In _Don Sancho d'Aragon_ Carlos did his best to prove that he was the son of a fisherman. His natural splendour gave the lie to his pretence. "Impossible that he could have sprung from blood formed by Heaven of nothing but clay."
Non, le fils d'un pêcheur ne parle point ainsi ... Je le soutien, Carlos, vous n'êtes point son fils, La justice du ciel ne peut l'avoir permis, Les tendresses du sang vous font une imposture, Et je démens pour vous la voix de la nature.
He discovers that Carlos is the son of a King of Aragon. His extraordinary merit is explained and consistency is satisfied. On the whole Corneille did nothing but develop the maxims and idealise the models offered to his observation on all sides; as much may be said of the plots of his great plays. His subjects were suggested by the events of the day. Had there been no Mme. de Chevreuse and no conspiracies against Richelieu there could have been no _Cinna_. And it is possible that there might not have been such a work as _Polyeucte_ had there been no Jansenism.[72]
Corneille did not understand actuality as we understand it. His tragedy is never a report of real occurrences, that is evident. But he was besieged, encompassed, possessed, by the life around him, and it left impressions in his mind which worked out and mingled with every subject upon which he entered. He was guided by his impressions,--though he did not know it,--and by their influence he was enabled to find a powerful tragedy in a few indifferent lines dropped by a mediocre historian, or by an inferior narrator of insignificant events. His surroundings furnished him with precise representations, made real to his mind by the vague abstractions of history. In the forms and conditions of the present he saw and felt all the past.[73]
His constant contact with the world of his times favoured the action of his mind upon the minds of his auditors. He exhibited to them their passions, their thoughts, their feelings, their different ways of looking upon social duty, upon politics, and upon the part played, or to be played, by the aristocracy in the general movement. The people of Paris loved the play because it exhibited openly, in different, but always favourable lights, everything in which they had any interest. In it they saw their own life, their aims, their needs, their longing to be great and admirable in all things.[74] They saw depicted all that they had dreamed of being, all that they had wished to be; and something more vital than love of literature animated their transports and lighted the fond glances fixed on the magic mirror reflecting the ideals they so ardently caressed. The people listened to Corneille's plays and trembled as they now tremble at the sound of _La Marseillaise_. It has been said that they did not understand Racine; if they did not, their lack of comprehension was natural. Racine was of another generation, and he was not in sympathy with his forerunner. Mme. de Sévigné was accused of false judgment in her criticism of _Bejazet_,[75] but she also was of another school. She had little sympathy for Racine's heroes. She understood Corneille's heroes, and could not listen to his verses without the tremor of the heart which we all feel when something recalls the generous fancies of our youth. The general impression was that Corneille was inspired by the image of Mlle. de Montpensier when he wrote _Pulcherie_ (1672), an heroic comedy in which an empress stifles the cries of her heart that she may listen to the voice of glory.