Chapter 10

[1]Maximes et Réflexions sur la comédie.

[2]Lettre à d'Alembert sur les spectacles.

[3]Lettre à d'Alembert stir les spectacles.

Thermometer of Social Crises—Interview with M. Thiers—His intentions with regard to the Théâtre-Français—Our conventions—Antonycomes back to the rue de Richelieu—The Constitutionnel—Its leader against Romanticism in general, and against my drama in particular—Morality of the ancient theatre—Parallel between the Théâtre-Français and that of the Porte-Saint-Martin—First suspension ofAntony

The last chapter ended with these words: "And the suspension ofAntony."What suspension? my reader may, perhaps, ask: that ordered by M. Thiers? or the one confirmed by M. Duchâtel? or that which M. de Persigny had just ordered?Antony, as M. Lesur aptly put it, is an abnormal being—un monstre; it was created in one of those crises of extravagant emotion which ensue after revolutions, when that moral institution called the censorship had not yet had time to be settled and in working order; so that whenever society was being shaken to its foundations,Antonywas played; but directly society was settled, and stocks went up and morality triumphed,Antonywas suppressed. I had taken advantage of the moment when society was topsy-turvy to getAntonyput on the stage, as I was wise; for, if I had not done so, the moral government which was crucified between the Cubières trial and the Praslin assassination would, most certainly, never have allowed the representation.

ButAntonyhad been played thirty times;Antonyhad acclimatised itself; it had made its mark and done its worst, and there did not seem to be any reason to be anxious, until M. Thiers summoned me one morning to the Home Office. M. Thiers is a delightful man; I have known fewmore agreeable talkers and few listeners as intelligent. We had seen each other many times, and, furthermore, he and I understood one another, because "he was he and I was I."

"My dear poet," he said to me, "have you noticed something?"

"What, my dear historian?"

"That the Théâtre-Français is going to the devil?"

"Surely that is no news?"

"No, I mention it merely as a misfortune."

"Pooh!..."

"What do you advise in the case of the Théâtre-Français?"

"What one applies to an old structure—a pontoon."

"Good! Do you believe, then, that it can no longer stand against the sea?"

"Oh! certainly, with a new keel, new sails and a different gear."

"Exactly my own opinion: it reminds me of the horse which, in his madness, Roland dragged by the bridle; it had all the attributes of a horse, only, all these attributes were useless on account of one small misfortune: it was dead!"

"Precisely the case."

"Well, Hugo and you have been very successful at the Porte-Saint-Martin; and I want to do at the Théâtre-Français what they have done at the Musée: to open it on Sunday to enable people to come there to see and study the works of dead authors, and to reserve all the rest of the week for living authors and for Hugo and you specially."

"Well, my dear historian, that is the first time I have heard a Home Minister say anything sensible upon a question of art. Let me note the time of day and the date of the month, I must keep it by me ... 15 March 1834, at seven a.m."

"Now, what would you want for a comedy, a tragedy, or a drama of five acts at the Théâtre-Français?"

"I should first of all need actors who can act drama: Madame Dorval, Bocage, Frédérick."

"You cannot have everything at once. I will allow you Madame Dorval; the others must come afterwards."

"All right! that is something at all events ... Then I must have some reparation in respect ofAntony.Therefore I desire that Madame Dorval shall resume her rôle of Adèle."

"Granted ... what else?"

"That is all."

"Oh, you must give us a fresh piece."

"In three months' time."

"On what terms?"

"Why on the usual terms."

"There I join issue: they will give you five thousand francs down!"

"Ah! five thousand francs!"

"Well, I will approach Jouslin de la Salle ... and you shall approach Madame Dorval: only, tell her to be reasonable."

"Oh! never fear! to act at the Français and to playAntonythere, she would make any sacrifices ... Then, it is settled?"

"Yes."

"Let us repeat the terms."

"Very good."

"Hugo and I are to enter the Théâtre-Français by a breach, as did M. de Richelieu's litter."

"Exactly."

"We are each to write two pieces a year ...?"

"Agreed."

"Dorval is engaged? Bocage and Frédérick shall be later?"

"Granted."

"And Dorval shall make her début inAntony?"

"She shall have that specified in her agreement."

"Excellent!... Here's to the first night of the revival of that immoral play!"

"To-day I will engage my box in order to secure a place."

We parted and I ran to Madame Dorval's house to announce this good news. She had not been re-engaged at the Porte-Saint-Martin;she was, therefore, free and could go to the Théâtre-Français without delay. The following day she received a call from Jouslin de la Salle. The terms did not take long to discuss; for, as I had said, to be engaged at the Théâtre-Français, and to playAntonythere, Dorval would have engaged herself for nothing. The rehearsals began immediately. I had signed my contract with the manager, and it was specified in this contract that, by order of the government,Antonywas revived at the Comédie-Française, and that Dorval was to make her début in that drama.Antonyre-appeared on the bills in the rue de Richelieu; and, this time, the odds were a hundred to one that it would be performed, since it was to re-appear under Government commands. The bill announced the piece and Dorval's appearance for 28 April 1834. But we were reckoning withoutThe Constitutionnel.That paper had an old grudge against me, concerning which I did not trouble myself much: I thought it could no longer bite. I was the first who had dared,—in this veryAntony,—to attack its omnipotence.

It will be remembered that, inAntony, there is a stout gentleman, who, no matter what was said to him, invariably answered, "Nevertheless, monsieur,The Constitutionnel .." without ever giving any other reason. Moëssard acted this stout gentleman. That was not all. A piece calledla Tour de Babelhad been produced at the Variétés. The scene that was the cause of scandal in that play was the one where subscription toThe Constitutionnelis discontinued, which they naturally laid at my door, on account of my well-known dislike of that journal. I had not denied it, and I was, if not the actual father, at least the putative sire.

On the morning of 28 April 1834, as I had just done distributing my tickets for the performance that night, my son, who had just turned ten, came to me with a number ofThe Constitutionnelin his hands. He had been sent to me by Goubaux, with whom he was at school, and who cried out to me, like Assas,A vous! c'est l'ennemi!"Toarms! the enemy is upon you!" I unfolded the estimable paper and read,—in the leading article if you please,—the following words. A literary event was thus considered as important as a political one.

"PARIS, 28April1834"The Théâtre-Français is subsidised by the State Budget to the amount of two hundred thousand francs. It is a considerable sum; but, if we reflect upon the influence which that theatre must exercise, in the interests of society, in the matter of taste and manners, and its influence on good dramatic literature, the grant does not seem too large. The Théâtre-Français, enriched by manychefs-d'œuvrewhich have contributed to the progress of our civilisation is, like the Musée, a national institution which should neither be neglected nor degraded. It ought not to descend from the height to which the genius of our great authors has lifted it, to those grotesque and immoral exhibitions that are the disgrace of our age, alarming public modesty and spreading deadly poison through society! There is no longer any curb put to the depravity of the stage, on which all morality and all decorum is forgotten; violation, adultery, incest, crime in their most revolting forms, are the elements of the poetry of this wretched dramatic period, which, deserving of all scorn, tries to set at nought the great masters of art, and takes a fiendish pleasure in blasting every noble sentiment, in order to spread corruption among the people, and expose us to the scorn of other nations!"

"PARIS, 28April1834

"The Théâtre-Français is subsidised by the State Budget to the amount of two hundred thousand francs. It is a considerable sum; but, if we reflect upon the influence which that theatre must exercise, in the interests of society, in the matter of taste and manners, and its influence on good dramatic literature, the grant does not seem too large. The Théâtre-Français, enriched by manychefs-d'œuvrewhich have contributed to the progress of our civilisation is, like the Musée, a national institution which should neither be neglected nor degraded. It ought not to descend from the height to which the genius of our great authors has lifted it, to those grotesque and immoral exhibitions that are the disgrace of our age, alarming public modesty and spreading deadly poison through society! There is no longer any curb put to the depravity of the stage, on which all morality and all decorum is forgotten; violation, adultery, incest, crime in their most revolting forms, are the elements of the poetry of this wretched dramatic period, which, deserving of all scorn, tries to set at nought the great masters of art, and takes a fiendish pleasure in blasting every noble sentiment, in order to spread corruption among the people, and expose us to the scorn of other nations!"

This is well written, is it not? True, it is written by an Academician. I will proceed—

"Public money is not intended for the encouragement of a pernicious system. The sum of two hundred thousand francs is only granted to the Théâtre-Français on condition that it shall keep itself pure from all defilement, that the artistes connected with that theatre, who are still the best in Europe, shall not debase themselves by lending the support of their talent to those works which are unworthy to be put on the national stage, works the disastrous tendency of which should arouse the anxiety of the Government, for it is responsible for public morality as well as for the carrying out of laws. Well, who would believe it? At this very moment the principal actors of the Porte-Saint-Martin are being transferred to theThéâtre-Français, and silly and dirty melodramas are to be naturalised there, in order to replace the dramatic masterpieces which form an important part of our glorious literature. A plague of blindness appears to have afflicted this unhappy theatre. The production ofAntonyis officially announced byThe Moniteurfor to-morrow, Monday:Antony, the most brazenly obscene play which has appeared in these obscene times!Antony, at the first appearance of which respectable fathers of families exclaimed, 'For a long time we have not been able to take our daughters to the theatre; now, we can no longer take our wives!' So we are going to see at the theatre of Corneille, Racine, Molière and Voltaire, a woman flung into an alcove with her mouth gagged; we are to witness violation itself on the national stage: the day of this representation is fixed. What a school of morality to open to the public; what a spectacle to which to invite the youth of the country; you boast that you are elevating them, but they will soon recognise neither rule nor control! It is not its own fault; but that of superior powers, which take no steps to stem this outbreak of immorality. There is no country in the world, however free, where it is permissible to poison the wells of public morality. In ancient republics, the presentation of a dramatic work was the business of the State; it forbade all that could change the national character, undermine the honour of its laws and outrage public modesty."

Witness theLysistrataof Aristophanes, of which we wish to say a few words to our readers, taking care, however, to translate into Latin those parts which cannot be reproduced in French.

"Le latin dans les mots brave l'honnêteté!"

It will be seen I quote Boileau when he serves my purpose. Poor Boileau! What a shame for him to be forced to come to the rescue of the author ofHenri III.andAntony!

We are at Athens. The Athenians are at war with the Lacedæmonians; the women are complaining of that interminable Peloponnesian War, which keeps their husbands away from them and prevents them from fulfilling their conjugal duties. The loudest in her complaints is Lysistrata, wife of one of the principal citizens of Athens; so she calls togetherall the matrons not only of Athens, but also from Lacedæmon, Anagyrus and Corinth. She has a suggestion to make to them. We will let her speak. She is addressing one of the wives convoked by her, who has come to the place of meeting.[1]

LISISTRATA.—Salut, Lampito! Lacédémonienne chérie, que tu es belle! Ma douce amie, quel teint frais! quel air de santé! Tu étranglerais un taureau!LAMPITO.—Par Castor et Pollux, je le crois bien: je m'exerce au gymnase, et je me frappe du talon dans le derrière."

LISISTRATA.—Salut, Lampito! Lacédémonienne chérie, que tu es belle! Ma douce amie, quel teint frais! quel air de santé! Tu étranglerais un taureau!

LAMPITO.—Par Castor et Pollux, je le crois bien: je m'exerce au gymnase, et je me frappe du talon dans le derrière."

The dance to which Lampito alludes, with anaïvetéin keeping with the Doric dialect natural to her, was calledCibasis.Let us proceed:

"LISISTRATA,lui prenant la gorge.—Que tu as une belle gorge!"LAMPITO.—Vous me tâtez comme une victime."LISISTRATA.—Et cette autre jeune fille, de quel pays est-elle?"LAMPITO.—C'est une Béotienne des plus nobles qui nous arrive."LISISTRATA.—Ah! oui, c'est une Béotienne?.. Elle a un joli jardin!"

"LISISTRATA,lui prenant la gorge.—Que tu as une belle gorge!

"LAMPITO.—Vous me tâtez comme une victime.

"LISISTRATA.—Et cette autre jeune fille, de quel pays est-elle?

"LAMPITO.—C'est une Béotienne des plus nobles qui nous arrive.

"LISISTRATA.—Ah! oui, c'est une Béotienne?.. Elle a un joli jardin!"

That reminds me, I forgot to say—and it was the wordjardinwhich reminded me of that omission—that Lampito and Kalonike, the Bœotian, play their parts in the costume Eve wore in the earthly paradise before she sinned.

"CALONICE.—Et parfaitement soigné! on eu a arraché le pouliot."

Here the learned translator informs us that thepouliotwas a plant which grew in abundance in Bœotia. Then he adds:Sed intelligit hortum muliebrem undè pilos educere aut evellere solebant.Lysistrata continues, and lays before the meeting her reason for convening it.

LISISTRATA.—Ne regrettez-vous pas que les pères de vos enfants soient retenus loin de vous par la guerre? Car je sais que nous avons toutes nos maris absents."CALONICE.—Le mien est en Thrace depuis cinq mois."LISISTRATA.—Le mien est depuis sept mois à Pylos."LAMPITO.—Le mien revient à peine de l'armée, qu'il reprend son bouclier, et repart."LISISTRATA.—Sed nec mœchi relicta est scintilla! ex quo enim nos prodiderunt Milesi ne olisbum quidem vidi octo digitos longum, qui nobis esset conâceum auxilium."

LISISTRATA.—Ne regrettez-vous pas que les pères de vos enfants soient retenus loin de vous par la guerre? Car je sais que nous avons toutes nos maris absents.

"CALONICE.—Le mien est en Thrace depuis cinq mois.

"LISISTRATA.—Le mien est depuis sept mois à Pylos.

"LAMPITO.—Le mien revient à peine de l'armée, qu'il reprend son bouclier, et repart.

"LISISTRATA.—Sed nec mœchi relicta est scintilla! ex quo enim nos prodiderunt Milesi ne olisbum quidem vidi octo digitos longum, qui nobis esset conâceum auxilium."

Poor Lysistrata! One can well understand how a wife in such trouble would put herself at the head of a conspiracy. Now, the conspiracy which Lysistrata proposed to her companions was as follows:

"LISISTRATA.—Il faut nous abstenir des hommes!... Pourquoi détournez-vous les yeux? où allez-vous?... Pourquoi vous mordre les lèvres, et secouer la tête? Le ferez-vous ou ne le ferez-vous pas?... Que décidez-vous?"MIRRHINE.—Je ne le ferai pas! Que la guerre continue."LAMPITO.—Ni moi non plus! Que la guerre continue."LISISTRATA.—O sexe dissolu! Je ne m'étonne plus que nous fournissions des sujets de tragédie: nous ne sommes bonnes qu'à une seule chose!... O ma chère Lacédémonienne,—car tu peux encore tout sauver en t'unissant à moi,—je tien prie, seconde mes projets!"LAMPITO.—C'est qu'il est bien difficile pour des femmes de dormirsine mentula!Il faut cependant s'y résoudre, car la paix doit passer avant tout."LISISTRATA.—La paix, assurément! Si nous nous tenions chez nous bien fardées, et sans autre vêtement qu'une tunique fine et transparente,incenderemus glabro cunno, arrigerent viri, et coïre cuperent!"

"MIRRHINE.—Je ne le ferai pas! Que la guerre continue.

"LAMPITO.—Ni moi non plus! Que la guerre continue.

"LISISTRATA.—O sexe dissolu! Je ne m'étonne plus que nous fournissions des sujets de tragédie: nous ne sommes bonnes qu'à une seule chose!... O ma chère Lacédémonienne,—car tu peux encore tout sauver en t'unissant à moi,—je tien prie, seconde mes projets!

"LAMPITO.—C'est qu'il est bien difficile pour des femmes de dormirsine mentula!Il faut cependant s'y résoudre, car la paix doit passer avant tout.

"LISISTRATA.—La paix, assurément! Si nous nous tenions chez nous bien fardées, et sans autre vêtement qu'une tunique fine et transparente,incenderemus glabro cunno, arrigerent viri, et coïre cuperent!"

The wives consent. They decide to bind themselves by an oath. This is the oath:

"LISISTRATA.—Mettez toutes la main sur la coupe, et qu'une seuls répète, en votre nom à toutes, ce que je vais vous dire: Aucun amant ni aucun époux...."MIRRHINE.—Aucun amant ni aucun époux...."LISISTRATA.—Ne pourra m'approcherrigente nervo!—Répète."

"LISISTRATA.—Mettez toutes la main sur la coupe, et qu'une seuls répète, en votre nom à toutes, ce que je vais vous dire: Aucun amant ni aucun époux....

"MIRRHINE.—Aucun amant ni aucun époux....

"LISISTRATA.—Ne pourra m'approcherrigente nervo!—Répète."

Myrrine repeats.

"LISISTRATA.—Et, s'il emploie la violence...."MIRRHINE.—Oui, s'il emploie la violence...."LISISTRATA.—Motus non addam!"

"LISISTRATA.—Et, s'il emploie la violence....

"MIRRHINE.—Oui, s'il emploie la violence....

"LISISTRATA.—Motus non addam!"

One can imagine the result of such an oath, which is scrupulously kept.

My readers will remember M. de Pourceaugnac's flight followed by the apothecaries? Well, that will give you some idea of themise en scèneof the rest of the piece. The wives play the rôle of M. de Pourceaugnac, and the husbands that of the apothecaries. And that is one of the plays which, according to the author ofJoconde, gave such a high tone to ancient society! It is very extraordinary that people know Aristophanes so little when they are so well acquainted with Conaxa!

"In the ancient republics," our censor continues with assurance, "spectacular games were intended to excite noble passions, not to excite the vicious leanings of human nature; their object was to correct vice by ridicule, and, by recalling glorious memories, energetically to rouse souls to the emulation of virtue, enthusiasm for liberty and love of their country! Well, we, proud of our equivocal civilisation, have no such exalted thoughts; all we demand is to have at least one single theatre to which we can take our children and wives without their imaginations being contaminated, a theatre which shall be really a school of good taste and manners."Was it at this theatre thatJocondewas to be played?"We do not look for it in the direction of the Beaux-Arts; a romantic coterie, the sworn enemy of our great literature, reigns supreme in that quarter; a coterie which only recognises its own specialists and flatterers and only bestows its favours upon them; an undesigning artiste is forgotten by it. It wants to carry out its own absurd theories: it hunts up from the boulevards its director, its manager, its actors and its plays, which are a disgrace to the French stage: that is its chief object; and those are the methods it employs. We are addressing these remarks to M. Thiers, Minister for Home Affairs, a distinguished man of letters and admirer of those sublime geniuses which are the glory of our country; it is to him, the guardian of a power which should watch over the safety of this noble inheritance, that we appeal to prevent it falling into hostile hands, and to oppose that outburst of evil morals which is invading the theatre, perverting the youth in our colleges, throwing it out upon the world eager for precocious pleasures, impatient of any kind of restraint, andmaking it soon tired of life. This disgust with life almost at the beginning of it, this terrible phenomenon hitherto unprecedented, is largely owing to the baneful influence of those dangerous spectacles where the most unbridled passions are exhibited in all their nakedness, and to that new school of literature where everything worthy of respect is scoffed at. To permit this corruption of youth, or rather to foster its corruption, is to prepare a stormy and a troubled future; it is to compromise the cause of Liberty, to poison our growing institutions in the bud; it is, at the same time, the most justifiable and deadly reproach that can be made against a government...."

Was it at this theatre thatJocondewas to be played?

"We do not look for it in the direction of the Beaux-Arts; a romantic coterie, the sworn enemy of our great literature, reigns supreme in that quarter; a coterie which only recognises its own specialists and flatterers and only bestows its favours upon them; an undesigning artiste is forgotten by it. It wants to carry out its own absurd theories: it hunts up from the boulevards its director, its manager, its actors and its plays, which are a disgrace to the French stage: that is its chief object; and those are the methods it employs. We are addressing these remarks to M. Thiers, Minister for Home Affairs, a distinguished man of letters and admirer of those sublime geniuses which are the glory of our country; it is to him, the guardian of a power which should watch over the safety of this noble inheritance, that we appeal to prevent it falling into hostile hands, and to oppose that outburst of evil morals which is invading the theatre, perverting the youth in our colleges, throwing it out upon the world eager for precocious pleasures, impatient of any kind of restraint, andmaking it soon tired of life. This disgust with life almost at the beginning of it, this terrible phenomenon hitherto unprecedented, is largely owing to the baneful influence of those dangerous spectacles where the most unbridled passions are exhibited in all their nakedness, and to that new school of literature where everything worthy of respect is scoffed at. To permit this corruption of youth, or rather to foster its corruption, is to prepare a stormy and a troubled future; it is to compromise the cause of Liberty, to poison our growing institutions in the bud; it is, at the same time, the most justifiable and deadly reproach that can be made against a government...."

PoorAntony! it only needed now to be accused of having violated the Charter of 1830!

pamphlets which have lent their support to this odious system of demoralisation; whatever else we may blame them for, we must admit that they have repulsed this Satanic literature and immoral drama with indignation, and have remained faithful to the creed of national honour. It is the journals of the Restoration, it is the despicable management of the Beaux-Arts, which, under the eyes of the Ministry, causes such great scandal to the civilised world: the scandal of contributing to the publicity and success of these monstrous productions, which take us back to barbarous times and which will end, if they are not stopped, in making us blush that we are Frenchmen ..."

Can you imagine the author ofJocondeblushing for being a Frenchman because M. Hugo wroteMarion Delorme, and M. Dumas,Antony, and compelled to look atla Colonneto restore his pride in his own nationality?

"But why put a premium upon depravity? Why encumber the state budget with the sum of 200,000 francs for the encouragement of bad taste and immorality? Why not, at least, divide the sum between the Théâtre-Français and the Porte-Saint-Martin? There would be some justice in that, for their rights are equal; very soon, even the former of these theatres will be but a branch of the other, and this last will indeed deserve all the sympathies of the directors of theBeaux-Arts.It would, then, be shocking negligence on their part to leave it out in the cold."

You are right this time, Monsieur l'Académicien. A subsidy ought to be granted to the theatre which produces literary works which are remembered in following years and remain in the repertory. Now, let us see what pieces were running at the Théâtre Français concurrently with those of the Porte-Saint-Martin, and then tell me which were the pieces during this period of four years which you remember and which remain on its repertory?

THÉÂTRE-FRANÇAISCharlotte Corday—Camille Desmoulins, le Clerc et le Théologien—Pierre III.—Le Prince et la Grisette—Le Sophiste—Guido Reni—Le Presbytère—Caïus Gracchus, ou le Sénat et le Peuple—La Conspiration de Cellamare—La Mort de Figaro—Le Marquis de Rieux—Les Dernières Scènes de la Fronde—Mademoiselle de Montmorency.THÉÂTRE DE LA PORTE-SAINT-MARTINAntony—Marion Delorme—Richard Darlington—La Tour de Nesle—Perrinet Leclerc—Lucrèce Borgia—Angèle—Marie Tudor—Catherine Howard.

THÉÂTRE-FRANÇAIS

Charlotte Corday—Camille Desmoulins, le Clerc et le Théologien—Pierre III.—Le Prince et la Grisette—Le Sophiste—Guido Reni—Le Presbytère—Caïus Gracchus, ou le Sénat et le Peuple—La Conspiration de Cellamare—La Mort de Figaro—Le Marquis de Rieux—Les Dernières Scènes de la Fronde—Mademoiselle de Montmorency.

THÉÂTRE DE LA PORTE-SAINT-MARTIN

Antony—Marion Delorme—Richard Darlington—La Tour de Nesle—Perrinet Leclerc—Lucrèce Borgia—Angèle—Marie Tudor—Catherine Howard.

True, we find, without reckoningles Enfants d'ÉdouardandLouis XI.by Casimir Delavigne,Bertrand et Ratonandla Passion secrèteby Scribe, who had just protested against that harvest of unknown, forgotten and buried works, flung into the common grave without epitaph to mark their resting-places,—it is true, I say, that we find four or five pieces more at the Théâtre-Français than at the Porte-Saint-Martin; but that does not prove that they played those pieces at the Théâtre-Français for a longer period than those of the Porte-Saint-Martin, especially when we carefully reflect that the Théâtre-Français only plays its new pieces for two nights at a time, and gives each year a hundred and fifty representations of its old standing repertory! You are therefore perfectly correct,Monsieurl'acadèmicien: it was to the Porte-Saint-Martin and not to the Théâtre-Français that the subsidy ought to have been granted, seeing that, with the exception of two or three works, it was at the Porte-Saint-Martin that genuine literature was produced. We will proceed, or, rather, the author ofJocondeshall proceed:

"If the Chamber of Deputies is not so eager to vote for laws dealing with financial matters, we must hope, that in so serious a matter as this one, so intimately connected with good order and the existence of civilisation, some courageous voice will be raised to protest against such an abusive use of public funds, and to recall the Minister to the duties with which he is charged. The deputy who would thus speak would be sure of a favourable hearing from an assembly, whose members every day testify against the unprecedented license of the theatres, destructive of all morality, and who are perfectly cognisant of all the dangers attached thereto."

But you were a member of the Chamber, illustrious author ofJoconde!Why did you not take up the matter yourself? Were you afraid, perchance, that they might think you still held, under the sway of the younger branch of the Bourbon family, the position of dramatic critic which you exercised so agreeably under Napoléon?

"We shall return to this subject," continues the ex-dramatic censor, "which seems to us of the highest importance for the peace of mind of private families and of society in general. We have on our side every man of taste, all true friends of our national institutions and, in fact, all respectable persons in all classes of society!"

"Well! That is a polite thing, indeed, to say to the spectators who followed the one hundred and thirty performances ofAntony, the eighty representations ofMarion Delorme, the ninety ofRichard Darlington, the six hundred ofla Tour de Nesle, the ninety productions ofPerrinet-Leclerc, the one hundred and twenty ofLucrèce Borgia, one hundred ofAngèle, seventy ofMarie Tudorand fifty ofCatherine Howard!What were these people, if your particular specimens are "menof taste," the "true friends of our national institutions," and "respectable persons"? They must be blackguards, subverters of government, thieves and gallows-birds? The deuce! Take care! For I warn you that the great majority of these people were not only from Paris, but from the provinces. This is how the moralist of theConstitutionnelends:

"We are convinced that even the artistes of the Théâtre-Français, who see with satisfaction the enlightened portion of the public rallying to their side, will decide in favour of the successful efforts of our protests. It will depend on the Chamber and on the Home Minister. Political preoccupations, as is well known, turned his attention from the false and ignoble influences at work at the Théâtre-Français; there is no longer any excuse for him, now that he knows the truth.""ÉTIENNE ["A. JAY"][2]

Perhaps you thought, when you began to read this denunciation, that it was anonymous or signed only with an initial or by a masonic sign, or by two, three or four asterisks? No indeed! It was signed by the name of a man, of a deputy, of a dramatic author, or, thereabouts, of an académicien, M. Étienne! [M. Jay]. Now, the same day that this article appeared, about two in the afternoon, M. Jouslin de Lasalle, director of the Théâtre-Français, received this little note, short but clear.

"The Théâtre-Français is forbidden to playAntonyto-night."THIERS"

I took a cab and gave orders to the driver to take me to the Home Minister.

[1]We have borrowed the following quotations from M. Arland's excellent translation. If we had translated it ourselves, in the first place the translation would be bad, then people might have accused us of straining the Greek to say more than it meant.

[2]TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.—The Brussels edition gives Étienne; the current Paris edition, A. Jay.

My discussion with M. Thiers—Why he had been compelled to suspendAntony—Letter of Madame Dorval to theConstitutionnel—M. Jay crowned with roses—My lawsuit with M. Jouslin de Lasalle—There are still judges in Berlin!

At four o'clock, I got down to the door of the Home Office. I went in at once and reached the Minister's private office, without any obstacle preventing me; the office-boys and ushers who had seen me come there three or four times during the past fortnight, that is to say during the period M. Thiers had been Home Minister, did not even think of asking me where I was going. M. Thiers was at work with his secretary. He was exceedingly busy just at that time; for Paris had only just come out of her troubles of the 13 and 14 April, and the insurrection of the Lyons Mutualists was scarcely over; the budget of trade and of public works was under discussion, for, in spite of a special department, these accounts remained under the care of the Home Office; finally, they were just passing to the general discussion of the Fine Arts, and consequently had entered upon the particular discussion of the subsidising of the Théâtre-Français.

At the noise I made opening the door of his room, M. Thiers raised his head.

"Good!" he said, "I was expecting you."

"I think not," I replied.

"What do you mean?"

"Because, if you had expected me, you would have known my reasons for coming, and would have forbidden my entrance."

"And what are your reasons for coming?"

"I have come simply to ask an explanation of the man who fails to keep his promise as a Minister."

"You do not know, then, what passed in the Chambers?"

"No! I only know what has happened at the Théâtre-Français."

"I was obliged to suspendAntony."

"Not to suspend, but to stop it."

"To stop or to suspend...."

"Do not mean the same thing."

"Well, then, I was obliged to stopAntony."

"Obliged? A Minister! How could a Minister be obliged to stop a piece which he had himself taken out of the hands of the prompter of another theatre, when, too, he had engaged his own box to see the first representation of that piece?"

"Yes—obliged, I was compelled to do it!"

"By the article in theConstitutionnel?"

"Bah! if it had only been that article I should, indeed, have made myself a laughing-stock, although good ink went to the writing of it."

"You call that good ink, do you? I defy you to suck M. Jay's [Étienne's] pen, without having an attack of the colic."

"Well, call it bad ink, if you like ... But it was the Chamber!"

"How do you make that out?"

"Oh! I had the whole Chamber against me! IfAntonyhad been allowed to be played to-night, the Budget would not have passed."

"The Budget would not have passed?"

"No ... Remember that such people as Jay, Étienne, Viennet and so forth ... can command a hundred votes in the Chamber, a hundred people who vote like one man. I was pinned into a corner—'Antonyand no budget!' or, 'A budget and noAntony!' ... Ah! my boy, remain a dramatic author and take good care never to become a Minister!"

"Oh! come! do you really think matters can rest thus?"

"No, I am well aware I owe you an indemnity; fix it yourself and I will pass for payment any sum you may exact!"

"A fig for your indemnity! Do you think I work only to earn indemnities?"

"No, you work to earn author's rights."

"When my pieces are played, not when they are forbidden."

"However, you have a right to compensation."

"The Court will fix that."

"Trust in me and do not have recourse to lawsuits."

"Why?"

"Because the same thing will happen to you that happened to Hugo with regard to theRoi s'amuse: the tribunal will declare itself incompetent."

"The Government did not interfere with the contract of theRoi s'amuse, as you have in the case ofAntony."

"Indirectly."

"The Court will appreciate that point."

"This will not prevent you from writing a new piece for us."

"Good! So that they may refuse you the budget of 1835? Thanks!"

"You will think better of your determination."

"I? I will never set foot in your offices again!"

And out I went, sulking and growling; which I would certainly not have done had I known that, in less than two years' time, this same Thiers would break his word to Poland, by letting the Austrians, Prussians and Russians occupy Cracow; to Spain, by refusing to intervene; and to Switzerland by threatening to blockade her. What was this paltry little broken promise to a dramatic author in comparison with these three great events?

I rushed to Dorval, whom the ministerial change of front hit more cruelly than it did me. Indeed,Antonywas only banned by the Théâtre-Français; elsewhere, its reputation was well established, and its revival could not add anything to mine.But it was different in the case of Dorval: she had never had a part in which she had been so successful as she had been in that of Adèle; none of her old rôles could supply the place of this one, and there was no probability that any new part would give her the chance of success, which the suppression ofAntonytook away from her. She began by writing the following letter to theConstitutionnel:—

"MONSIEUR,—When I was engaged at the Français, it was on the express condition that I should begin inAntony.That condition was ratified in my agreement as the basis of the contract into which I entered with the management of the Théâtre Richelieu. Now, the Government decides that the piece received at the Théâtre-Français in 1830, censured under the Bourbons, played a hundred times at the Porte-Saint-Martin, thirty times at the Odéon and once at the Italiens, cannot be acted by the king's comedians. A lawsuit between the author and M. Thiers will settle the question of rights. But, until that law-suit is decided, I feel myself compelled to cease appearing in any other piece. I am anxious, at the same time, to make clear that there is nothing in my refusal which can injure the authors ofune Liaison, to whom I owe particular thanks for their generous dealings with me."MARIE DORVAL"

This was the serious and sad side to the situation; then, when she had accomplished this duty towards herself,—and especially to her family, of whom she was the only support,—Dorval was desirous of repaying M. Étienne [M. Jay], after her own fashion, not having the least doubt that I should also pay him back in my own way some day or other. I came across the fact that I am going to relate in an album which the poor woman sent me when dying, and which I have tenderly preserved.

"On 28 April 1834, my appearance inAntonyat the Théâtre-Français was forbidden, at the solicitation, or rather upon the denunciation, of M. Antoine Jay [M. Étienne], author ofJocondeand editor of theConstitutionnel.I conceived the idea of sending him a crown of roses. I put the crown in a card-boardbox with a little note tied to it with a white favour. The letter contained these words:'MONSIEUR,—Here is a crown which was flung at my feet inAntony, allow me to place it on your brow. I owe you that homage."'Personne ne sait davantageCombien vous l'avez mérite!'""MARIE DORVAL"

'MONSIEUR,—Here is a crown which was flung at my feet inAntony, allow me to place it on your brow. I owe you that homage.

"'Personne ne sait davantageCombien vous l'avez mérite!'""MARIE DORVAL"

Below the signature of that good and dear friend, I discovered two more lines, and the following letter:—

"M. Jay [M. Étienne] sent back the box, the crown and the white favour with this note—

"'MADAME,—The epigram is charming, and although it is not true it is in such excellent taste that I cannot refrain from appropriating it. As for the crown, it belongs to grace and talent, so I hasten to lay it again at your feet."A. JAY [ÉTIENNE]"30April1834"

"30April1834"

As I had warned M. Thiers I appealed from his decision to thetribunal de commerce.The trial was fixed for the 2nd June following. My friend Maître Mermilliod laid claim on my behalf for the representation ofAntony, or demanded 12,000 francs damages. Maître Nouguier, M. Jouslin de Lasalle's advocate, offered, in the name of his client, to playAntony, but on condition that I should produce the leave of the Home Office. Maître Legendre, attorney to the Home Office, disputed the jurisdiction of the tribunal, his plea being that acts of administrative authority could not be brought before a legal tribunal for decision. It was quite simple, as you see: the Government stole my purse; and, when I claimed restitution it said to me "Stop, you scamp! I am too grand a seigneur to be prosecuted!" Happily, the Court did not allow itself to be intimidated by the grand airs of Maître Legendre, and directed that M. Jouslin de Lasalle should appear in person at the bar. The case was put off till the fifteenth. Now I will open theGazette des Tribunaux, and copy from it.

"TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE PARIS"Hearing30June, 1834"President—M. VASSAL"M. ALEXANDRE DUMASagainstJOUSLIN de LASALLE."MAÎTRE HENRY NOUGUIER, Counsel for the Comédie Française."The Court having directed the parties to come in person to lay their case before it, M. Jouslin de Lasalle only appears out of deference to the court, but protests against that appearance, on the grounds that it will establish a precedent which will lead to M. Jouslin de Lasalle having to appear in person in all disputes which may concern the Comédie-Française, and to reveal his communications with administrative authority; and he leaves the merits of this protest to be decided by reference to previous decisions."M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—As plaintiff, I plead first, when the Home Ministry formed the plan of regenerating or re-organising the Théâtre-Français, it first of all decided to appoint a good manager and to call in, I will not say authors of talent, but authors who could draw good houses. The intention of the Government was, at first, to begin by re-establishing the old material prosperity of the theatre. It order to attain that end, it was needful that it should have plays in its répertoire which should attract the public and bring in good receipts in addition to the subsidy it proposed to grant. M. Thiers procured an exceedingly clever manager in the person of M. Jouslin de Lasalle. He bethought himself also of me as one enjoying a certain degree of public favour. The Minister, therefore, sent for me to his cabinet, and suggested I should work for the Théâtre-Français, even going so far as to offer me a premium. I asked to be treated like other authors in respect of future plays, and I demanded no other condition before I gave my consent than the promise that three of my old dramas should be played,Antony,Henri III.andChristine.M. Thiers told me he did not knowAntony, although that drama had been represented eighty times; that he had seenChristine, which had given him much pleasure, and that he had even made it the subject of an article when the play appeared. My condition was accepted without anyreservation. Thus, I was in treaty with the Minister before the manager of the Théâtre-Français had an interview with me. M. Jouslin de Lasalle even found me in the office of M. Thiers. The latter indicated the clauses of the contract and charged M. Jouslin to put them down in writing. In conformity with the agreements then arrived at,Antonywas put in rehearsal and announced in the bills."However, in that work, using the liberty of an author, I had rallied theConstitutionneland its old-fashioned doctrines. TheConstitutionnel, which, before 1830, had been something of a power, took offence at the gibes of a young dramatic author, and, in its wrath, it thundered forth in an article wherein it pretended to show thatAntonywas an immoral production, and that it was scandalous to allow its representation at the leading national theatre. The journal's anger might not, perhaps, have exerted great influence over the Minister for Home Affairs had not MM. Jay and Étienne happened at that time to be concerned with the theatre budget. These worthy deputies, whose collaboration in theConstitutionnelis well known, imagined that the epigrams ofAntonyreferred to them personally; having this in mind, they informed the Minister that they would cause the theatre budget to be rejected if my satirical play was not prohibited at the Théâtre-Français.Antonywas to have been played on the very day upon which these threats were addressed to M. Thiers. That Minister sent to M. Jouslin de Lasalle, at four o'clock in the afternoon, the order to stop the representation; I was informed of this interdict some hours later. I knew that M. Jouslin de Lasalle had acted in good faith, and that he had done all that rested with him, concerning the preparation of my play. The injury came from the Government alone, which had placedAntonyon the Index, without his knowledge, as he himself said before the tribune. That ministerial interdict has been fatal to my interests, for Prefects of theDepartementshave, following in the footsteps of their chief, striven to have my play prohibited. It is no longer even allowed to be played at Valenciennes. M. Jouslin de Lasalle has offered to stage any other play I might choose in place ofAntony, but that would not be the same thing as the execution of the signed contract; moreover, I cling to the representation ofAntony, which is my favourite work, and that of many young writers who are good enough to regard me as their representative. Upon the faith of these ministerialpromises, and of the agreement made with M. Jouslin de Lasalle, I withdrewAntonyforcibly from the repertory of the Porte-Saint-Martin, where it was bringing in large sums. I am thus deprived of my author's rights, which came in daily. It is, consequently, only just that M. Jouslin should compensate me for the harm he has done me by the non-execution of the contract. The Government are sure to provide him with the necessary funds. The private quarrel I had with theConstitutionnelought not to be permitted to cause the manager of the Théâtre-Français, much less the Government, to stop the production of a piece which forms a part of my means of livelihood; that would be nothing short of spoliation. If M. Thiers had not intended to treat with me, he should not have sent for me to call upon him a dozen to fifteen times; he should not have taken upon himself the arrangement of theatrical details which are outside the scope of a Minister. M. Jouslin was evidently but an intermediary."M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—I drew up the agreement with M. Alexandre Dumas in my office. The Minister knew I had done so, but he was not acquainted with the details of that contract. I did all in my power to fulfil the compact. The prohibition of the Minister came suddenly without my having received previous notice, and that alone prevented the carrying out of my promise. It was an act offorce majeurefor which I do not hold myself responsible."M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—Did you not meet me at the Minister's?"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—Yes, a fortnight ago."MAÎTRE MERMILLIOD.—The Minister knew thatAntonyformed part of Madame Dorval's repertory, and that she was to make her appearance in that piece."M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—Madame Dorval made it a special stipulation in her engagement."M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—Madame Dorval was engaged two or three months before the treaty with M. Alexandre Dumas. No stipulation was then made relative toAntony.After the contract with the plaintiff, M. Merle, Madame Dorval's husband, came and begged me to add the clause to which reference has just been made; I did not refuse that act of compliance because I did not foresee thatAntonywas to be forbidden. I added the clause at the foot of the dramatic contract."M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—Had the additional clause any definite date attached?"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—No."MAÎTRE MERMILLIOD.—M. Jouslin de Lasalle receives a subsidy from the Government, and is in a state of dependence which prevents him from explaining his position openly."M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—I am not required to explain my relations with the Government; and it would be unseemly on my part to do so."M. LE PRÉSIDENT.—Are you bound, in consequence of the subsidy you receive, only to play those pieces which suit the Government?"M. JOUSLIN de LASALLE.—No obligation of that kind whatever is imposed on me. I enjoy, in that respect, the same liberty that all other managers have; but, like them, I am bound to submit to any prohibitions issued by the state. There is no difference in this respect between my confrères and myself."After these explanations, the manager of the Théâtre-Français at once left the Court. The president declared that the Court would adjourn the case for consideration, and that judgment would be pronounced in a fortnight's time.""Hearing of14July"The Court taking into consideration the connection between the cases, decides to join them, and gives judgment upon both at one and the same time. Concerning the principal claim: It appearing that, if it had been decided by the Court that the prohibition to produce a piece which was opposed to good manners and public morality, legally made by a competent Minister, might be looked upon as a case offorce majeure, thus doing away with the right of appeal of the author against the manager, the tribunal has only been called upon to deal with the plea of justification which might have been put forward in respect to new pieces where their performance would seem dangerous to the administration:"It appearing that in the actual trial the parties found themselves to be in totally different positions with respect to the matter, and it is no longer a question of the production of a new play, subject to the twofold scrutiny of both the public and the Government, but of a work which, being in the repertory ofanother theatre, would there have had a great number of performances, without let or hindrance on the part of the Government; with regard to the position of M. Jouslin, manager of a theatre subsidised by the Government, it is right to examine him in this case, as the decisions in previous cases are not applicable to this action:"It appearing from the documents produced, and the pleadings and explanations given in public by the parties themselves, that the Home Minister, in the interests of the prosperity of the Théâtre Français, felt it necessary to associate M. Alexandre Dumas's talent with that theatre, and that to this end a verbal agreement was come to between Jouslin de Lasalle and Alexandre Dumas, and that the first condition of the said agreement was that the play ofAntonyshould be performed at the Théâtre-Français:"Further, it appearing, that the play ofAntonybelonged to the repertory of the Porte-Saint-Martin; that it had been played a great number of times without any interference or hindrance from authority; that it is consequently correct to say that Jouslin de Lasalle knew the gist of the agreement to be made with Alexandre Dumas, and that it was at his risk and peril that he was engaged:"It appearing that, if Jouslin de Lasalle thought it his duty to submit, without opposition or protest on his part, to the mere notice given him by the Government, in its decision to stop the production ofAntonyat the Théâtre-Français on 28 April, the said submission of Jouslin de Lasalle must be looked upon as an act of compliance which was called forth by his own personal interests, and on account of his position as a subsidised manager, since he did not feel it his duty to enter a protest against the ministerial prohibition; that we cannot recognise here any case offorce majeure; that this act of compliance was not sufficient warranty for prejudicing the rights of Alexandre Dumas; that his contract with Jouslin de Lasalle ought therefore to have been fulfilled or cancelled with the consequent indemnity:"It further appearing that it is for the tribunal to settle the sum to which Alexandre Dumas is entitled as damages for the wrong that has been done him up to this present date by the non-performance by Jouslin de Lasalle of the contract made between them, the amount is fixed at 10,000 francs; therefore in giving judgment on the first count the Court directsJouslin de Lasalle to pay to Alexandre Dumas the said sum of 10,000 francs in full satisfaction of all damages:"Further, deciding upon the additional claim of Alexandre Dumas: It appearing that it was not in the latter's power to be able to oppose the prohibition relative to the production of the play ofAntony, but was the business of the subsidised manager to do so, since he had engaged the plaintiff at his own risk and peril:"The Court orders that, during the next fortnight Jouslin de Lasalle shall use his power with the authority responsible, to get the Government to remove the prohibition; otherwise, and failing to do this during the said period, after that time, until the prohibition is removed, it is decided, and without any further judgment being necessary, that Jouslin de Lasalle shall pay Alexandre Dumas the sum of 50 francs for each day of the delay; it further orders Jouslin de Lasalle to pay the costs:"In the matter of the claim of indemnity between Jouslin de Lasalle and the Home Minister: As it is a question of deciding upon an administrative act, this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and dismisses the cases, and as the parties interested, who ought to have known this, have brought it before the Court, condemns M. Jouslin de Lasalle to pay the costs of this claim ..."

"Hearing30June, 1834"President—M. VASSAL

"M. ALEXANDRE DUMASagainstJOUSLIN de LASALLE.

"MAÎTRE HENRY NOUGUIER, Counsel for the Comédie Française.

"The Court having directed the parties to come in person to lay their case before it, M. Jouslin de Lasalle only appears out of deference to the court, but protests against that appearance, on the grounds that it will establish a precedent which will lead to M. Jouslin de Lasalle having to appear in person in all disputes which may concern the Comédie-Française, and to reveal his communications with administrative authority; and he leaves the merits of this protest to be decided by reference to previous decisions.

"M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—As plaintiff, I plead first, when the Home Ministry formed the plan of regenerating or re-organising the Théâtre-Français, it first of all decided to appoint a good manager and to call in, I will not say authors of talent, but authors who could draw good houses. The intention of the Government was, at first, to begin by re-establishing the old material prosperity of the theatre. It order to attain that end, it was needful that it should have plays in its répertoire which should attract the public and bring in good receipts in addition to the subsidy it proposed to grant. M. Thiers procured an exceedingly clever manager in the person of M. Jouslin de Lasalle. He bethought himself also of me as one enjoying a certain degree of public favour. The Minister, therefore, sent for me to his cabinet, and suggested I should work for the Théâtre-Français, even going so far as to offer me a premium. I asked to be treated like other authors in respect of future plays, and I demanded no other condition before I gave my consent than the promise that three of my old dramas should be played,Antony,Henri III.andChristine.M. Thiers told me he did not knowAntony, although that drama had been represented eighty times; that he had seenChristine, which had given him much pleasure, and that he had even made it the subject of an article when the play appeared. My condition was accepted without anyreservation. Thus, I was in treaty with the Minister before the manager of the Théâtre-Français had an interview with me. M. Jouslin de Lasalle even found me in the office of M. Thiers. The latter indicated the clauses of the contract and charged M. Jouslin to put them down in writing. In conformity with the agreements then arrived at,Antonywas put in rehearsal and announced in the bills.

"However, in that work, using the liberty of an author, I had rallied theConstitutionneland its old-fashioned doctrines. TheConstitutionnel, which, before 1830, had been something of a power, took offence at the gibes of a young dramatic author, and, in its wrath, it thundered forth in an article wherein it pretended to show thatAntonywas an immoral production, and that it was scandalous to allow its representation at the leading national theatre. The journal's anger might not, perhaps, have exerted great influence over the Minister for Home Affairs had not MM. Jay and Étienne happened at that time to be concerned with the theatre budget. These worthy deputies, whose collaboration in theConstitutionnelis well known, imagined that the epigrams ofAntonyreferred to them personally; having this in mind, they informed the Minister that they would cause the theatre budget to be rejected if my satirical play was not prohibited at the Théâtre-Français.Antonywas to have been played on the very day upon which these threats were addressed to M. Thiers. That Minister sent to M. Jouslin de Lasalle, at four o'clock in the afternoon, the order to stop the representation; I was informed of this interdict some hours later. I knew that M. Jouslin de Lasalle had acted in good faith, and that he had done all that rested with him, concerning the preparation of my play. The injury came from the Government alone, which had placedAntonyon the Index, without his knowledge, as he himself said before the tribune. That ministerial interdict has been fatal to my interests, for Prefects of theDepartementshave, following in the footsteps of their chief, striven to have my play prohibited. It is no longer even allowed to be played at Valenciennes. M. Jouslin de Lasalle has offered to stage any other play I might choose in place ofAntony, but that would not be the same thing as the execution of the signed contract; moreover, I cling to the representation ofAntony, which is my favourite work, and that of many young writers who are good enough to regard me as their representative. Upon the faith of these ministerialpromises, and of the agreement made with M. Jouslin de Lasalle, I withdrewAntonyforcibly from the repertory of the Porte-Saint-Martin, where it was bringing in large sums. I am thus deprived of my author's rights, which came in daily. It is, consequently, only just that M. Jouslin should compensate me for the harm he has done me by the non-execution of the contract. The Government are sure to provide him with the necessary funds. The private quarrel I had with theConstitutionnelought not to be permitted to cause the manager of the Théâtre-Français, much less the Government, to stop the production of a piece which forms a part of my means of livelihood; that would be nothing short of spoliation. If M. Thiers had not intended to treat with me, he should not have sent for me to call upon him a dozen to fifteen times; he should not have taken upon himself the arrangement of theatrical details which are outside the scope of a Minister. M. Jouslin was evidently but an intermediary.

"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—I drew up the agreement with M. Alexandre Dumas in my office. The Minister knew I had done so, but he was not acquainted with the details of that contract. I did all in my power to fulfil the compact. The prohibition of the Minister came suddenly without my having received previous notice, and that alone prevented the carrying out of my promise. It was an act offorce majeurefor which I do not hold myself responsible.

"M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—Did you not meet me at the Minister's?

"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—Yes, a fortnight ago.

"MAÎTRE MERMILLIOD.—The Minister knew thatAntonyformed part of Madame Dorval's repertory, and that she was to make her appearance in that piece.

"M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—Madame Dorval made it a special stipulation in her engagement.

"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—Madame Dorval was engaged two or three months before the treaty with M. Alexandre Dumas. No stipulation was then made relative toAntony.After the contract with the plaintiff, M. Merle, Madame Dorval's husband, came and begged me to add the clause to which reference has just been made; I did not refuse that act of compliance because I did not foresee thatAntonywas to be forbidden. I added the clause at the foot of the dramatic contract.

"M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS.—Had the additional clause any definite date attached?

"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—No.

"MAÎTRE MERMILLIOD.—M. Jouslin de Lasalle receives a subsidy from the Government, and is in a state of dependence which prevents him from explaining his position openly.

"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.—I am not required to explain my relations with the Government; and it would be unseemly on my part to do so.

"M. LE PRÉSIDENT.—Are you bound, in consequence of the subsidy you receive, only to play those pieces which suit the Government?

"M. JOUSLIN de LASALLE.—No obligation of that kind whatever is imposed on me. I enjoy, in that respect, the same liberty that all other managers have; but, like them, I am bound to submit to any prohibitions issued by the state. There is no difference in this respect between my confrères and myself.

"After these explanations, the manager of the Théâtre-Français at once left the Court. The president declared that the Court would adjourn the case for consideration, and that judgment would be pronounced in a fortnight's time."

"Hearing of14July

"The Court taking into consideration the connection between the cases, decides to join them, and gives judgment upon both at one and the same time. Concerning the principal claim: It appearing that, if it had been decided by the Court that the prohibition to produce a piece which was opposed to good manners and public morality, legally made by a competent Minister, might be looked upon as a case offorce majeure, thus doing away with the right of appeal of the author against the manager, the tribunal has only been called upon to deal with the plea of justification which might have been put forward in respect to new pieces where their performance would seem dangerous to the administration:

"It appearing that in the actual trial the parties found themselves to be in totally different positions with respect to the matter, and it is no longer a question of the production of a new play, subject to the twofold scrutiny of both the public and the Government, but of a work which, being in the repertory ofanother theatre, would there have had a great number of performances, without let or hindrance on the part of the Government; with regard to the position of M. Jouslin, manager of a theatre subsidised by the Government, it is right to examine him in this case, as the decisions in previous cases are not applicable to this action:

"It appearing from the documents produced, and the pleadings and explanations given in public by the parties themselves, that the Home Minister, in the interests of the prosperity of the Théâtre Français, felt it necessary to associate M. Alexandre Dumas's talent with that theatre, and that to this end a verbal agreement was come to between Jouslin de Lasalle and Alexandre Dumas, and that the first condition of the said agreement was that the play ofAntonyshould be performed at the Théâtre-Français:

"Further, it appearing, that the play ofAntonybelonged to the repertory of the Porte-Saint-Martin; that it had been played a great number of times without any interference or hindrance from authority; that it is consequently correct to say that Jouslin de Lasalle knew the gist of the agreement to be made with Alexandre Dumas, and that it was at his risk and peril that he was engaged:

"It appearing that, if Jouslin de Lasalle thought it his duty to submit, without opposition or protest on his part, to the mere notice given him by the Government, in its decision to stop the production ofAntonyat the Théâtre-Français on 28 April, the said submission of Jouslin de Lasalle must be looked upon as an act of compliance which was called forth by his own personal interests, and on account of his position as a subsidised manager, since he did not feel it his duty to enter a protest against the ministerial prohibition; that we cannot recognise here any case offorce majeure; that this act of compliance was not sufficient warranty for prejudicing the rights of Alexandre Dumas; that his contract with Jouslin de Lasalle ought therefore to have been fulfilled or cancelled with the consequent indemnity:

"It further appearing that it is for the tribunal to settle the sum to which Alexandre Dumas is entitled as damages for the wrong that has been done him up to this present date by the non-performance by Jouslin de Lasalle of the contract made between them, the amount is fixed at 10,000 francs; therefore in giving judgment on the first count the Court directsJouslin de Lasalle to pay to Alexandre Dumas the said sum of 10,000 francs in full satisfaction of all damages:

"Further, deciding upon the additional claim of Alexandre Dumas: It appearing that it was not in the latter's power to be able to oppose the prohibition relative to the production of the play ofAntony, but was the business of the subsidised manager to do so, since he had engaged the plaintiff at his own risk and peril:

"The Court orders that, during the next fortnight Jouslin de Lasalle shall use his power with the authority responsible, to get the Government to remove the prohibition; otherwise, and failing to do this during the said period, after that time, until the prohibition is removed, it is decided, and without any further judgment being necessary, that Jouslin de Lasalle shall pay Alexandre Dumas the sum of 50 francs for each day of the delay; it further orders Jouslin de Lasalle to pay the costs:

"In the matter of the claim of indemnity between Jouslin de Lasalle and the Home Minister: As it is a question of deciding upon an administrative act, this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and dismisses the cases, and as the parties interested, who ought to have known this, have brought it before the Court, condemns M. Jouslin de Lasalle to pay the costs of this claim ..."

We do not think it necessary to make any commentary on this decision of the Court.

Republican banquet at theVendanges de Bourgogne—The toasts—To Louis-Philippe!—Gathering of those who were decorated in July—Formation of the board—Protests—Fifty yards of ribbon—A dissentient—Contradiction in theMoniteur—-Trial of Évariste Gallois—His examination—His acquittal

Let us skip over the reception of M. Viennet into the Académie Française, which fact M. Viennet doubtless learnt from his porter, as he learned later, from the same porter, that he was made a peer of France, and let us return to our friends, acquitted amidst storms of applause and enthusiastically escorted to their homes on the night of 16 April. It was decided that we should give them a banquet by subscription. This was fixed for 9 May and took place at theVendanges de Bourgogne.There were two hundred subscribers. It would have been difficult to find throughout the whole of Paris two hundred guests more hostile to the Government than were these who gathered together at five o'clock in the afternoon, in a long dining-room on the ground-floor looking out on the garden. I was placed between Raspail, who had just declined the cross, and an actor from the Théâtre-Français, who had come with me far less from political conviction than from curiosity. Marrast was the depositary of the official toasts which were to be offered, and it had been decided that none should be drunk but such as had been approved by the president.

Things went smoothly enough throughout two-thirds of the dinner; but, at the popping of the bottles of champagne, which began to simulate a well-sustained discharge of musketry, spirits rose; the conversation, naturally of a purely political character, resolved itself into a most dangerous dialogue, and,in the midst of official toasts, there gradually slipped private toasts.

The first illicit toast was offered to Raspail, because he had declined the Cross of the Légion d'Honneur. Fontan, who had just obtained it, took the matter personally, and began to entangle himself in a speech, the greater part of which never reached the ears of the audience. Poor Fontan had not the gift of speech and, luckily, the applause of his friends drowned the halting of his tongue.

I had no intention of offering any toast: I do not like speaking in public unless I am carried away by some passion or other. However, shouts of "Dumas! Dumas! Dumas!" compelled me to raise my glass. I proposed a toast which would have seemed very mild, if, instead of coming before the others, it had come after. I had completely forgotten what the toast was, but the actor whom I mentioned just now came to dine with me a week ago and recalled it to me. It was: "To Art! inasmuch as the pen and the paint-brush contribute as efficaciously as the rifle and sword to that social regeneration to which we have dedicated our lives and for which cause we are ready to die!"

There are times when people will applaud everything: they applauded my toast. Why not? They had just applauded Fontan's speech. It was now Étienne Arago's turn. He rose.

"To the sun of1831!" he said; "may it be as warm as that of 1830 and not dazzle us as that did!"

This deserved and obtained a triple salvo of cheers. Then came the toasts of Godefroy and Eugène Cavaignac. I blame myself for having forgotten them; especially do I regret forgetting Eugène's, which was most characteristic. Suddenly, in the midst of a private conversation with my left-hand neighbour, the name of Louis-Philippe, followed by five or six hisses, caught my ear. I turned round. A most animated scene was going on fifteen or twenty places from me. A young fellow was holding his raised glass and an open dagger-knife in the same hand and trying to make himself heard. It was Évariste Gallois, who was afterwards killed ina duel by Pescheux d'Herbinville, that delightful young man who wrapped his cartridges in tissue-paper, tied with rose-coloured favours. Évariste Gallois was scarcely twenty-three or twenty-four years of age at that time; he was one of the fiercest of Republicans. The noise was so great, that the cause of it could not be discovered because of the tumult. But I could gather there was danger threatening; the name of Louis-Philippe had been uttered—and the open knife plainly showed with what motive. This far exceeded the limits of my Republican opinions: I yielded to the persuasion of the neighbour on my left, who, in his capacity as king's comedian, could not dare to be compromised, and we leapt through the window into the garden. I returned home very uneasy: it was evident that this affair would have consequences, and, as a matter of fact, Évariste Gallois was arrested two or three days later. We shall meet him again at the end of the chapter before the Court of Assizes. This event happened at the same time as another event which was of some gravity to us. I have related that the decree concerning the Cross of July instituted the phrase,Given by the King of the French, and imposed the substitution of the blue ribbon edged with red, for the red edged with black. The king had signed this order in a fit of ill-temper. At one of the meetings at which I was present as a member of the committee, one of the king's aide-de-camps,—M. de Rumigny, so far as I can remember, although I cannot say for certain,—presented himself, asking, in the king's name and on behalf of the king, for the decoration of the Three Days, which had been accorded with much enthusiasm to La Fayette, Laffitte, Dupont (de l'Eure) and Béranger. This proceeding had surprised us, but not disconcerted us; we launched into discussion and decided, unanimously, that, the decoration being specially reserved for the combatants of the Three Days, or for citizens, who, without fighting, had during those three days taken an active part in the Revolution, the king, who had not entered Paris until the night of the 30th, had, therefore, no sort of right either to the decoration or to the medal. This decision was immediatelytransmitted to the messenger, who transmitted it instantly to his august principal. Now, we never doubted that our refusal was the cause of the decree of 30 April. I believe I have also mentioned that a protest was made by us against the colour of the ribbon, the subscription and the oath.

Two days before the banquet at theVendanges de Bourgogne, a general assembly had taken place in the hall of theGrande-Chaumièrein thepassage du Saumon.The total number of the decorated amounted to fifteen hundred and twenty-eight. Four hundred belonged to thedépartements, the remainder to Paris. Notices having been sent to each at his own house, all those decorated were prompt in answering the appeal; there were nearly a thousand of us gathered together. We proceeded to form a board. The president was elected by acclamation. He was one of the old conquerors of the Bastille, aged between seventy and seventy-five,—-who wore next the decoration of 14 July 1789 the Cross of 29 July 1830. M. de Talleyrand was right in his dictum that nothing is more dangerous than enthusiasm; we learnt afterwards that the man we made president by acclamation was an old blackguard who had been before the assizes for violating a young girl.

Then we proceeded to the voting. The board was to be composed of fourteen members, one for each arrondissement; the thirteenth and fourteenth arrondissements represented the outlying dependencies. By a most wonderful chance, I have discovered the list of members of that board close to my hand; here it is—

"First arrondissement, Lamoure;second, Étienne Arago;third, Trélat;fourth, Moussette;fifth, Higonnet;sixth, Bastide;seventh, Garnier—Pagès;eighth, Villeret;ninth, Gréau;tenth, Godefroy Cavaignac;eleventh, Raspail;twelfth, Bavoux;thirteenth, Geibel;fourteenth, Alexandre Dumas."

The names of the fourteen members were given out and applauded; then we proceeded with the discussion. The meeting was first informed of the situation; next, differentquestions were put upon which the meeting was asked to deliberate. All these queries were put to the vote, for and against, and decided accordingly. The following minutes of the meeting were immediately dispatched to the three papers, theTemps, theCourrierand theNational.

"No oath, inasmuch as the law respecting national awards had not prescribed any such oath."No superscription ofDonnée par le roi; the Cross of July is a national award, not a royal."All those decorated for the events of July pledge themselves to wear that cross, holding themselves authorised to do so by the insertion of their names upon the list of national awards issued by the committee."The king cannot be head of an order of which he is not even chevalier."Even were the king a chevalier of July, and he is not, his son, when he comes to the throne, would not inherit that decoration."Further, there is no identity whatever between his position with regard to the decoration of July and his position with regard to the Légion d'Honneur and other orders which are inherited with the kingdom."The right won at the place de Grève, at the Louvre and at the Caserne de Babylon is anterior to all other rights: it is not possible, without falling into absurdity, to imagine a decoration to have been given by a king who did not exist at that time, and for whose person, we publicly confess we should not have fought for then."With regard to the ribbon, as its change of colour does not change any principle, the ribbon suggested by the Government may be adopted."

"No oath, inasmuch as the law respecting national awards had not prescribed any such oath.

"No superscription ofDonnée par le roi; the Cross of July is a national award, not a royal.

"All those decorated for the events of July pledge themselves to wear that cross, holding themselves authorised to do so by the insertion of their names upon the list of national awards issued by the committee.

"The king cannot be head of an order of which he is not even chevalier.

"Even were the king a chevalier of July, and he is not, his son, when he comes to the throne, would not inherit that decoration.

"Further, there is no identity whatever between his position with regard to the decoration of July and his position with regard to the Légion d'Honneur and other orders which are inherited with the kingdom.

"The right won at the place de Grève, at the Louvre and at the Caserne de Babylon is anterior to all other rights: it is not possible, without falling into absurdity, to imagine a decoration to have been given by a king who did not exist at that time, and for whose person, we publicly confess we should not have fought for then.

"With regard to the ribbon, as its change of colour does not change any principle, the ribbon suggested by the Government may be adopted."

This last clause roused a long and heated discussion. In my opinion, the colour of the ribbon was a matter of indifference; moreover, to cede one point showed that we had not previously made up our minds to reject everything. I gained a hearing, and won the majority of the meeting over to my opinion. As soon as this point had been settled by vote. I drew from my pocket three or four yards of blue ribbon edged with red, with which I had provided myself in advance, and Idecorated the board and those members of the order who were nearest me. Among them was Charras. I did not see him again after that for twenty-two years—and then he was in exile. Hardly was it noticed that a score of members were decorated, before everybody wished to be in the same case. We sent out for fifty yards of ribbon, and the thousand spectators left thepassage du Saumonwearing the ribbon of July in their buttonholes. This meeting of 7 May made a great stir in Paris. TheMoniteurbusied itself with lying as usual. It announced that the resolutions had not been unanimously passed, and that many of those decorated had protested there and then. On the contrary, no protests of any kind had been raised. This was the only note which reached the board—

"I ask that all protests against all or part of the decree relative to the distribution of the Cross of July shall be decided by those who are interested in the matter, and that no general measure shall be adopted and imposed on everyone; each of us ought to rest perfectly free to protest or not as he likes.HUET"

This note was read aloud and stopped with hootings. We sent the following contradiction to theMoniteursigned by our fourteen names—

"To the Editor of the Moniteur Universal"SIR,—You state that the account of the meeting of those wearing the July decoration is false, although you were not present thereat and took no part whatever in the acts of the combatants of the Three Days. We affirm that it contained nothing but the exact truth. We will not discuss the illegality of the decree of 30 April: it has been sufficiently dwelt upon by the newspapers."We will only say that it is a lie that any combatant of 1789 and of 1830 was brought to that meeting by means of a pre-arranged surprise. Citizen Decombis came of his own accord to relate how the decoration of 1789 had been distributed, and at the equally spontaneous desire of the meeting he was called to the board. It was not, as you state, a small number of men who protested against the decree; the gatheringwas composed of over a thousand decorated people. The illegality of the oath and of the superscriptionDonnée par le roi, was recognisedunanimously.None of the members present raised a hand to vote against it; all rose with enthusiasm to refuse to subscribe to that twofold illegality; this we can absolutely prove; for, in case any of the questions had not been thoroughly understood, each vote for and against the motions was repeated."Furthermore: all those decorated remained in the hall for an hour after the meeting, waiting for ribbons, and during that time no objections were raised against the conclusions arrived at during the deliberations."And this we affirm, we who have never dishonoured our pens or our oaths."Signed: LAMOURE, ST. ARAGO, TRÉLAT, MOUSSETTE, HIGONNET, BASTIDE, GARNIER-PAGÈS, VILLERET, GRÉAU, G. CAVAIGNAC, RASPAIL, BAVOUX, GEIBEL, ALEX. DUMAS."

"To the Editor of the Moniteur Universal

"SIR,—You state that the account of the meeting of those wearing the July decoration is false, although you were not present thereat and took no part whatever in the acts of the combatants of the Three Days. We affirm that it contained nothing but the exact truth. We will not discuss the illegality of the decree of 30 April: it has been sufficiently dwelt upon by the newspapers.

"We will only say that it is a lie that any combatant of 1789 and of 1830 was brought to that meeting by means of a pre-arranged surprise. Citizen Decombis came of his own accord to relate how the decoration of 1789 had been distributed, and at the equally spontaneous desire of the meeting he was called to the board. It was not, as you state, a small number of men who protested against the decree; the gatheringwas composed of over a thousand decorated people. The illegality of the oath and of the superscriptionDonnée par le roi, was recognisedunanimously.None of the members present raised a hand to vote against it; all rose with enthusiasm to refuse to subscribe to that twofold illegality; this we can absolutely prove; for, in case any of the questions had not been thoroughly understood, each vote for and against the motions was repeated.

"Furthermore: all those decorated remained in the hall for an hour after the meeting, waiting for ribbons, and during that time no objections were raised against the conclusions arrived at during the deliberations.

"And this we affirm, we who have never dishonoured our pens or our oaths.

"Signed: LAMOURE, ST. ARAGO, TRÉLAT, MOUSSETTE, HIGONNET, BASTIDE, GARNIER-PAGÈS, VILLERET, GRÉAU, G. CAVAIGNAC, RASPAIL, BAVOUX, GEIBEL, ALEX. DUMAS."

The affair, as I have said, made a great noise; and had somewhat important consequences: an order of Republican knighthood was instituted, outside the pale of the protection and oversight of the Government. A thousand knights of this order rose up solely of their own accord, pledged only to their own conscience, able to recognise one another at a sign, always on the alert with their July guns ready to hand. The Government recoiled.

On 13 May the king issued an order decreeing that the Cross of July should be remitted by the mayors to the citizens of Paris and of the outskirts included in theétat nominatifand in the supplementary list which the commission on national awards had drawn up. To that end, a register was opened at all municipal offices to receive the oaths of the decorated. The mayors did not have much business to do and the registers remained almost immaculate. Each one of us paid for his own decoration, and people clubbed together to buy crosses for those who could not afford that expense. The Government left us all in undisturbed peace. I have said that Gallois was arrested. His trial was rapidly hurried on: on15 June, he appeared before the Court of Assizes. I never saw anything simpler or more straightforward than that trial, in which the prisoner seemed to make a point of furnishing the judges with the evidence of which they might be in need. Here is the writ of indictment—it furnishes me with facts of which I, at any rate, did not yet know. Carried away in other directions by the rapidity of events, I had not troubled myself about that stormy evening. People lived fast and in an exceedingly varied way at that period. But let us listen to the king's procurator—

"On 9 May last, a reunion of two hundred persons assembled at the restaurantVendanges de Bourgogne, in the faubourg du Temple to celebrate the acquittal of MM. Trélat, Cavaignac and Guinard. The repast took place in a dining-room on the ground-floor which opened out on the garden. Divers toasts were drunk, at which the most hostile opinions against the present Government were expressed. In the middle of this gathering Évariste Gallois rose and said in a loud voice, on his own responsibility: 'To Louis-Philippe!' holding a dagger in his hand meantime. He repeated it twice. Several persons imitated his example by raising their hands and shouting similarly: 'To Louis-Philippe!' Then hootings were heard, although the guests wish to disclaim the wretched affair, suggesting,as Gallois declares, that they thought he was proposing the health of the king of the French; it is, however, a well-established fact that several of the diners loudly condemn what happened. The dagger-knife had been ordered by Gallois on 6 May, from Henry, the cutler. He had seemed in a great hurry for it, giving the false excuse of going a journey."

We will now give the examination of the prisoner in its naked simplicity—

"THE PRESIDENT.—Prisoner Gallois, were you present at the meeting which was held on 9 May last, at theVendanges de Bourgogne?"THE PRISONER.—Yes, Monsieur le Président, and if you will allow me to instruct you as to the truth of what took place at it, I will save you the trouble of questioning me."THE PRESIDENT.—We will listen."THE PRISONER.—This is the exact truth of the incident to which I owethe honourof appearing before you. I had a knife which had been used to carve with throughout the banquet; at dessert, I raised this knife and said: 'For Louis-Philippe ... if he turns traitor.' These last words were only heard by my immediate neighbours, because of the fierce hootings that were raised by the first part of my speech and the notion that I intended to propose a toast to that man."D.[1]—Then, in your opinion, a toast proposed to the king's health was proscribed at that gathering?"R.—To be sure!"D.—A toast offered purely and simply to Louis-Philippe, king of the French, would have excited the animosity of that assembly?"R.—Assuredly."D.—Your intention, therefore, was to put King Louis-Philippe to the dagger?"R.—In case he turned traitor, yes, monsieur."D.—Was it, on your part, the expression of your own personal sentiment to set forth the king of the French as deserving a dagger-stroke, or was your real intention to provoke the others to a like action?"R.—I wished to incite them to such a deed if Louis-Philippe proved a traitor, that is to say, in case he ventured to depart from legal action."D.—Why do you suppose the king is likely to act illegally?"R.—Everybody unites in thinking that it will not be long before he makes himself guilty of that crime, if he has not already done so."D.—Explain yourself."R.—I should have thought it clear enough."D.—No matter! Explain it."R.—Well, I say then, that the trend of Government action leads one to suppose that Louis-Philippe will some day be treacherous if he has not already been so."

"THE PRESIDENT.—Prisoner Gallois, were you present at the meeting which was held on 9 May last, at theVendanges de Bourgogne?

"THE PRISONER.—Yes, Monsieur le Président, and if you will allow me to instruct you as to the truth of what took place at it, I will save you the trouble of questioning me.

"THE PRESIDENT.—We will listen.

"THE PRISONER.—This is the exact truth of the incident to which I owethe honourof appearing before you. I had a knife which had been used to carve with throughout the banquet; at dessert, I raised this knife and said: 'For Louis-Philippe ... if he turns traitor.' These last words were only heard by my immediate neighbours, because of the fierce hootings that were raised by the first part of my speech and the notion that I intended to propose a toast to that man.

"D.[1]—Then, in your opinion, a toast proposed to the king's health was proscribed at that gathering?

"R.—To be sure!

"D.—A toast offered purely and simply to Louis-Philippe, king of the French, would have excited the animosity of that assembly?

"R.—Assuredly.

"D.—Your intention, therefore, was to put King Louis-Philippe to the dagger?

"R.—In case he turned traitor, yes, monsieur.

"D.—Was it, on your part, the expression of your own personal sentiment to set forth the king of the French as deserving a dagger-stroke, or was your real intention to provoke the others to a like action?

"R.—I wished to incite them to such a deed if Louis-Philippe proved a traitor, that is to say, in case he ventured to depart from legal action.

"D.—Why do you suppose the king is likely to act illegally?

"R.—Everybody unites in thinking that it will not be long before he makes himself guilty of that crime, if he has not already done so.

"D.—Explain yourself.

"R.—I should have thought it clear enough.

"D.—No matter! Explain it.

"R.—Well, I say then, that the trend of Government action leads one to suppose that Louis-Philippe will some day be treacherous if he has not already been so."

Back to Index Next