Hi! i 
 
 I 
 
 i! I! 
 
 HI! 
 
 ii i 1 

 
 by Grander {Matthews : 
 
 ESSAYS AND CRITICISMS 
 French Dramatists of the I9th Century 
 Pen and Ink, Essays on subjects of more 
 
 or less importance 
 
 Aspects of Fiction, and Other Essays 
 The Historical Novel, and Other Essays 
 Essays on English (in press)
 
 FRENCH DRAMATISTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 i 9 th CENTURY
 
 OF THE 
 
 i 9 th CENTURY 
 
 BY 
 
 BRANDER MATTHEWS, D.C.L., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF DRAMATIC LITERATURE IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 THIRD EDITION, 
 BROUGHT DOWN TO THE END OF THE CENTURY 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 1901
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1881, 1891, 
 BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1901, 
 BY BRANDER MATTHEWS. 
 
 All rights reserved. 
 
 THE CAXTON PRESS 
 NEW YORK.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IT is not yet sixty years since the Romanticists and 
 the Classicists first met in battle-array ; and it is but 
 little more than fifty years since Hernani sounded his 
 trumpet, and the hollow walls of Classicism fell with 
 a final crash. This half-century is a period of no slight 
 importance in the history of the drama : it is one of 
 the two epochs when the plays of France have been 
 conspicuously and incomparably superior to the plays 
 of any other country ; the earlier epoch was when the 
 French stage saw in rapid succession the newest works 
 of Corneille, of Moliere, and of Racine. Although, with 
 our ownership -of Shakspere constantly in mind, we 
 may not be willing to allow that the French have 
 reached the highest pinnacle of the drama, we can see 
 clearly enough that it is in the drama that they have 
 mounted highest. If we seek to know why this is, 
 why they have done better work in the drama than in 
 any other department of literature, it is easy (although
 
 vi Preface. 
 
 perhaps not altogether sufficient) to answer that it is 
 because the dramatic is the form best suited for the 
 expression of certain qualities in which the French 
 excel the men of other races. Chief among these 
 national characteristics are a lively wit, a love of effect 
 for its own sake, a gift for writing beautiful prose, 
 and a passion for order and symmetry and clear- 
 ness. These are precious qualities to the dramatist ; 
 and, just as they did their share toward the beauty of 
 the comedy and the tragedy which amused and moved 
 the people of Paris and the court of the king in the 
 age of Louis XIV., so they now help to make the 
 present drama of France what it is. The plays of 
 Corneille, of Moliere and of Racine, have been written 
 about superabundantly; while, so far as I know, the 
 story of the more modern French drama has nowhere 
 been told. Now and again one may chance on the 
 portrait of an individual, but a picture of the whole 
 period is not to be found anywhere. For this reason, 
 I have sought in the following pages to give an outline 
 of the course of the drama in France from the first 
 quarter of this century to the present time. In the 
 attempt to embrace the whole I have been forced to 
 neglect some of the parts, and to pass with but casual 
 attention over more than one dramatist of note, Casi- 
 mir Delavigne, for example, Alfred de Musset (who, 
 in spite of his genius and of the latter-day success of 
 certain of his comedies, was a dramatist only second-
 
 Preface. vii 
 
 arily, and, so to speak, by accident), Frangois Ponsard, 
 and Mme. de Girardin, among the dead ; M. Jules San- 
 deau, M. Ernest Legouve, M. Edouard Pailleron, and 
 M. Edmond Gondinet, among the living. 
 
 In an earlier and less complete condition, most of the 
 chapters which make up the book have already appeared 
 here and there in various reviews and magazines. Be- 
 fore taking its appointed place in these pages, each 
 chapter has been carefully revised, often enlarged, and 
 in all cases "brought down to date." Space has been 
 found for more minute criticism and for more ample 
 quotation than was possible in the scant quarters of a 
 serial. It will be noted that the French titles of plays 
 have been turned into English whenever a translation 
 appeared possible and profitable ; and the use of 
 French has been conscientiously avoided, save where 
 no English equivalent could be found for a technical 
 term, and in an occasional specimen quotation of the 
 verse of Victor Hugo or Emile Augier, to which no 
 translation would do justice. 
 
 I take pleasure in expressing my thanks here to a 
 friend, who, in spite of our constant disagreement as to 
 the relative value of M. Augier and M. Dumas, has lent 
 me the aid of his literary skill and of his knowledge of 
 the modern French drama, as he did before, when the 
 ' Theatres of Paris ' was passing through the press. 
 
 B. M. 
 
 NEW YORK, October, 1881.
 
 viii Preface. 
 
 NOTE TO THIRD EDITION. 
 
 To the second edition of this book, published in 
 1891, there was added a chapter covering the years 
 of the ninth decade; and the present edition is now 
 enlarged by a final chapter considering the condition 
 of the French drama at the end of the nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, February, 1901.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 >AGE. 
 
 PREFACE v 
 
 CHAPTER. 
 
 I. THE ROMANTIC MOVEMENT i 
 
 II. VICTOR HUGO 15 
 
 III. ALEXANDRE DUMAS 46 
 
 IV. EUGENE SCRIBE 78 
 
 V. EMILE AUGIER 105 
 
 VI. ALEXANDRE DUMAS jils 136 
 
 VII. VICTORIEN SARDOU 172 
 
 VIII. OCTAVE FEUILLET 203 
 
 IX. EUGENE LABICHE 224 
 
 X. MEILHAC AND HALEVY 243 
 
 XI. EMILE ZOLA AND THE PRESENT TENDENCIES OF FRENCH 
 
 DRAMA 264 
 
 XII. A TEN YEARS' RETROSPECT: 1881-1891 . .285 
 
 XIII. AT THE END OF THE CENTURY: 1891-1900 . . . 303
 
 FRENCH DRAMATISTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 igth CENTURY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ROMANTIC MOVEMENT. 
 
 " THERE is in every thing a maturity which must be 
 waited for," said Chamfort ; " happy the man who 
 arrives at the moment of this maturity ! " Toward the 
 end of the first quarter of this century it was evident, 
 to any one who had eyes to see, that a moment of 
 maturity in the history of the French drama was soon 
 coming. The time was ripe for a new growth. Else- 
 where in literature and in art, there was the murmur 
 of new life ; in prose fiction and in poetry, there had 
 been a new birth ; even on the stage there were begin- 
 ning to be signs of the coming of new blood. And 
 nowhere else was there as much need of a renascence 
 as in the theatre, where all was chill and lifeless. 
 
 During the imperial rule of Napol6on the position 
 of the Parisian theatres had been peculiar. They were 
 under the direct control of the General Government^ 
 represented at the fall of the empire by M. de R6mu- 
 sat. They were limited in number; and the style of 
 play each could perform was rigidly prescribed by the
 
 2 French Dramatists. 
 
 imperial decree. To one theatre the production of 
 operas-comiques was permitted, and nothing else; to 
 another, vaudevilles ; to a third, melodramas ; while to 
 the Theatre Frangais was reserved the exclusive right 
 to perform the pieces of the classic repertory. The 
 comedies and tragedies of Corneille, Moliere, Racine, 
 Regnard, Marivaux, Voltaire, and Beaumarchais, could 
 be seen on the stage of the Theatre Frangais, and 
 nowhere else. This lack of liberty brought about the 
 usual result of restriction, a dearth of novelty and a 
 desolating monotony. The imperial interference was, 
 in part at least, responsible for the low condition into 
 which French dramatic literature was sinking in the 
 first ten years of the Bourbon restoration. At the 
 Theatre Frangais comedy was almost childish, and 
 tragedy was in its dotage: there was neither action 
 nor animation ; all was dull, dreary, and commonplace. 
 Now and again, in a minor theatre, there was an 
 attempt at something less constrained: opera-comique 
 was beginning its lively career ; the national vaudeville 
 had been renewed by Eugene Scribe, who had stamped 
 it forever with his own image and superscription ; and 
 Pixe're'court and Victor Ducange had made themselves 
 masters of melodrama imported from Germany, and 
 were using it to wring all hearts. 
 
 But the official theatre and the official critics chose 
 to ignore, even the existence of vaudeville and melo- 
 drama, or at best, to regard them as wholly inferior 
 forms of art, if indeed they were not altogether beyond 
 the pale of art. The attitude of the French critics 
 toward such unliterary plays as vaudevilles and melo- 
 dramas was not unlike that of a cultivated New-Yorker 
 toward the old Bowery Theatre, or that pf a cultivated
 
 The Romantic Movement. 3 
 
 Londoner toward the similar Transpontine houses. 
 Such places might serve to amuse the vulgar throng ; 
 but the plays acted therein were too far removed from 
 literature to call for criticism, or even consideration. 
 The new comedies and tragedies brought out from time 
 to time by the Comedie-Franc.aise received all the more 
 consideration and criticism : they were judged accord- 
 ing to a code of Draconian severity ; and if they broke 
 one jot or tittle of the dramatic law, if they were found 
 wanting in one iota of dramatic decorum, condign and 
 exemplary punishment was at once visited upon the 
 hapless author. In general, however, authors and critics 
 were quite comfortably agreed on what was fit and 
 proper and in accordance with the dignity of the drama. 
 To be dignified was the chief end of the dramatist, and 
 both tragedy and comedy were constantly taking les- 
 sons in deportment. Never to infringe upon the rules 
 laid down by Boileau, and discussed by numberless 
 commentators, was an equal duty. Slowly and surely 
 the desire to do nothing outside of the rules, or in any 
 way indecorous, was choking all life out of the drama. 
 As Mr. Saintsbury aptly puts it, " Each piece was ex- 
 pected to resemble something else, and originality was 
 regarded as a mark of bad taste and insufficient cul- 
 ture." The French drama of the first quarter of this 
 century is the empty echo of a hollow past. Its aim 
 was to equal Voltaire. Voltaire had admiringly copied 
 Racine ; Racine had sought to reproduce in French 
 the tragedy of the Greeks as he saw it, chiefly through 
 the medium of the Latin adaptations ; and thus there 
 was imitation of an imitation, and no end. "French 
 tragedy," said Goethe, "is a parody of itself." If the 
 great critic thought this of the tragedy of Voltaire,
 
 4 French Dramatists. 
 
 what must he have thought of the tragedy of Vol- 
 taire's feeble followers ? 
 
 The trademark of a tragedy, according to the rules, 
 was the blind obedience paid to the "unities." The 
 French critics pretended to derive from Aristotle a law 
 that a dramatic poem should show one action happening 
 in one place in the space of one day : these were the 
 unities of action, place, and time. As to the unity of 
 action, there need be no dispute : any work of art must 
 have a single distinct motive and mainspring. But 
 both the unity of time, which compelled the hurried 
 massing of all the straggling incidents of a tale into 
 the course of twenty-four hours ; and the unity of place, 
 which forbade all change of scene, these were absur- 
 dities. In 1629 a Frenchman, Mairet, had brought 
 out at Rouen an imitation of the Italian Trissino's 
 'Sofonisba,' in which the three unities appeared for 
 the first time. Corneille early gave in his adhesion to 
 the principle, but found it hard to reconcile his prac- 
 tice. Although the Italians and French supposed that 
 they were imitating the ancients, it is a fact that the 
 unities of time and place were not erected among the 
 Greek tragedians into a principle, nor does Aristotle 
 lay them down as laws. 1 He says nothing at all as 
 to the unity of place ; and in speaking of the unity of 
 time he probably meant merely to declare the habitual 
 practice among the best dramatists. It is safe to say 
 that not ^Eschylus, Sophocles, nor Euripides ever gave 
 a thought to either the unity of time or the unity of 
 place. By accident, and because of the physical condi- 
 
 1 For an elaborate discussion of the subject, with abundant citation of authori- 
 ties, see the ' Dramatic Unities in the Present Day,' by Edwin Simpson. London. 
 Triibner, 1874.
 
 The Romantic Movement. 5 
 
 tions of the Greek theatre, they had to condense their 
 story as well as they could, and to be sparing of change 
 of scene. That they did not hesitate to shift the place 
 of action when it suited their purpose, there can be no 
 doubt. The ' Hecuba ' of Euripides is an instance, and 
 others are not wanting. 
 
 The simplicity, the directness, and, above all, the un- 
 consciousness to which the Greek drama owed so much 
 of its poetry and its power, were qualities wholly for- 
 eign to the French court of Louis XIV., and they were 
 neither appreciated there, nor in the main even under- 
 stood. The severity and stately dignity of the Greek 
 drama, in great part the result of the circumstances 
 under which it was acted, were foreign to the turbu- 
 lent and fiery tragedy of Corneille, produced under 
 wholly different conditions and in a wholly altered 
 state of society, with far more complex emotions. The 
 Greek actor, raised in lofty buskins, and speaking 
 through a resonant mask, that he might be seen and 
 heard by the vast multitude seated before him in the 
 open amphitheatre, was thus hampered from all vio- 
 lent action, and achieved perforce a certain stateliness. 
 But the French actor, in the rich and elaborate cos- 
 tume of his own time, declaimed his verses in a small 
 hall, before a select audience, many of whom had seats 
 upon the stage, crowding the performers into a narrow 
 lane between these rows of spectators, and into a 
 narrow space between these spectators and the foot- 
 lights. To attempt to reproduce, under these conditions, 
 the massive dignity of the Greek stage, was to attempt 
 the impossible. Of a certainty, the result would be 
 literary merely, and not lifelike. It is not to be de- 
 nied that the regularity and concentration and nudity
 
 6 French Dramatists. 
 
 imposed on the dramatist by the observance of the 
 three unities may at times have helped the writer of 
 genius, who is but the stronger for the difficulties he 
 struggles with : the feeble, however, were made more 
 feeble still ; and even a writer of genius, like Corneille, 
 chafed against rigid restrictions he was not flexible 
 enough to get around. It is pitiful to see how the 
 virile and vigorous Corneille, in his three discourses 
 on dramatic composition, humbles himself before the 
 shadow of Aristotle and the ancients, and begs to be 
 allowed to stretch the "single day" to, say, thirty 
 hours, and to take as the " single place " a whole town, 
 in different parts of which the action may go on. How 
 the bonds hampered the poet is summed up concisely 
 in the judgment which the Academy, at Richelieu's 
 order, passed on Corneille's best play, the 'Cid,' to 
 the effect that the poet/ in endeavoring to observe the 
 rules of art, had chosen rather to sin against those of 
 nature. 
 
 Racine's calmer genius worked without revolt under 
 the rules which pinioned Corneille : he found his ac- 
 count in them. To him his characters were of first 
 importance, and what they felt and thought and said ; 
 whereas Corneille was concerned chiefly with the 
 action, and with what his people did, what they might 
 have to say was of less interest. When action was 
 proscribed, and little was done, and every thing was 
 talked about, Corneille chafed against the tightening 
 bonds ; but Racine seemed to dance best in fetters. 
 And as Racine came after Corneille, and became the 
 foremost tragic writer of the magnificent court of 
 Louis XIV., the courtly graces with which he had 
 endowed tragedy were afterward inseparable from it.
 
 The Romantic Movement. 7 
 
 So the frank and free-spoken drama of Corneille gave 
 way before the fine-lady muse of Racine, not any 
 weaker, it may be, but more polished and mannered. 
 The twist once given, French tragic drama turned 
 more and more away from nature, and became more 
 and more artificial and barren. Later came Voltaire, 
 who was never tired of finding fault with Corneille, 
 and had nothing but praise for Racine. He gave in to 
 the pseudo-unities of time and place, although with 
 characteristic ingenuity he evaded them, while pretend- 
 ing to be bound by them. Voltaire even refined on 
 his predecessor. He had a horror of the colloquial : he 
 screwed dramatic diction two or three turns higher, and 
 still farther from nature. For his fastidious taste, even 
 Greek tragedy was too simple and too familiar. He 
 never by any chance allowed to pass any of those 
 homely words which reach the heart so readily : these 
 were banished, and a dignified periphrasis took their 
 place. 
 
 Voltaire, after all, was a man of genius, however 
 false his doctrines ; and the full feebleness of which 
 French tragedy was capable, when it was made accord- 
 ing to his precepts, was evident only after his death 
 and in the works of his followers, men of moderate 
 talent, able to copy correctly the faults of their elders 
 and betters. In their hands the tragic drama lost 
 what little life it had left, and the red heels of Racine 
 lengthened into unmistakable stilts. There were not 
 wanting those who now and then inveighed against 
 long monologues, and the two false unities, and the 
 device of confidants ; but the admirers of " dignity " 
 and "correctness" made a firm front against these 
 barbarians. As time went on, tragedy went from bad
 
 8 French Dramatists. 
 
 to worse. Even in the hot days of the Revolution, 
 even in the carnage of '93, the Theatre Frangais con- 
 tinued to bring forth vapid and innocuous classical 
 tragedies. With the return of order and the subse- 
 quent worship of Republican Greece and Rome, the 
 so-called classic drama got the benefit of the craze 
 for antiquity. When Napoleon was first consul, and 
 after he was firmly seated on the throne, every thing 
 was still more pseudo-classic. In tragedy, as in sculp- 
 ture and in painting, subjects were chosen almost ex- 
 clusively from Greek and Roman history and legend. 
 Napoleon was anxious to have a great dramatist to 
 illustrate his reign. He fostered tragedy as well as he 
 knew how : but the conditions were not favorable ; the 
 moment of maturity had not yet come ; and somehow 
 or other the great dramatist refused to be made to 
 order. 
 
 The fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the 
 Bourbons made no change in literary fashions. The 
 returning exiles found the tragic drama as they had 
 left it. In 1792, the year before the Terror, the good 
 Ducis had produced his 'Othello,' in which a ban- 
 deau is the token of guilt, and the Moor stabs his 
 wife, instead of smothering her ; for the sight, or even 
 the mention, of so low and common a thing as a 
 handkerchief or a pillow would have been fatal to the 
 proper elevation of tragedy. In 1815, when the Bour- 
 bons sat again on the throne of their fathers, there 
 was the same painful effort after " dignity " and " cor- 
 rectness." Holding that action or even violent emo- 
 tion was unseemly, every thing was told, and nothing 
 was done. As Victor Hugo put it in the preface 
 to his 'Cromwell,' published in 1827, "Instead of
 
 The Romantic Movement. 9 
 
 scenes, we have narrations ; instead of pictures, descrip- 
 tions. Grave personages, placed like a Greek chorus 
 between us and the drama, come and tell us what is 
 taking place in the temple, in the palace, in the public 
 place, until we are tempted to call out to them, ' Truly ? 
 Then why do you not take us there ? It must be 
 amusing, it must be well worth seeing.'" Still worse, 
 not only was real emotion proscribed, but also the 
 simple, homely, heartfelt words in which real emotion 
 is wont to show itself. The language of tragedy had 
 to be literary, and without any phrase plucked from 
 the roots of humanity, and racy of the soil. The 
 words such as Shakspere was wont to use without 
 stint, simply and nobly, were shunned for a roundabout 
 pomposity. The simple and direct word, to obtain 
 which without baldness is the highest poetry, was 
 always avoided. In its stead were strained and stilted 
 verses, in which an infantine idea was swaddled in long 
 robes of verbiage. By a process of selection and puri- 
 fication the vocabulary had become extremely impover- 
 ished. No welcome was extended to new words, and 
 good old words were constantly getting thrust aside 
 because they lacked "dignity." There was a steady 
 attempt to reach the grand style by the use of big 
 words, and to attain elevation by standing on tip-toe. 
 Laced in a tight corset thus, poor tragedy could 
 scarcely breathe, and was, indeed, well-nigh at its last 
 breath. Yet it died hard. Talma, whom Carlyle notes 
 as incomparably the finest actor he ever saw, asked for 
 Shakspere, and got Ducis, and left the stage without 
 having played one part really worthy of him. All over 
 the tragic drama was the abomination of desolation. 
 By the end of the first quarter of this century, how-
 
 IO French Dramatists. 
 
 ever, the moment of maturity approached, and the time 
 began to be ripe for revolt against the rigid restraints 
 and monotonous mannerism of the Classicists. During 
 the forcible-feeble reign of the Bourbons, a new genera- 
 tion, born in the thick of the Napoleonic combats and 
 conquests, had grown to manhood. It was restless 
 and militant, and it had a congenital impatience of 
 inherited authority. A change came over the spirit 
 of the scene : instead of a slumber like unto death, there 
 were signs of a general awakening. In all depart- 
 ments of art there were wars, and rumors of wars. 
 The effect of Mme. de Stael's precepts on the one 
 hand, and of Chateaubriand's practice on the other, 
 was beginning to be felt. Byron and Scott, and our 
 own Cooper, were getting themselves read in France 
 as no foreign authors ever had been read there. A 
 knowledge of Goethe and of Schiller was spreading 
 slowly. Weber's ' Freischiitz,' sadly mutilated, it is 
 true, was sung with success. In art, pictorial and 
 plastic, in architecture, in music as well as in poetry, 
 both lyric and dramatic, there was turmoil and ebul- 
 lition. From Byron, in a measure, came a spiritual 
 unrest and a mild misanthropic pessimism ; and from 
 Germany came a certain tendency to vehement exag- 
 geration. Like the movement headed by Wordsworth, 
 the movement headed by Hugo was "a great move- 
 ment of feeling, not a great movement of mind." 
 
 The publication of Victor Hugo's ' Odes et Ballades ' 
 was the signal for a general revolt against the estab- 
 lished forms ; and it began to be evident that an artistic 
 revolution impended, although where the first rising 
 might be expected was doubtful. But in 1827 the best 
 actors of Eigland Kean, Young, Charles Kemb'e, and
 
 The Romantic Movement. 1 1 
 
 Macready crossed the Channel, and revealed the 
 English drama to the Parisians. No greater contrast 
 could well be imagined than the tumultuous action of 
 Shakspere, and the decorous declamation of French 
 classic tragedy. One enthusiastic admirer of the Eng- 
 lish performances said to Charles Kemble, " Othello ! 
 voila, voila la passion, la tragedie. Que j'aime cette 
 piece ! il y a tant de remue-mtnage f" 1 In December, 
 1827, a few weeks after the English actors had left 
 Paris, Victor Hugo published his ' Cromwell,' a his- 
 torical drama in five acts, accompanied by a preface, 
 which was at once a protest against the prevailing taste, 
 a plan of reform, and a declaration of war. Obviously 
 the theatre was to be the battle-ground of the factions : 
 nowhere else could they fight hand to hand and face 
 to face ; nowhere else would there be so stubborn a 
 resistance to the new gospel. 
 
 In every group there is an individuality, acting as a 
 pivot, around which the others gravitate, just as a 
 system of planets revolves around the sun. Among 
 the impatient romanticists this central individuality 
 was Victor Hugo. He was the happy man, who, to use 
 Chamfort's phrase cited at the beginning of this chap- 
 ter, "arrived at the moment of maturity." More multi- 
 farious and of higher genius than any of his compan- 
 ions-in-arms, Hugo was well fitted to be a chief. He 
 was void of fear, and he believed in himself. His 
 friends and followers believed in him and in the right- 
 eousness of their common cause, and they made ready 
 for battle. The political debates and disturbances which 
 
 1 " There, there's passion for you, and tragedy I How I love that play 1 
 There is so much of a rumpus in it." Mrs. KEMBLE'S 'Recollections of a 
 Girlhood.' New York: Holt, 1879. p. 115.
 
 12 French Dramatists. 
 
 led to the final fall of the Bourbons, in 1830, were 
 scarcely more acrimonious than the contemporaneous 
 romantic attacks on the Classicism which, like the ex- 
 iled family, had learnt nothing, and forgotten nothing. 
 " Something of the intensity of the odium theologicum 
 (if, indeed, the cestheticum be not in these days the 
 more bitter of the two) entered into the conflict," wrote 
 Lowell of the war of critics, which began when Words- 
 worth proclaimed himself the prophet of a new poetic 
 dispensation. And Hugo's disciples were like Words- 
 worth's, in that " the verses of the master had for them 
 the virtue of religious canticles, stimulant of zeal, and 
 not amenable to the ordinary tests of cold-blooded criti- 
 cism." 
 
 Second only to Hugo, if, indeed, second even to him, 
 came Alexandre Dumas, whose 'Henri III.' was to 
 shock the staid frequenters of the Theatre Frangais, 
 and to achieve an indisputable and unexpected success 
 a full year before Hugo's ' Hernani ' was acted. Next 
 came Alfred de Vigny, whose 'More de Ve'nise' also 
 won a triumph at the Theatre Frangais before the 
 final fight over the first acted play of Hugo. Besides 
 these three leaders, there were Charles Nodier (much 
 the oldest of them all), Gerard de Nerval, The"ophile 
 Gautier, Auguste Maquet, Joseph Bouchardy, and many 
 another as ardent for the cause as the chief himself. 
 
 Ranged in battle-array over against the irregular 
 band of Romanticists were the serried ranks of the 
 Classicists, men full of years and honors, and all so 
 carefully forgotten now of the public that their names 
 can be recalled only with an effort, even by the professed 
 student of the stage of that time. Between the com- 
 batants, a little off at one side, and perhaps a trifle
 
 The Romantic Movement. 13 
 
 nearer to the Romanticists than to the Classicists, was 
 a tiny group of conservatives, who stood halting between 
 the old and the new. In his entertaining account of 
 this phase in the history of French dramatic literature, 
 Alphonse Royer considers this group of conservatives 
 as Classicists, holding that those who were not for the 
 Romanticists were against them. Consequently he 
 divides the Classicists into two sets, the pure Clas- 
 sicists and the mitigated Classicists ; designating by 
 this latter name those whom I have called the conser- 
 vatives. The pure Classicists were the no-surrender 
 and die-in-the-last-ditch party, who brooked no com- 
 promise with the Romanticists, and who always voted 
 the straight ticket. The mitigated Classicists, or conser- 
 vatives, were the more amiable persons, who confessed 
 some of the failings and abuses of the existing state of 
 things, but believed in "reform within the party." 
 
 The little knot of the mitigated, who thus sought 
 safety in the middle path, had for its chief Casimir Dela- 
 vigne, remembered now as the author of ' Louis XI.' 
 The only other authors of any permanent value belong- 
 ing to this group were Lebrun, whose ' Marie Stuart ' 
 is still remembered ; and Soumet, whose tragedy, * Nor- 
 ma/ is familiar to all as the book of Bellini's opera. 
 Great was the dismay among the pure Classicists when 
 Casimir Delavigne quit the camp, and set up for himself 
 as the chief of a new sect, conciliatory and conserva- 
 tive, when, in 1829, he chose the Porte St. Martin 
 Theatre, instead of the Theatre Frangais, to produce 
 his 'Marino Faliero,' based on Byron, as his 'Louis 
 XI.' had been made out of Scott's 'Quentin Durward.' 
 In like manner his later drama, the ' Enfants d'Edou- 
 ard,' was taken from Shakspere. And this frequency
 
 14 French Dramatists. 
 
 of imitation was characteristic of the timid talents of 
 Delavigne. His plays lacked boldness, and his verse 
 lacked relief. His was an amiable talent : but during 
 the hot battle between the Romanticists and the 
 Classicists was no time for a merely amiable talent ; and 
 Delavigne had to submit to be thrust on one side, 
 and remembered rather for the share he might have 
 taken in the combat than for any positive quality in the 
 work he actually did. 
 
 The interest in the fight of the factions centres 
 almost altogether around the two chiefs, Victor Hugo 
 and Alexandre Dumas ; and the course of the combat 
 can best be told in considering their separate dramas. 
 It suffices now to note that the English actors left Paris 
 in the fall of 1827, and that Victor Hugo published his 
 profession of faith in the preface to * Cromwell ' before 
 the end of the year. Less than fifteen months after- 
 ward Alexandre Dumas brought out his first acted play, 
 1 Henri III.,' at the Theatre Francois. In another 
 year, at the same theatre, came 'Hernani,' the first 
 acted play of Victor Hugo. Within eighteen months 
 ' Antony ' and ' Marion Delorme ' followed, and victory 
 was assured. The Romanticists, like Jove's thunder- 
 bolts, were but a handful, yet they annihilated the 
 Titans who had overawed their predecessors.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 VICTOR HUGO. 
 
 IN the year 1778 there was acted in Paris, at the 
 Theatre Frangais, ' Irene,' the last tragedy of Voltaire, 
 whose first play, ' CEdipe,' had been brought out at the 
 same theatre in 1718, sixty years before. On March 
 31, at the sixth performance of 'Irene,' the presence of 
 the aged author called forth the greatest enthusiasm. 
 To the yet living Voltaire, it was, as it were, a foretaste 
 of literary immortality, and he was much affected by 
 the demonstrations. " You smother me with roses," he 
 said, " and kill me with pleasure." 
 
 In our day we have seen but one sight like unto this. 
 On Feb. 25, 1880, at the same Theatre Frangais where 
 Voltaire was honored, was celebrated the fiftieth anni- 
 versary of the first performance of ' Hernani,' a play by 
 Victor Hugo. In the half-century it had been acted 
 over three hundred times in that theatre. The house 
 was full and enthusiastic ; and the list of those present 
 at this semi-centennial performance holds nearly all the 
 notable names of modern France. After the acting of 
 ' Hernani,' the curtain drew up again, and discovered 
 that incomparable company of actors, the Comedie- 
 Frangaise, grouped around a bust of Victor Hugo in 
 the centre of the stage. Then from the ranks of the 
 performers, each of whom was dressed in the costume 
 of the character he had acted in one of the poet's plays, 
 came forward the chief actress of tragedy, and recited 
 
 5
 
 1 6 French Dramatists. 
 
 in the most musical of voices, and amid the plaudits of 
 the audience, the poem written for the occasion by one 
 of the foremost of younger French poets, a poem 
 which proclaimed that Victor Hugo would have long 
 life before he had immortality, and which declared that 
 his drama and Glory had celebrated their golden wedding. 
 
 Voltaire has been dead only a century, and already 
 the dust lies thick on his dramatic works. A hundred 
 years is a long life for any thing in literature. What 
 may befall Victor Hugo's dramas in a hundred years, it 
 were vain to prophesy. Shakspere has been dead two 
 centuries and a half, and his plays are as young as the 
 day they were born. Victor Hugo does not lack par- 
 tisans who declare him to be of the race and lineage 
 of Shakspere. Mr. Algernon Charles Swinburne, for 
 instance, is an English poet and critic who cannot men- 
 tion M. Hugo's name without dithyrambic rhapsodies ; 
 and the late Th6ophile Gautier was a French poet and 
 critic, who, when almost on his death-bed, told a friend, 
 that, if he had the ill-fortune to find a single line of 
 Hugo's poor, he would not dare to confess it, to him- 
 self, all alone, in the cellar, without a light. 
 
 Gautier, at least, had the excuse that Hugo had been 
 his leader in a fierce fight, and that it ill becomes a 
 soldier to doubt the captain who brought the battle to 
 an end. It is needless to tell again, and at length, the 
 tale of the battle between the Romanticists and the 
 Classicists. It is enough to remember that the theatre 
 was the chief battle-ground. Now, for an assault on the 
 stage, Hugo was the best possible leader. He was a 
 born playwright. Although only twenty-five years old 
 when he put forth 'Cromwell,' in 1827, he had already 
 published two novels and two volumes of poetry. Nov-
 
 Victor Hugo. 1 7 
 
 elist and poet then, he has revealed himself since as 
 critic, orator, historian, and satirist ; but in every dis- 
 guise he shows his strong native bent toward the 
 theatre. His poems are often but the lyric setting of 
 a dramatic motive : his novels are but plays told in 
 narrative, instead of put en the stage. All the elements 
 of the play are to be found in the novel : situations, 
 scenery, effects, even to the exit-speeches, all are 
 there. No reader of the ' History of a Crime ' need be 
 reminded how dramatic, not to say theatrical, he can 
 make history. As an orator, also, his stage-training 
 stands him in good stead : his oration becomes a play 
 with only one part, and he uses as best he may the 
 scenery which chances to surround him. In 1851, for 
 example, pleading in court against the death-penalty, 
 he pointed to the crucifix over the judge's head, and 
 appealed to "that victim of capital punishment." It is 
 in his novels, however, that his dramatic instinct is 
 most plainly seen. His methods are those of a melo- 
 dramatist. He plans and paints his scenery himself, 
 and far better than the material brush of the scenic 
 artist could do it ; and he delights in the violent con- 
 trasts always effective on the stage, in the cut-and- 
 thrust repartee of the theatre, and in the sharply out- 
 lined characters whose complexity is only apparent. 
 
 Abundant proof of the dramatic tendencies of his 
 youth are to be found in the curious book, 'Victor 
 Hugo ; raconte par un T6moin de sa Vie/ which is at 
 least semi-autobiographical : it is an open secret that 
 the Witness of his Life was his wife. In this we are 
 told that he wrote a tragedy, 'Irtamene,' at the age 
 of fourteen and an optra-comique, 'A Quelque Chose 
 Hasard est Bon,' before he was sixteen. Between the
 
 1 8 French Dramatists. 
 
 two, at fifteen, he had written a more elaborate tragedy, 
 ' Athalie.' The witness of his life tells us that it was 
 " perfectly regular, in five acts, with unities of time and 
 place, dream, confidants," etc. At nineteen he planned 
 a play, 'Amy Robsart,' taken, for the most part, from 
 ' Kenil worth.' Seven years later he gave it to his 
 brother-in-law, Paul Foucher, not thinking it fit that 
 after the publication of ' Cromwell,' he should borrow a 
 subject. The play was acted anonymously, and hissed. 
 Hugo at once came forward, and claimed his share of 
 the failure. None of these early dramatic attempts 
 of Hugo has been published ; but the witness of his 
 life prints in full another play, ' Inez de Castro,' written 
 at the age of sixteen, apparently just after the com- 
 position of the opfra-comigue, and three years before 
 the adaptation from Scott. 
 
 ' Inez de Castro ' is a remarkable production for a 
 boy of sixteen, and it has never received the attention 
 it deserves from critics of Hugo's literary career. We 
 can detect in this youthful sketch the germ of his later 
 dramatic work. Here, in fact, is Victor Hugo the play- 
 wright, in the chrysalis. ' Inez de Castro ' is a melo- 
 drama in three acts and two interludes. These latter 
 are spectacular merely, and call for no comment. But 
 the three acts of melodrama repay study. The story 
 of the play need not be told here at length : it has a 
 juvenile want of profundity, and it shows a juvenile 
 love of the marvellous and astounding. But the effects 
 are not altogether external, and there is a willingness 
 to grapple with weighty subjects, not a little charac- 
 teristic. Here are the firstlings of Hugo's theatrical 
 genius, and we can see here in embryo some of his 
 later qualities. The scene is laid in Spain, where the
 
 Victor Hugo. 19 
 
 poet had passed part of his wandering childhood ; and 
 there is a lavish use of local color. That the young 
 poet had already broken with the unity of place is 
 shown by the frequent change of scene. There is the 
 commingling of the comic and the serious, which, nine 
 years later, in the ' Cromwell ' preface, he declared to 
 be essential to a proper dramatic presentation of life. 
 The humor is not grim and grotesque, as it became 
 in some of his later plays, but frankly mirthful. There 
 is the use of the prattle of little children to relieve 
 the strain of tense emotion, an effect repeated half a 
 century later in ' Ninety-three.' There are intriguing 
 officials, recalling those in ' Ruy Bias ; ' and there is a 
 liberal use of spies and poison, recalling 'Lucrece 
 Borgia' and 'Angelo.' There are lyric interludes and 
 antitheses, and violent contrasts, and a seeking of star- 
 tling effects by the sudden diclosure of solemn situa- 
 tions. There is one scene in the tomb of the king, 
 which perhaps suggested the act of ' Hernani ' in the 
 tomb of Charlemagne ; and there is another in a vast 
 hall, hung with black draperies, and containing a 
 throne and a scaffold, around which are grouped guards 
 in black and red, and executioners in the black robes 
 of penitents, with torches in their hands. This scene 
 seemingly has served as raw material for one in ' Marie 
 Tudor,' and also, it may be, for the famous supper- 
 scene in * Lucrece Borgia.' And, last of all, there is a 
 ghost, which, I am glad to say, Victor Hugo has made 
 no attempt to utilize in any of his later works. 
 
 After Victor Hugo had begun to be recognized as the 
 chief of a new sect, his liking for the stage prompted 
 him to plan a play which should exemplify what the 
 drama of the future ought to be. He sketched out
 
 2o French Dramatists. 
 
 'Cromwell,' intending it for Ta'ma, who heartily ap- 
 proved of the new principles. Unfortunately, the great 
 actor died, worn out with giving form to the emptiness 
 of the plays he had to act. Bereft of the one actor 
 who could do justice to his hero, Hugo gave up the 
 thought of the stage, and elaborated the play, until it 
 is well-nigh as long as Mr. Swinburne's interminable 
 'Bothwell.' However, the original acting-play remains 
 visible, though embedded in a mass of superabundant 
 matter. Although the scenes are unduly prolonged, 
 and the characters developed at needless length, care- 
 ful cutting would make its performance a possibility. 
 It is to be judged frankly as a play for the stage, and 
 not as that half-breed monstrosity, a "play for the 
 closet." Of course, it marks an immense advance on 
 the ' Inez de Castro ' of nine years before ; but it is 
 far inferior to the ' Hernani ' of three years later. The 
 restrictions of actual stage representation are whole- 
 some to Hugo's exuberant genius. 
 
 As a historical drama, ' Cromwell ' is not quite so 
 accurate as its author pretends ; but it presents vividly 
 the superficial aspects of a man and a time still waiting 
 for a dramatist who can see their great capabilities. 
 The plot, the incidents of which are not as closely ser- 
 ried as in Hugo's later plays, turns on the Protector's 
 intrigues for the crown he afterward refused. There is 
 the familiar use of moments of surprise and suspense, 
 and of stage-effects appealing to the eye and the ear. 
 In the first act Richard Cromwell drops into the midst 
 of the conspirators against his father, surprise : he 
 accuses them of treachery in drinking without him, 
 suspense; suddenly a trumpet sounds, and a crier 
 orders open the doors of the tavern where all are sit-
 
 Victor Hugo. 2 1 
 
 ting, suspense again ; when the doors are flung wide, 
 we see the populace and a company of soldiers, and the 
 crier on horseback, who reads a proclamation of a gen- 
 eral fast, and commands the closing of all taverns, 
 surprise again. A somewhat similar scene of succeed- 
 ing suspense and surprise is to be found in the fourth 
 act. The setting off of the Roundheads against the 
 Cavaliers is rather French in its conception of char- 
 acter, but none the less effective. There is real humor 
 in the contrast of Carr, the typical Puritan, with Lord 
 Rochester, the ideal courtier ; and the improbable, not 
 to say impossible, disguise of Rochester as Cromwell's 
 chaplain is fertile in scenes of pure comedy. The fun, 
 light and airy and graceful in Rochester, gets a little 
 forced and farcical in Dame Guggligoy : the effort is 
 obvious, and the hand rather heavy. 
 
 The opening line of ' Cromwell ' was a protest against 
 the stiff, stilted, and unnatural decorum which forbade 
 the use of the simple word for a simple thing, prescrib- 
 ing in its place a sort of roundabout hinting at it : this 
 is the first line of Hugo's first published play, a date 
 only. 
 
 "Demain, vingt-cinq juin, mil six cent cinquante-sept." 
 To see the curtain rise on a tavern, and to hear a date 
 as the first phrase of a five-act historical drama in verse, 
 was enough to shock even the most liberal Classicist. 
 The second act began, in like manner, with a question 
 as to the time of day, and the simple answer, "Noon." 
 In the preface to the play, a preface which was as a 
 declaration of independence, the attempt to get away 
 from effete conventionalities was set up as a principle. 
 In this iconoclasm, Hugo broke the shackles of the 
 tragic stage He disavowed the unities of time and
 
 22 French Dramatists. 
 
 p ace ; he proclaimed the supreme importance on the 
 stage of action; he demanded a return to nature in 
 poetic diction; and he rejected the rigid couplets of 
 contemporary poets, to plead, not for prose, but for a 
 freer use of verse ; for, as he says, " an idea steeped in 
 verse becomes at once more cutting and more glittering : 
 it is iron turned to steel." A poet who can handle such 
 verse need not fear the simplest and humblest phrases, 
 for to him nothing would be trivial. " Genius is like 
 the stamp, which prints the royal image on the coins 
 of copper as well as on coins of gold." Above all, the 
 poet must not be afraid to mingle the grotesque with 
 the terrible : he must, indeed, choose rather the charac- 
 teristic than the abstractly beautiful. In this principle, 
 especially the juxtaposition of tragedy and comedy 
 (which he supported in this preface by citation of the 
 Greeks, Dante, Shakspere, Moliere, and Goethe), we 
 may see the mainspring of his next plays. 
 
 As Dryden has told us, "They who would combat 
 general authority with particular opinion must first es- 
 tablish themselves a reputation of understanding better 
 than other men." Now 'Cromwell' was unactable. 
 Its preface irritated many, but converted few. It re- 
 mained for Hugo to prove his superior understanding 
 of the stage by his own works acted on the stage. In 
 the spring of 1829, eighteen months after the publica- 
 tion of ' Cromwell,' Hugo was asked to write a play for 
 the Comedie-Frangaise. He had two subjects in his 
 head. He chose to write first ' Marion Delorme,' a 
 task which took him from June i to June 24, the fourth 
 act having been finished in one day's steady labor. 
 Accepted by the theatre, the play was interdicted by 
 the censors. Hugo at once turned to his second sub-
 
 Victor Hugo. 23 
 
 ject, and in three weeks he had completed ' Hernani.' 
 It is a coincidence that Voltaire wrote 'Zaire/ much 
 his best tragedy, in just the same space of time that 
 Hugo took to write ' Hernani,' his most popular play. 
 In explanation of this wondrous improvisation, for 
 'Hernani' is a play in five acts of full length, one 
 may venture to suggest that the plot had been slowly 
 matured in the author's head, the situations had linked 
 themselves together in order, and that, when the poet 
 sat him down to his desk, he had but to clothe his con- 
 ceptions with verse. To him this was a task of no diffi- 
 culty, for Hugo has superabundantly the gift of metrical 
 speech : his vocabulary is surpassingly rich, and he has 
 lyric melody at his beck and call. And of a truth his 
 Muse responded nobly to the appeal. In no other play 
 of Hugo's is the verse finer or firmer. The lumbering 
 and jingling rhymed Alexandrine is not the best metre 
 for dramatic poetry ; it is not even a good metre ; but 
 it is here handled by a master of verse. Though no 
 carelessness betrays the improvising, the verse retains 
 the rush and impetus of its making. The whole work 
 is full of the freshness and vigor of youth. One can 
 almost hear the rising sap, and see the spreading foliage 
 of spring. 
 
 Although the French cannot be accused of taking 
 their pleasure sadly, the first performance of an impor- 
 tant play at the national theatre is a solemnity. The 
 production of 'Hernani' at the Theatre Frangais on 
 the evening of Feb. 25, 1830, was a national event. 
 It was the first pitched battle between the Classicists 
 and the Romanticists. The pit was filled with bands 
 of young artists of all kinds, who had volunteered in 
 place of the salaried applauders of the theatre, and who
 
 24 French Dramatists. 
 
 were admitted on the presentation of a special ticket, 
 the word hierro (Spanish for iron) stamped in a bold 
 handwriting on a little slip of red paper. Chief among 
 these young enthusiasts was Theophile Gautier, resplen- 
 dent in a flaming crimson waistcoat. With the first 
 line the conflict broke out. The hisses of the old 
 school were met by the plaudits of the new. Phrases 
 which now pass without notice were then jeered and 
 hooted. Extra-hazardous expressions were cheered 
 before they were fairly out of the actors' mouths. 
 When the curtain fell, the victory lay with the young 
 author. But the end was not yet. The fight was 
 renewed with the same bitterness at every performance ; 
 speeches roughly received one night were rapturously 
 applauded the next ; a scene lost by the Romanticists 
 to-day was taken by assault to-morrow; until at last 
 there was not one single line in the whole five acts 
 which, at one time or another, had not been hissed. 
 The theatre was crowded night after night. The excite- 
 ment was not confined to the capital, and provincial 
 towns echoed the animated discussions of Paris. At 
 Toulouse a quarrel about 'Hernani' led to a duel, in 
 which a young man was killed. 
 
 It was the position of the play as a manifesto, and 
 not its merits, remarkable as they were, which called 
 forth such demonstrations. Yet it needs no wide ac- 
 quaintance with the works then holding the stage in 
 France to understand that a play as fresh and as full of 
 force as ' Hernani ' must needs make a strong impres- 
 sion. The rapid rush of its action carries the specta- 
 tor off his feet ; the lyric fervor of its language is 
 intoxicating; and it is only a sober second-thought 
 which lets us see the weak points of the piece. If
 
 Victor Hugo. 25 
 
 this is its effect now, when the play has no longer the 
 charm of novelty, when, indeed, its startling innovations 
 have been worn threadbare in the service of second- 
 rate and often clumsy followers, we may guess what 
 its effect was then on the ardent generation of 1830, 
 surfeited with the sickly inanities of the self-styled 
 classic school. Whatever we may now think of Dona 
 Sol and her three lovers, the young artists of half a 
 century ago took them for types of a dramatic renas- 
 cence, a new birth of the stage. What we do now 
 think of them is, that all four characters although full 
 of movement, and rich in color are hollow, and with- 
 out real life. They live, move, and have their being, 
 in a world that never was : in brief, they are operatic 
 impossibilities, ruled by an inexorable fate and the firm 
 hand of the author, who has decided on ending a pic- 
 turesque play with a pathetic situation. 
 
 The plot may be recalled briefly. Ruy Gomez in- 
 tends to marry his niece, Dona Sol, who, however, loves 
 a mysterious bandit, Hernani, own brother to my 
 lord Byron's ' Giaour.' The King of Spain also loves 
 Dona Sol, and bears her away with him. Hernani owes 
 his life to Ruy Gomez, to whom he gives his hunting- 
 horn, agreeing to take that life himself whenever he 
 hears the horn ; and then Ruy Gomez and Hernani, 
 for revenge, join in a conspiracy against the king. 
 But Don Carlos, the King of Spain, is elected Roman 
 Emperor, and he surprises the conspirators. Changed 
 by his higher office, he pardons. Hernani is restored 
 to all his rank and titles, and Dona Sol is wedded to 
 him. In the midst of the marriage-feast comes the 
 sound of the horn. Ruy Gomez is implacable : Her- 
 nani has sworn to die ; and his poison serves also for
 
 26 French Dramatists. 
 
 his bride. ' Castilian Honor/ the sub-title of the play, 
 seems a very queer thing when we consider this story 
 in cold blood. For the plot not to look ludicrous, one 
 must be almost as hasty and hot-headed as the hero 
 himself. And the incidents are as like each other as 
 the whole play is unlike life. As Mr. W. H. Pollock 
 has aptly remarked, every act ends with somebody spar- 
 ing the life of somebody else, save the last, in which 
 all the chief characters, except Charles V., die together. 
 The catastrophe, although it is the logical sum total 
 of the situations, would be revolting, if it were not so 
 extravagant. The lugubrious tooting of the horn it 
 was, doubtless, that Goethe had in mind when he called 
 ' Hernani ' " an absurd composition." 
 
 But to detect these demerits takes afterthought. 
 While the play is acting before us, we are under the 
 spell : we are moved, thrilled, excited. The pleasure 
 it gives is not of the highest kind intellectually, if, 
 indeed, it may be termed intellectual at all ; but as to 
 the amount of pleasure it gives, there can be no ques- 
 tion. The quality of its power may be doubted, never 
 the quantity. It is a very interesting play, melodra- 
 matic in its motive, poetic in its language, and pictur- 
 esque at all times. 
 
 The same phrase describes fairly enough 'Marion 
 Delorme ' and ' Le Roi s'amuse,' which followed ' Her- 
 nani ' upon the stage. 'Marion Delorme,' forbidden 
 by the Bourbon censors, waited a few months, till the 
 revolution of 1830 overturned the Bourbon throne; 
 and then, in a few months more, on Aug. n, 1831, 
 it was brought out at the Porte St. Martin Theatre. 
 It was received with the same outburst of contend- 
 ing prejudices and preferences which had been let
 
 Victor Hugo. 27 
 
 loose upon ' Hernani.' To my mind it is a better play 
 than its predecessor on the boards. To the full as 
 moving and as picturesque, it bears study better. For 
 one thing, it mingles humor and passion far more skil- 
 fully. It may perhaps be called the only one of Hugo's 
 plays which fulfils the conditions of the new drama as 
 laid down by the author in the preface to ' Cromwell.' 
 And from this freer use of humor results a great supe- 
 riority in the presentation of character. In no other 
 play of Hugo's are the characters as natural as in 
 'Marion Delorme.' They are not mere profile masks 
 set in motion to face each other in a given situation. 
 Louis XIII. and Saverny are real flesh and blood. The 
 king indeed is a royally well conceived character ; Hugo 
 brings before us by a few light and humorous touches 
 the feeble, melancholy, pious, moral, fearful, restive, 
 and helpless monarch, chafing under the iron curb of 
 his red ruler, and yet inert in self-assertion. True to 
 history or not, the portrait is true to itself, which is 
 of greater importance in dramatic as in other art. The 
 scene between Louis and his solemn jester, who seeks 
 to gain his end by playing on the king's failings, is in 
 the true comedy vein, and would greatly surprise those, 
 who, familiar only with Hugo's later works, pretend 
 that he does not know what humor is. 
 
 Saverny is a figure filled in with a few easy strokes 
 of an airy fancy : he is the embodiment of light-hearted 
 grace and true-hearted honor. He is a young fellow 
 who wears feathers in his cap, it is true : but he bears 
 down in his heart the motto of his order, "Noblesse 
 oblige ;" and he acts up to it when time serves. His 
 is a poetic portrait of a characteristic Frenchman, with 
 the national quality of style, and a capability for lofty
 
 28 French Dramatists. 
 
 sacrifice. There is true comedy, again, in his attitude, 
 when his friend, the Marquis de Brichanteau, tries to 
 console Saverny's uncle for his supposed death, by 
 pointing out his faults, and dwelling on them at length, 
 until at last Saverny revolts. There is, perhaps, a 
 slightly too epigrammatic emphasis in the final self- 
 possession of Saverny, which lets him coolly point out 
 three mistakes in the spelling of his own death-war- 
 rant. Emphasis and epigram, however, are kept more 
 subordinate in ' Marion Delorme ' than in any other of 
 Hugo's plays. Marion Delorme the heroine, and Didier 
 the hero, are simpler figures, and more like those to 
 be found in the ' Hernani.' Didier is another brother 
 of the Giaour, mysterious, melancholic, misanthropic. 
 Like Hernani, he is a wanderer on the face of the 
 earth, and has great capacity for suffering. Marion 
 Delorme is a poetic portrait, no doubt highly flattered, 
 of the fair and fragile beauty who has come down to us 
 from history, leaving her character behind her. 
 
 Although, as in all of Hugo's plays, the plot is of 
 prime importance, I have said nothing of it here, 
 because it is both hard and unfair to give in a scant 
 sentence or two a sample of the situation for which 
 the playwright has cunningly prepared by all that pre- 
 cedes it. In the skill with which the plot is conducted, 
 in the force and effect of its situations, 'Marion De- 
 lorme ' does not yield to its fellows. In no other play 
 of Hugo's is there any thing to compare with the skill 
 with which the action of the drama is dominated by 
 the red figure, and stiffened by the steel will of the 
 unseen cardinal, the Richelieu, who, before Prince Bis- 
 marck, proved his belief in the efficacy of blood and 
 iron.
 
 Victor Hugo. 29 
 
 It was possibly to ' Hamlet ' that Hugo owed the troop 
 of strolling players among whom Marion Delorme hides ; 
 and he may have been indebted for the self-sale by 
 which she tries to procure Didier's escape either to 
 the fiction of ' Faublas, ' or to the fact in the rela- 
 tions of Josephine Barras and Napoleon ; just as it 
 may have been a recollection of an incident in the 
 ' School for Scandal ' which suggested the far more 
 dramatic picture-scene of ' Hernani.' To conclude this 
 list of hypothetic borrowings, there are in ' Cromwell ' 
 four clowns almost too Shaksperian in the most objec- 
 tionable sense of that much-abused word. When he 
 began to write for the stage, Hugo seemed to be 
 greatly taken with the king's jester, a figure at once 
 mediaeval and grotesque, and therefore doubly capti- 
 vating. After the four in * Cromwell/ let us imagine, 
 if haply we can, the Protector with four fools, we 
 have the doleful and black-robed jester in 'Marion 
 Delorme.' 
 
 In the next piece, the ' Roi s'amuse,' the protagonist 
 is the court -fool, Triboulet, the jester of Francis I. of 
 France. This play was brought out at the Theatre 
 Francois, in Paris, one evening in November, 1832. 
 Before the first night audience it failed, and it had no 
 chance of recovery, for the next morning the govern- 
 ment forbade the performance of the play on the ground 
 that it libelled Francis I. So the 'Roi s'amuse' has 
 had but one performance ; and yet the plot of no play 
 of Hugo's is so well known out of France, for it served 
 Verdi as the libretto of ' Rigoletto.' Space fails to 
 consider it here in detail. In form and spirit it does 
 not differ from ' Hernani ' or ' Marion Delorme,' al- 
 though it rises to a higher reach of passion than they.
 
 30 French Dramatists. 
 
 If any one wishes to see how a strong story can be 
 watered into symmetrical sentimentality, he may read 
 the 'Roi s'amuse,' and then take up the 'Fool's 
 Revenge,' a drama in three acts, by Mr. Tom Taylor. 
 The essential tragedy of the motive is weakened to a 
 triumph of virtue, and conversion of the vice. The 
 desperation and death, which are the vitals of the 
 French play, are in the English anodyned for the sake 
 of the conventional happy ending. 
 
 Now we come to a curious change of manner. The 
 'Roi s'amuse/ 'Marion Delorme,' and 'Hernani' are all 
 written in a rich and ample verse, full of fire and color : 
 the three plays which followed 'Lucrece Borgia,' 
 ' Marie Tudor,' and ' Angelo' are in prose ; and the 
 effect of the change of medium is most surprising. Of 
 course verse is not always poetry, and prose may aim 
 as high and be as lofty as verse ; but in Hugo's case 
 the giving-up of verse seems like a giving-up of poetry. 
 The elevation, the glow, and the grace of, say, 'Her- 
 nani,' are all lacking in 'Lucrece Borgia' and its two 
 companions in prose. There is no falling-off in the 
 ingenuity of invention, or in the constructive skill of 
 the author ; but the plays in prose seem somehow on a 
 much lower level than those in verse ; and this is in 
 spite of Hugo's use of a metre hopelessly unfit for the 
 quick work of the stage. Before Mr. Matthew Arnold, 
 Stendhal * had dwelt on the insufficience of the Alex- 
 andrine for high poetry. The jigginess of the metre 
 and the alternating pairs of male and female rhymes 
 are fatal to continued elevation of thought. Shak- 
 
 1 "Les vers italiens et anglais permettent de tout dire; le vers Alexandria 
 seul, fait pour une cour d6daigneuse, en a tous les ridicules." ' Racine et Shak* 
 spere,' p. 36, note.
 
 Victor Hugo. 31 
 
 speare and Dante could not have been sublime in 
 Alexandrines. Yet the metre has a certain fitness 
 to the French intellect, to the French love of order 
 and balance ; and, moreover, it is the recognized and 
 regular metre of the higher theatre : so a French 
 dramatist must needs make the best of it. Victor 
 Hugo is a master in versification ; it has no mysteries 
 for him : and in his hands, even the stubborn Alexan- 
 drine is bent to his bidding. Archbishop Trench calls 
 Calderon " nearly as lyric as dramatic." Victor Hugo 
 is even more lyric than dramatic. The most poetic lines 
 in his plays have a lyric lilt and swing. A friend of 
 mine who has a most acute insight into rhythmic 
 intricacies has suggested to me a subtle likeness 
 between the verse of ' Hernani,' particularly, and of 
 the ' Lays of Ancient Rome ; ' and just as the quotation 
 of a single stanza would do injustice to Macaulay, 
 whose merit lies mainly in the movement of his verse, 
 so it is almost impossible to pick out for quotation any 
 passage of the far finer and higher verse of Hugo 
 which will be fairly representative. A pretty couplet 
 is that of the king, Don Carlos, in ' Hernani,' when 
 he, having been elected emperor, pardons his rival, 
 gives him Dona Sol to wife, and finally bestows the 
 accolade : 
 
 . . . "je te fais chevalier. 
 
 Mais tu 1'as, le plus doux et le plus beau collier, 
 Celui que je n'ai pas, qui manque au rang supreme, 
 Les deux bras d'une femme aime'e et qui vous aime ! 
 Ah, tu vas etre heureux; moi, je suis empereur." 
 
 (' Hernani,' act iv. sc. 4.) 
 
 And lovely are the last lines of the same play, after 
 Hernani and Dona Sol have taken the fatal poison,
 
 32 French Dramatists. 
 
 Hernani falls back; and Don Ruy Gomez, lifting his 
 head, declares him dead ; but Dona Sol will not have 
 
 it so : 
 
 ..." Mort ! non pas ! . . . nous dormons. 
 II dort ! c'est mon dpoux, vois-tu, nous nous aimons, 
 Nous somraes couche"s la. C'est notre nuit de noce. 
 Ne le reVeillez pas, seigneur due de Mendoce . . . 
 II est las. . . . Mon amour, tiens-toi vers moi tourne*, 
 Plus pres . . . plus pres encore . . ." 
 
 (' Hernani,' act v. sc. 6.) 
 
 And then she, too, falls back dead. Fine lines again 
 are those of Didier at the end of ' Marion Delorme,' 
 when the bell tolls the hour of his execution, and he 
 turns to the by-standers : 
 
 " Vous qui venez ici pour nous voir au passage. 
 Si 1'on parle de nous, rendez-nous te*moignage 
 Que tous deux sans palir nous avons e'coute' 
 Cette heure qui pour nous sonnait 1'e'ternite' ! " 
 
 (' Marion Delorme,' act v. sc. 7.) 
 
 Perhaps as beautiful a monologue as any in the lan- 
 guage is the touching speech of the jester, Triboulet, 
 over the body of the daughter he has killed, thinking 
 
 to slay the king : 
 
 . . . "Je croi 
 
 Qu'elle respire encore ! elle a besoin de moi ! 
 Allez vite chercher du secours a la ville. 
 Laissez-la dans mes bras, je serai bien tranquille. 
 Non ! elle n'est pas morte ! oh ! Dieu ne voudrait pas. 
 Car enfin il le sait, je n'ai qu'elle ici-bas. 
 Tout le monde vous hait quand vous etes difforme, 
 Ou vous fuit, de vos maux personne ne s'informe ; 
 Elle m'aime, elle ! elle est ma joie et mon appui. 
 Quand on rit de son pere, elle pleure avec lui. 
 Si belle et morte ! oh, non ! Donnez-moi quelque chose 
 Pour essuyer son front. Sa levre est encor rose.
 
 Victor Hugo. 33 
 
 Oh ! si vous 1'aviez vue, oh ! je la vois encor 
 Quand elle avait deux ans avec ses cheveux d'or ! 
 Elle e'tait blonde alors ! O ma pauvre opprime'e ! 
 Ma Blanche ! raon bonheur ! ma fille bien-aimde ! 
 Lorsqu'elle 6ta.it enfant, je la tenais ainsi. 
 Elle dormait sur moi, tout comme la voici ! 
 Quand elle reVeillait, si vous saviez quel ange ! 
 Je ne lui semblais pas quelque chose d'dtrange, 
 Elle me souriait avec ses yeux divins, 
 Et moi je lui baisais ses deux petites mains ! 
 Pauvre agneau ! Morte ! oh non ! elle dort et repose. 
 Tout a 1'heure, messieurs, c'e'tait bien autre chose, 
 Elle s'est cependant re'veille'e. Oh ! j'attend. 
 Vous 1'allez voir rouvrir ses yeux dans un instant ! 
 Vous voyez maintenant, messieurs, que je raisonne, 
 Je suis tranquille et doux, je n'ofrense personne ; 
 Puisque je ne fais rien de ce qu'on me defend, 
 On peut bien me laisser regarder mon enfant. 
 J'ai de"ja re'chauffe' ses mains entre les miennes ; 
 Voyez. touchez les done un peu ! . . . 
 
 UNE FEMME. 
 
 Le chirurgien. 
 
 TRIBOULET. 
 
 Tenez, regardez-la, je n'empecherai rien. 
 Elle est eVanouie, est-ce pas ? 
 
 LE CHIRURGIEN. 
 
 Elle est morte." * 
 
 (' Le Roi s'amuse,' act v. sc. 5.) 
 
 When Hugo drops verse, he gives up a great advan- 
 tage. His plays in verse may pass for poetic dramas ; 
 but his plays in prose are of a truth prosaic. A garment 
 of verse veils 'Hernani* and 'Marion Delorme;' but 
 
 1 A metrical translation of this passage into English will be found in the note 
 to this chapter.
 
 34 French Dramatists. 
 
 ' Lucr6ce Borgia ' and ' Marie Tudor ' are naked melo- 
 drama, without any semblance of poetry. 'Lucrece 
 Borgia,' written in the summer of 1832, immediately 
 after the 'Roi s'amuse,' and acted in 1833, is strangely 
 like 'Inez de Castro,' its predecessor in prose. It is 
 simply a melodrama, owing its merit mainly to its sim- 
 plicity. We have an adroit and cunning handling of a 
 single fertile theme. There is none of the involute 
 turgidity of the ordinary melodramatic playwright ; but 
 for all its simplicity the play is a melodrama, even in 
 the etymological sense, which requires the admixture 
 of music. With all her accumulated vices, Lucrece 
 Borgia herself has no grandeur, no touch of the wand 
 which transfigures the wicked woman of Webster or 
 Ford. It is not imaginative, it is not poetic, and it is 
 immensely clever. In spite of the magnitude of her 
 crimes, and the force with which she is depicted, she 
 remains commonplace. She arouses the latent instinct 
 of caricature. When, in the first act, she tries special 
 pleading for herself, and lays the blame and the burden 
 of her sins on her family, " It is the example of my 
 family which has misled me," one involuntarily recalls 
 the fair Greek heroine of the ' Belle Helene,' who com- 
 plains of " the fatality which weighs upon me ! " 
 
 Coincident with the change from verse to prose is a 
 sudden falling-off in the humor which lightened the 
 sombre situations of the metrical plays. The romantic 
 formula which prescribed the mingling of comedy and 
 tragedy to make the model drama is disregarded already 
 in ' Lucrece Borgia ; ' in Gubetta the humor we found 
 frank and free in the Saverny of 'Marion Delorme ' 
 is getting grim and saturnine. It is less frequent and 
 more forced, as though the author was beginning to
 
 Victor Hugo. 35 
 
 make fun with difficulty. In 'Marie Tudor/ written 
 and actec in the same year (1833), the humor has 
 wholly disappeared, and we may therefore detect a 
 growing extravagance of speech and structure. The 
 * Marie Tudor ' of M. Hugo is the ' Queen Mary ' of Mr. 
 Tennyson ; and the poets themselves are scarcely more 
 unlike than the pictures they present us of the miserable 
 monarch who went down to history as Bloody Mary. 
 Tennyson could probably give chapter and verse for 
 every part of his play. Hugo has no warrant for dozens 
 of his extraordinary assertions and assumptions as to 
 the manners and customs of the English. Tennyson 
 is patriotic, and always seeks the subjects of his plays 
 in the national history which he has reverently studied. 
 Hugo has laid the scene in France of only two of his 
 plays : he prefers foreign countries, which offer more 
 frequent opportunities for sharp contrasts and strange 
 mysteries. Spain, Italy, England, even Germany, can 
 be taken by storm with less fear of the consequences. 
 But in 'Marie Tudor' the joke is really carried a little 
 too far. The play is absurd where it is not ridiculous. 
 It is a caricature of history, a wanton misreading of rec- 
 ords, and, worse yet, a passing-over of the truly dramatic 
 side of the reign, to invent vulgar impossibilities. The 
 play is in every way inferior to its predecessors. It 
 has action, and it is shaped solely with an eye to effect 
 before the footlights ; but even as a specimen of jour- 
 neyman play-making it is cheap. There is no touch 
 or trace of poetry anywhere. The unfortunate queen 
 is transformed into a sanguinary and lascivious virago, 
 a Madame Angot of a monarch, scolding like a fishwife, 
 and threatening like a fury. 
 
 The third play in prose, ' Angelo,' written and acted
 
 3 6 French Dramatists. 
 
 in 1835, though inferior to 'Lucrece Borgia,' is superior 
 to ' Marie Tudor,' because it does not make history to 
 suit itself, and because its story is simpler and more 
 pathetic. The contrast of the chaste patrician lady 
 with Tisbe, the lawless woman of the people, is capable 
 of development into affecting situations. The two parts 
 were originally acted by Mile. Mars and Mme. Dorval. 
 Tisbe was afterward acted by Rachel, and in America 
 an adaptation by John Brougham was played by Char- 
 lotte Cushman. Outside of these two parts there is 
 little in the piece. Homodei is not very like a man of 
 God, though he is represented as the personification 
 of ubiquitous omniscience. It is one of Hugo's first 
 attempts at embodying an abstraction, or rather at 
 clothing a really commonplace character with marvel- 
 lous attributes. He looms up as something far more 
 wonderful than he appears when seen close to. There 
 is an effort to pack a quart into a pint, to the resulting 
 fracture of the vessel. ' Angelo ' has no more humor 
 than ' Marie Tudor : ' so the extravagance has a chance 
 to grow. There is a perceptible increase in the affecta- 
 tions of plot and dialogue, and an equally perceptible 
 increase in Hugo's fondness for mystic devices. In all 
 his plays there are sliding panels, and secret passages, 
 and hidden staircases in plenty ; spies and hireling 
 bravos and black mutes are to be found in them ; subtle 
 Italian poisons, and sudden antidotes thereunto, and 
 strange narcotics, at an instant's notice are ready at 
 hand : in short, there is no lack of tools for the most 
 Radcliffean mysteries and mystifications. Of poison 
 especially, is there no miserly use. Hernani poisons 
 himself, and so does his bride ; Ruy Bias takes poison ; 
 Angelo Jhinks to poison his wife; and Lucrece Borgia
 
 Victor Hugo. 37 
 
 poisons a whole supper-party. In fact, to read Hugo's 
 plays straight through is almost as good as a course in 
 toxicology. The dagger is abused as freely as the bowl. 
 To call the death-roll of all the dramatis persona who 
 die by the sword or the axe would be as tedious as un- 
 profitable. 
 
 In 1838, three years after ' Angelo,' came 'Ruy Bias,' 
 in many ways Hugo's finest play. It is a happy return 
 to verse and the earlier manner. The plot suggested 
 possibly by the story of Angelica Kaufmann, and 
 slightly similar to Lord Lytton's 'Lady of Lyons' is at 
 once simple and strong. Verse again throws its ample 
 folds over the characters, and cloaks their lack of the 
 complexity of life. And again we have the wholesome 
 and lightsome humor which kept the metrical dramas 
 from the exaggerations and extravagances of the prose 
 plays. It is as though the exuberant genius of Victor 
 Hugo needed the strait-jacket of the couplet. There is 
 true comedy in the conception of Don C6sar de Bazan ; 
 and very ingenious and comic is the scene in the fourth 
 act, when he drops into the house occupied by Ruy 
 Bias (who has assumed the name of Don Cesar), and is 
 astonished at the adventures which befall him, and 
 does in every thing the exact reverse of what would 
 be done by Ruy Bias, for whom the adventures were 
 intended. It is only in this scene, and in one or two 
 in 'Marion Delorme,' that we can see any thing in 
 Hugo's work approaching to large and liberal humor. 
 Wit he has in abundance, and to spare ; grim humor, 
 ironic playfulness, grotesque fancy, are not wanting : 
 but real comic force, the enjoyment of fun for its own 
 sake, the vis comica of Moliere, for example, or of 
 Shakspere, or Aristophanes, is nowhere to be found.
 
 ^8 French Dramatists. 
 
 I have already dwelt on the utter absence of any kind 
 of comedy from the prose plays. If it were not for 
 'Ruy Bias,' which seems to come out of its proper 
 chronological order, since it is closely akin to its fellow 
 metrical dramas, and not to the prose plays which pre- 
 ceded it, if it were not for ' Ruy Bias,' we might trace 
 the gradual decay of Hugo's feeling for the comic. 
 After 'Ruy Bias,' after 1838, neither in play nor in any 
 other of the multifarious efforts of Victor Hugo, can I 
 recall any attempt at comedy, or even any conscious- 
 ness of its existence. It is as though, born with a full 
 sense of humor, in the course of time he had allowed 
 his vanity to spring up and choke it ; for, oddly enough, 
 as his humor died, his vanity grew apace. It is an ag- 
 gressive vain-glory, and may best be seen in his prefaces. 
 In that to ' Cromwell ' he is defiant, and not on the de- 
 fensive ; in those to later plays we can see the undue 
 humility which is the chief sign of towering vanity. 
 Just after 'Hernani,' Chateaubriand, who was gifted 
 with no slight self-esteem, hailed Victor Hugo as his 
 fit successor. And Hugo has inherited, not only some 
 of the literary methods and some of the authority of 
 Chateaubriand, but a full share of his intellectual arro- 
 gance. 
 
 It was this intellectual arrogance which prompted him 
 to withdraw from the stage after the popular failure of his 
 next play. The 'Burgraves,' written in October, 1842, 
 and acted in March, 1843, is an attempt to set on the 
 stage something of the epic grandeur of mediaeval his- 
 tory. It sought to make dramatic use of the legend of 
 the mighty and undying Barbarossa. As a poem, it is 
 one of Hugo's noblest ; as a play, it is his poorest. We 
 have a powerful picture of Teutonic decadence and of
 
 Victor Hugo. 39 
 
 imperial majesty ; but in aiming high Hugo naturally 
 missed the heart of the play-goer. There is nothing 
 human for the play-goer to take hold of, and carry away 
 with him. The plot, with but little of the melodramatic 
 machinery Hugo directs so effectively, is uninteresting, 
 and in its termination undramatic. The characters, 
 grandly conceived as they are, seem like colossal 
 statues, larger than life, and not flesh and blood. No 
 real passion was to be expected from such stony figures, 
 perfect as may be their cold and chiselled workmanship. 
 The ' Burgraves ' is the most ambitious of Hugo's 
 dramas, and the least successful in performance. Its 
 career on the stage was short. About this time, too, a 
 re-action had set in against the Romanticists, and Pon- 
 sard's ' Lucrece ' was hailed as a return to common 
 sense. Victor Hugo took umbrage, and declared that 
 it was unbecoming to his dignity to submit himself to 
 the hisses of a chance audience. Although he had two 
 plays nearly ready for acting, he has never again pre- 
 sented himself as a dramatist. One of these plays, the 
 'Jumeaux,' was about finished in 1838; and since then 
 he has written ' Torquemada,' a drama of the Spanish 
 Inquisition, a most promising subject for his peculiar 
 powers ; neither of which is to be acted until after 
 Hugo's death. A recent biographer refers to still other 
 pieces of the poet, among them a fairy-play called the 
 'Foret Mouillee,' in which trees and flowers speak. 
 
 In this enumeration of Hugo's plays I have omitted 
 only one, the libretto of an opera, 'Esmeralda,' pro- 
 duced at the Op6ra of Paris in November, 1836. It 
 was a lyric dramatization of his romance * Notre Dame 
 de Paris/ made for Mile. Bertin, the daughter of a 
 friend, after he had refused to do it far Meyerbeer.
 
 4<D French Dramatists. 
 
 Dramatizations of the same story and of the ' Misera- 
 bles ' have been acted ; and an adaptation of ' Ninety- 
 Three' is announced for the winter of 1881-1882. 
 If his own libretto chanced upon an incompetent com- 
 poser, certain of his dramas are better known to the 
 world at large as opera-books than in their original 
 and more literary form as French plays. 'Hernani' 
 and the 'Roi s'amuse' served Verdi as the books of 
 ' Ernani ' and ' Rigoletto.' ' Ruy Bias ' has been turned 
 into a libretto several times. Balfe's 'Armorer of 
 Nantes' is based on 'Marie Tudor.' Mercadante's 
 ' Giuramento ' is a setting of 'Angelo.' 'Lucrece Bor- 
 gia,' the final act of which is fuH of contending emo- 
 tions and scenic contrasts culminating in the thrilling 
 commingling of the bacchanalian lyrics of the supper- 
 party with the dirge for the dying chanted by the 
 approaching priests a situation which almost sets 
 itself to music has been turned to excellent account 
 in the 'Lucrezia Borgia' of Donizetti. These trans- 
 formations were not always to the poet's taste, as was 
 shown by the savage way in which he warned off the 
 librettist in a note to one of his later plays. 
 
 All Victor Hugo's plays are the work of his youth 
 (he was not forty when the ' Burgraves ' was acted), and 
 they are thus free from the measureless emphasis 
 which is the besetting sin of his later work. And 
 unfortunately Hugo has not obeyed Goethe's behest, 
 to beware of taking " the faults of our youth into our 
 old age ; for old age brings with it its own defects." 
 This is just what Hugo has done. No author of his 
 years and fame has ever changed so little since he first 
 came forward. There has been extension, of course; 
 but there has not been growth. So, although Hugo
 
 Victor Hugo. 41 
 
 stopped short his dramatic production, we may doubt 
 whether the future would have had any surprise in 
 store for us. We may fairly enough discount what 
 manner of play he would have given us had he written 
 more for the stage. We should have found the " lively 
 feeling of situation and the power to express them," 
 which Goethe tells us " make the poet ; " but now and 
 then the situation would have been overcharged, and 
 the expression extravagant. We should have had plays 
 in the highest degree ingenious in device, thrilling in 
 incident, and, if they chanced to be in verse, full of 
 lyric melody. But these are not the chief attributes 
 of a great dramatic poet. Indeed, excess of ingenuity 
 is fatal to true grandeur, as Hugo himself seems to 
 have felt ; for in his one attempt at a lofty theme, the 
 ' Burgraves,' he instinctively cast aside cleverness, and 
 strove for a noble simplicity. In the two chief qualities 
 of a great dramatic poet, in the power of creating 
 character true to nature, and in unfailing elevation of 
 thought, in both of these Victor Hugo is deficient. 
 
 If one seek proof that Hugo is not a great dramatic 
 poet of the race and lineage of Shakspere, but rather 
 a supremely clever playwright, an artificer of dramas, 
 not because the drama was in him and must out, but 
 because the stage offered the best market and the 
 most laurels, one has only to consider ' Marie Tudor,' 
 or ' Angelo.' No great dramatic poet, no one who was 
 truly a dramatic poet, could have written such stuff. 
 In spite of all their cleverness, they are unworthy of a 
 poet who has any sense of life. That these plays are 
 so inferior to the metrical dramas goes to show that 
 Hugo needs the restraint of verse, and that he is at 
 his best when working under the limitations of the
 
 42 French Dramatists. 
 
 Alexandrine, limitations, which, as I have said, are 
 fatal to dramatic poetry of the highest rank. Putting 
 this and that together, I find that Hugo's plays are melo- 
 dramas, written by a poet, and not poetic plays written 
 by a dramatic poet. In Moliere's plays, as in Shak- 
 spere's, the man is superior to the event ; but in 
 Hugo's, as in Calderon's and in Corneille's, the situa- 
 tion dominates the characters. Unlike Calderon's and 
 Corneille's, Hugo's plays are not poetic in conception, 
 however poetic they may be in verbal clothing. Nei- 
 ther the plots nor the personages are poetic in concep- 
 tion. The plot is melodramatic, but the best of melo- 
 dramas because of its simplicity and strength, and 
 because it is the work of a man of heavier mental 
 endowment than often takes to melodrama. Nor are 
 the characters more poetic than the situations : they 
 are not saturated with the spirit of poesy, and lifted up 
 by the breath of the muse. Most of Hugo's people, 
 especially the tragic, are drawn in outline in mono- 
 chrome : they are impersonations of a single impulse. 
 Miss Baillie wrote a series of Plays for the Passions : 
 Hugo gives a passion apiece to each of his people, and 
 lets them fight it out. Put one of Hugo's villains, the 
 Don Salluste of ' Ruy Bias,' say, a sharp silhouette, 
 all black, and set it by the side of lago, and note the 
 rounded and life-like complexity of Shakspere's traitor. 
 Or compare Hugo's characters with Moliere's, and see 
 how thin their substance seems, how petty their 
 natures, in spite of all their swelling speech. They 
 have not the muscle and the marrow, they have not 
 the light and the air, of Moliere's poetically conceived 
 creatures. 
 
 Melodramatic as situations and characters are, how-
 
 Victor Hugo. 43 
 
 ever, the best of Hugo's plays are still poetic, in ap- 
 pearance at least. This is because Victor Hugo is a 
 great poet, although not a great dramatic poet. It is 
 because his plays, while they are melodramas in struc- 
 ture, are the work of an artist in words. The melo- 
 dramatist, when he has once constructed the play, calls 
 on the poet to write it ; for in Hugo are two men, a 
 melodramatist doubled by a lyric poet. The joints of 
 the plot are hidden, and the hollowness of the charac- 
 ters is cloaked, by the ample folds of a poetic diction 
 of unrivalled richness. It is the splendor of this lyric 
 speech which blinds us at first to the lack of inner and 
 vital poetry in the structure it decks so royally. Al- 
 though, therefore, his plays are immensely effective in 
 performance, and his characters wear at times the ex- 
 ternals of poetic conception, Victor Hugo is not that 
 rare thing, a great dramatic poet, a thing so rare, 
 indeed, that the world as yet has seen but a scant half- 
 score. 
 
 There is no need to say here that Victor Hugo's glory 
 does not depend on his dramas, nor, indeed, upon his 
 work in any single department of literature. His 
 genius has, turn by turn, tried almost every kind of 
 writing, and on whatsoever it tried it has left its mark. 
 He is a master-singer of lyrics and a master-maker of 
 satires. The song is as pure as the spring at the hill- 
 side, and the satire is as scorching as the steel when 
 it flows from the crucible. He is mighty in romance, 
 and moving in history ; giving us in ' Notre Dame 
 de Paris ' historical romance, and in the ' History of a 
 Crime ' romantic history. Even in criticism and phi- 
 losophy he has done his stint of labor. But his best 
 work is not merely literary. Literature is too small to
 
 44 French Dramatists. 
 
 hold him, and the finest of him is outside of it. The 
 best part of him has got out of literature into life. 
 What he has done in politics and philanthropy is on 
 record, and he who runs may read if he will. The 
 politics may at times have been a little erratic, and the 
 philanthropy may have seemed sentimental and opin- 
 ionated ; yet these defects are but dust in the balance 
 when weighed against the nobler qualities of the man. 
 In times of doubt and compromise it is worth much to 
 see one who holds fast to what he believes, and who 
 stands forth for it in lofty and resolute fashion. Dur- 
 ing the darkest and dirtiest days of the Second Empire 
 a beacon-light of liberty and hope and faith flashed to 
 France from a rocky isle off the coast where dwelt one 
 exile from the city he loved, one man at least who 
 refused to bow the head or bend the knee before the 
 man of December and S&lan. Beyond and above 
 Hugo's great genius is his great heart. He is the poet 
 of the proletarian and of the people ; he is the poet of 
 the poor and the weak and the suffering ; he is the 
 poet of the over-worked woman and of the little child ; 
 he is the friend of the down-trodden and the outcast ; 
 and his is the truly Christian charity which droppeth 
 like the gentle dew from heaven. 
 
 Mr. Swinburne concludes the ode he wrote in 1865, 
 ' To Victor Hugo in Exile/ with two stanzas, to be fitly 
 quoted here, before we take leave of the foremost figure 
 among all European men of letters : 
 
 " Yea, one thing more than this, 
 We know that one thing is, 
 The splendor of a spirit without blame, 
 That not the laboring years 
 Blind-born, nor any fears,
 
 Victor Hugo. 45 
 
 Nor men, nor any gods, can tire or tame ; 
 But purer power with fiery breath 
 Fills, and exalts above the gulfs of death. 
 
 Praised above men be thou, 
 
 Whose laurel-laden brow, 
 Made for the morning, droops not in the night ; 
 
 Praised and beloved, that none 
 
 Of all thy great things done 
 Flies higher than thy most equal spirit's flight ; 
 
 Praised, that nor doubt nor hope could bend 
 Earth's loftiest head, found upright to the end."
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ALEXANDRE DUMAS. 
 
 ON the nth of February, 1829, a full year before 
 any piece of Hugo's was played, there was produced 
 at the Theatre Francois a five-act drama, full of fire 
 and action, called ' Henri III. et sa Cour,' and written 
 by Alexandre Dumas, a young quadroon, who owed to 
 his fine handwriting a place as clerk under the Duke of 
 Orleans, and who had promised himself some day to 
 live by his pen instead of his penmanship. 
 
 Like Victor Hugo, Alexandre Dumas was the son 
 of a revolutionary general. His father, the Count 
 Mathieu Dumas, was the son of the Marquis Davy 
 de la Pailleterie. In his characteristically voluminous 
 memoirs, Dumas tells us how he spent his early youth 
 in the country, running wild and laying up stores of 
 strength. He seems to have grown up as void of learn- 
 ing as he was of fear. His mother tried to get him 
 to read Corneille and Racine : he confesses that he 
 was prodigiously bored by them. But one day there 
 came along a company of apprentice actors from the 
 conservatory, and gave the ' Hamlet ' of the good and 
 simple-minded Ducis, with Hamlet acted in imitation 
 of Talma. It made so great an impression on Dumas, 
 that when he wrote his memoirs, thirty-two years after- 
 ward, he could recall distinctly every detail of the per- 
 formance. He sent to Paris for the ' Hamlet ' of Ducis, 
 
 and in three days he had the part by heart. He was 
 4 6
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 47 
 
 then not sixteen years old. Two or three years later, 
 he ran up to Paris, and saw Talma as Sylla, and was 
 introduced to him as a young man who aspired to be 
 a dramatist. Talma greeted him so kindly that he was 
 emboldened to ask the great actor to lay hands on him 
 in consecration, as it were, and to bring him luck in 
 his vocation. " So be it," said Talma, laying his hand 
 on the youth's head ; " Alexandre Dumas, I baptize 
 you poet, in the name of Shakspere, of Corneille, and 
 of Schiller." 
 
 When he was twenty years of age, he and his mother 
 came up to Paris, and he got himself a clerkship under 
 the Duke of Orleans. Then he took up in earnest the 
 hard trade of a professional playmaker. In the first 
 four years of his life in Paris, he succeeded in getting 
 acted three vaudevilles of no special value, and each 
 written in collaboration with one or two of his com- 
 rades, hopeful and struggling youngsters like himself. 
 He made also a tragedy of 'Fiesque,' imitated from 
 Schiller ; but he had not been able to place it. Then, 
 in 1827, arrived the English actors ; and he saw in suc- 
 cession the masterpieces of the English drama. (He 
 had English enough to follow Shakspere, as he had 
 German enough to paraphrase Schiller.) He records 
 the immense impression made on him by this first sight 
 of real passions moving men of flesh and blood. Just 
 before the English performances ended, leaving Dumas 
 with new lights, and having opened beyond him new 
 ranges of vision, the Salon set forth its annual show of 
 pictures and sculptures ; and here Dumas saw two bas- 
 reliefs, the energy and firmness of which struck him. 
 One was a scene from the 'Abbot,' and the other 
 represented the death of Monaldeschi. Dumas did not
 
 4.8 French Dramatists. 
 
 know who Monaldeschi was : so he borrowed a biogra- 
 phical dictionary, and there made the acquaintance oi 
 Christine of Sweden and of her physician-lover ; and 
 he began at once to work their story into a five-act 
 tragedy in verse. When it was done, by good luck he 
 got audience of Baron Taylor, the manager of the 
 Theatre Francois, who invited him to read it before 
 the committee of comedians which had the accepting of 
 new plays. Very comic indeed, and very characteristic 
 of the changing condition of the drama just then, was 
 the declaration of the committee, that it did not know 
 whether the play was classic or romantic. " What mat- 
 ter ? " asked the author : " is it good, or bad ? " And 
 the committee did not know that either. Finally, how- 
 ever, it accepted the piece on condition that it was 
 approved by one of the regular dramatists of the house. 
 So Dumas was forced to leave the play for a week with 
 Picard, the author of the 'Petite Ville,' imitated by 
 Kotzebue. When he went for his answer, Picard 
 asked him if he had any other means of existence than 
 literature ; and when Dumas answered that he had a 
 fifteen-hundred-franc clerkship under the Duke of Or- 
 igans, the withered old dramatist handed back the 
 manuscript of ' Christine,' saying, " Go to your desk, 
 young man ! Go to your desk ! " 
 
 In spite of this chilling criticism, the Comedie-Fran- 
 ^aise accepted ' Christine,' and put it in rehearsal. But 
 delays arose, and disagreements with Samson, accord- 
 ing to one account, and with Mile. Mars, according to 
 another; and in a little while Dumas was convinced 
 that ' Christine ' would never be acted at the Theatre 
 Fran9ais. He was right ; and his first drama, like 
 Hugo's, was brought out after his second. It was, per-
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 49 
 
 haps, well for Dumas that this was so, for it is a great 
 advantage to begin by hitting the bull's eye ; and 
 ' Christine ' would never have made so striking a suc- 
 cess as 'Henri III.' After he was established as a 
 dramatist, Dumas remodelled 'Christine;' and from 
 a quasi-classic tragedy it became a frankly romantic 
 " trilogy in five acts, with prologue and epilogue," 
 with changes of scene to justify the new sub-title 
 ' Stockholm, Fontainebleau, and Rome/ and with the 
 introduction even of a wholly new and important char- 
 acter, Paula. As the original version is no longer 
 before us, criticism is impossible. No doubt it was 
 tamer in movement, and duller in color, than the play 
 as we have it. No doubt it was a somewhat timid 
 attempt at Romanticism : even in the revised version 
 it is not one of Dumas's best. The verse in which it is 
 written is verse : it is not poetry. Dumas, although 
 not exactly constrained in writing Alexandrines, never 
 handles them with the assured ease of a master. Al- 
 though he bends the metre to obey him, the result is 
 good journeyman verse-making, nothing more ; and 
 there is never the burst of lyric fervor which often 
 makes Hugo's lines sing themselves into the memory. 
 
 Dumas threw off the shackles of metre when he 
 began to write his second drama, ' Henri III.' In 
 style, too, as well as in speech, it was ampler, and more 
 frankly romantic, than his first. Since ' Christine ' had 
 been originally outlined, Hugo had published the pref- 
 ace to ' Cromwell,' the revolt of the Romanticists had 
 gained great headway, and then the time for faltering 
 between the two schools had passed forever. ' Henri 
 III.' showed no hesitation. It was a bold, not to say 
 brutal picture of an epoch of history : it was the first
 
 5o French Dramatists. 
 
 French play in which history was set squarely on the 
 stage much as Scott had shown it in his novels. And, 
 truth to tell, Scott had his share in the drama, directly 
 as well as indirectly. Dumas had found one suggestion 
 in Anquetil, and another in the ' Memoires de 1'Es- 
 toile.' By combining and developing these hints from 
 the records, he had made the main plot of his play ; 
 utilizing for one of its chief situations a scene from 
 Scott's 'Abbot,' probably the one represented in the 
 other of the two bas-reliefs. Dumas also drew on his 
 abandoned version of Schiller's ' Fiesco.' He has told 
 us that he had studied Schiller and Goethe and Calde- 
 ron and Lope de Vega, seeking to spy out the secret 
 of their skill ; and what wonder was it that a few 
 fragments of the foreign authors should get themselves 
 somehow worked into his model ? Made, in a measure, 
 of reminiscences, ' Henri III.' hangs together wonder- 
 fully well, and has a unity of its own. Some of the 
 brick and some of the mortar are borrowed without 
 leave ; but the finished house is Dumas's property be- 
 yond all question. 
 
 Alphonse Royer, who was present at the first per- 
 formance, has recorded that he never again saw such a 
 sight, and that from the third act on the audience was 
 wild with excitement. The changing scenes and star- 
 tling situations were followed with breathless interest. 
 The touches of local color, the use of the language, 
 and even of the oaths of the time, the ease and grace 
 of the sketch of the king's court, with the mignons 
 playing cup-and-ball, the life and vigor of the whole 
 drama, charmed and delighted an audience tired with 
 the dignified inanity of the Classicists. The very vio- 
 lence of the action gave a shock of pleasure to the
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 5 1 
 
 willing spectators. It is to be said, too, that the par- 
 tisans of the Classicists, not afraid of the first play 
 of an unknown writer, had not assembled to give it 
 battle, as they did a year later when 'Hernani' was 
 brought out; and so ' Henri III.' took them by surprise, 
 and gained the victory before they could rally. A 
 profitable victory it was for the author. Before writ- 
 ing ' Henri III.' he was a clerk at fifteen hundred francs 
 a year, a little less than six dollars a week. ' Henri 
 III.' had been written in about eight weeks ; and, in 
 addition to what he received from the Theatre Frangais 
 for the right of performance, he sold the copyright for 
 six thousand francs. By two months' labor of his pen 
 he had gained far more than he could have made in 
 four years by his penmanship. 
 
 Taking all things into consideration, I am inclined to 
 call 'Henri III.' Dumas's best drama. Looking down 
 the long list of his plays, it is not easy to pick out 
 another as simple, as strong, as direct, and as dignified. 
 It has a compressed energy, and a certain elevation 
 of manner, not found together in any of his other 
 plays. Whether the best of his dramas or not, it is 
 emphatically a very remarkable play to have been writ- 
 ten by a young man of twenty-six. It is especially 
 remarkable when we recall that it sprang up from the 
 dust of the Classicist tragedies, and that it was the 
 first flower of Romanticism on the stage. There are 
 many things one might single out for praise. For one, 
 the intuition by which Dumas grasped the cardinal 
 principle of historical fiction, deducing it, perhaps, 
 from the example set by Scott in his novels. This 
 principle prescribes that the chief characters in which 
 the interest of the spectator or the reader is to be
 
 52 French Dramatists. 
 
 excited shall be either wholly the invention of the 
 author; or, if suggested by actual personages, the 
 originals must be known so slightly that the author 
 may mould or modify them as he please. A transcrip- 
 tion of historic fact may then serve as the scaffolding 
 of the story, and real characters may be reproduced to 
 give it solidity and pomp. In other words, history 
 may be stretched for the warp ; but fiction must supply 
 the woof. This is what Dumas generally did in his 
 novels, and it is what he did admirably in ( Henri III. 
 We see the crafty, courageous, and effeminate Henri 
 III. himself, the resolute, masculine, intriguing Cath- 
 erine de Medicis, and the stern and rigorous Duke of 
 Guise ; and these serve to set off the high and noble 
 heroine, and the melancholy and devoted hero, who, 
 although bearing historic names, are in fact truly pro- 
 jections of the dramatist's imagination. 
 
 The story of 'Henri III.' has a purity and a sobriety 
 lacking to most of Dumas's other plays ; yet it yields to 
 none of them in effect, in freedom, or in force. Slight- 
 ing the purely historical incidents, the plot may be 
 told briefly. The weak-kneed but quick-witted king, 
 Henri III., is under the rule of his mother, Catherine 
 de Medicis, who fears the ascendency gained over him 
 by St. Megrim, and dreads the growing power in the 
 state of the Duke of Guise. She craftily sets one 
 against the other by fostering the love of St. Megrim 
 for Catherine of Cleves, wife of the duke; and she 
 contrives an interview between them at an astrologer's, 
 an interview innocent enough, even if the speedy 
 coming of the duke had not put to flight the duchess, 
 who leaves behind her a handkerchief, which her hus- 
 band finds. In the next act the Duke of Guise and
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 53 
 
 St. Megrim bandy words before the king, who makes St. 
 Megrim a duke too, that he may fight Guise as his 
 peer ; and the combat is fixed for the morrow. But the 
 wily Guise has no desire to die in a duel : so, in the 
 third act, we see him in full mail armor standing over 
 his wife, grasping her arm with his iron gauntlet, and 
 by physical pain forcing her to write a letter to St. 
 Me'grim, bidding him to her palace that night. In the 
 following act St. Megrim gets the note ; and the king, 
 anxious about the issue of the single combat the next 
 morning, lends St. Megrim his own special talisman 
 against death by fire or steel. In the last act St. 
 Megrim comes to the apartment of the duchess to 
 keep his appointment. While Catherine of Cleves is 
 trying to tell him hastily how she has vainly sought to 
 give warning of the trap in which he is caught, the 
 outer door of the palace clangs to, and the tread of 
 armed men is heard on the stairs. Helpless and 
 unarmed before the danger which draws nearer and 
 nearer, St. Megrim knows no way to turn, when sud- 
 denly a bundle of rope falls at his feet, thrown through 
 the window by the duchess's page, who has overheard 
 enough to suspect. Catherine thrusts her arm through 
 the rings of the door, in place of the missing staple, to 
 give St. Megrim time to let himself down to the ground. 
 When the door opens, the duke strides in, and goes 
 straight to the window. St. Megrim has fallen among 
 thieves, for Guise's men are below. He is wounded 
 and bleeding, but not dead. " Perhaps he has a talis- 
 man against fire and steel," says the Duke of Guise : 
 "here, strangle me him with this." And he drops 
 down to his hirelings the handkerchief of his wife 
 which he picked up at the beginning of the play.
 
 54 French Dramatists. 
 
 This telling of the tale is bare and barren indeed ; 
 it hides the good points while exposing the weak. 
 That the story is of thinner texture at times than one 
 could wish is sufficiently obvious. French and English 
 wits have readily found spots to gird at. In a French 
 parody of the play the moral was summed up in four 
 lines, which made fair fun of the handkerchief expe- 
 dient : 
 
 " Messieurs et mesdames, cette piece est morale 
 Elle prouve aujourd'hui sans faire de scandale, 
 Que chez tin amant, lorsqu'on va le soir, 
 On peut oublier tout . . . excepte" son mouchoir ! " 
 
 Lord Leveson Gower's English adaptation, called 
 'Catherine of Cleves,' gave the author of the 'In- 
 goldsby Legends' a chance to condense the story in 
 comic verse, and to give it at least one keen hit : 
 
 " De Guise grasped her wrist 
 
 With his great bony fist, 
 And pinched it, and gave it so painful a twist, 
 That his hard iron gauntlet the flesh went an inch in : 
 She did not mind death, but she could not stand pinching!" 
 
 ' Henri III. et sa Cour ' is not a play of the highest 
 order, and it has sufficiently obvious blemishes ; but 
 it is a strong and stirring drama, and one of the very 
 best of its class, of which it was also almost the first. 
 It is a very much better play than ' Christine,' written 
 before it, and brought out after it, or than ' Charles 
 VII. chez ses Grands Vassaux,' a second attempt in 
 rhymed Alexandrines scarcely more successful than the 
 first. It is a better play than either of the two other 
 dramas he produced in 1831. Of these the first was 
 the frantically immoral and preposterously impossible
 
 Alexandra D^lmas. 55 
 
 ' Antony/ of which Dumas, strangely enough, was so 
 proud that he was wont to declare it and his son his two 
 best works ; and the second was ' Napoleon Bonaparte,' 
 which he had cut with a hasty pair of scissors from 
 the many memoirs of the time, and which is more of 
 a panorama than a play. The author had to confess 
 that it made no pretence to be literature, except in so 
 far as a single character gave it value, the character 
 of a magnanimous and heroic spy, omniscient, ubiqui- 
 tous, and ever ready to sacrifice himself for Napoleon. 
 The Napoleonic piece may be dismissed thus briefly, 
 but ' Antony ' is too important and too powerful a play 
 to be glanced at cursorily. It is a play one cannot 
 help pausing over. Even in the thick of the battle 
 between the Classicists and the Romanticists, when the 
 latter opposed to the staid decorum of the former the 
 most glowing pictures of fiery passion, free from all 
 bond or limit, even at such a time ' Antony ' gave a 
 sharp shock to those who saw it, and owed its success 
 to the sudden and startling surprise upon which the 
 curtain fell, and which left the first spectators too as- 
 tonished to protest. Byronic influence, always power- 
 ful among the exuberant young iconoclasts, had peopled 
 the dramas of the day with fellows of the Giaour, 
 haughty, self-contained, and passionate bastards, bear- 
 ing their bar sinister as though it were the grand cross 
 of a mighty order. The re-action against the cold 
 conventionalities of the Classicist tragedies had given 
 birth to a long line of lovely ladies, sad and suffering, 
 sentimental and sinning. As the contemporary epigram 
 had it, 
 
 "A croire ces messieurs, on ne voit dans nos rues, 
 Que les enfants trouve's et les femmes perdues."
 
 56 French Dramatists. 
 
 Nowhere are these two figures more puissantly fash- 
 ioned and more powerfully put upon their feet than by 
 Dumas in this play; and Antony and Adele d'Hervey 
 are types of the great lengths to which the revolt 
 tionary zeal of the revolting Romanticists could carry 
 them. 
 
 Antony had loved Adele before she was married, 
 but did not dare ask her hand, because he was illegiti- 
 mate. He absents himself for three years, and then 
 returns, to find her a wife and a mother. In the first 
 act he saves her life from a runaway before her door, 
 and is brought into her house seriously injured; and, 
 to remain under the same roof with her, he tears the 
 bandages from his wounds. In the second act his 
 passion is so powerful, that Adele thinks it best to 
 seek safety for her fragile virtue by secretly joining 
 her husband, who is at Frankfort. The third act 
 passes in an post-inn on the road to Frankfort. Antony 
 has learned Adele's flight, and discovered her desti- 
 nation, and contrived to pass her on the road. He 
 engages the only two rooms in the house, and hires 
 all the horses, sending them on with his servant ; and, 
 when Adele arrives, she is forced to wait for fresh 
 horses. The landlady asks Antony to cede one of his 
 rooms to a lady travelling alone ; and Antony gives up 
 one room, having seen that the balcony affords a means 
 of communication with the other, which he retains. 
 Adele, forced to pass the night by herself, is lonely 
 and nervous : at last, however, she retires to sleep in 
 the alcove bed-room. Antony appears outside the 
 window, breaks a pane, passes in his arm, shoots back 
 the bolt, and steps into the room. As he locks the 
 door through which the landlady went out, Adele comes
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 57 
 
 back. The act comes to an end after this abrupt 
 dialogue and action : 
 
 Adele. Noise! . . A man! ... Oh! 
 
 Antony. Silence! (Taking her in his arms, and putting a 
 handkerchief over her mouth.) Tis I ! ... I, Antony ! (CUR- 
 TAIN.) 
 
 In the fourth act we are back in Paris again. The 
 relations between Antony and Adele are beginning to 
 be talked about. Both are present at a party, and 
 after much talk about the new literary theories, in the 
 course of which Dumas follows the Aristophanic prece- 
 dent, and, in a sort of parabasis delivered by one of 
 the secondary characters, makes a personal defence, 
 as well as a direct assault on the * Constitutionel/ the 
 newspaper most opposed to the new views, Antony 
 retorts severely on a scandal-monger, who reflects by 
 innuendo on Adele. Made wretched by this attack, 
 Adele withdraws early ; and Antony follows her hur- 
 riedly as soon as his servant arrives post-haste from 
 Frankfort, announcing the hourly return of Adele's 
 husband. He gets to Adele's house, in the next and 
 last act, before the husband ; and the guilty pair make 
 ready for flight. All of a sudden Adele bethinks her- 
 self of her child. Antony consents to take the child 
 along. But the mother cries out that her open shame, 
 confessed by her flight, will surely be visited on her 
 daughter in the future, and that death would be better 
 than exposure and humiliation. In the midst of the 
 heated talk of Adele and Antony, a double knock is 
 heard at the street-door. The husband has got back. 
 Flight is no longer possible. There is no way of es- 
 cape. Adele begs for death in preference to shame. 
 She is one of those who hold, with Tartuffe, that,
 
 58 French Dramatists. 
 
 " Le scandale du monde est ce qui fait 1'offense, 
 Et ce n'est pas pecher que pecher en silence ! " 
 
 Now, when silence is not possible and scandal is in- 
 evitable, she cries aloud for death. As a sharp knock 
 is heard on the door of the room, Antony asks her if 
 she means what she says, if she would welcome a 
 death which might save her reputation and her child's, 
 if she would forgive him for slaying her. Adele, out 
 of her mind with the excitement of the moment, begs 
 for death. Antony kisses her and stabs her. Then 
 the door is broken in. The husband and servants rush 
 in, and stand in horror as they see Adele lying in 
 death. "Dead: yes, dead!" says Antony heroically. 
 "She resisted me, and I assassinated her." On this 
 the curtain falls finally. 
 
 Of course this story is simply absurd, if you consider 
 it calmly; but this is just what the author will not let 
 you do. He allows no time at all for consideration. 
 He hurries you along with the feverish rush of the 
 action, as resistless as it is restless. As the younger 
 Dumas has told us, ' Antony ' is to be " studied by all 
 young writers who wish to write for the stage, as 
 nowhere else is interest, audacity, and skill carried so 
 far." The elder Dumas knew how audacious his story 
 was, and how important to its success was the leaving 
 of as little time as possible to the play-goer for sober 
 second-thought. At the first performance, when the 
 curtain fell on the fourth act there was great enthusi- 
 asm. Dumas sprang upon the stage, and shouted to 
 the carpenters, " A hundred francs for you if you get 
 the curtain up before the applause ceases ! " By this 
 presence of mind he succeeded in springing his very 
 ticklish fifth act upon the audience while they were 
 still excited over the fourth.
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 59 
 
 The proud and lonely bastard had been called Didier, 
 and had made love to Victor Hugo's Marion Delorme, 
 before he was Antony, the lover and assassin of Adele 
 d'Hervey. There was more than a family likeness 
 between Dumas's hero and Hugo's ; and when ' Marion 
 Delorme,' written in 1828, and forbidden by the cen- 
 sors, was at last acted in 1831, not long after 'Antony,' 
 charges of plagiarism were not wanting. Alexandre 
 Dumas came forward at once, and said ingenuously 
 enough, that if there was a plagiarist it was he, as he 
 had heard Victor Hugo read * Marion Delorme ' before 
 ' Antony ' was written. In his memoirs Dumas frankly 
 sets down the great effect the hearing of 'Marion 
 Delorme ' had had upon him, and confesses that it 
 had greatly enlarged his dramatic horizon. By one 
 of the curious compensations, of which there are a 
 many in the history of literature, it seems as though 
 Dumas was enabled to pay his debt to Hugo in full ; 
 for it can scarcely be doubted that for ' Lucrece Bor- 
 gia,' Hugo, perhaps and indeed probably unconsciously, 
 was indebted to the ' Tour de Nesle ' of Dumas. 
 
 Although we can detect Antony's father in Didier, 
 it would be a hopeless task to attempt to discover or 
 count all the children of Antony himself. A play, 
 like any other entity, is perhaps best judged by its 
 posterity. A very successful play like 'Antony' has 
 a progeny as numerous as a patriarch of old. Antony's 
 offspring are a pernicious brood, from the elder Dumas's 
 own efforts to put him again on the stage, under other 
 names, down to the 'Princess of Bagdad,' the latest 
 play of the younger Dumas, the three chief characters 
 of which all show the hereditary characteristics. In 
 the list of the French plays of the past half-century
 
 60 French Dramatists. 
 
 there is a long line of monsters, violent, headstrong, 
 bloody, and impossible ; and all of them own Antony 
 for their father. Of late, as scepticism grows, and 
 passion forcibly repressed is more fashionable than 
 passion forcibly expressed, the play-going public does 
 not take very kindly to Antony or to his children. It 
 is many a long year since 'Antony' itself has been 
 acted in Paris : it is as long, nearly, since any play 
 in which his influence is emphatic and visible has 
 had any success on the French stage. The ' Princess 
 of Bagdad/ the latest play of the younger Dumas, is 
 almost as preposterous an impossibility as 'Antony' 
 itself; and in spite of its modern dress, cut in the 
 latest fashion, and trimmed with the sharp wit of 
 which its author alone has the secret, in spite of 
 the fame of the dramatist and the aid of some of the 
 chief actors of the Come'die-Fran^aise, the 'Princess 
 of Bagdad' has been a distinct and dismal failure. 
 Fifty years ago 'Antony' was as distinct a success. 
 The world moves. Outside of France, neither 'An- 
 tony ' nor Antony-ism has ever been popular ; and, so far 
 as I know, there has never been acted in any English 
 or American theatre any adaptation of 'Antony.' 
 
 After ' Antony,' the next of Dumas's dramas which 
 needs consideration here is the 'Tour de Nesle.' This 
 is quite as remarkable a play as ' Henri III.' or ' Antony.' 
 It is a play of the same kind, but more exciting, more 
 terrible, more brutal. The dramatist has given another 
 turn to the screw, and the pressure is more intense. 
 Considered solely by its effect in the theatre, the ' Tour 
 de Nesle ' is one of the most powerful plays ever written. 
 The clash of conflicting interests and emotions catches 
 the attention in the first scene, and holds it breath-
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 61 
 
 less till the last. There is a resistless rush of action : 
 improbabilities so glaring that on other occasions you 
 would cry aloud, are here so dexterously veiled, and so 
 promptly turned to advantage, that you have neither 
 time nor wish to protest. Situation presses after situa- 
 tion, each stronger than the other ; a complicated plot, 
 intricate in its convolutions, unrolls itself with the 
 utmost ease and simplicity : the eye is kept awake, and 
 the ear alert ; and the interest never flags for a moment, 
 from the rising of the curtain to the going-down thereof. 
 Then, oh, then ! with a final pause, there is at last and 
 for the first time a chance for reflection, and you begin 
 to wonder what manner of monster this is which has 
 held you motionless, and almost panting, for so many 
 hours ; and you begin, it may be, to suspect that the 
 drama is a series of absurdities, a phantasmagoric 
 nightmare. But whatever it is, and however much sober 
 second-thought may find to cavil at, its power, its sheer 
 brute force, is indisputable. 
 
 Outcry has been made about the immorality of ' Henri 
 III.' and the 'Tour de Nesle,' surely without reason. 
 ' Antony ' is immoral, it is true, shamelessly and grossly 
 immoral; but not 'Henri III./ or the 'Tour de Nesle.' 
 The latter has been termed a tissue of horrors, because 
 it contains murder and adultery and incest. But Dumas 
 tries to get no sham pathos out of these sins ; and they 
 are not dallied with, or in any way palliated. Dark 
 crimes were frequent enough in the dark days in which 
 the action of the ' Tour de Nesle ' is laid. Nor are these 
 crimes so revolting that they are without the pale of art, 
 as are some of the subjects Calderon treats for example. 
 The horrible is not necessarily immoral ; rather, if any 
 thing, the reverse. The accumulation of sin in the
 
 62 French Dramatists. 
 
 1 Tour de Nesle ' is not more horrible than it is in the 
 ' Medea,' nor is it as horrible here as it is in the ' CEdi- 
 pus.' It must be confessed at once that the effect is 
 more horrible in the modern play than in the ancient, 
 because the Greek tragedians were poets, and their 
 later imitators have tried to catch also something of 
 the poetic spirit. But Dumas's handling of a similar 
 situation has no touch of poetry : it is prosaic, baldly 
 prosaic ; and the horrors stand forth in their nakedness. 
 The modern French play may be more shocking, but 
 essentially it is no more immoral, than the old Greek 
 tragedy. After all, morality is an affair, not of subject, 
 but of treatment ; and Dumas's treatment, while not as 
 austere and ennobling as the Greek, is not insidious or 
 vicious. Except in so far as all over-exciting exhibitions 
 are harmful, I do not believe that any one ever has been 
 injured by the 'Tour de Nesle,' which has been acted 
 in half the theatres of the United States at one time 
 or another during the past half-century. 
 
 It was with intention that reference was made to 
 Calderon. There is something in the exuberant prodi- 
 gality of Dumas's production which recalls the most 
 brilliant days of the Spanish stage. Dumas can stand 
 the comparison with Lope de Vega and Calderon : it is 
 not altogether to his disadvantage. In the qualities in 
 which they were most eminent, ease and fertility and 
 skill, he was also most abundant. In the vastness of 
 his production he recalls Lope de Vega ; but it is per- 
 haps rather Calderon than Lope de Vega with whom 
 Dumas may be compared when one considers quality 
 more than quantity. He lacked the simple faith of 
 Calderon, and Calderon was without the self-conscious- 
 ness which was so strong in Dumas ; and the points of
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 63 
 
 resemblance are scarcely more than the points of dis- 
 similarity. Archbishop Trench dwells on the technical 
 playmaking skill of Calderon, in which Dumas was 
 assuredly his equal ; while in fecundity of character, if 
 not of situation, the French dramatist surpasses the 
 Spanish. Where Dumas is inferior, is in that inde- 
 scribable quality we call " style." Calderon, like Victor 
 Hugo, is a playwright doubled with a lyric poet : in the 
 highest sense neither is a true dramatic poet, as are 
 ^schylus, Shakspere, Moliere, and Schiller. The dis- 
 tinction between the clever playwright who is also a 
 lyric poet, and the true dramatic poet, is not at all 
 trivial, even if it seem so. Much as Dumas was like 
 Calderon in ease and abundance and skill, he was far 
 inferior in that he was not a poet, and that he is alto- 
 gether lacking in elevation. 
 
 It was in 1836 that Dumas brought out 'Don Juan 
 de Marana ; or, The Fall of an Angel,' mystery in five 
 acts. This is the play of his which puts us most in 
 mind of Calderon. The story is one which the author 
 of ' Life is a Dream ' might well have told, and would 
 have told with a simple sincerity and an honest faith not 
 to be found in Dumas's drama. The bold use of sacred 
 personages as part of the machinery of the play is more 
 in the style of the pious and priestly Calderon than of 
 a worldling like Dumas. The chief figure is a repetition 
 of the traditional type of Don Juan, accompanied through- 
 out by the good and evil angels of his family, striving 
 with each other for his soul. Most of the scenes are on 
 the earth : though there is one under the earth, in a 
 tomb, in which a dead man comes to life for a moment ; 
 and another above the earth, in the heavens, in which 
 the good angel begs permission of the Virgin Mary to
 
 64 French Dramatists. 
 
 be allowed to go down into the world as a woman, to 
 be more closely united with her beloved Don Juan. In 
 the course of this truly extraordinary production we 
 have duels and deaths by the half-dozen, suicides, seduc- 
 tions, elopements, murders, poisonings, ghosts, and spec 
 tral visions ; " and what is more, is more than man may 
 know." Calderon handles elements not unlike these 
 without shocking our moral sense : however extravagant 
 the events in his tale, it is easy to see they have been 
 touched by the magic wand of the poet. Dumas had 
 to use a showman's pointer instead of the poet's wand ; 
 and so, in spite of all effort to moralize, his precious 
 hodge-podge is not exactly edifying. 
 
 ' Don Juan de Marana ' is one of the plays against 
 which Thackeray particularly protested in his essay on 
 French Dramas and Melodramas, reprinted in the ' Paris 
 Sketch-Book.' With all his liberality and fondness for 
 freedom, this play affected him so unpleasantly, that he 
 cried aloud for government interference, and the putting- 
 down of such indecent entertainments by the stern 
 hand of the law. It is not a little curious that Thack- 
 eray, who lost no opportunity of heartily praising 
 Dumas's novels, has only words of reprobation for his 
 plays. For one thing, it must be remembered that 
 Dumas had not regularly set up as a novelist, with a 
 sign over his door and daily office-hours, when the 
 4 Paris Sketch-Book ' was written : he was known then 
 only as a dramatist. The charm of the story-teller had 
 not yet disposed Thackeray, whose morality was stout 
 and sturdy, to look with lenity on Dumas's slipshod 
 ethics. Then, again, Thackeray himself had not a very 
 quick feeling for strength of situation and stage-effects 
 in general, and perhaps he was therefore not precisely
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 65 
 
 the critic to appreciate at its full value Dumas's best 
 quality. Whatever the cause of Thackeray's lack of 
 liking for Dumas as a dramatist, it is certain that he 
 did not like him, and showed it plainly in the essay 
 already referred to. Not only does he fall foul of 
 ' Don Juan de Marana,' but he makes fun of some of 
 the rhodomontade which fills the preface to * Caligula : ' 
 harmless enough it seems to us now, and not to be 
 taken seriously. Besides ' Caligula,' which failed, Thack- 
 eray also dissected with the finest-edged scalpel of his 
 sarcasm, 'Kean,' a drama the action of which Dumas 
 chose to lay in England. In spite of its success, due 
 no doubt for the most part to the acting of Frederic 
 Lemaitre, ' Kean ' can scarcely be considered a fair 
 specimen of Dumas at his best. The hero is Edmund 
 Kean, most erratic and most miserable of Mother Ca- 
 rey's chickens ; and Dumas, with a truly Parisian dis- 
 regard for exact facts, makes Kean indeed a tragedy 
 hero. Thackeray has so thoroughly shown the flimsi- 
 ness and absurdity of the play that nothing remains to 
 be said. 
 
 I have called * Don Juan de Marana ' a hodge-podge, 
 not merely because the drama has no very distinct unity 
 of design, but more particularly because it was com- 
 pounded of scraps stolen from half a score authors. 
 The outline of plot and character had been borrowed 
 from Moliere, of course, and more especially from Meri- 
 mee ; and individual incidents had been taken from 
 Goethe, Musset, Scott, Shakspere, and even "Monk" 
 Lewis. It must be confessed at once that this proceed- 
 ing was not unusual with Dumas, although the plagia- 
 rism is rarely as flagrant as here. All through his earlier 
 plays are scattered little bits of Scott and Schiller and
 
 66 French Dramatists. 
 
 Lope de Vega, turned to excellent account, and firmly 
 joined to the rest of the work. The prologue of 'Rich- 
 ard Darlington ' is from Scott's ' Chronicles of the 
 Canongate.' Generally it is but a hint, a suggestion, an 
 effect, an incident, a situation, which he took unto him- 
 self. Sometimes, as in the case of 'Henri III.,' he 
 borrowed from two or three authors. Sometimes, as in 
 'Don Juan de Marana,' although the whole play was 
 plainly his own, nearly all the separate scenes could be 
 traced to other authors. Sometimes he even took a 
 play ready made, and condescended to the vulgar adap- 
 tation of which his own plays have only too often been 
 the victims in English. Dean Milman's ' Fazio ' was 
 thus turned into French verse as the ' Alchimiste.' 
 Sometimes, again, only the motive of the action came 
 from outside, and the development was all his own: 
 thus Racine's ' Andromaque ' furnished the basis of 
 'Charles VII.,' and Dumas boldly braved the compari- 
 son by the epigraph on his title-page, " Cur nonf " 
 
 Ben Jonson, we are told, once dreamed that he saw 
 the Romans and Carthaginians fighting on his big toe. 
 No doubt Dumas had not dissimilar dreams ; for his 
 vanity was at least as stalwart and as frank as Ben 
 Jonson's. To defend himself against all charges of 
 plagiarism, the French dramatist echoed the magnilo- 
 quent phrase of the English dramatist, and declared 
 that he did not steal, he conquered. It is but justice 
 to say that there was no mean and petty pilfering about 
 Dumas. He annexed as openly as a statesman, and 
 made no attempt at disguise. In his memoirs he is 
 very frank about his sources of inspiration, and tells us 
 at length where he found a certain situation, and what it 
 suggested to him, and how he combined it with another
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 67 
 
 effect which had struck him somewhere else. When 
 one goes to the places thus pointed out, one finds some- 
 thing very different from what it became after it had 
 passed through Dumas's hands, and, more often than 
 not, far inferior to it. It can scarcely be said that 
 Dumas touched nothing he did not adorn ; for he once 
 laid sacrilegious hands on Shakspere, and brought 
 out a ' Hamlet ' with a very French and epigrammatic 
 last act. But whatever he took from other authors he 
 made over into something very different, something 
 truly his own, something that had Dumas fecit in the 
 corner, even though the canvas and the colors were not 
 his own. The present M. Dumas asserts that "there 
 are no original ideas, especially in dramatic literature : 
 there are only new points of view." Granting this, as 
 we may, it remains to be said that no one ever took 
 more new points of view than Dumas. In a word, all 
 his plagiarisms, and they were not a few, are the veriest 
 trifles when compared with his indisputable and extraor- 
 dinary powers. 
 
 Besides plagiarism, Dumas has been accused of 
 "devilling," as the English term it; that is to say, of 
 putting his name to plays written either wholly or in 
 part by others. There is no doubt that the accusation 
 can be sustained, although many of the separate speci- 
 fications are groundless. The habit of collaboration 
 obtains widely in France ; and collaboration runs easily 
 into " devilling." When two men write a play together, 
 and one of them is famous and the other unknown, 
 there is a strong temptation to get the full benefit of 
 celebrity, and to say nothing at all about the author 
 whose name has no market-value. That Dumas yielded 
 to it now and then is not to be wondered at. There
 
 68 French Dramatists. 
 
 was something imperious in his character, as there was 
 something imperial in his power. He had dominion 
 over so many departments of literature, that he had 
 accustomed himself to be monarch of all he surveyed ; 
 and if a follower came with the germ of a plot, or a 
 suggestion for a strong situation, Dumas took it as trib- 
 ute due to his superior ability. In his hands the hint 
 was worked out, and made to render all it had of effect. 
 Even when he had avowed collaborators, as in ' Rich- 
 ard Darlington,' he alone wrote the whole play. His 
 partners got their share of the pecuniary profits, bene- 
 fiting by his skill and his renown ; and most of them 
 did not care whether he who had done the best of the 
 work should get all the glory or not. At times, too, as 
 in the case of ' Perrinet Leclerc ' and of the ' Tour de 
 Nesle,' his name did not appear at all : he tells us in 
 his memoirs that the former was in part his handi- 
 work, and it is not even yet included in his collected 
 plays. 
 
 The case of the ' Tour de Nesle ' is different, and 
 not a little complicated. Dumas has written a long 
 and somewhat disingenuous history of the play. It 
 seems that M. Frederic Gaillardet (afterward the found- 
 er of the Courier des tats-Unis in New York) wrote the 
 ' Tour de Nesle,' and took it to Harel, the manager of 
 the Porte St. Martin Theatre. Harel saw in it the raw 
 material of a strong piece, and accepted it, subject to 
 revision by a more practised hand. He sent the play 
 to Jules Janin, who re-wrote it, and then knew enough 
 to see that the result was hopelessly undramatic. 
 Harel then took Janin's manuscripts to Dumas, who, 
 according to his own account, discarded most of the 
 original play, and wrote a new drama around the centraJ
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 69 
 
 situations. Having thus made what was substantially 
 a new play, Dumas arranged with Harel that M. Gail- 
 lardet should get the full author's fee which the Porte 
 St. Martin Theatre was accustomed to pay, and that 
 his own pay should be independent of M. Gaillardet's. 
 In spite of Harel's repeated requests, Dumas refused to 
 allow his name to be put on the bills. Under such cir- 
 cumstances a play is announced as by MM. Gaillardet 
 and * * * but Harel chose to announce the * Tour de 
 Nesle'as by MM. * * * and Gaillardet. M. Gaillardet 
 rushed into print, and Dumas retorted, setting forth 
 his own share in the composition of the drama. After 
 a while Dumas and M. Gaillardet fought a bloodless 
 duel. Then there was a lawsuit. After many years, 
 peace was declared, and M. Gaillardet was pleased to 
 acknowledge the great service Dumas had rendered 
 to the 'Tour de Nesle.' Looking back now, one can 
 scarcely have a doubt as to whom the success of the 
 drama was due, whether to M. Gaillardet, who had 
 not done any thing like it before, and who has not done 
 any thing like it since, or to Dumas, who had shown in 
 'Henri III.' and 'Antony' his ability to write a play 
 of precisely the same quality. The original sequence 
 of situations was no doubt suggested by M. Gaillardet ; 
 but the play as it stands is unequivocally the handi- 
 work of Dumas. 
 
 That Dumas plagiarized freely in his earliest plays, 
 and had the aid of " devils " in the second stage of his ca- 
 reer, is not to be denied, and neither proceeding is 
 praiseworthy ; but, although he is not blameless, it irks 
 one to see him pilloried as a mere vulgar appropriator 
 of the labors of other men. The exact fact is, that he 
 had no strict regard for mine and thine. He took as
 
 70 French Dramatists. 
 
 freely as he gave. In literature, as in life, he was a 
 spendthrift ; and a prodigal is not always as scrupu- 
 lous as he might be in replenishing his purse. Dumas's 
 ethics deteriorated as he advanced. One may safely 
 say, that there is none of the plays bearing his name 
 which does not prove itself his by its workmanship. 
 When, however, he began to write serial stories, and to 
 publish a score of volumes a year, then he trafficked in 
 his reputation, and signed his name to books which he 
 had not even read. An effort has been made to show 
 that even 'Monte Cristo' and the 'Three Muske- 
 teers ' series were the work of M. Auguste Maquet, and 
 that Dumas contributed to them only his name on the 
 titlepage. It is foreign to my purpose now to consider 
 Dumas as a writer of romance ; but, as these novels 
 were at once cut up into plays, a consideration of their 
 authorship is in order here. I must confess that I do 
 not see how any one with any pretence to the critical 
 faculty can doubt that ' Monte Cristo ' and the ' Three 
 Musketeers ' are Dumas's own work. That M. Maquet 
 made historical researches, accumulated notes, invented 
 scenes even, is probable ; but the mighty impress of 
 Dumas's hand is too plainly visible in every important 
 passage for us to believe that either series owes more 
 to M. Maquet than the service a pupil might fairly 
 render to a master. That these services were consid- 
 erable is sufficiently obvious from the printing of M. 
 Maquet's name by the side of Dumas's on the title- 
 pages of the dramatizations from the stories. That it 
 was Dumas's share of the work which was inconsidera- 
 ble is as absurd as it is to scoff at his creative faculty 
 because he was wont to borrow. Sefior Castelar has 
 said that all Dumas's collaborators together do not
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 7 1 
 
 weigh half as much in the literary balance as Dumas 
 alone ; and this is true. I have no wish to reflect on 
 the talents of Dinaux, the author of ' Thirty Years, or 
 a Gambler's Life/ and of ' Louise de Lignerrolles,' or 
 on the talents of M. Maquet himself, whose own novels 
 and plays have succeeded, and who is so highly 
 esteemed by his fellow-dramatists as to have been elect- 
 ed and re-elected the president of the Society of Dra- 
 matic Authors ; yet I must say that the plays which 
 either Dinaux or M. Maquet has written by himself do 
 not show the possession of the secret which charmed 
 us in the work in which they helped Dumas. It is to 
 be said, too, that the later plays taken from his own 
 novels, in which Dumas was assisted by M. Maquet, 
 are very inferior to his earlier plays, written wholly by 
 himself. They are mere dramatizations of romances, 
 and not in a true sense dramas at all. The earlier 
 plays, however extravagant they might be in individual 
 details, had a distinct and essential unity not to be 
 detected in the dramatizations, which were little more 
 than sequences of scenes snipped with the scissors 
 from the interminable series of tales of adventure. 
 How could the plot of the 'Three Musketeers,' so 
 far as it has any single plot, how could it be com- 
 pressed within the limits of five, or even of six or 
 seven acts ? How could there be any of the single- 
 ness of impression which is a necessary element of 
 good dramatic art in a dramatization so bulky that it 
 took two nights to act ? ' Monte Cristo ' was brought 
 out as a play in two parts, Dec. 3 and 4, 1848 ; and 
 three years later two more divisions of the same story 
 were put on the stage. Obviously enough, pieces of 
 this sort are like the earlier 'Napol6on Bonaparte,'
 
 72 French Dramatists. 
 
 not plays, but panoramas : slices of the story serve as 
 magic-lantern slides, and dissolve one into another at 
 the will of the exhibiter. Full as these pieces are of 
 life and bustle and gayety, they are poor substitutes 
 for plays, which depend for success on themselves, and 
 not on the vague desire to see in action figures which 
 the reader has learned to like in endless stories. These 
 dramatizations were unduly long-drawn, naturally prolix, 
 not to say garrulous. When his tales were paid for by 
 the word, when he was " writing on space," as they say 
 in a newspaper office, Dumas let the vice of saying all 
 there was to be said grow on him. On the stage, the 
 half is more than the whole. 
 
 Side by side with these dramatizations, Dumas con- 
 tinued to bring out now and then dramas in his earlier 
 manner ; for example, the already mentioned ' Alchi- 
 miste' (1839) and 'Hamlet' (1849), an d also a 'Cati- 
 lina' (1849), likewise in verse, besides an occasional 
 play in prose, including, for one, an adaptation of Schil- 
 ler's 'Kabale und Liebe.' None of these, however, 
 is as interesting or as important as any one of his ear- 
 liest four or five successes. The only works of his 
 more mature years which enlarge his reputation are 
 his comedies. He brought to the making of comedy 
 the same freshness, facility, fecundity, and force, that 
 he had brought years before to the making of drama. 
 After all, it is not inexact to say that the two chief 
 qualities of Dumas were abundance and ease. Other 
 writers of his time were abundant : none were so easy. 
 Contrast his running sentences with the tortured style 
 of Balzac, and we can understand how it was that 
 Dumas could write a volume in a few hours, and that 
 Balzac once spent a whole night toiling over a single
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 73 
 
 sentence. Now, ease and abundance are invaluable to 
 a writer of comedy. Although the half a dozen come- 
 dies Dumas wrote vary in value, all are equally facile 
 and flowing. 'Mile, de Belle-Isle' and the 'Demoiselles 
 de St. Cyr ' and the ' Jeunesse de Louis XIV ' (which 
 his son edited for the Parisian stage a few years ago) 
 are as simple and unaffected plays as you can find ; and 
 they are plays of a new kind. The comedies of Dumas 
 are unlike the comedies of any other French dramatist. 
 They are as different from the more philosophical 
 comedy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
 as they are from the Realistic comedy which his son 
 brought into fashion. They are a little like the best 
 of the comedies which Scribe wrote for the Theatre 
 Frangais, although they had a boldness and a freedom 
 Scribe could never attain. Perhaps, more than any 
 thing else, they resemble the English comedies of in- 
 trigue and adventure imitated from Spanish models, 
 such as Gibber's ' She Would and She Would Not.' 
 
 In Dumas's plays, however, both situation and dia- 
 logue seem less forced, although it is unfair ever to 
 speak of either as though it were at all forced. Dumas 
 had little humor, as we understand the word, and what 
 he had was on the surface ; but he was witty without 
 effort and without end. It is a quality he seems to 
 have discovered after he had written his earlier and 
 more famous plays ; for in these there is little to re- 
 lieve the tensity of emotion. In his comedies, how- 
 ever, his wit had a chance to show its nimbleness. 
 This wit is lightsome and buoyant, rather than pene- 
 trating. It is not epigrammatically sparkling with a 
 hard brilliance like Sheridan's and Congreve's ; nor 
 is it biting and vitriolic like his son's : it seems less
 
 74 French Dramatists. 
 
 studied and more natural than either, and more to be 
 compared to the graceful and clever wit of a ready man 
 of the world ; and, as I have said, it is as unfailing as it 
 is unforced. I can recommend a little comedy in one 
 act called the * Mari de la Veuve,' and written during the 
 desolation caused by the cholera, to all who may desire 
 to see as bright a little play as one could wish. In his 
 memoirs Dumas tells us that the primary idea of this 
 tiny piece was one friend's, and that the development 
 and construction were another's, and that all he did 
 was to take their plan, and write the dialogue. But it 
 was dialogue such as none but he could write. 
 
 This very play contains an admirable instance of his 
 tact in turning a difficulty. A husband has written to 
 his wife bidding her to announce his death, f6r reasons 
 not given but imperative. It is from the false position 
 thus created for the wife, who is supposed to be a 
 widow, that the comedy is evolved. Shortly after the 
 rise of the curtain, the husband appears, but too much 
 in a hurry to explain why he has had to conceal his 
 existence. At the end of the play even, he had not 
 yet told ; then, when all is attention, the servant an- 
 nounces the notary to draw up the contract for the 
 marriage which brings every comedy to a happy end. 
 Interrupted, the husband says, " I will tell you all about 
 it to-morrow." And the curtain falls, leaving the spec- 
 tator amused and entertained, but still in ignorance 
 why the husband found it necessary to give out his 
 own death. I am inclined to surmise that the pair of 
 collaborators who planned the play devised a reason for 
 this, and that Dumas found this reason insufficient. 
 Not having time to concoct another, he made the diffi- 
 culty disappear by not giving any reason at all.
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 75 
 
 From the sombre ' Antony ' to the laughing ' Mari 
 de la Veuve ' is a long stride ; but Dumas took it with- 
 out straining ; and many another beside. Even more 
 remarkable than the range of Dumas's work is its gen- 
 eral level of merit. He had, at least, one element of 
 greatness, an inexhaustible fecundity. More than 
 this ; when we consider the quantity of his dramas, the 
 quality of the best of them seems singularly high. 
 There is but one dramatist of his generation who will 
 stand comparison with him ; and even Victor Hugo, 
 master as he is of many things, is less a master of the 
 theatre than Dumas. He was the superior of Dumas 
 in that he was a poet, and had style, as Dumas was 
 willing to confess. But for success on the stage, 
 poetry and style are not so potent as other qualities 
 which Dumas had more abundantly than Hugo. He 
 had an easy wit which Hugo lacked, and which is of 
 inestimable service to the playmaker. He had a flexi- 
 bility of manner to which Hugo could not pretend. 
 We have seen how many different kinds of dramas 
 Dumas attempted, while all Hugo's pieces are cast in 
 the same mould. As Heine said, "Dumas is not so 
 great a poet as Victor Hugo ; but he possesses gifts 
 which in the drama enable him to achieve far greater 
 results than the latter. He has perfect command of 
 that forcible expression of passion which the French 
 term verve ; and he is, withal, more of a Frenchman 
 than Victor Hugo is." Elsewhere Heine credits Hugo 
 with a Teutonic want of tact, and suggests that his 
 muse had two left hands. Now Dumas's muse had a 
 right hand, and it never forgot its cunning. Dumas's 
 dramas, extravagant as some of them are, strike one as 
 more natural than Hugo's, perhaps because the latter
 
 76 French Dramatists. 
 
 reveal too openly the constraint of their construction, 
 which the former never do. Dumas was frank to praise 
 Hugo, and to acknowledge his own indebtedness to 
 him ; yet he spoke his mind freely about his competitor. 
 He is reported as saying that " each had our own good 
 points ; but mine were better. Hugo was lyrical and 
 theatrical : I was dramatic. Hugo, to be effective, could 
 not do without contrasting drinking-songs with church 
 hymns, and setting tables laden with flowers and flasks 
 by the side of coffins draped in black. All I wanted 
 was four scenes, four boards, two actors, and a passion." 
 It is easy to smile at this as mere vanity and vexation 
 of spirit ; but, magniloquence apart, it is sound criti- 
 cism nevertheless. 
 
 Like Hugo, Dumas was the son of a revolutionary 
 general, and both were as militant in literature as their 
 fathers had been in life. From his father, Dumas 
 inherited little but the physical force which sustained 
 him in his reckless waste of energy, and which helped 
 to give him the abundant confidence in himself : these 
 two things indeed, strength and confidence, are at 
 the bottom of his career of marvellous prodigality. It 
 was confidence and strength combined which made 
 possible his unhasting, unresting life of toil in so many 
 departments of literature. This life is in many re- 
 spects a warning, rather than an example. With his 
 great powers one feels he ought to have done something 
 higher and nobler : that he had great powers, admits of 
 no cavil. The present M. Alexandre Dumas, who is as 
 restrained as his father was exuberant, and who looked 
 on his father as a sort of prodigal son, upholds the 
 honor of the family, and pushes filial reverence to the 
 extreme verge of extravagance; yet, due -allowance
 
 Alexandre Dumas. 77 
 
 made, he is not so very far out when he speaks of his 
 father as " he who was and is the master of the modern 
 stage, whatever noise may be made about other names, 
 he whose prodigious imagination touched the four car- 
 dinal points of our art, tragedy, historical drama, 
 the drama of manners, and the comedy of anecdote ; he 
 whose only fault was to lack solemnity, and to have 
 genius without pride, and fecundity without effort, as 
 he had youth and health; he who, to conclude, Shak- 
 spere being taken as the culminating point, by inven- 
 tion, power, and variety approached among us most 
 closely to Shakspere."
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EUGENE SCRIBE. 
 
 CARLYLE speaks of Diderot as "successful in criti 
 cism, successful in philosophism, nay, highest of sub- 
 lunary glories, successful in the theatre." Accepting 
 this last dictum, we may venture the assertion that no 
 writer ever enjoyed so much of the highest of sublunary 
 glories as Eugene Scribe ; for no maker of plays, either 
 before or since, was ever so uniformly successful, and 
 over so wide an area. ^Eschylus and Aristophanes did 
 not always get the prize they strove for ; and even 
 when they did triumph, their fame was limited to their 
 own city, or at most to Greece and its chain of colonies. 
 Scribe's luck rarely failed him ; and his best pieces were 
 carried, not only all over France, but around the world. 
 His fertility was as unfailing as his good fortune. The 
 output of his fiction-factory is enormous. In the year 
 1823 alone, he brought out nearly a score of plays. In 
 the half-century of his incessant production he wrote 
 more than four hundred dramatic pieces, of one kind or 
 another, beside a dozen or more novels. In bulk his 
 work is barely equalled by Lope de Vega's, or by 
 Hardy's, by De Foe's, or by Voltaire's, or, in our own 
 day, by the elder Dumas's. His complete works are 
 now in course of publication. Sixty closely-printed 
 volumes, of some four hundred pages each, have already 
 appeared ; and the end is not yet. He began life with 
 a trifling patrimony. By his pen he made sometimes as 
 78
 
 Eugene Scribe. 79 
 
 much as one hundred and fifty thousand francs a year 
 For the one long novel he wrote for serial publication 
 in a newspaper, he received sixty thousand francs ; and . 
 when he died he left a fortune of quite two millions 
 of francs. To these material gains, there was added 
 the honor of a seat among the illustrious forty of the 
 French Academy. 
 
 Born in 1791, Scribe began to write for the stage 
 before he was twenty. Like many another dramatist, 
 he was intended for the law, before his success on the 
 stage justified his giving up the bar. Like many 
 another dramatist, moreover, his earlier dramatic at- 
 tempts proved failures. If we may credit M. Ernest 
 Legouv6, his fellow-craftsman and sometime literary 
 partner, Scribe saw fourteen of his plays miss fire 
 before he made his first hit. Then, turning from the 
 servile imitation of Picard and Duval, he began to look 
 at the life around him, and determined to place on the 
 stage the petty foibles of the day. His first attempt 
 at what an American dramatist has called " contempo- 
 raneous human interest " was * Une Nuit de la Garde 
 Nationale/ a vaudeville in one act, brought out in 1816. 
 It attracted instant attention. The citizen-soldiers it 
 made fun of chose to take offence. There was much 
 bluster, and some talk of a challenge to mortal com- 
 bat. The piece, in the mean time, set everybody laugh- 
 ing ; and Scribe saw, that, after prospecting vainly, he 
 had found at last the lead he could work to advantage. 
 
 The vaudeville, when Scribe took it up, was in a 
 middle stage of its long evolution. Originally it had 
 been a sort of satirical ballad, or a string of epigrams, 
 telling pointedly an anecdote of the hour, or girding 
 sharply at an unpopular official or favorite. This
 
 8o French Dramatists. 
 
 is the vaudeville whereof Boileau speaks when he 
 says, 
 
 " Le Frangais, n malin, forma le vaudeville." 
 
 About the beginning of the last century this versi- 
 fied anecdote came to be cast into dialogue, and sung 
 in public, appropriate action aiding. For the theatre 
 in the fair first, and afterward for the Italian come- 
 dians, Lesage and Piron wrote vaudevilles of this type, 
 rudimentary plays, the words of which were all in 
 rhyme, ready for the vocalists. By the end of the 
 century the vaudeville had got a little more dramatic 
 consistence, remaining, however, either the parody of a 
 play or opera popular at another theatre, or a brief 
 and brisk setting on the stage of an anecdote. Such 
 it was when Scribe began to write, and to him was due 
 its final transformation. First he freshened it, as we 
 have seen, by attacking the follies and the fashions of 
 the day ; then, as soon as he felt himself secure, he 
 broadened its scope. The versified anecdote, dramatic 
 only by courtesy, gave place to a complete play, which, 
 slight as it might be, had a beginning, a middle, and an 
 end. Traces of the old form survived in the frequent 
 sets of verses written to well-known airs, and almost 
 meant to be said rather than sung. In these couplets, 
 as the snatches of song were called, were put the 
 special points of the dialogue and the best jests. But 
 in Scribe's hands reliance was had on the situation, 
 rather than on the dialogue. For the first time a 
 vaudeville was seen with an imbroglio as involved and 
 as full of comic uncertainty as might have sufficed 
 hitherto for a play of far greater pretensions. 
 
 In 1820, four years after Scribe's first success, M.
 
 Eugene Scribe. 81 
 
 Poirson, his collaborator in that play, opened the 
 Gymnase Theatre, and at once bound Scribe by con- 
 tract not to write for any rival house for the space of 
 ten years. This is the decade of Scribe's most copious 
 production. Aided by a host of collaborators, he 
 brought out at the Gymnase a hundred and fifty pieces, 
 nearly all of them vaudevilles. Sure of his public, 
 Scribe gave the vaudeville still greater extension. 
 From one act he enlarged it often to two, and at times 
 to three acts. From a merely jocular and hasty rep- 
 resentation of scenes from every-day life, he raised it 
 now into comedy, and again into drama. As he trust- 
 ed more and more to his plot, to the situations which 
 his wondrous constructive skill enabled him to present 
 to the best advantage, the couplets, although still re- 
 tained, became of less and less importance : they could 
 even be omitted without great loss. In at least one 
 case this was done. Scribe had written a vaudeville 
 in one act for the Gymnase, intending the chief part 
 for Leontine Fay, who, however, fell sick before the 
 piece was put in rehearsal. The author cut out the 
 couplets, and cut up the play into three acts, changing 
 but one line of his original prose in so doing. Then 
 he took 'Valerie,' a comedy in three acts, to the 
 Theatre Frangais, where it was accepted at once, and 
 where Mademoiselle Mars acted the blind heroine with 
 her usual graceful perfection. This anecdote shows 
 how the vaudeville had grown in Scribe's hands. A 
 vaudeville which a skilful touch or two will turn into a 
 comedy fit for the Comedie-Frangaise is very far from 
 the vaudeville which is only a hastily dramatized anec- 
 dote. Of this comedie-vaudeville, then, Scribe was 
 really the inventor, as well as its most industrious 
 maker.
 
 82 French Dramatists. 
 
 The new comedies-vaudevilles varied in range from 
 pretty and semi-sentimental comedy, like ' Valerie,' to 
 light farce, like the 'InteYieur d'un Bureau.' As fast 
 as they appeared in Paris, they were adapted to the 
 London market by Planch6, Dance, Poole, or Charles 
 Mathews the younger. As typical as any is ' Zoe, ou 
 I'amant pret6,' which Planch6 turned into the 'Loan 
 of a Lover.' Those who recall that well-worn little 
 comedy can form a not unfair idea of the hundred 
 other plays of its kind which Scribe wrote for the 
 Gymnase. Those who will take the trouble to com- 
 pare the English play with the French will see that 
 the adaptation is a better bit of work than the original. 
 Planch, having a story ready to his hand, could spend 
 time and give thought to the consistency and coher- 
 ence of the characters who were to take part in it. 
 To Scribe the situations were of first importance ; and 
 no more strength was imparted to the characters than 
 was needed to get them through the ingenious intrigue. 
 There is a sharp contrast between the innate and 
 carefully cultivated tact with which Scribe handled 
 the succeeding situations of these lively little dramas, 
 and the careless way he set on their legs the people 
 whom he was to guide through the labyrinth. 
 
 I do not pretend to have read all of Scribe's four 
 hundred and more dramatic pieces, or even the half 
 of them ; but I have read or seen acted all those which 
 the consensus of criticism has indicated as the most 
 typical and the best ; and in all these plays I can re- 
 call only one single character thoroughly thought out 
 and wrought out, breathing the breath of life, and 
 moving of its own will. By an effort of memory I 
 can call up a crowd of pretty faces with a strong family
 
 Eugene Scribe. 83 
 
 likeness, or a lot of young gentlemen who have got 
 themselves into a most unpleasant scrape. But that is 
 all. The people who pass through these plays are 
 merely profiles : they are like the plane of the geo- 
 metricians, without thickness and impalpable. Scribe 
 had some knowledge of human nature, but it was only 
 skin deep. He had insight enough ; but it went just 
 below the surface, and no further. Now, nothing is 
 more temporary than superficial human nature. Scribe 
 never got behind the man of the time to find man as 
 he is at all times. His characters are silhouettes, into 
 which the scissors have cut also the date. The fif- 
 teen years of the Restoration were the years when 
 Scribe wrote the most of his comedies-vaudevilles, and 
 it does not need the titlepage to tell us that they 
 were acted before 1830. Scribe had looked around 
 him, and seen the mighty industrial progress of France, 
 freed at last from the bondage of the old Bourbon 
 rule, from the uneasiness and ferment of the Revolu- 
 tion, and from the military strain of the Empire. Sick 
 of martial glory, all France was trying to make money ; 
 and yet in picturesque juxtaposition to the new brood 
 of bankers and merchants and manufacturers, stood the 
 survivors of the Empire and the Revolution. So these 
 comedies-vaudevilles are full of old soldiers, sergeants, 
 and colonels and generals, all singing bits of verse in 
 which guerriers rhymes with lauriers ; and in contrast 
 with these are the money-makers, and the usual young 
 men and pretty dolls of women, more or less witty and 
 wicked. By dint of off-hand sketching of these as they 
 floated by on the current of middle-class society, Scribe 
 had made for himself a full set of the personages which 
 might be needed in any comedie-vaudeville; and, having
 
 84 French Dramatists. 
 
 once got a stock of these figures, he used them again 
 and again, much as the deviser of one of the old Italian 
 corn-media delV arts used the pedant and Brighetta, the 
 captain and the doctor, and the rest of the instantly 
 recognizable masks. 
 
 A comparison, not without interest, might be insti- 
 tuted between the comedie-vaudeville of Scribe and 
 the commedia dell' arte as it became naturalized in 
 France by the harlequin Dominique and his fellows, 
 the friends of Moliere. In each case, it was especially 
 the amusement of the people of Paris, of the shop- 
 keeping class above all ; and, as I have said already, 
 in each case, characters and dialogue were of less im- 
 portance than plot and situation. The fecundity of 
 Scribe in providing new subjects far surpassed that of 
 his Italian predecessors. Goethe told Eckermann that 
 Gozzi said that there were only thirty-six tragic situa- 
 tions, and added that Schiller had thought there were 
 more, but could never succeed in finding even so many. 
 Granting that the comic situations outnumber the 
 tragic, there must be an end to them at length ; yet 
 Scribe seemed inexhaustible. When one turns out 
 from ten to twenty new plays every year for ten years, 
 there must be some repetition, some use of stale mat- 
 ter, some attempt at a rfahauffte. But France is not 
 a country with ten religions and only one sauce ; and 
 a French play-maker, if he be as skilful as Scribe, can 
 serve you over again any old drama with a new dress- 
 ing, so deftly disguised that you would scarce know it. 
 Scribe took suggestions everywhere. From Marryat 
 he borrowed 'Japhet in Search of a Father;' from 
 Mrs. Inchbald, ' A Simple Story ; ' from Hertz, the 
 lovely 'King Rent's Daughter;' and from Cooper's
 
 Eugene Scribe. 85 
 
 ' Lionel Lincoln ' he got the germ of the ' Bohemienne, 
 ou rAme"rique en 1775,' a highly comic drama of our 
 Revolution, which might have been adapted to advan- 
 tage during the centennial excitement. Scribe was 
 fond also of doing over again in his more modern 
 manner some of the masterpieces of the past ; and so 
 we have the ' Nouveaux Jeux de 1'Amour et du Ha- 
 sard ' and the ' Nouveau Pourceaugnac : ' even Moliere 
 did not scare him. Then, too, he did his own plays 
 over again. M. Legouve" tell us that he quite forgot 
 his own work sometimes, and would sit and listen to 
 it, criticising it freely, without recalling it as his own. 
 And I have seen somewhere an anecdote of his saying, 
 as the curtain fell on a piece which was an obvious fail- 
 ure, "No matter: I will do it again next year." He 
 did over not only his own failures, but those of other 
 dramatists, when they bungled a good idea. 
 
 Beside all his borrowing from himself and from 
 others, borrowing in which there was no deceit or 
 dishonesty, a more straightforward and upright man 
 than Scribe never lived, he had the assistance of 
 the crowd of collaborators who encompassed him 
 about. Scarce a tithe of his earlier plays were written 
 by Scribe alone. First and last he must have had 
 half a hundred collaborators, most of them unknown 
 now out of France, and well-nigh forgotten even there. 
 Not a few were men of mark on the French stage at 
 that time. Three or four may be known to the world 
 at large : Saintine, for instance, the author of ' Picciola ; ' 
 and Bayard, the author of the ' Gamin de Paris ; ' and 
 SaintiGeorges, the author of the libretto of ' Martha ' 
 and of many another opera; and M. Legouve", the 
 author of 'Medee.' So many were his partners, that
 
 86 French Dramatists. 
 
 he was accused of keeping a play-factory, under the 
 style of Scribe & Co., just as Dumas had been charged 
 with keeping a novel-factory. But Scribe's treatment 
 of his collaborators was in marked contrast with 
 Dumas's. Scribe always did more than his share of 
 the work, and was ready to give them more than their 
 share of the credit. He never tried to grasp all the 
 gold or the glory for himself. 
 
 His collaborators remained his friends, every one of 
 them ; and it was to them collectively that he dedicated 
 the complete edition of his plays. One brought him a 
 suggestion, another a plot in detail, a third a few coup- 
 lets : whatever the share in the work, they were always 
 named in the bill of the play, and on the titlepage, and 
 they always drew a proportion in the profits. The 
 most of the labor was always Scribe's ; and sometimes 
 the contribution of the partner was so slight that he 
 could not point it out. M. Dupin once brought Scribe 
 an ill-made two-act vaudeville, from which, however, 
 Scribe got a suggestion that he immediately worked 
 over into a one-act play of his own, ' Michel et Chris- 
 tine.' To the first performance he invited Dupin, who 
 never knew he was seeing his own piece until it had 
 succeeded, and the chief actor had announced as its 
 authors MM. Scribe and Dupin. Again : M. Cornu 
 came up from the country with a bag full of melo- 
 dramas, one of which he begged Scribe to glance at. 
 When he next called, months afterward, Scribe asked 
 him if he had time to listen to a play. M. Cornu was 
 pleased with the compliment, pleased with the vaude- 
 ville Scribe read, and astonished as well as pleased 
 when told that he was its author. " I found an idea 
 in your melodrama," said Scribe: "to me an idea is
 
 Eugene Scribe. 87 
 
 enough." So on its titlepage the ' Chanoinesse ' de- 
 clares itself to be by MM. Scribe and Cornu. M. 
 Dupin had not written a line of one play, nor M. Cornu 
 of the other, nor had they even recognized their ideas 
 in Scribe's work ; yet he acknowledged his obligation 
 to them, and shared his profits with them. In 1822 
 M. de Saint-Georges brought him a piece turning on a 
 game of lansquenet. "You have lost your labor," said 
 Scribe ; " your play is impossible. If you want to 
 make dramatic use of a game of cards, you must 
 choose a game familiar to play-goers now, ScartS, for 
 example." And then he went on showing how such a 
 play might be written, what its plot might be, and 
 what might be done and said. When he paused, 
 Saint-Georges suggested that he had just sketched a 
 play, only needing to be written out. " So I have ! " 
 said Scribe, smiling; and in November, 1822, there 
 was acted at the Gymnase a vaudeville called ' EcarteV 
 by MM. Scribe and Saint-Georges. Now, M. Saint- 
 Georges had contributed nothing whatever to the 
 piece ; but as his play had been the cause of the talk 
 out of which ' Ecarte 1 ' sprang, Scribe chose to consider 
 him as a collaborator. Surely delicacy can go no far- 
 ther than this. 
 
 Perhaps the making of a vaudeville like 'Michel et 
 Christine,' or the ' Chanoinesse,' or ' Ecarte",' was such 
 an easy thing to Scribe that he held it lightly, al- 
 though it must not be forgotten that he shared the 
 substantial profits of the play as well as the more 
 immaterial honor. When however he took a higher 
 flight, and rose from the com6die-vaudeville, never 
 longer than three acts, to the full-length five-act com- 
 edy of manners, meant for the Theatre Fran^ais, he
 
 88 French Dramatists. 
 
 renounced all outside aid, and relied on himself alone. 
 The only fault his collaborators had ever found with 
 him was his insisting on doing more than his share of 
 the work. When he began to write for the Comedie- 
 Frangaise he cast them aside altogether, and did all 
 the work. Dumas, whose assistants were as many, 
 but not as loyally treated, as Scribe's, once defended 
 himself over Scribe's shoulders, and declared that col- 
 laboration is a hindrance, and not a help. When Scribe 
 was received at the French Academy, one of his dis- 
 satisfied colleagues is said to have murmured, " It is 
 not a chair we should give him, but a bench to seat 
 all his collaborators." And there were not wanting 
 those who insinuated that his literary partners sup- 
 plied all the ideas, and deserved all the credit. On 
 these he turned the tables by doing alone and unaided 
 his most important, and in many respects his best 
 work. 
 
 Fifty years ago the Theatre Fran9ais, owing to the 
 strict division of styles among the theatres of Paris, 
 and the reservation to it of the masterpieces of classic 
 tragedy and comedy, was an institution more august 
 and of higher dignity than it is even now. Scribe, 
 broken to every ruse and wile of theatrical effect by 
 the experience gained in a hundred plays, and speaking 
 on the stage as one having authority, turned from the 
 Gymnase (though without wholly giving up the com^die- 
 vaudeville), and brought out .at the Theatre Frangais a 
 series of comedies of higher pretensions. Valerie was 
 produced by the Come'die-Frangaise in 1822, half by 
 accident, as we have seen. Five years later, in the 
 midst of his incessant production at the Gymnase, he 
 brought out at the Theatre Frangais his first five-act
 
 Eugene Scribe. 89 
 
 comedy, the ' Mariage d'Argent.' It failed. " Here, 
 at last," said Villemain, when receiving Scribe into 
 the French Academy, " is a complete comedy, without 
 couplets, without collaborators, sustaining itself by its 
 dramatic complexity, by the unity of its characters, 
 by the truth of the dialogue, and by the vivacity of 
 its moral." But at first the old play-goers, who were 
 wont to meet in the house of Moliere, keen to protect 
 its traditions, would not hear of Scribe's comedy. It 
 was the work of a vaudevillist only too obviously, they 
 said ; and they sent him back to his couplets and his 
 collaborators. Though the piece failed in Paris, it suc- 
 ceeded amply in the provinces. 
 
 Soon the Theatre Fra^ais was bearing the brunt 
 of the Romanticist onslaught ; and soon a more mate- 
 rial revolution overthrew the Bourbon throne. Scribe 
 was the only French dramatist of prominence who 
 took no part in the struggle between the Romanticists 
 and the Classicists, who went quietly on in his own 
 way, and who held his public as firmly after the suc- 
 cess of ' Antony ' and ' Hernani ' as before the publica- 
 tion of the preface to ' Cromwell.' But the revolution 
 of July affected him more closely. The Gymnase had 
 been called the "Theatre de Madame," and on the 
 withdrawal of the princely protection its future seemed 
 less favorable. Besides, the turn of the political wheel 
 had brought into view subjects for which the stage of 
 the Gymnase was too small. So Scribe went to the 
 Theatre Fran^ais again, and ' Bertrand et Raton, ou 
 1'Art de Conspirer,' was acted there in November, 1833, 
 nearly six years after the check of the 'Mariage 
 d'Argent.' In the next fifteen years, seven other five- 
 act comedies, written by Scribe alone, were acted by
 
 O French Dramatists. 
 
 the Comedie-Franc.aise : the 'Ambitieux' (1834); the 
 'Camaraderie, ou la Courte Echelle' (1837); the 
 ' Calomnie ' and the ' Verre d'Eau, ou les Effets et les 
 Causes' (1840); 'Une Chalne' (1841); the ' Fils de 
 Cromwell, ou une Restauration ' (1842) ; and the 'Puff, 
 ou Mensonge et V6rite' (1848). These comedies, not- 
 withstanding their well-jointed skeletons, are already 
 aging terribly ; they show the wrinkles of time : even 
 the young lovers are now gray-haired, and the language 
 is hopelessly rococo. The taste for sub-titles has died 
 out, and some of Scribe's seem very ridiculous now. 
 
 His fancy for reflecting fully the changing hues of 
 the hour has given his plays a color now faded and out 
 of fashion forever. What is contemporary is three 
 parts temporary. Language, for one thing, is always 
 shifting. A far-seeing literary artist borrows only as 
 many phrases from the jargon of the day as he may 
 need to give life to his dialogue, and never enough to 
 weight that dialogue down with dead words after they 
 have dropped out of use. Scribe's subordination of 
 every thing to the demands of an immediate stage- 
 success makes most of his dialogue now lifeless and 
 wooden. And unfortunately, though Scribe had a very 
 pretty wit of his own, and was capable of writing dia- 
 logue of no little sparkle, he was never above making 
 use of the ready-made jests, the commonplaces of 
 joking. Th6ophile Gautier, to whom picturesqueness 
 was the whole duty of man, somewhere says, that, 
 after a witticism had been worn threadbare by hard 
 usage, it was still sure of a freshening-up in some one 
 of Scribe's plays. Here again we see Scribe's knowl- 
 edge of the play-goer: if he made the new jest he 
 was so well capable of making, perhaps the public
 
 Eugene Scribe. 91 
 
 might not see it ; but if he used the old joke, the public 
 could but laugh. On the same principle, the clown in 
 the circus gives us the most obvious and antique wit ; 
 and the people needs must laugh at it, just as Diggory 
 had been laughing at the story of the grouse in the 
 gun-room these twenty years. Taught by his experi- 
 ence as a playwright, Scribe distrusted his own higher 
 powers, assuredly capable of further development, and 
 chose instead to rely on his well-tried, and indeed truly 
 wondrous, constructive skill. 
 
 To consider in detail the comedies acted at the 
 Theatre Frangais would take too long. ' Vale'rie ' is, 
 no doubt, much improved by the cutting out of its 
 couplets : it is a simple and touching little story, lack- 
 ing only in depth and pathos, in the one touch of 
 nature. It is made, not born ; and there is no blood in 
 it. The ' Manage d' Argent ' seems to me the least 
 satisfactory in structure of Scribe's long plays, and I 
 do not wonder it failed. The subject might suffice 
 for a come"die-vaudeville in three acts ; and the strain 
 of stretching it into a five-act comedy is unfortunately 
 only too evident. But in 'Bertrand et Raton' is a 
 great improvement : for the first time Scribe strikes 
 the true note of high comedy. All the characters are 
 cast in worn moulds, and have no sharpness of edge, 
 save Bertrand, the incarnation of the ultimate diplo- 
 macy. Here is real observation and the real comic 
 touch. In Bertrand the world chose to see a portrait 
 of Talleyrand, then ambassador to England ; and when 
 the play was acted in London, Mr. Farren wore a wig, 
 which made him the image of Talleyrand. To the 
 horror of the English authorities, the French ambassa- 
 dor came to the play ; but with characteristic shrewd-
 
 92 French Dramatists. 
 
 ness he refused to see the likeness, and led in applause 
 of the actor. Bertrand is Scribe's one rememberable 
 character. It leavens the whole play, of which the plot 
 however is interesting and possible, and not without 
 irony. 
 
 What would the great writer who invented Queen 
 Anne have thought of the 'Verre d'Eau,' in which the 
 Duchess of Marlborough and the lady-love of Lieut. 
 Masham are rivals of th'e queen for the affection of 
 that inoffensive young man? Scribe takes as many 
 liberties with Queen Anne who is dead, as we all 
 know, and has no Churchill now to fight her battles 
 as Hugo took with Queen Mary ; but he is never melo- 
 dramatic like Hugo. The emotion is rarely tense ; and 
 even the shock of surprise evokes no more startling 
 ejaculation than "O Heaven!" a lady-like expletive 
 which recurs half a dozen times in the play. The 
 'Verre d'Eau,' indeed, is a very lady-like comedy, 
 wherein high affairs of state are shown to hang on the 
 trifles of feminine feeling. While Scribe has no enthu- 
 siasm, no poetry, no passion, so also has he no affec- 
 tation, and no false and forced emotion. In 'Une 
 Chame,' for instance, which remains the most modern 
 of Scribe's comedies, and which tells a familiar tale, 
 there are no ardent scenes between the lover and the 
 mistress, and no dwelling on the raptures of illicit pas- 
 sion. On the contrary, the play, as the title shows, 
 turns on the lover's struggles to break the toils that 
 bind him to his enchantress. Scribe was a bourgeois, a 
 Philistine if you will ; and he worshipped respectability 
 with its thousand gigs. Mr. Henry James, Jr., has 
 said that the grand protagonist of Balzac's ' Com^die 
 Humaine ' was the five-franc piece : I am inclined to
 
 Eugene Scribe. 93 
 
 think that money plays an even more important part in 
 Scribe's plays than in Balzac's novels. Money, for one 
 thing, is eminently respectable ; and Scribe was nothing 
 if not respectable. In ' Oscar, ou le Mari qui trompe 
 sa Femme,' for example, a three-act comedy done at 
 the Theatre Frangais in 1842, there is abundant sacri- 
 fice to decorum, though the subject is disgusting. Out- 
 wardly all is proper: inwardly it is of indescribable 
 indelicacy. But so skilfully has Scribe told his story, 
 that it is only by taking thought that one sees into it : 
 we are hurried so swiftly over the quaking bog, that we 
 scarcely suspect its existence. In 'Une Chaine' the 
 subject is commonplace enough now, though it was less 
 so in Scribe's day. What is remarkable about it is not 
 only the matter-of-fact treatment of a passionate situa- 
 tion, this was possibly Scribe's protest against the 
 Romanticist code, which set passion above duty, but 
 the curious way in which his instinct as a playwright 
 had anticipated the formulas of a quarter of a century 
 later. 'Une Chaine,' written in 1841 by Scribe, is in 
 construction very much what it would have been had it 
 been written by M. Victorien Sardou in 1881. It has 
 the external aspects of a comedy ; but lurking behind 
 and half out of sight is a possibility of impending 
 tragedy, a possibility which stiffens the interest of 
 the comedy, and strengthens it. 
 
 We try a play by a triple test, for plot, for charac- 
 ter, for dialogue. Scribe, who was a born playwright, 
 well knew, what so many would-be dramatists do not 
 know, that plot alone, if it be striking enough, will 
 suffice to draw the public. But he either ignored or 
 was ignorant of the fact that only character, that only 
 a true fragment of human nature, can confer immortal-
 
 94 French Dramatists. 
 
 ity. Panurge and Sancho Panza and Bardolph and Tar- 
 tuffe are as alive to-day as when they came into being. 
 Plot and situation and intrigue, however clever, become 
 stale in time : we weary of them, and they are forgot- 
 ten. Unless a story is kept alive by the immortality 
 of character, it soon gets old-fashioned, and drops out of 
 sight till another generation takes it up, and dresses it 
 anew to suit the changing fancy. If it then fall into 
 the hands of a true poet, a real maker, and he put into 
 it the human nature it has hitherto lacked, it has a 
 chance of long life ; though the first arranger is remem- 
 bered only as having suggested the story, and the great 
 credit is given to the creator of the character. Thus 
 Shakspere and Moliere have worked over the plots of 
 the Latin comic dramatists, and so stamped these with 
 their marks, that no one has since dared to question 
 their ownership, or to replevin what, after all, belonged 
 to the public domain. Even when a man is without 
 this puissant gift of making men in his own image, 
 he has a chance of immortality if he be but sincere and 
 simple, and if he but put himself into his work. As 
 the saying is, every man has one book in him : however 
 he may halt in the delivery of his message, the world 
 will listen to him so long as he tries to deliver it in 
 straightforward fashion. There was nothing halting or 
 hesitating in Scribe's manner. He had practised till he 
 could talk on the stage better than any one else ; but 
 he had absolutely nothing to say, he had no message 
 whatsoever to deliver. No sooner did there come 
 to the front men like Iimile Augier and the younger 
 Dumas, who believed in a new gospel, and preached it 
 heartily and boldly, than all men flocked to hear them, 
 deserting Scribe. There was even an audience for M.
 
 Eugene Scribe. 95 
 
 Sardou, who has hardly more to say than Scribe him- 
 self, but who is young enough to say nothing in a 
 style fifty years younger than Scribe's. 
 
 Scribe has left his impress on the stage ; but it is as 
 the inventor of the comedie-vaudeville, as the improver 
 of grand opera, as a play-maker of consummate skill, 
 not as the maker of character. He was full of appreci- 
 ation of a comic situation, and wrung from it the last 
 drop of amusement : it never re-acted to the creation of 
 a truly comic character. No one of Scribe's people lives 
 after him. They were in outline only, faint at best, and 
 soon faded : time has had no difficulty in rubbing them 
 out. " Outline " is perhaps scarcely the right word : 
 one may say, rather, that they are pastels, not sketches 
 in black and white. Indeed, there is little black any- 
 where in Scribe. He took a rose-colored view of life ; 
 and, as M. Octave Feuillet pointed out in the eulogy he 
 delivered as Scribe's successor in the French Academy, 
 nowhere in all his plays will you find a villain of the 
 deepest dye. Few of his characters are even vicious : 
 they are ridiculous only. We can laugh at them with- 
 out any feeling that we ought, perhaps, to weep. His 
 is a benevolent muse, and all's for the best in the best 
 of worlds. 
 
 The most easily recalled of Scribe's characters is one 
 which shows some of the complexity of real life, Ber- 
 trand, the cold and subtle diplomatist, who turns the 
 zeal and the generosity of others to his own account, 
 and makes the rest of his fellow-men serve as his cat's- 
 paws and scapegoats. Here is a figure not all of a 
 piece : he has some life of his own ; he could stand on 
 his own legs, even if the directing wire of the manager 
 of the show were withdrawn. After Bertrand, one can
 
 96 French Dramatists. 
 
 bring up with least effort Michonnet, the old prompter 
 in 'Adrienne Lecouvreur.' Here, also, is a man with 
 the blood of life coursing through his veins. And of 
 all Scribe's countless women no one has such a glow of 
 human nature, fragile and feminine, as Adrienne herself. 
 It is hard to have to grudge Scribe the credit of 
 these last two characters ; but it is a fact that in writ- 
 ing 'Adrienne Lecouvreur,' Scribe had again taken 
 unto himself a partner, this time M. Ernest Legouve. 
 Scribe was asked by the Com^die-Fran^aise to write a 
 comedy for Rachel. He doubted, and wisely, whether 
 the task was not beyond him, and whether Rachel, who 
 was great in tragedy, would in comedy either be easy 
 herself, or be accepted by the public. He casually 
 consulted M. Legouve, who said the task was lighter 
 than it seemed. " It will be enough to put into a new 
 frame and another period Rachel's ordinary qualities. 
 The public will believe it a transformation, while it will 
 be only a change of costume." "Will you look up 
 a subject for us to treat together?" said Scribe at 
 once. M. Legouv6 sought ; and at last he happened on 
 the anecdote of Adrienne Lecouvreur acting Phedre, 
 and throwing into the teeth of the Duchess de Bouillon, 
 who sat in the stage-box, these scorching lines of her 
 
 part : 
 
 " Je ne suis point de ces femmes hardies 
 Qui, gofitant dans le crime une tranquille paix, 
 Ont su se faire un front qui ne rougit jamais ! " 
 
 M. Legouv6 hastened to carry his find to Scribe, who 
 fell on his neck in delight, crying, "A hundred per- 
 formances at six thousand francs ! " M. Legouv6 kindly 
 tells us that this was not a mercenary outbreak : it was 
 the natural expression of the enthusiasm of a trained
 
 Eugene Scribe. 97 
 
 playwright who knew that in the box-office receipts 
 are figures that never lie, or flatter, or disparage, but 
 tell the author with brutal frankness what the public 
 thinks of his work. M. Legouvd has also described to 
 us how Rachel refused the piece, and how artfully he 
 persuaded her to play it. Its success tightened the 
 link between Scribe and M. Legouve ; and they wrote 
 three other plays together, of which the best known is 
 ' Bataille de Dames,' turned into sturdy English by Mr. 
 Charles Reade as the * Ladies' Battle.' 
 
 If I had to select one play of Scribe's showing him 
 it his best, I should choose this 'Bataille de Dames.' 
 I can recommend it as agreeable reading, and quke 
 harmless. It takes no great study to see that the 
 plot of the play is a wonderful work of art. The 
 neatness with which the successive links of the simple 
 yet ever-changing action are jointed together is beyond 
 all praise. The comedy of intrigue can go no farther : 
 this is its last word. And there is not only ingenuity 
 of incident, there is some play of character ; not much, 
 to be sure, but a little. Nature in Scribe's plays has 
 as poor a chance as it had at the hands of the French 
 gardeners who bent the yew and the box into shapes 
 of strange animals. But ' Bataille de Dames ' is far 
 better in this respect than the ' Camaraderie ' of fifteen 
 years before. Ingenious with a Chinese-puzzle inge- 
 nuity, all the pieces fit into each other, and fill the box 
 exactly, and so completely that there is scant room for 
 the least human nature. In the ' Camaraderie ' there 
 is no air at all, and you cannot breathe ; but in ' Bataille 
 de Dames ' the people show some little will of their 
 own, thanks possibly to M. Legouv6. In the plays 
 Scribe wrote with M. Legouve there is more life, and
 
 98 French Dramatists. 
 
 less insufficiency of style, than in his other pieces. 
 Scribe had little of the literary feeling, and cared less 
 for the art of writing than even M. Zola. It is a rare 
 thing for a Frenchman to attain prominence as an 
 author, and yet write as ill as Scribe : and it is only 
 as a dramatist that he could have done it ; on the stage 
 purely literary merit is a secondary consideration. 
 Scribe had far more real ability than M. Legouve 1 , but 
 he lacked the tincture of literature which the latter 
 had: so their conjunction was fertile. Together they 
 made a better play than Legouve alone, who with no 
 great poetic endowment tried to be a poet, or than 
 Scribe alone, who was satisfied to be theatrically ef- 
 fective. So the ' Bataille de Dames ' is the best of 
 Scribe's comic imbroglios; and 'Adrienne Lecouvreur' 
 is the best of his more dramatic attempts. 
 
 In his lighter comedies, as in his position in the 
 theatrical world, Scribe recalls Lope de Vega. Each 
 was in his day the chief purveyor of plays ; both relied 
 on the ingenuity of plot to sustain the interest ; neither 
 left behind him a single memorable character. With 
 due allowance for the differences of time and place, 
 some of Lope de Vega's comedies are very like Scribe's. 
 Take the ' Perro del Hortelano : ' is it not in sugges- 
 tion and handling much what it would have been had 
 Scribe written it? A little more sprawling, may be, 
 not so economical in its effects, but still much the 
 same. The Gardener's Dog is Spanish for the Dog 
 in the Manger. In this case it is a woman lightly and 
 easily sketched : she loves, and she is jealous ; and yet 
 she cannot make up her mind to marry the man she 
 loves, because of his lowly birth. Even the nincom- 
 poop of a lover is not unlike some of Scribe's uncer-
 
 Eugene Scribe. 99 
 
 tain heroes. The art of play-making is constantly 
 improving, and Scribe could have given points to 
 Lope in the game of the stage. The Spanish drama- 
 tist, on the other hand, had a Spanish dignity and 
 grandiloquence, and some stirrings of poetry. Scribe's 
 Pegasus had no wings ; and so his attempts to rise to 
 the romantic and historical drama did not succeed. 
 He had a telescope rifle, unfailing in shooting folly as 
 it flies ; but the handling of a siege-gun was beyond his 
 power. 
 
 In 1819 Scribe had written the 'Freres Invisibles,' a 
 sufficiently absurd melodrama of the Pix6recourt school. 
 In 1832, in the midst of the Romantic ferment, he tried 
 his hand at ' Dix Ans de la Vie d'une Femme,' some- 
 thing in the style of Dinaux and Ducange's 'Trente 
 Ans ; ou, la Vie d'un Joueur.' But the dagger and the 
 bowl were too heavy for him to lift. If any one wants 
 to see a delightful specimen of the competent criticism 
 one dramatist can visit on another, as candid and as 
 cutting as may be, notwithstanding its good nature, 
 he should glance over Scribe's drama, and then read 
 Dumas's analysis of it in his ' Souvenirs Dramatiques.' 
 Perhaps the rattling raillery of Dumas convinced 
 Scribe of his error. It was twenty years later, and 
 only after 'Adrienne Lecouvreur,' a comedy-drama, 
 had succeeded, that he ventured on the ' Czarine,' an 
 historical drama acted by Rachel in 1855. Scribe 
 could do a dainty pastel or a delicate miniature, but 
 he lacked the robust strength which historical painting 
 calls for. Strange to say, the play is wanting even in 
 the picturesqueness of stage-effect when compared 
 with Scribe's own libretto for the ' Star of the North,' 
 or with the beginning of a play sketched by Balzac,
 
 TOO French Dramatists. 
 
 both of which have for their heroine the mistress and 
 wife and successor of Peter the Great. A compli- 
 cated and petty intrigue dwarfs the figure of one who 
 fills so large a place in history and in the imagination 
 as Catherine. Scribe's feebleness in character-drawing 
 is shown in the way his historic figures slip out of 
 mind in spite of every effort to lay hold on them, and 
 in spite of their pretence to be portraits of Richard 
 Cromwell and Marshal Saxe, of Queen Anne and the 
 Duchess of Marlborough, of Francis the First and 
 Charles the Fifth. 
 
 Scribe's device was a pen crossed over pan-pipes, 
 with the motto, Inde Fortuna et Libertas, a proud 
 saying, for all its humility. He owed what he was to 
 his pen, and he acknowledged the debt. The pan-pipes, 
 I take it, are meant to symbolize, more modestly than a 
 lyre, his operatic labors : still they seem somewhat out 
 of place, as no man was ever less given to the warbling 
 of native wood-notes wild. Scribe's share in the de- 
 velopment of grand opera, and in the maintenance of 
 opfra-comique, important as it is, must be dismissed 
 briefly. Nowhere is skilful scaffolding more needed 
 than in an opera-book, and nowhere did Scribe's un- 
 equalled genius for the stage show to better advantage 
 than at the opera. It was he who constructed the 
 'Jewess' for Halevy, and 'Robert the Devil,' the 
 'Huguenots,' the 'Prophet,' and the 'Africaine,' for 
 Meyerbeer. It was he, in great measure, who made 
 possible Herr Wagner's art-work of the future by 
 bringing together in unexampled perfection and pro- 
 fusion the contributions of the scene-painter, the ballet- 
 master, the property-man, and the stage-manager, and 
 putting them all at the service of the composer for the
 
 Eugene Scribe. 101 
 
 embellishing of his work. As the First Player says, in 
 the ' Rehearsal ' of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham, 
 "And then, for scenes, clothes, and dancing, we put 
 'em quite down, all that ever went before us ; and these 
 are the things, you know, that are essential to a play." 
 They are essential to that passing show we call an 
 opera ; and no one handled them more effectively than 
 Scribe. 
 
 His operas, ballets, and operas-comiques fill twenty- 
 six volumes in the new edition of his works ; and 
 among them are the librettos of the 'Bronze Horse/ 
 ' Crown Diamonds,' the ' Sicilian Vespers,' the ' Star of 
 the North/ 'Fra Diavolo/ the 'Dame Blanche/ the 
 ' Domino Noir/ the ' Favorite/ ' Masaniello/ and the 
 ' Martyres ; ' which last he had taken from Corneille's 
 'Polyeucte/ just as he had taken another opera-book 
 from Shakspere's 'Tempest/ Many of his com6dies- 
 vaudevilles he made over as operas. The ' Comte Ory/ 
 was set by Rossini, and the ' Sonnambule ' was arranged 
 as a ballet. An Italian librettist aftenvard took this 
 ballet, and used it as the book for Bellini's ' Sonnam- 
 bula/ just as other foreign librettists have used his 
 plots for the ' Ballo in Maschera/ the ' Elisire d'Amor/ 
 and more recently for ' Fatinitza/ 
 
 Consider, for a moment, Scribe's extraordinary dra- 
 matic range. He began with the vaudeville, which he 
 improved into the comedie-vaudeville ; he rose to the 
 five-act comedy of manners ; he invented the comedy 
 drama ; he failed in Romantic and historical drama, but 
 he succeeded in handling tragic themes in grand opera ; 
 he devised the ballet-opera, and he gave great variety 
 to the op6ra-comique. He was ever on the lookout for 
 new dramatic forms. One of the most curious of those
 
 IO2 French Dramatists. 
 
 he attempted is to be seen in the three-act play of 
 ' Avant, Pendant, et Apres.' The first act, 'Before the 
 French Revolution,' is a comedy ; the second act, 
 ' During the Revolution,' is a drama ; and the third act, 
 ' After the Revolution,' is a vaudeville. 
 
 The same impulse to seek new forms led him also to 
 discover a new country, in which he laid the scenes of 
 all his plays. Scribe called this new land England, or 
 France, or Russia, or whatever else he wanted to make 
 it pass for ; but the critics called it Scribia. This is a 
 country where the people are all cut and dried, where 
 the jokes are generally old jokes, where every thing 
 always comes out right in the end, where waiting- 
 women twist queens around their fingers, where great 
 effects are always the result of little causes, and where, 
 in short, Scribe could have every thing his own way 
 This uniformity of local color made his plays more 
 easily understood in foreign countries, and facilitated 
 the task of the adapter. Beaumarchais and Augier 
 lose fifty per cent, in transport to another land and 
 tongue. Scribe's tare and tret is trifling. Manners 
 are local : but a plot might be used as well in England 
 as in France, and in Germany or Italy as in England ; 
 and so the universal borrowing from France began. 
 Before Scribe, the nations had borrowed from each 
 other all round : no one race had a monopoly of the 
 dramatic supply. The Restoration comedy of England 
 was derived from France ; but Germany and France 
 were both copying from England toward the end of the 
 last century ; and England and France were imitating 
 Germany in the early part of this. Since Scribe's 
 plays began their tour of the world, and since his re- 
 organization of the French Dramatic Authors' Society
 
 Eugene Scribe. 103 
 
 made writing for the stage the most profitable form of 
 literary labor, France has ruled the dramatic market. 
 
 It is instructive to note that the French playwright 
 who has had the most foreign popularity, after Scribe, is 
 M. Victorien Sardou, who came to the front in 1861, the 
 year of Scribe's death, and who, like Scribe, places his 
 main reliance on his situations. M. Sardou is the 
 direct disciple of Scribe. We have been told, that, 
 when M. Sardou was learning the trade of play-making, 
 he modelled himself on Scribe, seeking to spy out his 
 secret. He would take a play of Scribe's, read one act, 
 and then write the following acts himself, comparing 
 his work with his model, and so learning the tricks of 
 the trade from its greatest master. Proof of this study 
 can be seen by a glance at the list of M. Sardou's 
 works: the 'Pattes de Mouche' is his 'Bataille de 
 Dames ; ' ' Rabagas ' is his ' Bertrand et Raton ; ' and 
 in ' Nos Intimes ' and ' Fernande ' we have the formula 
 of ' Une Chaine.' To M. Sardou, as to Scribe, a play 
 is a complex structure, whose varied incidents fit into 
 each other as exactly as the parts of a machine-made 
 rifle, lacking any one of which, the gun will miss fire. 
 M. Sardou is not as rigid in his construction as Scribe 
 was, and he has a broader humor, and is more open 
 to the influences of the day, perhaps too much so; 
 and the disciple is consequently more in accord with 
 the taste of the times than was the master as his career 
 drew to a close. Toward the end of his life Scribe 
 complained that his pieces did not meet the old suc- 
 cess, and wondered why it was, sure that he made 
 plays as well as ever. The fact was, that taste had 
 changed, and the public did not ask for well-made 
 plays ; or rather, it demanded something more than a
 
 IO4 French Dramatists. 
 
 well-made play, something more than mere workman- 
 ship. Fortunately for his own peace of mind, Scribe 
 passed away before the full effect of the change in 
 public taste was apparent. 
 
 To sum up, Scribe's qualities are an inexhaustible 
 industry, an unfailing invention, an easy wit, a lively 
 feeling for situation, great cleverness, and supreme 
 technical skill. He paid little attention to human 
 nature ; he showed no knowledge that life is more than 
 mere work and play, that there can be grand self-sacri- 
 fice, noble sorrow, or any large and liberal sweep of 
 emotion. He had neither depth nor breadth. A good 
 man himself, and a generous, in his plays he took a 
 petty, not to say an ignoble, view of life. Even in his 
 comedies there is no great comic force : it is easy to 
 understand how Philarete Chasles came to call him a 
 Marivaux-^zVzVr. And it is no wonder that Heine, 
 whose eyes were wide open to the iniquities, the suffer- 
 ings, and the struggles of mankind, should regard 
 Scribe as the arch-Philistine, the guardian of the gates 
 of Gath, and should have risked a dying jest against 
 Scribe. As breath was fast failing him, Heine was 
 asked if he could whistle (in French, siffler, meaning 
 also "to hiss"), to which he replied with an effort, 
 " No, not even a play of M. Scribe's."
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 M. EM1LE AUGIER. 
 
 IN criticism, as in astronomy, we must needs allow 
 for the personal equation ; and I am proud to confess 
 a hearty admiration for the sincere and robust dramatic 
 works of M. Emile Augier, to my mind the foremost 
 of the French dramatists of our day, with the possible 
 exception only of Victor Hugo. M. Augier inherits 
 the best traditions of French comedy. He is a true 
 child of Beaumarchais, a true grandchild of Moliere. 
 He has the Gallic thrust of the one, and something of 
 the broad utterance of the other and greater. One 
 of the best actors in Paris told me that he held the 
 ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' to be the finest comedy since 
 the ' Mariage de Figaro.' It would be hard to gainsay 
 him ; and in the * Fils de Giboyer ' there is more than 
 one touch which recalls the hand of the great master 
 who drew ' Tartufe.' 
 
 It is not a little curious, that, while the plays of M. 
 Alexandre Dumas and M. Victorien Sardou are familiar 
 to the American theatre-goer, M. Augier's virile works 
 are but little known here. Three or four years ago 
 the case was the same in Germany ; and in an appre- 
 ciative study of M. Augier's career, published in Nord 
 und Sild, Herr Paul Lindau asked the reason of this, 
 and gave the answer ; which is simply that M. Augier 
 appeals to a higher (and smaller) class than either M. 
 Dumas or M. Sardou. In the preface of 'Cromwell,' 
 
 105
 
 io6 French Dramatists. 
 
 Victor Hugo divides those who go to the theatre into 
 three classes : (i) The crowd, who look for action, 
 plot, situations ; (2) Women, who expect passion, emo- 
 tion ; and (3) Thinkers, who hope for characters, studies 
 of human nature. M. Sardou suits the first class, M. , 
 Dumas the second, and M. Augier the third. It is 
 much easier to transfer to an alien soil the situations 
 of M. Sardou, or the emotions of M. Dumas, than 
 the social studies of M. Augier, in whose plays plot 
 and passion are subordinate, and subservient to the 
 development of character. Startling incidents can be 
 set forth in any language, and strong emotion loses 
 little by change of tongue ; but a fearless handling of 
 burning questions, and a scorching satire of society, can 
 be fully appreciated only among the social surround- 
 ings in which they first came forth. The note of M. 
 Augier is a broad and liberal loyalty ; while M. Dumas's 
 chief characteristic is a brilliancy often misdirected, 
 and M. Sardou's a cleverness always ready to take 
 advantage of the moment. M. Dumas is too complex 
 a problem to be considered in a sentence or two ; but 
 M. Sardou is simpler, and one may venture to define 
 the difference between his work and M. Augier's as 
 not unlike the difference between journalism and litera- 
 ture. M. Sardou's puppets live, move, and have their 
 being in some city forcing-house, where their master 
 keeps them under lock and key. M. Augier's char- 
 acters are as free as all out-doors ; and they breathe 
 the open breeze which blows from seashore and hill- 
 top, and which has the odor of the pines, and not a 
 little of their balsamic sharpness. 
 
 That M. Augier's plays, in spite of their lack of sen- 
 sational scenes, should not have found favor in the
 
 M. Emile Augier. 107 
 
 eyes of Anglo-Saxon managers, is the more remarkable, 
 because he is the most moral of modern French dram- 
 atists. He is not one of "them that call evil good, 
 and good evil ; that put darkness for light, and light 
 for darkness ; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for 
 bitter." Unlike M. Dumas, he does not let his emo- 
 tions run away with him. It is not that the moral is 
 violently thrust through each play, as a butterfly is im- 
 paled on a pin, to use Hawthorne's apt figure. No : 
 the morality in M. Augier, as in all really great authors, 
 " is simply a part of the essential richness of inspira- 
 tion," to quote from that other American writer who 
 has recently rapidly sketched Hawthorne's life. " The 
 more a work of art feels it at its source, the richer it 
 is," continues Mr. James ; and in this respect M. Au- 
 gier's work is of royal richness. 
 
 Although the French drama of to-day is not so bad 
 as many believe it to be, still the dramatists, like the 
 novelists of France, have not taken to heart Dr. John- 
 son's warning : " Sir, never accustom your mind to 
 mingle vice and virtue." Mr. Matthew Arnold quotes 
 with approval Michelet's assertion that the Reforma- 
 tion failed in France because France did not wish a 
 moral reform ; and he adds that the French are lack- 
 ing in the " power of conduct." Admitting the rule, 
 M. Augier is a noble exception : he has an abiding 
 sense of the importance of conduct in life, and he 
 strenuously seeks to strengthen that sense in others 
 by dwelling on the influences which make for it. 
 ' Home,' the name which the English dramatist, Rob- 
 ertson, gave to an English comedy, for which he had 
 borrowed the plot of M. Augier's ' Aventuriere,' is 
 characteristic of all M. Augier's work. Home in his
 
 io8 French Dramatists. 
 
 eyes is a sacred thing ; and throughout his plays we 
 can see a steadfast setting-forth of the holiness of 
 home and the sanctity of the family. This feeling will 
 not let him be a passive spectator of assaults on what 
 he cherishes. His is a militant morality, ever up in 
 arms to fight for the fireside. The insidious success 
 of the 'Dame aux Camelias' in which a courtesan's 
 chance love purified her so far as it might drew from 
 him the indignant 'Mariage d'Olympe,' and gave him 
 the opportunity of showing what might be expected 
 when the courtesan wormed her way into an honorable 
 household. The Third Person is as important to many 
 French dramas of this century as was the Third Estate 
 to the nation in the last century : but he is in no way 
 aided and abetted by M. Augier ; there is one French 
 dramatist who can always be counted on for the hus- 
 band and the home. 
 
 This love for the fireside is 'not merely literary capi- 
 tal : it is part of his actual life. In the preface to one 
 of his plays he explains how it happens that he has 
 written more than once in collaboration : it is owing 
 to his fondness for chat by the hearth with a friend ; 
 and if, in course of talk, they start a subject for a piece, 
 and run it down, to which of the two does it belong ? 
 M. Augier's whole life has been given to literature : 
 his career is that of a true man of letters, passing his 
 time quietly by his fireside, or in his garden in the study 
 of men and things. Herr Lindau quotes his answer 
 to a would-be biographer, perhaps the German critic 
 himself, who asked for adventure or anecdote: "My 
 life has been without incident." And Mr. W. E. Henle 
 has pointed out that M. Augier's love for the family 
 may be seen even in the externals of his works, in
 
 M. Etnile Augier. 109 
 
 the dedication of his collected plays to his mother's 
 memory, and of individual pieces to his sisters and to 
 other intimate friends. There is in all this nothing 
 namby-pamby : on the contrary, his manly tenderness 
 is joined to a hearty scorn of sentimentality. Indeed, 
 the first tribute he paid to his family was an act of 
 courage. He inscribed his earliest play to the memory 
 of his maternal grandfather, Pigault-Lebrun, who traced 
 his descent from Eustache de St. Pierre, the burgher 
 of Calais. Pigault-Lebrun himself was a curious prod- 
 uct of the revolutionary effervescence : put in prison 
 twice by his father for youthful freaks, he went through 
 a series of Gil-Bias adventures : he was shipwrecked ; 
 he fought at the frontier ; he wrote for the stage ; and 
 finally he brought forth certain free-and-easy tales, 
 which were so successful that his father forgave him. 
 The dominant quality of Pigault-Lebrun was what the 
 French call " verve," and the English " go." M. Augier 
 seems to have inherited his independence and his frank 
 gayety : perhaps he has a portion of the imperative will 
 of the imprisoning father ; and, it may be, also some 
 share of the stout heart of Eustache de St. Pierre. 
 
 M. Augier began modestly. A two-act comedy of 
 antique life, called the ' Cigue,' from the draught of 
 hemlock which the hero has determined to take, 
 tendered first to the Theatre Francois, was finally 
 brought out at the Odeon in May, 1844. It met with 
 instant success, ran three months, and has since been 
 taken into the repertory of the Com6die-Franc,aise. In 
 classic purity of form this first of his plays remains the 
 best : it is a picture of self-seeking greed, treated with 
 a firmness of touch and a masculine irony unusual 
 in a young writer. M. Augier, born in 1820, was not
 
 no French Dramatists. 
 
 twenty-four when the ' Cigue ' first saw the light of the 
 lamps. He had studied for the bar ; but the entice- 
 ments of poetry were irresistible, and, after the success 
 of the ' Cigue,' he devoted himself wholly to the drama. 
 He came upon the stage just in the nick of time : 
 both play-goers and professional critics accepted him as 
 the most promising of a new school of dramatists. 
 Just at this moment there was a lull in the fierce strife 
 between the Romanticists and the Classicists. A year 
 before the ' Cigue,' the Odeon had acted ' Lucrece,' a 
 tragedy by Frar^ois Ponsard, a classic tale told in 
 verses of romantic variety and color. The unwitting 
 poet was hailed at once as the chief of a new school, 
 the School of Common Sense which was, to seek 
 safety in the middle path, and to join the good qualities 
 of both the opposing styles, without the failings of 
 either. The ' Cigue,' on its appearance, was claimed as 
 the second effort in the new manner. Neither Ponsard 
 nor M. Augier warm personal friends, and both men 
 of modesty ever set up as leaders of a new departure ; 
 just as it has been said that John Wilkes was never 
 a Wilkite. M. Augier gave in no adhesion to the 
 School of Common Sense, yet was tacitly accepted as 
 its lieutenant : when its day had passed, he stepped out 
 of its narrow limits, and walked on toward his own goal 
 with a sturdy tread. But for convenience, and not in- 
 accurately, we may consider his earlier work as belong- 
 ing to this school. Beautiful as much of it is, taken by 
 itself, we see at once, when we survey his writings as 
 a whole, that the earlier pieces were only tentative, 
 and that he had not yet discovered where his real 
 strength lay. In the first ten years after the ' Cigue ' 
 was acted, he brought out six other plays in verse ; in
 
 M. Entile Augier. ill 
 
 1845 the 'Homme de Bien;' in 1848 the 'Aven- 
 turiere,' the finest and firmest of all his metrical come- 
 dies ; in 1849 'Gabrielle,' a noteworthy success; in 
 1850 the 'Joueur de Flute,' a weaker return to the 
 classic, and akin in subject to the 'Cigue;' in 1852 
 ' Diane,' a romantic drama written for Rachel, and acted 
 by her without any great effect, owing, perhaps, to its 
 use of the historical material which had already served 
 Victor Hugo in 'Marion Delorme ;' and in 1853 'Phili- 
 berte,' a charming comedy of life in the last century. 
 All these comedies belonged to the new school, in that 
 they had common sense without commonplace. In the 
 best of them were to be seen simplicity, without the 
 weakness of the Classicists, and vigor, without the bru- 
 tality of the Romanticists. 
 
 ' Gabrielle,' as we consider it now after thirty years, 
 does not seem the best, even of these earlier attempts : 
 it lacks the easy sweep of the ' Cigue,' and the manly 
 strength of the ' Adventuriere ; ' it is almost wholly 
 wanting in the wholesome humor which plays so freely 
 around the characters in M. Augier's other comedies ; 
 and, although the play is well constructed from a tech- 
 nical point of view, its climax is reached by means 
 which seem inadequate to the end attained. Yet so 
 noble was its intention, and so clean its execution, that, 
 in spite of its vulnerable points, it created a profound 
 sensation, enjoyed success beyond its fellows, and re- 
 ceived from the Academy the Monthyon prize of virtue. 
 It shows how M. Augier fought for the fireside and the 
 home before he gave up a didactic for a purely dramatic 
 method. In ' Gabrielle ' we have, briefly, a young hus- 
 band devoted to his wife and child, and toiling unceas- 
 ingly for their future : therefore is he unable to divine,
 
 1 1 2 FrencJi Dramatists. 
 
 much less to satisfy, the somewhat sentimental aspira- 
 tions of his wife. Unfortunately a friend of his falls 
 in love with her, and tenders the ideal passion her heart 
 craves. Fortunately the husband is warned in time ; 
 and he fights bravely for his home, not with his 
 hands, but with his brain. Giving no sign of suspicion, 
 he appeals to the lover to help him loyally to win back 
 his wife's heart ; then, getting them both together, he 
 seizes an occasion to set before them with heartfelt 
 eloquence the consequences of a false step. So per- 
 suasive and so powerful is he, that, when they are left 
 alone for a moment, the wife dismisses the lover, who 
 accepts his sentence without a murmur. By herself, 
 she compares the two men : how small looks the lover 
 by the side of her husband ! On his return she con- 
 fesses, whereupon he declares the fault to be his own, 
 in that he has neglected her, and asks if he may hope 
 to win back her love. Conquered by his strength and 
 his tenderness, the wife seizes his hand, and, as the 
 curtain falls, exclaims, 
 
 *'O pre de famille ! 6 poete ! je t'aime ! " 
 
 To understand the startling effect of such a comedy, 
 we must consider the state of the stage in France at 
 the time. It was a cutting rebuke to the followers 
 of Scribe and to the disciples of Dumas. "There is 
 something about murder," Mr. Howells tells us, " some 
 inherent grace or refinement perhaps, that makes its 
 actual representation upon the stage more tolerable 
 than the most diffident suggestion of adultery." M. 
 Scribe and the crowd of collaborators who encompassed 
 him about were of another opinion. The fracture of 
 the Seventh Commandment, actual or imminent, was to
 
 X 
 
 M. Emile Augier. 1 1 3 
 
 be seen at the centre of all pieces of the Scribe type. 
 " There was a need of hearing something which had 
 common sense, and which should lift up, encourage, or 
 console mankind, not so egotistic or foolish as M. 
 Scribe declares it," wrote the younger Dumas ; adding, 
 that a writer "robust, loyal, and keen, presented him- 
 self ; and ' Gabrielle,' with its simple and touching 
 story, with its fine and noble language, was the first 
 revolt against the conventional comedy." 
 
 M. Dumas saw distinctly the blow M. Augier gave to 
 Scribe ; but he did not acknowledge, that at the same 
 time were shaken the foundations of the school in which 
 his father was a leader. As M. fimile Montegut has 
 said, only once did M. Augier take up arms against the 
 Romanticists. "The re-action of the School of Com- 
 mon Sense had, as a whole, but little success, because 
 it especially attacked the literary doctrines of Roman- 
 ticism, which were sufficiently solid to resist. But 
 Romanticism presented more vulnerable points than its 
 doctrines ; for example, the false ideals of sentimen 
 tality it made fashionable, and the brilliant immorality 
 of its works, which had again and again exalted the su 
 periority of passion over duty." With this feeling M. 
 Augier had no sympathy : he is always for duty against 
 passion ; and ' Gabrielle ' was a curt rebuke to 'Antony.' 
 Yet one can but regret, with M. Montegut, that the 
 object was attained by this mild piece, in the author's 
 earlier and gentler manner, rather than by a true com- 
 edy in the hardy and satiric style of his later work 
 Sham sentimentality and misplaced yearnings call for 
 the hot iron of satire ; and the weapon which M. Augier 
 soon forged for use against the hypocrites and schem- 
 ers of the 'Effrontds ' and the Tils de Giboyer' would
 
 H4 French Dramatists. 
 
 have served effectively against personified Romanticism. 
 But, like many another young warrior, M. Augier was 
 a long time finding his right weapon. After writing 
 without aid the seven plays in verse which have been 
 grouped together, he changed about, and took to prose 
 and to collaboration. In the ' Pierre de Touche ' (1853), 
 in which M. Jules Sandeau was a partner, and in ' Cein- 
 ture Dore'e' (1855), in which M. Foussier was a half- 
 partner, a distinct advance can be noted toward what 
 was soon seen to be M. Augier's true road ; and in the 
 'Gendre de M. Poirier ' (1855) he struck the path, and 
 walked straight to the goal. 
 
 To my mind the ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' is the model 
 modern comedy of manners : its one competitor for 
 the foremost place, the ' Demi-Monde ' of M. Dumas, is 
 fatally weighted by its subject. M. Augier gives us 
 a picture of the real world, and not of the half world. 
 M. Montegut truly calls it " not only the best comedy 
 of our time, but the only one which satisfies the idea 
 formerly held as to what a comedy should be." Most 
 modern French comedies are melodramatic ; and more 
 than one successful play by Dumas or Sardou is but a 
 Bowery drama in a dress-coat. But the ' Gendre de 
 M. Poirier ' is pure comedy, and would be recognized as 
 such by Congreve and Sheridan, Lessing and Beau- 
 marchais. It is simple and straightforward in story, 
 and it has no petty artifices or cheap machinery. The 
 interest arises from the clash of character against char- 
 acter, and not from external incidents or ready-made 
 situations. The subject is the old, old strife between 
 blood and wealth, between high birth and a full purse. 
 M. Poirier is a shop-keeper, who, having made a fortune, 
 has political aspirations, which he seeks to advance
 
 M. Emile Augier. 115 
 
 by an alliance with the aristocracy. The Marquis de 
 Presles is a young nobleman without money, but with 
 blood and to spare. The daughter of M. Poirier be- 
 comes the wife of M. de Presles, and is the innocent 
 victim of both father and husband ; and the situations 
 of the play are called forth by the unexpected develop- 
 ment of her character under the pressure of suffering, 
 a character which M. de Presles, although they have 
 been married three months, has hitherto held to be 
 colorless. From idle carelessness the husband gets 
 into trouble, and the young and plebeian wife has twice 
 a chance of saving his patrician honor. There is no 
 palliation of his vice, still less any pandering to it. 
 Nakedly it stands before us, and we see the pain which 
 the empty pursuit of pleasure may bring even on the 
 innocent. A chance of reconciliation is offered to the 
 marquis at a heavy cost of honor ; and this brings about 
 the beautiful scene one of the most pathetic known 
 to the modern stage, and ending in a truly dramatic 
 surprise where the wife nobly rejects the sacrifice, 
 and sends her husband forth to battle for his name. 
 Besides these three characters there are but two others ; 
 and to carry through a full four-act comedy with but 
 five parts is an instance of that calm simplicity which 
 only a very high art can attain. 
 
 The ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' is truly dramatic in every 
 sense, above all in the rare merit of impartiality. The 
 authors do not take sides, and the scales are held with 
 an even hand. Altogether the tone of the play is so 
 honest, healthy, and hardy, and its literary quality is 
 so high, that I am never tired of reading it and prais- 
 ing it. I see in it an almost Molierian inspiration : 
 indeed, it seems to me not only the best French comedy
 
 n6 French Dramatists. 
 
 since Beaumarchais, but better than any between Beau- 
 marchais and Moliere. Beside the noble simplicity of 
 its subject, it has more than one characteristic of the 
 great sad humorist's style : for one thing, it unites, in 
 true Molierian manner, humor and good humor. The 
 humor is searching and liberal, and the good humor is 
 abundant enough to light the whole play with healthy 
 laughter. In the evolution of the characters again we 
 catch a glimpse of Moliere : every one of the five per- 
 sons of the play is at once a type and an individual, 
 true to eternal human nature. In all five can be seen 
 a masculine sturdiness of conception allied to an almost 
 feminine delicacy of delineation. 
 
 This remark reminds me, that, although I have hither- 
 to spoken of the 'Gendre de M. Poirier' as M. Augier's, 
 it is signed also by M. Jules Sandeau. However, no sub- 
 stantial injustice is done ; for, while there is nothing 
 else of M. Sandeau's which will bear comparison with 
 the ' Gendre de M. Poirier,' it is but the best expres- 
 sion of M. Augier's genius. Both M. Augier and M. 
 Sandeau are men of too marked an individuality to 
 gain by collaboration, although in this play the manly 
 vigor of the former and the caressing gentleness of 
 the other blend harmoniously. Not always has the 
 union been so easy. In the 'Pierre de Touche,' for 
 instance, as it has been neatly said, the characters are 
 by the author of the ' Effrontes,' and the situations and 
 scenery are by the author of 'Mile, de la Seigliere.' 
 And in their latest joint-production, 'Jean de Thom- 
 meray,' M. Augier had obviously only borrowed the 
 idea of M. Sandeau's charming tale, and had himself 
 written the whole play, stamped throughout by his 
 muscular hand. "Dans tout concubitns" wrote M.
 
 M. mile Augier. 1 1 7 
 
 Augier in regard to M. Labiche's collaborations, " il y 
 a un male et une femelle." J Now it is not to be 
 doubted that M. Augier is the male. To him that hath 
 shall be given : on ne prete qiiaux riches. So much the 
 worse for M. Sandeau. 
 
 The effect of collaboration is to raise the general 
 level of dramatic workmanship. Partnership makes it 
 easier to learn the difficult trade of playmaking. The 
 beginner full of ideas serves his apprenticeship with 
 the veteran full of experience ; and the association is 
 for mutual profit. But, if we get more good plays, we 
 gain no more great ones. Two minds can rarely have 
 the singleness and simplicity needed to conceive and 
 carry out a truly great idea. Indeed, since Beaumont 
 and Fletcher, the ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' is the first 
 masterpiece ; and its strength and beauty are in great 
 measure owing to the fact that M. Augier and M. 
 Sandeau, like Beaumont and Fletcher, are kindred 
 intellects, thinking alike in important matters, and 
 happily correcting each other in minor details. Gener- 
 ally the two natures either clash irreconcilably, or else 
 emphasize each other's virtues and vices with a conse- 
 quent loss of proportion. This is to be seen even in 
 M. Augier's case, although he has only collaborated 
 with first-rate men, Alfred de Musset, M. Jules San- 
 deau, M. Eugene Labiche, and M. Edouard Foussier ; 
 the first three, like himself, members of the Academy. 
 In 1849 he wrote a little one-act trifle, the 'Habit 
 Vert,' with Musset; and in 1877 he joined M. Eugene 
 Labiche in writing the ' Prix Martin,' a three-act farce ; 
 and neither of these is equal to the average of either 
 of its author's other plays. 
 
 " In every consorting, there must be a male and a female."
 
 1 1 8 French Dramatists. 
 
 To the partnership with M. Foussier we owe one, 
 at least, of M. Augier's most important plays, the 
 'Lionnes Pauvres ' (1858). I can but think that the 
 play would have been better, had M. Augier written it 
 alone. M. Sandeau's gentleness may have corrected 
 M. Augier's occasional acerbity ; and the ' Gendre de 
 M. Poirier' is artistically a finer piece of work than 
 any thing M. Augier did by himself : but M. Fouisser 
 simply says "ditto" to M. Augier, and so their joint 
 work shows an over-accentuation and almost a harsh- 
 ness of tone not to be found in the other plays of the 
 author of the 'Fils de Giboyer.' A comparison of 
 the 'Mariage d'Olympe ' (1855), written alone, with 
 the ' Lionnes Pauvres ' (1858), written with M. Foussier, 
 will show what I mean. In the latter there is an over- 
 emphasis not to be detected in the former; and the 
 conception and dramatic construction is feebler in the 
 joint work than when M. Augier relied on himself 
 alone. These two plays are linked together here, be- 
 cause, although a comedy in verse intervened, in them 
 M. Augier came before the public in an entirely new 
 manner. The ' Dame aux Camelias,' first acted in 
 1852, changed the whole aspect of contemporary dra- 
 matic literature. The merely amusing comedy was 
 pushed from the front rank, to which the skill of Scribe 
 had advanced it ; and, as Scribe fell from his high 
 estate, M. Dumas came to the front as the demonstra- 
 tor of social science set forth upon the stage. A 
 quarter of a century ago M. Dumas had not developed 
 into the moral philosopher who now so calmly surveys 
 mankind from the summit of a preface ; and the moral- 
 ity of his earlier plays was easy, to say the least. The 
 success of these pieces of M. Dumas's was the one
 
 M. Emile Augier. 119 
 
 thing needful to the full fruition of M. Augier's genius. 
 Orderly, fond of home, full of love for the family, and 
 a bitter foe to any insidious attack on these ideals, he 
 saw in the ' Dame aux Camelias/ its successors and its 
 rivals, formidable adversaries with whom to do battle. 
 The school of easy morality offered a shining mark 
 for his satire ; and, in the new dramatic form which 
 Dumas had introduced, Augier found a sure weapon 
 ready to his hand. In the 'Mariage d'Olympe' and in 
 the ' Lionnes Pauvres ' he first showed his willingness 
 to sound a note of warning against social dangers, and 
 displayed a power of grappling with social problems. 
 In both plays the subject is repulsive, and of a kind 
 not now tolerated on the English-speaking stage. An 
 adaptation of the * Lionnes Pauvres,' called ' A False 
 Step,' and made with due decorousness of expression, 
 was refused a license in London in 1878. Plays writ- 
 ten in English, like novels written in English, must be 
 made virginibus puerisque ; and so only half of life 
 gets itself into our literature. In France, fortunately 
 or unfortunately, the dramatic moralist labors under 
 no such limitations. Yet it is to be recorded that the 
 French censors tried to prevent the production of the 
 ' Lionnes Pauvres ' unless it were made more moral ; 
 one of their suggestions, as M. Augier tells us in his 
 preface, being that the vicious woman should, between 
 the fourth and fifth acts, have an attack of small-pox as 
 a " natural consequence of her perversity." 
 
 The late G. H. Lewes, one of the best of dramatic 
 critics, wrote of a revival of this play in 1 867 : " The 
 comedy or shall I not rather call it tragedy? was 
 terribly affecting : the authors have shown us what 
 comedy may be, should be. They have boldly laid bare
 
 I2O French Dramatists. 
 
 one of the hideous sores of social life, and painted the 
 consequences of the present rage for dress and luxury 
 which is rapidly demoralizing the middle classes of 
 Europe." The hideous sore was the possible change 
 from passionate adultery to salaried prostitution for the 
 continuance of luxury and extravagance. The scene 
 is laid in two households ; and we see in one the wife 
 awakening to desertion, and in the other a husband 
 discovering his dishonor. The subject was indeed a 
 bold one; and, if the play had succeeded, it would go 
 far to contradict the assertion, made now and again in 
 Th^ophile Gautier's dramatic criticisms, that the stage 
 never becomes possessed of any idea until it has been 
 worn threadbare in print. Unfortunately the play, 
 although more than once revived, and always well re- 
 ceived, never makes a long stay on the stage. It owes 
 this lack of stability, perhaps, to the very boldness of 
 its subject : this, at least, is the suggestion of M. 
 Sarcey, formulated when the play was last revived, 
 in the fall of 1879. The subject was so novel in 1858, 
 and so hazardous, that the authors did not dare to 
 paint the wicked woman in the vivid colors which the 
 situation demanded : they attenuated the drawing, and 
 filled it in with half-tints, to the obvious weakening of 
 the effect. In spite of this blemish, the 'Lionnes 
 Pauvres ' remains a work of extraordinary vigor and 
 value, one which the future historian of Parisian soci- 
 ety under the Second Empire cannot afford to neglect. 
 Yet as a work of art it is inferior to the ' Mariage 
 d'Olympe,' which M. Augier wrote alone, and which 
 had no success at all. Olympe is a courtesan who 
 tricks an inexperienced young man into a marriage, 
 and by a skilful comedy gets herself recognized by
 
 M. Entile Augier. 121 
 
 his family. Once sure of her position in an honora- 
 ble household, she is seized by the nostalgic de la boue, 
 the longing for the mud, the homesickness for the 
 gutter from which she has been lifted, and in which 
 she had her natural growth. A lover appears, and she 
 sells herself to him from mere wantonness. Brought 
 to bay by her husband's grandfather, the head of his 
 noble house, she threatens to publish a scandal about 
 an innocent young girl, the youngest member of the 
 family. Unable to buy her off, the old marquis shoots 
 her down like a dog. While this was a fit solution of 
 the situation, so violent a method of meting out poetic 
 justice revolted the play-going public ; and the final 
 pistol-shot killed the play as well as the heroine. It 
 came before its time : the public was not ripe for it. 
 Since then the stage has taken a bold stride forward, 
 and a sudden shot has cut the Gordian knot in two of 
 M. Dumas' plays, the ' Princesse Georges,' and the 
 ' Femme de Claude.' On two occasions the ' Mariage 
 d'Olympe ' has been revived to see if a more favorable 
 fortune might not be found for it ; but although re- 
 spectfully received, and although its many good quali- 
 ties are admitted, it has never been able to captivate 
 the general public and to compel admiration from the 
 common throng. 
 
 The heroine of the ' Mariage d'Olympe ' is not so 
 vicious as the heroine of the 'Lionnes Pauvres,' for 
 whom there is no excuse to be made ; and the sudden 
 taking-off of the former is more merciful than the awful 
 perspective opened before us as the certain course of 
 the latter. In each play we have a sickening picture 
 of depravity ; and the stronger the artist's hand, and 
 the finer his art, the more we wish that he had chosen
 
 122 French Dramatists, 
 
 another subject. The orgy in the second act of the 
 ' Mariage d'Olympe ' is as typical in its way as Couture's 
 picture of the Romans of the decadence ; but it is set 
 forth with a decorous pen by an author who respects 
 himself. There is nothing in it of the unspeakable 
 filth of M. Zola's ' Nana ; ' besides, Olympe is true, and 
 in the highest degree artistic, and Nana is conventional 
 in spite of her minute Naturalism. One feels that 
 the mere mention of M. Augier in the same breath with 
 M. Zola is a mistake in taste; yet in the portrait of 
 Olympe there is an impression of main strength which 
 one feels M. Zola must appreciate. I should be 
 tempted to characterize it as violent and brutal, if these 
 were not altogether too harsh words to apply to a 
 writer so well-bred and so keen as M. Augier. It is 
 perhaps safe to say, that, had it been treated by another 
 hand, " violent and brutal " would surely be the exact 
 words to employ. It is not that the note is forced, or 
 that there is any thing false in the treatment : on the 
 contrary, no work of M. Augier is more sober or direct. 
 The painful impression is no doubt due to the repulsion 
 inherent in the subject, and it is this painful impres- 
 sion which has kept the play from attaining general 
 popularity. 
 
 Between the 'Mariage d'Olympe' (1855) and the 
 'Lionnes Pauvres' (1858), M. Augier had reverted to 
 verse in 'La Jeunesse,' acted in 1857. Eleven years 
 later, in 1868, came 'Paul Forestier,' another poetical 
 play. These two are his latest attempts in verse, and 
 may therefore be considered together. ' La Jeunesse ' 
 is closely akin to Ponsard's 'L'Honneur et 1'Argent ' 
 in subject and style. Its verse is not so academic in 
 its elegance as Ponsard's ; but it is fresher, and it has
 
 M. Emile Augier. 123 
 
 more freedom : the flowers of M. Augier's poesy always 
 have their roots in the soil. In spite of the dates, it 
 seems as though ' La Jeunesse ' must have been written 
 just after ' Gabrielle : ' they are informed by the same 
 spirit, and in each is a warning to be seen. 
 
 In as marked contrast as may be to both of these 
 is 'Paul Forestier/ M. Augier's last drama in verse. 
 Indeed, it is so unlike the rest of his plays, that it 
 might almost be taken for the work of another. It is 
 a play of pure passion surchanged with hurrying emo- 
 tion, and culminating in what one cannot but think, 
 in spite of all the skill with which it is done, is a con- 
 ventional conclusion, only caused by a wrenching of 
 the logic of the characters, wherein vice is punished, 
 and virtue rewarded, in spite of themselves. M. Augier's 
 comedies are generally moral in another and nobler 
 manner than this. Here one feels that, given the 
 characters and situation, the outcome would have been 
 different. In general, M. Augier's logic is so inexora- 
 ble, and the moral so entirely a part of the essence of 
 his story, that to come upon this play, in which the 
 moral seems merely tacked on, is something of a shock. 
 The only excuse at hand is that the poet had run away 
 with the moralist, and that the latter got the upper 
 hand only in time to pull up as best he might. 
 
 In America the divorce between poetry and the stage 
 seems to be as final, and as unhealthy for both parties, 
 as the divorce between politics and society. In France 
 one has a chance now and then of hearing an actor 
 speak the language of the gods. The habit of writing 
 in verse is dying out slowly ; yet, as M. Augier has 
 shown us, the poetic attitude is possible even to those 
 who use the language of men. It may well be doubted
 
 124 French Dramatists. 
 
 whether the gradual disappearance of French dramatic 
 verse is greatly to be deplored. The rhymed Alexan- 
 drine is not a fit dramatic instrument : it is, of all met- 
 rical forms, the one least suited to the stage. The 
 theatre requires action, and the Alexandrine is lazy 
 and slow. The theatre requires simplicity, and, above 
 all, directness ; and the Alexandrine lends itself only 
 too easily to the employment of drum-like words, loud- 
 sounding, empty, and monotonous. M. Augier suc- 
 ceeds in overcoming this temptation : so close at times 
 is his verse, that it would be no light task to turn his 
 Alexandrines into English verse, line for line. Style 
 is generally on a level with the thought it clothes. In 
 M. Augier's poetry we find none of the haziness of 
 expression which results from weakness of conception. 
 He sees clearly, and speaks frankly : his verse is flexi- 
 ble, full, and direct. In his antique and mediaeval 
 plays, especially in the ' Aventuriere,' it abounds in 
 grace and color ; and the metre helps to keep up the 
 artificial remoteness of the illusion. 
 
 It is, perhaps, my duty to give a specimen of M. 
 Augier's verse, although I dare not attempt a transla- 
 tion. Here, then, is the indignant rebuke of Fabrice, 
 when Clorinde, the adventuress, claims the right to 
 be treated with the courtesy due to a woman : 
 
 " Vous une femme ? Un lache est-il un homme ? Non . . . 
 Eh bien ! je vous le dis : on doit le meme outrage 
 Aux femmes sans pudeur qu'aux hommes sans courage, 
 Car le droit au respect, la premiere grandeur, 
 Pour nous c'est le courage et pour vous la pudeur. 
 La sainte dignite" que vous avez salie 
 Au lieu de 1'invoquer, souhaitez qu'on 1'oublie. 
 Vous seule, songez-y, mais pour pleurer sur vous. 
 O femme sans amour, sans enfants, sans e'poux ;
 
 M. Emile Augier. 125 
 
 Etrangere au milieu des tendresses humaines, 
 La glace de la mort est de"ja dans vos veines, 
 Et quand vous descendrez au ne"ant du cercueil, 
 II ne s'dteindra rien en vous qu'un peu d'orgueil ! 
 C'est votre chatiment ! Aussi, je vous 1'atteste, 
 Vous me feriez pitie", si vous n'dtiez funeste . . . 
 Mais lorsque je vois, vos parcelles et vous, 
 Repandre vos poisons dans les coeurs les plus doux, 
 Quand surtout vous voulez, par d'odieuses trames, 
 Prendre dans nos maisons le rang d'honnetes femmes, 
 A cote" de nos soeurs lever vos fronts abjects, 
 Et comme notre amour nous volez nos respects ! . . . 
 Tiens, va-t'-en ! " 
 
 (Act iv. sc. 5.) 
 
 Well as M. Augier could handle the Alexandrine, 
 his admirable artistic instinct told him that it could 
 only be used to great disadvantage in attacking the 
 weak points of a more modern and complex civilization. 
 In a play of passion like ' Paul Forestier,' or in a more 
 or less didactic and idealized comedy like ' La Jeunesse/ 
 it might serve ; but in a direct assault on a crying evil, 
 as in the ' Mariage d'Olympe ' or the ' Lionnes Pauvres,' 
 metre would hamper rather than help ; and so verse 
 was discarded for a prose as pointed and as nervous as 
 any dramatist could wish. M. Augier's practice as a 
 poet was of great aid in giving to his prose its form 
 and color : it is a true poet's prose, a prose lifted at 
 times on the wings of poetry, but never to soar out of 
 sight. M. Augier's prose is seemingly hurried at times : 
 it shows, besides the effect of its author's poetic expe- 
 rience, a study of Beaumarchais : one catches at times 
 a faint echo of the " ruse, rase, blas6 " manner of 
 Figaro. It is as picturesque, in its nineteenth-cen- 
 tury way, as was Beaumarchais's ; and it is far more
 
 126 French Dramatists. 
 
 correct and more natural. Indeed, it is the model of 
 dramatic dialogue of our day, terse, tense, racy, and 
 idiomatic. 
 
 Nowhere is M. Augier's style seen to better advan- 
 tage than in the series of startling comedies of con- 
 temporary life which he brought forth between 1861 
 and 1869. The avenging pistol-shot was abandoned 
 for the whip-lash of satire. At bottom, both the 
 ' Mariage d'Olympe ' and the ' Lionnes Pauvres ' were 
 dramas. There can be no doubt that the ' Effronte's ' 
 and the ' Fils de Giboyer ' are comedies : they are 
 models of what the modern comedy of manners should 
 be ; they show no trace of melodrama, and the interest 
 arises naturally from the clash of character against 
 character. Therefore it is not a little difficult to con- 
 vey an idea of their high merit ; for no rehearsal of 
 the plot fairly represents the play, because the plot is 
 a secondary consideration ; and any description of char- 
 acter is pale and weak copying of what in the comedies 
 moves before us with all the myriad hues of life. 
 
 "There has never been a literary age," so Joubert 
 tells us, " in which the dominant taste was not sickly. 
 The success of an excellent author consists in making 
 healthy works agreeable to sickly tastes." M. Augier 
 boldly surmounted this difficulty by making the sickly 
 tastes of his age a literary one beyond all question 
 the theme of his satire. He attacked contemporary 
 demoralization in four comedies, the ' Eff rentes ' 
 (1861), the 'Fils de Giboyer' (1862), the 'Contagion' 
 (1866), and ' Lions et Renards' (1869). No one of them 
 was so calmly artistic or symmetrical as the ' Gendre 
 de M. Poirier,' but all four of them, taken together 
 and considered as one, are more exactly typical of his
 
 X 
 
 M. Emile Augier. 127 
 
 genius, and give us an even higher opinion of it. The 
 ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' remains M. Augier's best play ; 
 but in his series of satiric comedies there are characters 
 who linger in the memory even longer than M. Poirier 
 himself, Giboyer, for instance, who ties together the 
 first two plays ; and d'Estrigaud, who links the other 
 pair. 
 
 In the ' Effrontes ' an assault was made on discredit- 
 able speculation, and undue respect for mere money 
 whencesoever derived. In the ' Fils de Giboyer ' in 
 which Giboyer, a Bohemian of the press, and the 
 Marquis d'Auberive, a representative of the old nobili- 
 ty, re-appeared from the preceding play a plain pic- 
 ture was presented of clerical intriguing in politics. 
 All at once M. Augier found himself in a wasp's nest. 
 Clericalism was in arms ; and M. Augier received hot 
 shot and heavy from newspaper and pamphlet, accus- 
 ing him of odious personalities, calling him Aristopha- 
 nes, and recalling the legend that the death of Socrates 
 was due to the attacks of the great Greek humorist. 
 The likeness to Aristophanes was not altogether inapt ; 
 for, without the license of the Greek, the Frenchman 
 had the same directness of thrust. He indignantly 
 repelled the accusation of personality, while frankly 
 admitting that one character and but one was 
 drawn from the living model. This was Deodat, in 
 which everybody had recognized Veuillot, the ultra- 
 montane gladiator and papal-bull fighter. The denial 
 availed little. A disreputable pamphleteer who called 
 himself Eugene de Mirecourt, author of a series of 
 prejudiced and inaccurate contemporary biographies, 
 professed to recognize himself in Giboyer (without war- 
 rant, surely ; for, in spite of his vice and venality, Gi-
 
 "** jr 
 
 128 French Dramatists. 
 
 boyer was sound at the core) ; and this fellow published, 
 in answer to the ' Fils de Giboyer,' a stout volume called 
 the ' Petit-fils de Pigault-Lebrun,' in which he tried to 
 hit M. Augier over the shoulder of his grandfather, 
 gathering together stores of apocryphal anecdotes and 
 doubtful jests. 
 
 Nothing daunted by this rain of invective, but hold- 
 ing it rather as proof that he had hit the mark, M. 
 Augier returned to the assault. One may guess that 
 he delights in the combat, and is never so happy as 
 when giving battle for the right. In this case he 
 showed that he had what we Yankees call " grit." He 
 brought out a new pair of plays. In the ' Contagion,' 
 as in the 'Effrontes,' he attacked a general evil, the 
 cheap scepticism of the hour, the want of faith in the 
 future, the ribald scoffing at things hitherto held sacred. 
 Then in ' Lions et Renards,' as in the ' Fils de Giboyer,' 
 he used one of the characters, fully developed in the 
 earlier play, as a mainspring of the polemic action of 
 the later. In the ' Contagion ' we see the Baron d'Es- 
 trigaud, most keen and quick-witted of rascals, carrying 
 off his rascality with an easy grace, and taking things 
 with a high hand. In ' Lions et Renards ' clericalism 
 re-appears again in the person of a M. de St. Agathe, 
 mentioned already in the ' Fils de Giboyer,' and here 
 brought boldly upon the stage : he is one who has sac- 
 ficed every thing, even his identity, to the order of 
 which he is an unknown instrument, from sheer lust of 
 power wielded in secret. The struggle between these 
 two, D'Estrigaud and St. Agathe, for a fortune which 
 neither of them captures, is exciting. In the end, by 
 a sudden irony, the beaten D'Estrigaud abandons the 
 world, forgives his enemies, and, under the eyes of St.
 
 M. Entile Augier. 129 
 
 Agathe, takes to religion, the last resort of rascals, 
 to paraphrase Dr. Johnson. 
 
 While no one of these four comedies, as I have said, 
 is artistically equal to the ' Gendre de M. Poirier,' yet 
 taken together they give us a still higher opinion of 
 M. Augier's genius. No other dramatic author of this 
 century can point to four such pieces : no other drama- 
 tist of our day has put before us so many distinct in- 
 dividualities, and shown them before us in action, each 
 after its kind. There are no longer preachments ; there 
 are a bit of action and a single line instead, and the 
 evil is summed up better than by a score of sermons. 
 The dialogue is sharp and short : it has a satiric wit, 
 which cuts like a lash when it does not bite like an acid. 
 The wit is really wit, a diamond of the first water, trans- 
 parent and clear. There is none of the rough-and-ready 
 repartee only too common in many modern English 
 plays, the rudeness of which recalls Goldsmith's asser- 
 tion, that there was no arguing with Dr. Johnson ; for, 
 if his pistol missed fire, he knocked you down with the 
 butt. M. Augier's pistol does not miss fire. 
 
 The series of comedies of manners which I have here 
 grouped together was interrupted in 1865 by 'Maltre 
 Guerin,' as well as by the poetic drama 'Paul Fores- 
 tier' (1868). 'Maitre Guerin ' is analyzed at length in 
 Mr. Lewes's valuable volume on ' Actors and the Art of 
 Acting.' Although showing many of M. Augier's ever- 
 admirable qualities, it is lacking in the symmetry of 
 the ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' and in the sharp savor of 
 the later satires : it pales by the side of either. In the 
 same year (1869) that he brought out 'Lions et Re- 
 nards ' he gave us also the ' Postscriptum,' one of the 
 brightest and most brilliant little one-act comedies in
 
 130 French Dramatists. 
 
 any language, and to be warmly recommended to 
 American readers. The next year came the war with 
 Prussia and the two sieges of Paris. 
 
 The first play which M. Victorien Sardou brought 
 out after France had gone through these terribles trials 
 was the trivial ' Roi Garotte,' a fairy spectacle ; and the 
 second was the illiberal and re-actionary ' Rabagas.' M. 
 Augier's first play was the stirring and patriotic * Jean 
 de Thommeray ' (1873) : love for home and love for the 
 fatherland are rarely separated. 'Jean de Thommeray' 
 was a series of energetic pictures of the demoralization 
 which had led to defeat : its fault was that it was only 
 a series of pictures, and not a homogeneous drama. M. 
 Augier had borrowed his hero from M. Sandeau's tale ; 
 and Jean de Thommeray himself was almost the only 
 link connecting the succeeding acts. The play thus 
 lacked backbone ; its parts were not knit together by 
 the bond of a common life : it was rather a polyp, any 
 one of whose members, when detached, is as capable 
 of separate life as the original whole. 
 
 M. Augier's later plays call for little comment. In 
 1877 was acted the 'Prix Martin,' signed by M. Augier 
 and by M. Eugene Labiche. It is not noteworthy ; and 
 M. Augier has himself told us that his share of the 
 work was confined to a partnership in the plan and to 
 a slight revision of M. Labiche' s dialogue. The year 
 before, M. Augier brought out 'Mme. Caverlet,' and 
 the year after, the ' Fourchambault.' The latter was 
 very successful, but neither is in M. Augier's best man- 
 ner. The first is a plea for divorce, and the second a 
 plea for the solidarity of the family ; and both are what 
 on the English stage are called "domestic dramas." 
 
 In all, M. Augier has written twenty-seven plays,
 
 M. Emile Augier. 131 
 
 great and small. Of these, nine are in verse. Eight 
 times he had a literary partner. At least ten out of 
 the twenty-seven are plays of the first order, not to be 
 equalled in the repertory of any contemporary drama- 
 tist ; and of these ten, three the * Aventuriere,' the 
 ' Gendre de M. Poirier,' and the ' Fils de Giboyer ' 
 are surely classics in the strictest sense of the term. 
 According to Lowell, " a classic is properly a book 
 which maintains itself by virtue of that happy coales- 
 cence of matter and style, that innate and exquisite 
 sympathy between the thought that gives life and the 
 form which consents to every mood of grace and dig- 
 nity, which can be simple without being vulgar, elevated 
 without being distant, and which is something neither 
 ancient nor modern, always new, and incapable of grow- 
 ing old." Judged by this test, the 'Aventuriere,' the 
 ' Gendre de M. Poirier,' and the ' Fils de Giboyer,' are 
 classics beyond all peradventure. 
 
 The first thing which strikes one who surveys M. 
 Augier's literary career is the combination of original- 
 ity and individuality with great susceptibility to external 
 influence. He is a self-reliant man, but quick to take 
 a hint. He was at first accepted as a disciple of Pon- 
 sard ; and perhaps the ' Cigue ' did owe something to 
 ' Lucrece,' and ' La Jeunesse ' to ' L'Honneur et 1'Ar- 
 gent.' But to my mind, even in Augier's comedies of 
 antiquity, there was a greater obligation to Alfred de 
 Musset. They wrote together a little piece of no 
 consequence ; and Mussel's influence may be traced in 
 all M. Augier's earlier plays of fantasy, in which the 
 scene, wherever the poet may declare it to be, in reality 
 is laid in the enchanted forest of Arden, or in that
 
 132 French Dramatists. 
 
 Bohemia which is a desert country by the sea. In the 
 technical construction of ' Diane ' there was something 
 of the manner of Victor Hugo : that M. Augier's verse 
 was indebted to Hugo for its freedom from the eigh- 
 teenth-century shackles goes without saying. Neither 
 Scribe nor the elder Dumas tempted him ; but, with 
 the first work of the younger M. Dumas, M. Augier 
 saw at a glance the prospect it opened. Combined 
 with this suggestion of new worlds to conquer, given 
 by M. Dumas, was a study of Balzac's methods. With- 
 out the ' Recherche de 1' Absolu ' we should not have 
 had 'Maitre Gu6rin,' just as, if there had been no 
 ' Dame aux Camelias,' there had also been no ' Mariage 
 d'Olympe.' 
 
 I have ill expressed myself, if, from the paragraph 
 above, any one infers that M. Augier has been guilty 
 of any servile copying. Nothing could be less true. 
 He is a man of marked individuality, and in his works 
 strongly self-assertive. Nothing like imitation is to be 
 discovered in his dramas. Another man's work is to 
 him only an exciting cause, to use a medical phrase. 
 The analogies to Ponsard, Musset, and Hugo, are sub- 
 tile and probably unconscious ; and the indebtedness to 
 M. Dumas is comprised in the assertion that the author 
 of the ' Dame aux Camelias ' turned over a new leaf of 
 the history of French dramatic literature, a leaf upon 
 which M. Augier wrote his name with his own pen. 
 The obligation to Balzac is no more than that M. 
 Augier studied human nature with Balzac as his master. 
 It is by his knowledge of human nature, and by his 
 skill in turning this knowledge to account, that poster- 
 ity judges an author. M. Augier is fit to survive : he is 
 a great creator of unforgettable figures, a true poet in
 
 M. mile Augier. 133 
 
 the Greek sense, a "maker." Giboyer is one of the 
 most puissant characters of the nineteenth century ; 
 he seems to sum it up ; he walks right out of literature 
 into life. He is no mere profile silhouette, such as M. 
 Sardou cuts so cleverly : he is rounded and ruddy flesh 
 and blood, one of the glorious company of Sancho 
 Panza, Falstaff, Tartuffe, and Captain Costigan. Scarce- 
 ly less extraordinary in their absolute truth to life are 
 D'Estrigaud and D'Auberive, who, like Giboyer himself, 
 are made to appear in more than one work, a device 
 Balzac may have borrowed from Moliere. Who is there, 
 having any knowledge of French character, does not 
 see the marvellous reality of Poirier and of his noble 
 son-in-law, the Marquis de Presles ? And is not the 
 high-art cook whose resignation M. Poirier receives, 
 is he not a worthy descendant of the coachman-cook 
 who was in the service of Harpagon ? 
 
 M. Zola who looks forward to an impossible regen- 
 eration of the stage, from which convention is to be 
 banished, and every thing is to be as dull as every day, 
 in the interest of naturalistic exactness recognizes in 
 M. Augier a creator of actual characters, and calls him 
 the master of the French stage. " Seraphine," says M. 
 Zola of the heroine of the ' Lionnes Pauvres,' " is a 
 daring figure, put squarely on her feet, of an absolute 
 truth." And M. Zola praises Guerin, who " has a final 
 impenitence of the newest and truest effect." He 
 objects that some of M. Augier's characters are too 
 good to live, and that others change front in an instant 
 before the curtain falls. In M. Zola's eyes any noble 
 character is unnatural : Colonel Newcome, for instance, 
 is too good to live. But his other criticism has some 
 slight foundation : there are characters of M. Augier's
 
 134 French Dramatists. 
 
 who reform with undue haste, in ' Gabrielle ' for 
 example, and in ' Paul Forestier.' 
 
 M. Augier's women are all admirable. In his devo- 
 tion to the family he has drawn woman fit to be the 
 goddess of the fireside. He excels alike in the young 
 girl, clear-headed and warm-hearted, perfectly jeune fille 
 according to French ideas, but with a little spark of 
 independence, with a head of her own, and a willingness 
 to use it if need be ; and in the clever woman of the 
 world, skilled in all the turns and tricks of society, 
 quick-witted and keen-tongued, and able to hold her 
 own. His women, good or bad, are thoroughly femi- 
 nine and human : they are neither men in women's 
 clothes, nor dolls ; they have hearts and sex. He has 
 drawn brilliant portraits of wicked women, Seraphine 
 and Olympe, and, above all, Navarette, and he de- 
 lights in showing their true womanhood, and, as in the 
 ' Aventuriere,' redeeming them almost at the last with 
 a few words of simple dignity and pathos. In none of 
 these qualities can any trace of foreign influence be 
 detected : they are purely personal. 
 
 Purely personal also are his hatred of hypocrisy, his 
 trust in the future, his belief in progress, his respect 
 for toil. To these last two qualities is due his liking 
 for modern invention and discovery. In the 'Beau 
 Mariage ' the hero is a chemical experimenter ; in the 
 ' Lions et Renards ' he is an African explorer ; while in 
 the ' Fourchambault ' he is a specimen of the highest 
 type of mercantile sagacity. National, rather than per- 
 sonal, is the occasional note of bad taste. In general, 
 the French pay an exaggerated respect to the Fifth 
 Commandment, to balance, perhaps, the frequent frac- 
 ture of the Seventh : so the scene in the ' Contagion/
 
 M. Emile Augier. 135 
 
 where the hero chances on his mother's love-letter in 
 the midst of a disreputable supper, comes with an un- 
 expected shock. There is another scene in the ' Four- 
 chambault,' this time directly between the mother and 
 the son, which no Anglo-Saxon pen could have written. 
 But these taints are rare. For the most part, M. 
 Augier's characters live, move, and have their being, in 
 a clear, pure atmosphere, as different as may be from 
 the moral miasma which hangs over Balzac's landscapes. 
 Mentally and morally M. Augier is a well-balanced 
 writer, and his works are symmetrical. We see in him 
 an intellect in equilibrium, well poised on itself, and 
 sure of its stability. A great critic has told us that the 
 grand style is not the so-called classic, with its finish 
 and polish and point, but something larger, freer, 
 ampler ; something not incompatible with a homely 
 realism in matters of detail, if, indeed, a truly grand 
 style does not demand a rigorous calling of the thing 
 by its right name, be it never so humble. As Moliere 
 in his day and Beaumarchais in his were in the grand 
 style, so is M. Augier, each in his degree. The pro- 
 gressive civilization of the nineteenth century is per- 
 haps as hampering as the pseudo-classic formality of 
 the seventeenth. It is high praise to say that the 
 words which describe one of M. Augier's characters, 
 and which Herr Lindau aptly applies to their author, 
 are as fitting to him as they are to his great master, 
 Moliere : " Un cceur simple et tendre, un esprit droit 
 et sur, une loyaute royale." A simple and tender 
 heart, an upright and sure spirit, a royal loyalty, these 
 are noble gifts which no one can deny the author of the 
 'Gendre de M. Poirier,' of the ' Aventuriere/ of the 
 'Fils de Giboyer,' and of the 'Mariage d'Olympe.'
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS fils. 
 
 WITH the appearance on the stage of the younger 
 Alexandre Dumas, a fresh force came into the French 
 drama. To say this is easy ; but to qualify this force 
 adequately, and to define its limits, is no light task. 
 The two other dramatists, each in his way remarkable, 
 who stand to-day with M. Dumas at the head of French 
 dramatic literature, are comparatively simple problems. 
 In M. Sardou we see the utmost cleverness and tech- 
 nical skill, heightened by a girding wit : he continues 
 the tradition of Scribe, adding all the modern improve- 
 ments. In M. Augier we behold a high and genuine 
 literary value, a broad and humorous humanity he 
 inherits by right of primogeniture from Moliere, and 
 observes mankind with the large frankness of his 
 master. But M. Dumas continues no tradition. He is 
 that rare thing in literature, a self-made man. He 
 derives from no one. He expresses himself, and with 
 emphasis : he is a personal force. Not condescending 
 to the ingenious trickery of M. Sardou, and never rising 
 to the lofty liberality of M. Augier, his place in the 
 dramatic hierarchy is not so readily fixed as theirs, his 
 character is not so simple : in fact, it may fairly be called 
 complex and even contradictory. Here, for instance, 
 is a bundle of inconsistencies : with a real power for 
 creating character, there is no dramatist who has more 
 often and more boldly than he brought forward the 
 136
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fits. 137 
 
 same faces and figures. While declaring in one volume 
 that he knows no immoral plays, but only ill-made ones, 
 in another volume he asserts that the stage of itself is 
 immoral. Setting forth in one piece the right of assas- 
 sinating the wife taken in adultery, he sets forth in the 
 next the duty of forgiving her. In comedies inherently 
 vicious he pauses to preach virtue, but with a blunt- 
 ness of language at times shocking even to vice. He 
 has written the 'Ami des Femmes' and the 'Visite de 
 Noces,' two plays which imply that their author does 
 not suspect what " good taste " means ; and yet he has 
 been elected a member of the French Academy, con- 
 stituted to be a tribunal of taste. The historian of the 
 ' Dame aux Camelias,' and the discoverer of the ' Demi- 
 Monde,' a word with which he has enriched the 
 vocabulary of the world, he has stood forward in the 
 name of the Academy to bestow prizes of virtue. The 
 son of a prodigal father always poor, he himself is 
 wealthy and frugal. And finally, brought up in all the 
 looseness of the lightest Parisian society, he has the 
 Bible at his fingers' ends, and quotes the Scripture as 
 freely as an orthodox New-Englander. With such a 
 character and such a career, M. Dumas is one of the 
 most interesting and curiously complex figures of our 
 century. 
 
 The literary baggage of M. Dumas is not over bulky. 
 Exclusive of about a dozen juvenile novels of little or 
 no value, it is contained in eleven volumes. The col- 
 lected edition of his plays in which each piece was 
 accompanied by a preface, wherein the author frees his 
 mind began to appear in 1868: the sixth, and, for the 
 present, final volume was issued late in 1879. Under 
 the apt title of ' Entr'actes ' a collection of his miscel
 
 138 French Dramatists. 
 
 laneous essays came out in three volumes in 1878-79. 
 The dramaturgical chapters are of great value ; the 
 general literary papers are interesting ; and so com- 
 petent a critic as M. Auguste Laugel has at length, 
 in letters to the Nation, praised the political portions. 
 A later novel, the 'Affaire Cle"menceau,' put forth in 
 1867, and two pamphlets on divorce and the woman- 
 question, published within two years, complete the 
 list of M. Dumas's acknowledged works. More or less 
 anonymously he has had a hand in half a dozen plays 
 not wholly his own : chief among these are the ' Sup- 
 plice d'une Femme ' of M. Girardin, and the ' Danicheff.' 
 Another play, the ' Filleul de Pompignac/ acted anony- 
 mously, and not yet included among his collected plays, 
 seems, however, to have been acknowledged by him. It 
 is as a dramatist only that M. Dumas is now to be con- 
 sidered. Such portions of the books mentioned above 
 may be passed over as do not either relate directly to 
 the stage, or reveal peculiarities of the author's char- 
 acter. As far as may be, attention will be confined to 
 the twelve important plays which M. Dumas produced 
 in the twenty-five years, 1852-76. 
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils was born in Paris in July, 
 1824, a few days after his father was twenty-one years 
 old, and a few years before his father had begun that 
 career of literary notoriety and inexhaustible produc- 
 tion which was to end only with his death. Like his 
 grandfather, he was an illegitimate son, a fact which 
 seems to have given a congenital bias to his future 
 writings. In one of his many autobiographic frag- 
 ments the elder Dumas referred grandiloquently to the 
 birth of his son: "The 2Qth of July, 1824, whilst the 
 Duke of Montpensier was coming into the world, there
 
 M, Alexandre Dumas fils. 139 
 
 was born to me a Duke of Chartres." M. Dumas him- 
 self, in a letter to M. Cuvillier-Fleury, which serves as 
 a preface to the ' Femme de Claude,' speaks of the cir- 
 cumstances of his birth with real eloquence : he pro- 
 tests against the law which marked him, an innocent 
 babe, with the stigma of illegitimacy. " Happily my 
 mother was a noble woman, who worked to bring me 
 up, my father being a petty employee at twelve hundred 
 francs a year. And by a happy chance it turned out 
 that my father was impulsive, but good. . . . When, 
 after his first successes as a dramatist, he thought he 
 could count on the future, he formally acknowledged 
 me as his son, and gave me his name. This was much. 
 The law did not compel him ; and I was so grateful to 
 him for it, that I have borne the name as nobly as I 
 could." 
 
 The boy was then put to school under Prosper 
 Goubaux, one of the authors of 'Thirty Years, or A 
 Gambler's Life,' and of ' Louise de Lignerolles.' His 
 school-fellows bullied him unmercifully because he was 
 a natural son. " My torture, which I have depicted in 
 the 'Affaire Clemenceau,' and of which I did not speak 
 to my mother, so as not to worry her, lasted five or six 
 years." These years of suffering gave him the habits 
 of observation and reflection. Removed finally to an- 
 other school, he regained his strength and his growth. 
 At twenty he was a healthy lad, who, having known 
 misery, was only too eager for pleasure enough to 
 balance the account. His father, making and spending 
 hand over fist, was glad to have his son share in his 
 prodigalities ; and M. Dumas soon plunged headlong 
 into the vortex of Parisian dissipation. But, to quote 
 again from his letter, " I did not take great delight
 
 140 French Dramatists. 
 
 in these facile pleasures. I observed and studied more 
 than I enjoyed in this turbulent life." Yet he was 
 swept along by the current for several years, writing 
 juvenile novels, more or less imitations of his father's 
 inimitable fictions, gathering a load of debts, and lay- 
 ing up a stock of adventures and experiences for future 
 literary consumption. In all his earlier plays he drew 
 from the living model. The ' Dame aux Came"lias,' and 
 ' Diane de Lys,' and even the ' Demi-Monde,' were, as he 
 tells us, " the echo, or rather, the re-action, of a personal 
 emotion to which art gave a development and a logical 
 conclusion happily lacking in life." One may, perhaps, 
 hazard the suggestion, that since M. Dumas has ex- 
 hausted his personal experiences, and has had to rely 
 altogether on his invention, as in the ' fitrangere ' and 
 the 'Princess of Bagdad,' his plays are not nearly so 
 good : whence we may fairly infer that the early adven- 
 tures of the man were necessary for the full develop- 
 ment of the author. 
 
 " It was the play of the ' Dame aux Cam61ias ' which 
 began to free me from the slavery of debt and of the 
 society to which I owed both the debt and the success. 
 I promised myself not to fall back, either into debt or 
 into this society ; and I kept my promise at the risk of 
 being called ungrateful." Written when the author 
 was but little older than twenty-one, the novel of the 
 ' Dame aux Came"lias ' had been published with striking 
 success just before the Revolution of 1848. It decked 
 out afresh a figure of which the French seem fonder 
 than any other race. Manon Lescaut gave birth to 
 Marion Delorme, and Marion Delorme was the mother 
 of the Dame aux Camelias, who, in turn, may vainly 
 deny her latest offspring, Nana. Truly it is an un-
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 141 
 
 savory brood. The popularity of the novel suggested 
 its dramatization. The elder Dumas thought ill of the 
 project ; and it was not until a melodramatist showed 
 the author the scenario of a black melodrama which 
 'he had taken from the novel, that, in sheer revolt at 
 such treatment, M. Dumas himself set to work at it. 
 
 In eight days the play was finished, so the author 
 tells us ; and the statement does not seem extravagant. 
 As in the case of the ' Supplice d'une Femme,' which 
 he wrote later with extraordinary rapidity, he had his 
 material all under his hand ; and the play was not com- 
 edy, which calls for slow incubation, but a drama of 
 simple passion, which could be struck off at white-heat. 
 In spite of the speed of its production, the ' Dame aux 
 Camelias,' of all plays which an author has made out 
 of his novel, shows least traces of a previous existence. 
 One would suppose that every stage-door in Paris 
 would open wide to receive a dramatization of his suc- 
 cessful novel by the son of one of the foremost novel- 
 ists and dramatists of France. But it was more than 
 three years before the play was tried by the fire of the 
 footlights. Rejected by nearly every theatre in Paris, 
 it was at last accepted at the Vaudeville, only to be 
 vetoed by the censors. Patronized by the Duke of 
 Morny, the government interdict suppressed it until 
 after the bloody 2d of December, 1851, when the duke 
 himself entered the ministry. He believed in provid- 
 ing sensations for the people of Paris, and, if possible, 
 in diverting attention from politics to the playhouse. 
 The 'Dame aux Camelias' was brought out at the 
 Vaudeville Theatre, Paris, Feb. 2, 1852. It was an 
 instant success, holding the stage for a hundred nights 
 or more. It has since been revived in Paris half a
 
 142 French Dramatists. 
 
 dozen times, and always with the same success. A 
 mutilated and innocuous alteration of it, prepared by 
 Miss Jean Davenport (afterward the wife of Gen. Lan- 
 der), was acted by her in America : it was called ' Ca- 
 mille, or the Fate of a Coquette/ an absurd title, which 
 shows how the story suffered in the interest of Pro- 
 crustean morality. Later the piece was taken up by 
 Miss Matilda Heron. An Italian version of the play 
 served Signer Verdi as the book of his 'Traviata/ an 
 opera of which the lord-chamberlain permitted the per- 
 formance in London while prohibiting the acting of the 
 original French play. 
 
 The ' Dame aux Came'lias ' was at once simple, pa- 
 thetic, and audacious. It emancipated French comedy, 
 and gave it the right of free speech. To judge it fairly, 
 one must consider the comedies which held the French 
 stage before its coming. There were Scribe and his 
 collaborators, with their conventional and machine-made 
 works ; and there were Ponsard and M. Augier, with 
 their plays, poetic in intent and finely polished, but as 
 yet reflecting nothing vital and actual. The great merit 
 of the ' Dame aux Camelias ' is, that it changed the face 
 of modern French comedy by pointing out the path 
 back to nature, and the existing conditions of society, 
 and by showing that life should be studied as it was, 
 and not as it had been, or as it might be. There is no 
 need to dwell on the character of the play. As M. 
 Mont^gut pointed out over twenty years ago in the 
 Revue des Deux Mondes, the story of a courtesan's love 
 may be a poetic subject if treated with elevation, or 
 it may be a degrading subject if treated realistically ; 
 adding that M. Dumas had chosen a middle course, and 
 that the result was little more than a vulgar melodrama.
 
 J/. Alexandre Dumas fils. 143 
 
 Before M. Montegut wrote, the subject had been treated 
 poetically in Hugo's ' Marion Delorme ; ' since, it has 
 been set forth with unspeakable realism, or Naturalism 
 rather, in M. Zola's 'Nana.' In M. Dumas's play we 
 avoid the offensiveness of the latter, but we miss wholly 
 the poetry of the former. On one of its revivals a com- 
 petent French critic declared that it bore itself, even in 
 its old age, like a masterpiece ; and an equally compe- 
 tent American critic recorded that he had had a hearty 
 laugh over its " colossal flimsiness." It is, in fact, not 
 to be taken too seriously. It carries one along by the 
 rush of youthful strength ; yet one has time to note 
 phrases horribly out of tune, and to detect a sort of 
 sentimentality run mad. Its morality is cheap, not to 
 say tawdry : in short, the play seems to me youthful 
 in the objectionable sense of the word, and I am half 
 inclined to think that the Dame aux Camelias herself 
 is doing exactly what she is best fitted for when she 
 serves as the heroine of an Italian opera. 
 
 This may seem a harsh judgment. It is perhaps only 
 fair to add, that, although the ' Dame aux Camelias ' is 
 not at all a work of genius, it is a work which could have 
 been written only by a genius. It is a work of the 
 Werther type, in that it is the result of youthful effer- 
 vescence and the period of ferment which needs must 
 precede the riper, richer, purer work of the author's 
 maturity. Flimsy it is, if you will, and of a shabby 
 morality ; but it is not insincere. The author said what 
 he thought when he wrote it, or, rather, what he felt ; 
 for he had scarcely begun to think then. When he did 
 begin to think, his views of the courtesan changed 
 entirely, and so did his treatment of her. It is in the 
 treatment of Marguerite Gautier, and not in the mere
 
 144 French Dramatists. 
 
 bringing forward of such a character on the stage, that 
 the ' Dame aux Camelias ' is immoral. A courtesan is 
 the chief figure of M. Augier's ' Manage d'Olympe/ 
 and no play is more moral. Where the ethics of the 
 ' Dame aux Camelias ' are at fault is, not in the taking 
 of a courtesan for the heroine : it is in the failure to 
 show that so self-sacrificing a courtesan as Marguerite 
 Gautier was an exception. In any later play, M. Dumas, 
 had he chosen to treat the subject anew, would have 
 proved conclusively, and by a few simple and direct 
 touches, that a Marguerite Gautier was as rare as a 
 white blackbird, and as little likely to be chanced upon 
 by the wayfarer. Here occasion offers to say, once for 
 all, that the 'Dame aux Camellias' is not now to be 
 judged by the light of Dumas's later plays. It has no 
 thesis ; it was meant to point no moral ; it was written 
 off-hand and carelessly, with no thought but to tell a 
 touching story as touchingly as possible. 
 
 The second play of M. Dumas, ' Diane de Lys,' calls 
 for no detailed criticism. Like its predecessor, it was 
 taken from an earlier novel ; and, as M. Dumas himself 
 suggests, the second play is inferior to the first. It 
 cost but a few days' work, and was written to pay off 
 lingering debts ; and it shows that the impulse which 
 called it into being was wholly external. It is a manu- 
 factured product, a re-working of old material, lacking 
 wholly the youthful freshness which gave the 'Dame 
 aux Camelias ' so individual a savor. Paul, the hero, 
 like his forerunner Armand, is obviously a projection 
 of the author's own profile. Neither Armand nor Paul 
 comes up to our standard of a gentleman. In his first 
 scene with Diane, Paul heedlessly and needlessly betrays 
 the confidence of the friend who has just presented him
 
 M. Alexandra Dumas fils. 145 
 
 to her. Diane herself is none too ladylike : she seems 
 a sort of study for that much finer portrait, the Duchess 
 in the ' fitrangere.' But with time M. Dumas's touch 
 had become firmer and more delicate. The Duchess 
 would be above the brutal frankness of Diane, who, 
 when her husband's sister begs her to guard the family 
 honor, and to remember that she bears the family name, 
 retorts point blank, " There's no danger that I forget it : 
 your name costs me enough. I paid four millions for 
 it." 
 
 ' Diane de Lys,' however, did one thing : it freed the 
 author from debt, and enabled him to devote eleven full 
 months to the execution of his next and best play, 
 the 'Demi-Monde.' Intended for the Gymnase Theatre, 
 the author was constrained to offer it to the Comedie- 
 Franc.aise, dexterously choosing his time, however, so 
 that it might be rejected. Acted at the Gymnase in 
 1855, a score of years later it was triumphantly adopted 
 by Comedie-Franc.aise, where it is now a chief comedy 
 in the current repertory. A word as to the title, before 
 we consider the comedy itself. By the phrase demi- 
 monde M. Dumas meant, not the class of courtesans, 
 but the class of exiles from society. The half-world 
 is peopled by those who have fallen from grace, and 
 not by such as have always been outcasts and sinners. 
 It is, in the main, an association of repudiated wives. 
 As de Jalin, the witty Parisian of the play, tells de 
 Nanjac, the soldier just fresh from Algeria, "The first 
 wife who was thrust from the door went to hide her 
 shame, and weep over her sin, in the most sombre retreat 
 she could find ; but the second ? The second set out 
 to find the first ; and, when they were two, they called 
 their fault a misfortune, and their crime an error; and
 
 146 French Dramatists. 
 
 they began to console and excuse each other. When 
 they were three, they invited each other out to dinner. 
 When they were four, they had a quadrille." And then 
 de Jalin goes on to account for the later recruits, 
 imitation widows, and brevet wives : " in short, all the 
 women who wish to have it believed that they have been 
 what they are not, and who do not wish to appear what 
 they are." There is a distinct boundary-line between 
 this society and that of the venal courtesans who have 
 since arrogated to themselves the title of the demi- 
 monde. There is an equally distinct boundary-line be 
 t ween this society and the real monde, the world of 
 fashion and society at large : " it is to be known best 
 of all," says de Jalin, " by the absence of the husband." 
 In what is the most celebrated speech in the comedy, 
 de Jalin likens the demi-monde to a basket of peaches 
 in the window of a Parisian fruiterer. You ask the price 
 of a basket in which each peach is carefully wrapped in 
 paper, and protected by leaves : these peaches are thirty 
 cents apiece. Alongside of this basket is a second, in 
 which the fruit is seemingly as good, save that it is 
 somewhat huddled together ; but the price of these is 
 but fifteen cents. If you ask why there is this differ- 
 ence, the dealer lifts one of the latter carefully, and 
 shows you a little spot on its lower side. The fifteen- 
 cent peaches are all speckled, and the demi-monde is a 
 basket of fifteen-cent peaches. 
 
 The play sets forth the struggles of a clever woman, 
 Suzanne d'Ange, calling herself a baroness, to get out 
 of the troubled waters of this doubtful world into the 
 haven of matrimonial respectability. M. de Nanjac, a 
 hot-headed and warm-hearted young soldier, has fallen 
 in love with her just after his arrival from Africa; and,
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fits. 147 
 
 unsuspecting her past, he is about to marry her. But 
 his friend M. de Jalin has the best of reasons for 
 knowing her to be unworthy ; and in the end, by des- 
 picable trick, he opens de Nanjac's eyes, and prevents 
 Suzanne's marriage. The ' Demi-Monde ' is a masterly 
 play. It stands the threefold test : it is good in plot, 
 in dialogue, and in character. The story is one which 
 we follow with interest to the finish, with a growing 
 desire to be in at the death. In dialogue it is as bril- 
 liant and as metallic as any M. Dumas ever wrote. The 
 characters are splendidly projected against the dim 
 background of a dubious society, and contrasted one 
 against the other with the utmost skill : M. de Nanjac's 
 heat, for instance, sets off the coolness of M. de Jalin. 
 In M. de Thonnerins we see a second edition of the 
 old duke, invisible in the ' Dame aux Camelias ; ' and in 
 Valentine we see the first sketch of the future Iza of 
 the ' Affaire Clemenceau ' and of the wife of Claude. 
 The chief person of the comedy, Suzanne, is a boldly 
 drawn character, almost worthy of a place by the side 
 of the nobler and more poetic figure of M. fimile Au- 
 gier's ' Aventuriere : ' four years later she re-appears 
 with a hardened outline in the Albertine of the ' Pere 
 Prodigue.' 
 
 M. Dumas is fond of these reduplications of a favor- 
 ite character. He confesses that he took a certain 
 Count de R. as the model for Gaston in the * Dame aux 
 Camelias,' for Maximilien in ' Diane de Lys,' and Olivier 
 de Jalin. The same character also appears as Rn6 in 
 the 'Question d' Argent,' as M. de Ryons in the 'Ami 
 des Femmes,' and as Roger de Talde in the 'Danicheff.' 
 If the author had not told us distinctly that he had 
 copied M. de Jalin from the Count de R., one would
 
 148 French Dramatists. 
 
 have called him a rib from M. Dumas's own breast, the 
 more especially as M. Dumas has twice used the name 
 of "de Jalin" to sign plays to which he did not wish 
 to put his own name. And yet, in spite of the author's 
 liking for him, one cannot help thinking him a con- 
 temptible fellow. He is lacking in the instincts of a 
 gentleman. He has neither delicacy nor frankness. 
 He ought to keep a secret sacred, but he leaks by in- 
 sinuation all the time. Granting that it is his duty to 
 prevent the marriage of an adventuress to an honest 
 man, it should be done somehow honorably and openly, 
 not underhand and stealthily, by ignoble trickery. 
 Surely so clever a man as M. de Jalin could find some 
 other means than the unworthy device by which he 
 traps Suzanne into a confession of love for him. And 
 surely nothing is to be said for the brutality of his 
 outburst of laughter when his stratagem has succeeded, 
 and he holds her in his arms in the sight of the man 
 she had hoped to marry. On top of this the author 
 goes out of his way to give M. de Jalin a certificate 
 of honor. As the curtain falls, M. de Nanjac declares 
 him "the most honest man I know." And even M. 
 Edmond About, reviewing the ' Demi-Monde ' in the 
 Revue des Deux Mondes, called M. de Jalin a type 
 sympathetic to the audience. 
 
 The ' Demi-Monde ' is the model of nineteenth-cen- 
 tury comedy, just as the 'School for Scandal' is the 
 model of eighteenth-century comedy. The contrast of 
 the two plays would be pregnant, did space permit. 
 The seemingly careless ease with which Sheridan has 
 sketched his characters, and the airy humor which in- 
 forms the whole comedy, make us accept a story and 
 special scenes far more dangerous thac any thing in
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 149 
 
 M. Dumas's piece. And yet the impression left by the 
 ' School for Scandal ' is pleasant ; while the ' Demi- 
 Monde ' is almost a painful spectacle. We cannot help 
 liking some of Sheridan's characters, Lady Teazle 
 for instance, and Sir Peter, in spite of his uxuriousness, 
 and Charles too ; while even the scandalous college, 
 after making due allowance for the tone of a bygone 
 century, is not wholly repulsive. But no woman in 
 the ' Demi-Monde ' should we wish a wife to visit, and 
 no man in it should we care to shake by the hand. 
 
 It was, perhaps, M. About's reproach, that in the 
 ' Demi-Monde ' M. Dumas had painted only a certain 
 society, and not society at large, that led him in his 
 fourth play, the 'Question d' Argent,' brought out in 
 1857, to attack a more general subject. It is a play of 
 no great value, much inferior in interest to its prede- 
 cessors, but differing from them in that it is really a 
 comedy. Both of M. Dumas's earlier plays were dramas ; 
 and even in the ' Demi-Monde ' the situations at times 
 are on the verge of melodrama. But the 'Question 
 d' Argent ' is pure comedy : its incidents are entirely 
 the result of the clash of character on character ; and 
 its central figure, though marred by a touch too much 
 of caricature, is one of which any comedy might be 
 proud. We are shown boldly and with novel effect 
 Jean Giraud, a self-made man, with unbounded skill in 
 scheming, and no sense of right or wrong. He is a 
 restless, uneasy speculator, young, and already very 
 wealthy, but never quite sure of his footing. In ' Cein- 
 ture Doree,' and again in the 'Effrontes,' M. fimile 
 Augier has pointed out how vainly ill-gotten riches 
 can live down the bad repute of t.ieir origin. In 
 'L'Honneur et 1' Argent ' Ponsard was emphatically
 
 150 French Dramatists. 
 
 moral in his denunciation of peculating financiers. But 
 Ponsard was serious and poetic ; while M. Dumas chose 
 to see the comic side of the speculator's career, and to 
 hold up to ridicule the suddenly enriched snob. Pon- 
 sard preached : M. Dumas at least enlivened his sermon 
 with wit and humor. The comedy is less tainted with 
 M. Dumas's views and theories than any other of his 
 plays written before or since : it is more wholesome ; 
 and it might be read or seen by any one without dam- 
 age or danger. Unfortunately the fable is weak ; and 
 the figure of the financier, who believes that money is 
 absolute monarch, though boldly outlined, is not always 
 artistically filled in. 
 
 " Here is a comedy for which I confess my predilec- 
 tion : this comes, perhaps, from its having cost me a 
 great deal of work," writes M. Dumas at the head of 
 the preface of the 'Fils Naturel,' acted in 1858 at the 
 Gymnase, and, like the ' Demi-Monde,' revived at the 
 Theatre Fra^ais a score of years later. In the last 
 century the founder of modern drama, Diderot, wrote 
 a ' Natural Son,' which was the illegitimate father of a 
 play of the same name by Kotzebue, adapted to the 
 English stage by Mrs. Inchbald, to the American by 
 William Dunlap, our first playwright, and often acted 
 by the American Infant Roscius, John Howard Payne. 
 who had cleverly amalgamated the Inchbald-Dunlap 
 versions for his own use. There is a fine theatrical 
 situation in Kotzebue's play, when the natural son, see- 
 ing his mother sick unto death from want, takes to the 
 highway, and puts a knife to the breast of the first 
 passer-by, his own father, as it chances. But even in 
 technical excellence M. Dumas's play does not yield to 
 Kotzebue's, It is an admirable specimen of stage-craft ;
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 1 5 1 
 
 and it is no wonder that two such experts in diamatic 
 art as M. Sarcey and M. Perrin, the director of the 
 Theatre Frangais, should incline to considering it M. 
 Dumas's masterpiece. No wonder is it, either, that such 
 praise should revolt M. Zola, who has a fresh theory of 
 throwing nature on the stage raw and crude as in a 
 photograph. M. Zola holds that M. Dumas " never hesi- 
 tates between reality and a scenic exigency : he wrings 
 the neck of reality." And he says that M. Dumas " uses 
 truth only as a spring-board to jump into space." In the 
 ' Fils Naturel,' for the first time, M. Dumas sought to 
 set a social problem on the stage ; and yet nowhere else 
 has he shown so full a share of the constructive faculty 
 which is the birthmark of the true dramatist, but which 
 M. Zola chooses to contemn. 
 
 Kotzebue had treated the demand of the illegitimate 
 child for bread for physical support : M. Dumas chose 
 rather to .consider his claim to a place in his father's 
 family, and his right to his father's name. M. Dumas 
 has a prologue specially to show how it was that 
 his young hero had a large fortune left to him by a 
 stranger. Then in the play we have the story over 
 again of d'Alembert and Mme. Tencin : the natural 
 son first seeks his parent's name, and then refuses it. 
 The play is a model of equilibrium. In the first half 
 we see the hero gradually discovering his illegitimacy. 
 At the end of the first act he is told his father's name. 
 
 "Where are you going?" asks his informant. 
 
 " To my father's." 
 
 "What for?" 
 
 " Why, to see him, since I have never seen him. " 
 And on this exit-speech the curtain falls. In the next 
 act is the scene between the father and the son, in
 
 152 French Dramatists. 
 
 which the former refuses to give the latter any satisfac- 
 tion whatever. Then in the last half of the play we 
 see how the son becomes more important to the father, 
 and well-known in the world at large. Finally, to fur- 
 ther his own interests, the father offers the son the 
 name he refused at first ; and the son, in turn, refuses, 
 preferring to keep the name he has made for himself, 
 his mother's. 
 
 The choice of the subject and title of the ' Fils Natu- 
 rel ' by M. Dumas was scarcely in the best of taste : 
 still worse was the name of his next play, the 'Pere 
 Prodigue,' acted in 1859 without any great success. 
 What the elder Dumas was we all know. He was truly 
 a prodigal father. His son is reported to have said of 
 him, " My father is a child I had when I was young." 
 But the bad taste is confined to the title : in the come- 
 dy itself there was no trace of unfilial personality ; 
 the son of Dumas was not a son of Noah tp uncover 
 his father's nakedness. As the * Fils Naturel ' tries to 
 show the result of depriving a son of his father, so the 
 ' Pere Prodigue ' was intended to set forth the bad effects 
 of giving a son a false education ; and thus one play 
 completes the other. The 'Pere Prodigue/ however, 
 is not remarkably good : it is overladen with incident ; 
 and, as a French critic remarked when it was first acted, 
 it might almost begin with the second act, or the third, 
 or even the fourth. The picture of prodigality in the 
 first act is full of typical touches, all compactly accu- 
 mulated, until an irresistible effect is produced. 
 
 The same highly-wrought brilliance is to be seen 
 throughout the play, which contains one of M. Dumas's 
 most successful characters. The prodigal father is in 
 the true high-comedy vein. By the side of M. Dumas's
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fits. 153 
 
 bull-headed and sentimental heroes, and of his preter- 
 naturally witty heroes, projections of his own impulses 
 and cleverness, and reduplicated to fatigue, is a series 
 of comic characters of great force and originality. No 
 dramatist of the nineteenth century has enriched litera- 
 ture with more amusing comic portraits. The prodigal 
 father in this play, the self-made speculator in the 
 * Question d'Argent,' the broken-down and philosophic 
 artist Taupin in ' Diane de Lys,' the clear-headed and 
 good-hearted notary Aristide in the ' Fils Naturel,' the 
 outspoken Madame Guichard in ' M. Alphonse,' and the 
 profligate duke in the ' fitrangere,' these are figures 
 firm on their feet, and worth, any one of them, more than 
 all the interchangeable MM. de Jalins and de Ryons. 
 
 Better by far than these mere figments of cleverness 
 are the fresh faces of sprightly and self-reliant young 
 girls seen now and again in M. Dumas's comedies, and 
 bearing a family likeness one to another. They are 
 somewhat too knowing to please the French critics, and 
 they have a little too much decision of character. The 
 Mathilde of the ' Question d'Argent ' is only a little less 
 decisive than the H ermine of the ' Fils Naturel ; ' and, 
 had either of them grown up in the demi-monde, she 
 would not have been unlike Marcelle. In Jane de 
 Simerose, in the ' Ami des Femmes,' we see the same 
 type. The 'Ami des Femmes' was not acted until 
 1 864, five years after the ' Pere Prodigue ; ' and, although 
 it called forth greater controversy, it had no greater 
 success. It is, in fact, by far the poorest of M. Dumas's 
 plays. There is really little or nothing to admire in it : 
 there is less wit than usual, and no action to speak of. 
 It may be passed over with the remark that its subject 
 was bad, and the taste with which it was treated worse,
 
 154 French Dramatists. 
 
 Its subject, indeed, is one wholly unfit for stage treat- 
 ment, unless, as M. Dumas sometimes hints, the theatre 
 ought to be an amphitheatre for gynecologic clinics. 
 
 Here I must break off the criticism of successive 
 plays to consider a change which had gradually come 
 over M. Dumas himself. In all the comedies written 
 before this transformation, even in the ' Fils Naturel,' 
 Dumas was first of all a dramatist ; and the writing 
 of the best play he could was his aim. Afterward 
 he became a moralist, a teacher, a leader of the peo- 
 ple; and to set an example and to prove something 
 was M. Dumas's object in writing plays. This change 
 in the author's views had been brought about by a 
 curious change in the man himself, a change which 
 may be described as an evolution to virtue from an 
 environment of vice. It seems as though M. Dumas 
 had found out by experience what most other men are 
 fortunate enough to get by inheritance and training. 
 Having grown to manhood without strict or severe 
 education, having seen laxity from his youth up, and 
 having lived years of his life in the demi-monde, where 
 morality is but a word, M. Dumas has been surprised 
 to discover that it was also a thing. As he says in * M. 
 Alphonse/ a young man left to himself, badly brought 
 up and badly surrounded, may most likely fall into 
 errors ; " but little by little, if he have intelligence, he 
 will learn for himself what others have not taught him." 
 So M. Dumas taught himself. He knows by experience, 
 as one may say, that honesty is the best policy, and that 
 vice does not pay. He is at the end of a course of 
 practical ethics ; and his experiments have been made 
 in corpore vilo, on his own body. He has been taught 
 by his own sufferings. As far as morals go, one might
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 155 
 
 call him "a self-made man." Of course there are many 
 things he has not yet found out. The world is older 
 than he, and has suffered more, and likewise learned 
 more. But what to many well-meaning persons are but 
 commonplaces, M. Dumas holds to firmly as precious 
 discoveries of his own ; and he is so pleased with these 
 discoveries, that he seeks to cry them aloud from the 
 housetop. Like all converts, he has undue zeal. He is 
 seized with a burning impatience to spread abroad the 
 glad tidings ; and to this is coupled an emphatic inten- 
 tion that they shall not be misunderstood. In all his 
 later plays there is the viciousness of vice and the virtu- 
 ousness of virtue in every third line : unfortunately his 
 taste has not always improved with his morals, and the 
 other two lines often offend more than the one line 
 benefits. M. Dumas has always shown the tendency 
 toward mysticism not infrequent in men of his tempera- 
 ment. Even in the ' Dame aux Came'lias ' the curtain 
 finally fell on a quotation from the New Testament. Now 
 he frankly takes to preaching, and puts his audacity, his 
 patience, and his ingenuity at the service of the strange 
 system of sociology which he has evolved from his inner 
 consciousness. His skill as a dramatist is bent to the 
 making of purely didactic dramas. He comes forth in 
 the purple and fine linen of the stage to set forth a 
 doctrine of sackcloth and ashes. In the expounding of 
 his new views his style is harder and more brilliant than 
 ever; and he explains his latest moral kinks with no 
 sign of sweetness or light, but with great rigor and 
 vigor. 
 
 In the 'Id^es de Madame Aubray,' acted in 1867, and 
 the first-fruits of this new philosophy, the preacher 
 fortunately has not yet overmastered the playwright.
 
 156 French Dramatists. 
 
 The piece is a marvel of polemic literature, a model 
 in the art of teaching by example. Mr. John Morley 
 instances it as one of the very few modern plays which 
 Diderot would recognize as belonging to the genre 
 s/rieux, which began with his own * Pere de Famille.' 
 It treats an important subject honestly and with intel- 
 lectual seriousness : there is none of the petty begging 
 of the question which disfigures two other works on 
 the same subject, the 'Fernande' of M. Victorien 
 Sardou, and the ' New Magdalen' of Mr. Wilkie Collins ; 
 both clever men, lacking, however, in the courage and 
 the candor needed to face the problem fairly. There 
 is a fourth work of fiction, published not long after 
 M. Dumas's, which approaches the subject with the 
 same appreciation of its demands and its difficulties. 
 This is a novel, ' Hedged In,' by Miss Elizabeth Stuart 
 Phelps, as representatively New England as the ' Id6es 
 de Madame Aubray ' is French. 
 
 It is of course a mere paradox to say that M. Dumas, 
 since his regeneration, appears to me as a typical New- 
 Englander ; but he has something of the New-England 
 spirit, and he stands at times in the New-England atti- 
 tude. He recalls, in a way, both Nathaniel Hawthorne 
 and Oliver Wendell Holmes. His theology is in essence 
 Unitarian. I have before made mention of his very 
 New-England knack of biblical quotation ; and, as his 
 recent volume on divorce shows, he is as prone to 
 search the Scriptures for a text wherewith to smite his 
 adversary, as any of those chips of Plymouth Rock who 
 "take to the ministry mostly." Without pushing the 
 analogy too far, we can see it stand out plainly when 
 we set the ' Idees de Madame Aubray ' by the side of 
 ' Hedged In,' and see that both the American and the
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 1 5 7 
 
 French writers, though differing greatly in mental equip- 
 ment, approach the subject from the same point of view, 
 and give it the same austerity of treatment. M. Dumas 
 lights up his logic with flashes of his Parisian wit ; 
 while Miss Phelps relieves the stress of undue senti- 
 mentality by a sort of imported English humor. But 
 these are externals. 
 
 In considering the problem of the redemption of the 
 woman who has fallen but once, each author gives us a 
 picture of a sincere Christian woman who believes in 
 the gospel of doing good. Madame Aubray and Mar- 
 garet Purcell are close enough akin to be twin-sisters. 
 Each of them has a child of her own, Mme. Aubray, a 
 son ; Mrs. Purcell, a daughter. To each of them, abun- 
 dant in good works, comes the opportunity of befriend- 
 ing a young and unmarried mother. In each case the 
 father of the nameless child re-appears on the stage. 
 Mme. Aubray and Mrs. Purcell have each to choose 
 between her sense of duty and her ardent affection for 
 her own child. Both Miss Phelps and M. Dumas fight 
 fair ; there is no begging of the question ; the problem 
 is looked in the face; the objections to the thesis 
 are plainly shown. M. Dumas even turns his honesty 
 to advantage : the philosophic observer who acts as 
 Greek chorus sums up bluntly the feelings of the 
 average spectator, "Jest raide " " it's pretty steep ! " 
 and the audience, hearing the author thus give vent 
 to their own verdict, go away without shock or resent- 
 ment. For in the French play the actions take a 
 more personal turn than in the American novel : Mme. 
 Aubray has to consent to her only son's marriage 
 with the redeemed sinner, while Miss Phelps kills off 
 her penitent. It cannot be said that either play or
 
 i eg French Dramatists. 
 
 novel has a satisfactory ending, or that the conclusion 
 of either is in any sense a true denoument, an un- 
 tying; and this because no work of fiction, however 
 clever, can at best do more than show one way of 
 cutting the knot. 
 
 Just what moral M. Dumas meant to advance in his 
 next piece, a comedy in one act, called the 'Visite de 
 Noces,' and acted in 1871, I cannot imagine. It is an 
 inquest on the internal corruption of man. Perhaps the 
 verdict is just, in view of the evidence produced; but 
 the impulse of a healthy man would be to let such 
 matter drop into the gutter, where it belongs. To lift 
 it thence is to stir up muddy depths of degradation to 
 no purpose. 
 
 In a novel, the 'Affaire Cle'menceau,' published just 
 before the ' Visite de Noces,' and in the two plays he 
 brought out after it, the 'Princess Georges' (1871) and 
 the ' Femme de Claude' (1873), M. Dumas returned to 
 an early theme. Indeed, we may consider ' Diane de 
 I .ys ' as the first of these dramas of adultery and death. 
 In ' Diane de Lys ' and in the ' Princess Georges ' the 
 husband kills the lover. In the ' Affaire Clemenceau ' 
 and in the ' Femme de Claude,' in which M. Dumas has 
 treated a situation essentially identical, the husband 
 kills the wife. And in a later play, the ' Etrangere,' it 
 is the husband who is killed. 
 
 Neither the ' Princess Georges ' nor the ' Femme de 
 Claude ' can be called a good play, or even a well-made 
 play. Knowing that Mile. Descl6e acted the heroine 
 of each, one is inclined to see in them scarcely more 
 than two strong parts. The thesis in each case has 
 proved too heavy for the plot. In the ' Princess 
 Georges ' the thesis seems to be the duty of femi-
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fits. 159 
 
 nine forgivenness, in the ' Femme de Claude ' the duty 
 of summary justice. I say seems ; for the exact target 
 of M. Dumas's bullet is not unmistakable, despite much 
 talk about it. Unfortunately the theorist got the bet- 
 ter of the playwright, especially in the ' Princess 
 Georges,' in which two ladies of the highest society 
 explain the bad character of the Comtesse de Terre- 
 monde at immoderate length, and in M. Dumas's own 
 style, with recondite historical and scientific allusions ; 
 and, shortly after they have done, another of the actors, 
 this time a notary, takes up the parable, and preaches 
 another page of the same sort of stuff. After reading 
 these diatribes, with all their pseudo-scientific parade, 
 one can scarcely help wondering whether M. Dumas is 
 not laughing in his sleeve at us. But no : I think his 
 sincerity beyond dispute ; only well, only I wish he 
 would not believe in himself quite so emphatically. If, 
 indeed, he were not so sincere, there would be only one 
 word to describe his attitude with exactness ; and that 
 word, unfortunately, is yet waiting its passport into 
 good society : if I may venture to use it, however, I 
 shall say that M. Dumas has sublime cheek. 
 
 In this very ' Princess Georges,' the general verdict 
 was that the catastrophe was a mistake. The Princess 
 Georges, knowing that her husband is about to go off 
 with an adventuress, and knowing her own helpless- 
 ness, declares her intention of taking the law in her 
 own hands. She warns the jealous husband of her 
 rival that his wife has a lover ; then, when the hus- 
 band of the Princess Georges is going into the trap 
 which the jealous man has set for the unknown lover 
 of his wife, the princess does what she can to prevent 
 his going, but without avail, when suddenly, as she is
 
 160 French Dramatists. 
 
 clinging to him ineffectually, a shot is heard, and we 
 are told that the jealous husband has brought down a 
 young man whom we have seen making juvenile love 
 to the adventuress. Now, this ending is all wrong, and 
 wholly unworthy of M. Dumas, who, however, defends 
 it by saying that the princess would be guilty of cold- 
 blooded murder if she let her husband go to certain 
 death. This is all very true. I do not ask that the 
 prince should be shot; but I do ask that M. Dumas 
 should not take me in by a petty trick ; that, having led 
 me to think that the prince was to be killed, he should 
 balk this legitimate expectation by a wrench of proba- 
 bility. M. Dumas can afford to leave such clever de- 
 vices to M. Sardou : they do not become a teacher and 
 a preacher. Unfortunately, M. Dumas at bottom is 
 governed by his emotions : he sees things passionately, 
 and drives on to a vehement conclusion. But he has 
 even more than average French logic. He always 
 seeks to prove to himself first of all that the end 
 his feeling has arrived at is the only orderly one in 
 the nature of things, and, indeed, the best of all possi- 
 ble endings. 
 
 One is less disposed to dispute the fatal conclusion 
 of the 'Femme de Claude.' Emerson tells us that "the 
 Koran makes a distinct class of those who are by nature 
 good, and whose goodness has an influence on others, 
 and pronounces this class to be the aim of creation." 
 M. Dumas reverses this : he shows us in the ' Femme 
 de Claude,' and elsewhere, a woman by nature irredeem- 
 ably bad, and of evil influence on all ; and on this class 
 he pronounces destruction. Mr. John Morley, speaking 
 of the startling figure which dominates that tale of un- 
 holy passion, Diderot's ' Religieuse,' says that " it is a
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas Jils. 1 6 1 
 
 possibility of character of which the healthy, the pure, 
 the unthinking, have never dreamed. Such a portrait 
 is not art, that is true ; but it is science, and that delivers 
 the critic from the necessity of searching the vocabulary 
 for the cheap superlatives of moral censure." M. Dumas's 
 science is not as deep as Diderot's, but the attempt is 
 the same in kind. In the Valentine de Santis of the 
 ' Demi-Monde ' we see the first sketch of this woman ; 
 in the Countess de Terremonde of the ' Princess 
 Georges ' we have a half-length ; and the figure re- 
 appears at full-length in the Iza of the 'Affaire Cle- 
 menceau ' and in the Cesarine of the ' Femme de 
 Claude.' Both of these last are creatures governed 
 wholly by animal wants and instincts ; in other words, 
 they are irresponsible brutes : and in each case the 
 husband exercises the right of individual justice, and 
 puts her out of the world. And in the sociological 
 pamphlet called 'L'Homme-Femme,' and published in 
 1872, between the 'Princess Georges ' and the 'Femme 
 de Claude,' M. Dumas dissected the same female phe- 
 nomenon, and came to the same conclusion formulated 
 in the phrase " Tue-la ! " " Kill her." 
 
 In 'M. Alphonse' (1873) one may note a return to 
 M. Dumas's earlier manner, or at least a temporary 
 cessation of his sociological studies. In spite of its 
 unpleasant subject and the weak-as-water heroine, the 
 play is one of M. Dumas's best. Its characters are few, 
 and nervously drawn. In the M. Alphonse, whom even 
 the coarse Madame Guichard cannot stand, we see a 
 sort of transition type from the passive Tellier of the 
 ' Idees de Madame Aubrey ' to the active duke of the 
 'Etrangere,' just as we see Claude repeated in Montai- 
 glin, and Jeannine in Montaiglin's wife. There is no-
 
 1 62 French Dramatists. 
 
 where any feebleness in outline. All M. Dumas's char- 
 acters, like their creator, believe in themselves. The 
 story, which is simple and pathetic, tells itself plainly ; 
 the action is not overladen with philosophical diatribes. 
 M. Dumas, for once, reaped the benefit of his own im- 
 provement in the formula of dramatic construction. 
 We owe to him the cutting-short of long-winded ex- 
 positions and the rapid rush of hurrying action. Un- 
 fortunately the inventor of this improved comedy has 
 taken advantage of the time thus saved for illicit indul- 
 gence in metaphysical stump-speeches, and for the 
 promulgation of the gospel according to St. Alexandre. 
 In ' M. Alphonse ' there is little of this skirmishing 
 along the flanks : he sticks close to the issue in hand. 
 The teaching of the play is only the plainer for this 
 restraint. "A good work of art," Goethe tells us, 
 " may and will have moral results ; but to require of the 
 artist a moral aim is to spoil his work." Now, in gen- 
 eral, M. Dumas requires of himself a moral aim : so long 
 ago as 1869 he announced his intention of using the 
 stage as a moral engine. He seemed to think that 
 every play should be a dramatized Tendenz-Roman, and 
 that every statue should bear a lamp on its head, or 
 in its hand ; or else what excuse has it for its being ? 
 An epigram of Mr. Austin Dobson's is apt just here : 
 
 " Parnassus' peaks still catch the sun ; 
 
 But why, O lyric brother ! 
 
 Why build a pulpit on the one, 
 
 A platform on the other? " 
 
 In the ' Demi-Monde ' can be seen what M. Dumas 
 could do before he had bound himself by this new law, 
 and in ' M. Alphonse ' what he could do when he chose 
 to loosen its coils. When he rigidly required a moral
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 163 
 
 aim of himself, he spoiled his work, as Goethe told 
 us, and as we can see in his next play, the 'fitran- 
 gere.' 
 
 M. Dumas himself has propounded the theory that 
 all great dramatists have built their plays just as well 
 in the beginning of their career as at the end, just 
 as well, if not better. The faculty of dramatic con- 
 struction being a native gift, in age they are inclined 
 to push too far, and so lack spontaneity. So is it 
 with the author of the ' ltrangere,' a sorry comedy, 
 and utterly wanting in spontaneity or spirit. I think I 
 can fairly call it the poorest of M. Dumas's plays, and 
 surely, despite its moral intent, the foulest. There is 
 but one decent man in the play ; and he, like the most 
 of M. Dumas's virtuous heroes, is virtuous with a ven- 
 geance : he is a good man in the worst sense of the word. 
 For the rest, the duke, and the duchess, and the rest of 
 the gang, the word sounds coarse, but is exactly expres- 
 sive, we have no feeling but disgust. All are corrupt : 
 there is a general odor of corruption. A miasma hangs 
 over the stage when the curtain is up, and we breathe 
 more freely when once we get outside. Of the plot 
 there is not much more to be said. I can understand 
 the Englishman who told M. Sarcey, when the Comedie- 
 Frangaise acted the play in London, that it had no com- 
 mon sense. Coming right after so perfect a piece of 
 workmanship as ' M. Alphonse,' one scarcely knows 
 what to make of it. As far as one may disentangle it, 
 there are three acts of talk and theorizing, and two acts 
 of action. This is the true Sardou formula : ar d the 
 story cast into it was not M. Dumas's either ; it was a 
 blackening of the ' Gendre de M. Poirier,' the master- 
 piece of MM. Augier and Sandeau. M. Dumas and
 
 164 French Dramatists. 
 
 M. Augier stand at the head of contemporary French 
 dramatic literature, and it is interesting to remark how 
 often one has trodden in the other's tracks. M. Augier, 
 having more and higher qualities than M. Dumas, a 
 wider reach and keener insight, has not had the same 
 uniformity of success : in the final and fatal shot of 
 the ' Mariage d'Olympe ' he anticipated the " tue-la ! " 
 of M. Dumas and the 'Femme de Claude,' just as he, 
 in turn, used the mould of the ' Fils Naturel ' for his 
 'Fourchambault.' This may be a digression; but, in 
 considering the ' Etrangere,' I cannot help wishing for 
 the hygienic breeze that blows through most of M. 
 Augier's manly plays. There is never a breath of poetry 
 in M. Dumas's dramas, no trace of imagination. One 
 is never lifted out of matter-of-fact, every-day life : in a 
 measure the life in his pieces differs from the life around 
 us only in that the people in the plays are rather wittier 
 in speech, and worse in character, than those in reality. 
 All is hard and dry and brilliant. More than that, every 
 thing is narrow : it is a very tiny corner of even the 
 little world of Paris which serves as the stage of M. 
 Dumas's dramas ; and, if one can form a fair idea of 
 Paris from these plays, then one may well wonder and 
 regret that fire and sword, and blood and iron, left one 
 stone on another. 
 
 The scene of his latest play the ' Princess of Bag- 
 dad,' acted by the Com^die-Frangaise in February last 
 is not even in this little corner of Paris : it is in some 
 fantastic capital of M. Dumas's own discovery, where 
 ordinary human motives have ceased to govern, and 
 every thing goes, as in a dream, by contraries. Indeed, 
 the play is a sort of evil dream, a nightmare. It was 
 of the ' Supplice d'une Femme ' that M. Dumas wrote,
 
 M. Alcxandre Dumas fils. 165 
 
 " The spectator must submit to this play as to an attack 
 of fever, feeling its truth in the beatings of his heart, 
 and only recognizing its danger afterward ; that is to 
 say, too late : " but these words fit the ' Princess of 
 Bagdad ' even better than they do the ' Supplice d'une 
 Femme.' It is needless to analyze the doings of a lot 
 of people, all of whom are lacking in common sense. 
 Heroine, husband, and would-be lover are all clean daft, 
 and ought to be sent back to Bloomingdale or Colney 
 Hatch, where they would find seclusion and a strait- 
 jacket. One of the characters is called a millionnaire 
 Antony, referring to the ' Antony ' of the elder Du- 
 mas. As a fact, all three of the chief characters seem 
 to have walked right out of the pages of ' Antony ' half 
 a century behind time. In the preface to the ' fitran- 
 gere,' M. Dumas discussed the question of naturalism 
 on the stage, and took occasion to praise Moliere for 
 the extraordinary delicacy with which he had treated 
 so indelicate a tale as 'Amphitryon.' In the ' Princess 
 of Bagdad,' there was need of a little of the same deli 
 cacy, instead of which we have needlessly plain speech 
 and brutal violence. 
 
 In the foregoing pages all the acknowledged plays 
 of M. Dumas have been dealt with : besides these, there 
 are nearly a dozen others in the making of which he 
 has had a hand. He has retouched his father's 'Jeu- 
 nesse de Louis XIV. ' and done over his father's 'Bal- 
 samo.' He lent his skill to George Sand for the 
 dramatizing of the ' Marquis de Villemer.' He was a 
 silent partner in the ' Danicheff ' with M. " Pierre New- 
 sky," and in the ' Supplice d'une Femme.' To him is 
 ascribed the whole of the ' Filleul de Pompignac,' and 
 a half of the 'Comtesse Romani,' and a quarter of
 
 1 66 French Dramatists. 
 
 'H&olse Paranquet.' In many of these his speech 
 bewrayeth him, but on none do we find his signature. 
 He has nobly respected his name, and it has never 
 been lent to joint-stock literary operations. His skill 
 and his time he has been free with, but his reputation 
 is jealously guarded. 
 
 The respect which he pays to his name he also has 
 for his art. He is proud of his business. In his book 
 about divorce, published last year, he constantly op- 
 poses his calling as a dramatist to the vocation of the 
 priest he is addressing. He contrasts church and stage ; 
 evidently and honestly believing that in the contest 
 between them the stage has the right of it, and gets 
 the best of it. His discussion of this burning question 
 is in the form of a letter to the Abb6 Vidier, vicar of 
 St. Roch. He has great dialectic superiority over the 
 abb6 ; and, although he tries to be courteous, he does 
 not spare satire and sarcasm, until the poor priest is in 
 a bad way. He produces the impression that his cleri- 
 cal adversary is hopelessly his inferior, and that the 
 combat is unequal. Just as one may see in the preface 
 to the ' Ami des Femmes ' a supplemental chapter to 
 ' L' Homme-Femme,' so one may trace in the preface 
 to the ' Dame aux Came'lias ' the germ of this plea for 
 divorce. But since 1868, when he wrote these pref- 
 aces, M. Dumas's style has sharpened, and his author- 
 ity is greater. He has wit and eloquence : he appears 
 in these pages as a Bourdaloue-Beaumarchais. Sur- 
 passing his eloquence is his wit, though he is too 
 conscious of it, and too reliant on it : as George Eliot 
 says, 
 
 " Life is not rounded in an epigram, 
 And, saying aught, we leave a world unsaid."
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 167 
 
 M. Dumas half hints, at times, that he can unlock 
 the gravest of problems with the pass-key of a clever 
 phrase. What is most characteristic in this divorce 
 pamphlet is the serried logic of four hundred and six- 
 teen pages, and the sudden lack of logic in the nine 
 lines of the four hundredth and seventeenth and last 
 page, on which M. Dumas all his arguments having 
 hitherto tended to show the need of a modification of 
 the French law until divorce may be had under some 
 such strict limitations as obtain in New York con- 
 cludes by formally asking for the passage of M. Naquet's 
 bill, which he has cited at length in the earlier part of 
 the book, and which allows a freedom of separation 
 shocking even to an Illinois or Connecticut legislator. 
 
 M. Dumas's latest utterance in sociology is a bulky 
 pamphlet of some two hundred pages on ' Les Femmes 
 qui tuent et les Femmes qui votent.' This discussion 
 of women who kill and women who vote contains little 
 that is new to any one familiar with M. Dumas's other 
 polemical writings : it is as characteristic as any, but 
 perhaps a little more extravagant and illogical. There 
 have been several variations of the Laura Fair case in 
 France, and there has been a reproduction of the refu- 
 sal of the Smith sisters to pay taxes. From the first 
 set of examples M. Dumas argues that, until the 
 French code is reformed by the institution of an action 
 for bastardy and the re-establishment of divorce, woman 
 will be justified in taking the law in her own hands, 
 and acting at once as jury and judge and executioner. 
 From the second example M. Dumas argues that woman 
 suffrage ought to be, and that it is only a question of 
 time how soon it will come. His answer to the objec- 
 tion that woman has not the physical force to defend
 
 1 68 French Dramatists. 
 
 her choice and cannot fight, is to cite (p. 102) Jeanne 
 de France, and Jeanne de Blois, and Jeanne de Flandres, 
 and Jeanns de Hachette, and Jeanne d'Arc, and to add, 
 that " no one of these women, having done in our day 
 what they did in their own time, would be admitted to 
 elect representatives in the country they had saved. 
 This is very comic." To the objections that a descent 
 into the political arena would rob woman of her charms, 
 M. Dumas responds that she would vote as gracefully 
 as she does every thing, having first made herself " hats 
 d la polling-booth, waists a la universal suffrage, and 
 skirts d la ballot-box." I fear that our own reformers 
 would find M. Dumas very flippant. 
 
 Among the consequences which would follow the 
 decreeing of divorce in France, M. Dumas told us in 
 his preceding volume on that question, would be a total 
 change in the French drama, as adultery, now the chief 
 stage-stock in trade, would lose its importance in life, 
 and so would see less service in the theatre. If M. 
 Dumas be right, we can only wish that divorce had 
 been established before he began to write, and perhaps 
 then illicit love would not have been found in some 
 form in every one of his plays. There is adultery, or 
 the attempt at it, or the suspicion of it, in eleven out 
 of twelve of M. Dumas's dramas. Once and again Paga- 
 nini chose to play on one string as an artistic freak, 
 but he owed his greatness to his skill on a violin com- 
 plete in all its parts. M. Dumas, though his violin had 
 four strings like the rest, has given us little else save 
 solos on a single one. He is, in short, a specialist ; and 
 in literature, as in medicine, a specialist is often danger- 
 ous. An illegitimate child himself, the result of illicit 
 affection, he cannot abandon the discussion of one sub-
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fits. 169 
 
 ject : do what he will, his thoughts still turn to it. All 
 his powers as a playwright are at the service of this 
 peculiar predilection : his gift of seeing things theatri- 
 cally ; his ability in handling a plot, generally simple, 
 and turning frequently on a single strong situation 
 carefully prepared and provided for, and only postponed 
 to come at last with double force ; his gift of charac- 
 terization ; his skill in skating over thin ice ; his speech, 
 when needed, vigorous to the point of violence; his 
 knack of breaking the force of all objections to his 
 conclusion by himself advancing them ; and his wit, 
 which cannot be denied, though he is far too conscious 
 of it, as any one may see who notes how he scatters it 
 broadcast through his plays, and then, for fear some of 
 it may have fallen on stony ground, takes care that 
 his characters compliment each other on their clever- 
 ness (and one may easily see also that the wit is M. 
 Dumas's own, and not that of the individual character, 
 in spite of some attempt at disguise), all these remark- 
 able qualifications are held at the beck and call of his 
 desire for the contemplation of illicit love. He even 
 goes out of his way to make wholly unimportant figures, 
 shown to use only in profile, adulterers, in the ' Fils 
 Naturel,' for instance, and the 'Princess Georges.' 
 No wonder he warns us not to take our daughters to 
 the theatre. Goethe, it is true, gave much the same 
 advice. M. Dumas says he respects the maiden too 
 much to bid her to his plays, and he respects his art 
 too much to write for maidens. There is some rea- 
 son in this : it is, at least, an open question whether 
 we do not fetter the artist too tightly when we insist 
 on bringing all literature down to the level of the 
 school-girl. While we may admit, however, that girls
 
 170 French Dramatists. 
 
 have no business in a dissecting-room, one may also 
 protest against always taking the stage for a physio- 
 logical laboratory. Besides, while true science is clean 
 and wholesome, M. Dumas's is neither. As M. Fran- 
 cisque Sarcey once wrote, " He gives the best advice 
 in the world in a language which recalls at once the 
 manuals of physiology and the Vie Parisienne of Mar- 
 celin." And a sceptic is tempted to wonder whether 
 by chance M. Dumas has not gleaned the most of his 
 science in the Vie Parisienne. A competent critic like 
 M. Charles Bigot doubts M. Dumas's science, and thinks 
 it rather a hap-hazard gathering of physiological and 
 psychological orts and ends picked up here and there in 
 stray newspaper articles. The scientific spirit itself is 
 utterly absent. One may doubt that M. Dumas knows 
 whether there be any scientific spirit or not. In de- 
 fault of it he is fertile in hypothesis and theory. Some- 
 times he gets so entangled in the jungle of his own 
 philosophy, that it is difficult to discover his where- 
 abouts. Yet, as a French critic has pointed out, he 
 seems to have had in turn, if not at the same time, 
 these three theories : first, love rehabilitates a fallen 
 woman ; second, when she is not capable of rehabilita- 
 tion, one must kill her ; and thirdly, woman, anyhow, is 
 a being greatly inferior to man, who, indeed, may be said 
 to stand intermediate and mediating between woman 
 and God. It is to prove one or another of these three 
 hypotheses, that M. Dumas has written his later plays, 
 which, fortunately for us, are most of them of more 
 value than the doubtful theories which called them into 
 being. 
 
 There are two writers with whom the elder Dumas 
 is to be compared : one is Victor Hugo, because they
 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fils. 171 
 
 together led the Romanticists ; the other is the younger 
 Dumas, because both bear the same name. I have 
 already, in the chapter on the elder Dumas, given his 
 opinion of the relative qualities of Victor Hugo and 
 himself : it is fortunately possible also to give his opin- 
 ion of the relative qualities of himself and his son, of 
 whom he was truly proud. " Alexandre, being my son, 
 was born with a few of my good points, and completed 
 them with those which were his own. I was born in 
 a poetical and picturesque age. I was an idealist. He 
 was born in a materialist and socialist age : he was a 
 positivist. In one play only can our different manners 
 be traced : it is the first he wrote, the ' Dame aux 
 Camelias.' ... I take my subject in a dream : he 
 takes his in reality. I work with my eyes closed : he 
 works with his eyes open. I shrink from the world at 
 my elbows : he identifies himself with it. I draw : 
 he photographs. People look in vain for the models 
 of my characters : they might almost point out his by 
 name. The work suggests itself to me through an 
 idea : it suggests itself to him through a fact." A 
 little later the father summed up the son in these three 
 sentences, with which we may leave the subject : 
 " With all this, Alexandre has a fault which will ruin 
 him if he does not correct himself in time. Alexandre 
 is over fond of preaching. His favorite book among 
 the works of Balzac is the ' Me"decin de Campagne,' 
 a magnificent novel, it is true, but one in -'vhich theory 
 takes the place of plot, and philosophy of action."
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 M. VICTORIEN SARDOU. 
 
 PERHAPS the most prominent of the French drama 
 lists of to-day is M. Victorien Sardou. He is probably 
 better known, both in and out of France, than any of 
 his rivals. He has written some twoscore plays, good 
 and bad, in half as many years : at least ten of those 
 plays have met with emphatic public applause ; and 
 twenty of them, more or less, have, at one time or 
 another, been acted in the United States. He is just 
 fifty ; he is rich ; he is the youngest member of the 
 French Academy ; and it is to his plays that he owes 
 his riches and his seat with the forty immortals. 
 
 M. Sardou was born in Paris, Sept. 7, 1831. His 
 father was a teacher and the author of elementary text- 
 books. The son was early entered as a medical student, 
 but he soon gave up medicine for history. Both of 
 these early inclinations have left their mark on the 
 work of the dramatic author. The larger and ampler 
 literary style of his two historical dramas, ' Patrie ' and 
 the ' Haine,' is no doubt the result of his youthful 
 reading; and the scientific marvel which is the back- 
 bone of the 'Perle Noire' possibly came within his 
 experience while he was preparing to be a physician. 
 His change of front just as he began the battle of life 
 did not lighten the struggle. The ten years between 
 1850 and 1860 were years of misery and want. M. 
 
 Sardou taught, served as an usher in a school, did hack 
 172
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 173 
 
 writing for d.ctionary-makers and in cheap newspapers, 
 and wrote various plays, which were refused right and 
 left. But in 1854 the Ode"on accepted a three-act 
 comedy in verse ; and on April i ominous date 
 the ' Taverne des fitudiants ' was hissed. Like many 
 another successful dramatist, M. Sardou saw his first 
 play damned out of hand. After the failure of this 
 -comedy he fell back into obscurity. He planned a 
 series of semi-scientific tales, after the manner of Poe's, 
 and in some sort anticipating M. Jules Verne's fantastic 
 inventions ; but only one or two of them ever saw the 
 light. The ' Perle Noire ' is one of these : it is a neat 
 little story, and a translation of it was published not 
 long ago in an American magazine. 
 
 In 1858 M. Sardou married Mile, de Brecourt, an 
 intimate friend of Dejazet. At the house of the cele- 
 brated actress he met Vanderbuch, who had written 
 several plays for Dejazet ; and one day, struck by 
 M. Sardou's intelligence, he proposed a collaboration. 
 The two dramatists wrote together the 'Premieres 
 Armes de Figaro ; ' and the play was at once accepted 
 by Dejazet, for whom the leading part had been con- 
 trived. But the actress was out of an engagement, 
 and vainly offered her services and her new play to 
 manager after manager. At last, toward the end of 
 1859, she took a theatre herself, called it the Thdatre- 
 D6jazet, and on its stage acted the part of the young 
 Figaro. The play was a great success ; and M. Sardou 
 soon followed it by others, ' M. Garat,' a study of the 
 French revolutionary epoch, a period he is especially 
 interested in ; and the ' Pres St. Gervais/ which in 
 1874 was re-arranged to serve as a libretto for the light 
 and tuneful music of M. Lecocq. These three neat
 
 174 JFrenc/i Dramatists. 
 
 little pieces, like all plays written for Dejazet, are not 
 so characteristic of the author as of the actress. They 
 are cast in the D6jazet mould, and one seeks vainly for 
 the Sardou trade-mark. Strong or original dramatic 
 work was out of the question, and the most the author 
 could do was to show his ingenuity in variations on 
 the accepted air. The dramas written for Dejazet by 
 M. Sardou were the only new plays in which the sexage- 
 narian actress was successful ; and their success drew 
 their author from his former obscurity, and proved his 
 possession of the dramatic faculty, the rare gift of 
 shaping one's work exactly for the exigencies of the 
 modern theatre ; a gift which the greatest genius may 
 be without, and without which the greatest genius 
 cannot hope for success on the stage. 
 
 The doors of the Parisian theatre having thus been 
 opened by Dejazet to M. Sardou, he rushed in at once 
 with long-repressed energy, and produced within five 
 years (1860-64) nearly twenty plays of one kind or 
 another, comedy, farce, drama, or opera. This haste 
 was its own punishment. The ' Papillonne/ brought 
 out in 1862 at the Theatre Frangais, failed, and so did 
 most of the others. Two of the score, however, 
 achieved instant and lasting success. The ' Pattes de 
 Mouche ' and ' Nos Intimes ' were both first acted in 
 1 86 1 ; and the triumph they won compensated in a 
 measure for the less favorable reception of their fel- 
 lows. These are, perhaps, the two plays of their author 
 best known in England and America. Each has been 
 adapted to our stage more than once. ' Nos Intimes ' 
 was turned into ' Friends or Foes ? ' by Mr. Wigan, 
 whose version has been given in New York as ' Bosom 
 Friends.' Another adaptation, called ' Peril,' has been
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 175 
 
 acted within a few years at the Prince of Wales's 
 Theatre in London ; while at the other theatre, the 
 Court, which then sought to rival the Prince of Wales's 
 as the home of the higher comedy in London, there was 
 at the same time presented ' A Scrap of Paper,' a skil- 
 ful alteration of the ' Pattes de Mouche.' It is no small 
 testimony to the author's skill as a playwright, that 
 two pieces written by him in 1861 to please the public 
 of the Vaudeville and Gymnase theatres in Paris 
 should in 1877 hit the fancy of the audiences of the 
 Court and Prince of Wales's theatres in London. 
 
 In the next seven years (1865-71) M. Sardou pro- 
 duced in Paris only seven plays, including three of his 
 best pieces. His literary frugality during this time 
 reaped its due reward ; for not one of these plays made 
 a fatal failure, and most of them had a warm reception. 
 In 1865 was brought out the 'Famille Benoiton,' the 
 first of a series of satires of society as it exists nowa- 
 days in France, and in many ways the best of them. 
 It is a very vivid and vigorous sketch of the demorali- 
 zation and extravagance of men and women, young and 
 old, amid the corrupting influences of the Second Em- 
 pire. It was revived at the Vaudeville during the 
 Exhibition of 1867, to keep company with another play 
 of M. Sardou's at the Gymnase, ' Nos Bons Villageois,' 
 which was the second in the series of satires, and 
 sought to portray French provincial life much as the 
 typical Benoiton family pictured the manners and 
 morals of the monopolizing metropolis. These two 
 comedies which, with the ' Grand Duchess of Gerol- 
 stein,' were the three great theatrical attractions Paris 
 offered to the thousands of strangers who came there 
 from all quarters contain some of M. Sardou's clev-
 
 176 French Dramatists. 
 
 erest writing. They bi istle with hits at the times, 
 sharp enough witticisms, many of them, but somewhat 
 out of place surely in a play which hopes to outlive the 
 year of its birth. The success of both pieces seems, 
 however, to have encouraged M. Sardou to form the 
 practice of alluding to contemporary politics, art, and 
 society, forgetting apparently that much of what is 
 merely timely loses its interest in a short time But no 
 trace of this bad habit is to be found in ' Patrie ! ' a 
 historical drama brought out at the Porte St. Martin 
 Theatre in 1869, and likely to remain as the firmest 
 and finest specimen of M. Sardou's skill. Its scene 
 was laid in the Netherlands during the struggle for 
 independence ; and the drama was appropriately dedi- 
 cated to the late John Lothrop Motley. 
 
 A little over a year after the performance of ' Patrie ! ' 
 the war with Germany broke out ; and Paris was be- 
 sieged, first by the Prussians, and again by the French. 
 When peace was at last restored, the first play M. 
 Sardou presented to the public of Paris was the ' Roi 
 Garotte,' a trifling and tawdry spectacular fairy-tale, set 
 to music by Offenbach. It was not literature at all, 
 excepting only one scene, in which a sudden recalling 
 to life of Pompeii, with its gladiators, soldiers, citizens, 
 slaves, and hetaerae, all skilfully contrasting with the 
 same classes as they exist nowadays, served to show 
 that the ruling motives of human nature then and now 
 are one and the same. The second play M. Sardou 
 brought out after the war was 'Rabagas.' During the 
 rule of the Commune the playwright's lovely villa on 
 the Seine had been destroyed ; for this reason, and for 
 others, be hit back hard, and made in ' Rabagas ' a 
 powerful but brutal assault on M. Gambetta, the leader
 
 M. Victor ien Sardou. 177 
 
 ci the Republican party in France. Warming to his 
 work, he wrote a second attack on republican institu- 
 tions, setting his scene this time in this country. Al- 
 ready in an early comedy, the 'Femmes Fortes,' he 
 had compared the manners and customs of America 
 with those of France, greatly to our disadvantage. In 
 his ' Oncle Sam ' he laid on the blacks and whites with 
 so heavy a hand that the censors forbade the produc- 
 tion of the play, as insulting to a friendly nation. But 
 one of the enterprising managers of the friendly nation 
 procured the piece ; and it was brought out here in the 
 land it insulted while still under the ban in France. 
 When acted here, it was at once seen to be the result 
 of the most amusing ignorance, giving us good occasion 
 to laugh at the author, instead of laughing with him, 
 and showing but little of his customary smartness. The 
 words which Matthew Arnold uses to criticise the man- 
 ner of an English historian toward the French generals 
 in the Crimean war can fairly be used here to charac- 
 terize this incursion of a French dramatist into Ameri- 
 ca : " The failure in good sense and good taste reaches 
 far beyond what the French mean by fatuitt. They 
 would call it by another word, a word expressing 
 blank defect of intelligence ; a word for which we have 
 no exact equivalent in English, bete." 
 
 ' Andrea,' which served as a stop-gap, pending the 
 raising of the interdict on the satire on American 
 society, was a hastily-revised edition of a play written 
 to order for a charming American actress, Miss Agnes 
 Ethel, and originally brought out in New York as 
 ' Agnes : ' one would think that M. Sardou had cause 
 to be thankful to America. The censors soon allowed 
 the performance of ' Oncle Sam ; ' but the comedy was
 
 178 French Dramatists. 
 
 received with no great favor ; and indeed, for the next 
 five years, M. Sardou saw little of success. A farce 
 failed at the Palais Royal in 1 873, another at the Varie- 
 t6s in 1874; and in the same year his strong but repul- 
 sive historical drama, the ' Haine,' was brought out for 
 but few nights at the Gait6. In 1875 'Ferreol' had 
 a little better luck; and in 1877 'Dora' met with an 
 enthusiastic reception as a return to his characteristic 
 manner, and as a worthy successor of the 'Famille 
 Benoiton ' and ' Nos Bons Villageois.' Turned into 
 English none too skilfully, and disfigured by the need- 
 less thrusting-in of jingoism, 'Dora,' as 'Diplomacy,' 
 has been acted with popular applause throughout Eng- 
 land and America. In 1878 M. Sardou sought to repeat 
 his success of 1867, and to set before the visitors to the 
 Exhibition a dramatic dish resembling closely the fare 
 which had proved acceptable to their predecessors of 
 eleven years before. The ' Bourgeois de Pont d' Arcy ' 
 was made on the same lines as ' Nos Bons Villageois/ 
 and satirized in the same style the petty politics of 
 country life. The later play was not so well made as 
 the earlier one : its fundamental situation was most 
 unpleasant ; and Parisian and provincial play-goers felt, 
 with Joubert, that comedy ought never to show what is 
 odious. The piece failed in Paris, and was acted in 
 New York for a while with much the same result. 
 
 In ' Daniel Rochat,' acted by the Comedie-Franc.aise 
 in 1880, M. Sardou, true to his habit of trying to tickle 
 the taste of the hour, and to set on the stage the ques- 
 tion of the day, considered the so-called conflict of 
 leligion and science. When the author of ' Oncle Sam ' 
 and the ' Famille Benoiton ' tries to handle so important 
 a topic, it is a little difficult to take him seriously ; but
 
 M. Vtctorien Sardou. 179 
 
 he is so clever, that he compels attention at least, if not 
 admiration. It is curious that the adjective, which, when 
 one writes about M. Sardou, comes of its own accord 
 to the end of one's pen, is " clever ; " and the word really 
 sums him up. Conviction, sincerity, truth, all these 
 may be wanting in ' Daniel Rochat ; ' but there is no 
 falling-off in cleverness. Now, a really great writer is 
 not clever, he is something more and better ; and to 
 dwell on a writer's cleverness is like insisting on a 
 man's good nature : if he had nobler qualities, this 
 would be taken for granted. To say this is to say, that, 
 whenever M. Sardou tackles a living issue, he may be 
 amusing, but he is not likely to be instructive. In 
 ' Daniel Rochat ' his treatment is at once insufficient 
 and superficial. Having attacked the church in ' Sera- 
 phine,' the original title of which was the ' Devote,' he 
 now defends religion in ' Daniel Rochat.' 
 
 The story of the play is simple to baldness : Rochat, 
 who is an atheist and an eloquent politician, meets in 
 Switzerland two Anglo-American girls, and falls in love 
 with the elder. We say "Anglo-American," because M. 
 Sardou seems never to be able to make up his mind as 
 to their nationality : at one moment they are English, at 
 another American ; and of a truth they are all the time 
 French, M. Sardou apparently thinking that to let them 
 go about without a chaperone was sufficient to Ameri- 
 canize them. In the first act Rochat proposes ; in the 
 second they are married civilly ; in the third she insists 
 on a religious marriage also, which he refuses ; in the 
 fourth he tries to seduce her from her allegiance to her 
 faith ; and in the fifth they agree to separate, and the 
 curtain falls on the signing of the application for a 
 divorce. Rochat begins as a conceited snob, to turn, in
 
 180 French Dramatists. 
 
 the fourth act, into a contemptible cur; and Lea is 
 always a rather priggish young person. The final three 
 acts are filled with the bandying of argument between 
 the two ; and, as M. Sarcey said when the play was pro- 
 duced in Paris, " the fifth act repeats the fourth, which 
 repeats the third, which was tiresome." There is no 
 decrease in the technical skill, but the subject is fatal. 
 We are not interested in hero or heroine ; and we know 
 that in real life, if they really loved each other, they 
 would not have parted : either he would have so en- 
 dowed the civil marriage with solemnity that she would 
 accept it, or else he would have put his pride in his 
 pocket, and been married when and how she pleased, 
 by minister, or priest, or bishop, or pope, or rabbi, or 
 dervish, or what you will. They would have got mar- 
 ried somehow, and then would have come the real dra- 
 matic struggle. The true drama looms up after the 
 fifth act of M. Sardou's play, had it ended happily : it is 
 in the rending force in a household of religious antago- 
 nism, the wife going one way, and the husband another. 
 If the subject is to be set on the stage at all, it is here 
 in married life that incidents and interest^ must be 
 sought, and not in the petty hesitancies of two people 
 who cannot make up their minds. It is here that it 
 would have been sought by writers honest of purpose, 
 like M. Augier or M. Dumas. The hollowness of M. 
 Sardou's protestations of a desire to regenerate his 
 countrymen by a dramatic discussion of a vital issue is 
 shown most amusingly by the fact that the first play 
 he brought out after ' Daniel Rochat ' was an amusing 
 and highly indecent farce called ' Divorgons,' written for 
 the Palais Royal theatre. 
 
 In this brief survey of M. Sardou's career as a drama-
 
 M Victor ien Sardou. 181 
 
 tist during the past twenty years, only those plays have 
 been dwelt on which demand especial attention. The 
 first thing which suggests itself, when one looks down 
 the list of his twoscore of pieces, is the great variety 
 of the styles the author has striven to succeed in. M. 
 fimile Augier and M. Alexandre Dumas fits have con- 
 fined themselves to comedy, a comedy, it is true, which 
 sometimes crosses the line of drama ; but the apparent 
 intention has always been comedy. M. Sardou has 
 written comedies, historical dramas, farces, and operas. 
 In farce and in historical drama his success has been 
 slight. Opera, which he has attempted half a dozen 
 times, has been but little more advantageous to him. 
 Only ' Piccolino,' a recent setting by M. Guiraud as an 
 opera-comique of an early play, seems likely to last. 
 The ' Roi Carotte,' with the music of Offenbach, and 
 the ' Pres St. Gervais,' with the music of M. Lecocq, 
 are already forgotten. ' Patrie ! ' has been used by an 
 Italian composer as the libretto of an opera called the 
 ' Comtessa di Mans.' 
 
 On recalling M. Sardou's work in comedy and in the 
 other departments of the drama, with the idea of detect- 
 ing what his dominant quality may be, one cannot avoid 
 the deduction that it is cleverness. Mr. Henry James, 
 Jr., has called him a " supremely skilful contriver and 
 arranger." And no one who has at all studied M. 
 Sardou's plays will quarrel with Mr. James's other asser- 
 tion, that he is " a man who, as one may phrase it, has 
 more of the light, and less of the heat, of cleverness, 
 than any one else." That is to say, M. Sardou is very 
 clever : he has cleverness raised to the n th , if I may so 
 express it, and he has little or nothing except clever- 
 ness ; but it is the cleverness of a man who has the
 
 1 82 French Dramatists. 
 
 dramatic faculty, the theatrical touch, the dramatizing 
 eye. And just what this precious faculty is, M. Sardou 
 himself has told us in his speech when received as a 
 member of the French Academy. " The gambler is not 
 more haunted by dreams of play," said he, "nor the 
 miser by visions of lucre, than the dramatic author by 
 the constant slavery of his one idea. All things are 
 connected with it, and bring him back to it. He sees 
 nothing, hears nothing, which does not drape itself at 
 once in theatric attire. The landscape he admires 
 what a pretty scene ! The charming conversation he 
 listens to what good dialogue ! The delicious young 
 girl who passes by the adorable ingtmte ! And the 
 misfortune, the crime, the disaster, he is told of what 
 a situation ! what a drama ! " 
 
 This dramatic faculty has another side : the author 
 who has it, besides unconsciously dramatizing all he 
 hears and sees, has also an innate power of so setting 
 upon the stage what he has written, that the specta- 
 tors are affected by it as he was. The days when 
 a dramatist needed merely to write are now gone, 
 gone with the placards which may have served to 
 indicate where the action of any scene in Shakspere's 
 plays passed. The dramatic author of our day has to 
 fill the eyes as well as the ears of his audience. The 
 stage-setting, the scenery, the furniture, the costumes, 
 the movements of the actors, the management of the 
 many minor characters, often mingled with the action, 
 in short, the show part of the play, all this is now of 
 importance second only to the play itself, and often 
 thrust into the front place, to the almost certain failure 
 of the production. Play-goers are both audience and 
 spectators ; they like to see as well as to hear : but they
 
 M. Victor ien Sardou. 18^ 
 
 \J 
 
 do not care to see a show at the expense of the drama 
 they have come to hear. Now, expert as M. Sardou is 
 in all details of stage management and of mise-en-schie, 
 to use a French phrase impossible to render in 
 English with exactness, he sometimes has pushed 
 the merely spectacular into undue prominence. The 
 'Haine,' a historical drama, and the ' Merveilleuses,' 
 a historical farce, both failed because the play was 
 smothered into insignificance beneath the splendor of 
 the show. M. Sardou seems to have thought with the 
 First Player in the ' Rehearsal,' that the essentials of a 
 play were scenes and clothes, and to have forgotten to 
 put in enough human interest to counterbalance this 
 excess of external adornment. The plays were over- 
 laden with gold, and they sank when they sought to 
 swim. 
 
 In general M. Sardou's extreme cleverness does not 
 thus overreach itself : in general his skill in setting his 
 subject on the stage serves him to great advantage. 
 Consider this scene in ' Patrie ! ' we are outside the gates 
 of Brussels, with snowy rampart and tower, and frozen 
 moat glistening in the moonlight ; a Spanish patrol 
 crosses, the patriots, who are in consultation, hide as 
 best they may, another patrol is heard approaching : 
 the patriots will be taken between two fires; prompt 
 action is needed ; as the second patrol passes across 
 the stage, every man in it is silently seized, and killed, 
 and his body is thrown through a hole in the ice of the 
 moat, a hole at once filled with masses of snow, so 
 that when the first patrol returns, it walks unsuspect- 
 ingly over the icy graves of its fellow-soldiers. 
 
 Not only in the heavier historical dramas, like 'Pa- 
 trie ! ' is this skill in stage-setting useful ; for it is almost
 
 184 French Dramatists. 
 
 as imperatively demanded in the comedy of every-day 
 lif 3. Here there are no adventitious aids, no moonlight, 
 no snow, no frozen moat : the variety which charms the 
 eye of the spectator must be sought in the constant 
 and appropriate movement of the actors. A long 
 scene between two characters is broken by numberless 
 changes of position, by crossing and recrossing the 
 stage, by rising and sitting down, now right and now 
 left, by taking advantage of the conformations of the 
 scenery, and the placing of the furniture. All this 
 must not be overdone : every movement must seem to 
 be unpremeditated, and to spring naturally from the 
 dialogue. To assist in the delusion, the scenery and 
 the accessories are all carefully considered by the 
 author; they are to be found set down on his manu- 
 script ; and they, and the movements of the actors which 
 they assist, are as truly part of his play as the words he 
 puts into the mouths of his characters. M. Charles 
 Blanc, the eminent art-critic to whom was allotted the 
 duty of replying to M. Sardou's reception-speech at the 
 Academy, took occasion to declare that M. Sardou pos- 
 sessed this talent of mise-en-schte in the highest degree. 
 It is a talent, "perhaps," he said, "too highly praised 
 nowadays. . . . But I admire the skilful ordering of 
 the room in which passes the action of your characters, 
 the care you take in putting each in his place, in choos- 
 ing the furniture which surrounds them, and which is 
 always not only of the style required, that goes with- 
 out saying, but significant, expressive, fitted to aid in 
 the turns of the drama." 
 
 In this as in many another way, M. Sardou suggests 
 Scribe, who was also a supremely skilful contriver and 
 arranger. Scribe was passing slowly out of sight as
 
 M. Victor ten Sardou. 185 
 
 M. Sardou came into prominence ; but without Scribe M. 
 Sardou was scarcely possible. In the rapidity with 
 which they gained wealth, in their many successes, in 
 their willingness to suit the public taste rather than to 
 serve any rigid rules of true art, in their conservatism, 
 in their bourgeois respectability with its thousand gigs, 
 in their mastery over stage technicalities, in their fre- 
 quent borrowing of material from a neighbor, in the 
 dexterity with which they can play with an audience, 
 in all these respects, the two dramatists are alike. If 
 the habit obtained nowadays of naming one writer after 
 another, some few of whose obvious qualities he might 
 have, as Irving was at one time the American Gold- 
 smith, and Klopstock was hailed as the German Milton 
 (a very German Milton, as Coleridge suggested), if 
 this habit obtained now, M. Sardou would be the later 
 Scribe. The points of unlikeness are almost as many 
 and as marked as the points of likeness. It is in tech- 
 nical skill and in the resulting success that the essen- 
 tial similarity lies. But M. Sardou, who has studied 
 Scribe to the end, early saw that the simple style of the 
 dramatist of the citizen-king was not best suited to 
 please the new Paris of the lower Empire : so he doubled 
 the French playwright with the Athenian dramatic poet, 
 and sought to be Aristophanes and Scribe at the same 
 time. It can scarcely be said, however, that he wholly 
 succeeds : he is at best but little more than a sort of 
 Pasquin-Scribe. Yet he wields a lively wit ; and I 
 think Heine, who hated Scribe, might now and then 
 have shaken hands with M. Sardou. 
 
 The essential similarity between the two playwrights 
 is, as has been said, the extreme cleverness of each, 
 and the success which rewards that cleverness. In
 
 1 86 French Dramatists. 
 
 another important point is the likeness between them 
 almost as striking, in a willingness to make over old 
 material. Here M. Sardou treads in Scribe's footsteps. 
 But while the old dramatist was open and honest, and 
 never claimed what was not his own, the younger one 
 has been more than once sued because he was bearing 
 away in his literary baggage another man's property. 
 It has been shortly and sharply said that M. Sardou 
 " has shown real power in the creation of types, while 
 unhesitatingly using in his plots the commonest effects : 
 he carries through a play with a verve and a rapidity of 
 movement, for the sake of which he has been pardoned 
 the frequency of his rememberings and borrowings." 
 
 These rememberings and borrowings are not a few. 
 The germ of the 'Pattes de Mouche' (1861) is to be 
 found in Poe's story of the 'Purloined Letter;' the 
 fourth act of <Nos Intimes' (1861) is said to be singu- 
 larly like a vaudeville called the ' Discours de Rentree ; ' 
 the 'Pommes du Voisin' (1864) is taken from a tale of 
 Charles de Bernard's; *S6raphine' (1868) seems to be 
 indebted to Diderot's ' Religeuse ' and to Bayard's ' Mari 
 a la Campagne ; ' ' Patrie ! ' (1869) owes something to a 
 play of Mery's; the story of 'Fernande' (1870) is to 
 be found in Diderot's ' Jacques le Fataliste ; ' the ' Roi 
 Garotte' (1872) was greatly indebted to Hoffman; the 
 American 'Oncle Sam' (1873) would not have existed 
 had it not been for two stories of M. Alfred Assolant, 
 who, however, lost the suit he brought against M. Sar- 
 dou for a share in the profits of the play ; in ' Andr6a ' 
 (1873) is a situation from M. Dumas's ' Princess Georges ; ' 
 many a hint for 'Ferreol' (1875) was derived from 
 M. Jules Sandeau and from M. Gaboriau ; the 'H6tel Go- 
 delot' (1876), a comedy by M. Crissafulli, of which
 
 M. Victor ien Sardou. 187 
 
 M. Sardou was anonymously joint author, was founded 
 upon Goldsmith's 'She Stoops to Conquer;' and the 
 final act of 'Don' (1877) has more than one point of 
 resemblance to the end of the ' Aventuriere ' of M. 
 Smile Augier. 
 
 Besides borrowing freely from his neighbor, M. Sardou 
 has more than once repeated himself, and is evidently 
 fond of falling back on his early works, and presenting 
 them anew. The two-act ' Pres St. Gervais,' a comedy 
 in 1862, becomes a three-act opera-bouffe in 1874. The 
 comedy of 'Piccolino,' played in 1861, re-appears in 
 1876 as an optra-comique. These are of course avowed 
 reproductions, but there is no lack of unconf essed but 
 almost equally obvious repetition. There is in the 
 'Vieux Gardens ' (1865) a strong situation, a father, 
 whose child is ignorant of his relationship, is so placed 
 that he dare not declare himself; the same situation 
 re-appears in 'Seraphine' (1868): in the former case 
 the child is a boy, and in the latter a girl. The first 
 acts of the 'Famille Benoiton' (1865) and of 'Oncle 
 Sam ' (1873) are almost exactly alike. The fast French- 
 women in the first play and the impossible American 
 girls in the second are exhibited one after another : a 
 clever French-woman (a part taken in both pieces by 
 Mile. Fargueil) acts as showman, while a witty French- 
 man asks the right questions at the right time. And 
 the characters of the two comedies resemble each other 
 singularly. The witty Frenchman and the clever French- 
 woman take part in both. Uncle Sam himself is a first 
 cousin to M. Benoiton : his son is only the calculating 
 young Formichel, and the trick young Formichel plays 
 on his father finds its counterpart in the trick Uncle 
 Sam s son plays on him. In fact, on a careful compari-
 
 French Dramatists. 
 
 son of the two comedies, it seems as though M. Sardou, 
 in his absolute ignorance of this country, thought that 
 all he need do to satirize America was to push his satire 
 of fast French society a little farther. ' Oncle Sam ' is 
 the ' Famille Benoiton,' only the dose is stronger, more 
 pungent, more acrid. In M. Sardou's first assault on 
 the bad habits of the United States, the 'Femmes 
 Fortes' (1860), we see Americans who are just like 
 those in the ' Oncle Sam ' of fourteen years later, and 
 who, like them, seem to have walked straight out of the 
 pages of 'American Notes.' 
 
 There is to be seen in the ' Femmes Fortes ' the same 
 clever woman of great common sense, who re-appears 
 in both the 'Famille Benoiton' and 'Oncle Sam.' In 
 each of these pieces she plays the part of Greek chorus. 
 In ' Rabagas ' she is the dea ex machina. In the ' Pattes 
 de Mouche,' perhaps the cleverest of all of M. Sardou's 
 clever comedies, she is the protagonist. In each of 
 these five plays the same woman appears under differ- 
 ent names ; and in each M. Sardou lauds her cleverness, 
 and skilfully lays her traps for her, and obligingly insists 
 on the victims walking into them blindfold. In the 
 ' Famille Benoiton ' and ' Oncle Sam ' and the ' Pattes 
 de Mouche,' the clever woman is accompanied and 
 assisted by a clever man ; and in ' Patrie ! ' and ' Fer- 
 nande ' and ' Nos Intimes ' and ' Dora,' the clever man 
 is all by himself, and has to get things settled and 
 straightened out without any aid from a clever woman. 
 In ' Fernande ' he is a lawyer ; in ' Patrie ! ' he is a soldier 
 and a Huguenot ; and so he gets a backbone and a solid- 
 ity lacking to his equally clever brothers and sisters. 
 I am not sure, indeed, that the Marquis de la Tremouille, 
 the Frenchman in ' Patrie ! ' is not the most charming of
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 189 
 
 all M. Sardou's characters. He is strong and manly, 
 and true to life. His courtly grace and vivacity lighten 
 and brighten the sombre gloom of ' Patrie ! ' and it has 
 been suggested, that, if he or some other of his country- 
 men equally debonair had appeared also in the ' Haine,' 
 the fate of that powerful and painful play might have 
 been more happy. 
 
 These repetitions, these frequent rememberings of 
 himself, and borrowings from others, are pardoned, 
 because in the rushing rapidity which M. Sardou im- 
 parts to his play, there is scarce time to think of them. 
 The sin at worst is but venial : we are always willing 
 to forgive an author's theft, if he but steal at the 
 same time the Promethean spark to give life to his 
 creatures. This M. Sardou seems certainly to do. His 
 characters are full of motion, and as life-like as may be, 
 although they are rarely really alive and human. His 
 clever men and women are always seen with pleasure, 
 because M. Sardou is clever himself, and he understands 
 cleverness, and these characters are but projections of 
 himself. All his minor humorous characters are skil- 
 iully sketched. He has a keen eye for the ludicrous, 
 and a genuine gift of caricature. This latter quality, 
 the keen, quick thrust of the caricaturist, was used in 
 moderation and with great effect in the village apothe- 
 cary and the rustic louts of ' Nos Bons Villageois,' and 
 in the professional revolutionist and other self-seeking 
 political agitators of ' Rabagas.' But the dramatist's 
 political animosities blunted his artistic perception 
 when he cast the central figure of the latter play in the 
 same mould which had served for its minor characters. 
 In structure the piece is weaker than any other of its 
 author's important plays ; and the character of Rabagas
 
 190 French Dramatists. 
 
 himself is an overcharged, self-contradictory caricature. 
 It is very clever, of course, and one can readily under- 
 stand its startling success at first ; but, when one thinks 
 over the conduct of Rabagas, its weakness is manifest. 
 He is represented as a type of the uneasy political 
 lawyer, using the tools of state-craft to carve his way 
 to fame and fortune, 
 
 " Ready alike to worship and revile, 
 To build the altar or to light the pile. 
 
 Now mad for patriots, hot for revolution; 
 Now all for hanging and the Constitution." 
 
 This is a fine subject for a comic dramatist. Patri- 
 otic hypocrisy gives as good an occasion for grave and 
 thoughtful humorous treatment as religious hypocrisy. 
 Rabagas might have been worthy to hang in the same 
 gallery with Tartuffe. But Moliere's creation is firm, 
 and broadly handled, and consistent to the end : M. 
 Sardou's is cheap, and sacrifices again and again his 
 consistency for the sake of making a point. It is a 
 Punch-and-Judy show : the figure is the figure of Raba- 
 gas ; but we know the hand of M. Sardou is inside it, 
 and makes it move ; and we recognize the voice of M. 
 Sardou whenever it speaks. Its movements are amus- 
 ing, and what it says is entertaining, and we must needs 
 confess that the showman is very clever. But Moliere 
 was something more than clever when he drew Tar- 
 tuffe. And if this comparison be thought too crushing, 
 M. fimile Augier was more than clever when he 
 created Giboyer ; and M. Alexandre Dumas fits was 
 more than clever when he set before us the 'Demi- 
 Monde.' Moliere and M. Augier and M. Dumas worked
 
 M. Victor ien Sardou. 
 
 191 
 
 with heart as well as head : they put something of 
 themselves into their plays. M. Sardou relied solely on 
 his cleverness, and, if the assertion may be ventured, 
 on his spite. 
 
 In the pr eface to the ' Haine ' M. Sardou declares his 
 respect for woman, and his worship of her. Here is 
 perhaps as good an opportunity as any to say that M. 
 Sardou's plays are, for the most part, as moral as one 
 could wish, not only in the conventional reward of 
 virtue, and punishment of vice, but in the tone and 
 color of the whole. He has his eccentricities of taste 
 and of morals, such as we Anglo-Saxons detect in any 
 Frenchman ; but he never panders to vice, never pets 
 it, pats it, and plays with it seductively, as M. Octave 
 Feuillet is wont to do. With the present method in 
 France of bringing up young girls, and of marrying and 
 giving in marriage, the dramatist is forced frequently 
 to seek for his love-interest in the breaking, actual or 
 imminent, of the Seventh Commandment. But more 
 often than any other French dramatist of standing has 
 M. Sardou sought to confine himself to the honest love 
 of a young man and a young woman. In 'Dora/ in 
 the ' Ganaches,' and in more than one other of his 
 comedies, there is, if one strikes out a few grains of 
 sharp Gallic salt, nothing to offend the most fastidious 
 Anglo-American old maid. M. Sardou's young girls 
 are charming. One does not wonder at the fondness 
 of the Frenchman for the lily-like innocence of the 
 ingenue, if all ingenues are really as innocent and as 
 delicious as those in M. Sardou's comedies. To the 
 healthy American the ingenue seems almost an impos- 
 sibility ; but M. Sardou endows her with a frankness 
 and grace which relieves the somewhat namby-pamby,
 
 192 French Dramatists. 
 
 goody-goody innocuousness of a bread-and-butter miss 
 whose only preparation for the duties of life is a com- 
 plete ignorance of the world, the flesh, and the devil. 
 In M. Sardou's hands the ingenue is neither sickly nor 
 unwholesome : she is confiding and engaging, and 
 timid if you will, but charming and delightful. M. 
 Sardou, in announcing his great respect for woman, 
 says he has always given her the best part in his plays, 
 " that of common sense, of tenderness, of self-sacri- 
 fice. I say nothing of my young girls. They form a 
 collection of which I am proud. Aside from one or 
 two Americans and the Benoitons, you could marry 
 them all ; and this is no slight praise." 
 
 He is right to be proud of them. It would be hard 
 to find a more charming scene in recent comedy than 
 the one in the last act of 'Nos Bons Villageois,' in 
 which Genevieve (the ingenue) with girlish frankness 
 confesses to her brother-in-law, the baron, that she is 
 in love, and that her lover is coming in a few hours to 
 ask for her hand ; this same lover being the man with 
 whom the brother-in-law is about to fight a duel because 
 the lover has been apparently intriguing with Gene- 
 vieve's sister, the baron's wife. The daughter of 
 SeYaphine is almost equally charming : her presence 
 in the play does much toward atoning for the odious- 
 ness of her mother, that despicable creature, a female 
 hypocrite, a Lady Tartuffe, but not as delicately drawn 
 as Mme. de Girardin's. And the tender and clinging 
 grace of the fragile daughter of the Duke of Alba in 
 ' Patrie ! ' must be accepted as some compensation for 
 the wretchedly vicious heroine. He acknowledges that 
 these two, Seraphine and Dolores, are dark spots in his 
 white list of women, "and especially Dolores. Im-
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 193 
 
 posed on me by the action of the play, she long haunted 
 my sleep to reproach me for having made her so 
 guilty." 
 
 These words " imposed on me by the action of the 
 play" (imposee par la donnde mime) let in a flood of 
 light on M. Sardou's methods of work. His characters 
 are the creatures of his situations. He contrives his 
 plot first, and afterwards looks around for people to 
 carry it out. Here, again, is the difference between 
 M. Sardou and M. Augier. The author of the ' Fils de 
 Giboyer' and the 'Mariage d'Olympe' invents and con- 
 trasts characters, and then lets them work out a play. 
 The author of ' Nos Bon Villageois ' happens on a 
 striking situation, and then puts together characters 
 to set it off to best advantage. M. Augier is interested 
 in human nature, and trusts for success on man's inter- 
 est in man : M. Sardou relies, for the most part, on the 
 mechanical ingenuity of his situations. As the proper 
 subject of comedy is to be found in the ever varying 
 phases of human nature, rather than in the external 
 and temporary accidents of life, M. Augier's method is 
 truer than M. Sardou's. 
 
 In the preface to the ' Haine,' from which quotation 
 has already been made, M. Sardou tells us how the first 
 idea of a play is revealed to his mind. " The process is 
 invariable. It never appears otherwise than as a sort 
 of philosophic equation from which the unknown quan- 
 tity is to be discovered. As soon as it is fairly set 
 before me, this problem possesses me, and lets me have 
 no peace till I have found the formula. In ' Patrie ! ' this 
 was the problem, What is the greatest sacrifice a man 
 can make for love of his country ? And, the formula 
 once found, the piece followed of its own accord. In
 
 194 French Dramatists. 
 
 the 'Haine' the problem was, In what circumstances 
 will the inborn charity of woman show itself in the 
 most striking manner ? " 
 
 This confession, which is probably as exact as Poe's 
 account of the way he wrote the ' Raven,' confirms the 
 assertion that he always starts with a situation. In 
 ' Patrie ! ' he sought to find the situation which would 
 show in action the greatest possible sacrifice a man 
 could make for love of his country. In the 'Haine' 
 he looked for the situation in which the inborn charity 
 of woman would be most strikingly revealed. In neither 
 case did he set out with a strong character, and ask 
 what that man or that woman would do in a given sit- 
 uation. In both plays he started with a situation, 
 meaning to fashion afterward a man or a woman to fit 
 it. We must confess that the reliance M. Sardou 
 places in his situations is not misplaced. In general 
 they are very strong, and they admit of effective theat- 
 rical handling. Although one is indisposed to admit 
 that in ' Patrie ! ' we have the greatest sacrifice a man 
 may make to his country, still the situation is beyond 
 doubt powerful and pathetic. The patriot leader of a 
 revolt, loving his wife only second to his country, dis- 
 covers, on the eve of the rising against the oppressor, 
 that she is untrue to him, and that her lover is his sec- 
 ond in command, a man whose services are indispen- 
 sable to the triumph of the insurgents. He does not 
 hesitate, but sacrifices at once his private vengeance to 
 his patriotism, and fights side by side with the man 
 who has wronged him. In ' Nos Bons Villageois ' a 
 young man found in a lady's dressing-room at night, 
 under suspicious circumstances, seizes her jewels, and 
 allows himself to be denounced as a thief, sacrificing
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 195 
 
 himself to save her reputation. In 'Dora' a young 
 girl on her wedding morning is accused, and the proof 
 is overwhelming, of having stolen an important official 
 document from her husband to send it to an emissary 
 of the enemy. In the ' Bourgeois de Pont d'Arcy ' the 
 situation is equally dramatic ; but it is fundamentally 
 disgusting, and suggests the reflection that M. Sardou 
 has morally no taste, to use the apt phrase of Henry 
 James, Jr., about George Sand. And this lack of moral 
 taste affects us unpleasantly in other of his plays, 
 in the ' Haine ' for instance, in the ' Diables Noirs,' 
 and in ' Maison Neuve ! ' in all of which the strength 
 of the situations is beyond dispute. 
 
 Few playwrights have ever had more skill in handling 
 a situation than M. Sardou. He has, as M. Jules Clare- 
 tie neatly puts it, " better than any one the fingering 
 of the playwright " (la doigtt du dramaturge). He 
 prepares his situation slowly, and presents it with full 
 effect ; leaves you in doubt for a while, and then cuts 
 the knot with a single unexpected stroke. After he 
 has got his characters into a terrible tangle, and there 
 is seemingly no way of loosing the bands which bind 
 them, M. Sardou either shows us that the tangle was 
 only apparent, and the slipping of a single loop will set 
 everybody free, or else he whips out his penknife, and, 
 as has just been said, slyly cuts the cords, getting his 
 knife safely back into his pocket while we are all aston- 
 ished at the sudden falling of the ropes. In this super- 
 subtle ingenuity M. Sardou again resembles Scribe, but 
 the disciple has improved on the master. Both drama- 
 tists take delight in producing great effects from little 
 causes, but the methods are different. Scribe had the 
 ingenuity of the travelling conjurer at a country fair :
 
 196 French Dramatists. 
 
 he showed you a pellet under this cup ; in a second it 
 is passed under that ; and, before you know it, he raises 
 the third, and there it is again. The trick is done, and 
 the three acts are over, leaving the pellet-people very 
 nearly where they were when he began. But the art 
 of magic has made great progress of late. The village 
 conjurer has given way before the court prestidigitator. 
 M. Sardou disdains a simple cup-and-ball effect : he has 
 at his command an electric battery and a pneumatic 
 machine, and he can do the second-sight mystery. He 
 is a wizard of the North, not like Scott, but like Ander- 
 son. He handcuffs his hero, seals him in a sack, locks 
 the sack in a box, has the box heavily chained, then 
 lowers the lights, and fires a pistol and hi! presto! 
 the prisoner is free, and ready to play his part again. 
 
 M. Charles Blanc, in his witty and graceful reply to 
 M. Sardou's reception oration at the Academy, a 
 reply in which, as is often the case in the academic 
 ceremonies, cutting criticism and biting rebuke were 
 courteously sheathed in suavity, politeness, and compli- 
 ment, with no dulling of the edge of their keenness, 
 M. Charles Blanc satirically praised M. Sardou's skill 
 in "using small means to arrive at great effects. 
 Among these small means there is one, the letter, that 
 you use from preference, and always happily. The let- 
 ter ! it plays a part in most of your plots ; and all of it 
 is important, the wrapper as well as its contents. The 
 envelope, the seal, the wax, the postage-stamp and the 
 postmark, and the tint of the paper and the perfume 
 which rises from it, not to speak of the handwriting, 
 close or free, large or small, how many things in a 
 letter, as handled by you, may be irrefutable evidence 
 to betray the lovers, to denounce the villains, and to
 
 M. Vidorien Sardou. 197 
 
 warn the jealous!" M. Blanc continues by pointing 
 out, that, in the ' Pattes de Mouche,' a letter is the basis 
 of the plot : it is a long time hidden under a porcelain 
 bust ; then, turn by turn, it serves, half-burnt, to light a 
 lamp, then to prop a shaky table, then as a wad in a gun, 
 then as a box for a rare beetle, and then, at last, for a 
 proposal, which settles all things to everybody's satis- 
 faction. In ' Dora ' the traitress is exposed because of 
 a peculiar perfume which she alone uses, and which 
 clings to the letter she has touched. In 'Fernande,' 
 in which M. Sardou, as M. Blanc says, "has so well 
 depicted the exquisite elevation of a young soul which 
 has preserved itself pure in the midst of all the im- 
 purities of a wretched gambling-hell, the heroine, on 
 the eve of marrying a gentleman, the Marquis des 
 Arcis, writes him a letter avowing the ignominies she 
 has passed through without moral stain ; but this letter, 
 intercepted by an old mistress of the marquis, does not 
 arrive at its destination in time, and the marquis learns, 
 when it is too late, that his marriage was dishonoring. 
 However, as Fernande had loyally confessed before 
 what he had only learned after, he consents to forgive 
 all ; he wishes to forget all ; he easily persuades him- 
 self that he ought to love her whom he does love; 
 and thus a letter, because it was a day too late, makes 
 happy a girl whom an involuntary stigma does not pre- 
 vent from being charming." In the 'Bourgeois de 
 Pont d' Arcy ' it is a letter again which a son will not 
 allow his mother to see, because it convicts his father 
 of sin ; and this refusal forces the son finally to avow 
 himself guilty of his father's fault. In the 'Famille 
 Benoiton ' and in ' Seraphine ' letters are again to be 
 found in the very centre of the plot.
 
 198 French Dramatists. 
 
 In spite of this frequent use of apparently inadequate 
 and trifling means to untie the knots of his story, no 
 playwright has ever shown more skill in getting the 
 utmost possible effect out of a situation : the situation, 
 however, is nearly all there is. The characters are 
 made to fit it, and the dialogue is sufficient to display it. 
 The skeleton may be supple and well-jointed : it is not 
 clothed with living flesh and blood. In spite of all the 
 cleverness, there is no real feeling. There are few 
 words which come straight from the heart, such as 
 abound in M. Augier's work. The language of any of 
 the characters in the moments of intense emotion is 
 always to the point, and vigorous, and all that is needed 
 by the situation ; but it is the clever language of M. 
 Sardou, not the simple words of a heart torn by anguish, 
 or racked by suspense. The characters do not rule 
 events : they are ruled by them. For the most part, 
 they are little more than puppets, to be moved me- 
 chanically so as to bring on the situation, or else they 
 are vehicles for the author's wit and his satire. 
 
 For M. Sardou is really a journalist playwright. He 
 tries to put the newspaper on the stage. He is rarely 
 content to rely on his dramatic framework, good as it 
 may be ; but he seeks to set it off by an appeal to the 
 temper of the time, and an attempt at reflecting it. To 
 enable him to combine this dramatizing of editorial arti- 
 cles and the latest news, with the proper presentation 
 of a strong situation, M. Sardou has devised a new for- 
 mula of dramatic construction. What this formula is 
 can be seen on even slight consideration of almost any 
 two or three of his five-act comedies, ' Dora,' or ' Oncle 
 Sam,' or 'Nos Bons Villageois.' He does not always 
 employ this formula : ' Patrie ! ' is an exception, and so
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 199 
 
 in a measure, is ' Fernande.' Indeed, as the Paris corre- 
 spondent of the Nation once said, "Sardou is not ob- 
 stinate : he changes his manner, not in the course of a 
 few years, like the great painters ; he can change it three 
 times a year. He rather likes to change it, to jump 
 from one thing to another, to alter his system : he is a 
 sort of dramatic clown." 
 
 In spite of these frequent changes of system, there 
 are nearly a dozen of M. Sardou's plays, and the best 
 known of them, constructed according to a definite for- 
 mula. This formula is evidently the result of a sort of 
 compromise arrived at between the two different men 
 contained in M. Sardou, the satirical wit and the 
 situation-loving playwright, Pasquin and Scribe. The 
 wit writes the first half of the comedy, and it rattles 
 along as briskly and as brightly as a revolving firework ; 
 and then the playwright seizes the pen, and the story 
 suddenly takes a serious turn, and the interest grows 
 intense. It is characteristic of his cleverness, that he 
 is able to join two acts and a half of satirical comedy 
 to two acts and a half of melodramatic strength so 
 deftly that at first glance the joint is not visible. The 
 first act of any one of his plays rarely does more than 
 introduce the characters, and develop the satirical motive 
 of the play. Often there is absolutely no action what- 
 ever. This is the case in both the ' Famille Benoiton ' 
 and * Oncle Sam,' the first acts of which, as has been 
 said, are almost exactly alike. In the second act, the 
 satire and the wit and the comedy continue to be de- 
 veloped ; and possibly there is an indication of a coming 
 cloud, but it is not larger than a man's hand. In neither 
 ' Dora ' nor ' Nos Bons Villageois ' do we get much 
 nearer the action of the story in the second act than
 
 2OO French Dramatists. 
 
 we were in the first. During these earlier acts M. 
 Sardou is quietly laying his wires ; and in the third act 
 the change comes, the masked batteries are revealed, 
 and strong situation and sensation follow each other in 
 rapid succession. Even in the caustic 'Rabagas,' M. 
 Sardou seemingly had no confidence in his pure comedy, 
 and so lugs in by the ears an extraneous intrigue of the 
 prince's daughter with a captain of the guards. 
 
 For this inartistic mingling of two distinct styles of 
 play, M. Sardou has good reasons. In the first place, it 
 pays better to write five-act plays than plays of any 
 other length. A dramatic author in Paris takes fifteen 
 per cent of the gross receipts every night, more or less. 
 If his play is short, he only gets his proportion of this, 
 sharing it with the authors of the other pieces acted 
 the same evening : if his play is long, and important 
 enough to constitute the sole entertainment, he natu- 
 rally takes the whole fifteen per cent himself. Having 
 thus a motive for writing five-act plays, M. Sardou knows 
 the temper of Parisian play-goers too well to believe that 
 either five acts of satirical comedy or five acts of pa- 
 thetic interest will please as well as five acts in which 
 both tears and smiles are blended. Five acts of humor 
 would probably begin to pall long before the fifth act 
 was reached, and five acts of pathos would probably 
 prove too lugubrious : so he combines the two. Now, 
 the Parisian play-goer has a very bad habit : he dines 
 late ; and, if he goes to the theatre after a dinner, he 
 arrives certainly after the first act, possibly after the 
 second. Therefore, clever in this as in all things, M. 
 Sardou delays the real movement of his play until the 
 third act, when he is certain to have all his spectators 
 assembled ; and in the first two acts he gives free rein 
 to his satirical instincts.
 
 M. Victorien Sardou. 201 
 
 To amuse the many spectators who may have come 
 in time, he has much bustle, much coming and going, 
 little or no dramatic progress, but much effective theat- 
 rical movement, all accompanied by a running fire of 
 witticisms, and hits at the times. His plays are written 
 so distinctly to suit the taste of the moment, that when 
 they are revived in after-years, they seem faded, and 
 have a slightly stale odor, as of second-hand goods. In- 
 deed, it would not be difficult for any one familiar with 
 politics and society in France for the last score of years 
 to declare the date of almost any of M. Sardou's five- 
 act comedies from a cursory inspection of its allusions. 
 ' Fernande,' we note from a remark in the first act, was 
 written about the time a bottle of ink was broken against 
 the Terpsichorean group of statuary which adorns the 
 new opera-house; and the 'Famille Benoiton' marks 
 the fashionable corruption of the lower Empire just 
 before the Exhibition of 1867. As M. Jules Claretie 
 has neatly said, " Sardou is a barometer dramatist, rising 
 and falling with the weather, as it changes or is about 
 to change. . . . Turn by turn, liberal or re-actionary, 
 as liberty or re-action may happen to be at a premium, 
 and pay a profit to him who traffics in it, he will praise, 
 for example, the reconstruction of Paris in the 'Ga- 
 naches ' when M. Haussmann is up at the top of the 
 hill, and he will scourge it in ' Maison Neuve ! ' when M. 
 Haussmann draws near his fall." The criticism is not 
 unjust. The incipient re-action against the republic 
 found its reflection in 1872 in 'Rabagas ;' the uneasy 
 restlessness in regard to foreign spies furnished the 
 groundwork for 'Dora' in 1877 ; the provincial election- 
 eering, log-rolling, and wire-pulling of the MacMahonite 
 struggles were used in 1878 to give color to the ' Bour
 
 2O2 French Dramatists. 
 
 geois de Pont d'Arcy ; ' and advantage is taken of the 
 agitation in favor of a divorce-law in 1881 to give point 
 to 'Divorgons.' 
 
 In spite, therefore, of M. Sardou's extraordinary 
 cleverness, of his great theatrical skill, of his undenia- 
 ble wit, in spite of his many gifts in various directions, 
 he is not a dramatist of the first rank. He cannot 
 safely be taken as a model. As Joubert points out, " It 
 suffices not for an author to catch the attention and to 
 hold it : he must also satisfy it." M. Sardou often 
 catches the attention, and for a time he holds it ; but 
 he never satisfies it. In the preceding pages he has 
 been likened to a conjurer, a clown, and a barometer. 
 If these comparisons are just, they suggest that there 
 is an ever-present taint of insincerity in his work ; that 
 he does not put himself into it ; and that we shall seldom 
 find in it that " one drop of ruddy human blood " which 
 Lowell tells us " puts more life into the veins of a poem 
 than all the delusive aurum potabile that can be distilled 
 out of the choicest library," or compounded by the 
 utmost cleverness.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 M. OCTAVE FEUILLET. 
 
 AMONG the foremost of the French dealers in for- 
 bidden fruit, canned for export and domestic use, is 
 M. Octave Feuillet, whose wares are well known to the 
 American public. His novels are the fine flower of 
 the Byzantine literature of the Second Empire. They 
 have been freely translated and widely read in this 
 country. The 'Romance of a Poor Young Man' has 
 the choice distinction of being one of the few French 
 novels harmless enough for perusal in young ladies' 
 boarding-schools. The drama which M. Feuillet made 
 from this novel, and of which a broadened and vulgar- 
 ized version has been acted in America by Mr. Lester 
 Wallack, is equally familiar. Two other of his plays 
 the ' Tentation ' (skilfully transmuted by Mr. Boucicault 
 into ' Led Astray ') and the ' Sphinx ' have been fre- 
 quently shown to American play-goers. But the novels 
 which have been translated into English, and the plays 
 which have been acted in America, are only a part of 
 M. Feuillet's work ; and they are not sufficient to give 
 a fair idea of his qualities or his career. 
 
 Born in 1812, M. Octave Feuillet began to be known 
 toward the end of the first half of the century as one 
 of the assistants and imitators of Alexandre Dumas the 
 elder, then in the splendor of his most prodigal produc- 
 tion. Just what share M. Feuillet may have had in any 
 
 of the countless tales of his master it is impossible to 
 
 203
 
 204 French Dramatists. 
 
 say, nor how many bricks he may have made for the 
 marvellous palace of Monte Cristo. With M. Paul 
 Bocage, another of Dumas's disciples, M. Feuillet wrote 
 a novel or two and several dramas. Among the plays 
 are 'Echec et Mat* (1846), ' Palma, ou la Nuit du Ven- 
 dredi Saint' (1847), and the 'Vieillesse de Richelieu' 
 (1848). These pieces are rather ponderous dramas of 
 the Dumas type, made on the model of ' Angele,' ' Th6- 
 rese,' and 'Richard Darlington.' Although common- 
 place and conventional, they are not without a certain 
 cleverness ; but they made no mark, and they have noth- 
 ing salient or individual about them, and so call for no 
 comment here. 
 
 In these juvenile writings M. Feuillet was merely 
 feeling his way ; and, not finding success, he abruptly 
 changed front, and, ceasing to follow Dumas, began 
 to walk in the footsteps of Alfred de Musset. After 
 the failure of one of his earliest plays, Musset had 
 given up writing for the stage, while steadily putting 
 forth pieces in dramatic form for the readers of the 
 Revue des Deux Mondes. Without his knowledge, 
 certain of these plays were acted at the French theatre 
 in St. Petersburg ; and, when the actress who had caused 
 their performance returned from Russia to the Theatre 
 Frangais she brought Musset's comedies with her. 
 And it happened that just about the time when M. 
 Feuillet left off collaborating with M. Bocage, and began 
 to look around for himself, Musset was having a series 
 of unlooked-for successes on the stage. M. Feuillet 
 came forward with comedies modelled on Musset's, but 
 different from these in one important particular. Mus- 
 set's heroes and heroines were a law unto themselves, 
 as much as to say that their loves not seldom were law-
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 205 
 
 less : now, M. Feuillet's pair of lovers had been duly 
 married by the mayor. 
 
 Here occasion serves to remark on the meagreness 
 of subject to be found in nearly all French fiction now- 
 adays, in the novel as well as in the drama. The 
 inexhaustible fertility and ingenuity of the French lit- 
 erary workmen may hide for a while the thinness of the 
 theme which they have wrought ; but sooner or later, in 
 spite of all the variety of enamel, and all eccentricity 
 of form by which the cunning artificers seek to distract 
 attention, we detect the poverty and scantiness of the 
 material which they are working. Just as most con- 
 temporary English fiction ends with the wedding-bells, 
 so most contemporary French fiction rings the changes 
 on the one tune, lawless love. "Business," said 
 Robert Macaire, "is other people's money." "Mar- 
 riage," says most modern French fiction, "is other 
 people's wives." To discuss why there is this tacit con- 
 fession of a dearth of other subjects fit for fiction, 
 would take me too long, and too far from the present 
 text ; but that the scarcity exists, even in the plays 
 of the best French dramatists of our time, is beyond 
 doubt. Of the dozen dramas of M. Alexandre Dumas 
 fits, all (with perhaps a single exception) turn on 
 adultery or illegitimacy ; and one or the other of these 
 subjects furnish forth half of M. Augier's plays, and 
 perhaps two-thirds of M. Sardou's. It is not that these 
 plays are all immoral : on the contrary, M. Dumas 
 nowadays always writes with a conscious moral aim, 
 though his morality has a queer twist of its own ; M. 
 Augier's manly comedies have the morality inherent in 
 all healthy works ; and even M. Sardou affronts the 
 proprieties far less than one might suppose. Still the
 
 2o6 French Dramatists. 
 
 fact remains, that the majority of the dramas of these, 
 the first three dramatists of our day, turn on the illicit 
 relation of the sexes, as though that were the only 
 theme capable of effective dramatic treatment, and 
 worthy of it. Of course there are other themes. Pure 
 love has its dramatic possibilities, as well as impure 
 love. Love is only one of the passions ; and although 
 popular will demands that it enter into every play, it 
 may be made subordinate to the development of any 
 one of the other passions. How few of Shakspere's 
 plots spring from illicit love, or have any thing to do 
 with it ! In the best English novels of this century 
 we find absorbing interest and ample psychologic reve- 
 lation with the slightest perhaps even a too slight 
 attention to the theme which is the staple of corre- 
 sponding French fiction. Scott and Thackeray, George 
 Eliot and Hawthorne, have used unlawful passion, but 
 in proportion only, and not to the neglect of the other 
 motives which move mankind. French feeling differs 
 from ours ; and perhaps the playwrights merely dwell to 
 excess on a topic to which their countrymen in general 
 give an exaggerated attention. There is a curious 
 passage in one of the later writings of M. Dumas, in 
 which he discusses marital misfortune, and tells us that 
 every man thinks of it constantly, laughing at his 
 neighbor, and fearing for himself. The American hus- 
 band does not devote his days and nights to specula- 
 tions about his wife's fidelity. 
 
 To the French public, thus familiar with the most 
 high-flown and the least lawful passion, M. Feuillet 
 gave a new thing: he offered it the old and ever 
 welcome exhibition of amorous adventure, dexterously 
 veiled by a pretence of morality. French morality is
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 207 
 
 at times rather humorsome ; and in one of its freaks 
 it chose to accept M. Feuillet's pseudo-delicacy and 
 ultra-refinement, and to close its eyes to the falsity 
 of M. Feuillet's ethics. The public was tired of the 
 stormy souls in irregular situations seen in the stories 
 of Hugo, Dumas, George Sand, Merime'e, and Musset; 
 and it was ready for a novelty. M. Feuillet took 
 Musset for his model, turning his morality inside out. 
 Musset's morality was easy, to say the least : and M. 
 Feuillet's was pretentiously paraded; his tender and 
 glowing interiors were certified to contain only a duly 
 married couple. Instead of the trio husband, wife, 
 and lover almost universal in French literature, there 
 was only a duo, in which the husband committed adul- 
 tery with his own wife. It was an attempt to graft 
 the roses and raptures of vice on the lilies and lan- 
 guors of virtue. By giving conjugal endearments the 
 externals of criminal passion, M. Feuillet managed to 
 lower marriage to the level of vulgar gallantry, and to 
 make the reconciliation of husband and wife as in- 
 teresting as the chance intrigues of a courtesan. In 
 these boudoir dramas he outraged the sacred secrecy 
 of wedded life ; but so clever was his affectation of pro- 
 priety, that many respectable people did not look be- 
 neath the surface, and took him at his own word. Then 
 there were those, who, having preached against the 
 wickedness of the world, could not denounce so ingen- 
 uous a writer when he declared himself their ally. 
 And yet another class was pleased by these new plays 
 the pretentious prudes ; for there are prtcieuses ridi- 
 cttles now as well as two hundred years ago, though 
 there is no Moliere to put them in the pillory. 
 
 Fairness requires us to admit that perhaps the author
 
 208 French Dramatists. 
 
 was more sincere then than we now judge from a study 
 of his work ; and, if he believed in himself, why should 
 not others believe in him ? Even those who detested 
 him were not always sharp enough to see the underly- 
 ing immodesty. One of these scoffingly nicknamed him 
 the family Musset, the "Musset des families," a slant- 
 ing allusion to an eminently proper periodical publica- 
 tion called the Musee des Families. But he failed to 
 blind so keen an observer as Sainte-Beuve, as any one 
 may see who reads the perfidious compliments scattered 
 through the study of M. Feuillet's work with which the 
 great critic greeted ' Sibylle,' a Roman-Catholic Ten- 
 denz-Roman, a "novel with a purpose," written at the 
 request of the devout and frivolous empress, and pub- 
 lished in 1863. 
 
 M. Feuillet followed in Musset's footsteps, not only 
 in the form of his new ventures, but also in the mode 
 of putting them before the public. They appeared first 
 in the Revue des Deux Mondes, and then in volumes 
 called ' Scenes et Comedies ' and * Scenes et Proverbes.' 
 In Musset fashion again, it was some little time before 
 the plays M. Feuillet had thus printed and published 
 were brought out at a regular playhouse. Although 
 there is everywhere in his work an odor of tuberoses, 
 sweet and stifling, a few of these earlier little comedies 
 are not open to the objection I have just urged ; and 
 in such unpretentious and simple plays, as pretty as 
 they are petty, M. Feuillet shows at his best. The 
 'Village' is a touching little sketch of country life. 
 The 'Fe' is an amusing attempt to import some of 
 the quaint mystery of fairy-folk lore into this matter-of- 
 fact ninteenth century. The ' Urne ' is a lively repro- 
 duction or imitation pastiche is the French word
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 209 
 
 of the comedy of Marivaux and his fellows. M. Feuil- 
 let has a distinct sense of the comedy of situation, and 
 is not lacking in Gallic lightness ; although his humor 
 has no depth, and his wit no edge. In all these little 
 plays he appears to advantage : he can handle two or 
 three characters in the compass of a single act without 
 overstraining his powers. Even the * Cheveu blanc,' a 
 fine specimen of his new style of tickling the jaded 
 palate of Parisians by a highly-spiced dish served with 
 an insipid and enveloping moral sauce, is more tolerable, 
 because shorter, than his later and more ambitious at- 
 tempts in the same vein. Elegant trifling, grace, ease, 
 and emptiness, and fine, unsubstantial talk about ego- 
 tism and selfishness and honor, these are the charac- 
 teristics of the ' Scenes et Comedies ; ' and it is in these 
 that M. Feuillet excels. 
 
 The three more important plays of this period of M. 
 Feuillet's career are the ' Crise,' ' Dalila,' and ' Redemp- 
 tion,' all of which passed through the Revue des Deux 
 Mondes on their way to the stage; the 'Crise,' for 
 one, waiting from 1848, when it appeared in the maga- 
 zine, until 1854, before it got itself acted in the theatre. 
 Seriously considered, ' Redemption ' is an absurd play ; 
 puerile, or at least boyish, in motive, and feeble even 
 in construction ; for the prologue is useless, and the 
 scenes are disjointed. 'Dalila' is better and stronger 
 in itself ; and, besides, it is free from the childish endeav- 
 or to grapple with tiny hands at the mighty problems 
 which vex men's souls. In Carnioli, too, there is a 
 character of force and freshness. Of these three plays, 
 however, the 'Crise' is first in interest, as it was in 
 point of time. It is the earliest of the dramas in which 
 M. Feuillet posed as the analyst of the feminine char
 
 2io French Dramatists. 
 
 acter, and as one who had spied out all its secrets, and 
 had a balm for all its wounds. The crisis from which 
 the play takes its title is that eventful moment in life, 
 when, according to our author, even the most honest 
 and worthy woman, having aforetime led a reputable 
 and humdrum life, all of a sudden has a mad desire to 
 go to the devil headlong : it is an alleged culminating 
 point of the feminine curiosity of knowledge of good 
 and evil. There are plays which criticise themselves ; 
 when the story is once told, no comment is called for : 
 the ' Crise ' is one of these. 
 
 In the four acts there are but three characters (save 
 a servant or two) ; and these three characters are the 
 eternal trio of French fiction, husband, wife, and 
 lover. For ten years the husband and the wife have 
 lived happily together. To his oldest and best friend, 
 who is also the family physician, the husband confides 
 that of late his wife has changed : she could not be 
 in better health physically ; but she is now, against 
 her wont, at times restless, or irritable, or sentimental, 
 or what-not, as the whim seizes her. The doctor ex- 
 plains that this is the crisis in her life, the epoch of 
 maturity in woman, when she longs for a bite of for- 
 bidden fruit. The husband asks for a prescription. 
 The doctor explains that the only cure for this strange 
 taste is for the husband to find a devoted friend 
 who will lead the wife to the brink of the abyss, but 
 only to the brink; and he vouches, that, when she 
 shrinks back in horror, she will long no more for the 
 apples on the other side of the chasm : it will be a radi- 
 cal cure. The husband instantly beseeches the doctor 
 to try this experiment on his wife ; and the friend re- 
 luctantly but immediately consents to pretend to be the
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 211 
 
 lover. Husband and lover then draw up a code, under 
 which the lover is, if possible, to seduce the wife, 
 pausing before any damage is done, so that the wife 
 may be cured by an awful warning and a narrow escape. 
 Time passes, and the lover makes headway. The hus- 
 band finds his wife's private journal, and brings it to the 
 lover ; and the two men read it together to see how the 
 wife feels. In all this playing with fire, the lover and 
 the wife kindle a flame in their own hearts. At last a 
 guilty appointment is made. Morally, at least, the sin is 
 committed. Just in time the husband intervenes, and, 
 talking in parables, threatens to deprive the wife of her 
 children, should she sin. This restless and sentimental 
 woman, be it known, has two children. So effective are 
 these parables of the husband's, that the new love fades 
 out of the wife's heart, and she falls on her husband's 
 neck ; and then the curtain falls also, leaving in doubt 
 the fate of the unfortunate lover. Is not comment 
 needless ? 
 
 In 1858 M. Feuillet turned his novel, the 'Romance 
 of a Poor Young Man,' into a play ; and for sufficiently 
 obvious reasons it is the most wholesome of his later 
 dramas. The scene is skilfully chosen ; the characters 
 are sharply contrasted ; and a dexterous use is made of 
 our love for the heroic and self-sacrificing : so we see 
 the play with pleasure in spite of its quick-tempered 
 and disagreeable young woman, its high-toned and hot- 
 headed young man, its absurd old pirate, and its atmos- 
 phere of effeminate sentimentality. Two years later 
 it was followed by the 'Tentation,' the first comedy 
 which M. Feuillet had written directly for acting, and 
 not for reading ; and its simpler and closer structure 
 shows the benefit of the experience gained in transfer
 
 212 French Dramatists. 
 
 ring its predecessors from the pages of a magazine to 
 the boards of a theatre. There is no need to dwell on 
 the ' Tentation,' as it is as familiar to American audi- 
 ences as the ' Romance of a Poor Young Man,' Mr. 
 Dion Boucicault having turned it into ' Led Astray.' 
 Nothing better shows Mr. Boucicault's skill, and knowl- 
 edge of the temper of our playgoing public, than the 
 tact and taste with which he changed the relationship 
 of the objectionable pair of foreign adventurers. Mr. 
 Boucicault's Irish soldier of fortune is a distinct char- 
 acter, with truly Irish wit and readiness ; whereas M. 
 Feuillet's foreigners were Frenchmen in disguise. 
 Oddly enough, M. Feuillet is fond of using foreigners 
 to give color and comic variety to his groups : we find 
 them not only in this play, but also in ' Redemption,' 
 'Montjoye,' and the 'Sphinx.' It is all the more odd 
 that he should resort to this expedient for forcing a 
 laugh, when he has a flow of easy comedy all his own, 
 and nowhere shown to better advantage than in this 
 very play. There is brightsome humor and charming 
 comedy in the courtship of the two young people ; and, 
 although the two old women are somewhat farcical, even 
 they do their share in amusing. But the main intrigue 
 of the play is again husband and wife and lover ; and 
 again the heroine is a lady of passionate aspirations 
 and valetudinarian virtue ; and again, when every thing 
 tends toward irretrievable mishap, the dramatist inter- 
 venes, and gives a sharp twist to plot and people ; and 
 after such a wrench the play cannot but end happily. 
 
 Any one of M. Feuillet's plays might be called ' On 
 the Brink ; ' and in very few of them is there an actual 
 fall over the precipice. Here the author is lacking in 
 intellectual seriousness : he is always ready to drop logic
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 213 
 
 through a trap in his trick-table. " Consequences are 
 unpitying," said George Eliot ; evidently M. Feuillet 
 does not think so : however vicious any character may 
 seem, we may be sure of his death-bed repentance, and 
 that he will die in a state of grace and the odor of sanc- 
 tity. Next to the uncleanness beneath the surface, 
 this is M. Feuillet's worse defect ; and nowhere has it 
 done him more harm than in ' Montjoye,' a comedy in 
 five acts, brought out in 1863, three years after the 
 ' Tentation.' Taken altogether, this is perhaps M. Feuil- 
 let's best play : it is the only one of his serious pieces 
 in which he has not mistaken violence for strength. 
 Montjoye himself is the central figure of the picture, 
 and indeed the only one ; for all the others are merely 
 accessory, and devised to set off the protagonist. Mont- 
 joye is a man of velvet manner and iron will, a man 
 who aims at success, and who believes that the end jus- 
 tifies the means, and who bends or breaks every thing 
 to attain his end. He is a character boldly projected, 
 although not sufficiently justified, and at the finish not 
 self-consistent. He softens into sentiment, and so weak- 
 ens the effect on the audience. In criticising M. Augier, 
 M. Zola praises the final impenitence of Maitre Guerin. 
 This final impenitence is just what Montjoye lacks : in 
 real life such a man would die game. 
 
 The fact is, M. Feuillet is no Frankenstein : he never 
 creates any being he cannot control ; and he makes all 
 his creatures do his bidding at the peril of their lives. 
 He is rather a magician, who raises good and evil spirits 
 at will. Or, to be more exact, he is a writer of fairy- 
 tales. The stories he tells are not true, and they could 
 not happen anywhere out of fairyland. In one of his 
 ' Scenes et Comedies/ he ventured within the magic cir-
 
 214 French Dramatists. 
 
 cle in that most mysterious little play called the ' Fee/ 
 hi which a benevolent and sprightly little fairy plays 
 most charming and delightful pranks, all of them, 
 alas ! prosaically explained away before the curtain falls. 
 Once granting that M. Feuillet is a writer of fairy- 
 tales, and it is a matter of course to find the ' Belle au 
 Bois dormant ' in the list of his plays ; and it is per- 
 haps characteristic that this ' Sleeping Beauty in the 
 Wood ' should be a drama rather than a comedy. The 
 Sleeping Beauty is the last of a feudal line, declining 
 into poverty, and representing the past. The young 
 Prince is the head of a factory, rising in riches, and 
 thus representing the future. The Beauty has an im- 
 practical and re-actionary brother ; and the Prince has 
 a practical and progressive sister : thus is the play pro- 
 vided with two pair of lovers. So far is the fairy-tale 
 followed, that when the young Prince gets into the 
 castle, the author puts the Beauty to sleep off-hand, 
 that the Prince may see her so. There is much clever- 
 erness in detail, as there is ingenuity in the main situa- 
 tion. Here, frankly face to face, is the conflict of old 
 and new, past and future, a conflict irrepressible and 
 irreconcilable ; and there is no end to it. 
 
 And here, again, M. Feuillet shows his artistic weak- 
 ness. His young Prince is no true man of the nine- 
 teenth century, having to do with men and machinery, 
 and master of himself at all events. He is no true 
 man at all : when he cannot get the woman he loves, 
 he breaks down, and moons around, and weeps saltless 
 tears. How much better this is handled in one of 
 our own novels, as those will acknowledge who recall 
 the same situation in the 'American' of Mr. Henry 
 James, Jr. ! When Christopher Newman determines
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 215 
 
 to marry the highborn French woman who has charmed 
 him with her quiet grace, he hesitates at no obstacle, 
 he is baffled by nothing, he works out his own work, 
 he fights his own fight, and he bears every thing before 
 him by sheer force of Yankee grit and Yankee wit, 
 until at last the doors of a convent clang to, and the 
 woman he seeks is shut up from him behind the walls 
 of the church, the one thing against which all Yan- 
 kee energy, ingenuity, and perseverance are vain. 
 
 All this time M. Feuillet was slowly outgrowing the 
 imitation of Musset. In the 'Romance of a Poor 
 Young Man,' in the 'Tentation,' in 'Montjoye,' and 
 especially in the ' Sleeping Beauty in the Wood,' it is 
 easy to see traces of Musset's manner : taken alto- 
 gether, however, these plays are truly M. Feuillet's 
 own, and not fiefs for which he must needs do homage. 
 As the recollection of Alfred de Musset was getting 
 fainter, the influence of M. Alexandre Dumas fils was 
 growing. Already in ' Dalila ' one may see some sign 
 of the ' Dame aux Camelias ' and of ' Diane de Lys ; ' 
 and surely the ' Tentation ' and ' Montjoye ' would not 
 have been what they are, had it not been for the ' Demi- 
 Monde' and the 'Fils Naturel.' The influence of M. 
 Dumas upon M. Feuillet is the influence of a man of 
 marked individuality and vigor upon a man of feeble 
 fibre ; and, as time passed, this influence became plainer 
 and more emphatic. The author of the ' Crise ' seemed 
 to tire of the nickname the MM. de Goncourt had 
 tagged to him, and refused any longer to be the " Mus- 
 set des families." Not content with charming, and 
 drawing tears, he wished to thrill and to shock his 
 audience ; and M. Dumas seemed to him the best model. 
 But, in trying to vie with M. Dumas, M. Feuillet was
 
 216 French Dramatists. 
 
 going against his natural gifts. As M. Charles Bigot 
 said in his admirable study of the author of 'Dalila/ 
 " In reality, what the graceful talent of M. Feuillet 
 lacks is strength, and, with strength, all the qualities 
 which go with it, logic, simplicity, frankness." Now, 
 these are just the qualities which M. Dumas has most 
 abundantly. So when M. Feuillet tries to be strong, 
 he is only violent ; and, when he seeks to show his 
 muscles, he lets us see that he has only nerves, to 
 use the neat figure of M. Claretie. 
 
 'Julie/ a drama in three acts, which M. Feuillet 
 brought out at the Theatre Frangais in 1869, is plain- 
 ly enough an attempt to repeat the effects of the 
 'Supplice d'une Femme,' of which M. Dumas is one 
 of the authors, and the one to whom its success is due. 
 But ' Julie ' has none of the concentrated passion and 
 remorseless logic which make the 'Supplice d'une 
 Femme ' so startling and successful ; and whereas the 
 ' Supplice d'une Femme ' seems dominated by a fate as 
 inexorable as that which determined the destiny of the 
 heroes of Greek drama, 'Julie' has all the weakness 
 of any copy, in which reliance is placed on carefully- 
 planned claptraps, rather than on the natural rush and 
 expression of emotion. The ' Supplice d'une Femme/ 
 although it is a high-strung play, easy to turn into 
 ridicule, has the accent of sincerity. 'Julie' rings 
 false. It was a play of a kind radically opposite to 
 that which the author had hitherto produced ; and even 
 so ingenious a writer as M. Feuillet cannot change his 
 skin in the twinkling of an eye. In his treatment of 
 woman M. Dumas is severe, and logical to the point of 
 brutality: hitherto M. Feuillet had been petting, and 
 illogical to the verge of mushiness ; and it was no
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 
 
 217 
 
 wonder that the author of 'Julie' was greeted as a 
 literary dandy who was affecting the intense. Of a 
 truth, morality is not a garment which an author may 
 don and doff at will : if it be good for any thing, his 
 morality is in him, deep down in him, and cannot be 
 torn thence. 
 
 Still more violent and feeble-forcible than ' Julie ' is 
 M. Feuillet's latest play, the 'Sphinx,' acted in 1874. 
 It is hard to see in this ill-made and monstrous impos- 
 sibility any trace of the neat workmanship and charming 
 style of the family Musset. A vulgar and undigested 
 drama like the 'Sphinx' forces us to remember that 
 the author of the ' Romance of a Poor Young Man ' and 
 of the ' Sleeping Beauty in the Wood ' was first of all 
 the author of melodramatic crudities like ' Palma, ou la 
 Nuit du Vendredi Saint.' Just how absurd the play is 
 can best be seen by a rapid summary of the plot. 
 
 Blanche de Chelles is the wife of a naval officer absent 
 on a cruise. She lives with her father-in-law, and near 
 her friend Berthe de Savigny, whose husband, however, 
 dislikes the intimacy, and seeks to break it off. It sud- 
 denly transpires that the cause of Blanche's wanton bra- 
 vado of manner is her hitherto unsuspected love for M. 
 de Savigny. As soon as M. de Savigny suspects this, 
 he half responds, although he has hitherto disliked her. 
 Then, with a revulsion of feeling, he pours forth his 
 devotion to his wife. Blanche overhears this conjugal 
 scene, and instantly accepts the proposal of an impos- 
 sible Scotch nobleman, Lord Astley, who has asked her 
 to elope with him to Scotland. M. de Savigny forbids 
 her running away, and she takes this as a confession of 
 his affection .for her. Now, Madame de Savigny has 
 overheard M. de Savigny's avowals to Blanche, just as
 
 218 French Dramatists. 
 
 Blanche had previously overheard his avowals to Berthe. 
 (It is astonishing how everybody overhears every thing 
 all through the play ; and listeners, we know, never hear 
 any good of themselves, and rarely of any one else.) 
 Having discovered the guilty love of her husband and 
 Blanche, Madame de Savigny says nothing, but suffers 
 in silence, until the fourth act. Then she breaks out, 
 and threatens Blanche with certain compromising letters 
 she has found. (After putting people behind doors to 
 listen, M. Feuillet makes use of compromising letters : 
 surely these are children's toys, unworthy of a serious 
 dramatist.) Blanche wears a mysterious ring with a 
 hollow sphinx's head on it, containing a deadly poison. 
 She opens the ring, and pours the poison into a glass 
 of water, just as Berthe feels faint, and asks to drink. 
 Here is the one dramatic scene of the piece, and one 
 moment of suspense and uncertainty. Instead of giving 
 the fatal draught to Berthe, Blanche drinks it off her- 
 self, and dies in horrible agony and with convulsive 
 contortions. 
 
 Such success as the ' Sphinx ' had was due to exter- 
 nal accident. With M. Feuillet's usual ingenuity he had 
 laid his weakest scene in one of the picturesque sites 
 of which he is fond ; and the moonlit marsh of the third 
 act did nearly as much for the ' Sphinx ' as the ruined 
 tower, with its lissome coat of ivy, did for the ' Romance 
 of a Poor Young Man.' And the author was fortunate 
 in having Mile. Croizette and Mile. Sarah Bernhardt for 
 his heroines. It was not the first time that the talent 
 and authority of the actress had done much for the 
 author, as those willingly bore witness who saw Mme. 
 Favart in 'Julie,' and Mme. Fargueil in 'Dalila.' It 
 was rumored at the time that M. Feuillet had not in-
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 219 
 
 tended any such naturalistic display of toxicological 
 phenomena as Mile. Croizette exhibited, and that the 
 author objected to the "sensational" devices of the 
 actress. If so, he was ungenerous ; for it was her last 
 dying speech and confession which gave the play all the 
 originality it could boast. As to the taste of such an 
 exhibition, opinion may differ : in this case, certainly, it 
 was quite in keeping with the tone of the play. " It is 
 always difficult," wrote Lamb to Godwin, "to get rid 
 of a woman at the end of a tragedy. Men may fight 
 and die. A woman must either take poison, which is a 
 nasty trick ; or go mad, which is not fit to be shown ; 
 or retire, which is poor ; only retiring is the most repu- 
 table." 
 
 'Julie ' and the * Sphinx/ however, are not really rep- 
 resentative of M. Feuillet, save in minor detail ; and they 
 are artistically so inferior to his earlier plays, that they 
 seem the result of some strange freak. The best group 
 of his dramatic works is that which includes the pieces 
 produced between 1858 and 1865, the 'Romance 
 of a Poor Young Man,' the 'Tentation, 'Montjoye,' 
 and the ' Sleeping Beauty.' Although one can scarcely 
 call these comedies strong plays, they are M. Feuillet's 
 strongest, as they are his least offensive. They reveal 
 his amiable talent in the most favorable light. Yet I 
 am not sure whether some of his smaller plays, and in 
 a painter's sense less "important," are not really bet- 
 ter bits of work and of better workmanship. He lacks 
 logic to construct your carefully-considered edifice in 
 five acts ; and he has no breadth of style. In the space 
 of one act he does not exhaust himself or his spectator ; 
 and he has ample marge and room enough to show off 
 his grace, his ease, his ingenuity, his charm of style,
 
 220 French Dramatists. 
 
 and his caressing and effeminate touch. There is some- 
 thing feminine in the author of the * Sleeping Beauty.' 
 Sainte-Beuve remarked that M. Feuillet excelled in the 
 women's diaries, of which he is fond : as who should say 
 he had been a woman himself. Sustained effort is not 
 to be expected from a writer of feminine qualities ; and 
 this is, perhaps, why certain of his little comedies are 
 of greater worth than their bigger brothers. A humor- 
 ous fantasy like the 'Fruit Defendu,' in which, too, 
 the humor, though not robust, is not at all what a wo- 
 man could have written ; or a clear-cut intaglio from 
 life, like the ' Village,' a little masterpiece, these are 
 worth, not only all the 'Julies' and 'Sphinxes,' but all 
 the ' Romances of Poor Young Men ' and ' Sleeping 
 Beauties.' On the other hand, also in one act, are both 
 the 'Cheveu Blanc' and 'Le Pour et le Contre,' the 
 most disgusting of all his plays, in spite of their high 
 polish and superficial decorum. To come across the 
 ' Village ' in the series of M. Feuillet's plays is like a 
 vision of the country rising before you as you stand in 
 the overladen air of a stifling ball-room. The ' Village ' 
 is one of the author's few incursions into real life. 
 The most of his plays have their scenes laid in a world 
 of his own, much pleasanter than this work-a-day world 
 of ours. It is a world where youth and beauty, and wit 
 and riches, and titles and idleness abound, and where 
 there is nothing poor, or mean, or painful. Especially 
 is there nothing like self-sacrifice. Every thing has a 
 smooth surface and a fine finish. Everybody is happy, 
 or will be before the curtain fall. What though the 
 fair heroine suffer for a while for her fault? in the 
 end all will come right, as it always does in other 
 fairy-tales.
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 221 
 
 The want of variety in the scene is to be detected 
 also in the actions and characters of M. Feuillet's come- 
 dies, long and short. He has his favorite type of man 
 and woman, and they re-appear again and again. His 
 men all wear dress-coats of correct cut, and white ties 
 beyond reproach : by preference they are men of the 
 world, somewhat cynical, girding at society, but incapa- 
 ble of living out of the whirl and rush of passion : they 
 are men 
 
 " Who tread with jaded step the weary mill, 
 Grind at the wheel, and call it ' Pleasure ' still ; 
 Gay without mirth, fatigued without employ, 
 Slaves to the joyless phantom of a joy." 
 
 This is his favorite hero ; and his favorite heroine is 
 like unto him, save that he has greater skill in draw- 
 ing women. His heroine is listless, excited, nay, fever- 
 ish at times, sickly in body and soul, moved by a secret 
 and nameless unrest born of idle luxury. She fancies 
 herself abandoned and lonely. " Solitude," says Balzac, 
 " is a vacuum ; and nature abhors a vacuum in morals 
 as in physics." The wife in the 'Crise' is hysteria 
 personified ; the heroine of the ' Tentation ' is no bet- 
 ter : and there are a dozen like them. One feels like 
 prescribing cold baths and out-door exercise for all of 
 them. "Virtue, however solid you may think it, has 
 need of some encouragement, and of some little sup- 
 port," says the heroine of 'Le Pour et le Centre.' 
 Poor thing ! and if her virtue is not propped and stayed, 
 if there come a thunder-storm, or if any other of a 
 hundred and one accidents happen, the fragile virtue 
 gets a fall, and there is nobody to blame. 
 
 In discussing M. Victorien Sardou, the final word is 
 that his work is clever ; and, in considering M. Octave
 
 t 
 
 222 French Dramatists. 
 
 Feuillet, the final word is that his works are unhealthy. 
 To my mind, the author of the 'Crise,' and of the 
 ' Cheveu Blanc/ and of the ' C16 d'Or,' and of ' Le Pour 
 et le Centre,' is one of the most dangerous of modern 
 French writers of fiction. His is an insidious immo- 
 rality, parading itself in the livery of a militant virtue. 
 His is a false art, and false art is pretty surely immoral. 
 Summed up, his teaching is that you can touch pitch, 
 and not be defiled, so long as you wear ten-button kid 
 gloves ; that you can play with fire, and drop the torch 
 so soon as the flame begins to scorch your hands ; that 
 that you may handle edged tools, and get off scart-free ; 
 and that you can rush headlong at the precipice, and 
 pull up somehow and safely right on the brink. It 
 would be a wholesome pleasure to know how sturdy 
 and truly British Samuel Johnson, with his stalwart 
 morality, would have voiced his opinion of M. Feuillet' s 
 ethics. It happens that there is extant an American 
 equivalent for this British judgment. I was re-reading 
 M. Feuillet's productions to write these pages, when 
 Mr. Stedman published his fine criticism of Walt Whit- 
 man ; and the tricksy humor, which is said to be an 
 American characteristic, made me ask myself if a 
 greater curiosity of literature could well be imagined 
 than a criticism of M. Octave Feuillet of the French 
 Academy, novelist and dramatist, by Walt Whitman, 
 American poet and essayist. But a poet has the gift 
 of foreseeing our wants and of satisfying them before 
 we ask ; and so, when I took up ' Leaves of Grass ' to 
 read it again through Mr. Stedman's spectacles, I found 
 that Whitman had expressed his opinion of Feuillet, or 
 what we may be sure would be his opinion, did he care 
 to consider the Frenchman. It is in 'Chants Dmo- 
 cratiques ' (284), and it is as follows :
 
 M. Octave Feuillet. 223 
 
 " They who piddle and patter here in collars and 
 tailed coats I am aware who they are 
 they are not worms or fleas." 
 
 If this seem a harsh judgment, remember that the 
 Frenchman has in excess the very qualities the Ameri- 
 can most detests in literature, sweetness, feudalism, 
 the aristocratic atmosphere, a lady-like touch. If this 
 seem a harsh judgment, let us turn to Mr. Stedman, and 
 try M. Feuillet by the test and standard Mr. Stedman 
 sets up to gauge Whitman ; and, though more cour- 
 teously phrased, I doubt if the verdict will differ 
 greatly from the suppositions we quoted above from 
 ' Leaves of Grass.' Here is what Mr. Stedman asks : 
 " How far does the effort of a workman relate to what 
 is fine and enduring ? and how far does he succeed in 
 his effort ? "
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 EUGENE LABICHE. 
 
 ONE of the most curious changes of opinion that is 
 recorded anywhere in the history of literature took place 
 in France during 1878 and 1879. For more than two- 
 score years M. Eugene Labiche had been putting forth 
 comic plays with unhesitating liberality. His humorous 
 inventions had delighted two generations, and he was 
 set down in the biographical dictionaries as one of the 
 most amusing of French farce-writers. Attempting in 
 rapid succession, and with almost unbroken success, 
 every kind of comic play, from the keen and quick com- 
 edy of the Gymnase theatre to the broad buffoonery 
 of the Palais Royal, for nearly forty years M. Labiche 
 had been one of the most prolific and most popular of 
 French playwrights. His work was seemingly unpre- 
 tentious, and the author modestly made no higher claim 
 than to be the exciting cause of laughter and gayety. 
 Having made a fine fortune, he had watched for the first 
 symptom of failing luck ; and, as soon as two or three 
 plays were plainly not successes, he announced that he 
 should write no more, and withdrew quietly to his large 
 farm in Normandy. 
 
 The retiring of a mere comic writer was of no great 
 moment, and few paid any attention to it. But it hap- 
 pened that M. fimile Augier was a friend of M. Labiche, 
 and that one day he came to visit M. Labiche in his 
 
 country retirement, and fell to reading the odd plays of 
 224
 
 Eugene Labiche. 225 
 
 his host as he found them in his library. He was so 
 struck and so surprised with what he discovered, that 
 he prevailed on the author to gather together the best 
 of them into a series of volumes, promising to write an 
 introduction. In the spring of 1878 appeared the first 
 volume of the 'Theatre Complet' of M. Eugene Labiche, 
 with a preface by M. fimile Augier, in which he pointed 
 out that the author of a hundred and fifty comic plays 
 was not a mere farce-writer, but a master of humor, for 
 whom he had the highest admiration. "Seek among 
 the highest works of our generation a comedy of more 
 profound observation than the 'Voyage de M. Perrichon,' 
 or of more philosophy than the ' Misanthrope et 1'Au- 
 vergnat.' Well, Labiche has ten plays of this strength 
 in his repertory." The leading dramatic critics of Paris 
 and in France dramatic criticism is still one of the 
 fine arts fell into line, M. Francisque Sarcey first of 
 all. They read the volumes of M. Labiche's ' Theatre 
 Complet ' as they followed one another from the press ; 
 and with one accord almost all confessed their surprise 
 at the richness and fecundity of M. Labiche's humor. 
 Indeed, it seemed as though the critics had taken to 
 heart the repairing of their previous unwitting indiffer- 
 ence, and were unduly lavish of admiration. So it came 
 to pass in the fall of 1879, when the tenth, and proba- 
 bly the final volume of the 'Theatre Complet ' appeared, 
 that, urged to overcome his modesty by his cordial 
 friends, M. Labiche became a candidate for a vacant 
 chair in the French Academy, seeking admittance among 
 the forty immortals chosen from the chiefs of literature, 
 science, and politics. Three years before, such a step 
 would have seemed a good joke ; but now no one laughed. 
 Certainly those did not laugh who opposed his election ;
 
 226 French Dramatists. 
 
 and the staid Revue des Deux Mondes, in an elaborate 
 article written rather in the slashing style of the earlier 
 Edinburgh Review than with the suave and academic 
 urbanity we have been taught to expect in the pages of 
 the French fortnightly, the Revue des Deux Mondes 
 argued seriously and severely against his election. But 
 the tide had turned in his favor. He was elected ; and 
 November, 1880, M. Eugene Labiche took his place in 
 the Academy by the side of his fellow-dramatists, M. 
 Victor Hugo, M. fimile Augier, M. Jules Sandeau, 
 M. Octave Feuillet, M. Alexandre Dumas fils, and M. 
 Victorien Sardou. A seat in the Academy, it may be 
 remembered, was an honor refused to Jean Baptiste 
 Poquelin de Moliere, to Caron de Beaumarchais, to 
 Alexandre Dumas, and to Honore" de Balzac. 
 
 It is said, but with how much truth I do not know, 
 that what determined M. Labiche to stop writing for 
 the stage was the recalling of an incident of Scribe's 
 later years. One day, about 1860, M. Labiche had 
 called on Jacques Offenbach, at his request, to see 
 about the setting to music of a little play which had 
 already been successful without it. While they were 
 talking, a card was brought to Offenbach, who impa- 
 tiently tore it up, and told the servant to say he was 
 not at home. Then, turning to M. Labiche, the com- 
 poser said that the visitor was Scribe, who had been 
 bothering him to set one of his plays : " but I will not 
 do it," added Offenbach roughly; "for old Scribe is 
 played out." M. Labiche at once resolved, that when 
 he was old and rich, like Scribe, he would not lag super- 
 fluous on the stage. With the first intimations of fail- 
 ing power to please the fickle play-goers of Paris, he 
 withdrew. For now nearly five years no new play from
 
 Eugene Labiche. 227 
 
 his pen has been brought out in Paris. He has written 
 a trifle or two for the 'Theatre de Campagne,' and for 
 'Saynetes et Monologues,' two little collections of 
 comedies for amateur acting ; but for the paying public 
 he has done nothing. It is to M. fimile Augier that 
 the credit is due of bringing M. Labiche out of his 
 retirement. The preface which M. Augier had been 
 too lazy too write for his own collected plays he wrote 
 for M. Labiche's ; and it was this preface which first 
 opened the eyes of the press and the public, and led to 
 the frank acknowledgment of M. Labiche's very unusual 
 merit. The theatrical managers are now only too eager 
 for new pieces from him ; and, in default of these, they 
 have revived right and left some of the most mirthful 
 of his plays. The ' Grammaire ' at the Palais Royal, 
 the ' Trente Millions de Gladiateur ' at the Nouveautes, 
 and, above all, the ' Voyage de M. Perrichon ' at the 
 Odeon, were received with great cordiality and appre- 
 ciation. 
 
 To most Americans, I fancy, the name of M. Labiche 
 is utterly unknown ; and one may well ask, What man- 
 ner of plays are these, that they could remain so long 
 misunderstood ? The question is easier to ask than to 
 answer. The most of them are apparently farces, in 
 one, two, three, four, or even five acts, farces some- 
 what of the Madison Morton type. Mr. Morton bor- 
 rowed his ' Box and Cox ' from one of them ; the late 
 Charles Mathews took his 'Little Toddlekins' from 
 another; from a third came the equally well-known 
 'Phenomenon in a Smock-frock.' These are all one- 
 act plays. Of his larger work, a version of the ' Voyage 
 de M. Perrichon ' has been done at the Boston Museum 
 as ' Papa Perrichon ; ' and Mr. W. S. Gilbert has used
 
 228 French Dramatists. 
 
 the plot, and tried to catch something of the spirit, of 
 the 'Chapeau de paille d'ltalie' in his 'Wedding 
 March.' In many of M. Labiche's plays, perhaps in all 
 but the best of them, the first impression one gets is 
 that of extravagant buffoonery : the phrase is scarcely 
 too strong. But soon one sees that this is no grinning 
 through a horse-collar ; that it has its roots in truth ; 
 and that, although unduly exuberant, it is in essence 
 truly humorous. To the very best of M. Labiche's 
 plays, the half-dozen or so comedies which entitle their 
 author to take rank as a master, reference will be made 
 later. In all his work, in the weakest as well as in the 
 best, the dominant note is gayety : they are filled full 
 of frank, hearty, joyous laughter. In reading his plays, 
 as in seeing them on the stage, you have rarely that 
 quiet smile of intellectual appreciation which is called 
 forth by Sheridan in English, and by Beaumarchais, 
 and M. Augier, and M. Dumas, in French. The wit is 
 not subtle and quiet, excepting now and again in the 
 half-dozen chosen comedies. There is rather the rush 
 of broad and tumultuous humor than the thrust of wit, 
 and the clash of repartee. It is not that the dialogue 
 has not its felicities, and its not always felicitous quib- 
 blings and quips : it is because the laughter is evoked 
 by a humorous situation, from which, with great knowl- 
 edge of comic effect, and with unfailing ingenuity, the 
 author extracts all the fun possible. A comedy ought 
 to stand the test of the library, how few modern 
 comedies there are in English which will stand it ! 
 but a farce, making no pretensions to be literature, may 
 well be excused if it does not read as well as it acts. 
 Yet M. Labiche's plays, frankly farces as the most of 
 them are, and devised to lend themselves to the whim
 
 Eugene Labiche. 229 
 
 and exaggeration of comic actors, will still repay 
 perusal. I have just finished the reading of the ten 
 volumes of his ' Theatre Complet ; ' and I confess to real 
 enjoyment in the course of it. The fundamental idea 
 of each piece is in general so humorous, and the indi- 
 vidual scenes are so comic, that I paid my tribute of 
 laughter in my chair by myself almost as freely as I 
 should have done in my seat at the theatre. Even in 
 the plays where the fun seems forced, as though the 
 author were out of spirits when he wrote, at worst 
 there is nearly always one scene as mirthful as any one 
 could wish. This quality of humor, which does not 
 rely upon any merely verbal cleverness, is difficult to 
 set before a reader. An epigram of Sheridan's, or of 
 the younger Dumas's, can be selected for quotation, 
 which shall be typical of the writer's whole work. It 
 would be only by long paraphrases of entire plays, or 
 at least of the main plots, that any fair idea could be 
 given of M. Labiche's merits, so closely, as a rule, is 
 his humor the result of his comic situation. But the 
 attempt must be made, however inadequately. In the 
 ' Trente Millions de Gladiateur/ one of the poorest of 
 M. Labiche's plays, is a scene which M. Francisque 
 Sarcey thus spoke of when the piece was last given in 
 Paris : 
 
 " The scene of the slaps is now legendary. I do not 
 know any thing more unexpected, or more laughable. 
 A druggist, very much in love with a young lady, has 
 by accident, one night, thinking to strike another, given 
 his future father-in-law a resounding slap. The father 
 of the lady declares that he will never consent to the 
 marriage until he has returned the blow. But the 
 druggist is a man of dignity, and he has been a com-
 
 230 French Dramatists. 
 
 mander in the national guard : still, after many a hesi- 
 tation he submits. He presents himself to be slapped, 
 and holds forth his cheek. But he has no sooner 
 received the blow, than, carried away by an irresistible 
 impulse, he returns it, crying with disgust, ' That does 
 not count. We must begin again.' Finally, at the 
 very end of the piece, when she whom he loves is, un- 
 known to him, promised to another, love brings him 
 again to the father, and again he holds out his cheek 
 for the blow. The father rolls up his sleeve, gives him 
 the slap, and then at once points to the other suitor, 
 and says, 'Allow me to present my future son-in-law.' " 
 
 Another scene as characteristic is to be found in the 
 'Vivacite's du Capitaine Tic.' The captain is a very 
 quick-tempered man. His cousin Lucile, whom he 
 loves, says she will have nothing to do with him if he 
 forgets himself in future as he has done in the past. 
 An irritating old man, who wishes to marry Lucile to 
 his nephew, determines to provoke the captain into an 
 outbreak. Lucile promises to warn her cousin, when 
 he begins to get heated, by tapping a hand-bell. The 
 old man is intentionally irritating ; and the young officer 
 warms up at once, to be checked by a tap of the bell. 
 As Lucile puts the bell down, the old man uncon- 
 sciously takes it up, and goes on with his insulting 
 remarks. Again the captain boils over, and is about to 
 throw the insulter out of the window, when Lucile 
 shakes the old man's arm, and so rings the bell. The 
 officer laughs ; and after that he has no difficulty in 
 keeping his temper, in spite of the strength of the old 
 man's provocation, which indeed goes so far as to call 
 Lucile to her feet to defend her cousin with warmth, 
 not to say heat. Then the captain, leaning coolly
 
 Eugene Labiche. 231 
 
 against the fireplace, taps a bell there, and calls his 
 cousin to order. Both of the young people break into 
 a hearty laugh, and ring their bells once again under 
 the nose of the disappointed old man, who goes out 
 saying that the captain "has no blood in his veins." 
 
 All this may sound simple enough, and perhaps dull 
 enough, in a bald paraphrase ; but no one would call the 
 scene dull when it is read in full as M. Labiche has 
 written it, with manifold clever little turns in the action, 
 and neat little touches in the dialogue. Both of the 
 plays from which these scenes are taken have stood the 
 severest of tests, the ordeal by fire : they have been 
 tried in the glare of the foot-lights. It is no easy task 
 to bring a smile on the faces of a thousand people 
 assembled together ; it is no light endeavor to force 
 the smile into a hearty laugh ; and nowhere is a public 
 more experienced and more exacting than in Paris. 
 But most of M. Labiche's plays have received due meed 
 of merriment. The laughter is not always evoked, it 
 must be confessed, by devices as simple as those just 
 set forth. There is sometimes a descent into the 
 broadly fantastic, both of situation and of dialogue. 
 The effort to be funny is at times apparent, and the 
 means adopted are now and then far-fetched. 
 
 M. Labiche's plays divide themselves readily into 
 three classes : first, the farcical comedies of broad and 
 generous fun ; second, the plays in which the fun has 
 run away with itself, and become extravagance, still 
 founded on a humorous idea, it is true, but none the 
 less extravagant ; and, third, the plays in which the 
 humor has crystallized around a thread of philosophy, 
 the plays in which the fun rises from the region of farce 
 into the domain of true comedy of a high quality. Most
 
 232 French Dramatists. 
 
 of the fifty-seven plays in the ten volumes of the ' Thea 
 tre Complet ' take their places at once in the first division. 
 They are comic dramas, neither falling into wild farce, 
 nor rising into real comedy. They are comedies of large 
 and hearty laughter, with no Rabelaisian breadth of 
 beam, but with not a little of Molierian swiftness. The 
 linking thus of M. Labiche's name with that of the 
 great humorist who wrote the 'Misanthrope,' is not 
 as incongruous as it might seem. Along with other 
 and nobler qualities for which we revere him, Molie're 
 had comic force, the v is comica, in its highest expres- 
 sion, to a degree, indeed, equalled only by Shakspere 
 and Aristophanes. And this is a quality which M. La- 
 biche has, as we have seen, in a very full measure. In 
 a few other particulars it might be possible to trace 
 something of a likeness. M. Labiche, in his most fan- 
 ciful inventions, could scarcely surpass the exuberant 
 fancies of Moliere : the author of the ' Bourgeois Gen- 
 tilhomme ' and the ' Malade Imaginaire ' does not hesi- 
 tate to be exuberant, and extravagant also, when he needs 
 must make the pit laugh. And now and again, in M. 
 Labiche's very best work, there are strokes which the 
 author of the * School for Wives ' would not despise. 
 
 If M. Labiche were always as strong as his strongest 
 work, just as a bridge is as weak as its weakest point, 
 he would hold high rank among the heirs of Moliere. 
 His ' Theatre Complet ' is not really complete ; indeed, 
 it contains barely a third of his dramatic writing : but 
 it would give the reader a higher opinion of his powers, 
 if it were but a third of what it is ; if instead of ten 
 volumes, we had only three or four ; and of these, one, 
 or at most two, would suffice to hold the few plays which 
 raise the author above most, if not all, of the other 
 French stage-humorists of our time.
 
 Eugene Labiche. 233 
 
 This best work of M. Labiche's, this third division 
 of his plays, includes a half-dozen comedies, each of 
 which is devoted to illustrating a philosophic truth. 
 They may be called dramatizations of La Rochefoucauld- 
 like maxims. In 'Celimare le Bien-Aim6' the truth 
 illustrated is seemingly the homely one, that our pleasant 
 vices are chickens, which will surely come home to roost. 
 In the ' Voyage de M. Perrichon ' it is the more ducal 
 axiom, that we like better those whom we have bene- 
 fited than those who have benefited us. The history 
 of this last play, if current report may be credited, 
 affords an instance of the rather roundabout, not to say 
 half-accidental, way in which M. Labiche has made his 
 masterpieces. He started out with the well-worn plan 
 of getting fun out of the misadventures of a Parisian 
 shopkeeper in Switzerland ; but just as Dickens soon 
 abandoned the sporting exploits of Mr. Winkle, which 
 were at first intended to form the staple of the 'Pickwick 
 Papers,' so M. Labiche, when the play was half written, 
 coming to a scene in which Perrichon was rescued from 
 mortal peril by the suitor for his daughter's hand, saw 
 at once that this scene ought to have its counterpart, 
 in which Perrichon should pose as the relieving hero. 
 This suggested the axiom, that we like better those 
 whom we have benefited than those who have bene- 
 fited us ; and the author thereupon rewrote the play, 
 taking this maxim as the Q. E. D. Perrichon's daughter 
 now has two suitors, one of whom, acting up to the 
 axiom, coolly calculates that to have been foolish 
 enough to get into danger will not be a pleasant recol- 
 lection, while to have saved another's life will be most 
 gratifying to recall. So he pretends to be in danger, 
 and lets Perrichon get him out of it, and calls him a
 
 234 French Dramatists. 
 
 preserver, and has the rescue elaborately noticed in 
 the newspaper. The simple and conceited shopkeeper 
 avoids the man who saved him, and seeks the man he 
 saved ; and so the play goes on. Whenever one suitor 
 really serves Perrichon, the other devises a fresh occa- 
 sion for Perrichon apparently to benefit him. In the 
 end, of course, all is exposed and explained, in a less 
 skilful manner than is usual with M. Labiche, and 
 the really brave and deserving young man gets the fair 
 daughter. Here, again, all paraphrase is bald and bleak 
 when contrasted with the fertile luxuriance of the 
 humorous original; but I trust the subject has been 
 shown plainly enough for the reader to see that it lends 
 itself readily to comic treatment. I trust, too, that the 
 reader may be induced to examine for himself (and also 
 for herself) the play as it is in the second volume of 
 M. Labiche's 'Theatre Complet,' where it is accompanied 
 by the * Grammaire,' a bright and lively little play in 
 one act ; by the ' Petits Oiseaux ; ' by the ' Vivacit^s du 
 Capitaine Tic/ already referred to ; and by the ' Poudre 
 aux Yeux,' an almost equally amusing though short 
 comedy in two acts, perhaps better known in America 
 than any other of its author's work, as it forms part of 
 the excellent college series of French plays edited by 
 Professor Bdcher of Harvard. These five plays are all 
 entertaining, characteristic of the author, and free from 
 all taint of impropriety. 
 
 A certificate of good moral character cannot be given 
 to all of M. Labiche's plays. The ' Plus Heureux des 
 Trois' and 'Celimare le Bien-Aime",' two of his best 
 works, had better be avoided by those who have not 
 been broken in to French ways of looking at life. But 
 two other plays very nearly as good, the 'Cagnotte'
 
 Eugene Labiche. 235 
 
 and ' Moi,' are without any Frenchiness or Parisianism. 
 These four plays, with the * Voyage de M. Perrichon,' 
 represent M. Labiche at his best. The first query 
 which the reader of the rest of his works puts to him- 
 self is, Why does not M. Labiche write always at this 
 level ? Why does he let wit so lively, and humor so 
 true, waste themselves on the wildness of farce ? The 
 answer is not far to seek. It is to be found in the 
 insultingly modest way he spoke to M. Augier about his 
 own writings. It is because he really did not know 
 how good his best work was. He apparently ranked 
 all his plays together : he had aimed only at fun, at 
 amusement in making them ; and, although some had 
 paid better and been more praised than others, he did 
 not see that now and again one of them rose right up 
 from the low level of farce to the broad table-land of 
 true comedy. This, of course, suggests the further 
 question, Why did he not see his own merits ? And 
 that is not so easy to answer. Perhaps it is owing to 
 his writing generally for farce theatres, where the comic 
 company so overlaid his work with the freaks of indi- 
 vidual fantasy that he could not see the higher qualities 
 of what was best, any more than did the professional 
 critics, whose duty it surely was to sound a note of 
 warning, and prevent such pure comic force from wast- 
 ing itself. Perhaps it is due to some want of self- 
 reliance, of which one may possibly see proof in the 
 fact that there are fifty-seven plays in the ten volumes 
 of 'Theatre Complet/ containing in all one hundred 
 and twelve acts, and that four acts only are the work 
 of M. Labiche alone, and unaided by a collaborator. 
 
 Literary partnerships are the fashion in France nowa- 
 days, a fashion which tends to the general improve-
 
 236 French Dramatists. 
 
 ment of play-making, but which has hampered M. 
 Labiche, and kept him from doing his best. In one 
 way his reluctance to rely on himself is freely shown 
 when we come to examine the result of his collabo- 
 rating. First of all, we see, that although at least a 
 dozen different writers at different times, some of them 
 again and again, worked in partnership with him, yet 
 the fifty-seven plays are all alike stamped with his 
 trade-mark. M. Augier and M. Legouv6 and M. Gon- 
 dinet are authors of positive force and distinct charac- 
 teristics; yet the plays they have written with M. 
 Labiche are like his other plays, and unlike their other 
 plays. In the development of the comic theme, in 
 expressing all possible fun from the situation, in giving 
 the action unexpected turns to bring it back again for 
 a fresh squeeze, in all this M. Labiche is unexcelled, 
 in all this the plays are beyond peradventure his doing. 
 But in the technical construction, in the sequence of 
 scenes, in the mere stage-craft, which differs in different 
 pieces, and is indifferent in many of them, there is noth- 
 ing of M. Labiche's own : in all probability, intent upon 
 his higher task, he slighted this, and left it in great 
 measure to his coadjutors. M. Augier points out the 
 generic likeness of all the plays which M. Labiche has 
 signed, and suggests that it is because he writes all 
 these plays alone. In M. Augier's case, repeated con- 
 versations between him and M. Labiche enabled them 
 to make out a very elaborate scenario : this was their 
 joint work; and, this done, M. Labiche requested permis- 
 sion to write the piece himself, which M. Augier gen- 
 erously granted, revising the completed play in a few 
 minor points only. It may be remarked parenthetically 
 that this piece, the ' Prix Martin,' is not a good speci- 
 men of the handiwork of either author.
 
 Eugene Labiche. 237 
 
 Although in general the technical construction of 
 the play seems to be the work of his collaborator of the 
 moment, yet even in the construction we can now and 
 again detect traces of M. Labiche's individual clever- 
 ness. No one of the contemporary comic dramatists 
 of France can so neatly and so simply get out of a 
 seemingly inextricable entanglement. A single sen- 
 tence, a solitary word sometimes, a slight turn given to 
 the dialogue, and the knot is cut, and nothing remains 
 but " Bless you, my children," and the fall of the cur- 
 tain. An instance of this dramaturgical cleverness can 
 be seen in the ' Deux Timides,' one of the most amus- 
 ii>g of his one-act plays. 1 
 
 The critic in the Revue des Deux Mondes, pleading 
 specially against M. Labiche's candidature for a seat 
 among the forty, pointed out that he has not hesitated 
 to use the same idea twice ; that, for instance, the 
 ' Vivacite's du Capitaine Tic ' is erected on the same 
 foundation as the shorter and slighter * Un Monsieur 
 qui prend la Mouche,' both being based on the iden- 
 tical hot-headedness of the hero. He might have in- 
 stanced also, that, instead of repeating the situation, M. 
 Labiche sometimes reverses it ; that the ' Plus Heureux 
 des Trois ' is, in part, the turning inside out of the idea 
 of ' Celimare le Bien-Aime.' In spite of discoveries 
 like these, one of the first things which strikes the 
 reader of M. Labiche's plays is his almost inexhausti- 
 ble variety of comic incident. Any one of his plays is 
 a series of freshly humorous situations. What little 
 old material may here and there be detected is wholly 
 
 l An admirable adaptation of this amusing little piece, by Mr. Julian Magnus, 
 has been printed in ' Comedies for Amateur Acting.' (New York : D. Appleton 
 & Co., 1879.)
 
 238 French Dramatists. 
 
 cast in tne shadow by the brilliant fun of the original 
 incidents. But, strange to say, the sterility of charac- 
 ter is almost as quickly remarked as the fertility of 
 situation ; and this shows at once that he cannot, no 
 matter at what interval, be put even in the same class 
 with Moliere, who sought for humor in the human heart, 
 and not in the external circumstances of life. 
 
 This repetition of characters is but added evidence 
 in proof of M. Labiche's lack of ambition, and want of 
 belief in his best powers ; for in ' Moi,' written for 
 the Com^die-Franc.aise, he has shown a capacity for the 
 searching investigation of characters invented with 
 almost as much freshness as he had in other plays con- 
 trived comic incidents. There are lines in ' Moi ' wor- 
 thy of the highest comedy. And in more than one 
 other play his characters deserve, indeed demand, study. 
 But in general they are merely the Punch-and-Judy 
 puppets required by the plot. There is scarcely a fe- 
 male figure in all his plays which the memory can 
 grasp : all are slight, intangible, shadowy, merely the 
 projections needed by the story. M. Sarcey tells us 
 that M. Labiche does not pretend to " do " girls or wo- 
 men : he says that they are not funny. 
 
 None of his men are as weak as his women. Some 
 of his peasants are drawn with great and amusing ac- 
 curacy. Most of his minor characters are vigorously 
 outlined, and well contrasted one with another; and 
 one character, repeated with but little alteration as the 
 central figure in perhaps two dozen plays, is drawn with 
 a marvellous insight into the inner nature of the bour- 
 geois of Paris. Although grotesque almost in its humor, 
 the caricature is vital ; for it is a personification of the 
 exact facts of bourgeois life. M. Perrichon and Celi-
 
 Eugene Labiche. 239 
 
 mare and Champbourcy (in the * Cagnotte '), and their 
 fellows in many another play, are not unlike Mr. Mat- 
 thew Arnold's homme sensuel moyen ; and with a mas- 
 ter hand M. Labiche lays bare the selfish foibles and 
 petty vanity of the average sensual man. 
 
 One cannot help wondering what Mr. Matthew Ar- 
 nold's opinion of M. Labiche's ' Theatre Complet ' would 
 be, if it were of high or of equal enough merit to deserve 
 his study. Mr. Arnold would surely be confirmed in his 
 belief that it is for the average sensual man that the 
 French dramatist of our day writes. Not that there is 
 any pandering to sensuality in M. Labiche's plays : on 
 the contrary, the ultimate moral of his work is always 
 wholesome. As the sharp critic of the Revue des Deux 
 Mondes confessed, his pleasantry is not either heavy 
 and gross as in the old vaudeville, or licentious as in 
 the new opera-bouffe. " Generally it is gay, witty, and, 
 what is not without value, at bottom always honest." 
 And as M. John Lemoinne told M. Labiche in his an- 
 swer to his reception-speech at the French Academy, 
 " Your comedy is perhaps light, nay, even risky : but 
 there is always something which keeps it from being 
 immoral ; it is never sentimental." 
 
 This is no more than the exact truth. Perilously 
 risky as some of M. Labiche's plays are, none of them 
 have any trace or taint of sentimentality; and when 
 they are acquitted of that deadly sin, they cannot be 
 fundamentally immoral. In fact, M. Labiche is too 
 healthy to take kindly to vice ; but like other hearty 
 natures, like Rabelais and like Moliere, he is not always 
 free from a fancy for breadth rather than length. He 
 has the old French set gaulois rather than Attic salt. 
 
 If, dropping morality, we consult Mr. Arnold as to
 
 240 French Dramatists. 
 
 M. Labiche's right to a seat in the Academy, we shall 
 have no difficulty in getting an answer. In the essay 
 on the 'Literary Influence of Academies,' Mr. Arnold 
 gives us Richelieu's words in founding the French Acad- 
 emy : its " principal function shall be to work with all 
 the care and all the diligence possible at giving sure 
 rules to our language." It was to be a literary tribunal. 
 " To give the law, the tone, to literature, and that tone 
 a high one, is its business." Sainte-Beuve said that 
 Richelieu meant it to be a /taut jury, "a sovereign 
 organ of opinion." And M. Renan tells us that "all 
 ages have had their inferior literature ; but the great 
 danger of our time is, that this inferior literature tends 
 more and more to get the upper place. No one has the 
 same advantages as the Academy for righting against 
 this mischief." To make these quotations is to quash 
 M. Labiche's title to a seat among the forty jurists. 
 But, if the Academy exists for such high aims, why is 
 it not true to them ? How many of the dramatists who 
 now have seats there are entitled to them ? M. Victor 
 Hugo of course is ; and equally, of course, is M. Iimile 
 Augier, for he is a master, writing in the grand style. 
 And perhaps M. Jules Sandeau may justly claim a place 
 for his ' Mademoiselle de la Seigliere,' and also for his 
 share in the ever-admirable 'Gendre de M. Poirier.' 
 But by what right is M. Octave Feuillet there ? The 
 empress used to like his novels. And is M. Alexandre 
 Dumas, or M. Victorien Sardou, a writer who can speak 
 with " the authority of a recognized master in matters 
 of tone and taste " ? M. Dumas is strong and brilliant ; 
 and M. Sardou is very clever. If these have each a seat 
 among the forty, why not M. Labiche also? He is 
 surely not more out of place than they. Their election
 
 Eugene Labiche. 241 
 
 was the reward of skill and ability and success : his 
 would mean no more and no less. If the Academy is 
 what Richelieu meant it to be, M. Labiche belongs out- 
 side. If its duty is to reward success, as the election 
 of M. Feuillet, M. Dumas, and M. Sardou apparently 
 asserts, then M. Labiche also deserved his election ; 
 for, as M. Smile Augier tells us in the preface from which 
 quotation has been made before, M. Labiche is a master ; 
 "and without hyperbole, since there are as many degrees 
 of mastership as there are regions in art, the important 
 thing is to be a master, not a schoolboy. It is in a 
 matter like this that Caesar's phrase is so true : ' Better 
 to be the first in a village than the second at Rome.' I 
 prefer Teniers to Giulio Romano, and Labiche to the 
 elder Crebillon. It is not the hazard of the sentence 
 which brings together under my pen the names of La- 
 biche and of Teniers. There are striking analogies 
 between these two masters. There is at first the same 
 aspect of caricature : there is, on looking closer, the same 
 fineness of tone, the same justness of expression, the 
 same vivacity of movement." And here follows a re- 
 mark, already cited, but repeated now because it is the 
 ultimate expression of M. Labiche's ability : " The foun- 
 dation of all these joyeusetes d toute oritrance is truth. 
 Look among the highest works of our generation, seek 
 for a comedy of more profound observation than the 
 ' Voyage de M. Perrichon,' or of more philosophy than 
 the ' Misanthrope et 1'Auvergnat.' Well, Labiche has 
 ten plays of this strength in his repertory." 
 
 The adverse criticism of the Revue des Deux Mondes 
 has been cited : in due course of time the Nouvelle 
 Revue bore witness in his favor. A long essay in the 
 younger magazine praised M. Labiche very highly, and
 
 242 French Dramatists. 
 
 suggested that we are to see in him the comic underside 
 of the realistic movement of which M. Augier and M. 
 Dumas offer the more serious examples. The same 
 writer calls him half a Gaul and half a Parisian, and 
 then draws a close parallel between M. Labiche and 
 LaFontaine, the spoilt child of French literature. Here 
 we have M. Labiche's name linked with M. Augier's 
 and M. Dumas's. What M. Augier thinks of him has 
 already been quoted. What M. Dumas thinks of him 
 is equally worthy of quotation. In a brief consideration 
 of the present state of the French stage, 1 M. Dumas 
 takes occasion to say that he is " one of those who 
 laughs and is glad to laugh ... at ' Celimare le Bien- 
 Aime" ' and the * Voyage de M. Perrichon,' and at two or 
 three other of the plays of Labiche, who, in parenthesis, 
 is one of the finest and frankest of the comic poets 
 who have existed since Plautus, the only one, perhaps, 
 who can be compared to him." 
 
 Here is high praise, and enough. Likened by the 
 Nouvelle Revue to Jean LaFontaine, by M. Augier to 
 Teniers, and by M. Dumas to Plautus, surely M. La- 
 biche is a writer of no common quality, and well worth 
 the study of all who seek to discover the secrets of the 
 stage. 
 
 1 Entr'actes, iii. 336. (Paris : C. L6vy, 1878.)
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 HENRI MEILHAC AND LUDOVIC HALEVY. 
 
 No doubt it may surprise some theatre-goers who 
 are not special students of the stage to be told that 
 the authors of 'Froufrou' are the authors also of 
 the ' Grand Duchess of Ge'rolstein,' and of the ' Belle 
 Helene,' of ' Carmen,' and of the ' Petit Due.' There 
 are a few, I know, who think that 'Froufrou' was 
 written by M. Victorien Sardou, and who, without 
 thinking, credit Jacques Offenbach with the compo- 
 sition of the words as well as the music of the ' Grand 
 Duchess ; ' and, as for ' Carmen,' is it not an Italian 
 opera ? and is not the book, like the music, the work of 
 some Italian ? As a matter of fact, all these plays, 
 unlike as they are to each other, and not only these, but 
 many more, not a few of them fairly well known to 
 the American play-goer, are due to the collaboration 
 of M. Henri Meilhac and M. Ludovic Halevy. 
 
 Born in 1832, M. Henri Meilhac, like M. fimile Zola, 
 dealt in books before he began to make them. He 
 soon gave up trade for journalism, and contributed 
 with pen and pencil to the comic Journal pour Rire. 
 He began as a dramatist in 1855, with a two-act play, 
 at the Palais Royal theatre. Like the first pieces of 
 Scribe and of M. Sardou, and of so many more who 
 have afterward abundantly succeeded on the stage, this 
 play of M. Meilhac's was a failure; and so also was 
 his next, likewise in two acts. But in 1856 the 'Sara- 
 
 243
 
 244 French Dramatists. 
 
 bande du Cardinal,' a delightful little comedy in one 
 act, met with favor at the Gymnase. It was followed 
 by two or three other comediettas equally clever. In 
 1859 M. Meilhac made his first attempt at a comedy in 
 five acts ; but the ' Petit-fils de Mascarille ' had not the 
 good fortune of his ancestor, whose godfather Moliere 
 was. 
 
 In 1860, for the first time, M. Meilhac was assisted 
 by M. Ludovic HaleVy ; and in the twenty years since 
 then their names have been linked together on the 
 title-pages of twoscore or more plays of all kinds, 
 drama, comedy, farce,- opera, operetta, and ballet. M. 
 Meilhac's new partner was the nephew of the HaleVy 
 who is best known out of France as the composer of 
 the 'Jewess ;' and he was the son of M. L6on Halevy, 
 poet, philosopher, and playwright. Two years younger 
 than M. Henri Meilhac, M. Ludovic HaleVy held a 
 place in the French civil service until 1858, when he 
 resigned to devote his whole time, instead of his spare 
 time, to the theatre. As the son of a dramatist and 
 the nephew of a popular composer, he had easy access 
 to the stage. He began as the librettist-in-ordinary 
 to Offenbach, for whom he wrote 'Bata-clan' in 1855, 
 and later the 'Chanson de Fortunio,' the 'Pont des 
 Soupirs,' and ' Orphe"e aux Enfers.' The first very suc- 
 cessful play which MM. Meilhac and Halevy wrote to- 
 gether was the book of an operetta for Offenbach ; and 
 it was possibly the good fortune of this first venture 
 which finally affirmed the partnership. Before the tri- 
 umph of the 'Belle Helene,' in 1864, the collaboration 
 had been tentative, as it were : after that, it was as 
 though the articles had been definitely ratified; not 
 that either of the parties has not now and then in-
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 245 
 
 dulged in outside speculations, trying a play alone, or 
 with an outsider, but this is without prejudice to the 
 permanent partnership. 
 
 This kind of literary union, the long-continued con- 
 junction of two kindred spirits, is better understood 
 amongst us than the indiscriminate collaboration which 
 marks the dramatic career of M. Eugene Labiche, for 
 instance. Both kinds were usual enough on our stage 
 in the days of Elizabeth ; but we can recall the ever- 
 memorable example of Beaumont and Fletcher, while 
 we forget the chance associations of Marston, Dekker, 
 Chapman, and Ben Jonson. And in contemporary lite- 
 rature we have before us the French tales of MM. 
 Erckmann-Chatrian, and the English novels of Messrs. 
 Besant and Rice. The fact that such a union endures 
 is proof enough that it is advantageous. A long-lasting 
 collaboration like this of MM. Meilhac and Halevy 
 must needs be the result of a strong sympathy and a 
 sharp contrast of character, as well as of the possession 
 by one of literary qualities which supplement those of 
 the other. 
 
 One of the first things noticed by an American 
 student of French dramatic literature is that the chief 
 Parisian critics generally refer to the joint work of 
 these two writers as the plays of M. Meilhac, leaving 
 M. HaleVy altogether in the shade. At first this seems 
 a curious injustice ; but the reason is not far to seek. 
 It is not that M. Halevy is some two years the junior 
 of M. Meilhac : it lies rather in the quality of their 
 respective abilities. M. Meilhac has the more mascu- 
 line style ; and so the literary progeny of the couple 
 bear rather his name than his associate's. M. Meilhac 
 has the strength of marked individuality, he has a style
 
 246 French Dramatists. 
 
 of his own. one can tell his touch ; while M. Halevy 
 is merely a clever French dramatist of the more con- 
 ventional pattern. This we detect by considering the 
 plays which each has put forth alone, and unaided by 
 the other. Pausing before one of M. Meilhac's works, 
 we are in no doubt as to the maker ; and there is no 
 need to seek in a corner for the Meilhac inv* et del* ; 
 while M. Halevy's clever pictures of Parisian society, 
 less distinct in their individuality, might be perhaps 
 passed over as belonging simply to the "Modern 
 French School." 
 
 Before finally joining with M. HaleVy, M. Meilhac 
 wrote two comedies in five acts, of high aim and skil- 
 ful execution ; and two other five-act pieces have been 
 written by MM. Meilhac and Halevy together. The 
 ' Vertu de Celimene ' and the ' Petit-fils de Mascarille ' 
 are by the elder partner : ' Fanny Lear ' and ' Froufrou ' 
 are the work of the firm. Yet in these last two it is 
 difficult to see any trace of M. HaleVy's handiwork. 
 Allowing for the growth of M. Meilhac's intellect dur- 
 ing the eight or ten years which intervened between 
 the work alone and the work with his associate, and 
 allowing for the improvement in the mechanism of 
 play-making, I see no reason why M. Meilhac might 
 not have written ' Fanny Lear ' and ' Froufrou ' sub- 
 stantially as they are, had he never met M. HaleVy ; 
 but it is inconceivable that M. Hal6vy alone could have 
 attained so high an elevation, or have gained so full a 
 comic force. . Perhaps, however, M. Halevy deserves 
 credit for the better technical construction of the later 
 plays : merely in their mechanism, the first three acts 
 of 'Froufrou' are marvellously skilful. And perhaps, 
 also, his is a certain softening humor, which is the
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 247 
 
 cause that the two later plays, written by both part- 
 ners, are not so hard in their brilliance as the two ear- 
 lier comedies, the work of M. Meilhac alone. 
 
 It may seem something like a discussion of infinitesi- 
 mals ; but I think M. HaleVy's co-operation has given 
 M. Heilhac's plays a fuller ethical richness. To the 
 younger writer is due a simple but direct irony, as well 
 as a lightsome and laughing desire to point a moral when 
 occasion serves. It happens that M. HaleVy has put 
 forth two volumes of sketches and stories, ' Monsieur 
 et Madame Cardinal ' and the ' Petites Cardinal,' in 
 which the chief characters are two sisters in the ballet 
 of the opera, and their parents, as disreputable an old 
 couple as you could find anywhere in Paris. The gar- 
 rulity, and, so to speak, bonhomie, of the old wife, and 
 the highly humorous linking of dignity and depravity 
 in the husband, recall the somewhat similar figures of 
 M. and Mme. Pipelet in Sue's ' Mysteries of Paris.' 
 (Here occasion offers to note that it was as the princi- 
 pality of the marvellous young man who plays the part 
 of Providence in Sue's book that the Grand Duchy of 
 Gerolstein made its first appearance in fiction.) M. Ha- 
 levy's touch is lighter than Sue's, and his humor is less 
 oily. He succeeds in giving M. and Mme. Cardinal more 
 color, and less monotony, than Sue endowed his M. and 
 Mme. Pipelet with. The type is common enough, I 
 fancy, in Paris, where the porter's lodge is the stepping- 
 stone to the stage-box ; and a comparison of the stud- 
 ies of it, made in 1840 with those made in 1870 and 
 1880, is not uninstructive. I have mentioned M. Hal6- 
 vy's two volumes here, because they are his only con- 
 siderable publications apart from M. Meilhac's, and 
 because also I think I can detect in them an ironical
 
 248 French Dramatists. 
 
 morality not to be discovered in M. Meilhac's work. 
 Most of these little sketches were written for the Vie 
 Parisienne, and this is to say that they are not intend- 
 ed virginibus puerisque ; but the attitude of the author 
 is that of a half-pitying, half-contemptuous moralist. 
 Whenever the same ironical morality is to be detected 
 in the plays written by both authors together, it seems 
 to me fair to give M. Halevy the greater share of the 
 credit ; and even in stories written for the Vie Parisi- 
 enne, and in plays written for the Palais Royal theatre, 
 the discovery may be made far more often than the 
 chance reader might suppose. 
 
 Certainly I shall not hold up a play written to please 
 the public of the Palais Royal, or even of the Gymnase, 
 as a model of all the virtues. Nor need it be, on the 
 other hand, an embodiment of all the cardinal sins. 
 The frequenters of the Palais Royal theatre are not 
 babes. Young people of either sex are not taken 
 there ; only the emancipated gain admittance ; and to 
 the seasoned sinners who haunt theatres of this type 
 these plays by MM. Meilhac and Halevy are harmless. 
 Indeed, I do not recall any play of theirs which could 
 hurt any one capable of understanding it. Most of 
 their plays are not to be recommended to ignorant 
 innocence or to fragile virtue. They are not meant for 
 young men and maidens. They are not wholly free 
 from the taint which is to be detected in nearly all 
 French fiction. The mark of the beast is set on not a 
 little of the work done by the strongest men in France. 
 M. Meilhac is too clean and too clever ever to delve in 
 indecency from mere wantonness. He has no liking for 
 vice : but his virtue sits easily on him ; and, though he 
 is sound on the main question, he looks upon the vaga-
 
 Henri Meilkac and Ludovic Hal'evy. 249 
 
 ries of others with a gentle eye. M. HaleVy, it seems to 
 me, is made of somewhat sterner stuff. He raises a 
 warning voice now and then, in ' Fanny Lear,' for 
 instance, the moral is pointed explicitly ; and, even 
 where there is no moral tagged to the fable, he who has 
 eyes to see, and ears to hear, can find " a terrible exam- 
 ple" in almost any of these plays, even the lightest. 
 Considered aright, there is a moral lesson in ' Froufrou ; ' 
 and, as M. Claretie said of the authors when it was first 
 acted, " Their work is like a red-hot iron dipped in rice- 
 powder : it smells good, but it cauterizes too." For 
 the congregation to which it was delivered, there is a 
 sermon in ' Toto chez Tata,' perhaps the piece in which, 
 above all others, the muse seems Gallic and tgrillarde. 
 That is a touch of real truth, and so of a true morality, 
 where Tata, the fashionable courtesan, leaning over her 
 stairs as Toto the schoolboy bears off her elderly lover, 
 and laughing at him, cries out, " You, my little fellow, 
 I'll catch you again in four or five years ! " And a cold 
 and cutting stroke it is a little earlier in the same little 
 comedy, where Toto, left alone in Tata's parlor, negli- 
 gently turns over her basket of visiting-cards, and sees 
 " names which he knew because he had learnt them by 
 heart in his history of France." Still, in spite of this 
 truth and morality, I do not advice the reading of ' Toto 
 chez Tata ' in young ladies' seminaries. Young ladies 
 in Paris do not go to hear Madame Chaumont, for whom 
 * Toto ' was written ; nor is the Varietes, where it was 
 played, a place where a girl can take her mother. 
 
 It was at the Varies in December, 1864, that the 
 ' Belle Helena ' was produced : this was the first of half 
 a score of plays, written by MM. Meilhac and HaleVy, for 
 which Jacques Offenbach composed the music. Chief
 
 250 French Dramatists. 
 
 among these are * Barbe-bleue,' the ' Grand Duchess 
 of Gerolstein,' the ' Brigands/ and ' Pe>ichole.' When 
 we recall the fact that these five operas are the most 
 widely known, the most popular, and by far the best, 
 of M. Offenbach's works, there is no need to dwell on 
 his indebtedness to MM. Meilhac and HaleVy, or to 
 point out how important a thing the quality of the 
 opera-book is to the composer of the score. When we 
 recall that the ' Grand Duchess ' and ' Belle Helene ' 
 are the typical op/ras-bouffes, and that other optras- 
 bouffes are mostly attempts to imitate them or emulate 
 them, there is no need to dwell on the fact that opera- 
 bouffe as we now know it owes as much to MM. Meil- 
 hac and HaleVy as it does to Jacques Offenbach. So 
 long as MM. Meilhac and Halevy furnished Offenbach's 
 books for him, the resultant was always a work of art, 
 with the restraint which art demands. So soon as he 
 went to other librettists, the product of the conjunction 
 became violent, vulgar, and inartistic; above all, the 
 "moral game-flavor" which Ambros and Mr. Apthorp 
 find in Offenbach's work was intensified beyond endur- 
 ance by decent people. What MM. Meilhac and Ha- 
 leVy kept subordinate, and at best suggested, was by 
 their copyists paraded and emphasized. In short, it is 
 not unjust to say that the credit of optra-bouffe belongs 
 to MM. Meilhac and Haldvy, and the discredit of it 
 belongs to the feebler and louder librettists who tried 
 hard to give a double meaning to words without any. 
 
 The earlier librettos which MM. Meilhac and Hal6vy 
 wrote for Offenbach were admirably made: they are 
 models of what a comic-opera book should be. I cannot 
 well imagine a better bit of work of its kind than the 
 'Belle HeUene,' or the 'Grand Duchess.' Plot and
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Hal'evy. 251 
 
 dialogue and characters, all are admirable, and no- 
 where are they wanting. Since MM. Meilhac and 
 Halevy have ceased writing for Offenbach, they have 
 done several books for M. Charles Lecocq : among 
 them are the 'Petit Due' and the 'Grande Demoiselle.' 
 These are rather light comic operas than true optras- 
 bouffes. But, if there is an elevation in the style of 
 the music' there is an emphatic falling-oil in the qual- 
 ity of the words. From the ' Grand Duchess ' to the 
 'Petit Due' is a great descent. The former was a 
 genuine play, complete and self-contained : the latter 
 is a careless trifle, a mere outline sketch for the com- 
 poser to fill up. The story, akin in subject to Mr. Tom 
 Taylor's fine historical drama, ' Clancarty,' is pretty ; 
 but there is no trace of the true poetry which made 
 the farewell letter of ' Perichole ' so touching, or of the 
 true comic force which projected G^neVal Bourn. 'Car- 
 men,' which, like 'Perichole,' owes the suggestion of 
 its plot and characters to Prosper Merime'e, is little 
 more than the task-work of the two well-trained play- 
 makers. It was sufficient for its purpose, no more and 
 no less. 
 
 Of all the opera-books of MM. Meilhac and HaleVy, 
 that one is easily first and foremost which has for its 
 heroine the Helen of Troy, whom Marlowe's Faustus 
 declared, 
 
 " Fairer than the evening air, 
 Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars." 
 
 In the 'Belle Hlene' we see the higher wit of M. 
 Meilhac. M. Halevy had been at the same college with 
 him, and they had pored together over the same legends 
 of old time. But, working without M. Meilhac on 
 1 Orphe aux Enfers,' M. Halevy showed his inferiority ;
 
 252 French Dramatists. 
 
 for ' Orphee ' is the old-fashioned anachronistic skit on 
 antiquity, funny, if you will, but with a fun often 
 labored, not to say forced, the fun of physical incon- 
 gruity and exaggeration. When, however, M. HaleVy 
 wrote his next play of Greek life, M. Meilhac's finer 
 insight prevailed ; and in the ' Belle Helene ' the fun, 
 easy and flowing, is of a very high quality, and it has 
 root in mental, not physical incongruity. Here, indeed, 
 is the humorous touchstone of a whole system of gov- 
 ernment and of theology. And allowing for the varia- 
 tions made with comic intent, it is altogether Greek in 
 spirit, so Greek, in fact, that I doubt whether any one 
 who has not given his days and nights to the study of 
 Homer and of the tragedians, and who has not thus 
 taken in by the pores the subtle essence of Hellenic 
 life and literature, can truly appreciate this French farce. 
 Of its kind the 'Belle Helene' seems to me a great 
 work : the kind, of a truth, is not great ; but it is great 
 in its kind. Planch6's ' Golden Fleece ' is in the same 
 vein, but the ore is not so rich. Frere's ' Loves of the 
 Triangles,' and some of his Anti-Jacobin writing, are 
 perhaps as good in quality ; but the subjects are inferior 
 and temporary. Scarron's vulgar burlesques and the 
 cheap parodies of many contemporary English play- 
 makers are not to be mentioned in the same breath 
 with this scholarly fooling. There is something in the 
 French genius akin to the Greek ; and here was a Gallic 
 wit who could turn a Hellenic love-tale inside out, and 
 wring the uttermost drop of fun from it, without recourse 
 to the devices of the booth at the fair, the false nose 
 or the simulation of needless ugliness. The French 
 play, comic as it was, did not suggest hysteria or epi- 
 lepsy ; and it was not so lacking in grace that we could
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 253 
 
 not recall the original story without a shudder. There 
 is no shattering of an ideal ; and one cannot reproach 
 the authors of the ' Belle Helene ' with what Theophras- 
 tus Such calls " debasing the moral currency, lowering 
 the value of every inspiring fact and tradition." They 
 have not, to use the quotation from La Bruyere which 
 Mr. Such takes as the text of the essay from which I 
 have just borrowed, they have not seen the ridiculous 
 where it was not, to the spoiling of their own taste and 
 that of others ; but they have seen what was ridiculous 
 in the old Hellenic legend, and they have set it forth 
 with grace, and in a manner which pleases. (As to the 
 " instruction " which La Bruyere also requires, I will 
 say nought. We must not ask too much from one of 
 Offenbach's opera-books.) To the ridiculous from the 
 sublime is but a hair's breadth ; and who shall say on 
 which side of the line Menelaus stands, this epic hus- 
 band ? And Helen herself, if half the tales about her 
 were true, is not a lady who would be received in society 
 nowadays, except perhaps in princely circles. I cannot 
 but think that after all, MM. Meilhac and Halevy may 
 have given us a better portrait of the lovely daughter 
 of Leda and the swan, than hangs in any gallery of his- 
 torical paintings. What a living, loving bit of flesh 
 and blood their fair Helen is ! Greek to the back-bone, 
 but a Greek who had read the dramas of M. Victor 
 Hugo. With her "fatality," she is a true heroine of 
 the Romanticists. And Paris, as Homer shows him to 
 us, has he not something of the comic-opera tenor ? 
 And Achilles, as thick-witted, no doubt, as he was thin- 
 skinned, he must have been very much the sort of a 
 bore he appears to us in M. Meilhac's play. But above 
 all these figments of antiquity, conceived as they are
 
 254 French Dramatists. 
 
 with high comic richness and strength, towers the busi- 
 ness-like priest Calchas, the Augur we cannot meet 
 without laughter, the quintessence of classical mythol- 
 ogy, an unforgettable figure of the fullest comic force. 
 
 Surpassed only by the ' Belle Helene ' is the ' Grand 
 Duchess of Gerolstein.' It is more than fifteen years 
 since all the world went to Paris to see an Exposition 
 Universelle, and to gaze at the "sabre of my sire;" and 
 since a Russian emperor, going to hear the operetta 
 said to have been suggested by the freak of a Russian 
 empress, sat incognito in one stage-box of the little 
 Varite"s theatre, and, glancing up, saw a Russian grand 
 duke in the other. It is fifteen years now since the 
 tiny army of her Grand-ducal Highness took New 
 York by storm, and since the American play-goer 
 hummed his love for the military, and walked from the 
 French Theatre along Fourteenth Street to Delmoni- 
 co's to supper, sabring the waiters there with the vene- 
 rated weapon of her sire. The French Theatre is no 
 more ; and Delmonico's is no longer at that Fourteenth- 
 street corner ; and her Highness Mile. Toste"e is dead, 
 and so is Offenbach himself ; and his sprightly tunes 
 have had the fate of all over-popular airs, and are for- 
 gotten now. Oit sont les neiges d'antan ? 
 
 It has been said that the authors regretted having 
 written the ' Grand Duchess,' because the irony of 
 history soon made a joke on Teutonic powers and prin- 
 cipalities seem like unpatriotic satire. Certainly they 
 had no reason to be ashamed of the literary quality of 
 their work : in its class it yields only to its predeces- 
 sor. There is no single figure as fine as Calchas. G6- 
 ne"ral Bourn is a coarser outline ; but how humorous and 
 how firm is the drawing of Prince Paul and Baron
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 255 
 
 Grog! and her Highness herself may be thought a 
 cleverer sketch of youthful femininity than even the 
 Hellenic Helen. It is hard to judge the play now. 
 Custom has worn its freshness, and made it too familiar : 
 we know it too well to criticise it clearly. Besides, the 
 actors have now overlaid the action with overmuch 
 "business." In spite of all these difficulties, the merits 
 of the piece are sufficiently obvious. Its constructive 
 skill can be remarked : the first act, for example, is one 
 of the best bits of exposition on the modern French 
 stage. 
 
 Besides these plays for music, and besides the more 
 important five-act comedies to be considered later, MM. 
 Meilhac and HaleVy are the authors of thirty or forty 
 comic dramas, as they would be called on the English 
 stage, or farce-comedies in one, two, three, four, and 
 even five acts, ranging in aim from the gentle satire of 
 sentimentality in the ' Veuve ' to the outspoken farce 
 of the ' ReVeillon.' Among the best of the longer of 
 these comic plays are 'Tricoche et Cacolet' and the 
 ' Boule.' Both were written for the Palais Royal ; and 
 they are models of the new dramatic species which 
 came into existence at that theatre about twenty years 
 ago, as M. Francisque Sarcey recently reminded us in 
 his interesting article on the Palais Royal in the Nine- 
 teenth Century. This new style of comic play may be 
 termed realistic farce, realistic, because it starts from 
 every-day life and the most matter-of-fact conditions ; 
 and farce, because it uses its exact facts only to further 
 its fantasy and extravagance. Consider the 'Boule.' 
 Its first act is a model of accurate observation : it is a 
 transcript from life ; it is an inside view of a common- 
 place French household which incompatibility of tern*
 
 256 French Dramatists. 
 
 per has made unsupportable. And then take the follow- 
 ing acts, and see how, on this foundation of fact, and 
 screened by an outward semblance of realism, there is 
 erected the most laughable superstructure of fantastic 
 farce. I remember hearing one of the two great come- 
 dians of the Theatre Francois, M. Coquelin, praise a 
 comic actor of the Varie'te's whom we had lately seen in 
 a rather cheap and flimsy farce, because he combined "la 
 verite" la plus absolue avec la fantaisie la plus pure." 1 
 And this is the merit of the ' Boule : ' its most humor- 
 ous inventions have their roots in the truth. 
 
 Better even than the ' Boule ' is ' Tricoche et Cacolet,' 
 which is the name of a firm of private detectives whose 
 exploits and devices surpass those imagined by Poe 
 in America, by Mr. Wilkie Collins in England, and 
 by Gaboriau in France. The manifold disguises and 
 impersonations of the two partners when seeking to 
 outwit each other are as well-motived, and as fertile 
 in comic effect, as any of the attempts of Crispin, or 
 of some other of Regnard's interchangeable valets. Is 
 not even the ' Le'gataire Universel,' Regnard's master- 
 piece, overrated ? To me it is neither higher comedy, 
 nor more provocative of laughter, than either the 
 ' Boule,' or ' Tricoche et Cacolet ; ' and the modern 
 plays, as I have said, are based on a study of life as it 
 is ; while the figures of the older comedies are frankly 
 conventional. Nowhere in Regnard is there a situation 
 equal in comic power to that in the final act of the 
 ' Re" veillon,' a situation Moliere would have been glad 
 to treat. 
 
 Especially to be commended in ' Tricoche et Cacolet ' 
 is the satire of the hysterical sentimentality and of the 
 
 1 " The most absolute truth with the purest fantasy."
 
 Henri Meilkac and Ludovic Halevy. 257 
 
 forced emotions born of luxury and idleness. Just as 
 the Belle Helene herself is a heroine of Hugo or the 
 elder Dumas, so the Bernardine of this play is a heroine 
 of M. Octave Feuillet. The parody of the amorous 
 intrigue which is the staple of so many French plays 
 is as wholesome as it is exhilarating. Absurdity is a 
 deadly shower-bath to sentimentalism. The method 
 of Meilhac and HaleVy in sketching this couple is not 
 unlike that employed by Mr. W. S. Gilbert in ' H. M. S. 
 Pinafore ' and the ' Pirates of Penzance.' Especially to 
 be noted is the same perfectly serious pushing of the 
 dramatic commonplaces to an absurd conclusion. There 
 is the same kind of humor too, and the same girding at 
 the stock-tricks of stage-craft, in ' H. M. S. Pinafore ' 
 at the swopping of children in the cradle, and in ' Tri- 
 coche et Cacolet ' at the " portrait of my mother," which 
 has drawn so many tears in modern melodrama. Even 
 the exaggerated sense of duty which bound the 'pren- 
 tice to the pirates also holds firmly the conscience of 
 Bernardine. But MM. Meilhac and Halevy, having 
 made one success, did not further attempt the same 
 kind of pleasantry, wiser in this than Mr. Gilbert, 
 who seems to find it hard to write any thing else. 
 
 As in the ' Chateau a Toto ' MM. Meilhac and HaleVy 
 had made a modern perversion of the ' Dame Blanche,' 
 so in the ' Cigale ' did they dress up afresh the story 
 of the 'Fille du Regiment.' As the poet asks, 
 
 " Ah, World of ours, are you so gray, 
 
 And weary, World, of spinning, 
 That you repeat the tales to-day 
 
 You told at the beginning? 
 For lo ! the same old myths that made 
 
 The early stage-successes, 
 Still hold the boards, and still are played 
 
 With new effects and dresses."
 
 258 French Dramatists. 
 
 I have cited the 'Cigale,' not because it is a very 
 good play, for it is not, but because it shows the present 
 carelessness of French dramatists in regard to dramatic 
 construction. The 'Cigale' is a very clever bit of 
 work : but it has the slightest of plots, and this made 
 out of old cloth ; and the situations, in so far as there 
 are any, follow each other as best they may. It is not 
 really a play : it is a mere sketch touched up with 
 Parisianisms, "local hits," and the wit of the moment. 
 This substitution of an off-hand sketch for a full-sized 
 picture can better be borne in a little one-act play than 
 in a more ambitious work in three or four acts. 
 
 And of one-act plays Meilhac and HaleVy have writ- 
 ten a score or more, delightful little genre pictures 
 like the ' fit6 de Saint-Martin,' simple pastels like 
 'Toto chez Tata,' and vigorous caricatures like the 
 ' Photographe ' or the 'Brdsilien.' The Frenchman 
 invented the ruffle, says Emerson : the Englishman 
 added the shirt. These little dramatic trifles are French 
 ruffles. In the beginning of his theatrical career M. 
 Meilhac did little comedies like the 'Sarabande' and 
 the ' Autographe,' in the Scribe formula, dramatized 
 anecdotes, but fresher in wit, and livelier in fancy, than 
 Scribe's. This early work was far more regular than 
 we find in some of his latest, bright as these are. The 
 ' Petit H6tel,' for instance, and ' Lolotte,' are etchings, 
 as it were, instantaneous photographs of certain aspects 
 of life in the city by the Seine, or stray paragraphs of 
 the latest news from Paris. 
 
 It is perhaps not too much to say that Meilhac and 
 Halevy are seen at their best in these one-act plays. 
 They hit better with a single-barrel than with a re- 
 volver. In their five-act plays, whether serious like
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 259 
 
 'Fanny Lear,' or comic like the 'Vie Parisienne,' the 
 interest is scattered, and we have a series of episodes 
 rather than a single story. Just as the egg of the jelly- 
 fish is girt by circles which tighten slowly until the 
 ovoid form is cut into disks of independent life, so, if 
 the four intermissions of some of Meilhac and Halevy's 
 full-sized plays were but a little longer and wider and 
 deeper, they would divide the piece into five separate 
 plays, any one of which could fairly hope for success 
 by itself. I have heard that the ' Roi Candaule ' was 
 originally an act of the ' Boule ; ' and the ' Photographe ' 
 seems as though it had dropped from the 'Vie Pari- 
 sienne' by mistake. In M. Meilhac's earlier five-act 
 plays, the ' Vertu de Celimene ' and the ' Petit-fils de 
 Mascarille,' there is great power of conception, a real 
 grip on character ; but the main action is clogged with 
 tardy incidents, and so the momentum is lost. A rifle- 
 ball hits the bull's eye more surely than a charge of 
 buckshot : only when they made ' Froufrou ' had they 
 any use for a rifle. In both these early comedies of 
 M. Meilhac there is, as their titles show, an inten- 
 tion of modelling on Moliere, and of carrying on his 
 work after a lapse of two centuries. In the ' Petit-fils 
 de Mascarille ' there are touches not unworthy of the 
 original inventor of Mascarille : one scene in particular, 
 between Clavarot and the impudent valet Jean, would 
 have been appreciated not a little by the author of the 
 ' Bourgeois Gentilhomme.' 
 
 In both of these earlier comedies of M. Meilhac's, 
 and especially in the ' Vertu de Celimene,' besides the 
 influence of Moliere, and even more potent than that, 
 is to be seen the influence of the new school of M. 
 Alexandre Dumas fils. And the inclination toward
 
 260 French Dramatists. 
 
 the strong, not to say violent emotions which Dumas 
 and Augier had imported into comedy is still more evi- 
 dent in 'Fanny Lear,' the first five-act comedy which 
 MM. Meilhac and Hal6vy wrote together, and which 
 was brought out in 1868. The final situation is one 
 of truth and immense effectiveness, and there is great 
 vigor in the creation of character. The decrepit old 
 rake, the Marquis de Noriolis, feeble in his folly, and 
 wandering in his helplessness, and yet irresistible when 
 aroused, this is a striking figure; and still more strik- 
 ing is the portrait of his wife, now the Marquise de 
 Noriolis, but once Fanny Lear, the adventuress, a 
 woman who has youth, beauty, wealth, every thing 
 before her, if it were not for the shame which is behind 
 her. Gay and witty, and even good-humored, she is 
 inflexible when she is determined : hers is a velvet 
 manner and an iron will. The name of Fanny Lear 
 may sound familiar to some readers because it was 
 given to an American adventuress in Russia by a grand- 
 ducal admirer. 
 
 After ' Fanny Lear ' came ' Froufrou,' the lineal suc- 
 cessor of the ' Stranger,' as the current masterpiece of 
 the lachrymatory drama. Nothing so tear-compelling 
 as the final act of ' Froufrou ' had been seen on the stage 
 for half a century or more. The death of Froufrou was 
 a watery sight, and for any chance to weep we are many 
 of us grateful. And yet it was a German, born in the 
 land of Charlotte and Werther, it was Heine, who 
 remarked on the oddity of praising the " dramatic poet 
 who possesses the art of drawing tears, a talent which 
 he has in common with the meanest onion." It is note- 
 worthy that it was by way of Germany that English 
 tragedy exerted its singular influence on French come-
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 261 
 
 dy. Attracted by the homely power of pieces like the 
 ' Gamester ' and ' Jane Shore,' Diderot in France, and 
 Lessing in Germany, attempted the tragfdie bourgeois e ; 
 but the right of the " tradesmen's tragedies," as Gold- 
 smith called them, to exist at all, was questioned, until 
 Kotzebue's pathetic power and theatrical skill captured 
 nearly every stage in Europe. In France the bastard 
 offspring of English tragedy and German drama gave 
 birth to an equally illegitimate come'die larmoyante. 
 And so it happens that while comedy in English litera- 
 ture, resulting from the clash of character, is always on 
 the brink of farce, comedy in French literature may be 
 tinged with passion until it almost turns to tragedy. In 
 France the word " comedy " is elastic, and covers a 
 multitude of sins : it includes the laughing ' Boule ' and 
 the tearful ' Froufrou : ' in fact, the French Melpomene 
 is a sort of Jeanne qui pleure et Jeanne qui rit. 
 
 So it happens that ' Froufrou ' is a comedy. And in- 
 deed the first three acts are comedy of a very high order, 
 full of wit, and rich in character. I mentioned the 
 ' Stranger ' a few lines back ; and the contrast of the 
 two plays shows how much lighter and more delicate 
 French art is. The humor to be found in the ' Stranger ' 
 is, to say the least, Teutonic ; and German humor is 
 like the simple Italian wines, it will not stand export. 
 And in the ' Stranger ' there is really no character, no 
 insight into human nature. ' Misanthropy and Repent- 
 ance,' as Kotzebue called his play (the 'Stranger' was 
 Sheridan's title for the English translation he revised 
 for his own theatre), are loud-sounding words when we 
 capitalize them ; but they do not deceive us now : we 
 see that the play itself is mostly stalking sententious- 
 ness, mawkishly overladen with gush. Now, in ' Frou
 
 262 French Dramatists. 
 
 frou ' there is wit of the latest Parisian kind, and there 
 are characters, people whom we might meet, and 
 whom we may remember. Brigard, for one, the repro- 
 bate old gentleman, living even in his old age in that 
 Bohemia which has Paris for its capital, and dyeing his 
 few locks because he feels himself unworthy to wear 
 gray hair, Brigard is a portrait from life. The Baron 
 de Cambri is less individual ; and I confess I cannot 
 quite stomach a gentleman who is willing to discuss the 
 problem of his wife's virtue with a chance adorer. But 
 the cold Baroness herself is no commonplace person. 
 And Louise, the elder sister of Froufrou, the one who 
 had chosen the better part, and had kept it by much 
 self-sacrifice, she is a true woman. Best (better even 
 than Brigard) is Gilberte, nicknamed " Froufrou " from 
 the rustling of her silks as she skips and scampers 
 airily around. Froufrou, when all is said, is a real crea- 
 tion, a revelation of Parisian femininity, a living thing, 
 breathing the breath of life, and tripping along lightly 
 on her own little feet. Marrying a reserved yet deeply- 
 devoted husband because her sister bid her ; taking into 
 her home that sister who had sacrificed her own love 
 for the husband ; seeing this sister straighten the house- 
 hold which she in her heedless seeking for idle amuse- 
 ment had not governed ; then beginning to feel herself 
 in danger, and aware of a growing jealousy senseless 
 though it be of the sister who has so innocently sup- 
 planted her by her hearth and even with her child ; 
 making one effort to regain her place, and failing, as 
 was inevitable, poor Froufrou takes the fatal plunge 
 which will at once and forever separate her from what 
 was hers before. What a fine scene is that at the end 
 of the third act, in which Froufrou has worked herself
 
 Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halevy. 263 
 
 almost to a frenzy, and, hopeless in her jealousy, gives 
 up all to her sister, and rushes from the house to the 
 lover she scarcely cares for ! And how admirably does 
 all that has gone before lead up to it ! These first three 
 acts are a wonder of constructive art. Of the rest of the 
 play it is hard to speak so highly. The change is rather 
 sudden from the study of character in the first part to 
 the demand in the last, that if you have tears, you 
 must prepare to shed them now. The brightness is 
 quenched in gloom and despair. Of a verity, frivolity 
 may be fatal, and death may follow a liking for private 
 theatricals and the other empty amusements of fashion ; 
 but is it worth while to break a butterfly on the wheel, 
 and to put a humming-bird to the question ? To say 
 what fate shall be meted out to the woman taken in 
 adultery is always a hard task for a dramatist. Here 
 the erring and erratic heroine comes home to be for- 
 given, to kiss the child she abandoned, and to die, like 
 Pope's Narcissa, to the very end thinking of fine linen 
 and a change of raiment ; and so, after the fresh and 
 unforced painting of modern Parisian life, we have a 
 finish full of conventional pathos. Well, death redeems 
 all ; and, as Pascal says, " the last act is always tragedy, 
 whatever fine comedy there may have been in the rest 
 of life. We must all die alone."
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 M. EMILE ZOLA AND THE PRESENT TENDENCIES OF 
 THE FRENCH DRAMA. 
 
 IN his admirable essay on the genius of Calderon, 
 Archbishop Trench has pointed out that thrice, and 
 thrice only, has there been a really great and popular 
 drama, and that "the conditions of a people which 
 make a grand outburst of the drama possible make it 
 also inevitable that this will utter itself, not by a single 
 voice, but by many." In a note, the archbishop shows 
 us that each of these dramatic outbursts has been com- 
 prised in the space of a century, or but little more : 
 thus ^Eschylus was born B.C. 525, and Euripides died 
 B.C. 406 ; Lope de Vega was born in 1562, and Calderon 
 died in 1681 ; and Marlowe was born in 1565, and Shir- 
 ley died in 1666. Now, although in France there has 
 been no grand outburst of the drama as the one voice 
 through which the nation was uttering itself, and spake 
 to foreign countries and posterity, there have been two 
 occasions, when, beyond all cavil, the drama was the 
 first and most important form of literature. The earlier 
 and by far the greater of these two epochs, when the 
 supremacy of the drama in French literature is indis- 
 putable, was the space of a little less than a hundred 
 years, which elapsed between the birth of Corneille in 
 1606, and the death of Racine in 1699, a scant cen- 
 tury, which saw the making of all the masterpieces of 
 Moliere, and which displays a dramatic literature in- 
 ferior only to that of Greece and of England, and it 
 264
 
 M. Emile Zola. 265 
 
 raay be, of Spain. The second and secondary occasion 
 when the drama became the most important form in 
 French literature is in our own time, in the half-century 
 extending from 1830 to 1880. Just what will be the 
 future estimate of this drama, we cannot now do more 
 than guess at, nor what it is to become in the immediate 
 future. But it is possible to recapitulate briefly the 
 course of the drama in France, from the beginning of 
 this century, and to see whether we cannot discover in 
 what direction lie its present tendencies. 
 
 " The theatre is, of all the countries of the world, the 
 one most subject to revolutions," says M. Edmond 
 About : "it renews itself and gets younger every day, 
 like the society of which it is the image. . . . The stage 
 is a magnifying mirror, in which are reflected the pas- 
 sions, the vices, the follies, of each epoch. Now, the 
 vices of yesterday are no longer those of to-day : fash- 
 ion governs passion, and we change our follies as we 
 do our hats. Moliere did not know the stockbroker: 
 we have lost the courtier. The shopkeeper turned 
 gentleman is played out; but we have the gentleman 
 turned shopkeeper, selling wine and flour, and putting 
 the family arms on his labels. We must not be too 
 greatly astonished, if, after thirty or forty years, plays, 
 like women, begin to age, excepting only a few mas- 
 terpieces, whose style preserves them. We may say of 
 a comedy, as of a duchess, that she was beautiful in 
 1720. We may say of a drama, what the Spaniards say 
 of a soldier, ' He was brave such-and-such a day.' " 
 
 French drama has had two such revolutions in this 
 century : it has got younger twice ; and even now it 
 may be on the edge of a third rejuvenescence. At the 
 opening of the century, the theatre in France was op
 
 266 French Dramatists. 
 
 pressed by the rigidity of the imperial rule, fettered by 
 a blind obedience to the so-called unities, and shackled 
 by a superstitious regard for dignity and propriety. 
 After Beaumarchais abandoned the stage, the drama 
 was lifeless, except in the minor theatres, where melo- 
 dramas of the German type drew throngs. In 1817 
 Eugene Scribe began to renovate the national vaude- 
 ville, and in his hands it gained value and variety. In 
 1827 a young French poet, Victor Hugo, published a 
 play called ' Cromwell,' to which he prefixed a declara- 
 tion of dramatic principles ; and the revolt of the Ro- 
 manticists against the Classicists was proclaimed. In 
 1829 ' Henri III.,' a drama by a young quadroon called 
 Alexandre Dumas, took everybody by surprise. The 
 next year was acted Victor Hugo's ' Hernani ; ' and, as 
 Sefior Castelar puts it picturesquely, it " was wondered 
 at like a comet, and announced in the heavens a war 
 in the realm of poetry." In their revolt against the 
 formality and severity of the old school, the Romanti- 
 cists went to the other extreme. They slighted accu- 
 racy and even common sense : they sought to astound 
 and to stupefy the spectator into silent acquiescence. 
 Not a few of the most brilliant of French dramas saw 
 the light of the lamps at this time. Historical plays 
 especially found favor in the eyes of French theatre- 
 goers, and a fantastic semblance of history filled the 
 stage. And so, at last, a movement which promised 
 much accomplished little. The rubbish of Classicism 
 was cleared away, and that was all. " The great point," 
 said Goethe, " is not to pull down, but to build up ; and 
 in this humanity finds pure joy." The Romanticists 
 pulled down, but the power of united action in build- 
 ing up failed them. A few fine works by the great
 
 M. Emile Zola. 267 
 
 writers who led the movement still survive, but toward 
 the foundation of a distinct and enduring school Ro- 
 manticism did little or nothing. It was Maurice de 
 Guerin who characterized Romanticism as " that youth- 
 ful literature which has put forth all its blossom prema- 
 turely, and has left itself a helpless prey to the return- 
 ing frost." 
 
 It is important to remember that the romantic drama 
 in France, although seemingly a fresh creation, was in 
 great measure an evolution from the melodrama of the 
 minor theatres. Before Hugo and Dumas were Victor 
 Ducange and Pixerecourt ; and ' Henri III.' and ' Her- 
 nani,' although immensely superior to 'Thirty Years 
 of a Gambler's Life,' differed from it in degree rather 
 than in kind. The poets of the Romanticist movement 
 robed in royal verse plots not greatly above those which 
 the humbler playwright clothed in common prose. 
 Even during the height of the movement, Bouchardy 
 drew the multitude to see ' Lazare le Patre.' When the 
 poets gave up the stage, successors to Ducange and 
 Pixerecourt and Bouchardy were not wanting. M. 
 Dennery and his fellows began the long list of modern 
 melodramas, of which the best specimens are 'Don 
 Cesar de Bazan ' (suggested by a scene or two of 
 Hugo's 'Ruy Bias') and the 'Two Orphans.' Lack- 
 ing in elevation, their plays were constructed with 
 the utmost technical skill. Nothing was neglected to 
 heighten the effect on the play-goer, and every thing 
 was sacrificed to it. 
 
 In this making of melodramas, the influence of the 
 Romanticists was very obvious, and indeed unmis- 
 takable. There was one form of drama on which the 
 movement led by Hugo and Dumas had had no effect
 
 268 French Dramatists. 
 
 whatever. After having made over the vaudeville to his 
 own satisfaction, Eugene Scribe invented the come'die- 
 vaudeville; and from this to comedy in three or five 
 acts was but a step. To the writing of comedy, Scribe 
 brought the unexampled skill acquired in the writing of 
 a hundred minor plays. His knowledge of the stage, 
 and of what could be done there, and of how to do it, 
 has never been equalled, and probably never will be. 
 The present world-wide acceptance of French drama is 
 owing to the perfection of Scribe's methods, methods 
 which he used in vaudeville and comedy, and which 
 M. Dennery and his associates imitated in the making 
 of melodramas. What Scribe on the one hand, and the 
 melodramatic playwrights on the other, devoted them- 
 selves to, was the construction of a self-acting plot ; and, 
 when once constructed, this plot could be dressed up 
 just as well in English, or German, or Icelandic, as in 
 the original French. But after we have once admired 
 the pretty trickeries of mere ingenuity, we tire of them 
 and crave something better, something more substantial. 
 The melodramatists and the Romanticists still in active 
 practice met this demand by extravagance and by the 
 accumulation of horrors. Time was ripe for another 
 transformation. 
 
 In 1843, perhaps fifteen years after the beginning of 
 the Romantic movement, a young poet named Ponsard 
 brought out a tragedy called ' Lucrece,' and was at once 
 hailed as the founder of a new school, the School of 
 Common Sense, a compromise, as it were, between the 
 coldness of Classicism and the fire of Romanticism. It 
 is useless to be hailed as the founder of a school, if you 
 have no scholars ; and Ponsard had none. It is true 
 that when a friend of his produced a delightful little
 
 M. Emile Zola. 269 
 
 poetic comedy of antique life, its author, M. 
 Augier, was declared to be of the School of Common 
 Sense. But M. Augier never set himself down as a 
 disciple of Ponsard's ; and, when the real transformation 
 of the drama did come at last, it was seen, not only that 
 M. Augier did not belong to the School of Common 
 Sense, but that the school itself had never had any 
 substantial existence. It sprang up quickly ; but it had 
 no root, and it withered away as quickly. Further: 
 when the new movement began it was not poetic, but 
 prosaic. Nothing more clearly declares that the pres- 
 ent is not a time for a great outburst of the drama than 
 the fact that there is nowadays an almost universal 
 divorce between the poet and the playwright. In the 
 three great epochs of Greece, Spain, and England, and 
 even in the French literature under Louis XIV., the 
 dramatist was perforce a poet. Now, not only in 
 France, but everywhere, the playwright is very rarely a 
 poet, and the stage is correspondingly prosaic. Even 
 Hugo is not a true dramatic poet : he is a curious com- 
 bination of a playwright and a lyric poet. Alfred de 
 Musset was a poet first, and a dramatist by accident 
 only. Ponsard was a respectable poet ; and M. limile 
 Augier can write fine verse ; but the mass of contem- 
 porary French drama has but little touch of poetry. 
 Now and again a comedy in verse, or an old-fashioned 
 tragedy in five acts, gets before the footlights ; but, 
 although the form is relished by the inner circle of 
 literary epicures, it is out of fashion with the throng 
 which alone can fill a theatre. Beautiful as some of 
 these poetic plays are, and I know nothing more beau- 
 tiful in the modern drama than M. Theodore de Ban- 
 ville's ' Gringoire ' (which, although written in prose, is
 
 270 French Dramatists, 
 
 instinct with the truest poetry), or than M. Frangois 
 Coppee's 'Luthier de Crmone/ both written for the 
 acting of that admirable comedian, M. Coquelin of the 
 Comedie-Frangaise, they remain individual efforts 
 only, and are insufficient in either number or impor- 
 tance to be considered as a school. The accidental suc- 
 cess of M. Henri de Bornier's declamatory tragedy, the 
 ' Fille de Roland,' is not evidence of a popular revival 
 of interest in an obsolete formula : it is to be explained 
 easily enough, as the chance result of the appropriate- 
 ness of the patriotic speeches, in which the piece 
 abounds, to the feelings of the French at the time it 
 was acted. 
 
 About the middle of the century, there was a sharp 
 re-action against the violence of the melodramatists, and 
 against the childishness of the machine-made plays, 
 against M. Dennery and his fellows, and against Scribe. 
 Fact began to take the place of fantasy. Dramatists 
 invented less, and observed more. A photograph of 
 modern life was offered in place of a pretentious his- 
 torical painting, the maker of which had relied on his 
 fancy for all details. Romanticism was followed by 
 Realism. Hugo and Alexandre Dumas were succeeded 
 by M. fimile Augier and M. Alexandre Dumas fils ; 
 just as, in pictorial art, the large manner of Decamps 
 and Delacroix gave way to the genre painting of MM. 
 Meissonier and Gerdme. The dramatist sought to be 
 probable, to give an exact transcript of life as he saw 
 it around him, to do for the stage what Balzac was 
 doing for prose fiction. In 1852 M. Dumas fils brought 
 out his 'Dame aux Camelias/ and two or three years 
 later began the series of social studies which includes 
 the 'Demi-Monde,' the 'Fils Nature!/ and 'M. Al-
 
 M. mile Zola. 271 
 
 phonse.' M. Smile Augier, whose hand had hitherto 
 hesitated, saw at once where his real strength lay, and, 
 abandoning verse, gave us the stirring and sturdy satires 
 of which the ' Fils de Giboyer ' is the best, and the long 
 list of high and keen comedies, chief among which is 
 the 'Gendre de M. Poirier.' In the footsteps of M. 
 Dumas and M. Augier have walked Theodore Barriere, 
 M. Victorien Sardou, and MM. Meilhac and Halevy. 
 The effect of their example was felt even by the melo- 
 dramatists who left the middle ages and sought for 
 subjects and excitement in the crimes of the present. 
 
 When the 'Dame aux Camelias' was first acted, 
 The'ophile Gautier hailed it as a protest against the 
 cheap complications of the Scribe school, and the dark, 
 deep plots of the Dennery melodramatists. "What 
 does most honor to the author," he wrote, "is that 
 there is not the slightest intrigue, surprise, or compli- 
 cation in all these five acts, despite their intense inter- 
 est." Any one who glances through the volumes of 
 The"ophile Gautier's collected dramatic criticisms can- 
 not but note how often he flings out against the machine- 
 made plays of his day, in which one part fitted so per- 
 fectly into another, that there was no room for any life 
 or nature, and all that the spectator was called upon to 
 admire was a sort of Chinese-puzzle ingenuity. Scribe's 
 formula, for instance, was to take a simple situation, to 
 present it frankly, and then to carry it out to a care- 
 fully-considered conclusion by means of a series of 
 amusing scenes, which, while showing various phases 
 of the idea, seemed to delay the determined end, while 
 in reality they were skilfully made to serve in its prepa- 
 ration. There was, in short, an essential unity of plot, 
 carried on by a well-balanced and intricately-complicated
 
 272 French Dramatists. 
 
 intrigue, in the course of which poor human nature 
 was wofully twisted to suit the exigencies of an end 
 arbitrarily agreed on. This principle of construction 
 is right enough, if not pushed to extremes ; but the 
 temptation to which Scribe and his disciples succumbed 
 was to invent difficulties from mere delight in their own 
 dexterity in surmounting them. With the coming of 
 Realism, and the consequent demand for a closer re- 
 semblance to actual existence, the machine-made play 
 went out of fashion. Unfortunately, the pendulum 
 swung as far one way as it had the other, and plays are 
 now as ill made as they were then too well made. I 
 have read somewhere, that Scribe wondered why his 
 later plays did not hit the popular taste, declaring that 
 his pieces were as well made as ever. No doubt ; but 
 the French play-goer had ceased to care for a well-made 
 piece, or rather, he wanted something more in a piece 
 than clever joinery. Exactly the same change has taken 
 place in the making of French plays within a quarter 
 of a century which has taken place in the making of 
 English novels within half a century. As Mr. Richard 
 Grant White reminded us a year ago, the modern novel 
 Mr. Anthony Trollope's, for instance slights plot, 
 and is slovenly in structure when we compare it with 
 one of Scott's, in which we cannot but be struck by 
 the neatness of the workmanship and the dexterity 
 with which the story is shaped. In France, Scribe has 
 gone out of fashion, and his formula with him. Just as 
 Gautier protested against the well-made play, so now 
 M. Francisque Sarcey has to protest constantly against 
 the neglect of constructive principles which character- 
 izes nearly all the French drama of our day. 
 
 Even the farces and comic dramas, which in Scribe's
 
 M. Emile Zola. 273 
 
 hand were as carefully finished as plays of more im- 
 portance, now rely on the wit of their dialogue and 
 the jests liberally sprinkled through them, and only 
 a little on the humor of the situation. Instead of a 
 comic plot, which could be used in any language, we 
 have only an anecdote in dialogue, purely Parisian in 
 its abundant allusions, and full of a local wit which loses 
 its color ten miles from the capital. Many of the comic 
 plays of M. Gondinet and of MM. Meilhac and Halevy, 
 delightful as they are to those who can appreciate their 
 Parisianism, do not bear exportation : they are like the 
 fairies who cannot cross running water. The pieces of 
 inferior artists are indeed articles de Paris: they are 
 like the cheap French bronzes, glittering and hollow 
 and brassy, and they do not wear well. Even in more 
 important comedies the same defect is to be detected. 
 Clever as are the later comedies of M. Gondinet, for 
 instance, the charming play called the ' Grands Enfants,' 
 we find in them no unity of plot, no sequence of 
 situations, scarcely, indeed, any situations at all : in- 
 stead, we have a pell-mell medley of pictures of differ- 
 ent phases of the fundamental idea, huddling one after 
 another with no apparent order, and lit up by a rapid 
 running fire of very good jokes. A play of this kind, 
 pleasant as it may be, presents no unity of impression, 
 and fades out of memory far more easily than a play 
 of inferior material so constructed that there is some- 
 thing salient for the mind to cling to. As I said, M. 
 Gondinet is not alone in this failing : he serves how- 
 ever as an admirable example, for no play of his has 
 ever been adapted for the American stage, no doubt, be- 
 cause of this very deficiency. 
 
 Romanticism dates from 1827; Realism, from 1852.
 
 274 French Dramatists. 
 
 Another quarter of a century has elapsed, and what new 
 force is now making itself felt on the French stage in 
 the stead of the Realism which has spent itself ? If we 
 pay attention only to the noise a new doctrine and its 
 disciples are wont to make, there is no need of hesita- 
 tion : the coming power is Naturalism, and M. Zola is 
 its prophet. M. fimile Zola is a robust young man who 
 has roughly shouldered his way into literature. In this 
 country he has rather an unsavory reputation, from the 
 dirt which encumbers the corners of his ignoble but 
 powerful novels. Dirt has been defined to be matter 
 in the wrong place; and in Zola's novels it is in the 
 wrong place, for it hides their strength, and keeps many 
 men from reading them, who would keenly appreciate 
 their force, were it not for their indecency. Although 
 indecent, they are not immoral, any more than a clinic 
 or a dissection is immoral ; and it is as the operator at 
 a clinic that M. Zola poses. The system of an artist 
 always takes color from his personality : Naturalism is 
 no exception ; it has been warped to fit the nature of 
 M. Zola. So it is well first to consider what manner 
 of man he is, before discussing his literary code. 
 
 The first impression we get from his works is one of 
 main strength, often perversely misapplied, and never 
 corrected by good taste. M. Zola seems to delight in 
 describing the unspeakable. In his eye every thing is 
 unclean, sordid, and despicable. He has a gloomy dis- 
 satisfaction with life, and is, indeed, as disgusted with 
 it as most readers are with the degradation laid bare in 
 his novels : Schopenhauer himself could scarcely be 
 more pessimistic. This explains his dislike of sympa- 
 thetic characters : he simply does not believe in them ; 
 in his eyes, Colonel Newcome would be an idiot or an
 
 M. Emile Zola. 275 
 
 impossibility. To him there are no good men, though 
 some men are not so bad as others. Health is as scarce 
 as virtue : so he studies the diseases of his characters, 
 and details their sufferings. It is hard for him to meet 
 the accusation that the Naturalists are artists who re- 
 fuse to paint your portrait unless you are pitted by the 
 small-pox. M. Zola has none of the saving grace of 
 humor. In fact, he has a most un-French lack of esprit 
 and a corresponding hatred of it. His chance attempts 
 at jocoseness are painful : when he trees a poor little 
 joke he brings it down mercilessly, and nails up its 
 skin as a warning. No writer ever stood more in need 
 of the sense of humor than M. Zola ; and he has it not. 
 It takes a strong stomach to read through certain of 
 his books without qualms, and a hearty laugh would do 
 much toward clearing the atmosphere of its foulness. 
 His grossness may be matched in Rabelais perhaps; 
 but M. Zola's work is without the broad breeze of humor 
 which blows across the pages of Rabelais, setting the 
 reader in such a gale of laughter that he has no need 
 to hold his nose. He is as devoid of humor as a graven 
 image. His substitute for it is a chill and bitter irony, 
 with which he is not scantily supplied. 
 
 Turning from the man to the system, we may define 
 Naturalism as the application to novels and plays of 
 the principles of what, in history and criticism, is known 
 as the "historical method." It is easy to trace the 
 growth of this idea to its present maturity as we look 
 back through M. Zola's writings. Fifteen years ago he 
 declared, " I must find a man in every work, or it leaves 
 j me cold. I frankly sacrifice humanity to the artist. If 
 I were to formulate my definition of a work of art, it 
 would be, ' A work of art is a corner of creation seen
 
 276 French Dramatists. 
 
 through a temperament.' And what matters to me all 
 else ? I am an artist, and I give you my flesh and my 
 blood, my heart and my thought. . . . Have you, then, 
 not understood that art is the free expression of a 
 heart and of an intelligence, and that it is the greater 
 the more personal it is ? " A year later the idea had 
 grown : " I am for no school, because I am for human 
 truth, which excludes all sects and all system. The 
 word art displeases me : it contains I do not know what 
 ideas of necessary arrangement, of absolute ideal. To 
 make art (faire de Varf), is it not to make something 
 which is outside of man and of nature ? I wish that 
 you should make life: I wish that you should be alive, 
 that you should create afresh, outside of all things, 
 according to your own eyes and your own tempera- 
 ment. What I seek first of all in a picture is a man, 
 and not a picture." 
 
 A platform like this needed but one more plank to let 
 M. Zola take a purely scientific view of literature, 
 excluding art utterly. This plank was soon added. M. 
 Zola's advanced doctrine has been most succinctly for- 
 mulated in his essay on 'Naturalism in the Theatre.' 
 He defines Naturalism as " the return to nature : it is 
 what scientific men did when they first thought of 
 beginning with the study of bodies and phenomena, of 
 basing themselves on experience, of working by analy- 
 sis. Naturalism in literature is also the return to 
 nature and to man, direct observation, exact anatomy, 
 the frank acceptance and depicting of the thing as it 
 is." M. Zola claims Homer as a Naturalist, which is 
 rather damaging to the assertion that Naturalism is a 
 new thing. From Homer it is a far cry to Diderot ; 
 but M. Zola clears the distance at a single stride.
 
 M. Emile Zola. 277 
 
 Diderot, as we all know, begat Balzac ; and Stendhal 
 and Balzac bring us down to Flaubert, and to the broth- 
 ers de Goncourt, and to M. Zola himself. In its per- 
 fected form as it is to be in the future, for perhaps 
 all present Naturalists are too tainted with the conven- 
 tionalities of contemporary art ever to rise to the height 
 which their followers may easily attain, the Natural- 
 istic novel or drama is to be "simply an inquest on 
 nature, beings, and things ; " and its interest is to be 
 sought "no longer in the ingenuity of a fable well 
 invented and developed according to certain rules. 
 Imagination is no longer needed, plot is of little conse- 
 quence." What the coming Naturalist must stand and 
 deliver is facts, documents on humanity. " Instead of 
 imagining an adventure, complicating it, preparing 
 stage surprises, which from scene to scene will bring it 
 to a final conclusion, one simply takes from life the 
 history of a being, or of a group of beings, whose acts 
 one faithfully registers." The work has no other merit 
 than "exact observation, the penetration more or less 
 profound of the analysis, the logical linking of events." 
 In short, the theatre is to be made "the study and 
 painting of life," and not "a mere amusement of the 
 intellect, an art of balance and symmetry, ruled accord- 
 ing to a certain code." 
 
 Like most reformers, M. Zola breaks too many 
 images : his zeal runs away with him. The drama, 
 like all other arts, exists only through certain conven- 
 tions which are absolutely necessary to its existence. 
 Other conventions there are, not absolutely necessary, 
 and changing from time to time : these M. Zola may 
 attack with impunity and credit ; but all struggle 
 against the former is futile. On the stage the absolute
 
 278 French Dramatists. 
 
 reproduction of nature is neither possible nor desirable. 
 There are scores of every-day situations which cannot 
 be shown in the theatre. As M. Dumas reminded us 
 in his preface to the 'fitrangere' (intended as an 
 answer to M. Zola's essay), no matter how closely we 
 seek to copy nature, there is always a point at which 
 exact imitation must stop, and convention take its place. 
 " An artist," says M. Dumas concisely and conclusively, 
 " a true artist, has a higher and more difficult mission 
 than the mere reproduction of what is : he has to dis- 
 cover and to reveal to us that which we do not see in 
 things we look at every day, that which he alone has 
 the faculty of perceiving in what is apparently patent 
 to all of us." No less apt is Lowell's remark, that 
 Wordsworth, who also proclaimed a new gospel in lite- 
 rature, sometimes confounded fact, which chokes the 
 Muse, with truth, which is the breath of her nostrils. 
 
 Then, again, the inborn eagerness we all have for 
 story-telling, is this to be satisfied by coldly-scientific 
 statements of ascertained facts ? Bare facts are poor 
 food for the fancy. The imagination which stirs us 
 while yet in the cradle is not to be shut out at M. Zola's 
 bidding : indeed, he cannot even shut it out of his own 
 work. When we examine his novels, we find his prac- 
 tice better than his precepts. He is often an artist in 
 spite of himself, as in the ' Faute de 1' Abb6 Mouret,' 
 for instance ; and again he falls below his doctrine to 
 the other extreme, and gives us in ' Nana ' a tale as 
 conventional and cheap as it is dull and obscene. It is 
 but fair to add, that these two stories are units in a 
 series to contain twenty tales, and called collectively 
 the ' Rougon-Macquart, Natural and Social History of 
 a Family under the Second Empire,' laid out on strictly
 
 M. Emile Zola. 279 
 
 scientific lines, and having for its backbone the princi- 
 ple of heredity. To prove how the character of each 
 child is the result of its parentage, he prefixed to one of 
 his novels a family tree of his double set of personages. 
 It might surprise M. Zola to be told that Lowell has 
 shown us how Shakspere had applied the principle of 
 heredity, making no parade about it, and that in Hamlet 
 we see the blending of the characteristics of the Queen 
 and the Ghost. This identity of view between Shak- 
 spere and himself may not interest M. Zola ; for it 
 happens that he has a poor opinion of Hamlet, prefer- 
 ring his own Coupeau, the drunkard, whose death from 
 delirium-tremens gives relief to his novel the 'Assom- 
 moir ' and to the play taken from it. In the preface to 
 this play M. Zola says, "I laugh at Hamlet (je me 
 moque parfaitement d' Hamlet}, who no longer comes 
 within my ken, who remains an enigma, a subject for 
 dissertations ; while I am ardently interested at the sight 
 of Coupeau, whom I can hold fast, and on whom I can 
 try all sorts of interesting experiments." 
 
 A proof of the importance of the drama in France 
 nowadays, and of the fact that there, at least, it is still 
 the highest form of literature, can be found in M. Zola's 
 anxiety for the success of his principles on the stage. 
 The Naturalists of to-day, like the Romanticists of half 
 a century ago, look upon the theatre as the final battle- 
 ground on which their theories must conquer or perish. 
 With those who have possession of the stage now, M. 
 Zola is thoroughly dissatisfied. He brushes Hugo aside 
 impatiently, and sweeps away Scribe. The three chief 
 Realists of the contemporary drama fare a little better 
 at his hands. M. Sardou is a prestidigitator who plays 
 with marionettes, and his " human documents " are
 
 280 French Dramatists. 
 
 commonplace and second-hand. M. Dumas is a Natu- 
 ralist at times, and his " human documents " are fresher ; 
 but he is too witty and too clever, and he " uses truth 
 as a spring-board to jump into space," to repeat a 
 quotation I have made before. M. Augier is nearly 
 always a Naturalist ; but his plays are too well made, 
 and some of his characters are too good to live. 
 
 Just what kind of a play M. Zola wants, it would be 
 hard to say. No play yet acted exactly meets his 
 views. Three times he has himself come forward as 
 a dramatist, and the pieces have been damned out of 
 hand. A dramatization of his novel, the ' Assommoir,' 
 made by two hack playwrights, was successful ; but 
 M. Zola distinctly disavowed its paternity. A drama- 
 tization of ' Nana,' also successful, was made by one 
 of these playwrights, apparently aided by M. Zola 
 himself; but neither of these plays has any literary 
 value. No one of his own three plays fits into his 
 formula. Two of them are rough and coarse farces, 
 suggested, one by Ben Jonson's ' Volpone,' the other by 
 one of Balzac's ' Contes Drdlatiques.' M. Zola's hand 
 is too heavy for fun, even of the lugubrious kind here 
 attempted; and such gayety as he can command is 
 stolid and sodden. The third play, ' Th6rese Raquin,' 
 is a grim and ghastly drama, full of main strength and 
 directness, and having the simplicity of genius. It 
 failed in Paris, but has since had better luck in Italy. 
 The figure of the paralyzed Madame Raquin, ever pres- 
 ent between the two murderers of her son, like a pal- 
 pable and implacable ghost, gazing at them with eyes 
 of fire, and gloating motionless over their misery, is a 
 projection of unmistakable power. If M. Zola had 
 written nothing but this one play, it would be impos- 
 sible to contest his ability.
 
 M. Emile Zola. 281 
 
 After the Romanticists had declared their principles, 
 they proceeded at once to put them in practice, and in 
 ' Henri III.' and ' Hernani ' exhibited concrete speci-- 
 mens of their theories. The same obligation rests on 
 the Naturalists ; and so far, at least, it has not been 
 met. For ten years or more, M. Zola has been crying 
 aloud from the housetop, that reform is necessary in 
 the drama ; but he has not yet proved his case by 
 showing an example of the improved play. The only 
 visible effect of his exhortation has been to accentuate 
 the tendency to the more exact imitation of reality in 
 the scenery, costumes, and accessories of the stage. 
 There is a general desire now in the playhouse, wher- 
 ever it is possible, to substitute the real thing for the 
 imitation of it, which has hitherto contented both stage- 
 folk and spectators. Within limits, this taste for exact- 
 ness is unobjectionable ; but it may readily be carried 
 to excess, and at best it tends to divert attention from 
 more important parts of the performance, from the 
 play and from the playing. It is well to remember that 
 when there is a real interest in the drama as such, there 
 is always great indifference to dresses, scenes, and prop- 
 erties. The play, the play's the thing : all else is of 
 small account. In two, at least, of the three great out- 
 bursts of the drama, in England in Shakspere's time, 
 and in Spain in Lope de Vega's and Calderon's, when 
 the drama was the chief expression of the national life, 
 the mounting of the plays was simple and even shabby. 
 
 That the drama at large is to be made over to fit M. 
 Zola's theories may be doubted ; as yet, at any rate, 
 there are no signs of it : but that they will have a dis- 
 tinct influence on French dramatic art in the immediate 
 future seems to me indisputable. This influence will
 
 282 French Dramatists. 
 
 be good in so far as it may make the coming dramatist 
 a more attentive student of life, a closer investigator of 
 human nature, a more diligent seeker after truth, which 
 has to be sought long and earnestly before it yields 
 itself. In so far, however, as it may tend to exclude 
 poetry and imagination, and to limit fiction to the tran- 
 script of the bare realities of life, we may unhesitatingly 
 declare it to be doomed to sterility. In so far also as 
 it seeks to decry the technical skill of the trained play- 
 wright, it is misleading, and sure of contradiction by the 
 event. It is the abuse, not the use, of technical expe- 
 rience, which is to be decried : it is the production of 
 plays by writers who have no other qualification for the 
 work than their familiarity with the boards. The true 
 dramatist cannot ignore the exigencies of the stage: 
 he ought, indeed, to have so thoroughly mastered all 
 the tricks of the trade, that he can use them uncon- 
 sciously. In a word, the dramatist should know the 
 grammar of construction so well, that he need give it 
 no more thought than the trained speaker gives to the 
 grammar of language. Shakspere and Moliere owed 
 no small share of their success to their complete mas- 
 tery over the tools of their trade : besides being the 
 hack dramatist of his company, each was actor and 
 manager, and had a share in the takings at the door. 
 
 The century begins to draw to a close ; and on the 
 French stage Romanticism and Realism have come for- 
 ward in turn, and played their parts. It is full twenty 
 years now since M. Victorien Sardou, the youngest of 
 the three chief Realists, made his first appearance. It 
 is time for a new doctrine and for a new man. It may 
 be that Naturalism will be the new doctrine, and M. 
 Zola the new man ; but, for the reasons given in the pre-
 
 M. Emile Zola. 283 
 
 ceding pages, I doubt it. That he himself is a potent 
 force must be admitted ; but that his principles are des- 
 tined to triumph, I do not believe. To my mind, the 
 outlook indicates a return, sooner or later, to the well- 
 made play, to be written by those as deeply imbued 
 with the desire for physiologic and psychologic accuracy 
 as M. Zola himself. It will be a union of the school of 
 the past with what M. Zola proclaims as the school 
 of the future, blending the best features of both, and so 
 obliterating the weakness of either. It will, in short, 
 be that commonplace thing, a compromise. With a 
 simple and most skilful symmetry of plot, the play- 
 wright will have to unite the most vigorous exactness 
 of character ; and so shall we have a new drama, com- 
 pounded of the theories of the past and the present. 
 We may rest content with the prediction of M. Du- 
 mas, who declares that whenever there shall come a 
 writer knowing man like Balzac, and knowing the stage 
 like Scribe, he will be the great dramatist of the future. 
 We may be sure, too, that morality will find full ex- 
 pression, consciously or unconsciously, in the plays 
 of this dramatist of the future, in spite of M. Zola's 
 precept and practice. We may be sure, also, that the 
 imagination will not be left out of the compound alto- 
 gether, if indeed it be not a more potent ingredient 
 than it is now. And, if we may judge what is to come 
 by what was gone before, we may fairly expect to find 
 that the French drama of the few remaining years of 
 the nineteenth century will not reach deep down into 
 the depths of humanity, or rise far up in flights of poe- 
 try, but that it will cultivate the level table-land of 
 modern life with extraordinary dexterity and success. 
 Above all, we may safely prophesy, that for the most
 
 284 French Dramatists, 
 
 part and in general its note will be the note of comedy, 
 since that is the department of the drama in which 
 the French have always and especially excelled. Mo- 
 liere is greater than Corneille or Racine ; Beaumarchais 
 lives while the tragic authors of his time are clean for- 
 gotten ; and of the ten dramatists whose plays have 
 been considered in the preceding pages, only two, the 
 first and the last, Victor Hugo and fimile Zola, are 
 wanting in the gift of comedy : all the rest the two 
 Dumas, Augier, Scribe, Sardou, Feuillet, Labiche, Meil- 
 hac and HaleVy have found in comedy their best 
 expression. Tragedy calls for a largeness and a free- 
 dom foreign to the nature of the Frenchman, readily 
 ruled in all things. Comedy paints the manners of 
 society, and seeks its models there ; and nowhere has 
 the art of society been carried to more nearly complete 
 perfection than in France. And comedy affords most 
 scope for that dexterous commingling of gentle senti- 
 ment and lively wit which the French excel in, and 
 which an American poet has set forth in four lines : 
 
 " Black Tragedy lets slip her grim disguise, 
 And shows you laughing lips and roguish eyes ; 
 But when, unmasked, gay Comedy appears, 
 'Tis ten to one you find the girl in tears."
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 A TEN YEARS' RETROSPECT : 1881-1891. 
 
 TEN years do not fill a broad space in the lifetime 
 of a nation or in the history of a literature, especially 
 when they are as uneventful as the decade which has 
 slipped past since the earlier chapters of this book were 
 first published. But ten years are ten years after all ; 
 and they afford a perspective even though it be con- 
 tracted. The end of a decade gives a good chance to 
 take stock and to audit our accounts, deciding what 
 must finally be charged off to profit and loss. The 
 development of an art is often as sluggish as the pro- 
 gression of a glacier ; yet if three stones be laid on the 
 ice in a straight line, one in the centre and one near 
 either shore, the stone in the middle will be moved 
 forward in ten years' time, and by it we may make a 
 guess at the rate of advance. 
 
 Certainly there are some things which can be seen 
 more plainly now than ten years ago. One of these is 
 that Romanticism has run its course. Since the death 
 of Victor Hugo not a few who had kept silent out of 
 deference to him have spoken out boldly. Romanti- 
 cism had served its purpose when it killed Classicism, 
 falsely so called ; but when it tried to substitute its 
 own cast-iron creed for that which it destroyed, it had 
 a hard fight, and finally it failed. All but the best 
 of the works of the Romanticists seem now almost as 
 old-fashioned and out-worn as the works of the Classi- 
 
 285
 
 286 French Dramatists. 
 
 cists whom they superseded. It is not threescore years 
 and ten since Victor Hugo raised the standard of revolt, 
 but already the victories he won seem empty and the 
 conquests he made now acknowledge other masters. 
 "In art and poetry," M. Weiss remarks in his sug- 
 gestive volume of essays on ' Le Theatre et les Moeurs,' 
 " as in politics and philosophy, there are but a very few 
 truths always the same: true invention and whole- 
 some originality do not consist in adding to them, but 
 in modernizing their explanation and their practice." 
 The Romanticists sought to substitute for the Greeks, 
 Romans, and Antiquity, Italy, Spain, and the Middle 
 Ages ; but this was not a true modernization, and the 
 inconsequence of their reform and its insubstantiality 
 are now sufficiently obvious. No one of the many 
 dramas of the elder Dumas is alive now, not ' Henri III.,' 
 not the 'Tour de Nesle,' not 'Antony' ; and of Hugo's 
 plays only <Ruy Bias' and 'Hernani' survive on the 
 stage to this day. 
 
 The success of the Romanticists was for a season 
 only ; but it was indisputable while it lasted in every 
 form of art, sculpture, painting, poetry, music, and the 
 drama. The great movement which followed Romanti- 
 cism, and for which the Romanticists unwittingly rrade 
 the path straight, was Naturalism. Looking down the 
 vista of the decade, another thing is quite as obvious as 
 the disappearance of Romanticism ; and this is that the 
 Naturalists, despite their utmost effort, have not yet 
 taken the theatre by storm, and the theatre was almost 
 the first stronghold of the enemy captured by the 
 Romanticists. Strive as diligently as it can, Naturalism 
 has not yet found its dramatic formula. And here, 
 perhaps, is the character of the past ten years; they
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 287 
 
 are a period of fumbling in the dark, of feeling toward 
 the light, of unsatisfactory graspings, and of unrewarded 
 endeavor. It may be doubted whether any appreciable 
 progress has been made during the decade. But, per- 
 haps, all inquiry into the existing tendencies of the 
 French drama had best be postponed until after a con- 
 sideration of the actual work French dramatists have 
 accomplished in the years 1881-1891. 
 
 When Hugo died, in 1885, he had brought out in 
 the theatre no new play since the failure of the ' Bur- 
 graves ' in 1843; and such pieces of his as have been 
 published posthumously, or in the last years of his 
 Me, reveal nothing new. They are exactly what one 
 might expect little more than sketches and frag- 
 ments left over from the earlier days of dramatic 
 enthusiasm. Eugene Labiche died in 1888, and Emile 
 Augier in 1889; and neither of them had written any- 
 thing for the stage for more than ten years before 
 his death. The best comedies of both continue to be 
 revived ; and while Augier holds his own stanchly, 
 Labiche is probably more highly esteemed now than 
 he was when he gave up work, perhaps because it is 
 only his better plays which are now familiar, while 
 the memory of his unconsidered trifles is fast fading 
 away. Of Augier's strong, nervous, honest comedies, 
 the * Gendre de M. Poirier/ and the ' Aventuriere,' and 
 the ' Fourchambault ' seem likely to continue foremost 
 in popular favor. 
 
 Yet another of the eleven dramatists considered in 
 detail in the earlier chapters of this book has closed 
 his career recently, Octave Feuillet ; and of the dead 
 he was the only one criticised in these pages with 
 harshness or severity. Sympathy is the germ of fer-
 
 288 French Dramatists. 
 
 tile criticism ; and for Feuillet's novels and comedies, 
 for his theory of life, and for his methods in art, I 
 must still confess a plentiful lack of sympathy. Nor 
 have I found anything to change my opinion in either 
 of the two pieces produced by him since 1881. Neither 
 ' A Parisian Romance ' nor ' Chamillac ' is to my mind 
 a good play or a wholesome spectacle. The sudden 
 death of a dissipated atheist at the supper-table just 
 when he is proposing a toast to Matter strikes me as 
 tricky, cheap, childish ; as Dr. Klesmer, in ' Daniel 
 Deronda,' said of an aria of Bellini's, it indicates "r. 
 puerile state of culture no sense of the universal." 
 And a sense of the universal is just what is wanting 
 in 'Chamillac,' the hero of which is a person of the 
 most strangely contorted and high-strung morality, in 
 whose sayings and doings the audience takes singu- 
 larly little interest, possibly because the author wilfully 
 chose to keep a secret till the last act, leaving the 
 spectators so far in the dark that they could not see 
 whither the action tended or the motives of the char- 
 acters. In the drama obscurity is a fatal defect, and 
 a transparent clearness is an absolute necessity, if 
 those who sit in judgment are to follow the story 
 with interest. I had liefer praise Feuillet than not, 
 for he was a gentleman and he wrote with profound 
 respect for himself and for art ; but most of his more 
 serious writings seems to me essentially false and 
 insidiously demoralizing. But although I do not like 
 his unreal fictions, it would perhaps be unfair not to 
 suggest that many accomplished critics have admired 
 Feuillet: one of M. Jules Lemaitre's cleverest essays 
 is devoted to the author of ' M. de Camors.' Even 
 M. Lemaitre, however, is moved to complain that the
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 289 
 
 rarefied "high-life" atmosphere of Feuillet almost makes 
 him long for the barnyard odors of Zola. 
 
 MM. Meilhac and Halevy are now both of them 
 members of the French Academy, but they are no 
 longer in partnership. The firm was dissolved nearly 
 fifteen years ago, and M. Halevy has not since written 
 for the theatre. Even when the vogue of his charm- 
 ing novel, 'Abbe Constantin,' moved a manager to 
 ask for a dramatization, M. Halevy left this labor to 
 other hands. M. Meilhac has not been idle, and no 
 twelve months pass without the production of a play 
 from his pen. He writes alone or with chance col- 
 laborators ; and his comedies have always wit, grace, 
 fantasy, and observation ; and they are nearly always 
 wanting in the unswerving directness of subject which 
 the stage demands. He is fond of chasing two hares 
 at once, and while he enjoys the exercise, his guests 
 often go without their game-pie. His pieces delight the 
 delicate, but they rarely attract the broader public, which 
 prefers stronger fare. Yet no man who can appreciate 
 the play of a subtle intelligence and the exercise of a 
 brightsome humor has any right to be disappointed at 
 ' Gotte ' or ' Decore ' or ' Ma Cousine.' No one of 
 these has any rash American manager ever ventured 
 to adapt ; and Voltaire declares that " there are no 
 really good works except those which go to foreign 
 nations, which are studied there, and translated." 
 This is a hard saying of Voltaire's, and were it unerr- 
 ingly applicable, it would bear severely on Augier as 
 well as on M. Meilhac. 
 
 *Le Monde ou Ton s'ennuie' was brought out in 
 1881, and since then M. Pailleron has produced only one 
 comedy, the ' Souris,' a scanty showing due, it may be, to
 
 290 French Dramatists. 
 
 the timidity which is prone to seize a man of letters on 
 the morrow of a triumphant success, just as Sheridan 
 was said to be afraid of the author of the 'School for 
 Scandal.' M. Pailleron is witty, but inclined to be 
 precious and tortured in style. His spontaneity is the 
 result of taking thought, and his effects are often far- 
 fetched. Clever he is, no doubt, but the vogue of 
 ' Le Monde ou Ton s'ennuie ' seemed accidental and 
 inordinate. The ' Souris ' suffered from the comparison, 
 and its chilly reception can be measured by the gibe of 
 a fellow-dramatist to the effect that M. Pailleron was a 
 lucky fellow since he had two of his plays at the Theatre 
 Fran^ais at the same time, the ' Souris ' on the stage 
 and le monde oil ton s'ennuie in the house. 
 
 Edmond Gondinet, who died only two or three years 
 ago, was a dramatist of ampler gifts than M. Pailleron 
 and of a wider experience. Though his hand was uncer- 
 tain, and though he left behind him few pieces which 
 show him at his best, his gifts for the stage were indis- 
 putable. He had originality, deftness, and the literary 
 touch; but much of his time was wasted in fruitless 
 collaborations, despite the obvious fact that his best 
 work was done alone excepting always the 'Plus 
 Heureux des Trois,' in the writing of which he had 
 Labiche for his partner. The 'Parisien' was the last 
 comedy of Gondinet's to be acted at Theatre Frangais ; 
 it was a bright but inconclusive piece, with just a hint 
 of sentiment. After the play written in partnership 
 with Labiche, probably the most characteristic of Gondi- 
 net's pieces were the ' Panache ' and the highly amusing 
 ' Gavaut, Minard et Cie.' 
 
 Perhaps it is not fair to M. Bisson to compare him 
 with Gondinet, whose successor in some sort he seems
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 291 
 
 to be. Gondinet was a humorous dramatist ; M. Bisson 
 is merely a comic playwright ; and the difference is fun- 
 damental. Yet M. Bisson's 'Deput6 de Bombignac' 
 was acted for many a night by the Come"die-Frangaise 
 with M. Coquelin as the hero ; and the * Surprises du 
 Divorce' would make a Vermont deacon laugh out in 
 meeting. The last play Sir Roger de Coverley had 
 been at was the 'Committee,' "which I should not have 
 gone to, neither," the worthy knight explained, "had I 
 not been told beforehand that it was a good Church of 
 England comedy." Perhaps it would be an exaggeration 
 to liken the ' Surprises du Divorce ' to the ' Committee/ 
 but the French farce, despite its title and a stray note 
 or two of bad taste, is innocent enough. Farce stands 
 to comedy, I take it, in a relation like that borne by 
 melodrama to tragedy, in that action predominates over 
 thought, plot is more prominent than character, what is 
 done has a far greater importance than what is said or 
 felt ; but although farce and melodrama are doubtless 
 inferior, they are quite as legitimate forms of the drama 
 as comedy and tragedy. A really good farce is almost 
 as great a rarity as a good comedy; and there is no 
 need to despair of French dramatists as long as they are 
 capable of a farce as unfailingly and persistently funny 
 as the ' Surprises,' a marvel of constructive skill, with- 
 out hurry or hesitation, and with the utmost tribute of 
 laughter adroitly expressed from every situation. Even 
 the master-magician of the modern stage, M. Sardou, 
 could not have extracted more fun out of the theme, 
 although there would have been some tincture of litera- 
 ture in the play had he written it. 
 
 Of all the French dramatists to whom the earlier 
 chapters of this volume have been devoted, M. Sardou
 
 292 French Dramatists. 
 
 is the only one who has retained his productivity. In 
 the past ten years he has produced ten plays. Of these, 
 'Georgette,' 'Marquise,' and the 'Crocodile' were flat 
 failures ; ' Odette ' and ' Cleopatre v were little better ; 
 ' Belle-Maman,' 'Theodora,' and 'La Tosca' met with 
 a fair measure of success ; ' Thermidor ' was suppressed 
 by the government because its pictures of the Revo- 
 lution gave rise to rioting ; and ' Fedora ' is the only 
 play of the ten the popularity of which rivalled that 
 of the better pieces of M. Sardou's earlier career. The 
 most of these plays were careless in workmanship, hasty 
 in construction, slovenly in their writing. Voltaire says 
 that a man always talks ill when he has nothing to say, 
 so it is easy to account for the ill-writing in most of 
 these later plays. French critics did not hesitate to 
 accuse M. Sardou of working for the export trade 
 of thinking more of the possible receipts of the per- 
 formances in London, New York, San Francisco, and 
 Melbourne, than of the artistic presentation of his sub- 
 ject to the Parisian public. 
 
 Four of these ten plays were written for Mme. Sarah 
 Bernhardt, as clever and as careless in her art as is 
 M. Sardou in his, and equally wanting in respect for her 
 audiences. There is a certain fitness in their conjunc- 
 tion, and they seem made for each other, the actress for 
 the author and the author for the actress, both being 
 possessed of surpassing cleverness and both having a 
 taint of charlatanry ; but none the less did the alliance 
 prove disastrous to both parties and together both dete- 
 riorated. ' F6dora ' is the first play of the four and by 
 far the best ; ' Theodora,' the second, is inferior ; ' La 
 Tosca,' the third, is weaker yet ; and ' C16opatre/ the 
 last, is the least of all. And the strongest of them,
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 293 
 
 ' Fedora,' is a brutal play, holding the spectator breath- 
 less, with a violent physical oppression, as though he was 
 held down by a nightmare he was powerless to throw off. 
 But it is a masterpiece of technic ; the joinery is most 
 artful ; and the fitting together of the various parts is as 
 clever as can be. Mr. James was right when he called 
 M. Sardou a "supremely skilful contriver and arranger." 
 In its way and of its kind nothing better than 'Fedora' 
 has ever been seen on the stage; but the kind is one 
 that the stage could spare without serious loss. 
 
 "The man of talents possesses them like so many 
 tools, does his job with them, and there an end," Mr. 
 Lowell tells us ; "but the man of genius is possessed by 
 it, and it makes him into a book or a life according to its 
 whim. Talent takes the existing moulds, and makes 
 its castings, better or worse, of richer or baser metal, 
 according to knack and opportunity ; but genius is 
 always shaping new ones and runs the man in them, so 
 that there is always that human feel in its results which 
 gives us a kindred thrill." M. Sardou is a man of 
 talents, beyond all question, but may one venture to 
 term M. Alexandre Dumas fits a man of genius ? When 
 I contrast his later plays with M. Sardou's, I am inclined 
 to risk the phrase, for the difference between the two 
 dramatists grows apace ; and it strikes me now as wider 
 and more radical than ever before. 
 
 And yet I doubt if either of the two plays which 
 M. Dumas has produced during this decade has raised 
 my opinion of him. Neither ' Denise ' nor ' Francillon,' 
 pathetic as is the first, and brilliant as is the second, 
 and interesting as they both are, is a work of the 
 calibre and range of the 'Demi-Monde.' But in both 
 can be seen a power beyond M. Sardou's, because
 
 294 French Dramatists. 
 
 M. Dumas has so sure a knowledge of the tricks of 
 the trade that he can dispense with them and move 
 us without their aid. There are men and women now 
 and again in the plays of M. Dumas, while in M. Sar- 
 dou's later pieces we soon discover that all the dolls 
 are stuffed with sawdust. Of M. Dumas's sincerity 
 I may still have my doubts, although I incline more 
 and more to the opinion that M. Dumas at least be- 
 lieves in himself. But of his ability, of his intellectual 
 force, of his gift for propounding social puzzles and so 
 setting people thinking, and above all, of his drama- 
 turgic skill and of his sense of form, there cannot be 
 two opinions. Both ' Denise ' and * Francillon ' have 
 a solid simplicity of structure worthy of all praise. 
 
 In both plays M. Dumas has a subject other than 
 his mere story, a theme which the incidents of his 
 drama are intended to demonstrate. In 'Denise,' he 
 raises again the question he first put forth in ' Idees 
 de Madame Aubray,' Is a single lapse from virtue suf- 
 ficient to bar a girl from marriage to a man who knows 
 her history and who loves her and respects her in spite 
 of it ? In ' Francillon,' the inquiry is, Whether there 
 is an equal obligation on both parties to a marriage con- 
 tract to be faithful to each other, or whether the infi- 
 delity of the husband justifies that of the wife ? In 
 ' Denise ' M. Dumas decides as he decided in the 
 ' Id^es de Madame Aubray ' ; and as is his wont, he 
 has a personal mouthpiece in his own play, a conden- 
 sation of the multiplex Greek Chorus into a single 
 personality, charged with the duty of delivering a most 
 Parisian parabasis. In ' Denise,' the name of this dens 
 ex machina in a dress-coat is Thouvenin ; and even the 
 skill of M. Dumas is tasked to the utmost to get our
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 295 
 
 attention to the preachments of this obtruding character. 
 In ' Francillon,' with far better art, the events as they 
 succeed swiftly set forth their own moral ; and there 
 needs no lecturer to explain the figures. But ' Fran- 
 cillon ' lacks the final sincerity of ' Denise,' where the 
 author poses his problem and forces us to accept his 
 solution. In the latter comedy M. Dumas dodges 
 there is no other word for it. He plays a trick on us, 
 a practical joke of the most dazzling description, but 
 still a practical joke only. If Francillon is innocent, 
 if she has told a lie when she confesses her fault, then 
 the comedy is but a vaudeville a la Scribe, not to be 
 taken seriously ; and we need not make believe that it 
 ever happened. M. Dumas has been playing the game 
 for its own sake, and not for the possible profit. In 
 mere dramaturgic art, in the technic of the playwright, 
 nothing can be swifter, bolder, better, than ' Francillon ' ; 
 it is a marvel and a despair to all other makers of plays. 
 And it is written with sustained brilliancy, and of the 
 best kind, since the wit is struck out by the situations 
 and by the characters and loses its effect when detached. 
 It is to be noted that M. Dumas did not dramatize his 
 novel, the 'Affaire Clemenceau,' just as M. Halevy left 
 the adaptation of the 'Abbe Constantin ' to other hands. 
 Having been dramatists before they were novelists, 
 M. Dumas and M. Halevy knew the impossibility of 
 making satisfactory plays out of their stories, so they 
 put off on others the responsibility of the attempt. The 
 one playwright who has pushed to the front in the past 
 ten years is a story-teller, also, all of whose dramas are 
 presented to the public as novels first ; this is M. 
 Georges Ohnet, the author of ' Serge Panine,' the 
 ' Maitre de Forges,' the ' Comtesse Sarah,' and the
 
 296 French Dramatists, 
 
 ' Grande Marniere,' works which have had an enor- 
 mous sale in the bookstores (and some of them a suc- 
 cess almost as overwhelming on the stage), and which 
 either in the library or in the theatre stand wholly out- 
 side of literature. The pieces Ohnettes, as the small 
 wits of the boulevard call them, make even the hastiest 
 play of M. Sardou's seem literary. M. Ohnet's methods 
 are the acme of the commonplace, the conventional, and 
 the cut-and-dried ; and in his pieces we know every 
 character almost before he opens his mouth, we foresee 
 every situation at the first word of preparation, and we 
 recognize as an old friend almost every phrase of the 
 dialogue. "All copyists are contemptible," Mr. Ruskin 
 has said ; "but the copyist of himself is the most so, for 
 he has the worst original." 
 
 This summary, imperfect though it must needs be, of 
 the theatrical output in Paris during the decade, shows 
 that no new French dramatist of high rank has come 
 forward within this period. It is significant of the 
 changing condition of literature in France that in the 
 past ten years three novelists of unusual endowment 
 have made themselves known to us, M. Guy de Mau- 
 passant, M. Paul Bourget, and " Pierre Loti," as he 
 calls himself. Nowadays the young man of high liter- 
 ary expectations finds his account rather in prose fiction 
 than in writing for the stage. At last the novel is 
 almost as profitable as the play ; and of course the 
 story pays even better than the play if it is set upon the 
 stage after it has conquered success in the bookstores. 
 
 Literary tendencies may be likened to the currents 
 of the air ; we can see the clouds moving above us, but 
 we know that the winds are changeable and capricious, 
 blowing by fits and starts, and often two ways at once.
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 297 
 
 and it is not always easy to tell which of the two strug- 
 gling breezes is the stronger and will bring the final 
 storm. The weather-wise, nevertheless, hardly doubt 
 that to-day in France, as in Spain and in America, 
 there is an overmastering tendency toward Naturalism. 
 It is a fact that four or five of the foremost French 
 novelists are now adherents of the Naturalistic school. 
 Slowly these writers, M. Zola and M. Daudet at the 
 head of them, have made their way to the forefrontof 
 French fiction, and now they are seeking for success in 
 the theatre also. At first they allowed more practised 
 playwrights to shape their stories for the stage ; M. Bus- 
 nach lent M. Zola his experience in dramatizing ' Germi- 
 nal,' and M. Belot aided M. Daudet in making a play 
 out of ' Froment jeune et Risler aine.' With increas- 
 ing experience, the novelists are gaming self-reliance ; 
 M. Zola himself modified * La Cure"e ' into ' Renee ' ; 
 M. Daudet dramatized * Sapho ' without assistance ; and 
 M. de Goncourt was solely responsible for the stage ver- 
 sions of ' Germinie Lacerteux ' and of the * Fille Elisa.' 
 
 That no one of these dramatizations was wholly 
 satisfactory is due chiefly to the fact that the novels 
 of the Naturalists lend themselves with difficulty to the 
 dramatizer, as they are far less fit for the purpose of 
 the theatre than the stories of the old Romanticists, 
 and they suffer far more in the transfer. A liberal share 
 of M. Zola's powers abandon him when his fictions are 
 produced in the theatre without the aid of his sturdy 
 and strenuous faculty of description. Rank strength 
 is perhaps his chief characteristic ; and on the stage he 
 is shaven and shorn perforce. ' Germinal,' for example, 
 one might call the strongest story of the past ten years ; 
 there was in it not a little of the splendid sweep of a
 
 298 French Dramatists. 
 
 great epic ; it had the irresistible and inevitable move- 
 ment of a solemn tragedy ; but taken from the pages of 
 a book and put on the boards of a theatre, nearly all 
 this evaporated, and there was little left but a rather 
 vulgar panorama of violence and suffering. 
 
 In like manner the essential element of M. Daudet's 
 ' Sapho ' was dissipated when she was presented to us in 
 the person of Mme. Jane Hading, and in only five acts 
 a division quite insufficient to show adequately the flux 
 and reflux of contending duty and desire, and yet quite 
 enough to lay bare the apparent monotony of the inci- 
 dents. Perhaps it was the perception of this which has 
 led M. Daudet to come forward as an original dramatist. 
 His last two plays, the ' Lutte pour la Vie ' and the 
 'Obstacle,' are not adapted novels like 'Sapho' and 
 'Numa Roumestan'; nor is either elaborated from a 
 short story like the ' Arl^sienne.' They were written 
 for the stage in the first instance, and they are there- 
 fore most interesting experiments, tentative no doubt, 
 but indisputably promising. They have manifest signs 
 of inexperience, but they indicate that M. Daudet is 
 feeling the way, and that he is determined to " know the 
 ropes " before he gives up. 
 
 Mr. Brownell has told us that "of every problem 
 which the French artist attacks, he knows in advance 
 various authoritative and accepted solutions," and that 
 "irresistibly he is impelled to take advantage of these." 
 In no art is this truer than in the dramaturgic, and as 
 a result there is no art more bound by convention. In 
 no other form of literary endeavor is it as difficult to 
 get free from the shackles of tradition. So it happens 
 that while the technic of many French plays is abso- 
 lutely impeccable, they have the smooth perfection of
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 299 
 
 machine-work. As Mr. Brownell's Italian fellow-traveller 
 said to him, the French " charge you more for potatoes 
 an natiirel than for potatoes served in any other way." 
 M. Daudet is one of those who are discovering by per- 
 sonal experience that it is more difficult for a French- 
 man to serve potatoes au naturel than sauttfes or souffltes, 
 as his countrymen have been accustomed to see pota- 
 toes served. 
 
 M. Henri Becque is another. M. Becque is unlike 
 his fellow-Naturalists in that he is a dramatist primarily, 
 and not at all a novelist. He is the author of the 
 'Corbeaux' and of the ' Parisienne,' plays of a hard 
 originality both of them, of a dark vigor and of an 
 uncompromising directness. Both of them have been 
 acted by the Comedie-Frangaise ; and neither met 
 with popular approval, notwithstanding its remarkable 
 qualities. M. Becque is a leader in the search for a 
 new theatrical formula. He declares that the existing 
 dramatic moulds are hopelessly worn out. He hates 
 the "patent buffer-and-coupler " play quite as much as 
 Mr. Howells, and with a far deeper understanding of 
 the principles which underlie the art of play-making. 
 Yet M. Becque in his distaste for the conventional is 
 on the verge of denouncing all convention, forgetting 
 that convention is the foundation of every art. In the 
 drama, for example, it is a condition of the existence of 
 the art, that the fourth side shall be taken off the room 
 so that the spectators can see what is going on within. 
 It is a condition also that the actors shall so raise their 
 voices above the ordinary and so face the footlights, 
 that the audience can hear them. The comedian must 
 allow for the perspective of the stage, and therefore he 
 cannot act as he would really in life, but with just suffi-
 
 300 French Dramatists. 
 
 cient exaggeration or emphasis that he may appear to 
 be absolutely natural when seen from afar. So also the 
 dramatist must simplify, explain, make clear, condense, 
 and heighten his story, that it may be presented com- 
 pletely within two or three hours, so that a thousand 
 men and women of average intelligence can apprehend 
 its movement and its meaning. I have no desire to 
 defend the "patent buffer-and-coupler " play far from 
 it ; but if I am going a journey unto a far country, I 
 know that a proper buffer-and-coupler will spare me 
 many a jolt. 
 
 The Naturalists, like all reformers, are inclined to be 
 intolerant. They are prone also to claim all the virtue 
 for their own party. But it was a professional play- 
 wright, a master of every secret of the dramaturgic art, 
 M. Alexandre Dumas fits, who broke the bonds of the 
 Scribe formulas forty years ago and let a flood of fresh 
 air into the theatre. M. Meilhac, in collaboration with 
 M. Halevy, and with other of his chance assistants, and 
 alone, has repeatedly served a most appetizing dish of 
 potatoes au naturel. So did Gondinet, now and again. 
 So once, in a way, did two hardened veterans of the 
 theatre, MM. Blum and Toche", in ' Paris Fin-de-Siecle,' 
 a play as plotless and as amusing as any one could wish, 
 a satirically humorous collection of scenes from real life, 
 strung together anyhow. Here occasion serves to say 
 that it is only an experienced cook who can prepare a 
 simple dish, and that the "picture of real life " is most 
 likely to be painted by the men who best understand all 
 the devices of the studio ; neither Mr. Harrigan nor the 
 author of the 'Old Homestead' is a novice. 
 
 It is a strange truth also and it is one that helps 
 to explain the lack of success the Naturalists have met
 
 A Ten Years Retrospect. 301 
 
 with in the plays they have produced as yet that 
 while a man may be a pessimist alone, in a multitude 
 he is inclined to be an optimist. By himself, at his 
 own fireside, he may be eager to gaze on a picture of 
 total depravity, and to exalt ' Barry Lyndon ' over 
 'Henry Esmond' as the more enjoyable work of art; 
 yet in company with his fellows, in the seats of a thea- 
 tre, he likes a suggestion of heroism or self-sacrifice, 
 and he is moved to resent M. Zola's habit of holding 
 an inquest on humanity in the presence of the corpse. 
 So far the Naturalists have found it very difficult to over- 
 come the desire for idealization which seems to exist 
 among the body of play-goers, although this very mass 
 is composed of individuals who are ready enough to 
 read ' Sapho ' and ' Germinal ' at home. And the plain 
 speaking also which a man will stand when it is a 
 whisper in his private ear, shocks him into protest 
 when he touches elbows with some hundreds of his 
 fellow-men. 
 
 A consciousness of this curious fact has been the 
 cause of the most peculiar development in the French 
 stage during the past ten years. This is the founding 
 of the Theatre Libre. M. Antoine, an enthusiast for 
 the drama and an extremist in his application of the 
 doctrines of Naturalism, has given a series of subscription 
 performances in Paris during the past five or six win- 
 ters, at which he has produced plays of the new school 
 such as had no hope of acceptance by the managers of 
 the regular theatres. Among the pieces he has brought 
 out for two or three performances only are Tolstoi's 
 'Powers of Darkness' and Ibsen's 'Ghosts.' Another 
 is M. Hennique's matter-of-fact tragic sketch, 'La Mort 
 du Due d'Enghien.' Yet another is M. de Goncourt's
 
 3O2 French Dramatists. 
 
 'Fille Elisa.' All of these are experiments most curi- 
 ous to witness. And all of them have had the advan- 
 tage of the undeniably effective stage-management of 
 M. Antoine, who has taught a trick or two to his 
 predecessors. But many of the plays he has produced 
 have been both dirty and dull ; and most of them have 
 been hard, cold, unfeeling, laboriously unconventional, 
 wholly devoid of inspiration. The Theatre Libre has 
 been little more than a dramatic dissecting-room for 
 the dreary exhibition of offensive subjects. That it 
 exists, however, that it is sustained year after year, 
 that its performances excite ardent discussion, these 
 are all signs of the vitality of the drama in France, 
 even if they have no further significance. 
 
 To sum up the ten years, 1881-1891, and to declare 
 their total value is not yet possible, although it is easy 
 to see that the decade has been a time of transition 
 like every other decade of the world's history. No new 
 dramatist has taken his place by the side of Augier, 
 M. Dumas, and M. Sardou. No new formula has won 
 acceptance. There is an irrepressible conflict between 
 the new school and the old, but the result of the strug- 
 gle is likely to be a slow evolution rather than a sudden 
 revolution. And so best, no doubt; for the Jacobin 
 and the Jacobite are as dangerous, one as the other. 
 It is to be remembered also that the most diverse colors 
 in the spectrum of art, if we may so call it, as we gaze 
 at it through the prism of history, range themselves in 
 regular order and melt one into the other by insensible 
 gradations. In the present condition of the French 
 drama the extreme Naturalists are at one end, and the 
 extreme Idealists at the other, and, as usual, safety 
 is in the centre.
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 AT THE END OF THE CENTURY. 
 
 IN his essay on Gray, Lowell said : " Let us admit 
 that the eighteenth century was, on the whole, prosaic, 
 yet it may have been a pretty fair one as centuries go," 
 and he added, with characteristic shrewdness, "every 
 age is as good as the people who live in it choose to 
 make it, and if good enough for them, perhaps we, who 
 had no hand in the making of it, can complain of it only 
 so far as it had a hand in the making of us." Now as 
 the nineteenth century is leaving us for ever, let us 
 admit that it has been a pretty fair century on the 
 whole, not prosaic like its predecessor, which had a 
 hand in the making of it, but essentially poetic, as 
 perhaps no earlier century can have been, in so far as 
 vast vistas of speculation have been suddenly disclosed 
 to the mind of man. A practical century, it has been, 
 no doubt ; but then every other century must also have 
 been practical, since the day's work had always to be 
 done. Never before has man been less bound down to 
 mere journeyman labor; never before has life been 
 so strangely interesting, with so constant a succession 
 of surprises, due to our conquest of nature and to our 
 expansion of knowledge. 
 
 It may be that the twentieth century which the 
 nineteenth has had a hand in making will be prosaic 
 again, that it will settle down and seek to set in order 
 what its predecessor has poured out lavishly, that it will 
 
 303
 
 304 French Dramatists. 
 
 be content to live in the past rather than in the future, 
 that it will be critical rather than creative. Should this 
 come to pass, the critics and the commentators will find 
 ready for their investigation and evaluation a certain 
 number of movements, more or less complete, in the 
 hundred years that followed 1 800, movements of less 
 importance, indeed, than the Renascence or the Refor- 
 mation, or the Decline and Fall, but none the less well 
 worthy of inquiry and analysis. For example, the rise 
 of Transcendentalism in the United States and its effect 
 on American character, here is a theme to be handled 
 satisfactorily only after a due interval of time. As 
 M. Jules Lemaitre has assured us, "criticism of the 
 works of yesterday is not criticism ; it is conversation," 
 a harsh saying this to come from the author of the 
 ' Contemporains.' Again, the final weighing of each of 
 the remarkable group of British writers whom we are 
 wont to call the Victorian poets, and the investigation of 
 the true relation of each of them to the others here 
 we have a subject likely to task the best critical faculty 
 of the twentieth century. And a third theme, as rich 
 as either of the others, I think, and as tempting, can be 
 discerned in the development of the drama in France 
 during the half-century that stretches from 1830 to 1880. 
 All that took place in the playhouses of Paris before 
 the first performance of ' Hernani ' may be regarded as 
 but the preparation and the prelude of that startling 
 event ; and all that has happened there since the first 
 performance of ' Le Monde ou Ton s'ennuie ' cannot be 
 considered as of primary importance in itself, for no 
 one of the plays of the final twenty years of the century 
 is epoch-making, no one of them has more than a 
 secondary importance, as it either continues the tradi-
 
 At the End of the Century. 305 
 
 tion of the 1830-1880 period, or more or less obviously 
 protests against that tradition. The Romantic move- 
 ment made smooth a path for the Realistic movement 
 that followed it inevitably ; and Hugo and the elder 
 Dumas lived to see their formulas and their philosophy 
 disestablished by Augier and the younger Dumas. But 
 in the final decades of the century it was seen that 
 Realism had spent its force, and yet no new movement 
 had swept forward to renew the drama again. No new 
 man has come boldly to the front to declare a fresh set 
 of principles, and to impose his formulas and his phi- 
 losophy upon his more impressionable contemporaries. 
 The last twenty years of the century are not so blank 
 as were the first thirty, from which little or nothing 
 now survives ; but they supply us with scanty indication 
 of the lines along which the drama is likely to modify 
 itself in the immediate future. 
 
 The year 1830 is still a date to be remembered, and 
 the battle of ' Hemani ' remains a picturesque episode 
 in literary history ; and yet, as we look down on the 
 struggle now from the height of the threescore years 
 and ten that have elapsed, the span of a man's life 
 already, the conflict seems petty and the result incon- 
 clusive. The Classicists were feeble folk, all of them, 
 and they had no strength to withstand the first on- 
 slaught; there was no life in them or in the theories 
 which they thought they were defending ; they were 
 dead, even if they did not know it. What vitality can 
 there be in a criticism which asserts that tragedy must 
 fulfil twenty-six conditions, while comedy need fulfil 
 only twenty-two, and the epic only twenty-three, and 
 which is ready with a list of the twenty-six conditions, 
 the twenty-two, and the twenty-three ? What real glory
 
 306 French Dramatists. 
 
 is to be gained by overcoming antagonists as pettily 
 pedantic as these ? 
 
 The Romanticists began bravely, but they did not 
 persist. They routed the Classicists readily enough, 
 but, when their foes were overthrown, they did not 
 press on to other victories. They were content to rest 
 on their laurels ; and very early did keen critics discover 
 the inherent weakness of their attitude. Maurice de 
 Gueiin, for example, said that Romanticism had "put 
 forth all its blossom prematurely, and had left itself a 
 helpless prey to the returning frost." The real reason 
 for this sterility was that the core of Romanticism was 
 revolt In so far as it was destructive, it was success- 
 ful ; and it did not really set out to be constructive. As 
 M. Souriau points out in his acute and scholarly edition 
 of the preface of ' Cromwell,' Romanticism " is rather a 
 reaction than a renascence " ; and he quotes from the 
 elder Dumas to the effect that in those days the ardent 
 young fellows were in doubt as to what they wanted, 
 but they were in no doubt as to what they did not want. 
 
 Not only were their literary doctrines negative rather 
 than affirmative, but they strove to throw off all restraint 
 and to denounce all rule. As a typical hero they were 
 prone to present an outlaw, who added to acts that 
 were illegal a birth that was illegitimate and loves that 
 were illicit. Hernani is a bandit and Antony is a bas- 
 tard. To the men of 1830, the most complex problem 
 of all times was simple ; they saw no difficulty in the 
 relation of man to society, and in the proper restraint of 
 the right of the individual to assert himself, when his 
 self-assertion may be harmful to the community. They 
 proclaimed the complete liberty of the individual ; and 
 they never declared the duty of every man to sacrifice
 
 At the End of the Century. 307 
 
 himself, if need be, for the good of all the rest. Carried 
 to their logical conclusion, their principles led straight 
 to anarchy, with every man a law unto himself. As 
 Thiers said in 1871, when the French republic was 
 fighting for its life, "The Romanticists that's the 
 Commune ! " 
 
 Much high-flown eulogy of the famous books of the 
 past is as unimpressive now as the perfunctory flattery 
 of an epitaph in which manifold and contradictory vir- 
 tues are imperishably inscribed. The praise is all very 
 well in its way, but the real question is, does the famous 
 book keep on being read ? The proof of the play is the 
 acting. After two centuries, the one or two master- 
 pieces of Corneille and the two or three masterpieces of 
 Racine still hold the attention of French playgoers. But 
 of all the plays of the elder Dumas none keeps the stage 
 to-day, except possibly one or another of his lighter 
 comedies in which the Romanticism has been reduced 
 to the vanishing point. Of all Hugo's dramas in prose 
 and verse only ' Hernani ' and ' Ruy Bias ' survive in 
 the theatre. Here the selection of time seems as satis- 
 factory as it always must. These are the two plays in 
 which Hugo's merits are most abundantly displayed, 
 and in which his demerits are diminished. They, in 
 their turn, are beginning to be considered as classics. 
 It was Goethe who declared that the important point 
 for a work of art is that it should be " thoroughly good, 
 and then it is sure to be classical. I call the classic 
 healthy, the romantic sickly." Perhaps it is a little 
 difficult to assert that 'Hernani' and 'Ruy Bias' are 
 really healthy in tone ; but there is no doubt that they 
 are the least sickly of all Hugo's plays. 
 
 One may wonder what Goethe would have thought of
 
 308 French Dramatists. 
 
 the Realistic movement that followed the Romanticist. 
 Would he have relished Balzac ? Would he have found 
 ' Madame Bovary ' healthy ? How would he have en- 
 joyed the ' Demi-Monde ' of the younger Dumas and 
 the 'Gendre de M. Poirier' of Augier and Sandeau? 
 Recalling Goethe's profound delight in Moliere, we may 
 guess that the ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' would have 
 pleased him. But while the ' Demi-Monde ' would have 
 interested him indubitably, we cannot be sure just how 
 the author of ' Elective Affinities ' would have taken it. 
 Of this thing, however, we may be certain : Goethe 
 would have seen and acknowledged the dramaturgic 
 skill of Augier and the younger Dumas, for he had the 
 craftsman's liking for technic. 
 
 Less gaudy than Romanticism, but richer as a topic 
 for investigation, is the history of the so-called "well- 
 made play," la pihe bien faite. As it happens, we can 
 trace almost every step in the career of this formula, 
 its beginning, its rise, its development, its modification, 
 and its decadence at last. Suggested, perhaps, by 
 Beaumarchais, the form was carried to the highest 
 point of mechanical complexity by Scribe ; then it 
 was simplified by the younger Dumas and accepted 
 by Augier, having Sarcey for its press-agent ; until, in 
 the end, it wore out its welcome and was rejected of the 
 Theatre Libre, which refused to be bound by any for- 
 mula whatsoever. 
 
 What is the formula of the well-made play ? When 
 Regnard, who followed in Moliere's footsteps more 
 faithfully than he knew, imitated the master also in 
 writing a critique on one of his comedies that had been 
 attacked, he tried to show that the first act of his play 
 "exposes the subject; the second ties the knot; in the
 
 At the End of the Century. 309 
 
 third the action begins ; it is continued in the following 
 acts ; everything concurs in the event ; the complication 
 grows until the final scene; the ctinoument is drawn 
 from the heart of the subject." Here Regnard comes 
 very near to giving us the definition we seek. A well- 
 made play is a piece having a beginning, a middle, and 
 an end (as every work of art ought to have), and con- 
 taining nothing that does not help in the movement of 
 the plot. In a perfect play of this type, every scene is 
 carefully prepared for, and led up to, and so is every 
 character; every situation inherent in the theme is 
 treated in its proper place and in its due proportion ; 
 there are no digressions, however alluring the oppor- 
 tunity ; and nothing is allowed to interfere with the 
 more or less intricate convolutions of the plot. Such a 
 play is the ' Bataille de Dames,' of Scribe and Legouve, 
 or the ' Pattes de Mouche ' of M. Sardou. Such a play 
 at its best is -likely to be a marvel of ingenuity in inven- 
 tion and construction. Such a play, when its writer 
 was not a master mechanic or was not at his best, is 
 likely to be hard and dry, empty and unsatisfactory. 
 
 It was Scribe who had perfected this mechanism, and 
 who applied the formula most rigorously. The best of 
 Scribe's plays are masterpieces of dramaturgy ; but the 
 breath of life is not in them. He delighted in dexterity 
 for its own sake ; and, in his eyes, the playwright was 
 a rival to the juggler who keeps three brass balls in the 
 air with one hand, while with the other he spins a bowl 
 on the end of a rod. Mere craftsmanship can go no 
 further ; but while he was playing his tricks, the drama 
 was getting divorced from literature. Yet the influence 
 of Scribe was so potent toward the middle of the cen- 
 tury, and he had so completely succeeded in imposing
 
 310 French Dramatists. 
 
 his standards upon the playgoing public, that even 
 authors of marked individuality, men who looked at 
 life with their own eyes, Augier and the younger Du- 
 mas, could not help following in his footsteps, even when 
 they were resolved to go their several ways. A certain 
 artificiality, a certain theatricalness, a certain compla- 
 cency in adroitness, which we discover now and again 
 even in their best plays, may be set down as the result 
 of the overwhelming vogue of Scribe in the days when 
 Augier and Dumas began their careers as dramatists. 
 
 Although a humorist, like Labiche, and a pair of wits, 
 like Meilhac and HaleVy, chose to learn the formula of 
 the well-made play, and could apply it when they saw fit, 
 they rebelled against its restrictions, which irked their 
 vagabond fantasy. In some of their more frolicsome 
 pieces they refused to be bound by it. They reverted 
 to more primitive and easier formulas, like that which 
 Moliere had been content to employ in one or another 
 of his earlier pieces, the 'Etourdi,' for example, and 
 the ' Facheux,' before he had learned how to achieve 
 the solid structure of ' Tartuffe.' They did not develop 
 their theme with narrow and inexorable logic ; rather 
 did they play with it, showing now this aspect of it, and 
 now that. The ' Chapeau de paille d'ltalie ' of Labiche 
 and the ' Boule ' of Meilhac and Halevy are each of 
 them a sequence of comic scenes, having about as much 
 unity as a string of sausages. They are humorous pan- 
 oramas of life rather than organic comedies. Their 
 plots are so loosely knit that almost any act might be 
 omitted without being missed. And no doubt not a 
 little of the freshness and the frank fun of these pieces 
 is to be credited to the refusal of their authors to accept 
 the limitations of the well-made play.
 
 At the End of the Century. 311 
 
 The partnership of Meilhac and Halevy had been 
 dissolved when the century had nearly a quarter of its 
 course to run, and at the very moment when the full 
 effect of the plays they had produced was beginning to 
 be visible. As it happened, the realist novel was just 
 then entering on its period of vogue; and under the 
 lead of Daudet and M. Zola, not a few of the younger 
 story-tellers came to believe that the background was 
 quite as important and as interesting as the grouping of 
 the characters themselves. This could not but have its 
 echo on the stage also. Yet it is chiefly to the influence 
 of Meilhac and HaleVy that we must ascribe the frag- 
 mentary construction which is to be observed in many 
 of the pieces performed during the final years of the 
 century. But whereas the authors of ' Froufrou ' had 
 known from their youth up what the well-made play 
 was, and what were the principles of its construction, 
 even though they often preferred to depart from the 
 formula, their later followers, M. Henri Lavedan, for 
 instance, and M. Maurice Donnay, have not mastered 
 the art of play-making in the same severe school. These 
 younger men, clever as they are, and witty and observ- 
 ant, have to be contented with a casual structure be- 
 cause they do not know any better. Their works are 
 therefore a little too sketchy ; they are a little too lavish 
 of minor details ; they are frequently overneglectful 
 of the main subject, and overwilling to sacrifice the 
 essential scene for the accidental effect. They have 
 not gone quite so far as the even more ignorant 
 enthusiasts of the Theatre Libre who took the final 
 step, and at one fell swoop cast aside all the accepted 
 principles of the dramatic art as well as all the ordi- 
 nary decencies of life, and whose plays are many
 
 312 French Dramatists. 
 
 of them to be described as unactable, unreadable, un- 
 speakable. 
 
 Underlying the formula of the well-made play was a 
 sound principle which the dramatist can disregard only 
 at his peril. This principle is as old as Aristotle, who 
 tells us that the plot "must have for its object a single 
 action, whole and complete, with a beginning, a middle, 
 and an end, that, like a single living organism, it may 
 produce its appropriate pleasure." What Scribe and 
 his disciples did was to cramp the drama by applying 
 this principle too narrowly. The principle itself is one 
 which every great dramatist has accepted and obeyed, 
 Sophocles in ' CEdipus the King,' and Shakspere in 
 'Othello,' no less than Moliere in the 'Femmes Sa- 
 vantes,' and Ibsen in ' Ghosts.' 
 
 As Aristotle was the critic and theorist of the Greek 
 drama, so the late Francisque Sarcey was the critic and 
 theorist of the French drama of the nineteenth century. 
 Toward the end of his career, it is true that his mind 
 lost a little of its former flexibility ; but this is only what 
 often happens to old men. He was the most philo- 
 sophic of all critics of the acted drama since Lessing. 
 His code of maxims was not made up out of his own 
 head arbitrarily, or taken over second-hand from the 
 books of his library ; it was derived, like Aristotle's and 
 like Lessing's also, from a long-continued, very careful, 
 and most conscientious study of the theatre of his own 
 time. He had the equipment of a scholar and the 
 insight of a true critic. He was extremely expert in 
 disentangling the real point at issue, and in applying to 
 it the decisive principle. More than one of the com- 
 monplaces of current French dramatic criticism was an 
 original discovery of Sarcey's.
 
 At the End of the Century. 313 
 
 For example, a favorite phrase of his was to the effect 
 that in a given play the author had or had not shirked 
 the scene he ought to have treated, the sctne a faire, the 
 scene that must be in the play. Here Sarcey condensed 
 into three words an inviolable principle of dramatic con- 
 struction, that the essential situation of the story must 
 be shown on the stage in action. If the subject calls 
 for a meeting of two characters at the crisis of the piece, 
 this meeting must take place in sight of the audience. 
 It cannot pass behind closed doors or between the acts ; 
 it cannot be told by a messenger ; it must be seen and 
 heard directly by the spectators, who are expecting it, 
 although, of course, they do not know just what it is 
 they do expect. If it is not presented to them, they will 
 be disappointed ; they will feel vaguely that they have 
 been balked of a pleasure somehow, and they will be 
 dissatisfied. Perhaps one reason why Sarcey esteemed 
 the well-made play so highly is that it is always certain 
 to contain the one or more scenes d faire implicit in its 
 theme. The scene in which lago distils the poison of 
 jealousy into the ear of the unsuspicious Othello, the 
 scene in which Tartuffe makes love to Elmire while 
 Orgon is hidden under the table, the scene in which 
 Lady Teazle tells the truth to Sir Peter after the screen 
 has fallen, all these are scenes d faire. In the final 
 analysis, what we seek in the theatre is the pleasure the 
 art of acting can bestow; and it is the earmark of a 
 genuine scene a faire that it always gives the actors 
 their best chance. 
 
 The success of the ' Etourdi ' and of the ' Chapeau de 
 paille d' Italic ' shows that the comic dramatist need not 
 always follow the formula of the well-made play; but 
 in the final years of the nineteenth century in Paris,
 
 314 French Dramatists. 
 
 the failure of many a comedy brisk with incident and 
 character and bristling with witty speeches is proof 
 that a comic dramatist can disregard the seine d faire 
 only at his peril. Of course, plot-making can be over- 
 done, as Scribe exemplified; but it can be underdone 
 also, as only too many recent French plays make 
 evident. The proper protest against the undue insist- 
 ence upon mere mechanical ingenuity has led to a 
 loose slovenliness of form, which in its turn is bringing 
 about a reaction. The French, after all, are very Latin 
 in their likings; they joy in beholding the orderly 
 framework of a play put together in due obedience to 
 the traditions of the craft. They may tolerate a laxity 
 of structure sometimes, but they do not really admire it. 
 The reaction against the happy-go-lucky method of play- 
 making is likely also to be aided greatly by the strong 
 impression which Ibsen's social dramas have made 
 upon the Parisian public, and the high esteem in which 
 the Scandinavian dramatist is held by the more serious 
 of the French critics. 
 
 No modern literature has been less swerved aside by 
 foreign example than the French ; and none has gone 
 on its own way with less hesitation; and yet in the 
 course of history French literature has received a suc- 
 cession of vivifying shocks from one foreign source or 
 another. In the Renaissance it was Italy that gave 
 this stimulus ; to Corneille it came from Spain, and to 
 Rousseau from England; the share of Germany in 
 bringing to pass the Romanticist revolt is large enough, 
 although perhaps not to be declared with precision. 
 The latest irritants come from still further North, 
 from Russia and from Scandinavia. Just what effect 
 the example of Tolstoy will have on the French drama
 
 At the End of the Century. 315 
 
 no one can even venture to guess now ; as the Russian 
 is known chiefly as a novelist and scarcely at all as a 
 dramatist, his influence on the writers of plays is likely 
 to be somewhat indirect, although to say this is not 
 to say that it may not in time prove to be powerful. 
 Yet I doubt if it will be very potent, except in so far 
 as his broad toleration, his immense sympathy, his 
 abundant compassion, may be contagious and may help 
 to soften the hardness and the contempt which are 
 marked characteristics of the writings of Flaubert and 
 of his school. On the whole, Tolstoy's ideal is too 
 remote from that of the French themselves, for them 
 to be able to cherish it and to adopt it. 
 
 But Ibsen is a dramatist ; so far as mere dramaturgic 
 skill goes, he is one of the greatest of all dramatists. 
 Almost every one of his social dramas has been per- 
 formed in Paris ; and even though some of them have 
 been acted but two or three times, still they have been 
 seen on the stage, the only true proving-ground of a 
 genuine dramatist's work. Few of these plays really 
 pleased the Parisians, and why should they ? Ibsen 
 is not Gallic, but very Scandinavian ; he is not at all 
 gay, indeed he is austere. But after they had seen a 
 certain number of these Scandinavian austerities, they 
 came away dissatisfied with the ordinary Parisian play. 
 However inacceptable their ethical code may seem some- 
 times to us Anglo-Saxons, the French are moralists to 
 the marrow; and what they seek on the stage is "a 
 picture of life, which is also a judgment." They 
 may not have recognized the picture of life to which 
 Ibsen called their attention, and they may have refused 
 to accept his judgment on the case presented ; but they 
 could not but see where Ibsen had set a higher stand-
 
 316 French Dramatists. 
 
 ard, ethically and esthetically, than their own later 
 dramatists. 
 
 The symbolism, the vagueness, the mysticism 
 which to many of us are the least interesting phase of 
 Ibsen's later works puzzled the Parisians repeatedly. 
 Many of the characters he had projected into life were 
 far too bold and reckless in asserting their right to live 
 out their own lives in their own way, to please a people 
 governed by the social instinct as the French are. The 
 occasional morbidness, the lack of wholesome material 
 sometimes, the merely Scandinavian problem presented 
 once or twice in place of one of the eternal and univer- 
 sal puzzles of human existence, all these things tended 
 to disconcert the French playgoing public. But no 
 people could more heartily appreciate Ibsen's merciless 
 logic and his severity of form. 
 
 It may be fanciful in me, but I have always wondered 
 whether or not the social dramas of Ibsen are what 
 they are, because the militant comedies of the younger 
 Dumas preceded them, just as these comedies in 
 their turn are what they are because they had for fore- 
 runners Scribe's ingenious plays. Scribe had a complex- 
 ity of plot, and, so far as may be, no moral whatsoever. 
 Dumas did away with the half of Scribe's machinery ; 
 and he insisted on pointing the moral, getting up him- 
 self to declare it, if occasion served. Now Ibsen has 
 gone a step farther, profiting by the labors both of 
 Scribe and Dumas, and having studied their works 
 diligently. He is now able to make the plots of his 
 plays seem perfectly simple, although, as a matter of 
 fact, they are often very elaborate; and the moral 
 which is explicit in Dumas, Ibsen has intensified by 
 keeping it implicit. His craftsmanship is so masterly
 
 At the End of the Century. 317 
 
 that the French are glad to claim it ; Sarcey called the 
 ' Doll's House ' a French play, except in the arbitrary 
 departure of Nora in the final act. 
 
 This mastery of dramatic form is another quality of 
 Ibsen's which the next generation of French play- 
 wrights will probably seek to acquire. Already has 
 M. Paul Hervieu, in the ' Loi de I'homme,' and in other 
 pieces, succeeded in attaining a certain plain simplicity, 
 not unlike Ibsen's. Perhaps also the directness of one 
 or two of M. Jules Lemaitre's plays may be ascribed 
 likewise to Ibsen's severe example. But it is hard for 
 M. Lemaitre to lay aside his irony; and irony not 
 the tragic irony of Sophocles, but the disintegrating 
 comic irony of Renan is fatal to the success of a 
 dramatist. No audience is willing to be laughed at; 
 it has not paid its money to serve as a butt. That 
 Ibsen is somewhat deficient in humor is probably to his 
 advantage. Certainly no taint of comic irony ever mars 
 the force of his straightforward sincerity. 
 
 Perhaps the French do not find a complete satisfac- 
 tion in the solutions that M. Hervieu and M. Lemaitre 
 propose for the problems they have propounded. But 
 Ibsen has not always solved those he has presented, as 
 Mr. Howells reminds us: "It is not by the solution 
 of problems that the moralist teaches, but by the ques- 
 tion that his handling of them suggests to us respecting 
 ourselves. Artistically he is bound, Ibsen as a drama- 
 tist is bound to give an esthetic completeness to his 
 works, and I do not find that he ever fails to do this ; 
 to my thinking they have a high beauty and propriety ; 
 but ethically he is bound not to be final ; for if he forces 
 himself to be final in things that do not and can not 
 end here, he becomes dishonest, he becomes a Nordau.
 
 318 French Dramatists. 
 
 What he can and must do ethically is to make us take 
 thought of ourselves, and look to it whether we have in 
 us the making of this or that wrong ; whether we are 
 hypocrites, tyrants, pretenders, shams, conscious or un- 
 conscious ; whether our most unselfish motives are not 
 really secret shapes of egotism ; whether our convictions 
 are not mere brute acceptances; whether we believe 
 what we profess ; whether, when we force good to a 
 logical end, we are not doing evil." 
 
 The most popular play of the final decade of the 
 century presents no problem whatsoever and avoids any 
 criticism of life. Apparently, its author has never heard 
 of Ibsen, and never seen any play by the younger 
 Dumas. He has not taken his stand on firm reality, 
 but has preferred to build an airy fantasy, as unsub- 
 stantial as it is charming. His aim has not been to 
 enlighten, but merely to entertain ; and he has accom- 
 plished his purpose superabundantly. Since ' Hernani,' 
 no play has been so enthusiastically acclaimed at its 
 first performances as the 'Cyrano de Bergerac' of 
 M. de Rostand, its humorously poetic hero being acted 
 with incomparable variety by the most accomplished 
 of contemporary comedians, M. Coquelin. This play, 
 which pleased many thousands of spectators, not only 
 in France, but also in Germany, in Italy, and in Amer- 
 ica, was joyfully hailed by certain Parisian critics as the 
 harbinger of a new springtime for the French poetic 
 drama. M. Rostand was welcomed as a reviver of the 
 best traditions, and he was eulogized as one who like 
 Corneille with the ' Cid,' and like Hugo with ' Hernani ' 
 had set a new model which later dramatists might 
 vainly strive to surpass. 
 
 It may be bad manners to look Pegasus in the mouth
 
 At the End of the Century. 319 
 
 or to smile at the cooing murmurs of delight that run 
 round the Porte Saint Martin at the exquisite delivery 
 of a mellifluous couplet ; and there is no disputing that 
 'Cyrano de Bergerac' is very clever and very adroit, 
 that it has color and vivacity, that if it lacks passion, 
 it has at least sentiment, that if it wants real action, it 
 has abundant movement, and, above all, that it makes 
 an extraordinarily wide appeal to those who like love- 
 making and romance, to those who relish easy wit and 
 lively humor, and to those who revel in combats and in 
 the peril of life and death. But it cannot fairly be 
 called an epoch-making novelty. It is, instead, an old 
 thing done in a new way. The plot is put together by 
 a playwright who has absorbed every device of the 
 elder Dumas, and the verse is written by a lyrist who 
 has learned every trick of the Parnassians. It is, in 
 short, an old-fashioned piece, but with all the modern 
 improvements. 
 
 An adverse critic might suggest that M. Rostand had 
 used his story to display his verbal virtuosity. He has 
 a very pretty lyric gift, always a rare endowment 
 among the French. He can touch wit with sentiment, 
 and he can thrust a hint of pathos into an extravagant 
 simile. He combines clearness and elegance, and his 
 verse is both facile and finished. The quality of his 
 poetry is almost exactly that of the vers de soci/te, the 
 verse in lighter vein of Prior and Mr. Austin Dobson, 
 of Locker and Dr. Holmes. M. Rostand is brilliant 
 and buoyant as Praed is, for example; and Cyrano's 
 description of a kiss may be compared curiously with 
 the stanza in the ' Chaunt of the Brazen Head,' in 
 which the lyrist liltingly tells us what he thinks of 
 love.
 
 
 320 French Dramatists. 
 
 ' Cyrano de Bergerac,' for all its bravery of epithet 
 and all its briskness of motion, is at bottom too slight 
 a thing to serve as the corner-stone of a new school. It 
 contains no promise of future development, nor do the 
 author's other plays, less coruscating than ' Cyrano,' but 
 possessing the same qualities. And even in ' Cyrano ' 
 itself, there is no character of real originality or of 
 genuine verity ; it is peopled only by the masks of the 
 stage. The play itself lacks depth and breadth ; it is 
 without ultimate sincerity ; it has as its basis an unwor- 
 thy trick, and it holds up before us as a hero whom we 
 are to honor with our approval and with whom we are 
 expected to sympathize, a man engaged in deceiving 
 a woman into a marriage certain to bring her misery so 
 soon as she discovers, though too late, the dulness of 
 the man she has wedded. M. de Rostand's play is clean 
 externally, but it is essentially immoral, in so far as it 
 erects a false standard and parades a self-sacrifice which, 
 to use Mr. Howells's apt phrase, is " a secret shape of 
 egotism." 
 
 Whatever the real value of ' Cyrano de Bergerac,' it 
 is not to be denied that it was the last play of the nine- 
 teenth century to achieve a triumph at once immediate 
 and widespread. Yet there is no dispute about the fact 
 that it stands frankly outside the line along which the 
 French drama has been developing in the past fifty 
 years. M. Rostand's piece is not "a picture of life, 
 which is also a judgment " ; and unless it is this, no 
 play is likely long to satisfy the French. That is what 
 we find in the * Tartuffe ' of Moliere, in the ' Mariage 
 de Figaro ' of Beaumarchais, in the ' Demi-Monde ' of 
 Dumas fits, and the ' Gendre de M. Poirier ' of Augier 
 and Sandeau. It is what we find in the plays of M. Paul
 
 At the End of the Century. 321 
 
 Hervieu, on the one hand, and, on the other, in those of 
 M. Henri Lavedan. 
 
 If we may guess at the future from our knowledge 
 of the past, we must expect that the masterpiece of the 
 French theatre in the twentieth century will be like 
 those of the nineteenth century and of the eighteenth 
 century and of the seventeenth. It will be a comedy 
 almost on the verge of stiffening into the serious drama. 
 It will deal gravely and resolutely with life, but it will 
 also be charged with satire and relieved by wit. Per- 
 haps it will not be robustly comic ; but is ' Tartuff e ' 
 really so very laughter-provoking ? Its subject will be 
 logically thought out and symmetrically presented, for 
 the dramatic anarchists of the Theatre Libre are already 
 routed and dispersed. Its craftsmanship will be sure; 
 and it will have the prime merits of simplicity, of straight- 
 forwardness, and of sincerity.
 
 A 00067309"