Modern Language Studies

The Question of the Frame in Pirandello's Metatheatrical Trilogy

Author(s): Jo Ann Cannon
Source: Modern Language Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Summer, 1986), pp. 44-56
Published by: Modern Language Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194886
Accessed: 05/11/2008 09:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mls.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern
Language Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

TheQuestionof the Framein

Pirandello's
Metatheatrical
Trilogy
Jo Ann Cannon
The myth of Pirandelloas a philosophicalwriterhasa long history
which begins with BenedettoCroce. Croce applied his formulapoesia/
non poesia in a purelynegativeway to Pirandello'swork, assertingthatit
representedneither art nor poetry.' Taking issue with the thesis that
reflectionmay be superimposedon poetic emotion,a thesisdefended by
Crocenot only deniedthe "artistic"
Pirandelloin his essay"L'Umorismo,"
valueof Pirandello'sworkbut alsodismissedhisideasasunsystematicand
On the otherhand,Adriano
inconsistent-"sottilizzamentiermeneutici."2
elevated
the author'sideas to
Pirandello's
famous
"interpreter,"
Tilgher,
the status of a philosophicalsystem deriving its coherence from the
Bergsonianpolarityof Life andForm.3The attemptto systematizePirandello'sphilosophyand the attemptto locate its inconsistenciesrepresent
two sidesof the samecoin:an obsessionwith pirandellismowhichrenders
the text superfluous.Whetherperceived as amateurishphilosophizingor
truephilosophy,pirandellismohas often occupied the attentionof Pirandello's critics to the detriment, or even to the exclusion, of his texts.
Despite his protests to the contrary,the notion that the authorhad a
ready-madeset of ideasthathe wantedto dramatizein artsubtendsmuch
of Pirandellocriticism.4This convictionhas led many criticsto look for
coherence where contradictions suggest that the text is not selfinterpreting,to ignoreor underestimatethe morecomplexof Pirandello's
worksbecause they resistsystematization.
The trilogy of the theater within the theater is a case in point.
Ciascunoa suo modo and Questaserasi recitaa soggetto,the second and
thirdplays in the trilogy,have not met with the same favor as theirmore
famous precursor, Sei personaggi in cerca d'autore. Perhaps this is
becausethe playsbecome increasinglyproblematicas they workthrough
the questionsonly implicitlyposed in the earlierplay. The second two
plays in the trilogyboth complementand supplementthe first,inasmuch
which a thematicanalysisof Sei
as they center aroundthat "remainder"
to the trilogyPirandello
In
the
introduction
untouched.
leaves
personaggi
invitesus to considerthe threeplays jointlyand attemptsto explainwhat
unites them: "formanocome una trilogiadel teatronel teatro,non solo
perche hanno espressamenteazione sul palcoscenicoe nella sala, in un
palco o nei corridoio nel ridottod'unteatro,ma anche perche di tuttoil
complesso degli elementi d'un teatro . . . rappresentano ogni possible

conflitto"5("thethreetogether... form a sort of trilogyof the theatrein

the theatre,not only because there is actionboth on the stage and in the
auditorium,in a box and in the corridorsand in the foyer of a theatre,but
also because they represent . . . every possible conflict of the entire

complex of theatricalelements").He goes on to specify that in the first

play the conflictis between the Characterson the one handandthe Actors
and Directoron the other;in the second, between the Spectatorsand the
44

Authorandthe Actors;in the thrd,between the Actorsbecome Characters

and theirDirector.Despite the symmetryof thischaracterization,Pirandello's introductionis no more than a blind, concealing more than it
reveals.Insteadof focusingon the conflictsoutlinedby the author,conflicts which, at least in the last two cases, seem purely circumstantial,I
would like to examinea questionwhich Pirandelloapproachesobliquely
in the introductionto the trilogy.
WhenPirandellomentionsen passantthatthe plays forma trilogy
of the theaterwithinthe theaterbecause they take place on stage and in
the auditorium,lobby and box seats, he would call our attentionto the
self-presentationof the artisticspace as theatricalspace. In so doing,
however, he also bringsinto focus the questionof the framein the three
plays.By frameI meannot only thatwhichservesas a line of demarcation
between the world of the representationandthe "real"world.As Derrida
has observedin La verite en peinture,the parergon(frameson pictures,
draperyon statues,colonnadesof palaces),followingthe peculiarlogic of
the supplement,is at once adjunctto the representationand has a critical
function:it is the framethat constitutesthe work of artas such.6Each of
the plays in Pirandello'strilogy to some degree exceeds the traditional
theatricalframe, generallyexpressed,BorisUspenskijtells us, "through
such stage devices as the footlights, curtainsand so forth."7Given the
constitutivefunctionof the framevis-a-visthe work of art,the transgression of the frame invites us to question the status of that which the
spectatorobserves-is it art or life, representationor reality?
The removalof the fourthwall, the imaginarywall framedby the
proscenium through which the audience sees the performance, first
occurs in Ciascunoa suo modo (1924),a revolutionin stage technique,
accordingto Jory Moestrup,"regularlyignored by theaterhistorians."8
The originaleditionof Sei personaggiin cercadautore did not callfor the
use of the auditorium;theperformancetookplace entirelyonstage.It was
only with the 1925 revision of the play that Pirandellocalled for the
charactersto enter throughthe auditoriumratherthan the stage door.9
Unlike the second and thirdplays of the trilogy, Sei personaggihas no
scenes takingplace off-stage.The brief removalof the fourthwall at the
momentof the characters'entranceis perhapsindicative,however,of the
directionin which Pirandellowas moving at the time the revisionwas
made.
The revisionis consonantwith the originalstage directions,which
consistentlycall for the blurringof the boundarybetween fiction and
reality.Fromthe momentthe audienceentersandsees the curtainalready
raised,the illusionof a spontaneous"event,""unospettacolonon preparato,"is created in accordance with Pirandello'sstage directions.The
producer,the actorsas actors,the workman,the set director,all figures
apparentlyexternalto the performance,arerequired(by the stagedirections)to improvisethe openingscene in orderto createthe impressionof
"naturalezza."
(Thisbrief recourseto improvisationas a meansof establishingthe real(istic)statusof the action foreshadowsthe criticalrole of
improvisationin the lasttwo playsof the trilogy.)The authorpointsoutin
an introductorynote thatthe play hasno acts or scenes,but two interrup45

tionswhich aremotivatedby events.These devices suggestto the spectatorthatwhathe is viewing is not anartisticconstructbutrathera "real-life"
occurrence.(Of coursethe occurrencehappensto be the preparationfor
the stagingof a play.) Even the fictionalcharacters,who openly declare
"siamosu un palcoscenico"("weare on a stage")play theirscenes"come
non sarebbepossibile farlaavveniresu un palcoscenico"(p. 108) ("asit
would be impossibleto performon stage").Whetheron the level of the
"commediada fare"or the apparentlyexternaleventssurroundingit, the
presentationof the stageas stageparadoxicallydisguisesthe artifice.Like
the Director who has just witnessed the tragic finale of the characters'
performance,the impliedspectatorfinallycriesout in dismay:"Finzione!
realta!Andateal diavolo tutti quanti!"("Fiction!Reality!To hell with it
all!")Althoughthe physical frame of the conventionaltheater,the curtains,the footlights,is only briefly transgressedin Sei personaggiin cerca
d'autore,the stage directionsconsistentlycontrive to break down the
boundarybetween art and life, illusionand reality.
The strategy apparentlyunderlying the stage directions never
becomes explicitin thisplay, however. It is only in Questaserasi recitaa
soggetto thatthe mergingof artand life is dealt with on a thematiclevel.
This is not to suggest that the art/life polarity is insignificantin Sei
personaggi.On the contrary,it is one of the principalthemesof the play.
Critics of Sei personaggi have frequently been troubled by a certain
duplicityin the treatmentof this theme. Tilgher,for instance,finds two
contradictoryaestheticthesesin the play:"Prima.LaVitae unacosa,l'arte
ne e un'altra.... L'Artee armonia,sintesi.... La Vita ... disarmonia,
confusione,caos. Secondo. L'Artee la Vita sono la stessacosa e tra esse
altradifferenzanon correche di phi e di meno."'0("First.Life is one thing,
art is another....

Art is harmony, synthesis....

Life ... is disharmony,

confusion,chaos. Second. Art and Life are the same thing and between
thereis only a quantitativedifference.")Brusteinalsonotesanunresolved
paradoxat the heart of Sei personaggi:althoughAct II dramatizesthe
distortionof life in the mirrorof the play, Act IIIsuggeststhat"artis more
'real'thanlife.""Whiletryingto makesenseof the contradictorythematic
treatmentsof the life/art polarity,one tendsto ignorethe degreeto which
the stage directions subvert that polarity as they obscure the border
between representationand reality.The split between the thematicand
rhetoricallevels of the text,moreradicalthanthe thematiccontradictions
explicit in the play, cannotbe resolved in a univocal"meaning."Rather
than attempt to minimize the ambiguity which animatesthe work, I
propose to look at the second two plays of the trilogy, in which the
contradictionsinherent in Sei personaggi become more and more
pronounced.
Ciascunoa suo modo is the firstof Pirandello'splaysto violatethe
physicalframeof the conventionaltheater.Accordingto the initialstage
directions,the action shouldbegin outside the theater,where extraeditionsof the dailynewspaperwill revealto the audiencethatthe play they
areaboutto witnessis based on a real-lifetragedy-the recentsuicideof a
well-knownpainterupondiscoveringhis actress-fiance,Delia Moreno,in
bed with his best friend, BaronNuti. The "real-life"counterpartsof the
46

charactersin the play to be stagedappearin the lobby of the theateras the

spectatorsenter to buy theirtickets. The action in the two choralinterludes, althoughframed by the raisingof the curtain,occurs off-stage,
outside the conventional theatrical space. In a particularly artful
maneuver,Pirandellohas the curtain,which has fallen at the end of the
preceding act, rise again almost immediatelyin the choralinterludesto
reveal a section of the theater lobby opening onto the orchestra.The
introductionof a "slice"of the externalworld into the theatricalspace
subvertsthe constitutivefunctionof the framein delimitingthe work of
art qua art.
As in Sei personaggi,the stage directionsin Ciascunoa suo modo
a
decisive
role in blurringthe line between internaland external.To
play
create the illusionthat the action outside the theaterand in the lobby
preceding the performanceis part of "real-life,"Pirandellocalls for the
scene to be improvised:"mapropriocome vera .. ." (p. 144) ("justas if it
were true").The spectators,in other words, should not recognize the
verisimilaras such-they shouldnot be awareof the "come"of "proprio
come vera." If the stage directionsare successfullyimplemented, the
audiencewill mistakethe verisimilarfor reality.Reinforcingthe illusion,
the authorspecifies that the scene should begin before the scheduled
commencementof the performance.In the stagedirectionsprecedingthe
firstchoralinterlude,Pirandellois quickto point out thatthe entirescene
in the lobby, particularlythe appearanceof Nutiand Moreno,appears,by
contrastto the actiononstage,to be partof life: "lapresenzain teatro...
della Morenoe del Nuti stabilira... un primopiano di realta,piu vicino
alla vita" (p. 177) ("the presence in the theater of Moreno and Nuti
establishesa first plane of realitycloser to real life").And of course the
pretensethatit is impossibleto predictwhetherthe play will be in two or
three acts, "per i probabiliincidenti che forse ne impedirannol'intera
rappresentazione"
(p. 144)("becauseof the incidentswhichmay obstruct
the entireperformance")establishesthe actionsurroundingthe commedia a chiave as beyond the script.
Pirandellonot only usesthe stagedirectionsto convinceus thatthe
events we are witnessingare externalto the representation.The author
also patentlyborrowsfrom life in creatingsuch scenes as the firstchoral
interlude,where the audiencegathersto discussthe play. The shoutsof
"manicomio,manicomio"from Pirandello'sdetractorsand the comment
of an irritatedspectator,"Mapossibile che a ogni prima di Pirandello
debba avvenire il finimondo?"(p. 182), recall the fracas at the Teatro
Valle in Rome duringand after the premiereof Sei personaggiin cerca
d'autore.The scene in the lobby is presentedas justsuch a spontaneous
reactionto the play, i.e., as part of the world externalto the theater.
By staginga commediaa chiaveand juxtaposingthe performance
to the "real"eventswhichallegedlyinspiredit, Pirandelloseemsto suggest
thatperfectcoincidencebetween representedandrealworldsis possible.
No where is that coincidence more strikingthan in the second choral
interlude,when Nuti and Moreno replay the scene already "(re)presented"on stage. There is a strongtemptationto locate the "meaning"of
Pirandello'splay in the words of "lospettatoreintelligente,"who explains
47

to the awed spectators that this merging of art and life is the most natural
thing in the world. "Si sono visti come in uno specchio.. ." (p. 219) ("they
saw themselves as in a mirror"). But does Pirandello, who in Sei personaggi in cerca d'autore dramatizes the distortion of reality in the mirror of
the play, really subscribe to the spectator's view of art as a mirror on the
world? In the above-mentioned scene and again in the conclusion, when
the "real-life"counterparts of the characters on stage begin to imitate the
performance, the very idea of art as a reflection of life is in fact turned on
its head. The final lines of the character actor, who warns the audience not
to believe the intelligent spectator's pronouncements and reminds them
that they have not yet seen the (non-existent) third act, unmakes the
apparently "authorized"analogy between the play and the mirror.12
The character actor's final comments not only cast doubt on the
spectator's interpretation. The reference to the non-existent third act also
points to the open-endedness of the play; the inconclusive conclusion
leaves the play's "meaning"unfulfilled. In fact, although Pirandello seemingly interprets the play for us through the offices of his Intelligent
spectator, that gesture is already implicitly undermined in the first choral
interlude. The description of the play's ideas as "acrobatismi cerebrali"
(cerebral acrobatics), the facile disquisition on Pirandellianrelativism, the
prevarication of the "professional" critics who do not want to commit
themselves before determining how the public (and their fellow critics)
will receive the play undoubtedly reflect the author's desire to avenge
himself on his critics.'3 More importantly, however, the scene casts doubt
on any concise "philosophical" statement which one might pretend to
derive from the play. The following exchange between Pirandello's
equally inane detractors and supporters is particularly unsettling:
Ma che concezione? Mi sai dire in che consistequest'atto?
-Oh bella! E se non volesse consistere?..
-Gia! E questo, ecco! Forse non vuole consistere!Apposta, apposta;
capite? ...
-Ma sono pazzie! Ma dove siamo! (p. 180)
(Butwhat conception?Canyou tell me whatthe conceptionin this
first act is?
Yes, but supposingit didn'tpretend to have any meaning ...
Right! That'sit! It isn't supposed to have any meaning!On purpose, on purpose;don't you see?
But this is madness!Whereare we?)
This exchange makes a mockery of whatever hidden "meaning" the
spectator pretends to find in the play. In conjunction with the concluding
remarks of the character actor, which literally suspend any attempt at
achieving signification, the farcical discussion of the play's significance
begins to erode the spectator's interpretation: that art may mirror life so
perfectly as to merge with it.
To summarize: on the rhetorical level there seems to be an attempt
on Pirandello's part to exceed the theatrical space. Is this transgression
motivated by a desire to bring together the represented and real worlds?
48

Or is the (representationof) the externalworld meant to highlight,by

contrast,the fictitious nature of the performance on stage? Does art
partake of some transcendentreality which ultimatelymakes it more
"real"thanlife itself?These questionsare tantalizinglysuspendedon the
thematiclevel of Ciascunoa suo modo. If we considerthe thirdplay in
Pirandello'strilogyas the non-existentthirdact alludedto in the conclusion, then it is not surprisingthat Questaserasi recitaa soggetto takesits
departurefrom the same questionswhich are posed by Ciascunoa suo
modo.
In the second play the relationbetween art and life is primarily
broughtinto focus by the juxtapositionof the commediaand the chiave.
In Questasera si recitaa soggetto, by contrast,this relationbecomes an
explicittheme of the play. It is Dr. Hinkfuss,the stagemanager/director,
who firstexpoundsthe theoryof artand life in his involuntaryprologue.
While the curtainis still lowered and the audience begins to speculate
aboutwhat is delayingthe performance,Dr. Hinkfussrunson-stagefrom
the back of the theater and informs the spectatorsthat he is about to
presentan improvisationof the Pirandellostory"LeonoraAddio."Hinkfussproceedsto outlinehis conceptionof art-the artisthascompletedhis
taskwhen he stops living the work of art,when it becomes crystalizedin
animmutableform.The workof artcanonly surviveif the stagemanager
and the actorsareable to dissolveits form intovital motion.Dr. Hinkfuss
would like to play Pygmalionto.Pirandello'sGalatea."Ogniscultore(io
non so, ma suppongo) dopo aver creato una statua,se veramentecrede
d'averledato vita per sempre, deve desiderarech'essa,come una cosa
viva, debba potersiscioglieredal suo atteggiamento,e muoversi,e parlare"(p. 233) ("Everysculptor[I do not know, but I suppose]afterhaving
createda statue,if he reallybelievesthathe hasgivenit enduringlife, must
desire that it as a living thing, be dissolved from its immobility of
attitude-that it move and thatit speak").The restof the play represents
an experimentto determinewhetherHinkfusscan bringGalatea(Pirandello'sstory) to life throughimprovisation.
The dramatic action following Hinkfuss'involuntaryprologue
oscillates dizzyingly between two levels: the metadiegetic (the improvised performanceof the Pirandellostory) and the diegetic (the discussionsbetween the actorsand stage managerabouthow best to achieve a
lifelike performance).'4Each actor performsa dual role as actor and as
characterin Hinkfuss'improvisation.As GerardGenettehaspointedout,
Questaserasi recitaa soggettois nothingbut a vast expansionof metalepsis:in thiscase, theintrusionof the diegeticcharactersintoa meta-diegetic
universe.15 The oscillation between levels has various consequences:
because the stage managerbegins to introducethe actorsby their"real"
namesratherthantheirnames as characters,the actorsexperiencedifficulty in identifyingwith their characters.At one moment a character,
immersedin her role as the mother(on the metadiegeticlevel) strikesthe
father;the father,not yet immersedin his role (stillon the diegetic level)
complainsto the stagemanagerthatshe hasgivenhima "real"slapandan
argumentensues.Hinkfuss,clearlyout of controlof the situation,informs
the audiencein a maliciousaside that the actors'rebellionis feigned but
49

the actorsprotestthatit is not partof the script.Graduallythe actorsbegin

to immersethemselvesin theirroles so that,by the end of Act I, the play
withinthe play can finallyget underway in earnest.
The play withinthe play deals with a familywhich scandalizesits
neighborsin a smallSiciliantown becauseof the daughters'flirtationwith
some officers fromthe local militarybase. Rico Verri,a Sicilian,is in love
with Momminabut at the same time is repulsedby the permissivenessof
the La Croce family.These detailsarerevealedin partin Act I andin part
in the intermission.As the stage managerhas warned in his involuntary
prologue, the intermissionis really Act II of the play. The audience is
joinedin the lobby by the actorsas charactersandthe play withinthe play
continuesto unfold. In Act III, the actor/characters(havingreturnedto
the stage)attemptto completethe play withinthe play.At a certainpoint,
however,chaosbreaksloose andthe actorsthreatento quitunlesstheyare
freed of the stage manager'styrannyand allowed to live theirparts.Dr.
Hinkfussretreatsand the play withinthe play comes to its denouement.
The leading Lady's identificationwith her character,the dying Mommina,is so complete thatshe does, indeed, faintat the end of the performance.At thispointDr. Hinkfussreappears,congratulatingthe actorsand
claiming that his experimentin improvisationhas been a success. The
actors,however, call for an authorto give them writtenparts.They want
nothingmore to do with improvisation.
Manycriticsread this play as a defense of life over art.16There is
indeed evidence to supportthis view. The improvisationseems to be a
success:the mergingof the actorswith theircharacters,althoughintermittent, becomes more and more pronounced.At the father'sdeathbed,the
Leading Lady cries real tears ("E si mette a piangere davvero" ["she
begins to weep in reality"]),which provoketruecommotionin the other
actors("Quest'impetodi veracommozionenellaPrimaAttriceprovocala
commozione anche nelle altre attrici,che si buttanoa piangeresinceramente ancheloro"[pp. 287-88]["Thisoutburstof realfeeling on the part
of the LeadingLadycreatesa commotionamongthe otheractresses,who
also begin to weep in all sincerity"]).The fact that the actorscall for a
scriptat the end mightmerelybe a signof theirangerat the stagemanager
whose interferencepreventsthem from trulyliving theirroles. Adriano
Tilgher, who views the play as a defense of life, has summarizedits
"content"in thisway:"L'arteadunquenonvive come arteche rituffandosi
nel moto dellaVita,cioe annullandosicome operad'arte"(p. 389)17("Art,
then,onlylivesas artby plungingintothe fluxof life, thatis by annihilating
itself as a work of art").TilgherimplicitlyidentifiesHinkfussas Pirandello's mouthpiece, as the title of his review of the play, "L'esteticadel
pirandellianoHinkfuss,"suggests.'8
Is Pirandello'splay, the entire text of Questasera si recita a soggetto, the product of a theatricalaestheticssimilarto that of Hinkfuss?
From the moment thatthe curtainfails to rise and the spectatorsexpress
confusionas to whetherthe commotionbackstageis part of the performance, Pirandelloseems to overstep the boundaryseparatingart from
life. The dialoguebetween the spectators,the stage manager'sofficious
meddling, the actor's eventual revolt, these "events"are presented as
50

externalto the performance,as part of reality.Althoughthe stage manager, to save face, attempts to convince the audience of his control
("questaribellionedegli attoriai miei ordinie finta,concertataavantitra
me e loro" [p. 240] ["thisrevolt of the actors againstmy ordersis all a
pretense, arrangedbeforehand between them and me"]), Pirandello's
stage directionsclearlyundercutthisclaim ("Aquestauscitamancina,gli
attorirestanodi colpo come tantifantocciatteggiatidi sbalordimento"[p.
240] ("atthis underhandedremarkthe actors stand there like so many
puppets,in attitudesof astonishment"]).The spectator/readerimplicitly
inscribedin the stage directionsis led to surmisethat the proceedings
surroundingtheimprovisationare,indeed,spontaneouseventsexternalto
the performance.As in Ciascunoa suo modo, the frame of the conventionaltheateris physicallytransgressedin Questaserasi recitaa soggetto:
the actionagainspillsover in frontof the curtain,into the auditoriumand
intothe lobby. Thistransgressionof the traditionaltheatricalframewould
seem to connote a desire to unite the artisticspace with its external
referent.
Yetthe "breachof illusion"in the finalplay of Pirandello'strilogyis
clearlyan illusion.'9AlthoughQuestasera si recitaa soggetto, like Ciascunoa suo modo, is revolutionaryin its destructionof the fourthwall, the
conventionaltheatricalframe, in each case it is a questionof expansion,
not transcendence,of the artisticborder.20The space beyond the curtain
andthe footlights-the lobby, the auditorium,the outsideof the theateris internalizedto become partof Pirandello'sstage. And justas the space
beyond the conventionalframeis embedded withinthe theatricalspace,
so the apparently"real"eventssurroundingthe improvisationof Pirandello's storyare internalizedto form a frame play.
The frame structure,though more common in narrativethan in
drama, functions in precisely the same way in both cases: from The
Thousandand One Nights and the Decameron to II castello dei destini
incrociatiand October Light, the frame story necessarilypoints to the
artificialityof the representationby separatingthe audience from it.
Pirandello'scontemporary,ItaloSvevo, clearlyunderstoodthe impactof
the framedevice. The framestoryin La coscienzadi Zenoregardinghow
Zeno comes to writehis autobiographyultimatelyundercutsthe veracity
of his"lifestory"andshowsit to be a creativelie of fiction.The distancing
effect of the framedevice is laidbareby Pirandellohimselfin Ciascunoa
suo modo. As the curtainopens to revealthe lobby where the audienceis
gatheredto discussthe play, Pirandellonotesin the stagedirections:"Con
questapresentazionedel corridoiodel teatro... quellache da principio
sara apparsain primo piano sulla scena quale rappresentazioned'una
vicenda della vita, si daraora a vedere come una finzione d'arte;e sara
percio come allontanatae respintain un secondo piano"(p. 177) ("With
thispresentationof thelobby of the theatre... whatwas firstpresentedon
the stage as a reallife episode will be shown to be a fictionof artand will
thereforebe pushedback into a secondaryplane of reality").In the same
way, the frame structurein Questa sera si recita a soggetto reveals the
illusionfor what it is.
When we regard the apparentlyextraneousevents in their true
51

lightas frameplay, we see thatQuestaserais not a precociousexperiment

in livingtheater,contraryto the implicationof its title.Does thismeanthat
the play is a failure?21In otherwords,to whatextentdoes Pirandelloshare
Hinkfuss'goals?In a sense, Hinkfussis a caricatureof the authorhimself:
the stage manager'sexperiment in improvisationis in fact parallel to
Pirandello'sapparentstrategyin Ciascunoa suo modo and, to a lesser
extent, in Sei personaggi.While in the first play the authoronly briefly
resortsto improvisation,in Ciascunoa suo modo he repeatedlycalls for
the actionto be improvisedin orderto obtain"lanaturalezzapiuvolubile
e la piu fluidavivacita"(p. 177) ("thegreatestnaturalness,volubility,and
vivacity"). In the stage directions Pirandelloindicates that the action
which takes place outside the theaterand in the lobby before the performance on stage should be improvised to assure maximum spontaneity-the markof "life"accordingto Hinkfuss.Yetthe scene is in fact
the product of a good deal of contrivance.The very use of the word
improvisationto describethe actionoutsidethe theateris misleading:the
passagewhich pretendsmerelyto outlinethe scene thatthe actorswould
improvisein fact provideseach characterwithhislinesin the formof free
indirect style. Later, in the stage directionspreceding the first choral
interlude,Pirandelloindicatesthat the scene might be improvised,but
then proceeds to furnishthe actorswith every line, allowingonly thathe
would not exclude other exchanges"che potrannoessere improwisate
per tenerviva la confusaagitazionedel corridoio"(p. 178) ("whichmay
be improvisedto keep alivethe confusedagitationin the corridor").Inthe
second choral interlude,the actors'lines are provided with no further
attemptat improvisation.
Just as the pretense of improvisationis graduallyabandonedby
Pirandelloin Ciascunoa suo modo, so in Questaserasi recitaa soggetto
Hinkfusstradesimprovisationfor artisticcontrol.The paradoxicalrhetoricalstrategywhichsubtendsCiascunoa suomodo, the increasingrecourse
to manipulationto achieve the illusion of life, is dramatized on the
thematiclevel of the thirdplay. There are severalindicationsin the play
can only be achievedthroughartistic
"verisimilitude"
that"spontaneity,"
contrivance.This is underscoredby Hinkfusshimself when he cites the
audience'sconvictionof the actors'spontaneityto provethatthe scene is a
fiction.Moreover,at the conclusionof the play withinthe play the actors
(and the spectators)learnthatthe successof the improvisationmay well
be due to Hinkfuss'manipulationsbehindthe scenes:"Mae statosempre
qua, con gli elettricisti,a governardi nascostotuttigli effetti di luce!"(p.
310) ("Buthe's been here all along with the electricianssurreptitiously
controllingthe lightingeffects!").
To askwhetherPirandello'saim coincideswith thatof Hinkfussis
to ask whetherthe stage directionsprovidea reliableclue to the author's
Whilethe stagedirectionsto allthreeplaysin the trilogyseem
"intentions."
to reveala desireto presentthe verisimilarasreality,improvisationaslife,
on the other hand the final play exposes the contrivancebehind the
illusion.Perhapsone shouldreadthe stagedirectionsas emanatingfroma
narrativepersona;perhapsthe ironic distancebetween Pirandelloand
that persona,who complainsof "le irritanticommedie di Pirandello"in
52

the stage directionsprecedingthe firstchoralinterludeof Ciascunoa suo

directions.The complexityof thetext
modo, extendsto allof the"author's"
not only makesit impossibleto locate the "author"in the stage directions;
more importantly,the very terms "author,""intentions"are rendered
ambiguous.The concept of irony also becomes devoid of firm significance inasmuchas it presupposesa constantauthorialcentergrounding
the discourse.In the sameway it is impossibleto determineto whatextent
Hinkfussis an authorialcaricature,preachingimprovisationwhile resorting to theatricalartifice.22
In any case, like Hinkfuss'so-called improvisation,the title of
Pirandello'sQuestaserasi recitaa soggettois a patentmisnomer.Pirandello'splay is as crystallized,as fixed as any work of art.Every entranceand
every line of the actors,whetherthey are called by their"real"namesor
their names as characters,is predetermined.Nothing is left to chance.
Even the audienceparticipationis part of the script. Like Francescain
Dante'sInferno,the actorsin Questaserasi recitaa soggetto will always
repeat the same lines, granted,as Pirandelloinsistsin the preface to Sei
personaggi,with "vivae improvvisapassione."In Pirandello'splay as in
Hinkfuss'improvisation,the breakingdown of the barriersbetween the
form of art and the flux of life is mere sleightof hand.
The centralconflict aroundwhich Questaserasi recitaa soggetto
revolvesis thusnot theone outlinedby the authorin theintroductionto the
trilogy (the conflict between the actors become charactersand their
director). The text is constructedaround a paradox which is already
implicitin the firsttwo playsof the trilogy:it pretendsto defend improvisation while relying on artisticcontrivance,to blur the line between art
andlife while erectinga barrierbetween theaudienceandtherepresentation, a framingplay. The frame is multiplied,not destroyed,in Questa
sera si recitaa soggetto. This is laid bare by a particularlystrikingvisual
effect indicatedin the stagedirections:when Hinkfusscallsfor the gong to
be struckand Act I to begin, the curtainopens to reveal anothercurtain.
The focus on the theatricalframe underscoresthe artificeof the play, its
statusas a fictionalconstruct.The double curtainremindsthe spectator
thatthis is indeed "teatronel teatro"and not living theater.
If we look closely at Questaserasi recitaa soggetto,however, we
see thatit is not simplya playwithina play.In fact, theworkis constructed
much like a Chinesebox: the framingplay circumscribesthe "improvisation" which is in turn a theatrical"translation"of a Pirandellostory,
"Leonoraaddio."Thatwhich the charactersare ultimatelyattemptingto
"bringto life"is not presentedas a real-lifeincident,as in Ciascunoa suo
modo, but ratheras a work of fiction.Thuswe have a representationof a
representationof a representation.To heightenthe Chinesebox effect,
there is another representationembedded at the heart of the playMommina'srepresentationof Il trovatorein the scene from which the
Pirandellostorytakesits title.
The structureen abyme-the embedding of multiplerepresentationsone withinanother-in "Questaserasi recitaa soggetto"remindsthe
reader that what he is observing is not reality but a fabrication.23The
self-presentationof the play as "teatronel teatronel teatro..." not only
53

destroys the illusion of art as a mirroring of reality, an illusion already

called into question in Ciascuno a suo modo. More importantly, it draws
our attention to the fictitious nature of so-called reality. The composition
en abyme multiplies and expands the fictional universe until it finally
engulfs what we commonly thought of as external to art. Borges' intuition
of the disturbing nature of the composition en abyme reads as a gloss on
Pirandello's play: "Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of
Don Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I believe I have found
the reason: these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional
work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers and spectators, can be
fictitious."24In this sense, the final play in Pirandello's trilogy does indeed
destroy the barrier between fiction and reality-not to allow life to flow
into art but rather to show that life is always a script.
Syracuse University
NOTES
1. "La critica,"XXXIII (1935), 20-33; La letteraturadella nuova Italia, VI,
353-371,as quoted in AntonioIlliano,Introduzioneallacriticapirandelliana
(Verona:Fiorini), 1976,p. 43.

2. Ibid.

3. See AdrianoTilgher,"I1teatrodi Pirandello,"in Studisul teatrocontemporaneo (Roma: Libreriadi scienze e lettere, 1923), pp. 186-248.Much has
been said of Pirandello'sinitial adoption of Tilgher's formulationof his
philosophy and the subsequent"contamination"of the artist'swork by the
critic's.Mostnotableis Tilgher'sown assertionthat Pirandellohad not only
adopted the critic'sformulaeas his own but had, ultimately,misunderstood
them. In I problemacentrale(Cronacheteatrali1914-1926),(Genoa:Edizioni del teatro stabile di Genova, 1973), pp. 385-394,Tilgherattemptsto
demonstratethe contradictionsinherentin Pirandello'spost-1922formulation of the antithesisbetween life and form. TilgherinsiststhatPirandello's
identification of form with art and flux with life is a misreading of his
formulation of Pirandello'sphilosophy and cites Questa sera si recita a
soggetto as the work in which this misreading is most apparent. For a
discussionof Pirandello'srelationshipwith Tilghersee Illiano,Introduzione
alla criticapirandelliana,pp. 46-55,and LeonardoSciascia,Pirandelloe La
Sicilla (Caltanissetta-Roma:Sciascia, 1961), pp. 91-114. As Sciascia
observes, the ambivalentrelationshipbetween the authorand the critic is
easilyexplained,firstby Tilgher'sfearthatPirandello'sartwould evolve in a
directioncounterto his interpretationand, second, by Pirandello'sdesireto
breakfree fromthe mold in which criticshad casthim, the extremeof which
is expressedin the 1933play "Quandosi e qualcuno."
Pirandellohimselfrefutesthe idea thatartfunctionsin this
4. In "L'umorismo"
manner;he insistson the ingenuousnessof the work of art:"nonpuo essereil
risultatodella riflessione cosciente." See Pirandello,Saggi, poesie, scritti
varii (Milan:Mondadori,1960),p. 134.In the lastdecades criticshavebegun
to re-examinethe notionthatPirandello'sworksconstituteanorganicphilosophicalsystem. MarioBaratto,for instance,rejectsTilgher'sinterpretation
of the Pirandelliantheateras a consistenttheaterof ideas and insistsinstead
upon the "residuodi perplessita"which emerges from a systematicreading
54

of Pirandello'splays. See "Peruna storiadel teatropirandelliano,"Atti del

Congresso Internazionaledi Studi Pirandelliani(Florence: Le Monnier,
1967),pp. 287-302.
5. Pirandello,Mascherenude, v. 1 (Milan:Mondadori,1958), p. 51. Subsequent referencesto thisvolume will be indicatedin parenthesesin the text.
Translationsare my own. The Englishreaderwill find the firsttwo plays of
the trilogy in Pirandello,Naked Masks,ed. Eric Bentley (New York:E. P.
Dutton, 1952).The thirdplay has been translatedin Pirandello,TonightWe
Improvise,trans.Putnam(New York:E. P. Dutton, 1932).
6. JacquesDerrida,Laveriteen peinture(Paris:Flammarion,1978),pp. 44-94.
7. BorisUspenskij,A Poetics of Composition,trans.V. Zavarinand S. Wittig
(Berkeleyand Los Angeles:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1973),p. 138.
8. Jorn Moestrup, The StructuralPatterns of Pirandello'sWorks (Odense:
Odense UniversityPress,1972),p. 187.
9. For a brief discussionof the revisionsfrom the first to the thirdand fourth
editions of the play see Moestrup,pp. 182-87.
10. Tilgher,II problemacentrale,p. 385.
11. RobertBrustein,"Pirandello'sDramaof Revolt,"in Pirandello:A Collection
of CriticalEssays, ed. Glauco Cambon (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1967), p. 130. As Brusteinnotes, Pirandelloleaves this paradoxunresolved in Sei personaggi.
12. In "Threeby Pirandello,"MLN, 93 (January1978),74, Irma Brandeisalso
reads the characteractor'scommentsas criticalin unmakingthe intelligent
spectator'sinterpretation.
13. Althoughone detractorcharacterizesthe ideas dramatizedin the play as
"problemuccifilosofici da quattroal soldo,"Pirandellocleverly undercuts
this attackby characterizingthe speakeras "unvecchio autorefallito."
14. In his NarrativeDiscourse:An Essayin Method (Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press, 1980), pp. 227-37,GerardGenette defines these two levels of narrative. As Genette points out the prefix meta- connotes"thetransitionto the
second degree."
15. Ibid., p. 235.
16. Tilgher,Brustein,and Bishopsee the play as a defense of life. See Thomas
Bishop,Pirandelloand the French Theater(New York:New YorkUniversity Press,1960),pp. 39-41;Tilgher,Il problemacentrale,pp. 389-90,Brustein, "Pirandello'sDrama of Revolt."
17. Tilgher,II problemacentrale,p. 389.
18. In "LaStampa,"22 luglio 1929,as quoted in Tilgher,Il problemacentrale,p.
389.
19. Moestrup,p. 236, speaks of the "breachof illusion"as the centraltheme of
Questasera.
20. In his discussionof the artisticframe in "StructuralIsomorphismof Verbal
and VisualArt,"Poetics, No. 5 (1972),p. 15, BorisUspenskijobserves that
cases of expansionof art into life such as the entranceof actorsthroughthe
auditorium"onlychange the bordersof the artisticspace without destroying them."
21. Those critics who view the trilogy as an unsuccessfulattempt to cross the
boundary between art and life have, like Tilgher, identified Hinkfussas
Pirandello'smouthpiece. Brustein,for instance,who describesHinkfussas
"aPirandellianraisonneur... outliningthe author'stheories,"arguesthat"in
his experimentaldrama,theory and practice fail to merge;idea and action
fail to cohere."See "Pirandello'sDrama of Revolt,"pp. 124-26.
22. There is no questionthatPirandelloto some extentuses Hinkfussas a straw
man. AlthoughHinkfuss'prologue is a patchworkof excerpts from Piran55

dello's critical essays, a careful comparison reveals that Hinkfuss takes

Pirandello'sideas out of context and turnsthem upside down. See Lucio
Lugnani,"Teatrodello straniamentoed estraniazionedal teatroin Questa
sera si recita a soggetto" in La trilogia di Pirandello (Agrigento:Centro
Nazionale di StudiPirandelliani,1976),No. 19, p. 110,for a detailed list of
excerpts from Pirandello'sessays and Hinkfuss'correspondingmisprision.
For instance,in his 1934"Discorsoal Convegno 'Volta'sul teatrodrammatico,"delivered only four yearsafter the premiereof Questasera si recitaa
soggetto, Pirandelloposes the hypotheticalquestions:"se ... l'operad'arte
... entricome uno dei tantielementiin manoe al comandod'unregista... o
se invece tutti questi elementi e l'opera unificatrice dello stesso regista,
creatoreresponsabilesoltantodello spettacolo,non debbano essereadoperatia darvita all'operad'arteche tuttili comprendee senzala qualeciascuno
... non avrebbe ragiond'essere... ""whether... the work of art... enters
as one of manyelementsin the handsand at the commandof the director...
or whether all these elements and the unifying work of the director, the
creatorresponsibleonly for the performance,mustnot be utilizedin sucha
way as to give life to the work of artwhich encompassesthem and without
which none ... would have a raisond'etre."In Pirandello,Saggi, poesie e
scrittivarii (Milan:Mondadori,1960),p. 1007.He concludes that the work
of artis superiorto all otherelements which contributeto the performance
and arguesthat"nondovrebbeesseread arbitriodel registaalterarene tanto
meno manomettere[l'operad'arte]."Hinkfuss'thesisrepresentsa complete
reversalof this position.
23. In Le r6cit speculaire (Paris:Editions du Seuil, 1977), Lucien Dallenbach
providesa typology of the mise en abyme. Pirandello'splay in fact contains
at least two types of mise en abyme. First there is a mise en abyme de
renonciationwhereby the productionand receptionof the text is laid bare.
This is however encompassedby a mise en abyme repetee which suggests
an infiniteregression.
24. JorgeLuisBorges,Labyrinthes(New York:New DirectionsPublishingCo.,
1962),p. 190.

56