provocant.[…] les
critiques […] se sont montrés […] incapables de s’apercevoir que cette violente apologie de la révolte
contre l’ordre divin et humain dirigeait son tranchant contre beaucoup de choses qu’ils prétendent
défendre.” I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 154-155. Maulnier regrets the presence of incompetent journalists
and intellectuals, who occupied the positions of colleagues in several cultural organs, who had fled or
who had been deported. Collaborating with the German occupier, they were eager for working their
way up. In this way, they neglected, according to Maulnier, the greatness of their country, France. I.
GALSTER, op. cit., p. 127.
94 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 260.
95 I. GALSTER, op. cit., pp. 164-168.
96 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 181.
97 I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 180.
 JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’S LES MOUCHES (1943). 369

ment. I first would like to mention the idea of authorial intention98. There has been
attempted to touch on Sartre’s own subjective testimonies concerning his intention
in Les Mouches, without making them as the real and only truth of the text. A truth
which in a way has to be deciphered by the audience. Added’s claim, however, is very
narrow in this respect: there has to be a certain message, which the audience has to
grasp and that is final.
Secondly, Added apparently neglects to describe precisely which percentage of
the public then has to understand the right meaning before a play can be regarded
as une pièce de résistance. Consequently, the second condition is unsettled, in my
opinion, since there is no criterion according to which this condition can meets its
needs. Added, however, does admit that not all spectators can understand the whole
message99. With this opinion, however, Added not only undermines his own thesis,
but he still supposes that there exists one (concealed) message in a text. In spite of
the wide range of interpretations – mostly differing from what Sartre himself had
expected or aimed at – Les Mouches did cause a lot of commotion, which can be at
least seen as some sort of contribution to resistance, since it attacks the main perspec-
tive of the occupier in keeping the peace100. From this follows that I consider Added’s
conditions inadequate to approach this play in its specific circumstances. Moreover,
the connotation pièce de résistance is after all likewise an interpretation, restricting
the complexity involved in the creation, performance and reception of Les Mouches.
Concerning these stages in the process of the existence of the play, it seemed more
interesting to consider which motives, aspects and interpretations could have con-
ducted or obstructed the image of resistance hero that Sartre obtained after the war.
From the previous discussion, it has become clear that during the war Sartre
did search for a medium in which he could express the basic moral commitment
required by his philosophical thinking. In theatre, especially in tragedy exposing
mythical problems of mankind, Sartre found a way in which he could transfer his
existentialist ideas to a broader public. Against the specific social and political back-
ground, against which Les Mouches was performed, the appeal to safeguard man’s
freedom against external domination can be interpreted as a reference to the con-
temporary circumstances. The question whether using a myth appeared to be a cover
to avoid censorship or not seems hard to answer. Likewise, it was probably also due
to the complex philosophical scope that the play encountered much opposition on
the side of the audience. Though the sociological study of the public’s reception has
indicated that the majority did not attribute a high content of resistance to the play,
one cannot say that Les Mouches was unproblematic and smoothly conformist. The
play has indeed caused a lot of commotion on the side of the audience and probably
evoked controversy in the camp of the censorship as well.
When one disregards the specific question whether this play called or did not
call for resistance, it does seem very likely that after the war Sartre – when the coast
was clear indeed – could openly broadcast the committed character of his philosophy,
which he propagated in Les Mouches. From a retrospective position, the public opinion
could also have had less problems in proclaiming him a resistance hero, since fear of
possible reprisals had by then disappeared. Moreover, the text of the play, that was
edited in 1943, was already during the occupation accessible to an exclusive public of
readers, who – as has been demonstrated by Galster101 – afterwards showed to have

98 R. BARTHES, “La mort de l’auteur”, in Ibid., Oeuvres complètes, tome 3, Paris, 2002, pp. 40-45.
99 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 256.
100 S. ADDED, op. cit., p. 109; 261; I. GALSTER, op. cit., p. 192.
101 It concerns philosophically trained intellectuals, who had not seen the play. I. GALSTER,

op. cit., pp. 164-168.

370 ZOË GHYSELINCK

interpret it as resistant without having attended the performance. Finally, one also
has to take into account that the French population, after a suchlike common expe-
rience of war through which the perception of itself as a nation required a certain
reinforcement, was in need to boost its morale, by shaping a certain image of the
past years, in which national heroes played their parts102. Howsoever, both percep-
tions stay interpretations post factum, but since also the actual image of Sartre as a
resistance hero raised only after the occupation, I am convinced that it is necessary to
reconsider the share Les Mouches afterwards could have had in this image-building.

ABSTRACT: During the last decades, reception studies of classical antiquity have been high-
lighting how formal and substantive aspects of classical antiquity live on in modern and (extra-)
European cultures. However, the reception of classical myth and tragedy in the French theatre
at the beginning of the 20th century has not yet been subjected to a profound investigation.
In 1943, during the German occupation of Paris (1940-1944), the French philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre adapted the classical theme of the revenge of Orestes in his play Les Mouches. Although
the play was being performed during the occupation, and though it was not being received as
such at the time, Sartre declared after the war that he was making an appeal for resistance in
this play. Because Sartre acquired the image of a resistance hero shortly after 1944, this article
aims to elucidate the circumstances in which Les Mouches could have played a role in this image
building of its author as a war hero.

KEY WORDS: reception, theatre, resistance.

102 R. SULEIMAN, loc.cit., pp. 215-223.