Produced by Chuck Greif, Broward County Library, the
Internet Archive and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net
QUEENS OF THE FRENCH
STAGE
[Illustration: _Adrienne Lecouvreur._
_After the painting by Charles Coypel_]
QUEENS OF THE
FRENCH STAGE
BY
H. NOEL WILLIAMS
AUTHOR OF "MADAME RÉCAMIER AND HER FRIENDS," "MADAME DE
POMPADOUR," "MADAME DE MONTESPAN," "MADAME
DU BARRY," ETC.
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
153-157 FIFTH AVENUE
1905
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. THE WIFE OF MOLIÈRE 1
II. MARIE DE CHAMPMESLÉ 87
III. ADRIENNE LECOUVREUR 127
IV. MADEMOISELLE DE CAMARGO 197
V. JUSTINE FAVART 223
VI. MADEMOISELLE CLAIRON 273
INDEX 353
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ADRIENNE LECOUVREUR. (_Photogravure_) _Frontispiece_
_After the painting by_ CHARLES COYPEL
ARMANDE BÉJART _to face page_ 24
_After a contemporary drawing in the collection of_
M. HENRY HOUSSAYE, _of the Academia Française_
JEAN RACINE " 96
_From an engraving by_ VERTUE
MAURICE DE SAXE " 168
_After the painting by_ HYACINTHE RIGAUD
MADEMOISELLE PRÉVOST " 200
_After the painting by_ JEAN RAOUX, _in the Music of Tours_
MADEMOISELLE DE CAMARGO " 208
_From the painting by_ LANCRET, _in the Wallace Collection
at Hertford House_
JUSTINE FAVART " 240
_After the drawing by_ CHARLES NICOLAS COCHIN _fils_
MADEMOISELLE CLAIRON " 296
_After the painting by_ CARLE VAN LOO
ELIZABETH BERKELEY, Countess of Craven (afterwards
Margravine of Anspach) " 344
_After the drawing by_ SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS
QUEENS OF THE FRENCH STAGE
I
THE WIFE OF MOLIÈRE
Few women in French history have been the subject of more discussion
than the young girl whom Molière married, at the church of Saint-Germain
l'Auxerrois, on February 20, 1662.
Armande Grésinde Claire Elisabeth Béjart, for that was the bride's name,
is described in the marriage deed as the daughter of the late Joseph
Béjart, _écuyer_, sieur de Belleville, and of his widow, Marie Hervé.
Joseph Béjart, it should be stated, had died shortly before, or shortly
after, Armande's birth.
The Béjarts were very poor, for the only means which Joseph seems to
have possessed wherewith to maintain his pretensions to nobility were
derived from a small government appointment (_huissier ordinaire du roy
ès eaux et forêts de France_), and his wife had presented him with "at
least eleven children." They lived in the Marais, then the theatrical
quarter of Paris. On its northern outskirts, near the Halles, in the Rue
Mauconseil, stood the old Hôtel de Bourgogne, the first home of the
regular drama; in the centre, in the Rue Vieille-du-Temple, was the
theatre which took its name from the quarter, the Théâtre du Marais,
where Corneille's _Cid_ was first performed; while nearer the Seine, the
playgoer could make choice between the Italian troupes, the _Trois
Farceurs_, Gaultier-Garguille, Gros-Guillaume, and Turlupin,[1] and
open-air entertainments on the Pont-au-Change, the Pont-Neuf, and the
Place Dauphine. It is, therefore, not surprising that the little Béjarts
should have been in the habit of varying the monotony of their
poverty-stricken lives by occasional visits to one or other of these
spectacles, or that, dazzled by those well-known attractions, which were
doubtless as potent in the seventeenth century as they are to-day, the
two eldest, Joseph and Madeleine, should have decided, while still very
young, to make the stage their profession.
What theatre witnessed their _débuts_ we do not know. The majority of
authors are of opinion that they joined a company of strolling players
which was at this time exploiting Languedoc; M. Larroumet hesitates
between one of the unlicensed playhouses of the fairs in the
neighbourhood of Paris and a troupe of amateurs, several of which were
to be found in the capital; while another of Madeleine's biographers, M.
Henri Chardon, thinks that she obtained admission to the Théâtre du
Marais, though it appears very improbable that a young and inexperienced
actress could have met with such good fortune.
However that may be, Madeleine seems to have prospered in her profession
from the very outset, as on January 10, 1636, supported by her
_curateur_, one Simon Courtin, her father, a paternal uncle, a "_chef du
gobelet du roi_," and divers other relatives and friends, she appears
before the Civil Lieutenant of Paris[2] to request permission to
contract a loan of 2000 livres, wherewith to supplement a like sum of
her own and enable her to acquire a little house and garden situated in
the Cul-de-Sac Thorigny.
Two and a half years later (July 11, 1638), we hear of her again, under
circumstances which perhaps explain her desire to secure a residence of
her own--a desire, it must be admitted, not a little singular in a young
lady of eighteen--for on that day is baptized at Saint-Eustache
"Françoise, daughter of Esprit Raymond, chevalier, seigneur de Modène
and other places, chamberlain of the affairs of Monseigneur, only
brother of the King, and of the demoiselle Madeleine Béjart."
M. de Modène and Madeleine were not married; indeed, there was already a
Madame de Modène, residing at Le Mans, who did not die until 1649. But
this trifling accident, as it was regarded in those days, did not
prevent the son of the former (by proxy)[3] and the mother of the
latter (in person) standing as sponsors to the little Françoise, whose
birth was fated to be the cause of much trouble, not to her guilty
parents, but to two perfectly innocent persons, one of whom was as yet
unborn.
A few words must here be said of the father of Madeleine Béjart's child.
Esprit Raymond de Mormoiron, Comte de Modène, who was then about thirty
years of age, came of an old family in the Venaissin. His father,
François Raymond de Mormoiron, had at one time held the office of Grand
Provost of France and had also been employed on several diplomatic
missions. Appointed page to Gaston d'Orléans, brother of Louis XIII., he
became later one of the chamberlains of that prince, and seems to have
done his best to imitate him in his dissipated and turbulent conduct. He
early ranged himself among the enemies of Richelieu, joined the famous
league "for the universal peace of Christendom," and fought on its
behalf at the battle of La Marfée, at the head of a body of cavalry
which he had raised at his own expense. In consequence of this, he was
condemned to death, by a decree of the Parliament of Paris (September 6,
1641), but took refuge in Flanders, with the Duc de Guise, against whom
a similar sentence had been pronounced, and remained there until the
death of Richelieu, followed by that of Louis XIII., left him at liberty
to return to France. When, in 1647, Guise went to Naples, to endeavour
to exploit the revolt of Masaniello to his own advantage, Modène
accompanied him and greatly distinguished himself. He was eventually,
however, taken prisoner by the Spaniards and held captive until 1650. On
his return to France, he meddled no more with public affairs, but
occupied himself with the care of his neglected estates and in the
compilation of a valuable history of the revolution in Naples,
reprinted, in 1826, under the title of _Mémoires du Comte de Modène_. It
is to be noted here that from the early autumn of 1641 until the summer
of 1643 the Comte de Modène was absent from France.
Some time in the early weeks of the year 1643, probably either in the
last week in February or the first in March, Madeleine's father, Joseph
Béjart the elder, died; and on March 10, Marie Hervé, his widow,
presented herself before the Civil Lieutenant of Paris, where, in the
name, and as guardian, of Joseph, Madeleine, Geneviève, Louis, and _"a
little girl not yet baptized," children under age_ (_i.e._ under
twenty-five) of the said deceased and herself, she represented that "the
inheritance of her deceased husband being charged with heavy debts
without any property wherewith to acquit them, she feared that it would
be more burdensome than profitable," and, accordingly, declared her
intention of renouncing it. Her request was supported by her
brother-in-law, Pierre Béjart, _procureur_ to the Châtelet, and other
relatives, and on June 10 of the same year she was permitted to make the
renunciation she desired.
Now who was this "little unbaptized girl"? Without a shadow of doubt,
Armande Béjart, the future wife of Molière; on this point all the poet's
biographers are unanimous. Was she, as represented, the daughter of
Marie Hervé? That is the question which has afforded material for a
controversy which has already lasted for nearly two hundred and fifty
years and seems not unlikely to continue till the end of all things, for
the most fantastic theories, for a small library of books and
pamphlets, and for review and newspaper articles without number. For
some see in this little girl a sister, others a _daughter_ of Madeleine
Béjart, and the truth is of the most vital importance to the honour of
the great man whose wife Armande became.
That the latter impression was almost universal amongst Molière's
contemporaries is beyond question, nor is the fact one that need
occasion any surprise. Every one, that is to say, every one connected
with, or interested in, the theatrical world, was aware that, early in
life, Madeleine Béjart had had a little girl; while, on the other hand,
the birth of Marie Hervé's child, which was of no public interest, and
which, moreover, probably took place not in Paris, but in one of the
adjacent villages,[4] was known to very few. A young girl grew up with
Madeleine, who was tenderly attached to her; it was Armande; but gossip
confounded her with the child Francoise, of whom all trace seems to have
been lost, and the wiseacres smiled the smile begotten of superior
knowledge when any stranger to Paris chanced to refer to the girl as
Madeleine's sister.
For over a century and a half this belief remained unchallenged. Hostile
or sympathetic, all who wrote of Molière--La Grange, Grimarest, Breuze
de la Martinière, Bayle, Donneau de Visé--shared the common opinion in
regard to the origin of Armande Béjart. In 1821, however, there was
quite a flutter of excitement in literary circles, for in that year
Beffara discovered Molière's _acte de mariage_, in which Armande is
spoken of as the daughter of Joseph Béjart and his widow, Marie Hervé.
Forty-two years later, the old scandal, which in the interim had been
partly revived by M. Fournier (_Études sur la vie et les oeuvres de
Molière_) and M. Bazin (_Notes historiques sur Molière_), received
another severe blow by Eudore Soulié's discovery of the deed of March
10, 1643, already mentioned, wherein Marie Hervé requested permission to
renounce the succession to her husband's property, and which confirmed
the statement made in the _acte de mariage_. Such evidence, one would
naturally suppose, would have been accepted as conclusive, and the
matter set at rest once and for all. But tradition dies hard; not a few
_Molièristes_ refused to renounce an opinion sanctioned by so many
generations, and M. Jules Loiseleur, a writer who enjoyed a
considerable, and not undeserved, reputation as an unraveller of
historical mysteries, propounded, on behalf of his fellow-sceptics, the
following theory.
The declarations made by Marie Hervé, in the deed of March 10, 1643, and
again in the _acte de mariage_, that Armande was her child, were, he
maintains, deliberate falsehoods, conceived in the interests of her
daughter, Madeleine. At the beginning of the year 1643, Madeleine was
about to become a mother, for the second time, not, of course, by the
Comte de Modène, who had been in exile for nearly two years, but by some
new lover. Fearing that if Modène returned and learned the fact, he
would refuse to resume the _liaison_, which she hoped might one day be
regularised (M. Loiseleur was under the impression that Madame de Modène
was dead, whereas she lived until 1649), she begged her mother to
recognise the child as her own; a request to which that complacent old
lady, whose husband was just dead, or on the point of death, readily
consented.
Now this ingenious theory is based on the advanced age of Marie
Hervé--she was then about fifty-three--and the belief that she had not
had a child since the birth of Louis Béjart, afterwards a prominent
member of Molière's troupe, who was born on November 14 or 15, 1630,
that is to say, more than twelve years earlier, which facts rendered it
highly improbable that she could have been the mother of Armande; and M.
Loiseleur supports his contention by pointing out that the two eldest
children, Joseph and Madeleine, described in the deed of March 10, 1643,
as minors, were over twenty-five, and that their age was purposely
understated to make their mother appear younger than she was, and so
facilitate the fraud. This point has been contested by Mr. Andrew Lang,
in his admirable article on Molière in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_,
but is really of no importance, as if M. Loiseleur had exercised a
little more care, he would have found that so far from more than twelve
years having elapsed between the birth of the last of Marie Hervé's
children and that of Armande, she had had a little girl _less than three
and a half years before_ (November 30, 1639), baptized, in the parish of
Saint-Sauveur, by the name of Bénigne Madeleine, the second name being
doubtless intended as a compliment to Madeleine Béjart, who acted as
_marraine_.[5] Whereby M. Loiseleur's argument disappears, and his
theory with it.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Armande's contemporaries saw in her
not a sister, but a daughter of Madeleine Béjart, and, with this
belief, they held another, to wit, that Molière had been, previous to
his marriage with the younger sister, the lover of the elder. From which
two suppositions sprang one of the most hideous accusations that has
ever sullied the reputation of a great man.
Molière, like most successful men, had a good many enemies, and was
accustomed to give and receive very hard knocks. With the company of the
Théâtre du Marais he appears to have been on tolerably amicable terms;
but with the actors of the third great theatre, the Hôtel de Bourgogne,
his relations were decidedly strained, and whenever an opportunity arose
of turning one or other of them into ridicule, he seldom failed to avail
himself of it, though he made an exception in the case of Floridor, who
was too great a favourite with the public for them to tolerate any
attacks upon him. In his _Impromptu de Versailles_, played before the
Court in October 1663, Molière satirised several actors of the Hôtel de
Bourgogne, and, among them, one named Montfleury,[6] whose ponderous
style of declamation he imitated with great success. To this,
Montfleury's son, Antoine Montfleury, who was a prolific and successful
dramatist, replied with another play, called _l'Impromptu de l'hôtel de
Condé_, in which he endeavoured to turn the tables on Molière; but the
vengeance of the father took a very different form.
In December 1663, Racine wrote to the Abbé Le Vasseur: "Montfleury has
drawn up a memorial and presented it to the King. He accuses him
[Molière] of having married the daughter [Armande], and of having
formerly lived with the mother [Madeleine]. But Montfleury is not
listened to at Court."[7] From this passage it is evident that
Montfleury intended Louis XIV. to believe that Molière had married his
own daughter; which is the starting-point of the abominable calumny
which so long weighed, and which still weighs, on the memory of the
great dramatist.
Beyond what Racine tells us, we have no information about this memorial
of Montfleury. That he advanced any proofs in support of his accusation
is extremely improbable; although it is quite possible that he would
have endeavoured to substantiate it had he received any encouragement
from the King. Any way, Louis XIV. appears to have satisfied himself
that the charge was merely the outcome of jealousy and spite, and when,
in the following February, Molière's first child was baptized at
Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois, he and his sister-in-law, the ill-fated
Henrietta of England, stood sponsors. Than which the poet could have
desired no more complete reparation.
Thirteen years later, in 1676, that is to say, three years after
Molière's death, Montfleury's accusation was repeated. A man of the name
of Guichard, a sort of _entrepreneur_ for fêtes and plays, coveted
Lulli's post as director of the recently-established Opera, and, seeing
no likelihood of realising his ambition by any legitimate means, had
recourse to poison, the fashionable expedient for ridding oneself of
professional rivals and other inconvenient persons at this period. One
Sebastian Aubry, a connection of the Béjarts, was entrusted with the
commission; but, instead of executing it, he informed Lulli, who
promptly invoked the protection of the law. An inquiry was held and
numerous witnesses called for the prosecution, among whom was the widow
of Molière. In order to discredit the testimony of these witnesses,
Guichard drew up a memorial, in which, besides making the most infamous
charges against Armande's moral character, of which we shall speak
later, he alluded to her as "the orphan of her husband" and "the widow
of her father." Unlike Montfleury, however, who was an old and respected
member of his profession, Guichard appears to have been a consummate
scoundrel, capable of any villainy to serve his ends; and we can hardly
believe that a charge made by such a person could have excited any
feelings, save those of indignation and disgust.
However, unhappily, other pens were not wanting to keep alive this
hideous calumny. It is true that there are no further direct
accusations; but there are allusions, which, as they appear in works
that enjoyed, in their day, a considerable circulation, must have
answered much the same purpose. In 1770, seven years after Montfleury
had set the ball rolling, a certain Le Boulanger de Chalussay, of whom
little or nothing seems to be known, attacked Molière in a play called
_Élomire hypocondre, ou les Médicins vengés_--Élomire being, of course,
an anagram of Molière. This play, intended as a reply to the great
dramatist's repeated attacks on the medical profession, was a fatuous
production, dull, confused, and encumbered with an absurd number of
characters; and the company of the Hôtel de Bourgogne, to whom it was
submitted, very prudently declined to accept it, notwithstanding which
the author caused it to be printed and circulated. In one scene, Élomire
speaks of the care he is taking to train up his wife in the way he would
have her go, in order to avoid all risk of finding himself numbered
among deceived husbands. Thereupon, his confidant reminds him of the
fate which befell Arnolphe in the _École des femmes_, in spite of all
his precautions.[8] But Élomire replies that he is better advised than
Arnolphe:--
"Arnolphe commença trop tard à la forger;
C'est avant le berceau qu'il y devoit songer,
Comme quelqu'un l'a fait."
Molière demanded and obtained the suppression of _Élomire hypocondre_;
but this only had the effect of stimulating its circulation, as, in the
following year, a new edition was clandestinely printed in the
provinces, and, in 1672, a third was produced by the Elzevirs, in
Holland.
Another allusion occurs in a scandalous work entitled _La Fameuse
Comédienne_, published anonymously in 1688, of which we shall have a
good deal to say hereafter: "She [Armande] was the daughter of the
deceased Béjart, a provincial actress, who was making the _bonne
fortune_ of numbers of young gentlemen in Languedoc at the time of the
auspicious birth of her daughter. That is why it is very difficult, in
the face of such promiscuous gallantry, to say who was the father." And
the writer concludes: "She is believed to be the daughter of Molière,
notwithstanding the fact that he afterwards became her husband; however,
one does not really know the truth."
It appears to be the tendency among modern writers, while indignantly
repudiating the accusation of Montfleury, to accept with complacency the
opinion of Molière's contemporaries that his relations with Madeleine
Béjart had been, at one time, on a closer footing than that of
friendship. In this they show a singular want of consistency, for, as M.
Gustave Larroumet, than whom Molière has no more ardent admirer, very
justly observes, the two suppositions are inseparable, and those who
admit the probability of the second cannot well deny the possibility of
the first, provided, of course, that they hold, with M. Loiseleur, that
Marie Hervé had been guilty of fraud in the documents discovered by
Beffara and Eudore Soulié, and that Armande was the daughter of
Madeleine.[9]
Let us, however, look at the facts as briefly as may be, since the
subject is not one upon which it profits greatly to dwell.
Molière's connection with the Béjart family is commonly believed to have
begun some time in 1641 or 1642. In June 1643, Madeleine Béjart, with
her younger sister Géneviève, and her brothers, Joseph and Louis, joined
Molière and several others in founding the Illustre Théâtre. She
remained faithful to Molière's fortunes during those disastrous two
years, when the receipts of the new theatre did not suffice to discharge
the ordinary working expenses, and its chief was, on one occasion,
imprisoned in the Châtelet, until the bill of an importunate
candle-merchant had been settled. When the company left Paris, in the
spring of 1646, on its twelve years' wanderings through the provinces,
she accompanied it, and, in addition to playing in nearly every piece,
appears to have superintended the costumes and scenery, and regulated
the expenses, at least so far as concerned Molière and the three other
Béjarts. Finally, when Molière returned to Paris, in 1658, and the
company was installed, first, at the Petit-Bourbon and, afterwards, at
the Palais-Royal, she retained her place and continued to play regularly
down to the time of her death on February 17, 1678, exactly a year
before that of Molière himself.
An admirable actress, one of the best of her time, according to
Tallemant des Réaux, ready to undertake almost any rôle in either
tragedy or comedy, she excelled in depicting smartly-attired maids, who
ridicule the follies of their employers with equal wit, impudence, and
good sense, and, but for her, Molière might never have created his
inimitable _soubrettes_.[10] She was, moreover, remarkably handsome,
tall and graceful, with hair of a peculiarly beautiful blonde hue, and
La Fontaine, Loret, and other contemporaries speak of her in terms of
unfeigned admiration; while she seems to have possessed some literary
ability, having, when a girl of eighteen, addressed a quatrain to
Rotrou, who had just produced his _Hercule mourant_ at the Hôtel de
Bourgogne--which so delighted the dramatist that he published it in an
edition of his work--and also adapted an old comedy, which was performed
by the Illustre Théâtre in the provinces.
That a very warm friendship and regard existed between Madeleine and
Molière is certain, nor does what we know of the latter's relations with
other ladies of his troupe render a closer connection improbable. In
1653, at Lyons, the Illustre Théâtre was strengthened by the accession
of two actresses, Mlle. du Parc and Mlle. de Brie,[11] both destined to
rise to eminence in their profession. Molière promptly fell in love with
the former, who, however, rejected his addresses, as she subsequently
did those of Pierre Corneille and La Fontaine, upon which the mortified
dramatist transferred his attentions to the less attractive, but more
sympathetic, Mlle. de Brie, and formed with her a _liaison_ which
appears to have lasted until his marriage, and was resumed at a later
date.
Under these circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that contemporary
gossip should have coupled the names of Molière and Madeleine
together--"M. Despréaux [Boileau] told me," writes Brossette, "that
Molière had been in love with the actress Béjart, whose daughter he
espoused,"--or that many modern writers should have taken the same view.
M. Larroumet, we may observe, is of the contrary opinion, but, though
generally so correct, he appears in this instance to be arguing from a
false premise. He assumes that the Comte de Modène returned to Paris in
the summer of 1643 and resumed his former relations with Madeleine,
which fact, he says, makes a _liaison_ between her and Molière
altogether improbable. But the count's biographer, M. Chardon, asserts
that at the time when M. Larroumet believes Modène to have been in
Paris, he was residing on his estates in the Venaissin, and that he did
not visit the capital until the autumn of 1646, that is to say, after
the Illustre Théâtre had left for the provinces. Shortly after this, the
count set out with the Duc de Guise for Italy, where, as we have
mentioned, he remained until 1650.[12]
But, after all, the nature of Molière's relations with Madeleine Béjart
subsequent to the birth of Armande is of very secondary importance; it
is on the degree of intimacy existing between them _prior_ to that event
that the whole question hinges. That they were at that time anything
more than friends--possibly only acquaintances--there is not a shred of
evidence to prove; for the rumours we have spoken of relate mainly to
the early years of the Illustre Théâtre. Indeed, so little is known
about their movements previous to the establishment of that institution
that it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty whether their
paths in life lay together or far apart at a particular date, much less
to hazard an opinion upon so very delicate a matter as the one under
discussion.
M. Larroumet says that from July 1638, when her little daughter,
Françoise, was born, until June 1643, when the Illustre Théâtre was
founded, we lose all trace of Madeleine. This is not quite correct, as
on November 30, 1639, she appears as _marraine_ at the baptism of her
little sister, Bénigne Madeleine, in the parish of Saint-Sauveur, and,
six months later (June 5, 1640), we find her discharging the same duty
to a child of one Robert de la Voypierre, described as a
_valet-de-chambre_ at the Church of Saint-Sulpice.[13] After that, it is
true, nothing more is heard of her for three years. Now, where was she
during these three years? M. Chardon thinks that she was in Paris until
the early summer of 1641, and during the remainder of the time--that is
to say, for the eighteen months or more preceding Armande's birth--in
the provinces, with a company of strolling players; and this is the
reason he gives for his supposition.
In May 1641, a friend of the Comte de Modène, Jean Baptiste de
l'Hermite, brother of Tristan de l'Hermite, author of the tragedy of
_Mariamne_, together with his wife and a servant of the count, were
arrested and imprisoned in the Château of Vincennes, apparently on a
charge of treasonable correspondence with Modène. Thereupon, Madeleine,
apprehensive of sharing their fate, her connection with Modène being
well known, leaves Paris and joins a company in the provinces, and does
not show her face in the capital again until Richelieu and Louis XIII.
are both dead, and all danger for the Count and his friends
removed.[14]
As for Molière, he is commonly believed to have spent the year 1642 in
Paris, with the exception of the months of May, June, and July, when M.
Loiseleur is of opinion that he replaced his father as _tapissier
valet-de-chambre_ to the King, who was then returning by easy stages
from the conquest of Roussillon.
Now, if these two theories are correct, as they probably are, it is
obvious that, whoever was the father of Madeleine Béjart's child,
supposing her to have been the mother of Armande, which few now will be
found to maintain, it could not have been Molière, unless Madeleine was
a member of a troupe of strolling players, which performed several times
before the Court at Montfrin, during its stay there in the latter part
of June, a contingency so remote as to be hardly worth taking into
account. With which observations, we hasten to take leave of this most
unpleasant subject, and begin our history of Armande Béjart.
* * * * *
When the Illustre Théâtre quitted Paris, in the spring of 1646, Marie
Hervé and her little daughter accompanied it. It does not appear
probable, however, as some writers have supposed, that Armande's early
years were passed on the high roads. From what we know of her
accomplishments, she must have received a far superior education to that
which a little Bohemian could have obtained. According to one account,
she lived for some years in Languedoc, "with a lady of distinguished
rank in that province," and did not return to her family until 1653,
when the company, relatively more stable, had made Lyons its
headquarters. Thenceforward Armande's education was carried on under the
immediate supervision of Molière himself, who, as time went on, began
to take something more than a friendly interest in the progress of his
pupil, and ended by falling passionately in love with her.
Nearly all the biographers of Molière and Armande agree that Madeleine
Béjart was much occupied by this marriage, though they differ widely in
the part they assign to her, some asserting that she laboured
strenuously to prevent it, others that she did her utmost to bring it
about. According to Grimarest, one of the oldest of the poet's
biographers--who believed Madeleine to have been Molière's mistress, and
that she was, moreover, the mother of Armande, though he does not go so
far as to attribute the girl's paternity to Molière--Madeleine behaved
_en femme furieuse_, threatened to ruin him, her daughter, and herself,
if he persisted in his intention, and that in consequence the lovers
were compelled to contract a secret marriage.
On the other hand, the anonymous author of _La Fameuse Comédienne_, who
wrote nearer the event, gives a wholly different version of the affair.
According to him--or more probably her--it is Madeleine who prepared and
concluded the marriage, by a series of patient and tortuous intrigues,
her object being to recover, through Armande, the influence over Molière
of which Mlle. de Brie had deprived her. "She did not fail to exaggerate
to Molière the satisfaction he would derive from educating for himself a
child whose heart he was sure of possessing, and whose disposition was
known to him, and assured him that it was only at that innocent age that
one could hope to meet with that sincerity which was found but rarely
among persons who had seen the great world. These arguments she often
repeated to Molière, at the same time, adroitly calling his attention
to that natural delight which her daughter showed whenever she observed
him enter the room, and her blind obedience to his wishes. In a word,
she conducted the affair so skilfully that he decided that he could not
do better than marry the girl."
These two accounts, remarks M. Larroumet, would appear, at first sight,
to be equally unworthy of belief, since they are in direct contradiction
to one another. But when we come to examine them more closely, we shall
find that, though the worthlessness of Grimarest's version is clearly
demonstrated by the fact that Molière's marriage had nothing secret
about it, being indeed celebrated publicly in the presence of his family
and Armande's, that of the author of _La Fameuse Comédienne_ has a basis
of truth. Madeleine did, no doubt, play an important part in bringing
about the marriage, but the reason which prompted her to do so was very
different from that stated by the author. Sincerely attached to both her
sister and Molière, she honestly believed that a marriage between them
would be to their common advantage, securing to the one an excellent
settlement in life, and to the other a means of escape from the
gallantries which served but to add fresh annoyances to the cares
imposed upon him by his triple rôle of playwright, actor, and manager.
She committed a grievous mistake, it is true; but that she was animated
by perfectly disinterested motives, and did everything in her power to
make the marriage a happy one, there can be no question.[15]
With the exception of the drawing reproduced in this volume, there does
not appear to be any portrait of Armande, painted or engraved, the
authenticity of which is beyond dispute. But, as some atonement for
this, several excellent pen-portraits have come down to us. The most
interesting of these is, of course, the one traced by Molière's own hand
in that exquisite little scene between Cléonte and Covielle in the third
act of the _Bourgeois gentilhomme_, where Armande plays the part of the
charming Lucile. Cléonte, incensed by Lucile's seeming indifference,
determines to break with her, and calls upon the valet to "assist him in
his resentment and sustain his resolution against every remnant of
affection that may yet plead for her. 'Say, I entreat you, all the harm
that you can of her. Make of her person a picture that shall render her
contemptible in my sight, and, to disgust me with her, point out all the
faults that you can see in her.'"
Smarting under the rebuff just administered to him by Lucile's
waiting-woman, Nicole, who follows the example of her mistress, Covielle
readily obeys, and proceeds to draw a most unflattering portrait of the
young lady. But no sooner does the valet point out some fault in Lucile
than his love-lorn master straightway transforms it into a trait of
beauty, with an ever-increasing anger and impatience.
_Covielle._--"To begin with, her eyes are small."
_Cléonte._--"That is true; her eyes are small, but then they are full of
fire--the most brilliant, the most piercing in the world, the tenderest
that one can possibly see."
_Covielle._--"She has a large mouth."
_Cléonte._--"Yes; but one finds there charms which one does not find in
other mouths; and that mouth, when one beholds it, inspires desire; it
is the most attractive, the most adorable in the world."
_Covielle._--"As for her figure, she is not tall."
_Cléonte._--"No; but she is supple and well-proportioned."
_Covielle._--"She affects a carelessness in her speech and deportment."
_Cléonte._--"It is true, but there is grace in all; and her manners are
engaging and have a nameless charm which insinuates itself into our
hearts."
_Covielle._--"As to her wit----"
_Cléonte._--"Ah! she has that, Covielle; the finest and most delicate
kind."
_Covielle._--"Her conversation----"
_Cléonte._--"Her conversation is charming."
_Covielle._--"It is always serious."
_Cléonte._--"Would you have unrestrained liveliness and boisterous
gaiety? Is there anything more annoying than women who laugh at every
word that is spoken?"
_Covielle._--"But, after all, she is as capricious as any person you can
find."
_Cléonte._--"Yes, she is capricious; there I agree with you; but
everything is becoming to, and must be borne with from, the fair."
[Illustration: ARMANDE BÉJART
From an etching by J. HANRIOT, after a contemporary drawing in the
collection of M. HENRY HOUSSAYE, of the Académie Française]
The fidelity of the aforegoing portrait is confirmed by other
contemporary evidence. Examined in detail, it would appear that
Armande's features were far from perfect, but that the _ensemble_ was
fascinating to a very remarkable degree. Mlle. Poisson, in a _Lettre sur
la vie et les oeuvres de Molière et les comédiens de son temps_, which
she contributed to the _Mercure_ of 1740, describes her as "of middle
height," with "very small eyes," and "a large flat mouth"; but adds that
she had "an engaging air," and "performed every action with grace."
The elder Grandval is in accord with Mlle. Poisson: "Without being
beautiful, she was piquant and capable of inspiring a _grande passion_."
While a bitter enemy of Armande, the anonymous author of _La Fameuse
Comédienne_, while denying her "_aucun trait de beauté_" is fain to
admit that her appearance and manners rendered her very amiable in the
opinion of many people, and that she was "very affecting when she wished
to please."
That Armande should have triumphed so completely over physical
deficiencies was probably due, to some extent, to the perfection of her
toilettes. "No one," the brothers Parfaict tell us, in their _Histoire
du Théâtre Français_, "knew better than she how to enhance the beauty of
her face by the arrangement of her coiffure, or of her figure by the
fashion of her costume." And Mlle. Poisson records that she "showed most
remarkable taste and invariably opposed to the mode of the time." She
seems indeed to have had some claim to be considered the arbitrix of
feminine taste in dress, for the _Mercure galant_ of 1673 ascribes to
her the credit of a radical reform in ladies' toilettes, nothing less
than the substitution of gowns, "_tout unis sur le corps, de la manière
que la taille parait plus belle_," for the majestic but somewhat heavy
costume hitherto in vogue, which concealed beneath its too ample folds
the graceful lines of the figure.
* * * * *
If Armande, as a woman, was an object of admiration to her
contemporaries, as an actress, she aroused in them something very like
enthusiasm. It would indeed have been a matter for surprise had it been
otherwise, since she enjoyed advantages which fall to the lot of very
few. She came of a family which had already contributed several
finished performers to the French stage, and "had in her blood the
passion and instinct of the theatre." With her charm of manner and
exquisite taste in dress, she combined many accomplishments: "she had a
very pretty voice, sang with great taste in both French and Italian, and
danced ravishingly." She had received a long and careful training from
one who was perhaps an even better teacher than he was an actor, and who
was as ambitious for her success as for his own. And, finally, nearly
all her parts--certainly all her more important parts--were written by
Molière with the express object of enabling her to display her abilities
to the best advantage.
Lacking the dignity and strength required to give adequate expression to
the greater passions, she wisely refrained from attempting any important
rôles in tragedy, and in Racine's _Alexandre_ and the _Attila_ of
Corneille we find her allotted only minor parts. But at the Palais-Royal
comedy was, of course, the staple fare, and in "_la rôles de femmes
coquettes et satiriques_," which accorded so well with her own
temperament, and also in those of _ingénues_, Armande had no superior in
her day and probably very few since. Her acting is said to have been
characterised by great judgment, while her by-play was remarkably
effective. "If she but retouches her hair, or rearranges her ribbons or
her jewellery, these little fashions conceal a satire judicious and
natural, and throw ridicule upon the women she wishes to represent."
Moreover, she had the rare gift of being able to change at will the
character of her voice, and "had a different tone for every part she
undertook."
Molière's wise reluctance to allow his young wife to challenge the
verdict of the public until he had done everything in his power to
ensure her success, delayed Armande's first appearance on the stage for
fifteen months after her marriage, when she made her _début_ as Élise in
the _Critique de l'École des femmes_ (June 1, 1663), a reply to the
attacks of Donneau de Visé and other critics upon the play produced at
the Palais-Royal the previous December. The part allotted to her, which
is that of a self-possessed young woman, with a good deal of shrewd
common-sense, a turn for irony of a rather caustic brand, and not too
much consideration for the feelings of others, suited her
admirably--perhaps rather more so than poor Molière at that time
imagined--and secured her a somewhat similar rôle in the delightful
_Impromptu de Versailles_, played before the Court in the following
October, where she figures in the cast as a "satirical wit." She did not
play in the _Mariage forcé_ (January 29, 1664), as, ten days earlier,
she had borne Molière a son, to whom, as we have mentioned, Louis XIV.
and Henrietta of England stood sponsors; but in the following spring we
find her in the first of her long list of important rôles.
At the beginning of May 1664, Louis XIV. entertained the Queen-mother,
Anne of Austria, and his own consort, Maria Theresa, with a brilliant
and sumptuous fête, or rather succession of fêtes, at Versailles, which
was then, of course, still only the little country-house built by Louis
XIII., occupying to-day the bottom of the Cour de Marbre. The fêtes,
which were denominated _Les Plaisirs de l'Ile enchantée_, as the plan
adopted was suggested by the sixth and seventh cantos of Ariosto's
_Orlando Furioso_, which describe the sojourn of Rogero (impersonated by
the King) in the isle and palace of the enchantress Alcena, began on the
7th of the month and lasted a week; stately processions, tilting,
displays of fireworks, balls, and magnificent banquets alternating with
theatrical performances. On the 8th, Molière's troupe gave a comedy
ballet, called the _Princesse d'Élide_, composed for the occasion, by
their chief, at the special request of the King, and the rôle of the
princess was taken by Armande. The play, the subject of which was
borrowed from the Spanish dramatist Moreto's _El Desden con el Desden_
(Scorn for Scorn), is the story of a fair princess, who until then had
professed to despise love and had driven her innumerable suitors to
despair, but who suddenly finds herself wounded to the heart by the
skilfully feigned indifference to her charms shown by Euryale, Prince of
Ithaca, who ultimately succeeds in winning her hand. Though far from
being one of Molière's happiest efforts, as it was hastily strung
together--the first act and the commencement of the first scene of the
second are in verse, and the rest in prose--while the author's natural
flow of wit and humour was checked by the necessity of accommodating
himself to courtly conventions, it met with a very favourable reception,
and, moreover, served to establish Armande's reputation as an actress.
This was, no doubt, Molière's intention, as the whole play appears to
have been conceived expressly to bring into relief the young lady's
various accomplishments--her taste in dress, her charming voice, and her
graceful dancing--and the enamoured Euryale declaims in her honour a
portrait of the most flattering description: "She is, in truth, adorable
at all times; but at that moment she was more so than ever, and new
charms redoubled the splendour of her beauty. Never was her face adorned
with more lovely colours; never were her eyes armed with swifter or
more piercing shafts. The sweetness of her voice showed itself in the
perfectly charming air which she deigned to sing; and the marvellous
tones she uttered penetrated to the very depth of my soul and held all
my senses in a rapture from which they were powerless to escape. She
next showed a disposition altogether divine; her lovely feet on the
enamel of the soft turf danced delightful steps, which carried me quite
beyond myself and bound me by irresistible bonds to the easy and
accurate movements with which her whole body followed those harmonious
motions."
On the three concluding days of the fêtes, the _Fâcheux_, the first
three acts of _Tartuffe_, and the _Mariage forcé_ were in turn
represented. It is uncertain what parts were allotted Armande in the
first and third of these plays, but in the much discussed _Tartuffe_,
now played for the first time, she again filled the leading feminine
rôle. How she fared on this occasion we have unfortunately no
information; but when, in February 1669, the interdict under which
_Tartuffe_ had so long lain was at length withdrawn and the piece
produced at the Palais-Royal, the rhyming chronicle of Robinet speaks in
eulogistic terms of her performance of Elmire.
In the meanwhile, she had successfully created other important parts:
Lucinde in the _Medecin malgré lui_, Angélique in _George Dandin_, and
Elise in _l'Avare_, and, on June 4, 1666, the greatest of all her
triumphs--the rôle of Célimène in the famous comedy of the
_Misanthrope_.
"Célimène," says M. Larroumet, "is the type of woman the most original
and the most complete which the genius of Molière has evolved. Eternal
temptation of actresses, those who have attempted it may be called
legion, those who have succeeded in making themselves mistresses of it
form a select group, admired, envied. Such an actress of genius as
Rachel failed here miserably, and a true Célimène, like Mlle. Mars, is
sure of transmitting her name to posterity. One has noted, however, the
tones and gestures of the great interpreters of the part; tradition
preserves them, and they point out the way. But an intelligent pupil
will readily make herself acquainted with all that can be learned; if
she does not evolve from her own resources the sentiment of the
character, she will only swell the alarming number of vain attempts
which theatrical history records. Célimène is twenty years of age, and
her experience is that of a woman of forty. Coquettish and feline with
Alceste, frivolous and back-biting with the little marquises, cruelly
ironical with Arsinoé, in each act, in each scene, she shows herself
under a different aspect. Contemporary, or very nearly so, of Mesdames
de Châtillon, de Luynes, de Monaco, de Soubise, and the nieces of
Mazarin, she ought to awaken a vague memory of these great names; she is
the exquisite and rare product of an aristocratic civilisation in the
full splendour of its development, and often she speaks a language of
almost plebeian candour and acerbity. In the salon where she reigns, she
ought to convey the idea of perfect ease and supreme distinction; and in
the _dénouement_ she submits to a cruel humiliation without the
possibility of revenge; she makes her exit vanquished at all points,
and, even then, she ought to lose nothing of her haughty bearing and her
tranquil smile."[16]
It will thus be readily understood that an actress who could be trusted
to create such a part must have truly been a great artist, and Armande
secured a brilliant triumph. Her performance was "a charm" and "an
ecstasy," Robinet tells us; and though Robinet was in the habit of
dealing somewhat freely in such expressions, we have no reason to doubt
that on this occasion he faithfully reflects the opinion of the
audience.
But, after all, we can hardly wonder at the young actress's success,
since she had only to be perfectly natural to realise the author's whole
idea of his heroine. For what is Célimène but a finished portrait of
Armande herself? Célimène is "_la grande coquette par excellence_,"
surrounded by a crowd of admirers wherever she goes. Armande, unhappily
for Molière's peace of mind, seems to have enjoyed very much the same
reputation. Célimène depends for her fascination not so much on beauty
of face or form as on her expression, her smile, her manners, her
conversation; "_elle a l'art de me plaire_," says the infatuated
Alceste. Armande possessed the same kind of attractions, and was "very
affecting when she wished to please." Célimène is haughty and imperious.
"It is my wish; it is my wish," she cries when Alceste hesitates to
comply with her demands. "Armande," says a contemporary, "could not
brook contradiction, and pretended that a lover ought to be as
submissive as a slave." In fact, so perfect is the resemblance that even
if the circumstances, of which we shall presently speak, did not
preclude all reasonable doubt about the matter, few would be found to
deny that the heroine of the _Misanthrope_ was drawn from life.