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.