A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

Paris As It Was and As It Is

F >> Francis W. Blagdon >> Paris As It Was and As It Is




The _Comédie Française_ in the _Faubourg St. Germain_, which, in its
interior, presented the handsomest playhouse in Paris, was called
_l'Odéon_ a few years ago, and, since then, has been reduced by fire
to a mere shell, the walls only being left standing. In 1789, this
theatre appeared to follow the torrent of the revolution, and changed
its name for that of _Théâtre de la Nation_. Nevertheless, the actors
did not, on that account, relinquish the title of _Comédiens
ordinaires du Roi_. Shortly after, they even became, in general, the
declared partisans of the old _régime_, or at least of the court.
Their house was frequently an _arena_ where the two parties came to
blows, particularly on the occasion of the tragedy of _Charles Neuf_,
by CHÉNIER, and of the comedy of _L'Ami des Loix_. The former of
these pieces, represented in the first ebullition of the revolution,
was directed against the court; and the comedians refused to bring it
on the stage, at the time of the assemblage of the national guards in
Paris, on the 14th of July, 1790, known by the title of _Federation_.
The latter was played after the massacres of September 1792, and had
been composed with the laudable view of bringing back the public mind
to sentiments of humanity, justice, and moderation. The maxims which
it contained, being diametrically opposite to those of the plunderers
who then reigned, that is, the members of the _commune_ of Paris, the
minority of the National Convention, the Jacobins, Cordeliers, &c.
they interrupted the representation, and, after a great uproar, the
piece was prohibited.

This minority of which I have just spoken, having succeeded in
subduing the majority, nothing now stopped the rage of the
revolutionary party. All those who gave them umbrage were imprisoned,
and put to death with the forms of law. The comedians of the French
theatre were thrown into prison; it appears that they were, both men
and women, partly destined for the scaffold, and that if they
escaped, it was through the address of a clerk of one of the
Committees of Public Welfare or of Public Safety, who repeatedly
concealed the documents containing the charges brought against them.
It is said that the comedians purpose to prove their gratitude, so
long delayed, to this young man, without putting themselves to any
expense, by giving for his benefit an extraordinary
representation.[2]

At length the happy 9th of Thermidor arrived; the prisons were thrown
open; and, as you may well imagine in such a nation as this, the
French comedians were not the last to be set at liberty. However,
their theatre was not immediately restored to them. It was occupied
by a sort of bastard _spectacle_, with the actors of which they were
then obliged to form an association. This did not last long. The
French comedians were received by the manager of the lyric theatre of
the _Rue Feydeau_, whom they afterwards ruined. The actors of comedy,
properly so called, contrived to expel those of tragedy, with whom
they thought they could dispense; and, shortly, they themselves,
notwithstanding their reputation, were deserted by the public. The
heroes and heroines, with Mademoiselle RAUCOURT at their head, took
possession of the theatre of the _Rue de Louvois_, and there
prospered. But, after the 18th of Fructidor, (5th of September, 1797)
the Directory caused this house to be shut up: the reason assigned
was the representation given here of a little comedy, of ancient date
however, and of no great importance, in which a knavish valet is
called MERLIN, as was the Minister of Justice of that day, who since
became director, not of the theatre, but of the republic.
Mademoiselle RAUCOURT, who was directress of this theatre, returned
with her company to the old theatre of the _Faubourg St. Germain_,
which then took the name of _l'Odéon_.

In the mean time, the theatre of the _Rue de Richelieu_ had
perceptibly declined, after the fall of Robespierre, and the public
appeared to have come to a positive determination to frequent it no
longer. The manager of the _Théâtre Feydeau_, M. SARGENT, formerly a
banker, who was rich, and enjoyed a good reputation, succeeded in
uniting all the actors of the _Comédie Française_ and those of the
_Théâtre de la République_. This effected his own ruin. When he had
relinquished the management of the undertaking, the government took
it in hand, and definitively organized this tragic and comic
association, to superintend which it appointed a special
commissioner.

The _repertoire_ (or list of pieces which are here played habitually,
or have been acted with applause) is amazingly well furnished, and
does infinite honour to French literature. It may be divided into two
parts, the ancient and the modern. It is the former that deserves the
encomium which I have just bestowed. In the line of Tragedy, it is
composed of the greater part of the pieces of the four principal
pillars of the temple of the French Melpomene: namely CORNEILLE[3],
RACINE, CRÉBILLON, and VOLTAIRE, to whom may be added DU BELLOY, as
well as of some detached pieces, such as _Iphigénie en Tauride_ by
GUIMOND DE LA TOUCHE, _Le Comte de Warwick_ and _Philoctète_ by LA
HARPE. The modern _repertoire_, or list of stock-pieces, is formed of
the tragedies of M. M. DUCIS, CHÉNIER, ARNAULT, LEGOUVÉ, and LE
MERCIER.

In the line of Comedy, it is also very rich. You know that, at the
head of the French comic authors, stands MOLIÈRE, who, in this
country at least, has no equal, either among the ancients or the
moderns. Several of his pieces are still represented, though they are
not numerously attended; as well because manners are changed, as
because the actors are no longer able to perform them. Next to
MOLIÈRE, but at a great interval, comes REGNARD, whom the French
comedians have deserted, for much the same reason: they no longer
give any plays from the pen of this author, who possessed the _vis
comica_, except _Les Folies Amoureuses_, a pretty little comedy in
three acts. We no longer hear of his _Joueur_ and his _Légataire
Universel_, which are _chefs d'oeuvre_. There are likewise the works
of DESTOUCHES, who has written _Le Glorieux, Le Dissipateur_, and _La
Fausse Agnès_, which are always played with applause. _Le Méchant_,
by GRESSET, is a masterpiece in point of style, and _La Métromanie_,
by PIRON, the best of French comedies, next to those of MOLIÈRE and
REGNARD. Then come the works of LA CHAUSSÉE, who is the father of the
_drame_, and whose pieces are no longer represented, though he has
composed several, such as _La Gouvernante_, _L'École des Mères_, _Le
Préjugé à la Mode_, which, notwithstanding, their whining style, are
not destitute of merit, and those of DANCOURT, who has written
several little comedies, of a very lively cast, which are still
played, and those of MARIVAUX, whose old metaphysical jargon still
pleases such persons as have their head full of love. I might augment
this list by the name of several other old authors, whose productions
have more or less merit.

The number of modern French comic authors is very limited; for it is
not even worthwhile to speak of a few little comedies in one act, the
title of which the public scarcely remember. According to this
calculation, there is but one single comic author now living. That is
COLIN D'HARLEVILLE, who has written _L'Inconstant_, _Les Châteaux en
Espagne_, _Le Vieux Célibataire_, and _Les Moeurs du Jour_, which are
still represented. _Le Vieux Célibataire_ is always received with
much applause. In general, the pieces of M. COLIN are cold, but his
style is frequently graceful: he writes in verse; and the whole part
of _L'Inconstant_ is very agreeably written. Indeed, that piece is
the best of this author.

FABRE D'EGLANTINE is celebrated as an actor in the revolution (I mean
on the political stage), and as the author who has produced the best
piece that has appeared since _La Métromanie_. It is the _Philinte de
Molière_, which, in some measure, forms a sequel to the comedy of the
_Misanthrope_. Nevertheless, this title is ill chosen; for the
character of the _Philinte_ in the piece of MOLIÈRE, and that of
FABRE'S piece scarcely bear any resemblance. We might rather call it
the _Égoiste_. Although the comic part of it is weak, the piece is
strongly conceived, the fable very well managed, the style nervous
but harsh, and the third act is a _chef-d'oeuvre_.

Since the death of FABRE, another piece of his has been acted,
entitled _Le Précepteur_. In this piece are to be recognized both his
manner and his affected philosophical opinions. His object is to
vaunt the excellence of the education recommended by J. J. ROUSSEAU,
though the revolution has, in a great measure, proved the fallacy of
the principles which it inculcates. As these, however, are presented
with art, the piece had some success, and still maintains its ground
on the stage. It was played for the first time about two years ago.
The surname of EGLANTINE, which FABRE assumed, arose from his having
won the prize at the Floral games at Toulouse. The prize consisted of
an _eglantine_ or wild rose in gold. Before he became a dramatic
author, he was an actor and a very bad actor. Being nominated member
of the National Convention, he distinguished himself in that
assembly, not by oratorical talents, but by a great deal of villainy.
He did not think as he acted or spoke. When the _montagnards_[4] or
mountaineers, that is, those monsters who were always thirsting for
blood, divided, he appeared for some time to belong to the party of
DANTON, who, however, denied him when they were both in presence of
each other at the bar of the revolutionary tribunal. DANTON insisted
that he who had been brought to trial for a just cause, if not a just
motive, ought not to be confounded with stealers of port-folios.[5]
They were both sentenced to die, and accordingly executed.

Among the comic authors of our age, some people would reckon
DUMOUSTIER, whose person was held in esteem, but whose works are
below mediocrity. They are _Le Conciliateur_, a comedy in five acts,
and _Les Femmes_, a comedy in three acts. The latter appears to be
the picture of a brothel. They are both still played, and both have
much vogue, which announces the total decline of the art.

There is a third species of dramatic composition, proscribed by the
rules of good taste, and which is neither tragedy nor comedy, but
participates of both. It is here termed _drame_. Although LA CHAUSSÉE
is the father of this tragi-comic species of writing, he had not,
however, written any _tragédies bourgeoises_, and the French declare
that we have communicated to them this contagion; for their first
_drame_, _Beverley, ou le Joueur Anglais_ is a translation in verse
from the piece of that name of our theatre. The celebrated LEKAIN[6]
opposed its being acted, and affirmed with reason that this mixture
of the two species of drama hurt them both. MOLÉ, who was fond of
applause easily obtained, was the protector of the piece, and played
the part of _Beverley_ with success; but this _drame_ is no longer
performed on the Parisian stage. Next to this, comes _Le Père de
Famille_, by DIDEROT. It is a long sermon. However, it presents
characters well drawn. This species of composition is so easy that
the number of _drames_ is considerable; but scarcely any of them are
now performed, except _Eugénie_ and _La Mère Coupable_, by
BEAUMARCHAIS,[7] which are frequently represented. I shall not finish
this article without reminding you that MERCIER has written so many
_drames_ that he has been called _Le Dramaturge_. All his are become
the prey of the little theatres and the aliment of the provincial
departments. This circumstance alone would suffice to prove the
mediocrity of the _drame_. MONVEL, of whom I shall soon have occasion
to speak, would well deserve the same title.

[Footnote 1: This is a place, so called in French theatres,
comprising four or five rows of benches, parted off, between the
place where the musicians are seated and the front of the pit.]

[Footnote 2: It is not mentioned whether these sons and daughters of
Thespis, who have since gained a great deal of money, have offered
any _private_ remuneration to their benefactor, rather to their
guardian-angel.] [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: The scan of this footnote was
imperfect. Some of the text was interpolated.]

[Footnote 3: Of course, PIERRE CORNEILLE is here meant. THOMAS
CORNEILLE, who was surnamed the Great, must not, however be
forgotten. THOMAS is the author of _Ariane_ and _le Comte d'Essex_, a
tragedy much esteemed, and which is deserving of estimation.]

[Footnote 4: Thus called, because they formed a very close and very
elevated group at one of the extremities of the hall of the National
Convention.]

[Footnote 5: FABRE D'EGLANTINE was tried for having, in concert with
certain stock-jobbers, proposed and caused the adoption of decrees
concerning the finances.]

[Footnote 6: LEKAIN said humourously that to play the _drame_ well,
it was sufficient to know how to make a summerset.]

[Footnote 7: Every one is acquainted with the two comedies written by
this author, _Le Barbier de Seville_ and _Le Mariage de Figaro_. The
astonishing run of the latter, which was acted one hundred and fifty
succeeding nights, was greatly owing to BEAUMARCHAIS having there
turned into ridicule several persons of note in the ministry and the
parliament: _La Mère Coupable_, which is often given, is the sequel
to _Le Mariage de Figaro_, as that piece is to _Le Barbier de
Seville_.]



LETTER LIV.

_Paris, January 20, 1802._

Let us now examine the merits of the principal performers belonging
to the _Théâtre Français_.


TRAGEDY.


_Noble Fathers, or characters of Kings_.

VANHOVE, MONVEL, ST. PRIX, and NAUDET.

VANHOVE. This king of the _Théâtre Français_ neither has majesty nor
nobleness of manner. His countenance is mean, and his make common.
His monotonous and heavy utterance is sometimes intermingled with
yelping sounds. He possesses no sensibility, and substitutes noise
for expression. His mediocrity caused him to be received at the old
_Comédie Française_; for the first or principal actors of that
theatre were rather fond of receiving persons of weak talents, merely
that they might be set off. He _doubled_ BRIZARD, whom nature had
endowed with the happiest gifts for tragedy.

VANHOVE was the first player ever called for by a Parisian audience
after the representation, in order to express to him their
satisfaction. However, it may be proper to observe that, in such
cases, it is always some friend of the author who takes the lead.
VANHOVE no longer obtains this favour at present, and is seldom
applauded. He also plays the parts of fathers in comedy.

MONVEL. This actor is not near so old as VANHOVE; but the decay of
his person is such that, when he plays, he seems a skeleton
bestirring itself, or that is set in motion. It is a misfortune for
him that his physical means betray his talents. MONVEL is a man of
genius. Thus gifted, it is not astonishing that he has a just
diction, and is not deficient in intelligence. Some persons doubt
whether he has real sensibility; but he at least presents the
appearance of it. He, in some measure, breaks his voice, and vents
mournful accents which produce much effect. With a constitution
extremely weak, it is impossible that he should perform characters
which require energy and pride. He therefore confines himself to
those in which the pathetic is predominant, or which do not
imperiously demand great efforts, such as _Auguste_ in _Cinna_,
_Burrhus_ in _Britannicus_, _Brutus_ in the tragedy of that name (now
no longer played), _Lusignan_ in _Zaire_, _Zopire_ in _Mahomet_,
_Fénélon_[1] and _l'Abbé de l'Epée_ in the two pieces of that name.
His stock of characters then is by no means extensive. We may also
add to it the part of _Ésope à la cour_, in the comedy of that name
by BOURSAULT, which he plays or recites in great perfection, because
it is composed of fables only. MONVEL delivers them with neatness and
simplicity. For this part he has no equal in France.[2]

MONVEL is author as well as actor. He has composed several comic
operas and _drames_; and his pieces, without being good, have always
obtained great applause. His _drames_ are _l'Amant Bourru_,
_Clémentine et Désormes_, _Les Amours de Bayard_, _Les Victimes
Cloitrées_, &c. You will find in them forced situations, but set off
by sentiment. He is lavish of stage-effect and that always pleases
the multitude. _L'Amant Bourru_ has alone remained as a stock-piece.

By his zeal for the revolution, he alienated from him a great part of
the public. When every principle of religion was trodden under foot,
and, under the name of festivals of reason or of the goddess of
reason, orgies of the most scandalous nature were celebrated in the
churches, MONVEL ascended the pulpit of the parish of St. Roch, and
preached _atheism_ before an immense congregation. Shortly after,
Robespierre caused the National Convention to proclaim the following
declaration: "_The French people acknowledge the Supreme Being and
the immortality of the soul." MONVEL trembled; and it is probable
that, had not that sanguinary tyrant been overthrown, the atheistical
preacher would have descended from the pulpit only to ascend the
scaffold.[3]

ST. PRIX. He has no fixed employment. Sometimes he plays the parts of
kings, sometimes those of lovers; but excels in none. He would be a
very handsome man, were it possible to be so with a face void of
expression. Nature has given him a strong but hollow voice; and he
recites so coldly, that he makes the public yawn, and seems sometimes
to yawn himself. When he means to display warmth, he screams and
fatigues the ear without mercy.

NAUDET. This man, who is great only in stature, quitted the rank of
serjeant in the _Gardes Françaises_ to become a bad player. In the
character of kings, he scarcely now appears but to personate tyrants.
He is very cold, and speaks through his nose like a Capuchin friar,
which has gained him the appellation of the Reverend Father NAUDET.


_First parts or principal lovers, in Tragedy_.

TALMA, and LAFOND.

TALMA. The great reputation which circumstances and his friends[4]
have given to this actor has, probably, rendered him celebrated in
England. His stature and his voice (which, in theatrical language, is
called _organ_), should seem to qualify him for the parts of _jeunes
premiers_ only, of which I shall say more hereafter. Accordingly he
made his _début_ in that line about fifteen or sixteen years ago.
Without being brilliant, his first appearances were successful, and
he was received on trial. He soon caused himself to be remarked by
the correctness of his dress.[5] But what fixed attention on TALMA,
was the part of _Charles Neuf_, which he plays in the tragedy of that
name.[6] In the riots to which this piece gave rise in 1790, TALMA
figured as a patriot. Having fallen out with the comedians who had
behaved ill to him, and no longer placed him in any other parts than
those of confidants, he was engaged at the new _Théâtre Français_ of
the _Rue de Richelieu_, where it was proposed to him to perform the
characters which pleased him best, that is, the best in each piece.
Thus he was seen alternately personating young princes, heroes, and
tyrants.

TALMA is now reduced to those of the old stock. The characters he at
present represents are _Cinna_ in the tragedy of that name by
CORNEILLE, _Oreste_ in the _Andromaque_ of RACINE, _Néron_ in the
_Britannicus_ of the same, _OEdipe_ in the tragedy of that name by
VOLTAIRE, and _Faïel_ in _Gabrielle du Vergy_ by DU BELLOY, _Oreste_
in _Iphigénie en Tauride_ by GUIMOND DE LA TOUCHE, and _Ægisthe_ in
the _Agamemnon_ of LE MERCIER. TALMA also plays many other parts,
but, in these, he makes no great figure. He had a great aversion to
old pieces, and as long as he preserved his sway at the theatre, very
few, if any were performed. In fact, there are many in which he is
below mediocrity.

You will certainly expect that I should tell you what constitutes the
talent of this performer. He is small in stature, thin in person, and
rather ill-made; his arms and legs being bowed, which he takes care
to conceal by the fulness of his garments. He has a fine eye, and his
features are regular, but too delicate for the perspective of the
theatre. He has long since adopted the antique head-dress,[7] and has
contributed to bring it into fashion. He distinguished himself
formerly in Paris by wearing clothes of a strange form. As an actor,
he has no nobleness of manner, and not unfrequently his gestures are
aukward. His deportment is always ungraceful, though he often
endeavours to imitate the posture of the antique statues; but even
then he presents only a caricature. His countenance has little or no
expression, except in moments of rage or terror. In pourtraying the
latter sentiment, all the faculties of his soul appear absorbed; yet,
though his distraction seems complete, there is a sort of silliness
blended with his stupor, which certain persons take for truth, and
which is much more perceptible in the rest of his characters. In
rage, he is a tiger mangling his prey, and sometimes you might
believe that you heard that animal drawing his breath. TALMA has
never expressed well a tender, generous, or noble sentiment. His soul
is neither to be softened nor elevated; and, to produce effect, he
must be in a terror or in a rage; but then he makes a great
impression on the majority of the public. His utterance is slow,
minced, and split into syllables. His voice is hollow; but, in
moments of rage, it is strong, yet without being of a considerable
volume. He is generally reproached with being deficient in
sensibility: I think, however, that, by dint of labour, he might
paint feeling; for I have heard him render delicate passages happily
enough. He is accused here of having adopted the English style of
acting, though, as far as my opinion goes, with little or no
foundation. Be this as it may, he passed the early part of his youth
in London, where his father resides, and follows the profession of a
dentist. The son may now be about thirty-eight years of age.

TALMA preserves the reputation of being a zealous partisan of the
revolution; but I am confidently assured that he never injured any
one, and held in horror the assassinations which have left an
indelible stain on that event. He was intimately connected with the
deputies, styled _Girondists_ or _Brisotins_, who perished on the
scaffold, after their party was overcome, on the 31st of May, 1793,
by that of the ferocious mountaineers. The latter warmly reproached
TALMA with having, in the year 1792, after the retreat of the
Prussians, given a _fête_ or grand supper to the famous DUMOURIEZ,
with whom they were beginning to fall out, and whom they accused of
treason for not having taken the king of Prussia prisoner. The
hideous MARAT, I am told, went to call on that general at TALMA'S,
where the company received him very cavalierly, and when he was gone,
DUGAZON the actor, hot-headed revolutionist as he was, by way of
pleasantry, pretended to purify the room by burning sugar in a
chaffing-dish. All this amounted to more than was necessary for being
condemned by the revolutionary tribunal; and TALMA, being detested by
ROBESPIERRE, would, in all probability, have been delivered over to
that tribunal, but for the protection of DAVID, the celebrated
painter, who was concerting with him about changing the form of dress
of the French people. During all the reign of terror, TALMA and his
wife were in continual fear of the scaffold.

LAFOND. TALMA reigned, and was in possession of the first cast of
parts. Of these, he played whatever suited him, and rejected what he
disliked, when about a year ago, there appeared in the same line a
young actor of a rather tall and well-proportioned stature, and whom
Nature had, besides, gifted with an agreeable countenance and a
tolerably good voice. He had played in the provincial theatres; but,
in order to overcome every obstacle which might be opposed to his
_début_, he became a pupil of DUGAZON, an actor of comedy, and what
is more singular, of one more frequently a buffoon than a comedian.
The latter, however, is said to possess a knowledge of the style of
playing of the actors who, thirty years ago, graced the French stage,
and consequently may be capable of giving good advice.

By means of this powerful protection, LAFOND got the better of every
difficulty. This actor made his first appearance in the character of
_Achille_ in the tragedy of _Iphigénie en Aulide_ by RACINE. He was
not the Achilles of Homer, nor even that of the piece, or at best he
represented him in miniature. However, his diction generally just,
his acting, some grace, and, above all, the fatigue and _ennui_ which
TALMA impressed on many of the spectators, procured this rival a
decisive success. As is customary in such cases, the newspapers were
divided in opinion. The majority declared for LAFOND, and none of the
opposite side spoke unfavourably of him. It was not so with TALMA.
Some judged him harshly, calling him a detestable actor, while others
bestowed on him the epithet of _sublime_, which, at the present day,
has scarcely any signification; so much is it lavished on the most
indifferent performers. This instance proves the fact; for if TALMA
has reached the _sublime_, it is _le sublime de la Halle_.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.