TARTUFFE AND TARTÜF 59
I would like to examine these two plays, Tartuffe and Tartüf 59, and compare Nazım Hikmet’s adaptation with the original. This will allow me to explore how a writer grapples with the source text while adapting it. Let’s begin with Molière’s Tartuffe.
TARTUFFE
Molière’s Tartuffe has been performed since the day it was written and even gave the language the word “Tartuffery.” Written in 1664 when classicism reigned in France, the play should be analyzed with reference to France and the Classicist movement. Classicism values reason, order and restraint. It developed during the years when the monarchy was consolidating power. The court enjoyed economic prosperity at the time, mainly thanks to agriculture and colonial trade. Theatre was supported by the court, but that support came with control. Playwrights were expected to protect and exalt order, observe social values, teach, and serve the public good, all while adhering to strict forms and styles.
Classicism imposed severe rules on form and style, shaped by the plays of Ancient Greek writers and the theories of Aristotle and Horace. Examples include unity, limited length, organic wholeness, consistency, the three unities, five acts, no more than three speaking characters on stage, and avoiding bloody events.
(ŞENER, 1998)
Although Molière lived in Classical France, he did not strictly follow these rules. His biting satire of authority and his flexibility of form set him apart from other Classical playwrights.
Molière’s independence drew him and his troupe into struggles. Nevertheless he wrote, directed and performed plays. Influenced by Commedia dell’Arte, he created his own poetics that appealed to both lower and upper classes. Esen Çamurdan describes Molière aptly:
“Molière’s goal is not merely to make us laugh but to reveal wrongdoing through the ridiculous. Contrary to tragedies that descend from great universal feelings to the individual, Molière moves from the particular—what is laughable—to the general, what is wrong.”
(Çamurdan, 1993)
Esen Çamurdan also notes:
“Advocating fidelity to life and nature, Molière takes old comedic archetypes and makes them natural, makes them his own. He places his characters in a specific milieu, dresses them in contemporary fashion, makes them speak the language of their class and age, and performs them with original gestures. In short, from static masks he creates vibrant characters. Comedy becomes a platform to question the untouchables of his time, because the author does not understand the privileges of a particular class. Thus the audience, wishing to see itself or its society, is pleased without the illusion of reality being broken.”
(Çamurdan, 1993)
Tartuffe is one of Molière’s plays that affects some positively, others negatively. It faced strong opposition from radical religious circles and was banned multiple times. To stage it again, Molière revised the play, adding praise for the monarchy at the end. With these changes he was able to present it. But what was so troublesome about Tartuffe? To understand, we must analyze it in form and content.
The play centers on Tartuffe, a lustful hypocrite obsessed with worldly goods. Taking advantage of Orgon, who is anxious about securing his place in the next world, he moves into Orgon’s house and gradually takes over everything—his wife, daughter, money, home, even his freedom. Except for Orgon’s mother, the family resists the tightening grip. Orgon, devoted to Tartuffe as if to a cleric, clashes with his family for a time but eventually sees the truth and, thanks to the king’s intervention, is saved from ruin.
Regarding the characters, there is debate about who is central—Tartuffe or Orgon. The satire seems divided between hypocritical churchmen like Tartuffe and naïve bourgeois like Orgon; Molière critiques both.
Other characters are mostly members of the household: Orgon’s mother Pernelle, his wife Elmire, his son Damis, his daughter Mariane, his brother-in-law Cléante, and servants Dorine and Flipote. There is also Loyal, the officer who unties the knot. Pernelle blindly believes Tartuffe’s lies. Elmire is a faithful wife devising plans to save her husband. Damis is impulsive and excitable. Mariane is a young girl in love. Flipote is a typical servant, while Dorine teams up with Elmire to expose Tartuffe’s hypocrisy. These characterizations produce many conflicts. Tartuffe’s opportunism pits him against the household. Orgon, siding with Tartuffe, quarrels with his own family. He expels his son, accuses his brother-in-law of arrogance, and so on. Ultimately the play shows how fake devotees deceive people and how the deceived remain blind—a message that, though shaped by Molière’s time, has universal relevance. Even today we see false devotees and the crowds who fall for them.
TARTÜF 59
Nazım Hikmet’s Tartüf 59, as the name suggests, is related to Turkey in the 1950s. Those years are remembered for the Democratic Party replacing the Republican People’s Party. Turkey developed relations with America and capitalism, had tensions with the USSR over the Montreux Convention, and then joined NATO. Capitalist capital became influential and various political crises arose.
While these events were unfolding, Nazım Hikmet was in the USSR and wrote Tartüf 59 with references to contemporary Turkey. In his works Nazım Hikmet always foregrounded class issues, both in content and form. This adaptation is a good example.
The play tells how the characters Tartuffe and Tartüf 59, commissioned by the church and the state, settle in Orgon’s house. Once inside, Tartüf 59 first eliminates Tartuffe, then Orgon and the other inhabitants, until finally Dorina, representing the people, foils his plans.
Tartuffe: “Believing in God is always more profitable than not believing. If God exists and you don’t believe, you go straight to hell; but if neither God nor hell exists and you believe, nothing bad will happen to you.”
(HİKMET, 1987)
Both Tartuffe and Tartüf 59 are schemers, intelligent, and skilled manipulators. But while Tartuffe relies only on religious discourse, Tartüf 59 uses new methods, technology, blackmail, and politics. Orgon is portrayed as more devout and naive. The rest of the household is passive, except for Cléante and Dorina, who stand apart—especially Dorina, who keeps the balance.
The main conflict hinges on Tartuffe and Tartüf 59. They share the same object of desire, but Tartüf 59 defeats Tartuffe and then clashes with the household. As mentioned above, Dorina wins this struggle, grotesquely washing the Tartüfs in a washing machine.
Dorina: “I don’t think so… I’m sure… Even people like you can be washed clean… After all, you’re human.”
(HİKMET, 1987)
The final scene emphasizes that Tartüfism is a class issue, not about individuals. Every age has its Tartüfs. Those of the 1950s are said to be people backed by the state and corrupt religious institutions, using the tools of capitalism. And it stresses that it is the working class that will break this wheel.
Tartüf 59 reflects the society of the 1950s well, revealing its weaknesses and flaws. At the same time, by focusing on hypocrites who invoke human values for their own gain, the play gains universal relevance.
COMPARISON OF TARTUFFE AND TARTÜF 59
Nazım Hikmet’s adaptation Tartüf 59 keeps the main framework but introduces many changes. These match his ideological and artistic stance and cover the shortcomings of the original—especially its ending.
From the outset we notice the first change. The Tartüfs stand on stage, so no mystery is created as in the original, where we only hear about Tartuffe. In Tartüf 59 both Tartuffes appear and it is emphasized that they serve the king and the church, strengthening the play’s political aspect.
Tartuffe: Yüce hükümdarımız 14. Lui Fransa tahtında sabah güneşi gibi ışısın, Muhterem Peder!
Father: Amen! Do not forget to mention our gracious and merciful Queen Mother in your prayers, Monsieur Tartuffe. She entrusted me with the task of initiating you into our sacred order.
(HİKMET, 1987)
Another important change is the treatment of time. Two times are superimposed: the era of Molière’s Tartuffe and that of Nazım’s Tartüf 59. This not only provides humor but also alienation.
Tartuffe: …what’s in that strange chest?
Tartüf 59: Some electrical gadgets—a tape recorder, lipstick, atomic energy, a washing machine, a perm device, rollers, a camera, and so on…
(HİKMET, 1987)
The conflict in the play is also between Tartüf 59 and Tartuffe. Tartüf 59 first defeats Tartuffe and then confronts the household. With this choice Nazım shows the tools and power of the new Tartuffe-ism, stressing that the Tartüfs are now stronger.
Tartüf 59: …I continue: “Who will take Tartuffe’s place?”, “It is certain that the shepherd the Orgon family will choose will be worthy of the family’s honor and glory.” (To Orgon) You understand, don’t you, sir?
(HİKMET, 1987)
We can also compare the plays through their comedic styles. The original has elements of Commedia dell’Arte and classical comedy, while the adaptation relies more on satire, wordplay and especially political farce.
Nazım Hikmet makes many changes to other characters as well. Orgon becomes more passive; the household is enchanted by the technological gadgets in Tartüf 59’s bag; Dorina comes to the forefront. By turning Dorina into a savior, Nazım heroizes the working people. The original ends with a Deus ex machina.
Finally, the language of the play changes. While Molière’s Tartuffe employs poetic language, Nazım Hikmet’s Tartüf 59 is mostly in prose.
CONCLUSION
Considering the adaptation’s relation to the source text, the organic unity between the formal changes and the play’s ideological aspect, and especially the improvement of the original ending, we can say that Nazım Hikmet’s adaptation of Tartuffe is internally consistent and quite successful.
Sources
- Çamurdan, E. (1993, March). “Molière’in İnsan Komedyası ve Tartuffe”.
- HİKMET, N. (1987). Demokles’in Kılıcı. Istanbul: Adam Yayınları.
- Molière. (1994). Tartuffe. Ankara: Maarif Matbaası. (Trans. Orhan Veli Kanık)
- ŞENER, S. (1998). Dünden Bugüne Tiyatro Düşüncesi. Ankara: Dost Kitabevi.