Among those who discuss the drama there is a tendency to depreciate
Sardou's work. Such an attitude is probably only natural during a time
when homage is so universally directed to such realists and dissectors
of modern social life as Ibsen, Pinero, Brieux, Hervieu and Shaw. The
principal complaint brought against Sardou is the charge that he made
mechanical plays in which all material was subordinated to the plot,
that his characters are like marionettes made vocal and that he
"manufactured" theatrical pieces to portray the talents of certain
histrionic "stars." If these qualities alone are the basis for
condemnation of Sardou's plays, something more must be offered to
convince the public that he is not fit to stand among the modern
master dramatists. If they are requirements necessary for a playwright
to attain a world-wide reputation, to become a member of the
celebrated Academy and of numerous other societies in which high
scholarship is demanded for admission, one questions the consistency
of the statements of the critics; if plays containing these qualities,
presented by actors and actresses of international fame in the world's
principal centers of culture--where a play by Sardou was an important
public event--realized for their creator during several decades the
goal of every playrwright: success, fame and the accompanying
financial reward, then one not only questions the consistency of the
critics but also their qualifications for posing as "authorities" on
the drama.
It is popular to depreciate Sardou, but much of this depreciation
would become admiration were it not for the fact that for those who do
not read French only a few of his plays are available in translations.
Students of the drama, therefore, are compelled to accept the opinions
of others instead of basing their knowledge upon a first-hand
acquaintance with Sardou's work. His high position among the
dramatists of France alone would demand an explanation of the reasons
why his productions appealed to cultured and cosmopolitan audiences,
which included scholars, diplomats, royalty--persons not likely to
waste time in flocking to see the work of a mediocrist.
No one in the world ever understood better the technique of
playwriting than did Sardou. Both he and Ibsen recognized Scribe's
genius for technique: Sardou acquired Scribe's craftsmanship,
developed it and improved upon it; Ibsen used of it what he could
in his clinical excursions into the whys and wherefores of Life--the
one reflected the French spirit, the heritage of the epic and romantic
past, the social life preceding the fall of the Second Empire and the
national life since then; the other, grimly Teutonic in temperament,
mined to the roots of human life and ironically upheld the mirror to
all classes revealing the secrets of their souls. Into lighted
streets, into halls and mansions, into courts and capitols, into
palaces and into throne-rooms, Sardou passed studying minutely the
movements of his personages; Ibsen, with the attentive scrutiny of a
hospital aide seeking the wounded, turned his flash-light--a
flash-light with microscopic power--into dark corners, into alleys,
into humanity's every haunt. The great Frenchman and the great
Norwegian both studied medicine and gave it up before becoming
playwrights. Their selections of working materials were truly
characteristic of their national temperaments. Both have had an
inestimable influence upon the drama of all nations.
Sardou was structural in his craftsmanship in the sense that he
created his plays with the skill of an artisan working with steel and
stone, and eliminated everything unnecessary in making his production
symmetrical. He was a realist in the sense that he never hesitated to
portray what he thought would convey his idea complete to the
audience. If a thrill of horror would effectively drive home a point,
he used it. In his satirical plays he was merciless in handling the
vanities and vagaries of society. While Sardou aspired to become a
playwright, he studied Shakespeare and regarded verse as the best
medium for presenting lofty themes, but after he studied the stage he
changed this view and wrote his principal plays in prose, though the
material is often admirably adapted for metrical expression. Sardou's
historical dramas are lofty in theme. They are true to their times,
and appeal universally to those interested in life outcropping from
mighty changes of conditions in the past. His deep knowledge of
history, art and archæology is evident in historical dramas in which
costumes, decorations, interior details, furniture and other
properties used for the setting compositely reproduce the atmosphere
of the period depicted by the action. None knew better than Sardou
the life about him. He studied personalities in their intricate
relationship in society. He never preached. He never sacrificed plot
in order to prove a thesis, thereby escaping the prolixity of which
some of the "realists" are often guilty. His plays have morals, but
they are skillfully hidden behind his technique, which supplements a
natural gift of analysis and an intuitive power for recognizing and
selecting subject matter pleasing to cosmopolitan Parisian audiences.
His comedies portraying contemporary life were, with a few exceptions,
enthusiastically received, and were the stepping stones by which
actors and actresses rose to world-wide celebrity. For impressive
compositions Verdi and Offenbach found inspiration in Sardou's
creations.
The result of Sardou's long years of hard work was a prolific
production of comedies and dramas. The principal ones and the dates
of their production were as follows:
_La Taverne des Étudiants, 1854; Les Premières Armes de Figaro, 1859;
Les Pattes de Mouche, 1860; Nos Intimes, 1861; La Papillonne, 1862;
Les Vieux Garçons, 1865; Patrie!, 1869; Fernande, 1870; Andréa, 1873;
La Haine, 1874; Daniel Rochat, 1880; Divorçons, 1880; Theodora, 1884;
La Tosca, 1887; Cléopâtre, 1890; Thermidor, 1891; Madame Sans-Gene,
1893; Gismonda, 1894; Paméla, 1898; Robespierre, 1899; Dante, 1903;
La Sorcière, 1903; L'Affaire des Poisons, 1907._