|
Rachel; and True Individuality
By Carrie Wilson
Every woman, like every man, is hoping for true individuality,
and the question is, what is it? In his essay "There
Is Individualism," Eli Siegel explains:
True individualism can be described as the affirmation,
completing of the self through the courageous and
just relation of the self with more and more things.
The self is both definition and abundance; it is one
thing with unending relation.
I’ll speak of what I’m grateful
to have learned and to teach other women also, and about
what we can learn from the life and art of the great
19th century French actress, Rachel. The "courageous
and just relation of [her] self" with the classic
heroines in the dramas of Corneille and Racine, has
given Rachel immortal individuality. Meanwhile, another,
false idea of individuality weakened her, as it does
women today.
I. Individuality and
What I Learned About Sameness and Difference
In his essay, Mr. Siegel writes:
We have for ourselves a question in art. This question
is: How can I affirm the oneness, or particularity
of me, while honoring the desire I have to meet and
be accurate with more and more things.
As a child I had this question very much. I was interested
in many things. I loved to read, to draw, and sing.
With my friends, or alone, I would act out scenes from
films like “The King and I,” “Hans
Christian Anderson,” and “Robin Hood.”
But I early came to feel it was how I was different
from, and therefore, as I saw it, better than other
people that gave me my distinction.
For instance, I had been praised for my wavy hair.
When I was about 13, visiting London with my family,
I overheard my English aunt remark on the lovely waves
in my older sister’s hair, and I felt a fury rise
up in me; I was the one with wavy hair, and my sister
was robbing me of my glory! This anger, and the shame
I felt for having it, are as vivid in my memory as the
Tower of London.
By my early twenties I saw becoming a noted actress
as the way to have my individuality shine. The best
thing in me truly loved the attempt to get within the
feelings of another person and try to represent them
in an authentic way. But I also loved the approval I
got through acting and used it to feel I was a uniquely
talented future star among people who were largely boring
and contemptible.
In an essay titled "The Battle of Mind,"
published in The Right Of #830, Mr. Siegel,
describing the battle between respect and contempt that
was waging in me, writes:
We do some art work, the purpose of which is to get
respect for what is different from ourselves--and
then we meet someone, and we work for contempt without
knowing it.
Once, while taking part in a college musical, I found
a rose in my dressing room, with a note from young a
man I had never met. I learned that he played in the
orchestra, and graciously allowed him to walk me home.
I then proceeded to complain for ten interminable blocks
because another girl had been given an extra song to
sing--when I was supposed to be the star of the show.
I saw the disillusionment and shock on his face, but
I couldn't stop myself, my vanity was not in my control.
Though I hated myself for the way I was talking, I felt
if anybody else got glory, it took away from mine. Had
I not studied Aesthetic Realism, I would have been driven
by competition and jealousy to this very day, envying
other actresses their careers, other women their husbands,
and never really knowing who I was.
In an Aesthetic Realism lesson, I told Mr. Siegel, “I maintain the myth
within myself that I’m special.” He replied,
“You’re special. Everyone is special. You
don’t think there’s another person just
like you, do you?” “No,” I answered.
“There’s no harm in that,” he explained.
“It’s how you use it.” And he asked,“What
do you hope for? What has to be the hope of everybody?”
CW. That they’ll be happy and do well.
ES. It’s chemical, see. Everything that’s
compounded with another hopes that the result will be
good for the thing being compounded with another. So,
do you believe you hope a compound of world and Carrie
is good?
CW. Yes. I feel that one of the areas in which I’ve
hurt myself most is not seeing how I’m like other
people.
ES. So, what do you think you would get to if you studied
how you are like other people? Suppose a blade of grass
were compared to a hundred other blades of grass, what
do you think it would get to in awhile?
I guessed, “It would feel larger?” And
then Mr. Siegel amazed me by saying, “It would
feel different. But in a true way. The self is a constant
study in sameness and difference.”
And he explained, “You were suffering like anything
because you made everything else too different from
you...The problem we all have is how to maintain our
individuality and not make difference unfriendly.”
Through my study, I came to see that the more deeply
I wanted to know and be fair to other people and things,
the more my individuality would come forth. I’m
very grateful to Mr. Siegel for his good
will in teaching me this and so much more.
II. Two Kinds
of Individuality in a Girl of France

Portrait of Mlle Rachel by William Etty, 1840s
Elisa-Rachel Felix was born in 1821, to Jewish parents,
Esther and Jacob Felix, itinerant pedlars. To help provide
for the family of seven, Rachel and her sister had to
sing in the streets of Paris. Rachel acted as she sang,
and passers-by were struck by the intensity of this
pale, slight girl with her deep voice.
When she was nine or ten, "A neighbor,"
writes biographer Joanna Richardson, "lent her
an...edition of Racine." Rachel told her mother:
'Now I know what my career is to be: I shall act in
tragedy.' The child of the streets bought copies of
Racine and Corneille. As she went about les Halles,
finding food for the family, she contrived to save enough
for a cheap (edition of) Moliere."
What was impelling this young girl, poor, and barely
able to read, is described by Mr. Siegel in his essay
"Individuality as Aesthetic Sameness and Difference."
He writes:
The keenest, most dramatic, least describable thing
in an individual is his difference, his permanent
separation, his intimate mobile sequestered worldness....
While having this difference,...a self yearns, pines,
longs--dramatic verbs!--to be like other things. The
self has a lust for multitudinous identification.
This difference and sameness in self, Aesthetic Realism
maintains, is like the beginning of art.
At the age of eleven, Rachel was discovered and admitted
to a dramatic school. She was taught, writes Richardson:
by the man supremely qualified to judge and encourage
her: [the actor] Samson....He criticized her with
the severity that teachers always show to favourite
pupils; and...took her into the heart of his family.
Rachel, Richardson continues:
rose every morning at six...working with the tenacity
which became proverbial....[She] accepted all the
help, considered all the advice of relations and friends...[and]
wandered, hour after hour, through the Louvre,..learning
her gestures, her bearing,...from the sculpture of
ancient times.
Here, we see a self proudly learning from other people
and things, affirming and completing herself through
respect.
In 1838, at the age of 17, Rachel made her debut in
Corneille's Horace, and then played Emilie in his Cinna.
Writes Richardson, "there had been no actor sufficiently
original, sufficiently inspired to keep tragedy alive.
It was now a dead art.” "And then,"
wrote Theophile Gautier,
suddenly, there appeared a young girl come from
no one knew where,...with eyes of flame in a mask
of marble, who threw a piece of Greek drapery over
her shoulder and began to recite ....By her grace,
we have seen Hermione again, Andromaque, Emilie, Pauline,
all the...noble heroines whom our fathers so admired.
There
was a passionate sincerity of feeling in Rachel, accompanied
by beautiful planning and control. "I have studied
my sobs in the fourth act," she wrote to Samson.
The result is described in these words of George Henry
Lewes, quoted by Martha Baird in her book Opposites
in the Drama: "Her wail was so piercing and
so musical that the whole audience rose in a transport
to applaud her." Miss Baird comments: "Piercing
and musical--what does that mean? It means pain made
beautiful. It is Aristotle's pity and terror, and the
audience is transported." As people saw Rachel
perform they saw the opposites of the world given honest,
living form. In his lecture, "How to Be Angry;
or, Corneille's Cinna" Eli Siegel spoke
of Rachel as Emilie in that play:
One of the great moments in theatre was Rachel's
playing of it in Paris in 1838. Rachel was a vibrating
repository of good and evil. [The relation of] anger
and being pleased [in her portrayal of Emilie] got
to people....Emilie is one of the fiercest women in
all literature....She is not narrow ...she is fierce
because an idea of what is right is impelling her.
I believe Rachel felt in the heroines of classic French
drama, a resolution of conflicting things within herself--ferocity
and justice, anger and love, courage and despair, passionate
feeling expressed with the noble control of rhyming
French hexameters. In the art of acting she satisfied
her "lust for multitudinous identification";
through it she found proud, free, joyous individuality.
Yet Rachel also had another notion of individuality.
Mr. Siegel wrote: “False individuality is...shown
in the desire to have one's way, truth or no truth."
Fame and power came to her suddenly. She was courted
by society, praised everywhere. Her father argued fiercely
with the Theatre for an enormous increase in her salary,
which meant less for the other actors. These demands,
which she did not oppose, led to a quarrel with Samson.
At 18 she wrote, "I have my success, it is true,
but not a single friend."
The young actress soon found that there were wealthy,
powerful men who could make her way easier. Writes biographer
Francis Gribble: "She was passionately eager to
succeed, and it seemed to her that the end justified
any means." Samson wrote, warning her of “These
seductive snares held out to your weakness, who would
not succumb to them?” He feared for her health
as well as her reputation--she had, by the age of 21
the first signs of the tuberculosis which was to claim
her life at the age of 37.
She and Samson were reconciled, but she did not heed
his or any other criticism of her personal life. The
girl who’d had only one calico dress, was now
presented diamonds by the Czar of Russia and the Queen
of England. Dazzled by her success she wrote: "Oh,
glory! glory! it's the finest thing next to God."
III. Individuality
and Criticism
In his lecture on Corneille's Cinna, Eli
Siegel said:
The drama has always been critical....Aesthetic
Realism says the greatest thing everyone wants is
criticism....Every dramatist has persons being sure
and then bearing the ordeal that they had no right
to be that sure. When people are affected by their
own criticism or their own conscience, that is a time
people become sloppy, because in having misgivings
they think they are weak. Maybe they are weak in shooing
off the criticism.
Rachel sought criticism of her art with a humility
which amazed people. But criticism of her personal life
she saw as an affront to her individuality. Women need
to learn that criticism is not an insult but a needed
and lovely means to becoming more ourselves.
One of the places we need criticism most is in how we
see love. Women think we’ll affirm our individuality
through the power we can have over men. This was so
in my life. In TRO #l50, subtitled "What
Opposes Love?' Mr. Siegel writes:
Any love,...not used to like the world, that much
has contempt in it. When we use a person not to like
the world but to make ourselves important or successful,
we are having contempt both for the person and for
the world. We also, though we may not know it, have
contempt for ourselves.
Katherine Martin is a young woman whose life has changed
tremendously. At the time she began her study of Aesthetic
Realism, she was very pained, though she concealed it
with a poised exterior. Particularly, she was pained
by her relations with men. We asked: “How would
you describe what you’re most hoping for?”
KM: Well, I’d like to be honest, more honest
than I am now.
Consultants: Do you think you’re deceptive?
KM: Yes.
Consultants: To be the person you want to be, you have
to see you are two people. One Katherine Martin wants
to respect the world, and the other thinks she will
be powerful through contempt.
Ms. Martin had spoken of feeling very bad after a weekend
on Fire Island spent with a man who had an impressive
resume, but whom she did not respect. We asked, "As
you think of yourself as to love, do you look beautiful
to yourself?"
KM: No, I think I look pathetic, foolish.
We asked: "How much company do you think you
have? Do you think that just about every woman in America
can despise herself for the way she gets pleasure?"
She was surprised, but realized it was so. “Yes!”
she answered. We explained:
Eli Siegel taught us that to want pleasure from
a person, without respect for him, makes for shame.
That's the reason you can feel so bad in your own
company, because the way you have other people in
your mind and heart is selfish, there's too much contempt.
What Katherine Martin heard is something Rachel Felix
wanted to learn. Rachel had many close relations with
men in her life, most of whom were highly placed. At
20 she became the mistress of Count Walewski, the natural
son of Napoleon, who gave her a magnificent house. She
bore him a son, but while he was away on a diplomatic
mission, she was unfaithful to him. He discovered this,
and left her. Rachel, in despair, wrote to a friend:
All the fault is on my side.... so that I can find
no peace in a clear conscience...but do not pity me.
It was all my doing, and God has punished me for it.
Yet in the next sentence she says: "Farewell!
Pity me! You can never pity me enough."
"Which do you prefer," Mr. Siegel asked me
once in a class, "pity or criticism?" I answered,
"Pity." Rachel, like most women, thought she
needed pity, but what she needed was criticism.
Aesthetic Realism shows the very opposites she was
not clear about in her life were one in her art. In
his lecture on Cinna, Mr. Siegel described
what thrilled audiences as she performed:
While Rachel is assertive she is shaken by doubt.
She could present the utmost determination with a
sense of the edges of doubt getting into the center.
But in her life the way she was determined to assert
her individuality caused her deep misgivings which,
instead of wanting to understand, she saw as weakness.
Through her artistry she had rescued the Comedie Francais
from failure, but she used this to feel she had a right
to great special privileges other members of the company
resented. A child of the people, with a love for Napoleon
Bonaparte, she was also greedy for money and glory.
It was said she “surrounded herself with inferior
casts to enhance her own performance.”
And there are instances where her jealousy of another
actress caused her to be mean. She broke permanently
with Samson, to whom she owed so much, for teaching
another actress as he had taught her, and with Alfred
de Musset for writing a play for someone else. I’m
sure she felt driven, as I know a woman can, without
understanding why. How she needed to see what her true
individuality came from!
Rachel once said to the playwright Ernest Legouve:
What would you say if I revealed my inner thoughts
to you? You admire me, I believe. Well, I assure you
there is a Rachel in me ten times superior to the
Rachel whom you know. ...Ah, if only I had....lived
a better life! What an artist I should have been in
that case! When I think of it such a regret steals
over me....
IV. Individuality
and "What Opposes Love"
The play in which Rachel had her finest artistic triumph
is Racine's Phedre, the role in which we see
her in this early photograph. Phedre, Queen of Athens,
and wife of Theseus, is consumed by passion for her
husband's son, Hippolytus.
Eli Siegel wrote of Phedre in TRO #150, "What
Opposes Love?" some of the greatest literary criticism
in the world, and necessary knowledge
for the lives of men and women. "Phedre,"
he writes, "has been sympathized with a long time....The
anguished depths in her have been given nobility....Yet
contempt nestles somewhere amid magnificence and heartbreak."
There is this line of Racine describing Phedre: "Un
desordre eternal regne dans son esprit"--in Mr.
Siegel's translation: "A disorder, eternal, rules
in her mind." Mr. Siegel writes:
Since in untrue love, what matters to us is the
kind of victory we may have over reality we may have
by having a person do as we wish, we do not think
well of ourselves because of our feeling. Consequently,
Phedre, while despising nearly everything else, despises
herself.
One of the things making Rachel's portrayal of Phedre
great was that she felt and had the courage to present
the evil in Phedre. George Henry Lewes described her
portrayal this way:
In the second act, where Phedre declares her passion
to Hippolyte, Rachel was transcendent. She subtly
contrived to indicate that her passion was a diseased
passion, fiery and irresistible, yet odious to her
and to him....her manner was fierce and rapid, as
if the thoughts were crowding on her brain in tumult....and
such was the amazing variety and compass of her expression
that when she quitted the stage she left us quivering
with...excitement....Whoever saw Rachel play Phedre
may be pardoned if he doubt whether he will ever see
such acting again.
Rachel herself wrote in her copy of Racine, words
which have that gratitude and respect which is fulfillment
for the self:
Oh my sweet Racine, it is in your masterpieces that
I recognize the heart of woman! I shape my own to
your noble poetry. If the lyre of my soul does not
always weep with your harmonies divine, it is that
admiration leaves my whole being in ecstacy.
In wanting to "shape" her heart to Racine's
"noble poetry" she was looking for that study
we are so fortunate to be engaged in now--the Aesthetic
Realism study of how our lives can be like art, a oneness
of opposites. This is what Katherine Martin is learning,
and what every woman has the right to know.
First
presented in a public seminar at the Aesthetic Realism
Foundation, New York City.


|