Can you imagine the author of Joconde blushing for being a Frenchman because M. Hugo wrote Marion Delorme, and M. Dumas, Antony, and compelled to look at la Colonne to restore his pride in his own nationality?
"But why put a premium upon depravity? Why encumber the state budget with the sum of 200,000 francs for the encouragement of bad taste and immorality? Why not, at least, divide the sum between the Théâtre-Français and the Porte-Saint-Martin? There would be some justice in that, for their rights are equal; very soon, even the former of these theatres will be but a branch of the other, and this last will indeed deserve all the sympathies of the directors of the Beaux-Arts. It would, then, be shocking negligence on their part to leave it out in the cold."
You are right this time, Monsieur l'Académicien. A subsidy ought to be granted to the theatre which produces literary works which are remembered in following years and remain in the repertory. Now, let us see what pieces were running at the Théâtre Français concurrently with those of the Porte-Saint-Martin, and then tell me which were the pieces during this period of four years which you remember and which remain on its repertory?
THÉÂTRE-FRANÇAIS
Charlotte Corday—Camille Desmoulins, le Clerc et le Théologien—Pierre III.—Le Prince et la Grisette—Le Sophiste—Guido Reni—Le Presbytère—Caïus Gracchus, ou le Sénat et le Peuple—La Conspiration de Cellamare—La Mort de Figaro—Le Marquis de Rieux—Les Dernières Scènes de la Fronde—Mademoiselle de Montmorency.
THÉÂTRE DE LA PORTE-SAINT-MARTIN
Antony—Marion Delorme—Richard Darlington—La Tour de Nesle—Perrinet Leclerc—Lucrèce Borgia—Angèle—Marie Tudor—Catherine Howard.
True, we find, without reckoning les Enfants d'Édouard and Louis XI. by Casimir Delavigne, Bertrand et Raton and la Passion secrète by Scribe, who had just protested against that harvest of unknown, forgotten and buried works, flung into the common grave without epitaph to mark their resting-places,—it is true, I say, that we find four or five pieces more at the Théâtre-Français than at the Porte-Saint-Martin; but that does not prove that they played those pieces at the Théâtre-Français for a longer period than those of the Porte-Saint-Martin, especially when we carefully reflect that the Théâtre-Français only plays its new pieces for two nights at a time, and gives each year a hundred and fifty representations of its old standing repertory! You are therefore perfectly correct, Monsieur l'acadèmicien: it was to the Porte-Saint-Martin and not to the Théâtre-Français that the subsidy ought to have been granted, seeing that, with the exception of two or three works, it was at the Porte-Saint-Martin that genuine literature was produced. We will proceed, or, rather, the author of Joconde shall proceed:
"If the Chamber of Deputies is not so eager to vote for laws dealing with financial matters, we must hope, that in so serious a matter as this one, so intimately connected with good order and the existence of civilisation, some courageous voice will be raised to protest against such an abusive use of public funds, and to recall the Minister to the duties with which he is charged. The deputy who would thus speak would be sure of a favourable hearing from an assembly, whose members every day testify against the unprecedented license of the theatres, destructive of all morality, and who are perfectly cognisant of all the dangers attached thereto."
But you were a member of the Chamber, illustrious author of Joconde! Why did you not take up the matter yourself? Were you afraid, perchance, that they might think you still held, under the sway of the younger branch of the Bourbon family, the position of dramatic critic which you exercised so agreeably under Napoléon?
"We shall return to this subject," continues the ex-dramatic censor, "which seems to us of the highest importance for the peace of mind of private families and of society in general. We have on our side every man of taste, all true friends of our national institutions and, in fact, all respectable persons in all classes of society!"
"Well! That is a polite thing, indeed, to say to the spectators who followed the one hundred and thirty performances of Antony, the eighty representations of Marion Delorme, the ninety of Richard Darlington, the six hundred of la Tour de Nesle, the ninety productions of Perrinet-Leclerc, the one hundred and twenty of Lucrèce Borgia, one hundred of Angèle, seventy of Marie Tudor and fifty of Catherine Howard! What were these people, if your particular specimens are "men of taste," the "true friends of our national institutions," and "respectable persons"? They must be blackguards, subverters of government, thieves and gallows-birds? The deuce! Take care! For I warn you that the great majority of these people were not only from Paris, but from the provinces. This is how the moralist of the Constitutionnel ends:
"We are convinced that even the artistes of the Théâtre-Français, who see with satisfaction the enlightened portion of the public rallying to their side, will decide in favour of the successful efforts of our protests. It will depend on the Chamber and on the Home Minister. Political preoccupations, as is well known, turned his attention from the false and ignoble influences at work at the Théâtre-Français; there is no longer any excuse for him, now that he knows the truth."
"ÉTIENNE ["A. JAY">[[2]