'MARION DE LORME' AND OTHER DRAMAS.
That despotic monarch, Charles X., having been driven from his throne by
the Revolution of July, 1830, there naturally followed the removal of
the interdict from the theatres. Victor Hugo was at once applied to by
the Comedie Francaise for his drama of _Marion de Lorme_, which had been
in enforced abeyance. But when the political reaction was an absolute
certainty, the sensitive mind of Hugo shrank from a demonstrative
triumph. It is true that he was now in the full tide of masculine
judgment, and that his ideas of progress and liberty were crystallized
and matured; but he could not forget his early opinions. Though crudely
formed, and based upon sentiment and not upon reason, they had been
genuine and disinterested, and his chief feeling at this later period
was not one of hatred of the King, but rather of rejoicing with the
people.
However, after a year had elapsed from Charles's fall, there was no
reason why a drama should be lost to the stage simply because it
contained an historical presentment of Louis XIII. After declining many
offers, the author resolved to give the play to M. Crosnier, for the
theatre of the Porte St. Martin; and he also entered into an agreement
to write yearly two works of importance for this theatre. Dumas's
_Antony_ was being performed at the Porte St. Martin, but on the
conclusion of its run _Marion de Lorme_ was produced, with Madame Dorval
in the part of Marion, and M. Bocage in that of Didier. Difficulties as
usual were thrown in the way of the new play, but it eventually
triumphed over them. The journals, nevertheless, were hostile, the
_Moniteur_ especially so, affirming that the author had never yet
conceived anything more meagre and commonplace, and more full of
eccentricities, than this piece. One critic asserted that the character
of Didier was taken from that of Antony, although Hugo's play had been
written first. Those friends who formerly applauded Hugo and Dumas
conjointly, now divided themselves into two parties, one of which
persistently assailed the writer of _Marion de Lorme_. From a variety of
causes the play was only performed four nights on its first production,
but the performances were afterwards resumed. It may be added that the
_Revue des Deux Mondes_, whose judgment was better worth having than
that of most of its contemporaries, remarked that Victor Hugo had never
so truly shown himself a poet, nor attained to so high a range of
vision, nor so wide a field of judgment, as in this piece.
A tragic incident which occurred not long after the representation of
this play affected the poet deeply. Amongst the warmest of his band of
admirers was M. Ernest de Saxe-Coburg, whose race and origin are
indicated by his name. He and his mother lived in Paris, on a pension
granted them by the Duke. Ernest was taken seriously ill, and the
distracted parent rushed to the house of Victor Hugo, exclaiming, 'You
alone can save him! Come at once!' But the unfortunate young man was
already dead; and a painful scene took place in the chamber of death on
the arrival of Victor Hugo and the mother. 'The unhappy woman, who had
but this only child in the world to love, would not believe that he was
dead. He was but cold, she said; and she threw herself on his bed,
encircling him in her arms in order to impart warmth to the corpse. She
frantically kissed his marble face, which was already cold. Suddenly she
felt within herself that it was all over; she raised herself, and
haggard and wild as she was, though still beautiful, she exclaimed, "He
is dead!" M. Victor Hugo spent the night by the side of the mother and
the corpse.' It was the lot of Hugo to awaken by his genius many
personal attachments and enthusiasms such as that felt for him by this
ill-fated youth; and these attachments were invariably strengthened and
deepened by subsequent friendship.
In 1832 the poet wrote his _Le Roi s'Amuse_. It has been charged against
this play that it presents an unredeemed picture of vice and
licentiousness. It has 'overstepped all bounds,' wrote one critic;
'history, reason, morality, artistic dignity, and refinement, are all
trampled under foot. The whole piece is monstrous; history is set at
nought, and the most noble characters are slandered and vilified. The
play is entirely void of interest, and the horrible, the mean, and the
immoral are all jumbled together into a kind of chaos.' As we shall
see, Victor Hugo traversed the whole of these and similar judgments.
Baron Taylor secured the play for the Theatre Francais, Triboulet being
assigned to M. Ligier, Saint-Vallier to M. Joanny, Blanche to
Mademoiselle Anais, and Francis I. to M. Perrier. A preliminary flourish
occurred between Hugo and M. d'Argout, the Minister of Public Works, in
whose department the theatres lay. The Minister first demanded the
manuscript, then sent for the author, and finally wrote that the
Monarchical principle in France must suffer from the author's attacks on
Francis I., which would be taken as being levelled against Louis
Philippe. The poet replied that the interests of history were to be
consulted before those of royalty, but he denied that there was anything
in the piece reflecting on Louis Philippe. The play was produced on the
22nd of November, and met with a very mixed reception, the hisses
predominating. It was partly damned by the defects of the actors. When
the curtain fell upon the last act, and it was felt that the play had
failed, the leading performer said to the author, 'Shall I mention your
name?' Hugo answered haughtily, 'Sir, I have a rather higher opinion of
my play now it is a failure.'
Next day the play was suspended, the reason given being that it was an
offence against public morality. It appears that a number of devotees of
the classical school had persuaded the Minister that a drama which had
for its subject the assassination of a king was not to be tolerated on
the very day after the existing monarch had himself escaped
assassination; that the play was an apology for regicides, etc. Victor
Hugo was not the man to be thus crushed without an effort to save his
drama. In the first place he issued a manifesto to the public, briefly
summarizing the plot of the piece, and denying that it was immoral. Then
he entered a civil suit before the Board of Trade to compel the Theatre
Francais to perform _Le Roi s'Amuse_, and likewise to compel the
Government to sanction the performance. The trial opened in a densely
crowded court, many celebrities being amongst the audience. They had
been attracted by the announcement that the author would plead his own
case. Hugo's speech was applauded by a band of very sympathetic
listeners, and on its conclusion M. de Montalembert assured him that he
was as great an orator as he was a writer, and that if the doors of the
theatre were closed against him, the tribune was still available.
Judgment was given against the poet, and for the Minister. M. Paul
Foucher, describing the scene on the night of the first performance of
_Le Roi s'Amuse_, observed that while the whole theatre was in an
uproar, and Hugo's name was drowned in the sea of roaring voices, 'the
author's face exhibited no sign of despondency at the failure any more
than it had shown passion or excitement during the struggle. His
Olympian brow had withstood the tempest with the firmness of a rock, and
after the curtain fell, he went to offer his thanks and encouragements
to the actors and actresses, saying, "You are a little discomposed
to-night; but you will find it different the day after to-morrow!" In
spite of the hissing, he was sanguine about his play; nevertheless, it
was not destined to be repeated.'
The poet's enemies now caused him considerable annoyance on the subject
of his pension. He had ceased to receive the 1,000 francs granted him by
Louis XVIII. out of his privy purse, but still received the 2,000 francs
allowed him by the Home Minister. In reply to the recriminations of the
Ministerial journals, he wrote a letter to M. d'Argout, showing that
this pension was clearly granted to him on literary grounds, quite apart
from political opinions. But he had decided to accept it no longer, and
thus stated his reasons: 'Now that the Government appears to regard what
are called literary pensions as proceeding from itself, and not from the
country, and as this kind of grant takes from an author's independence;
now that this strange pretension of the Government serves as the basis
to the somewhat shameful attacks of certain journals, the management of
which is, unfortunately, though no doubt incorrectly, imagined to be in
your hands; as it is also of importance to me to maintain my relations
with the Government in a higher region than that in which this kind of
warfare goes on--without discussing whether your pretensions relating to
this indemnity have the smallest foundation, I hasten to inform you that
I entirely relinquish it.' The Minister replied, taking the poet's view,
that the pension was a debt due from the country, and stating that it
should still be reserved for him; but Victor Hugo never took it up from
this time forward.
For a brief period managers held aloof from the dramatist, and when he
wrote _Le Souper a Ferrare_, which title was afterwards changed to that
of _Lucrece Borgia_, no one was eager for it. But this attitude changed
after his speech at the tribunal, and M. Harel, director of the Porte
St. Martin, sought for and obtained the play. Admirable representatives
were found for the chief parts, Frederick Lemaitre taking that of
Grennaro, Delafosse that of Don Alphonse d'Este, Mademoiselle Georges
that of Lucretia, and Mademoiselle Juliette that of the Princess
Negroni. Meyerbeer and Berlioz composed the music for the song which was
sung at the supper given by the Princess Negroni. Only one person was
allowed to be present at the final rehearsal, and that was Sainte-Beuve.
The critic was playing a double part towards the dramatist, with whom he
had been out of sympathy for some time past, and it is recorded that at
the close of the rehearsal of _Lucrece Borgia_ he warmly congratulated
the author upon his drama, and went away circulating reports everywhere
that the piece was an utter absurdity! 'It was solely due to his
treachery and infamous gossip that on the morning of the day on which
the piece was to be performed in the evening, several newspapers
announced that they were in possession of the plot, and that the whole
production was in the highest degree obscene, depicting orgies terrible
and indecent beyond conception.'
Great interest, notwithstanding, was manifested in the play, and amongst
those who implored the author for first-night seats was General
Lafayette. The representation was a triumphant success, and for awhile
nothing was talked about in Paris but the new play. The monetary success
was equal to the literary and dramatic. The receipts for the first three
performances amounted to 84,769 francs--a sum which no other work had
equalled or approached during M. Harel's management. Referring to two of
his most widely known dramas, Victor Hugo predicted that _Le Roi
s'Amuse_ would one day prove to be the principal political era, and
_Lucrece Borgia_ the principal literary era of his life. He had
purposely presented deformities in both, but he believed that by uniting
monsters to humanity, one could not fail to excite interest and perhaps
sympathy. 'Physical deformity, sanctified by paternal love, this is what
you have in _Le Roi s'Amuse_; moral deformity, purified by maternal
love, this is what you find in _Lucrece Borgia_.'
Hugo was fated to be the victim of misunderstanding with regard to
almost all his dramas, and he found no exception in _Lucrece Borgia_.
From an attitude of delight and complacency, M. Harel, the director of
the theatre, passed to one of studious neglect and insolence. He took
off the play, and then demanded a new one, which he averred the poet had
agreed to write for him. A quarrel ensued, and the manager challenged
the dramatist to a duel. It would have taken place, but M. Harel thought
better of the affair, and apologized, whereupon Hugo agreed to give him
his next piece. M. Harel remarked upon the whole incident, 'You are
probably the first author to whom a manager has said, "Your play or your
life!"'
_Marie Tudor_, produced in November, 1833, was the next play by Victor
Hugo. It was concerned with a queen, a favourite, and an executioner, a
trio as common in history as upon the mimic stage. The dramatist had now
two difficulties to contend with. In the first place, the partisans of
Dumas sowed dissension between the two authors, and spread lying
reports respecting Hugo and his attitude towards Dumas; and in the
second place, the writer's own friends grew alarmed at various reports
which gained currency. 'I hear on all sides,' wrote one of them, 'that
your play is more than ever a tissue of horrors--that your Mary is a
bloodthirsty creature, that the executioner is perpetually on the stage,
and several other reproaches all equally well founded.' Hugo remained
calm and unmoved, though he was warned that the presence of the
executioner on the stage had been given as the watchword to those who
intended to hiss the play. The piece was produced in due course, and
Mademoiselle Georges looked superbly and acted well. But the author's
enemies kept up a persistent hissing, and there was a strong contest
between those who formed a genuine judgment upon the play and greatly
admired it, and those who were resolved upon its ruin. The first night
left the result dubious, but the piece continued to be played beyond the
time generally regarded as constituting an average success. On its
withdrawal, all the relations between the author and the Porte St.
Martin naturally ceased, and the treaty with M. Harel for a third drama
was destroyed by mutual consent.
Hugo's dramatic work was now interrupted by the composition of his
_L'Etude sur Mirabeau_, which may be taken as an apology for his
advanced political and social views. He felt it necessary to review his
past career, and to make known to the world the processes of education
through which his mind had passed since his early days of Royalist
fervour. This study, which appeared in his _Litterature et Philosophie
Melees_, is a defence of conscience, and illustrates the power of
growing convictions to emancipate the mind from prejudice and error,
regarding the matter, of course, from the standpoint of the writer
himself.
In 1835 the Theatre Francais applied to Victor Hugo for a new drama, and
in response he gave to it his _Angelo_, one of his best pieces for
construction and for rapid and vigorous effects. It was the author's
intention in this drama, as he has himself stated, 'to depict two sad
but contrasted characters--the woman in society, and the woman out of
society; the one he has endeavoured to deliver from despotism, the other
he has striven to defend from contempt; he has shown the temptations
resisted by the virtue of the one, and the tears shed over her guilt by
the other; he has cast blame where blame is due, upon man in his
strength and upon society in its absurdity; in contrariety to the two
women, he has delineated two men--the husband and the lover, one a
sovereign and one an outlaw, and, by various subordinate methods, has
given a sort of summary of the relations, regular and irregular, in
which a man can stand with a woman on the one hand, and with society in
general on the other.' There is nothing more characteristic of the
author's dramas than this exhibition of striking contrasts; and, indeed,
in all his poetic work is to be traced this juxtaposition of the
strongest lights and shades of which human life and human emotion are
capable.
The two leading stars in _Angelo_ were Mademoiselle Mars and Madame
Dorval. Unfortunately, a serious feud arose in consequence of the former
discovering that the part she had chosen was not the most forcible and
picturesque; and it required all the strong will of Victor Hugo to bring
the actress to reason. The two ladies had their partisans in the theatre
when the play came to be acted, but the representation passed over
without mishap, and it was conceded that a fair success had been
achieved.
Whatever might be Victor Hugo's defects as a dramatist, and however he
might divide in opinion the theatre-going public of Paris upon the
general claims of his plays, he had certainly infused life into the
dramatic literature of the time. He had attained a commanding position,
and although his genius was marred by some eccentricities, it was also
as unquestionably distinguished for its grand conceptions, its dramatic
felicities, and its splendours of diction.