letter M. Dumas replied by one of those _incivilities_ of

which he claims the monopoly.[11]

"Finally, if I asked M. Dumas for my _first_ MS. through a sheriff's officer, it was because it was, on his part, incredible disloyalty to put side by side with this _sole_ and only MS. a play which had had at the least three!

"This is the truth about _La Tour de Nesle_ and the whole truth. I should add to the documents which I have brought forward and to the proofs I have given, that, summoned before our peerage, the Commission of Authors, I cited and enumerated all these details and facts before M. Dumas in person! And there, as here, I more than once felt my cheeks flush with involuntary shame. Up to now, M. Dumas seemed great and sacred in my eyes, with the greatness of talent, the sacredness of art. So, if, after this controversy, which he provoked, another should follow it, my hand may indeed tremble ... for behind M. Dumas the _man,_ there is the _artist,_ and, beneath the _shame,_ is his _fame._

"P.S.--In support of his statements, M. Dumas has produced various certificates, to each of which I shall only concede what is necessary in order to the appreciation of their worth and weight.

"I will say nothing of M. Harel, who was the primary culprit in the whole affair, and whose _accomplice_ M. Dumas is. M. Dumas ought to be ashamed to call upon such a witness.

"M. Verteuil, _M. Harel's secretary,_ asserts to having gone to M. Dumas's house to fetch the five acts of _La Tour de Nesle_ (excellent!) as he wrote them, to having re-copied his manuscript entirely (better and better!), which had no sort of resemblance with _that_ (which?) of M. Gaillardet, a MS. which was in my possession about three months.... Ah! Monsieur Verteuil, I pull you up here!... _La Tour de Nesle_ was performed on 31 _May._ It was on 29 March (look at the date at the top) when my MS. was received. I left on 10 _April_; M. Dumas was my collaborator on the 11th. He declares he did his work in _a week,_ and you declare that my MS. had _then_ been _about three months_ in your possession?... Oh I Monsieur Verteuil, you are indeed _secretary to M. Harel._

"M. Duvernoy certifies that I wished to sell the drama (I believe him there, indeed!). He asserted to me that M. Dumas had quoted a _false_ price; this is rather more positive. There now only remains M. Janin's attestation. Ah! that, I confess, I scarcely expected. M. Janin writes that nothing can be more accurate than the details given by M. Dumas, which _he thinks_ he remembers and that, on the whole, M. Dumas's reply is _truthful_! and M. Dumas declares that _Janin, accepted by me as a collaborator, had given his rights to him and been sent by M. Harel_! This is too much! M. Janin, then, forgets that _he had no further rights,_ that he _had waived his claim,_ that he _had proclaimed this to me_ in a letter _written_ and _signed_ in his own hand?

"This is not all, and, since I must tell it you, reader, be informed that, after the first performance of _La Tour de Nesle,_ it was M. Janin who _bound me_ to protest; it was _at his house_ that I wrote my protest; it was _he_ himself who _wanted_ to dictate it to me and _did do so_! He was furious with MM. Harel and Dumas. This is not all yet; in consequence of the lawsuit which arose between M. Harel and myself before the Tribunal de Commerce, M. Janin _himself_ wrote to M. Darmaing, to support a protest that I made to the _Gazette des Tribunaux_: 'I beg M. Darmaing to insert the enclosed short note, I entreat it _in my own name,_ and that of M. Gaillardet. I do not understand the stubbornness with which they seek to rob this young man of _that which belongs to him,_ etc.' (See _La Gazette des Tribunaux, 1_ July 1832.) What do you say to it, reader? I had promised to relate the petty secrets of this apostasy, but I have not space; and, besides, I reflected that it was not worth the trouble, and so I sign myself--"F. GAILLARDET"

After this reply, it will be realised that M. Gaillardet had no right to delay our duel, as, not having spared me less than I had him, it was I who considered myself the injured party. So, after a fresh call on the part of my seconds, the meeting was fixed for 17 October 1834.

[Footnote 1: _Histoire de Paris,_ by Félibien, vol. iii. of the proofs, p. 378, Collect, B.

[Footnote 2: "Epigramm, libro," p. 140. edit. Lugd. Batav.]

[Footnote 3: "In fact, Fourcade, one of my best friends, son of the Consul-General of that name, had come a few days previously to make me this offer. It will not be surprising, I think, in a letter of this kind, that I mention every one by name; for a name written out plainly saves me testimonials and certificates."]

[Footnote 4: This treaty is still in the possession of M. Harel.]

[Footnote 5: Verteuil is M. Haxel's secretary.]

[Footnote 6: "This had already happened to me in _Richard_; but, this time, it was not the voice of my _amour propre_ which compelled me to restrain myself, but the entreaties of my collaborator. Ten times during the performance, Dinaux and M. Harel came into my box to beg me with growing solicitations as the drama increased in popularity to give out my name. They have not forgotten the firmness of my refusal, I believe; but neither shall I forget the friendly delicacy of their entreaties."]

[Footnote 7: "The object of that declaration was to make it known that I resigned being put first, and that I had never solicited that position."]

[Footnote 8: See Appendix.]

[Footnote 9: "'I, the undersigned, one of the managers of the newspaper, _l'Avant-Scène,_ ex-inspector-general of the Porte-Saint-Martin theatre, under M. de Lhéry, M. Harel's predecessor, assert that, a short time before M. de Lhéry's retirement, M. F. Gaillardet communicated with me concerning a MS. of _La Tour de Nesle,_ in five acts without scenes, of which he was the sole author; that, later, and before his departure for the provinces, M. Gaillardet showed me a new plan of the same drama in scenes, in which was pretty nearly the whole of the original _Tour de Nesle;_ a plan that had just been settled, he said, between himself and M. Harel. In witness of which, etc., DUPERRET']

[Footnote 10: "Here is M. Barba's statement--

"I think I remember (it is more than two years ago) that half the purchase money of _La Tour de Nesle_ was given, in cash, to M. Dumas on his saying that that was agreed upon with M. Gaillardet, which the latter denied. He was then obliged by the terms of our agreement to accept my note for his share.

BARBA '29 _August_ 1834' ]

[Footnote 11: "'You have written _Struensee_!' he says to me. Does M. Dumas think to prove by that that I have done nothing in _La Tour de Nesle_? He forgets, then, that he, too, has written also _La Chasse et l'Amour, La Noce et l'Enterrement_? (who has heard these plays mentioned?) Then the wretched _Napoléon,_ which has had two Waterloos, dragging with it in its second the downfall of the Odéon and of M. Harel! then, immediately after _La Tour de Nesle, Le Fils de l'Émigré,_ which had three performances with M. Anicet; _Angèle,_ which had thirty with M. Anicet; _La Vénitienne,_ which had twenty with M. Anicet; _Catherine Howard,_ which has had fifteen without M. Anicet? Are we really to suppose that M. Dumas is not therefore the author of the beauties of _Antony,_ of _Henri III.,_ and of _Christine_? It has surely been said so here and there, and even partly proved! Perhaps it is to this that I owe M. Dumas's attack? But he need not be anxious: I shall never write a _Gaule et France_ and certainly not a _Madame et la Vendée._]