CHAPTER IX

My discussion with M. Thiers--Why he had been compelled to suspend _Antony_--Letter of Madame Dorval to the _Constitutionnel_--M. Jay crowned with roses--My lawsuit with M. Jouslin de Lasalle--There are still judges in Berlin!

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

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

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

"I think not," I replied.

"What do you mean?"

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

"And what are your reasons for coming?"

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

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

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

"I was obliged to suspend _Antony_."

"Not to suspend, but to stop it."

"To stop or to suspend...."

"Do not mean the same thing."

"Well, then, I was obliged to stop _Antony._"

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

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

"By the article in the _Constitutionnel?_"

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

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

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

"How do you make that out?"

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

"The Budget would not have passed?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

"However, you have a right to compensation."

"The Court will fix that."

"Trust in me and do not have recourse to law-suits."

"Why?"

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

"The Government did not interfere with the contract of the _Roi s'amuse_, as you have in the case of _Antony._"

"Indirectly."

"The Court will appreciate that point."

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

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

"You will think better of your determination."

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

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

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

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

"MARIE DORVAL"

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

"On 28 April 1834, my appearance in _Antony_ at the Théâtre-Français was forbidden, at the solicitation, or rather upon the denunciation, of M. Antoine Jay [M. Étienne], author of _Joconde_ and editor of the _Constitutionnel._ I conceived the idea of sending him a crown of roses. I put the crown in a card-board box with a little note tied to it with a white favour. The letter contained these words:

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

"'Personne ne sait davantage Combien vous l'avez mérite!'"

"MARIE DORVAL"

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

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

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

"A. JAY [ÉTIENNE]

"30 _April_ 1834"

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

"TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE PARIS

"_Hearing_ 30 _June_, 1834 "_President_--M. VASSAL

"M. ALEXANDRE DUMAS _against_ JOUSLIN de LASALLE.

"MAÎTRE HENRY NOUGUIER, Counsel for the Comédie Française.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"M. JOUSLIN DE LASALLE.--No.

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

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

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

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

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

"_Hearing of_ 14 _July_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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