https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8580-0873
Abstract
The present paper falls within the field of ecocriticism, which problematizes literary and artistic activity from the point of view of the relationship between the human being (human nature) and nature (non-human), as expressed by and in works of art, including the theatre. Indeed, the theatre does not recreate nature, but nature constantly recreates the human being, whose sensitivity is affected by the drama and its effects. The risk of conceiving the world under the influence of ecology and of thinking about the environment differently is major. But what can we say when we talk about the theatre of the absurd? As a complex genre, structure, and style, is it capable of translating the complexity of nature? Is it possible to write or represent nature without at the same time inscribing the human domination over it? In what way is nature inscribed in the aesthetic forms of the theatrical work Rhinoceros? In Eugene Ionesco’s play, nature is denaturalized. The invasion of the beasts triggers a contagious and incurable rhinoceritis. The purpose of my paper is to re-read Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros from an ecological point of view and to demonstrate that the perception of nature in the theatre of the absurd can only be achieved by working on the perception of its aesthetic forms.
Reviewing Editor:
Introduction
The love of nature has always been a feeling that never leaves writers from the Romantic period until today. Moreover, if wondering about the environment seems to be an old maneuver in literature, rethinking the insertion of nature in literature is a recent discipline. Lawrence Buell, in his book The Environmental Imagination (Buell, Citation1996, p. 600), looks for elements in texts that could help identify a more harmonious relationship with the environment. Writers question the world through the relationship between human beings and (non-human) nature because most of the time this relationship is unexpected and sometimes even strained.
The ecological approach in literary texts in general and theatre in particular, does not aim at imitating non-human nature, but at changing the way, it is represented. In other words, it provides a means of defining not only the nature of the represented natural world but also the aesthetic form in which it is portrayed.
The ecological value of a literary text is therefore not only a question of theme or a question of generic choice but above all a question of writing, i.e. of aesthetics and imagination, which are the criteria of artistic activity. The question then is how does aesthetic form allow the reader to identify the principles that shape nature?
To address this question, we must explore how literature depicted the altered state of nature or the process of nature’s denaturalization at the dawn of the 20th century. This period witnessed the emergence of new aesthetic paradigms amid a backdrop of severe socio-political turmoil, including wars, poverty, and epidemics, among others.
Next, we will offer a concise overview of ecology as a discipline that seeks remedies for the degradation of nature due to human activities. Our goal is dual: firstly, to situate our research within the wider discourse on the interplay between human and non-human nature, particularly focusing on the interaction between humans and rhinoceroses; and secondly, to delve into the environmental implications stemming from discussions on the human-non-human nature relationship.
Following this, we will delve into the relationship between ecology and theatrical aesthetics in Eugene Ionesco’s ‘Rhinoceros’. This exploration will utilize an aesthetic-ecological lens to analyze specific segments of the play. This perspective does not consider metamorphosis merely as a plot development tool but as dramaturgical content, that reshapes the environmental imagination. Investigating this relationship opens new avenues for understanding both the natural world and the dramatic piece, shedding light on our research objectives.
The aesthetics of nature challenged by denaturalisation
After Emmanuel Kant, the perception of natural beauty became predominantly framed about artistic beauty, effectively vanishing by the end of the Romantic era. This vanishing, however, was only temporary, as a significant revival first took root in the United States. To grasp contemporary discussions on this topic, it is essential to revisit the insights of earlier philosophers, particularly Kant. In his ‘Critique of the Power of Judgment’ (Kant, 1790/2000), Kant delineates the distinction between natural and artistic beauty through the concept of ‘purposiveness without purpose’. He argues that natural beauty meets this criterion effortlessly, as it exists independently of human intention, enabling an impartial judgment. Artistic beauty, conversely, is complicated by human intent, which obstructs the formation of an untainted aesthetic judgment. Kant further explores this idea by positing that for artistic beauty to attain its fullest aesthetic expression, it must emulate nature in such a way that it does not seem to be an imitation. This necessitates that the imitation must be executed to perfection, and the art must convince the observer of its naturalness, despite being a representation.
Catherine Naugrette, drawing on the Hegelian Idea, elucidates that beauty can only be established through the imagination, which is inherently linked to the Idea and, thereby, to Truth. This Idea does not manifest in the tangible world but exists as an abstract notion accessible only through thought. The Aesthetic Idea manifests the imagination’s freedom, where art is obliged to mirror nature while maintaining consciousness of its status as an artistic depiction (Naugrette, Citation2010, p. 29).
However, nature is not always, as it should be harmonious and balanced. And even when it is, the aesthetics of a work of art lie in the beautiful representation of the object, be it beautiful and harmonious in nature, or ugly and disproportionate. Furthermore, the harmony of the world is not always apparent; sometimes it lurks behind a pile of filth. Beauty, in this sense, likes to withdraw.
In the given context, a pivotal question emerges: Should art persist in its mimicry of nature, even after nature’s alteration through human intervention? Denaturalization refers to any human action that disrupts the natural order, effectively altering or stripping something of its innate characteristics, as defined by the CNRTL (CNRTL, s.d.). This concept prompts an exploration into how literature depicts the transformation or the altered state of nature.
Human endeavors to harness nature have led to significant ecological imbalances, underscoring the profound interdependence between humans and the natural world. The consequences of such ecological disturbances reveal that humanity is not merely a bystander but a participant, inexorably bound to the ecosystem’s destiny. Nature is not an external entity but one with which we share a deep and intrinsic connection. This realization prompts a reevaluation of our relationship with nature, challenging the traditional artistic endeavor to replicate nature’s beauty. Instead, it invites a reflection on the representation of nature’s altered state, urging a dialogue on the implications of humanity’s impact on the environment and its portrayal in art and literature.
Aesthetics is no longer about beauty
The dawn of the 19th century marked the rise of a new aesthetic paradigm. The focus shifted from an appreciation of harmony and order in objects to a fascination with the horrifying, painful, terrifying, and absurd. Beauty ceased to be the ultimate ideal and instead became a concept to be viewed with skepticism. This change was due to the ideological burden it carried, inherited from a tradition that equated beauty with goodness. Beauty’s connection to universal morality was severed, aligning it instead with a world scarred by war and its consequent calamities: epidemics, pollution, and social and climatic disruptions. Abbé Jean-Baptiste was one of those who realized this:
What is certain is that the premises of a new aesthetic paradigm emerged at the turn of the 19th century. The subject is no longer drawn to the harmony and order of objects but to the appalling, the painful, the terrible, and the absurd. Beauty is no longer the sought-after ideal but becomes an object that needs to be treated with suspicion, due to the ideological charge that has been transferred to it, from a tradition that associates beauty with the good. Beauty is no longer linked to a universal morality, but rather to an environment affected by war and all that follows: epidemics, pollution, social and climatic imbalance.
Abbé Jean-Baptiste was one of those who realized this:
Every day, we experience that verses and paintings cause a sensitive pleasure; but it is no less difficult to explain what this pleasure consists of, which often resembles affliction, and whose symptoms are sometimes the same as those of the most intense pain. Art and poetry are never more applauded than when they have succeeded in afflicting us. (Dubos, 1719/1970, p. 7)
We remember that, to specify how to approach the concept of ‘the ugly’, Rosenkranz thinks that ‘Without the beautiful, there would be no ugly, for the ugly exists only as the negation of the beautiful’ (Rosenkranz, 1853/2004, p. 44). It can therefore only be judged in this way if the conditions indispensable to the creation of a beautiful. Work is absent, in particular the conformity between the model and the representation (Rosenkranz, 1853/2004, p. 127). From this, we understand that ugliness can never ‘be an end in itself’ (Rosenkranz, 1853/2004, p. 272) It can only be assessed against the yardstick of beauty.
What leads the viewer to say that a work of art is beautiful, is the effect that its representation produces on him. Aesthetics is the beautiful representation we create of an object. It neither comes from concepts nor does it give birth to them: ‘The beautiful is that which is represented without concept as an object of universal satisfaction’. (Kant, 1790/2000, p. 55) In other words, a work of art is a representation of an object, not necessarily a representation of a beautiful object in nature. This implies that the aesthetic of the ugly pertains to a beautiful representation of the ugly, which is all that is vulgar, scandalous, disgusting, painful, dangerous, etc. Conversely, the un-aesthetic would refer to an ugly representation of the ugly.
Nature’s reflections: ecology in literature
Humanity, despite being the primary contributor to the degradation of nature, is also continuously seeking solutions. This intricate relationship between humans and the environment, or more broadly, between human and non-human nature, is the essence of ecology.
Ecology, as a prominent scientific field, emerged nearly half a century ago, with Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, coining the term in 1866. He defined it as the study of the relationships between organisms and their surroundings, encompassing all aspects of existence. (Dictionary, Citation1997, pp. 519–520) This was a significant departure from the earlier, more fragmented approaches to understanding nature and its conservation. Noteworthy precursors like George Perkins Marsh (Marsh, 1864/2003), recognized as the first American ecologist in 1864, and John Muir, who founded the Sierra Club in 1892Footnote1, laid foundational work in this domain (Sierra Club Maryland Chapter, Citation1892). However, the first formal treatise on ecology was published by Eugen Warming in 1909, focusing on plant distribution and the factors influencing it (Warming, 1909/2010). This marked the beginning of a more structured exploration of ecological themes, leading to the proliferation of research, the establishment of congresses, the rise of ecological movements, and the enactment of significant legislation like the Wilderness Act of 1964.
This burgeoning concern for the environment allowed for a reevaluation of the aesthetics of nature, which had been somewhat neglected since the days of Kant. Early pioneers, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson (Emerson, 1836/2004) and Henry Thoreau (Thoreau, 1854/1990) of the transcendentalist movement, and John Muir (Muir, 1911) from the preservationist movement, contributed to a reimagined environmental aesthetics. This new framework often contrasts cognitive and non-cognitive approaches—the former advocating for an aesthetic appreciation grounded in the scientific understanding of nature (Carlson, Citation2000), while the latter supports appreciation without necessitating such knowledge. (Budd, Citation2003)
This ecological awakening has permeated all facets of culture, including literature and theater, redefining them as spaces where not only human conflicts are depicted but also the interaction between humans and non-human nature. This shift necessitates a reconsideration of traditional aesthetic canons and calls for new forms that can depict the aspects of denaturalization beautifully.
In the theatre of the absurd, particularly in Eugène Ionesco’s ‘Rhinoceros’, beauty is found alongside the perilous, the catastrophic, and the environmentally threatening, advocating for a unique ecological interpretation.
Before delving into Ionesco’s work through this lens, it’s worth noting other literary and theatrical pieces that address denaturalization within a similar socio-political and historical context. For instance, Franz Kafka’s ‘The Metamorphosis’ (Kafka, Citation1915) explores the human-animal boundary through the transformation of Gregor Samsa into a cockroach, illustrating stark dehumanization. Vercors, with novels like ‘Les Animaux dénaturés’ (Vectors, Citation1952) and ‘Sylva’ (Vercors, Citation1961), delves into the blur between human and animal, portraying complex transitions and the challenges they entail. These works, alongside Ionesco’s ‘Rhinoceros’, share common themes that merit exploration for their contributions to understanding the phenomenon of denaturalization. Indeed, Kafka’s Gregor Samsa and Ionesco’s Bérenger are portrayed as solitary figures, albeit their solitude manifests in divergent forms. Samsa’s isolation is precipitated by his dehumanization, while Bérenger’s solitude emerges from his resistance to a process of animalization. A further analytical intersection between ‘The Metamorphosis’ and ‘Rhinoceros’ is their exploration into the ontological status of creatures such as tropics and rhinoceroses within the domain of humanity. Additionally, the narrative motif of reverse metamorphosis illustrated by the transition of a vixen into a woman opens a discourse on the potential for rhinoceroses te revert to human form after their exposure to a metaphorical ‘humanity virus’, as ostensibly transmitted by Bérenger, the narrative’s remaining human protagonist within the village. This thematic exploration challenges conventional boundaries between human and non-human, suggesting a fluidity and permeability within these categories that merits further scholarly investigation
And nature: what is the connection?
Is man capable of destroying the planet? If so, would he not be eternal? In Rhinoceros, Ionesco raises the question of man’s place about animals. Art can be seen as the result of the human ability to conceptualize and express creativity, emphasizing how ideas become tangible expressions through artistic endeavor.
Ecocriticism is just one of the many ways in which we can address some of our environmental concerns. Lawrence Buell wrote an article Reading for an Endangered World (Lawrence, Citation2003) in which he examines how literature inspires environmental activism and contributes to a better understanding of the natural world. Let’s remember that Hegel’s Aesthetic Idea reveals the free play of the imagination, where art must seemingly conform to nature, while at the same time being aware that it is only a work of art (Hegel, Citation1979). And here, once again, we find ourselves forced to ask how we can access the truth of a work of art through its representation of nature. And as one question begs another, we ask: can works of art change the way we communicate with the environment? In The Ecocriticism Reader, Cheryll Glotfelty defines ecocriticism as follows: ‘What then is ecocriticism? Simply put, ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment’. (Glotfelty & Fromm, Citation1996, p. XVIII) and Nathalie Blanc, Denis Chartier, and Thomas Pughe think that:
The point here is not to present a ‘true’ or ‘pure’ image of nature, an image based on the (illusory) exclusion of human mediation, but on the contrary, to reinvent and complicate the means of representation. The ecological value of a literary text is therefore not just a question of theme or generic choice, but above all a question of writing, i.e. of aesthetics and imagination, which are the very criteria of artistic activity.Footnote2 (Blanc et al., Citation2008)
Eugene Ionesco’s ‘Rhinoceros’ does not deal with the intervention of non-human nature (animals) in human nature, which in the work is an urban environment, the devastation of forests, or the spread of rhinocerotic, but through these themes, he reinvents other ways of perceiving the events.
If we summarise the facts, it all begins on a Sunday morning when a wild beast appears in the village producing a ‘rhinoceros’ that transforms the inhabitants, one by one, into pachyderms. The next day, the newspaper announces the news. The news bursts into the streets and offices. Nevertheless, nobody believes it at first. No one believes Daisy, one of the employees, who witnessed the apparition, nor Berenger, who also saw the horned man and who is laughed at by the whole village. The astonishment is strangely short-lived and the debate immediately focuses on secondary aspects. Did he have one or two horns? From Africa or Asia? The housewife’s cat is conveniently crushed by the rhinoceros. Mme Bœuf, Mr Bœuf’s wife who disappeared at the time of the monster’s appearance, is distraught after being escorted by a rhinoceros. On the other side of the road, she realizes that it is her husband who has turned into the beast. Jean catches the virus and joins the herd. Daisy finds the beasts’ barking beautiful and joins the herd. Berenger, lonely as he was before the disaster, remains so even afterward. He escapes the contagion but fears that he will be the last man on earth.
The eco-critical approach in Ionesco’s work does not see the metamorphosis of characters into animals as mere adventures that contribute to the development of the action but is interested in the way in which the author conceives and his reader receives this metamorphosis to recreate the environmental imagination (Barthélémy, Citation2012)
‘Rhinoceros’: exploring the ecocritical discourse on human-animal relationship in theater of the absurd
As a preamble to any reflection on the relationship between human nature and non-human nature, or human being and animal nature, in the theater, should be remembered that this reflection does not consider the animal as a set, a scenographic element, or even a character but as a founding element of the work.
Jacques Fontanille specifies that:
Hence the title of this study, ‘To become rhinoceros or to become human, that is the question!’, which testifies to the possibility of this reversal of perspective: the multiplication of rhinoceroses then only appears as a background movement, from which would emerge, by contrast, the selection, configuration, and invention of a true ‘human being’. As in any pandemic, there are survivors; in the case of rhinocerosization, the only survivor is Bérenger, and it is always the survivors who construct the meaning of what has happened! (Fontanille, Citation2022)
Ionesco moves a rhinoceros from the forest to the city. From the title, we too can say that it is about writing for a world in danger (Blanc et al., Citation2008). The danger in Rhinoceros, at first, seems to be a rhinoceros. Our knowledge of this animal is mostly limited to this large mammal with one or two horns.
According to World Wide Fund for Nature i.e. WWFFootnote3 ‘Rhinos were once widespread in the savannahs of Africa and the rainforests of Asia. Today, four of the five rhino species are vulnerable or critically endangered. Their horns, now more prized than gold or cocaine, are their curse’. Indeed, man has been a treasure hunter for so long, whether in the world’s highest mountains, in the depths of the oceans, or the darkest caves. However, when a living being finds its treasure in another living being, the stronger one ends up destroying the weaker one. According to the WWF study, what weakens the existence of rhinos is the organ that should normally be the protector, the horns, which are said to have therapeutic benefits. When an animal disappears, its entire ecosystem is threatened. Intensive poaching threatens the life of this ‘Poor animal!’Footnote4 (Ionesco, Citation1959, p. 78)
In the Ionescian work, the discourse around the horns is not random. The characters seem to know their value. ‘Biscornuity’ characterizes some of them; ‘Unicornuity’ characterizes the others. The older man in the village knows who to ask: ‘Let’s see… What kind of rhinoceros has only one horn on its nose? (To the grocer.) You, who are a shopkeeper, should know!’ (p. 104). The traffic with horns in the village is not unusual.
In ‘Rhinoceros’, however, Ionesco turns the facts of nature on their head, especially the phenomenon of rhino poaching. These animals multiply dramatically, contaminate humans, and rhinocerosize them. Human life is in danger, especially as man strips himself of his human qualities in the interest of a contagious animality. ‘Nature has its laws’ (p. 104) as Jean says just before he becomes a rhinoceros. The law of the jungle states that the strongest survive! ‘Morality is unnatural’ Jean continues. And, just before becoming an animal, he questions what Berenger calls ‘a philosophy that these animals do not have, a replaceable system’ (p. 105), and calls for the total demolition of all this for a better life: ‘Jean ([…]): Let’s demolish it all, we’ll be better off’ Once the inhabitants of the village/animals, Jean, Mr and Mme Bœuf and the others, find themselves in the shoes of the rhinoceros, the order of nature is re-established, because humanism is harmful. ‘Humanism is out of date’ (p. 106). And if only one man remains, the expiration promises the appearance of a contagious disease of which man will be the carrier, like rhinoceros. It is not for nothing that Ionesco chooses to make Berenger resistant to the disease. This time the danger no longer comes from the animal but from the man, from Berenger. A pandemic alternation is taking place, sometimes the animal is the cause, and sometimes, man is the cause. Moreover, accepting as a man to be an animal, or as an animal to be a man, is to accept to be in a new environment, to be threatened and threatening, but it is also an attempt to re-establish the ecological order theatrically.
The urbanisation of nature or the wildernessification of the urban: divinisation or ridicule of nature?
As a special character, the animal is considered an aesthetic form in the theatre, but also and above all as a deity in its own right. An animal that symbolizes them accompanies all the Olympian Gods: Zeus/Jupiter, the eagle; Aphrodite/Venus, the dove; Poseidon/Neptune, the horse/bull; Hera, the peacock; Hermes/Mercury, the ram/turtle. This human being/animal neighborhood pushes man to sacralize the animal to venerate its animal instincts.
The first barking of the monster is followed by the evocation of Augustus by Bérenger and Jean:
Berenger: We celebrated the birthday of Augustus, our friend Augustus…
Jean: Our friend Augustus? I was not invited to our friend Augustus’ birthday party…
(At this moment, we hear the sound of a wild animal’s breath and its precipitous run, as well as a long barking sound, which is very far away but coming closer very quickly) (p. 15).
Usually, reverence follows amazement. The long barking did not interfere with Jean and Bérenger’s discussion of Augustus’ birthday, to which Berenger was invited but Jean was not and caused no surprise at first. Not believing they hear the immense noise of the monster, their conversation turns to shouting, but still ongoing until ‘we hear his panting’, Jean and the waitress wonder, ‘But what is this?’ As Berenger continues his story of the invitation to Augustus’s birthday party.
The surprising thing is that the animal’s cry is only perceived at a late stage. Does not perceiving such a loud cry mean that it is either habitual or unimaginable? Or both?
The unimaginable, once concrete, becomes habitual. The ‘Oh! A rhinoceros’ repeated all by Jean, the waitress and the grocer, the ‘Ah! Oh!’ of the housewife, the ‘What’s going on?’ of the boss, and the (Oh my!) of everyone except Berenger (p. 19).
The fact that what is happening in the village is unusual, something that does not belong to human nature. On the other hand, the intrusion of the unimaginable into reality is brutal. The entry of a Rhinoceros into a usual space is the penetration of the forest into an urban environment, especially as the animal is ferocious and its entry is spectacular.
The dusty entrance of the Rhinoceros is so majestic that it arouses in Daisy an astonishment that persists even after she has discovered that the life of these animals equals the disappearance of the human species.
Daisy: ‘[…] (Sounds of rhinos becoming melodious.) They sing, do you hear?’
Berenger: They don’t sing, they bark.
Daisy: They are singing.
Bérenger: They are barking, I tell you.
Daisy: You are crazy, they are singing!
Bérenger: You don’t have a musical ear, then!
Daisy: You don’t know anything about music, my poor friend, look, they are playing, they are dancing.
Bérenger: You call that dancing?
Daisy: That’s their way. They are beautiful.
Bérenger: They are vile!
Daisy: I don’t want anyone to say bad things about them. It makes me sad.
Berenger: Excuse me. We’re not going to quarrel because of them.
Daisy: They are gods (p. 158).
Daisy, by divinizing these rhinoceroses that she finds beautiful, that sing, dance, and play in their way, identifies herself through the animal. She is ready for metamorphosis, dehumanization, and therefore animalisation. Fontanelle raises the idea that in the musicality and rhythm of the rhinoceros’ natural and unintentional noise lies another form of life.
Rhinoceroses produce a musical and choreographic text to be deciphered, and those who can decipher it recognize, through their aesthetic emotion, their profound rhinocerosity. In short, a proposition of intentionality (there is meaning in these noises and movements), is destined to be recognized as natural. To pass off unintentional noises as intentional sounds is to absolve them of all indebtedness to chance and contingency, and to present them as the expression of another form of life. (Fontanille, Citation2022)
The dialogue that took place between Daisy and Berenger, could be used to illustrate the linguistic echo to the natural rhythms that Bate talks about, both the rhythm of the lines and their score. (Bate, Citation2011) The didascaly humanizes rhinos, their noises have become melodious. Moreover, all the dialogue that follows contains a musical charge, both lexical and rhythmic. Four times the verb to sing is repeated, three times to dance, twice to music, and twice to below. This fusion with non-human nature does not only incite the question of who reinvents what, nature reinvents writing or the opposite, but it attests that the encounter between man and animal, human nature and non-human nature in the environmental imagination invents a third nature, and thus a new aesthetic form.
In the excerpt quoted, this aesthetic form consists of the rhinoceros barking, dancing, and playing. This suggests a portrayal of human interaction with the natural environment as a whole, rather than focusing solely on the relationship between humans and individual animals inhabiting it. This is not a metaphor or personification of the animal or the bestialisation of the human being, but a representation that associates the Aura with writing.
Writing that embodies both human and animal perspectives, acting as a bridge between the two, allows the animal aspect to contribute to the narrative. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari articulate this concept by highlighting the introspective journey of human self-discovery through the metaphor of becoming. They assert that the transformation of a human into their animalistic essence is genuine, even though the specific animal they morph into may not be. This ‘becoming-animal’ is not just a literary device but an invocation of the primal, instinctual part within humans, engaging in the creative act of writing. (Deleuze & Guattari, Citation1980, p. 291) This process underscores a profound exploration of identity, blurring the lines between the human self and the animalistic traits that dwell within, thereby enriching the narrative with a multi-faceted viewpoint.
The Ionescian scene: the animals leave the forest for the circus
In his ‘Notes et contre-notes’, Ionesco specifies:
One of the great theatrical challenges of this play is to find, on the stage, a particular concretization for these rhinoceroses. To do this, I am interested in group and mass rhythms: gumboots, tapboots, body-clapping, body rhythms, etc. These group movements and sounds are the basis of the play. This opposition between nature and culture is constant in the piece. The animal violence proposed by the rhinoceroses reminds us of today’s fanaticism around the world… (Ionesco, Notes et contre notes, 1991).
There is another vision in Ionesco’s work, that of the opposition between nature and culture and the aesthetic form in which this opposition manifests itself in creation. Of course, the increasing number of contaminants makes it difficult to put this into practice on stage. The stage is in turmoil and pushes the question of how it can contain a large number of animals.
To underline the proliferation of beasts, Ionesco proposes a rhythmic game through dance genres whose body percussion produces rhythmic melodies.
The form of the discourse is created from the rhythm of which Ionesco speaks. It is as if even the didascalia were chirping to the rhythm of the rhinoceros. The didascalia: (From the right and the left, in the house, one hears hurried footsteps, the noisy breathing of wild animals. All these frightening noises are, however, rhythmic, musicalized) (Ionesco, Citation1959, p. 159), indicates that these footsteps, which come from the right and the left, must synchronise with the frightening noises, which are, however, rhythmic and musicalized. The didascalia takes into account that the animal in the work is a character who sings dances, plays, and barks. He was a human being before he contracted rhinoceritis and turned into an animal, and he will remain that way. A part of his humanity will accompany him until the day when the metamorphosis is reversed, from animal to man. The human being is never completely human, and the animal is never anything but animal.
Before the epidemic in Eugene Ionesco’s play, Mr. Papillon (Mr. Butterfly) and Mr. and Mrs. Bœuf (Mr. and Mrs. Ox) were not just teetering on the edge of animalism due to their names. Instead, Ionesco intended for them to be inherently animalistic from birth. The metamorphosis is therefore nothing more than a return to the origin, to nature. This justifies Madame Bœuf reaction, when she realizes that ‘the Rhinoceros (who) barks abominably’ (Ionesco, Citation1959, p. 78), below, is her husband after catching the disease: ‘Mme Boeuf: I recognize him, I recognize him’. The rhinoceros responds with a violent but tender barking. (Ionesco, Citation1959, p. 80). The wife recognizes her husband as an animal and identifies with him. This also applies to the husband, the rhinoceros. The tender barking of the animal after hearing Mme Bœuf confirms this. The relationship between the two natures ceases to be one of dominance/domination but becomes one of intimacy. An affectionate exchange takes place between the two species: ‘Mrs. Bœuf, coming back to her: My poor darling, I can’t leave him like this, my poor darling. We hear barking. He is calling me. Tenderly: He is calling me’. (Ionesco, Citation1959, p. 81).
Nature calls on man to return. And as can we see, Ionesco questions the authenticity of man and nature and deals with this ontological relativity through the relationship between them. His way of exhibiting the complete non-humanity of Human beings and non-animalism raises more questions than answers. However, what is certain is that humans can only achieve their humanity by having contact with nature. Humans can regain a sense of their humanity by reconnecting with nature. This can be seen as a critique of the dehumanizing effects of modern society, where technology and bureaucracy can lead to a loss of individuality and authenticity.
Conclusion
This paper, which we have entitled: ‘Re-reading Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros through an ecological lens: Exploring the aesthetic forms of nature in the Theatre of the Absurd’. demonstrates how the eco-critical approach in literature and theatre aims to change the representation of nature by focusing on the aesthetic form of a literary work. By analyzing Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros, the paper shows how the play reinvents ways of perceiving events by portraying the metamorphosis of characters into animals. The eco-critical approach in the play is explored to reveal how the author and reader conceive this transformation and recreate the environmental imagination.
Commencing from the premise that nature’s aesthetic is not invariably characterized by beauty, harmony, and balance as traionnaly perceived and recognizing the capacity of human interventions such as pollution, epidemics or warfare, to disrupt this equilibrium, we articulated the following research query: In what manner does literature articulate the concept of nature’s denaturalization, or alternatively, the portrayal of denatured nature? The philosophical discourses of Kant, Hegel and Rosenkranz offer profound insights into this investigation. They propose that the aesthetic of the ugly encapsulates the endeavour to render ugliness with a semblance of beauty, incorporating elements that are vulgar, scandalous, repugnant, sorrowful, perilous and so forth. Conversely, the concept of the anaesthetic is delineated as a portrayal of ugliness devoid of aesthetic merit. This dichotomy prompts a nuanced examination of how literature navigates the representation of nature’s alteration and degradation, challenging conventional aesthetic paradigms.
In this context, we found it necessary to explore ecology as a scientific field focused on devising solutions for nature affected by human activities, before examining the interplay between human and non-human nature in literature. This ecological paradigm shift has influenced various domains, including literature and, more specifically, theater.
The reinterpretation of Ionesco’s work, our analysis’s focus, through an ecological lens has enabled us to underscore the intricate relationship between human and non-human nature in theater. It argues that animals should not be viewed merely as props or characters but as essential components that shape our understanding of nature and unveil the deeper truths within dramatic works. The transformation of humans into rhinoceroses and vice versa symbolizes the acknowledgment of one’s animalistic nature, whether embracing the human in the animal or the animal in the human. This metaphor serves not only as a commentary on identity and adaptation to new or threatening environments but also as an artistic endeavor to restore ecological balance on stage.
Further, ‘Rhinoceros’ probes how human perceptions of animals evolve from wonder to veneration or repulsion, highlighting humanity’s capacity to mold nature to fulfill its desires. The text ultimately posits that the relationship between humans and animals is complex and layered, with societal and individual perspectives on them varying greatly.
Ionesco’s Notes et contre-Notes highlight the challenge of finding a suitable representation of the rhinoceros on stage through group movements and sounds, which underscore the play’s opposition between nature and culture. The proliferation of beasts in the play is emphasized through rhythmic dance genres and body percussion that produce rhythmic melodies. In conclusion, the eco-critical approach to literary texts, including theatre, is not only concerned with the theme or genre but also with the aesthetics and imagination of the writer. By rethinking the insertion of nature in literature and theatre, we can identify a more harmonious relationship with the environment, and this is crucial in our current environmental crisis. It is through literature and the arts that we can raise awareness about the importance of preserving our environment, and the ecological approach allows us to do so by changing the way we represent and perceive nature.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jamila Chtioui
Jamila Chtioui, Ph.D. student, USMBA de Fès, Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies in Taza, Laboratory: Language, Literature, and Translation. Research: Absurdist Theatre.
Younes Ez-Zouaine
Younes Ez-Zouaine, Professor at the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies in Taza, translator, and poet.
Notes
2 Our traduction.
3 Le WWF stands for World Wide Fund for Nature. An international non-governmental organization aims to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on Earth. The organization works in over 100 countries and focuses on issues such as climate change, endangered species, sustainable development, and environmental conservation. https://www.wwf.fr/.
4 The quotations from Eugène Ionesco’s ‘Rhinoceros’ have been translated by us.
5 The definitions of this term and the next one: is translated from French: https://www.cnrtl.fr/lexicographie/auguste.
References
- Barthélémy, B. (2012). Logique utopique et imaginaire environnemental. TRANS Revue de littérature générale et comparée, 14. https://doi.org/10.4000/trans.563
- Bate, J. (2011). The song of the earth. Pan. Macmillan.
- Blanc, N., Chartier, D., & Thomas, P. (2008). Littérature & écologie: vers une écopoétique. Ecologie & politique, 36(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3917/ecopo.036.0015
- Budd, M. (2003). The aesthetic appreciation of nature: Essays on the aesthetics of nature. Oxford University Press.
- Buell, L. (1996). The environmental imagination. Thoreau, nature writing, and the formation of American culture. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and the environment: The appreciation of nature, art and architecture. Routledge.
- CNRTL. (s.d). Récupéré sur Ortolang.
- Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). Milles Plateaux. Minuit.
- Dictionary. (1997). Dictionnaire du XIXème siècle européen. PUF.
- Dubos, J. B. 1970). Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. Slaktine. (Original work published 1719).
- Emerson, R. W. 2004. Nature (P. O. Loscos, Trad.). ALLIA.(Original work published 1836)
- Fontanille, J. (2022). Devenir rhinocéros ou devenir humain, telle est la question! Exercice pratique d’analyse modale: Rhinocéros (Ionesco). Signata, (13). https://doi.org/10.4000/signata.3576
- Glotfelty, C., & Fromm, H. (1996). The ecocriticism reader, landmarks and literary ecology. University of Georgia Press.
- Hegel, G. W. (1979). Esthétique (vol. 1, S. Jankélévitch). Flammarion.
- Ionesco, E. (1959). Rhinoceros. Gallimard.
- Ionesco, E. (1991). Notes et contre notes. Folio essais.
- Kafka, F. (1915). La Métamorphose (éd. Gallimard, B. Lortholary, Trad.). Kurt Wolff Verlag.
- Kant, E. (2000). Critique de la faculté de juger (A. Philonenko, Trad.). Vrin. (Original work published 1790)
- Lawrence, B. (2003). Reading for an endangered world. Harvard University Press.
- Marsh, G. P. (2003). Man and nature: Or, physical geography as modified by human action. University of Washington Press. (Reprint édition, Original work published 1864).
- Muir, J. (1911). My first summer in the Sierra. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company .
- Naugrette, C. (2010). L’esthétique théâtrale. Armond Colin.
- Rosenkranz, K. (2004). Esthétique du laid (S. Muller, Trad.). Circé. (Original work published 1853)
- Sierra Club Maryland Chapter. (1892). Récupéré sur Siera club Maryland chapter: https://www.sierraclub.org/Maryland.
- Thoreau, H. D. (1990). Walden ou La vie dans les bois (L. Fabulet, Trad.). Gallimard. (Original work published 1854)
- Vectors. (1952). Les animaux dénaturalisés. Albin Michel.
- Vercors. (1961). Sylva. Grasset.
- Warming, E. (2010). Oecology of plants: An introduction to the study of plant communities. Kessinger Publishing. (Original work published 1909)
- White, K. (1994). Le Plateau de l’Albatros, introduction à la géopoétique. Grasset.
- White, K. (2014). Panorama Géopoétique (R. Poulet, Intervieweur). Revue des Ressources.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112441/MPU-humanities-jenniai.png"})