Truth, theatre and reality in Pirandello’s “Sei personaggi in cerca d'autore”

by Olga Lenczewska

In my last article about Pirandello’s “Enrico IV”, I analysed the notions of sanity and madness and illustrated Pirandello’s concept of truth by the vagueness of the distinction between sanity and madness in his “Enrico IV”. This time I will illustrate the concept of truth by the opposition between theatre and reality, which is the main theme of his “Sei personaggi in cerca d’autore”. It is worth reminding the readers what I have already written in my last article, namely, that the theatre conveys always its own version of truth – the one that is true within the newly-created world, and presented as such on stage. In Pirandello's works, the notions of truth and illusion within any play not only constantly intertwine, but intertwine to such an extent that the notion of truth gets lost in the way, and one does not know any more what is an illusion and what is not. 

The opposition between theatre and reality in the light of the notion of truth, that is, the distinction between being a stage character and being a real person, is particularly important for “Sei i personaggi in cerca d'autore”, as this play involves an important meta-theatrical discussion. In “Sei personaggi in cerca d'autore” we are immediately presented with two completely different groups of people: one being the actors and their director, all rehearsing for Pirandello's new play, the second being an odd troupe that interrupts the rehearsal. From the very beginning the “personaggi” appear to contain a paradoxical element in their very essence, as they are presented as being no less real than the actors, but at the same time they are called, look like, and define themselves as characters from a certain play. 

Through introducing them to the “normal” world (in the play represented by the theatre's workers) Pirandello clashes two worlds: the real one and the world of imagination, implying that both are equally authentic and legitimate. What is more, the characters claim to exist outside of their author's head, that is, as beings whose existence does not need to depend on another finite mind: “IL PADRE: (…) la natura si serve da strumento della fantasia umana per proseguire, piú alta, la sua opera di creazione”. The philosopher Roman Ingarden would call their way of living “intentional beings”, because, despite being a work of art, their existence acquired an independent ontological status.

As for the truth of nature and appearance of the six characters, one can argue that because of their masks that impose on them a fixed expression throughout the whole play they do not seem very authentic. But, in my opinion, this is not the case – in fact, the masks intensify the characters' emotions and states of mind, marking what is the most distinct human element. The characters, furthermore, turn out to have an extremely complex set of feeling and relations with one another, thus proving themselves to be more and more real as we read the play. Therefore an important distinction needs to be made: the characters may appear as less real because of their nature, but nevertheless they seem to be more authentic and true than the “normal” people on stage; this view is supported in the play by the Father's words: “a essersi vivi, piú vivi di quelli che respirano e vestono panni! Meno reali, forse; ma piú veri!”. It can be said that, for Pirandello, being “more alive” depends on one's internal complexity, not on the external appearance. Furthermore, he makes a distinction within the very concept of truth between “reale” and “vero”, therefore truth cannot be simply defined as information that conforms to reality but carries its own inner truth. 

The notion of truth in Pirandello's plays is presented as relative. What is and what is not “true” or “real” depends on the readers’ or audience’s viewpoint. Reality gains new conditions: it is authentic actions and feelings of the “personaggi” that make them real, and this beats their fictional character. Perhaps for Pirandello what is “vero” (authentic, true) had more significance than a mere formal status of being “reale” (real).

Contact us! info@istitutoeuropeo.it - www.istitutoeuropeo.it

Like us! Facebook Istituto Europeo

Truth, sanity and madness in Pirandello’s “Enrico IV”

Luigi Pirandello

by Olga Lenczewska

“Truth” is a piece of information with conforms to reality as it is. It is meant to be objective and commonly shared by a large group of people. The opposite of truth is fiction, therefore also any form of art that alters reality, or even goes as far as to create new characters and events, could be called the opposite of truth. Yet, since any author is a creator of a new world that functions within his works, theatre itself conveys always its own version of truth – the one that is true within the newly-created world, and presented as such on stage. In order to follow and understand the spectacle, we must engage in this game. In theatre, therefore, illusion often becomes truth. In Pirandello's works, however, the game goes much farther – the notions of truth and illusion within any play not only constantly intertwine, but intertwine to such an extent that the notion of truth gets lost in the way, and one does not know any more what is an illusion and what is not. The concept of truth in Pirandello’s plays can be illustrated by the vagueness of the distinction between sanity and madness in his “Enrico IV”. 

“Enrico IV” presents a story of a talented actor and historian falls off his horse while playing the role of Henry IV in a historical pageant. After he comes to, he believes himself to be Henry. For the next twenty years, his wealthy nephew, Count de Nolli, funds an elaborate hoax in a remote villa, hiring actors to play the roles of Henry's privy councillors in order to simulate the 11th-century court. In the play the notions of sanity and madness are defined within its frame and laws: we are confronted with a comparison between a theatrical world that resembles ours and anther one with in that does not resemble ours. The first one is represented by all of the “persone” except of Enrico; the latter by Enrico and the theatre-in-theatre, created by others who are aware of the game. Therefore the distinction between madness and sanity seems initially to be marked by the awareness of the game (everyone but Enrico) or by lack thereof (Enrico). 

A scene from Enrico IV

During the first two acts the reader may establish truth as that what the others say, and insanity as Enrico's behaviour. The situation, however, complicates itself to an unbearable extent in the last act when the reader and the other characters find out that Enrico has been aware for eight years that he is not really the German Emperor, and that the has been playing the game with the others, or he has been imposing the rules of his game upon the others who were completely unaware of it. Who appears to be mad at this point? Funnily enough, we are still inclined to say: Enrico, despite the fact that now we know it was him who was aware and the others that were not. But somehow the criterion of madness changes, and Enrico seems to have been mad by letting the game continue and acting as an insane person. Was this a mad decision? We are inclined to say it was, but nevertheless the definition of insanity is being substantially altered. Finally, it is altered once more at the very end of the play when Enrico, having unveiled the truth about himself to everyone's bewilderment, has a change to appear as sane, and in fact is considered as such by some characters, for example Belcredi: “BELCREDI: (…) Tu non sei pazzo!”. Enrico, however, immediately denies this, shouting “Non sono pazzo? Eccoti!”, and kills Belcredi. This decision seems to have been made by him in order to prove a point, but we get a feeling that a sane person would never kill somebody just to prove a point. 

Is Enrico really mad for doing so? And, is he still mad, or is he mad again but in a different way now? Clearly the definition of madness as well as the demarcation line between sanity and insanity become extremely vague at this point, and much is left to the reader's interpretation and speculation. But that is precisely what Pirandello wants: to leave the search for the truth to the readers; this is the final part of the game. In my opinion, at the end of the play Enrico himself doubts whether he is mad or not, but his decision to kill Belcredi has consequences, and he has to act as mad again (“Ora sí... per forza... qua insieme, qua insieme... e per sempre!”), which is inevitable in the light of his previous decision. The notion of truth seems relative and its objectivity hidden to us (as well as some characters). 

The notion of truth in Pirandello's plays is presented as relative. “Enrico IV” introduces so many dimensions that it is virtually impossible to answer, on the objective grounds, the question which of the characters are sane and which are mad. The truth, therefore, becomes a strongly relative concept, or, to put it differently, the objective truth is hidden from the audience (and some characters as well), and what remains visible are just certain viewpoints or perspectives of the theatrical reality. Which scenario is the true one or which characters are real and sane is never explicitly sad, and thus the truth is always hidden from the reader. Moreover, it can be questioned whether a fixed truth even exists in the plays – where would it be? I see no space within which it could exist – it cannot be found in the texts, implicitly or explicitly, and there are many plausible interpretations of what has really happened to the characters before the play. But pondering it might turn out to be useless, as the characters did not exist before the play and, after all, they are mere creations of the author.

Contact us! info@istitutoeuropeo.it - www.istitutoeuropeo.it

Like us! Facebook Istituto Europeo