70- 26,261

OIELENBERG, John Edward, 1933- SCENE DESIGN AT THE COMEDIE-FRANCAISE 1901 - 1920.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Theater

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan

Copyright by John Edvard Bielenberg

1971 SCENE DESIGN AT THE COMEDIE-FRANCAISE 1901 - 1920

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Deqree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

By

John Edvard Bielenberq, D.S., M.A.

The Ohio State University 1970

Approved by

Adviser Department of Theatre Please Note:

Some pages have very light type. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Madame Sylvie Chevalley, Archivist of the Cornedie-

Francaise, and to the administrators and members of the Coinedie-Francaise, for permitting the microfilming of those materials in their archives without which this study could not have been attempted, and for granting me permission to reproduce selected items for inclusion as illustrations.

In turn, I would like to thank Dr. John McDowell and the staff of the Ohio State University Theatre

Collection for securing the microfilms from the Comedie-

Francaise and making them available to me.

ii VITA

April 15, 1933 Born, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1955 B.S., Carroll College, Waukesha, Wisconsin

1955 , 1956 Union Theological Seminary, New York, New York

1956 -1958 U.S. Army 1959 N.A., Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

1959 - 1961 Instructor of Theatre Arts, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois

1961 - 1963 Student, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1963 - 1966 Assistant Professor of Theatre Arts, Eastern Illinois University

1966 - 1970 Associate Professor of Theatre, The State University of New York at Binghamton, New York

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... ill LIST OF T A B L E S ...... vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 The Com^die-Francaise Scene Design and the Coinedie-Francaise Previous Related Studies Primary Sources Period Determinants Organization of the Study

II SCENE DESIGN AND THE PARISIAN THEATRE, 1901 - 1920 ...... 18

The French Contribution to the "New Movement" The Russian Ballet Jacques Rouche and the Theatre des Arts L*0iseau bleu and L'Annonce fait a Marie The Theatre du vieux Colombier The Com^die-Francaise III THE COMEDIE-FRANCAISEl BACKSTAGE ORIENTATION 45

The Scenic Artists of the Cornedie-Francaise The Stage of the Theatre-Francais IV SCENE DESIGN AND THE REPERTOIRE...... 63

The Magnitude of the Total Repertoire The Role of the Classical and Modern Repertoires The Status of Premieres in the Repertoire The Nature of the Premieres in the Repertoire The Scenic Implications of the Repertoire

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER Page SCENIC FORM AND PRACTICE 106

Scenic Form The Scenic Repertoire The Scenic Options The Conglomerate Setting Scenic Handling

VI SCENIC STYLE AND COMPOSITION ...... 150 Realism at the Coined ie-Francaise The Role of Decoration Applied Depth and Implied Space The Success of the Illusion The Corned ie-Francaise and the "New Movement"

VII THREE REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTIONS ...... 189

Notes on La Marquis de Priola Notes on L*Amour veille Notes on Les Soeurs d *amour

VIII SUMMARY ...... 223

APPENDIX A. THE REPERTOIRE OF THE COM^DIE-FRANCAISE 1901 - 1920 ...... 229

B. PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE OF THE COMEDIE-FRANCAISE 1901 - 1920 ...... 245

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 266

V LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. The Status of Premieres and the "Twentieth Century" Repertoire in the Total Repertoire of the Comedie-Francaise, By Year, 1901 to 1920 ...... 65

2. A Month's Repertoire at the Comedie-Francaise, February, 1912 ...... 66

3. A Month's Repertoire at the Comedie-Francaise, September, 1912 ...... 69

4. One-Act Play Premieres Which Received More Than Twenty-Five Performances From 1901 to 1920 ...... 82

5. One-Act Play Premieres Which Were in the Repertoire for Five Years or M o r e ...... 83

6. Long Play Premieres Which Received More Than Fifty Performances From 1901 to 1920 ...... 84

7. Lonq Play Premieres Which Were inthe Repertoire for Five Years or M o r e ...... • 85 8. The Twenty-Five Playwrights of the Comedie- Francaise Whose Plays, Premiering Between 1901 and 1920, Received the Most Performances ...... 94

v i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Rendering for L1 Eniqme (1901) ...... 109

2. Rendering for L*Autre danger (1902) ..... 110

3. Rendering for Le Duel (1905) ...... 112

4. Rendering for Les Marionnettes (1910) ...... 113

5. Production Photo of Act I of La Courtisane (1906) ...... 117

6. Production Photo of Tableau 6 of Don Quichotte (1905) ...... 118

7. Production Photo of Act I of Le Pr^texte (1906) ...... 119

8. Rehearsal Photo of Act III of Le Paon (1904) . 120

9. Production Photo of Le Flibustier (1888) ..... 131

10. Production Photo of Yvonic (1913) ...... 132

11. Production Photo of Act III of Le Foyer (1908) 133

12. Production Photo of Act I of La Marche nuptiale (1913) ...... 134

13. Set Photo of Act I of Le Dedale (1903) ...... 143

14. Set Photo of Act II of Le D^dale (1903) ...... 144

15. Set Photo of Act III of Le D^dale (1903) ..... 145

16. Set Photo of Act V of Le D^dale (1903) ...... 146

17. Production Photo of Act III of Les Deux hommes (1908) ...... 157

18. Production Photo of Act III of Les Affaires .. sont les affaires (1903) ...... 158

vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure Page

19. Production Photo of Act IV of La Courtisane (1906) ...... 160

20. Production Photo of Tableau 4 of Don Quichotte (1905) ...... 162

21. Production Photo of Act I of La Fleur merveilleuse (1910) ...... 163

22. Production Photo of Tableau 1 of ShylocK. ou le marchand de Venise (1905) ...... 167

23. Production Photo of Tableau 2 of Shy1ock. ou le marchand de Venise (1905) ...... 168

24. Rendering for Les Noces d*argent (1917) ...... 170

25. Rendering for Le Gout du vice (1911) ...... 171

26. Production Photo of Act I of Poliche (1906) .. 174

27. Set Photo of Act IV of La Petite amie (1902) . 176

28. Production Photo of Act I of L*Embuscade (1913) ...... 181

29. Production Photo of Att IV of L* Embuscade (1913) ...... 182

30. Production Photo of Act I of Juliette et Roro^o (1920) ...... 184

31. Production Photo of Act III of Juliette et Rom^o (1920) ...... 185

32. Production Photo of Act I of L * Amour M^decin (1920) ...... 187

33. Set Photo of Les Femmes savantes (1914) ...... 188

34. Floor Plan of Act I of La Marquis de Priola .. 195

35. Rendering for Act I of La Marquis de Priola .. 196

36. Set Photo of Act I of La Marquis de Priola ... 197

vii i l i s t OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure Page

37, Floor Plan of Act II of La Marquis de Priola . 198 38, Rendering for Act II of La Marquis de Priola . 199

39, Set Photo of Act II of La Marquis de Priola .. 200

40, Floor Plan of Act III of La Marquis de Priola 201

41, Rendering for Act III of La Marquis de Priola 202

42, Set Photo of Act III of La Marcruis de Priola . 203

43, Rendering and Floor Plan for Act I of L * Amour v e i l l e ...... 207

44, Production Photo of Act I of L * Amour veille .. 208

45, Rendering and Floor Plan of Act II of L*Amour veille ...... 209

46, Rendering and Floor Plan of Act III of L’Amour veille ...... 210 47, Production Photo of Act III of L * Amour veille 211

48, Production Photo of Act IV of L ’Amour veille . 212

49, Set Photo of Act I of Les Soeurs d* amour 215

50. Production Photo of Act I of Les Soeurs d*amour 216

51. Set Photo of Act II of Les Soeurs d*amour 217

52. Floor Plan of Act III of Les Soeurs d*amour .. 218

53. Set Photo ot Act III of Les Soeurs d 'amour ... 219

54. Floor Plan of Act IV of Les Soeurs d*amour 220

55. Rendering for Act IV of Les Soeurs d * amour ... 221

56. Set Photo of Act IV of Les Soeurs d*amour .... 22 2

ix Chapter I INTRODUCTION

The Comedie-Francaise The Coined ie-Francaise vas once described by a loyal

French citizen as an altogether indispensable institution, one "whose disappearance vould be as inconceivable as that of the Array or Navy." 1 Countless others have* with equal pride( attested eloquently to the greatness of its achieve­ ments and its high status of glory In French cultural life.

No institution can consistently live up to the very highest expectations of its constituents and so the Comedie has occasionally disappointed even those most loyal to it, thereby casting a temporary shadow of doubt about its achievements and dimming its temporal glory. Frenchmen themselves are free to subscribe to or refute this admittedly elusivr? quality of greatness — as they have off and on dur­ ing many periods of alternating crisis and calm in the

French national theatre — but the foreigner is obliged to accept a priori the judgements he cannot test or to be per­ verse and reject them. There seems to be no compelling

1 Pierre Brisson, "The Comedie-Francaise," London Mercury. 39(December, 1938), p. 155.

1 2 reason for following the latter course. The Comedie-Fran- caise is "great** because the French people have said that it is so. if not by unanimous ballot, by overwhelming accli­ mation. The question of **greatness,,aside. it is incontro­ vertible that the Comedie-Francaise has been and remains one of the world's most renowned and unique theatrical institu­ tions. By age alone it ranks supreme, for it has retained its autonomy and survived for nearly three hundred years, a record unsurpassed in the history of Western Theatre. Its subsidization by the French government and the prestige and recognition granted it as the national theatre of France have made it the envy of less fortunate nations and aspiring theatre companies. The unsuccessful attempts to emulate it elsewhere merely reaffirm its unique position*

Age. subsidy and official recognition may garner out­ side adulation, but the Com£die-Francaise has achieved pre­ eminence in France largely because of the artistic exper­ tise with which it has fulfilled its committment not only to keep alive but to revitalize constantly the great works of French dramatic literature. With a nucleus of plays dating from its genesis in the Seventeenth Century — the

•Golden Age* of French Theatre — its rich and vast reper­ toire serves the theatre world in much the same manner that the Louvre museum serves the art world and each is repaid 3 with appropriate reverence. But the Comedie must reconcile a dedication to the past with a recognition of the present and somehow function meaningfully in the contemporary artis­ tic milieu. It is certainly a credit to the eclecticism of the Comedie-Francaise that for all of its entrenched classicism, it not only championed the romantic movement in the Nineteenth Century and provided it with one of its bat­ tlefields, but found itself in the Twentieth Century heir to such an apparently strange bedfellow as naturalism.

The Comedie-Francaise has long been noted as an 'actor's theatre.1 This is partly true because the prestige of the institution has depended in large measure upon the artistic excellence of its performing company. It is also due to the fact that the actors themselves have had — and to a some­ what lesser extent still have — a voice in the internal ad­ ministration of the institution. While the French govern­ ment provides the physical theatre, a subsidy and an admin­ istrator-general, the Comedie-Francaise itself is, quite literally, an incorporated body of actors. It is this organizational factor which provides the Comedie with much of its uiqueness among modern theatre companies and is claimed by some to be the source of its strength and durabil­ ity. It is also the source of much of its trouble, for the administration and artistic course of the Comedie-Francaise is determined by more than the collective opinions of its 4

'socletaires,* or senior actors. It depends also upon the

leadership ability and artistic sensibilities of the admin­

istrator-general p its chief executive, and the acceptance by each party of the authority and domain of the other —

the limits of vhich are not alvays carefully delineated.

The direction of the affairs of the company, however, is

determined by other forces as veil, including the body of

customs and traditions vhich frequently determine not only

vhat is to be done but the very manner in vhich it is to be

done. These customs and traditions are sometimes held to

be as binding as legislation, at least partially because

the theatre public insists that it be so. The French

people, regardless of class, confirmed in their belief that

the Comedie is, after all, their theatre, have historically exerted an influence that neither the acting company nor the

current adminstrator could safely ignore.

As a result of these frequently conflicting forces striving to determine the destiny of the National Theatre, the Comedie-Francaise has had to veather many a jurisdic­ tional storm. In fact, it may be that one of its claims to uniqueness is the number of crises it has faced in its long chronology and it chief claim to greatness the mere fact that it has managed to survive at all. There is an oft-quoted statement attributed to Paul Lafitte during one of the group's more violent upheavals that sums it up sue- 5 cinctlyi "Is the Comedie in peril? Assuming that it is, contemporaries have assured us that this has been so for two centuries. One might even say that crisis is its nor­ mal state.** ^

Scene Design and the Comedie-Francaise

Jules Claretie, one-time administrator-general of the

Comedie-Francaise, asserted that any theatrical institu­ tion that met the tests and survived the attacks of more than tvo hundred years merits a certain amount of respect and admiration. ^ It is certainly in this spirit that the present study endeavors to focus on one of the Comedie*s less heralded aspects during a period that can hardly be identified as one of its most glorious. Scenic design ac­ tivity at the Comedie-Francaise is of interest because it is the Comedie-Francaise, and the early part of the Twen­ tieth Century was an important period in the history of scenic art. The seeds of revolution were sown early in the century by Adolph Appla and Gordon Craig, the modern the­ atre's most vaunted theorists, and their imitators and successors. The innovations in scene design brought to light in the first tvo decades and lumped under the head-

2 e.g. Frederick Morton, **The National Theatres of France," Theatre Arts. 21(September, 1938), p. 718.

^ Jules Claretie, “Comedie-Francaise,H Fortnightly. 79(June, 1906), p. 1153. 6

ing of the "New Stagecraft," occupied the attention of the critics and students of such phenomena both at the time the events took place and in the years to follow. Considerably

less attention has been devoted tc the more conventional

theatre activity which not only could be found side by side with the new experiments but, of course, definitely pre­ dominated quantitatively. The Comedie-Francaise was not

part of the 'new movement,* but it was part of the period and part of the total theatrical milieu and therefore sub­

ject to the pressures generated by the forces of change.

And it is of particular interest because it provides an op­ portunity to study scene design activity at a single the­ atre unit with a sufficient volume of production, reason­ able continuity of administration, adequate historic duration (most of the groups operating at the time no longer exist) and useful extant records,' not only to establish a picture of the established stage practices which were the target of the innovators, but to trace the gradual amelior­ ation of the new and seemingly radical ideas by an older and more reactionary theatre group.-

The Comedie-Francaise is best known for its classic

repertoire, but it has by no means limited itself to the

production of such works. It functions as a contemporary theatre as well and a study of scene design practices during a given period of time must necessarily concentrate on those 7 productions either new to the repertoire (premieres) or newly mounted* considering the older plays and their set­ tings only in so far as they manifested an influence over the new* It is the purpose of this study to analyze the scene designs executed for new productions at the Comedie-

Francaise during the twenty year period from 1901 to 1920 to ascertain the major physical and visual characteristics of the scenery and to consider the probable internal and external influences vhich helped to determine its form and style.

Previous Related Studies

The mounting of plays from the classic repertoire of the Comedie was examined in some detail by Jacques Amavon in four small volumes dealing with four Moliere works. 4

No similar work has been done with the modern repertoire.

Books dealing with French scene design* such as the recently published Le Decor de Theatre de 1870 a 1914. by Denis

Bablet* ® give scant attention to the designs executed for the Comedie* primarily because it was not associated in any way with the 'new movement.*

4 See Jacques Arnavon* L*Interpretation de la Cornedie- Classlquei Le Malade Imagineire (Paris. Librairie Plon. 1938^1 L'Ecole des femmes (Paris. Librairie Plon, 1936)t Le Misanthrope (Paris. Librairie Plon* 1914 and 1930)t and Don Juan (Copenhagen* Gyldendal* 1947),

5 Denis Bahlet* Le Decor de Theatre de 1870 a 1914 (Paris* Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1965). 8

Except for literary studies of the works of either prominent or merely prolific French playwrights or isolated papers on such important French theatrical personages as

Gaston Baty, Louis Jouvet or Andre Antoine, very little research has been conducted in American universities on the French theatre in general and virtually none in the area of staging or scene design. Walden Philip Boyle presented an MA thesis at Cornell in 1940 on the "Decor of the French

Symbolist Theatre and Its Influences." Covering the period of the 1890*s, it Is the only thesis discovered vhich deals specifically with French scene design. No dissertation has been written on the Comedie-Francaise though super­ ficial reference to it can be found in several papers deal­ ing with national theatres and in Stephen Murphy Archer's doctoral dissertation on **Visiting French Repertory Companies in New York, 1900 to March, 1964** (University of Illinois,

1964). None of these contain significant reference to scene design. Two dissertations of parallel activity in the New York theatre are the closest cognate studiesi

Wendell Cole's "Scenery on the New York Stage 1900 to 1920"

(Stanford, 1951), and Richard Lee Arnold's "The Changing

Concepts of Realism in Scenery on the New York Stage, 1900 to 1915"(Northwestern, 1962). Isolated references to French scene design can be found, of course, in theses dealing generally with the "New Stagecraft," but these do not con­ sider the kind of work being done at the Comedie-Francaise 9 or most of the other major Parisian theatres.

The Com^die-Francaise itself, by virtue of its tremen­ dous stature, is very veil documented in French publications.

Works proliferate which deal with everything from the history of the 'House of Moli^re* through three centuries of activity to literary and anecdotal portraitures of the leading per­ sonalities that have been associated with it. Histories, calendars of events, memoires and critical essays focus on those aspects of the Comedie vhich have made it most unique, famous or notorious. Except for the Arnavon series, no French book has dealt specifically with staging or scene de­ sign at the Comedie-Francaise during the period 1901 to 1920. An article by Jean Valmy-Bayse entitled "les Decors de la

Comedie-Francaise," conspicuously in a class by itself, discussed the scenic renovation of 1936.

Primary Sources

La Comedie-Francaise 1901 - 1926. edited by A. Joan- y nides, is an invaluable source of titles, authors, dates and various types of statistical production data. It does not, unfortunately, document the contributions of the

® Jean Valmy-Bayse, "Les Decors de la Comedie-Francaise," b'Art et les Artistes. 166(April, 1936), pp. 240-244.

^ A, Joannides, La Comedie-Francaise 1901 - 1926 (Paris* Plon-Nourrit et C^e , 1902-27T^ (10 volumes) 10 scenic artists. In addition to the Joannides tables, four major types of primary materials have been utilized in this studyi scenic inventory entries, actual scene designs, floor plans and production photos.

The "Livre des Cintriers," microfilmed at the Comedie, is a 300 page, hand-written document which details the fly­ ing requirements for the productions in the repertoire. Be­ gun in 1901, it covers about twenty-five years and includes references to 353 productions, twenty-four of which were not really plays but poems, eulogies, dedications, etc. Ex­ cluding the latter, the "Livre des Cintriers? covers ninety per cent of the 362 plays presented between 1901 and 1920, eighty-seven per cent of the 179 play premieres. One can only speculate on the reasons why such an otherwise complete listing omits certain plays. More than half of the omissions are from the first three years of the record and Blight be ascribed to over-sight. Several of the plays are one-acts and probably were staged within 'Existing units — but this was true of many of the plays that are listed. It is proba­ ble that entries in the inventory book were not always made immediately on the occasion of the first appearance of the plays and since most of these (twenty out of twenty-three) did not survive more than one or two seasons in the reper­ toire, no one bothered to make the entry. The most regret­ table omissions are the Shakespearean spectacles, Macbeth

(which premiered in 1914), and Shvlock. ou le marchand de 11

Venise (1905) and Renard's Le Plaisir de rompre. which appeared sporadically through twelve seasons from 1906 to

1920, Also omitted was Porto-Riche*s Le Passe, which barely survived beyond a single season but received a healthy (for the Comedie) run of forty performances in 1902. The **Maquettes de Decors,** also microfilmed at the

Comedie, provides scene design plates for twenty-two pre­ miere productions, ten plays from the classical repertoire

(Moliere, Racine, Corneille, Regnard, Marivaux and Musset), and sixteen plays from the non-classical or 'modern* reper­ toire (those plays which were part of the repertoire in 1901 but not classical — primarily Nineteenth Century additions) for the period from 1901 to 1920. While the total number of premiere productions represented is disappointingly small, compared to the total output of the Comedie*s de­ signers during these years, the "Maquettes de Decors** con­ tains sketches, pattern-elevations and floor plans which not only reveal general practice but help to provide an in-depth view of particular productions. Additional floor plans were discovered in the office of the Chief Machinist at the Comedie and microfilmed in

1966. This untitled collection (referred to in this study simply as "Plans**) includes materials relating to twenty of the plays which premiered from 1901 to 1920 but some of the entries are for later mountings, not for the actual premiere. 12

Le Theatre and Comoedia-Illustre magazines are the

sources of production photographs of 126 of the plays in

the repertoire during the period studied* Twelve of these

are for the non-classical or ’modern* repertoire* thirteen

for the classical* L*Illustration magazine* primarily de­ voted to the publication of the playscripts* provides photo­ graphic evidence for fifty productions* Almost all of these are covered in Le Theatre and Comoedia-Illustre as well* but

L*Illustration supplies photos of many individual settings not illustrated in the others* Photographic evidence exists* then* for about sixty per cent of the premiere productions at the Comedie* The percentage is lower than might be desired because all three magazines ceased publication during the war years* 1915 to 1918* But even during these years the loss of evidence is not great* There was a definite cut-back in the production of new full-length plays by the

Comedie during the war with only two in 1915* two in 1916 and three in 1918* compared to the usual five or six per year over the twenty year period. One-act play production did not diminish during the war but most of these plays were not newly designed but were presented with existing scenery*

In fact* the majority of Le Theatre omissions in the years before and after the war were of one-act plays* relatively few of which were freshly mounted* The photographic evidence, therefore* is more adequate than might first appear to be the case. It provides reference to more than 200 individual 13 settings for premiere productions during the period from

1901 to 1920.

Period Determinants

The precise inclusive dates for the study vere largely determined by the primary source materials. The "Livre des

Cintriers** was begun in 1901 and continued until approx­ imately 1926 vhen a nev book was initiated. There are occasional references dated later than 1926, mostly margin­ al notes relating to reprises and renovation of existing sets, but no consistency of entry. The photographic evi­ dence, hovever, terminates earlier. The most important source, Le Theatre, ceased publication in 1920 and though superseded by Comoedla-Illustre. neither the latter nor

L*Illustration carry us further than 1921 in terms of visual evidence. There is only one scene design print from the library of the Comedie-Francaise included in the "Maquett de Decors** from the period 1921 to 1925 and it is not until

1930 that there is again a substantial number of prints for analysis. In addition, the records that reveal the day by day operation of the repertoire, reported by Alexandre

Joannides, do not commence until 1901 and cease in 1926.

The period could not, then, be safely extended in either direction.

There is, hovever, an historical rationale for the period perimeters as veil. The period begins at the opening of the Twentieth Century, admittedly an arbitrary categorical division but one frequently employed by scholars when referring to theatrical period and decidedly appropri­ ate in reference to scenic design, for the dynamic **New

Movement” or "New Stagecraft* was a Twentieth Century phenomenon. The Century's beginning was, moreover, the date of an event important in the history of the Comedie-Francaise the destruction by fire of its stage in 1900 and the re­ opening of the theatre with a reconstructed stage in 1901.

The termination of the period in 1920 coincides roughly with the first discernible uses of "Nev M ovement" techniques in the painting of the scenery and the mounting of produc­ tions at the Comedie.

Organization of the Study

The study vhich follows is organized topically, not chronologically, with Chapters II through VI dealing with separate types of conditioning factors. Chapter II, after dipping briefly into the last decades of the Nineteenth

Century to cite significant scene design innovations, surveys the major Parisian theatrical events of the period in vhich some aspect of decor played a role and establishes the historical context. Chapter III examines in a basic but not exhaustive way the predisposing backstage factors vhich influenced the design production, with emphasis 15

upon the physical characteristics of the stage of the

Theatre-Francais in 1901 and following and the major resi­

dent and free-lance scenic artists associated with the

Comedie during the twenty year period. The fourth chapter focuses on the demands made upon

the designers and technicians by the nature and scope of a vast repertoire, certainly one of the most distinguishing

features of the French National Theatre. Consideration is

given to the place of premieres in the total repertorial

scheme, the nature of the new plays and the general pro­

duction patterns.

Nineteenth Century repertory companies were frequently

"branded** because of the use of stock scenery in rather

constant repetition and one of the aspects of the current

study has been the determination of the extent to which

such units, referred to as "repertoire" units at the

Comedie, were utilized in the mounting of new productions, and the frequency with which complete settings were re­ used in productions for which they were not specifically designed. This information, together with some general conclusions about the handling of scenery, is the subject of Chapter V.

Its vaunted neo-classic traditions notwithstanding, the prevailing scenic style for premieres at the Comedie from 1901 to 1920 was realism. The specific nature of this realistic approach and the gradual amelioration of 16

stylistic tendencies associated with the advent of the

"New Movement" in stagecraft* is one of the subjects

covered in Chapter VI. The painter-decorators affiliated with the Comedie-

Prancaise utilised two primary media in the creation of their decorsi the flat* two-dimensional surfaces which they expertly covered with painted detail* and the stage space they sculpted by the deployment of these painted planes. General observations concerning the resulting scenic composition are also found in Chapter VI. While the material in all chapters is substantiated by consistent factual and pictorial documentation* Chapter

VII provides something of a synthesis with a comprehen­ sive documentation of evidence for three representative productions* One determinant for inclusion in this sec­ tion was the completeness of the available pictorial record for a given production* but the three were chosen to cover the chronological span of the period and illustrate the precepts relative to forms, styles and compositional qual­ ities discussed in Chapters V and VI. The productions selected arei

La Marquis de Priola. by Henri Lavedan, which premiered in February* 1902.

L*Amour veille, by Caillavet and Flers* which premiered in October* 1907. 17

Leg Soeurs d*amour, by Henri Bataille, which premiered in April, 1919,

The over-all conclusions of the study are summarized in Chapter VIII. Chapter II

SCENE DESIGN AND THE PARISIAN THEATRE, 1901 - 1920

The French Contribution to the "New Movement" As vas true elsewhere in Europe the most heralded the­

atrical events in France during the first two decades of the

Twentieth Century were intrinsically related to staging and decor* The activities which guaranteed her a place in the so called **New Movement," however, were confined to a very

snail number of theatres and the total output, though impor­

tant, was hardly prodigous*

France has curiously lagged behind Germany and Russia, even behind the United States, in adopting progressive methods* The French axiom that all important art developments have their beginnings in France, and the consequent disinclination to adopt any innovation from foreign sources, have militated against acceptance (except, in rare in­ dividual cases) of the ideas of Craig, Appia, Fuchs, Meyerhold and other leaders* The exceptions are Jacques Copeau and Louis Jouvet| otherwise there is very little to prove today [1927 3 that France has profited profoundly by the march of the modern spirit in the theatre* 1

Cheney's appraisal overlooks the work of some of the other French innovators but certainly applies as an over-

1 Sheldon Cheney, Stage Decoration (New Yorki The John Day Company, 1927), p* 91.

18 19 view of Parisian stage activity early in the century, Hiram

Modervell barely mentions France in his long, 1914 treatise,

The Theatre of Today, except to point out that Jacques

Rouche, whose work ve shall consider momentarily, was

"freely hated, when he was not sneered at" for his frank

"addiction" to German scenery. 2 If his* "addiction" * was frank, it was also singular, for the German progress in the machinery of the theatre was ignored fully as much as its contribution to aesthetics. In 1902, Georges Bourdon, in an

English article comparing the staging in French and English theatres, lamented the fact that the French had muffed two fine opportunities to build and equip 'modern* stages when it was obliged, with government funds, to replace both the Opera Comique and Comedie-Francaise stages which had been destroyed by fire,^ Fifteen years later the picture had not changed appreciably and it was Marc Henry's turn to lament that*

At the present time, no great Parisian theatre, even among those subsidized by government, owns a revolving stage, superposed hydraulic stage, a panoramic stage, or a rational lighting system.

2 Hiram Kelly Moderwell, The Theatre of Today (New Yorki John Lane Company, 1914), p,77.

3 Georqes Bourdon, "Staging in the French and English Tneatre," Fortnightly Review, 77(January 1, 1902) p, 161, 20

We have not learned to reckon at their real value the various elements of technical collaboration. ^

Fuerst and Hume# in their assessment of Twentieth Century scene design, not only devote precious little space to a consideration of things French, but subject the few major events they treat (Antoine# the Vieux-Columbier# the Russian

Ballet) to a barrage of criticism, ^ James Laver tends in the same direction# though he does give Paul Fort and the

French symbolist theatre of the 1890's a pat on the back for being on the right track. 6

Siqnificantly, French critics such as Leon Moussinac#

Andr^ Boll and Raymond Cogniat# close observors of the scene, have# in their various books on the state of staae decor in

France, treated their compatriots more sympathetically and ascribed a somewhat more substantial position for them in the "New MovementThere are reasons for this other than nationalistic fervor, the primary one being the role they are willing to grant the painter in the theatre and their resulting disagreement with foreign critics over what inno-

^ Marc Henry# "The Future of the French Stage,** The Living Age. 299(October 12, 1918), p.87.

5 Walter Rene Fuerst and Samuel J. Hume, XXth Century Stage Decoration (London# Alfred A, Knopf# 1928). (2_volumes).

® James Laver# "Continental Designers in the Theatre,** in Design in the Theatre, edited by Geoffrey Holme (London, The Studio Limited, 1927)# p.18. 21

vafcions are properly considered a part of the Stage­

craft," Consequently, while they appropriately place the

genesis of their new painterly movement in the last years of

the Nineteenth Century and the early years of the Twentieth,

they wax most enthusiastic about the work of the 1920*s and

1930*s. Their focus beyond the arbitrary limits of this

study underlines, for us, a most important point* namely,

that a substantial amount of the activity upon which we

might predicate the French role in the evolution of modern

staging took place either before 1900 or after 1920, An­

toine was still very much at work in Paris, first at the

Theatre Antoine and later at the Odeon, but his major influ­

ence was a fait accompli by 1900 and his Theatre Libre had

run its course. The * symbolist* theatre of the nineties had also passed from the scene -- almost, as we shall see,

unnoticed. Though Louis Jouvet enjoyed a share of the suc­

cess associated with Copeau's Theatre du Vieux Colombier

during the teens, the 'supermen* that dominated the French

staqe after 1920 (Jouvet, Charles Dullin, Gaston Baty and

Georges Pitoeff) had not yet settled into their own theatres and bequn to wield their considerable influence. The contri­

butions of these extraordinary producers to the revitaliza­ tion of the mise-en-scene would earn them ample respect and a firm position of prominence in the French theatre. But not by 1920. The formation of their famous 'Cartel,* sym­

bolic of their domination of theatrical Paris, did not 22 occur until 1927* 7 Finally, the Swedish Ballet, which contributed to a big upswing in the number of non-theatrical, native French painters attracted to theatre work (Bonnard,

Leger, Jean Hugo, etc,) did not burst forth in Paris until late in 1920. While the above events did not occur between 1901 and

1920, the period was not totally devoid of important scenic events. It should be underlined, however, that the latter were unique to the period, not representative of it. If it is generally misleading to characterize a period in terms of those pivotal events which, by their very nature, are atypi­ cal, it is particularly so relative to the French stage durinq the years 1901 to 1920. What was truly character­ istic of the stage was what was most conventional, the con­ tinuation of Nineteenth Century scenic practices in which the flat, two-dimensional painted perspective back cloth played a major role. For the newer plays the box set, too, was a common-place feature, frequently with a myriad of painted detail rendered by the same men who were the masters of the backdrop. Antoine's experiments with naturalism at

It is of special interest here that the members of the •Cartel* were invited in 1936 by Edwourd Boudet, newly ap­ pointed administrator of the Com^die-Francaise, to help rejuvenate the National Theatre as they had helped to re­ juvenate the Parisian theatre generally, an invitation to which all but Pitoeff eventually responded. Jacques Copeau answered the c&ll as well. 23 the Theatre Libre were not imitated in total, but realistic impulses were evident everywhere, reqardless of how incon­ gruously or unimaginatively applied.

Forces antagonistic to this stage conventionality were already at work before the advent of the Twentieth Century.

As early as 1B90 Paul Fort founded a group called the

Theatre Mixte (which, after two performances, became the Theatre d ’Art), dedicated to countering the naturalistic movement and preserving a place in the theatre for ’artists* and ’poets* as opposed to the ’craftsmen* of the Antoine school.

Scenery was to be evocative, rather than descrip­ tive* in fact, all the principles which the Russians have since worked out, and which the Germans have applied, sometimes crudely, but with power and knowledge, had already been advocated by Fort and his friends; simplification of decora­ tion, the choice, for each scene, of the plastic elements necessary to create its appropriate atmo­ sphere; stylization, complete harmony between scenery and costumes, and the abondonment of the perspective back cloth. ®

Fort identified with a qroup of symbolist poets who were in­ terested in writing for the staqe and invited easel painters inexperienced in the ways of the theatre to provide the de­ cor for his productions. As a matter of fact. Fort himself was unfamiliar with the theatre profession and as a result

® Laver, page 16* 24 abdicated the leadership of his new movement to Lugne-Poe, who, in 18 92, renamed the group the Theatre de 1*Oeuvre and continued in the tradition Fort had established, begin­ ning with a symbolistic production of Maeterlinck's Pellea s et Melisande with decor by Paul Voegler. According to

Lugne-Poe's biographer, the fledgling group was constantly in financial difficulty but nevertheless managed to struggle along for seven more years experimenting vith decor and staging and earning for themselves a small and relatively unnoticed place in the modern theatre, ^ By 1899, Lugn^-

Poe himself concluded that his theatre had spent itself and that symbolism, as a force is the theatre, had wanedi

Although Lugne-Poe always remained receptive to works of poetic value, his rupture with the Symbolists in 1897 indicated that he knew the movement had exhausted itself. By 1899 he felt that the Theatre de 1*Oeuvre had served its pur­ pose and should withdraw from the dramatic picture. Had not Antoine's experimental venture, the Theatre Libre, lasted only seven years? Moreover, Luqne' espousal of causes that to him were vital and to the public at large were the epitome of the radical won him many enemies and made it increas­ ingly difficult for the theatre to carry on finan­ cially. Nor did there appear any new generation ready to renew the once seething turmoil of the 1890's. 10

^ Gertrude R, Jasper, Adventure in the Theatre< Lugne- Poe and the Theatre de 1*Oeuvre to 1899 (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1947,

Ibid., page xi. 25

Fort's and Lugne-Poe*s efforts tend to take on more significance in retrospect than was evident at the time* It constituted a very small drop in the huge bucket of Parisian stage activity* The productions did not enjoy long runs

(Pelleas et Melisande* for example, was performed only once) and the decors are known only through eye-witness accounts for no pictorial evidence is known to be extant. In fact, the contemporary journals and magazines apparently qave little space.to these painters and actors who were striving to give the theatre a new aesthetic. ** At the Paris ex­ position of 1900 there was a considerable exhibition of

French scene design but not even a passing glance in the direction of the Symbolists. In Bourdon's essay on the comparison between the English and French approach to stag­ ing, written in 1902, he chides the French for their lack of invention, either unaware or unimpressed by the work of

Fort and his colleagues. 1 3 If they affected the scenic practice at any of the major theatres of Paris at the time such influence is certainly indiscernible. Yet, the influ-

Walden Philip Boyle, The Decor of the French Symbolist Theatre and Its Influence, Unpublished MA Thesis (Cornell University^ 1940), page 39. ^ M. Charles Reynaud, Husee Retrospectif de la Classe 18 — Theatre — A L*Exposition Universelle Internationale de 1900 A Paris (St. Cloud, no publication date). 13 Bourdon* 26

ence of the Theatre d*Art and Theatre de 1*Oeuvre, though

perhaps dormant for a time, was eventually to be felt.

Lugne-Poe did not retire from the theatre but remained as­

sociated with 1 * Oeuvre until 1929. He became more eclectic

in his approach, adapting the various aspects of the mise-

en-scene to the requirements of the particular play on

which he was working — in itself a major improvement on

contemporary practice. In 1905, for instance, he presented

Gorki's Lower Depths with an almost exact duplication of

Stanislavski's famous epitome of naturalism for the Moscow

production of the play. In 1912, he reverted again to the

symbolistic impulse in the production of Claudel's L 1Annonce

faite a Marie with evocative impressionistic settings which were a high-point of achievement in the "New Movement" and a true amelioration of the aesthetic principles of Messres.

Appia and Craig — to say nothing of Fort and early Lugne-Poe.

In fact, James R. Thompson, in his dissertation,"Twentieth

Century Scene Design — Its History and Stylistic Origins," asserts that the sources of the "New Stagecraft's" integrated, poetic design are not to be found in Wagner and Appia as usually maintained, but in the French Symbolists of the

1890's. 14 This view is supported by Stanislavski's con­ fession of indebtedness to the French experiments prior to

14 James R. Thompson, "Twentieth Century Scene Design — Its History and Stylistic Origins," Unpublished PhD Disser­ tation (University of Minnesota, 1957), page 19. his founding of the Moscow Art Theatre in 1898 15 (he was

in attendance, for example, at the performance of Pell^as

et Melisande). Stanislavski's contribution to the Symbo­

list movement, his famous production of Maeterlinck's Blue

Bird, was reproduced in Paris in 1911 and exerted a strong

influence on French scene design. It was, really, the in­ fluence of Fort, Lugne-Poe and the French Symbolist theatre reappearing in Paris by way of Moscow. This time, of course,

it was in a major production in a major theatre.

The Theatre de l'Oeuvre and its predecessor inaugurated a policy which was to be repeated again and again in the

French theatre, that of seeking designers of scenery out­ side the ranks of the professional theatrical painter-dec- orators. Artists such as Bonnard, Redon, Roussel, Toulouse-

Lautrec, Vuillard and Denis responded to the challenge and became the first in a long line of easel painters to work for the French stage. The Symbolist Movement was, of course, short-lived, and the artists returned to their non­ theatrical work, but they would return again under Jacques

Rouche, under Diaqhilev and the Russian Ballet, under the auspices of the Swedish Ballet and even, though to a very minor degree, at the august Coinedie-Francaise. The contri­ butions of these outsiders to a true theatrical aesthetic may be dubious, in spite of Cogniat's insistence that the

See Laver, pages IS and 19,- 28 painter is of absolutely primary importance not only in the

"New Movement" but in the production of any given piecei however, they brought with them some of the greater freedom enjoyed outside the tight discipline of the theatre and if they did not manage to jolt completely the complacency of the conventional practitioners they must as least have contributed to an increasing awareness of new possibilities in scene painting.

With the demise of the Theatre de l*Oeuvre as a haven for symbolistic experimentation in 1899, the Parisian the­ atre, undaunted by the valiant efforts of Lugne-Poe, et al, continued with productions well-cast in the traditional modes. Then, beginning in 1909, a series of events occur­ red which exerted a dynamic and long-lasting influence not only on the French theatre but indirectly on foreign theatre as wellt

1909i Inaugural season of the Russian Ballet in Paris.

I9l0i Publication of L*Art Th^atrale Moderne and the establishment of the Theatre des Arts by Jacques Rouche. 1911i Production of L*Oiseau bleu at the Theatre R^jane,

1912i Lugne-Poe*s l»Annonce faite a Marie.

1913i Establishment of the Theatre du Vieux Colombier by Jacques Copeau with Louis Jouvet. 29

The Russian Ballet Unquestionably the biggest splash during these years

was that caused by the arrival of the Russian Ballet. Serge

Diaghilev, the impressario, installed his troupe in Paris as

a virtually annual fixture from 1909 until his death in

1929. The ballet itself was of a superior quality, but

theatre and art critics -- and the public at large — were

principally overwhelmed by the rich opulence of the decors.

Diaqhilev had attracted a group of Russian painters to work

with him in the service of the ballet theatre and their ap­

proach to scene painting was fresh and exciting. The set­

tings reflected an unparalleled license in the use of line and color with vivid, exotic motifs partially inspired by

Russian folk art and Oriental models. Of the various artists

who worked for Diaghilev, the most famous were Leon Bakst

and Alexandre Benois but several others, Larionov, Gontcha-

rova and Barthe achieved considerable eminence as well. Not

all of these artists utilized the same techniques by any

means, but they shared the impulse for great freedom, dyna­

mic, seeminqly vibrating back-cloths, rich, dominating colors

and exotic imagery. Moreover, the audiences became accus­

tomed at the ballet not only to experience something not offered them in the stupifying conformity of the stage prac­

tice elsewhere in Paris, but something new and exciting at each successive ballet. The unexpected became the rulej 30

surprise became an end in itself.

Several factors emerge in a consideration of the work

of the Russian Ballet in Paris. The ballets, with no small

amount of the credit going to the designers, were a tremen­ dous success and attracted droves of spectators. With al­

ternating seasons between the Opera and the Theatre Munici­

pal du Chatelet, people were being exposed to a nev free­

dom of expression in scenery, people who would never have

found their way into the little theatres of Lugne-Poe or

Jacques Rouch4. There is always a tendency to more readily accept something done with great flamboyance, expense and

seeming permanence than something attempted by a small but sealous group of *radicals* on a shoe-string budget. Cog- niat credits the Russians with awakening a blastf public, 17 of forcing the aristocrats and snobs to change camps.

Diaghilev, in short, made exciting innovation fashionable.

But the type of innovation offered had little to do with the intentions of men like Appia and Craig.

The Russian Ballet, then, served the cause of the "New

Movement" in stagecraft by introducing innovation onto the major stages of Paris. But this was accomplished without alteration of the basic form of scenery. That remained, as

^ Cogniat, page 31.

Cogniat, page 30. 31

It had for centuries* essentially a matter of drops and vings* much to the chagrin of the advocates of a real scenic revolution*

To them [the RussiansJ stage decoration meant a painted cloth* and costumes to matchf and although their triumphs vere many* they do not belong to the main trend of the art of the theatre* as it has become apparent during the last fev years. Bakst was the gorgeous sunset of scene-painting. Xn his day he vas hailed as an innovatori but he vas not the beginning of anything. He was the end of a three-hundred years* process* the culmin­ ation of the theatre of the Bibienas, of de Lou- therbourg and Clarkson Stanfield.

Simplicity and suggestion vere never characteristic of the

Russian approach and vhile the painted perspective of a

Bakst or Benois was as dissimilar to the traditional archi­ tectural representations as champagne is to milk* the drop and wing setting vas never the less used unsparingly at the very time that artists of the **Nev Movement** vere hoping to abolish it for all time. Fuerst and Hume complain of the falseness of painted features such as staircases to which the performers are related but vhich they obviously cannot use and conclude that the sketches by Bakst* Benois and the others can be appreciated more in reproductions than in actualityi

It often happens* in the case of such settings as these* that ve see charming creations conceived

Laver** page 20. 32

with refined taste, and full of beautiful colour, but we can appreciate them only so long as we do not consider them as staqe decorations intended for the theatre. From the point of view of the theatre, they will only offer us either decora­ tive panels, enlarged out of all measure, or merely immense posters.

The retrospective judgements of a Fuerst or Hume, however

justified by their philosophy of staging, do not alter the

fact that these settings were very well received as an inte­ gral part of the live performance by the people in atten­ dance. This was due largely to the fact that the public was very familiar with the use of two-dimensional drops and accepted them far less questioningly than students of a

••New MovementAlso involved, though, is the appropriate­ ness of the approach for ballet as opposed to the drama.

One wonders if the public would have been as ready to accept ? o the “bigness, voluptuousness and lusciousness'* of the

Russian scenery if it had been applied initially to drama rather than dance. Host critics would agree that visual stimuli occupy a position of relatively greater importance in a non-verbal medium. There is less danger of interfer­ ence with the sense or meaning of the piece performed and the greater abstraction or style of the movement and the

19 Fuerst and Hume, page 75,

Cheney, page 50. 33 inclusion of music not only permit but virtually demand a freet unlicensed approach. Cheney asserts that ballet and its decor "aims at intoxication of the senses....with the intellect and all that addresses it stilled." 21 A Intoxi­ cation seems a particularly fitting concept in connection with the effect of some of the designs created by Bakst.

Benois and the others for the ballet stage.

Whether the work of the Russian Ballet artists is con­ sidered the pinnacle of achievement in an out-moded form of stage decoration, as many mNew Stagecraft •• advocates have maintained, or as the point of departure for an aesthetic revolution, as Cogniat insists, ^ it undeniably affected the future of French scene design. Whatever the case else­ where , the French ascribed a position of importance to its scene painters and it vas natural that whatever changes vere to occur would occur in the form of an increasing freedom in the application of paint to the familiar forms rather than in a total denial of them. Expressed another way, the

Russian manifesto, if ve may call it that, called for a liberation of the scene painter, not his elimination. It must be remembered that many of Craig*s ideas were virtually beyond realization and the revolution he called for too re-

21 Cheney, page 49. 22 Cogniat, page 31. 34

pugnant for the general practitioner. A more gradual evolu­

tion of change vas feasible and the Russian Ballet, for all

of its excesses, played a major role in this evolution. In

fact, after the First World War, when theatres other than

*art* theatres vere beginning to respond to a *renaissance*

of decor, Diaghilev continued to set the pace vith the en­ gagement of French painters such as Picasso and Derain.

Their work vas, in a sense, part of a continuum set in mo­

tion by the Russian designers. It vas clearly a case of the graphic arts transferred to the stage and Fuerst and Hume, among others, rightly concluded that "the changes in style to vhich the painted stage decoration has been forced to submit during the last twenty years, do not seem to have added any nev element to scenic organisation as we under- 23 stand it.** Never the less, Picasso*s contributions to such worXs as Parade (1917) and Le Tricorne (1919) attest to the continuation of the evolution, for simplicity and subdued impression replaced the exaggeration and opulence of the earlier ballets.

Jacques Rouche and the Theatre des Arts

One of the first men vho hastened to point out that the collaboration between Diaghilev and artists liXe BaKst and

Benois did not alone constitute a theatrical reformation

23 Fuerst and Hume, page 74. 35 was Jacques Rouche. After a tour of several European coun­ tries, Rouche. who is generally credited with introducing the **N ew Movement* in France, collected his thouqhts and summarized his readings in a 1910 book entitled L'Art The- atrale Moderne. It was the first work to attempt a popu­ larization in France of the theories of Appia and Craig.

Appia*s first work, Die Musik und die Inszenierunq had appeared in 1899* Craig's first brouchure, On the Art of the Theatre, in 1905* but neither had been translated into

French. Rouche*s book, then, served the purpose of intro­ ducing these revolutionary ideas on a new theatre aesthetic to the French public and, more importantly, to workers in the theatre. Besides chapters dealing with the two major theorists, the book includes consideration of some of the work beinq done at the 'art' theatres in Munich and Moscow, including the famous Blue Bird production which would ap­ pear on the Paris scene the following year. Rouche was quite impressed, among other things, with the development of the sky dome and the Fortuny lighting system as a means for abolishing the hated sky-borders from the stage. Per­ haps no other single element so magnified the artificiality of traditional scenic practice as the means employed to mask the flies and stage wings with sky, foliage, rock and other arbitrary and hackneyed border and wing units.

Rouche*s voice was in chorus with virtually every other 36

critic in advocating the elimination of the *bandes d'air*

— units very much in evidence on the stage of the Comedie-

Francaise. In his introduction, Rouche argues pursuasively that

each play must be permitted to have its own life and each

director the perogative to select the approach most suited

to a given piece. He chides other reformers for applying too rigid a discipline and pays tribute to the realistic

decor as appropriate and desirable for certain plays. For other vorks, however, he recognized that literal reconstruc­

tion of the past with historical precision was quite futile

and out of place. Asking for retention only of decorative elements truly indispensable for comprehension, he never­

theless was sensitive to the Parisian situation and paid

his respects to the decorator-painters and the scenic beau­

ty they had bequeathed the stage. He fully realized that

the new ideas could not completely supplant the status quo

but that change would come gradually as the painters accep­

ted the new ideas and made modest efforts to revitalize

their work, L*Art Theatrale Moderne makes definitely clear

that while Rouche accepted and wished to propagandize in

favor of the new principles expounded by Appia and Craig, he felt that in France these principles would undoubtedly differ in application from other countries. He was, in

short, an eminently practical reformer, Rouche further demonstrated his practicality by founding a new theatre group called the Theatre des Arts,

dedicated to the introduction of scenic harmony and styli­

zation. Opened in 1910, it immediately accomplished what

its predecessors in the 1890*8 could not — it attracted

attention — particularly from those with a vested inter­

est in the arrival of an *art* theatre, the art critics and magazines. LiKe Fort and Lugne-Poe, one of Rouche*s major accomplishments in his venture was the attraction of of new painters to work on the decors in preference to the professionals working the normal circuit of theatres.

Notable among these were Maxine Dethomas, Jacques Dresa and Rene Piot, all of whom soon became the 'darlings* of the aforementioned art magazines, a factor which greatly increased their influence. Dethomas* work, particularly, characterized the decor at the Theatre des Arts. It was basically a painterly approach, but not self-consciously so, and the key-note was simplicity. Textures were subdued if not eliminated and the heavily outlined designs are somewhat reminiscent of the poster art of Lautrec. This is well evidenced in this work for Le Carnaval des Enfants, probably his most famous work. Symbolism and abstraction have not taken over, for a high degree of representational- ism remains, but the design is a tasteful reduction to es­ sentials. As a matter of fact, the sketches themselves seem to reflect more actual stylization than the settings, as a comparison of production photographs and renderings 38 demonstrates• Cogniat*s contention that Dethomas* work at the Theatre des Arts was amonq the "noblest and richest" in modern design 24 is exaggeration difficult to support, but it does seem that Dethomas deserves to share with Copeau part of the credit for diminishing the dominance of the setting and placing the action of the play in a simple but harmon­ ious environment. Pictorial evidence suggests, for example, that the two productions of The Brothers Karamozov, one at the Theatre des Arts, with decor by Dethomas, and one at the

Theatre du Vieux Colombier, with mise-en-sc^ne by Jouvet, could easily have been interchanged. In a similar fashion, the delicate fantasies rendered by Dresa and Piot must share the spotlight with the impressionistic values of works like

L*Annonce faite a Marie or L*Oiseau bleu.

L*Oiseau bleu and L'Annonce faite a Marie

Though Stanislavsky is principally remembered for his contributions to the naturalistic style, one of his most famous productions at the Moscow Art Theatre was that of

Maeterlinck’s L'Oiseau bleu with decors by Egoroff. In 1911 it was reproduced in Paris at the TheatreRejane,again with

Egoroff providing the decor. Apparently unable to recreate the original effects completely, the Russians nevertheless managed to "skillfully.... suggest how beautiful those effects

Cogniat, p®g« 65# were. 25 The stylistic painted drops depicting the fairy­ land locale of the play created a mild sensation and the original renderings have been reproduced probably as often as any other set of designs for a single production. The decor for L'Oiseau bleu vas essentially in the same scenic tradition as those for the Russian Ballet, but here a soft­ ness and delicasy replaced the garishness of the ballet work and the setting became more suitable for the perfor­ mance of spoken drama --at least that particular genre of drama which lent itself to a frankly impressionistic and fantastic approach. The significance of the production at the Rejane was that it added another provocative example for theatre artists that what was needed in the evolution of Parisian stage decor was an understanding that the dif­ ference between settings for two contrasting productions was not merely to be found in the selection of features to be depicted but in the very fashion or style by which these features were to be rendered.

Lugne-Poe*s production at the Oeuvre of L'Annonce faite a Marie performed a similar function. The decors by Jean

Variot reflected an Appia/Craig penchant for symbolic mass, though here the forms were suggested rather than plastic.

It was certainly one of the earliest major works in Paris

25 Huntley Carter, The New Spirit in Drama and Art (New York and London, Mitchell Kennerly, 1913), page 49. 40 to place the back-drop painter substantially in the "New

Movement." But it must be remembered, again, that Claudel's play was uniquely suited for such a design approach.

The Theatre du Vieux Colombier

In the paragraph quoted at the beginning of this chap­ ter, Sheldon Cheney credits Jacques Copeau and Louis Jouvet with being the only true innovators on the French scene.

While we have seen that other changes in decor were taking place, it is true that Copeau, with his establishment of the Theatre du vieux Colombier in 1913, was the first pro­ ducer to break completely with the painter's tradition.

His formal, architectural stage permitted the addition of screens, furniture and various incidental properties but provided no major surfaces for the application of scene paint and .therefore placed Copeau*s productions far beyond the fringes of conventional stage practice. It was, of course, a change which could not be emulated by other pro­ ducers, obliged to operate on the older proscenium stages of Paris, and it was perhaps inadvisable that they do so if one considers the relatively short life span of the Vieux

Colombier. ^ Like most radical solutions to the scenic

26 Copeau moved his troup to New York in 1917, returned to Paris in 1919 and finally closed the theatre iri 1924* Jouvet left in 1922 to become director of the Theatre de la Champs Elysees, 41 problem, Copeau*s encompassed both advantages and disadvan­ tages. He achieved production economy, intimacy, the elim­ ination of false, two-dimensional scenery, the correspond­ ing magnification of the actor and the integrity which comes from a frank admission that the stage is a stage. In the process he lost a measure of flexibility and variety and the ability to do true justice to certain types of plays and scenes t

This is certainly a bastard method of procedure, since it is neither synthetic enough nor realis­ tic enough. After having established a stage construction which made necessary the abandon­ ment of illusion, the attempt was made to intro­ duce realistic elements without sufficient means to harmonize them. With such a stage the environ­ ment of the action cannot be characterized and, moreover, it is incapable of serving the mise-en scene on the psychological side. As for open-air scenes, they must be played before the curtain. Hence, as in the case of the Shakespearean stage, the result of this rigid construction is for the most part unbearable monotony. It is not improb­ able that one of the reasons which obliged Copeau to abandon his enterprise was the growing weari­ ness of his public at being always faced with this drab Puritanism.

The move to architectural and *open* stages in recent years has elevated the Theatre du Vieux Colombier to ever greater historical significance. On the Parisian scene from 1913 to 1917, however, its greatest service was to demonstrate graphically the possibilities of a mise-en-

27 Fuerst and Hume, page 40, 42 scene unencumbered by scenic spectacle. Ironically, it also served to demonstrate that a complete denial of some of the means available to the theatre for the enhancement of the performance was not always a happy solution. The result was a gradual change in the traditional form of scenery on the French stage and greater reliance on sugges­ tion -- but the retention of the scenic artist. Jouvet himself did not remain shackled to any formalistic dogma after he left the Vieux Colombier and conceived settings for other productions. The evolutionary process is un­ questionably speeded up when someone like Copeau takes a giant stride forward but it necessarily lags considerably behind the most radical innovations. Such was the nature of things in France after the advent of the Vieux Colombier.

The Coined ie-Fra ncaise

Like the majority of theatres in Paris from 1901 to

1920, the Com^die-Francais found itself firmly established in a position far behind the ’frontiers.* Like the others, the Comedie rejected the legacy of the symbolists under

Fort and Lugne-Poe and, instead, accepted that of Antoine,

This was due pot so much to a committment to naturalism per se as a style of decoration but more to the fact that the new school of playwrights which Antoine had attracted to

i the theatre continued to dominate the literary scene and the new plays visible on almost any Parisian stage were 43 primarily realistic. Symbolistic settings could simply not be imposed upon realistic plays even if there had been some impulse to move in that direction. Production con­ tinued in the conventional fashion at the Comedie during the years the French public was being treated to glimpses of something fresh and new in the Russian Ballet and at the

Theatres des Arts and Oeuvre and Vieux Colombier, and occasionally, but rarely, somewhere else. And, while the response was not immediate, the influence was there and the

Coinedie-Francaise was not unmindful of it. After the war when signs of something new began at last to invade the practice of the general run of theatres, several new pro­ ductions at the Comedie subtly reflected the new approaches.

It would be easy to chide the 'first theatre'of France for failure to take a leading role in this apparently worth­ while movement. But the Comedie's committments were not to the new bat to the old and the vast repertoire of clas­ sic and pre-Tventieth Century plays not only accounted for the inertia but, in a sense, justified it. It is part of the task of a national theatre to reject that which is par­ ticularly ephemeral and espouse that which has proven par­ ticularly worthy of preservation. The difference between an institution like the Coined ie-Fr a ncaise and a company such as Rouche's is roughly analogous to that between a national archive and a laboratory or studio. Experimen­ tation is less her responsibility than preservation of what 44

has been discovered elsewhere*

It is veil to remember that the Coinedie-Francaise is

still very much alive vhile the •innovators* have long

since passed from the scene* The former is a national

institution and therefore vould survive even if it chose

to participate in the avante-qarde. but the very nature

of the institution militates against the kind of frontier activity which characterised the theatres which have been

credited vith doing most to revitalise French decor. With­ out exception the boldest steps were taken not so much by groups or theatres but by individuals vith almost dictatorial powers over every aspect of the mise-en-sc4ne. The entire complexion of their theatres was nothing other than vhat they chose it to be and they were able to begin without the encumbrance of past tradition* Such a state of affairs was a patent impossibility at the Cornedie-Francaise which* ruled by committee and dominated by tradition* could never become the personal plaything of a single producer — no matter how zealous or domineering.

If the Comedie could be excused for not being part of a new wave of activity, however* the responsibility to mount productions in the most effective manner possible re­ mained* But the nature of the design work for new produc­ tions was affected not only by the work in other Parisian theatres but by a variety of internal factors as well. Chapter III THE COMEDIE-FRANCAISEi BACKSTAGE ORIENTATION

The Scenic Artists of the Com^die-Francaise

The Painter-Decorators of Paris. — Progressive move­

ments, such as this century's scenic revolution, result from reactions to quite specific phenomena. Men like

Rouche and Lugn^-Poe, in turning to non-theatrical painters

for their design vork, vere demonstrating against not mere­ ly the realistic impulse, as is often supposed, but more

specifically against the vork of a group of designers known

as painter-decorators who for years supplied the Parisian

stage vith most of its decors. These men, vho not only

designed the sets but who directed the studios and shops vhere the scenery vas executed, constituted a conservative

•establishment,* all the more noxious in the eyes of the

reformers because of its nearly total dominance of the

theatrical picture. Accomplished painters of the detailed back-drop, both landscape and architectural, the painter- decorators vere strongly rooted in Nineteenth Century stage practice, having learned their trade as apprentices ac the feet of master painters of an earlier era. Their names do not appear on lists of significant French scene designers

45 46 of the Twentieth Century, for such lists are usually pre­ pared by advocates of the **>tew Movement,* but they are very much in evidence when attention is directed to the conven­ tional rather than the new. Among the most prominent of the painter-decorators in

France in the early years of the 1900's were Marcel Jambon,

Luciene Jusseaume, Lemeun ier,. Eugene Ronsin and a man Known as Petit A, Amable. Together vith their collabor­ ators (e,g, Jambon with Bailly, Amable with Ciocarri) they were also the leading designers, in volume as well as reputation, at the Com^die-Francaise, The resident scenic artists at the Com^die#Al£red Devred and his son, Leo, were responsible for a substantial amount of the new production work, perhaps as much as one-third to one-half of the set­ tings required, but the Comedie commissioned the balance of the scenery to be designed and executed by the same men who were supplying the other stages of Paris. Less prominent and less productive decorators on the

Parisian scene -- Anselme, Cillard, Deshaye, Guerard,

Marc-Henry, Jenselme, Leclerc, Laverdet, Menessier, and Simas — were enqaged by the Com^die-Francaise to supply a given set or two on occasion, but such practice was in­ frequent. The evidence sugqests that most of these men were represented at the Comedie with only one or two settings during the entire twenty year period. Menessier, for ex­ ample, gained some reputation as a designer for Antoine, 47

both at the Theatre Libre and at the Theatre Antoine, but

he seema only to have provided the single setting required for Blanchette at the Comedie in 1903. L e d ere and An­

sel me are identified only vith Act XI of Le Fover (1908)|

Cillard, Guerard and Jenselme vith Act II of Vouloir (I9l3)i

Simas vith Bagatelle (Act I, 1912) and vith Riauette a la

houppe (Acts II and III, 1913). Though these men may actually have contributed slightly more to the productions

of the Cornedie-Francaise than the available information re­ veals, it is never the less clear that vhen contracting for

settings the National Theatre favored the veil-established,

big name painter-decorators.

There vere some men among the most active of the deco­ rators, notably Bertin, vho apparently never vorked for the

Comedie-Francaise at all and one of those vho did, Ronsin, contributed very little. He vas represented vith a set for Patrie in 1901 and one for Poliche in 1906. He is

still of interest, hovever, because of his 1920 collaboration vith Marc-Henry and Laverdet on the designs for Juliette et Rom&>, one of the productions that reflected the in­ fluence of nev styles of scene painting. In this late period the Comedie-Francaise also responded to the "Nev

Movement" by retaining the services of at least two artists vho vere not primarily theatre decorators but easel painters, Jean-Gabriel Daragnes and Jean-Gabriel Domergue.

The former vas responsible for Manaeront-ils? and Interieur 48

in 1919, Domerque designed the 1918 productions of Lucrece

Borgia and Les Uns et les autres. The bulK of the work commissioned outside the staff

of the Comedie-Francaise itself, then, from 1901 to 1920 was the work of a small group of reputable painter-decora­

tors t Amable, occasionally in collaboration with Ciocarri,

Bailly, Jambon, Jusseaume and Lemeunier, It is hardly surprisinq that the work produced by these

men for the theatre was strongly 'Nineteenth Century* in character. Monsieur Devred joined the staff of the Comedie about 1876.1 Amable, already in his fifties in 1901, proved

to be one of the most prolific of the painter-decorators of the early Twentieth Century but he beqan the period with a solid background of at least thirty years of prior exper­

ience. His theatre training began years before either Antoine or the Symbolists appeared on the scene. Inciden­ tally, Raymond Cogniat singles Amable out for special iden­ tification as one of those against whom the reformers were reactinq. Jusseaume, another of those whose work Cogniat cites "for mediocrity and banality of design" was fifty years old in 1901 and though his desiqn credits do not go

According to Sylvie Chevalley, archivist for the Comedie- Francaise, Alfred Devred entered the Comedie about 1876, died in 1928. His son Leo joined the company in 1918,

^Raymond Cogniat, Decors de Theatre (Paris, Editions des Chroniques du Jour, 1930), Table des decorateurs (No pag­ ination). 49

as deep into the precedinq century as do those of Amable,

his roots were firmly established before any siqns of a new theatrical aesthetic were visible, Jambon received his

early training with Rube and Chaperon, two of the Nine-

■a teenth Century's most prominent decorators. Shortly be­

fore his death in 1908 he began a collaboration with Bailly

which assured the continuation of the techniques he had

mastered. Lemeunier was also near the end of his career in

1901, contributing to his last Comedie-Francaise production

in 1907 (L'Amour veille).

The Free Lance Pattern. — Except for the Devreds,

who apparently worked no place other than the Com^die-Fran-

caise, the 'old school* painter-decorators employed by the

National Theatre were associated concurrently with many of the other theatres of Paris, running the gamut from the

Opera to the Antoine to the mirsic-variety halls.. Some

contributed somewhat more consistently to one specific

theatre -- Amable to the Theatre du Vaudeville, Jusseaume

to the 0p4ra-Comique, Jambon to the Opera — but all worked for a number of theatres and most worked for all of the

major stages at one time or another. Amable*s credits

during the years after 1901 no doubt constitute a record

See, for example, the "Biblioqraphie des Peintres Deeorateurs du XIXG siecle," in Germain Bapst, Essai sur l'hiatoire du th^&tre (Parisi Hachette, 1893) pp. 618 and 630, 50

for his settings graced the stages of more than tventy

different theatres* 4 Conspicuously absent from his list

of theatre credits* however* are Lugne-Poe's Theatre de

1 ‘Oeuvre and Rouch^'s Th£dtre des Arts. Ajnable*s fellow

decorators vere less prolific and* according to the evidence

suggested by Le Theatre magazine in its design credits*

limited themselves to about a mere dozen theatres each.

Most vere associated occasionally with the major theatres

lifts the Renaissance and the Sarah Bernhardt and none was credited with a contribution to the Oeuvre or Arts.

The prolificacy of Paris* chief painter-decorators was demonstrated* of course* not only by the number of theatres with which they vere associated but by the vast number of productions to which they contributed. Again* Amable would

seem to hold top honors. A study of fourteen years of

Le Theatre magazine* 1901 to the war* connects him to near­ ly 200 productions exclusive of his vork for the Comedie where he was associated vith at least seventeen more — and there is no reason to ascribe any degree of completeness to

4 Amable*s theatre credits include the Varirftes, Vaude­ ville* Op^ra* Sarah-Bernhardt* Gymnase* Antoine* Opera- Corni que * Renaissance* Chatelet* Gaite* Nouveautes* Ambigu- Comique* Gymnase Dramatique* R^jane* Porte-St* Martin* 0d£on* Palais Royal* Follies-Dramatiques* Apollo* Bouffes- Parisiens* Comrfdie des Champs-Elysees and Marigny. the maqazine credits. The Le Theatre staff was simply iden-

tifyinq him as the desiqner of the decors they chose to pub­

lish. His actual output was doubtless even larqer. The

number of individual sets required for each production ranqed anywhere from one to ten (for Germinie lacerteux at

the Vaudeville in 1903) witth an average of at least two or

three. Granting that some settings appeared in several productions, Amable must nevertheless have been responsible

for three or four hundred decors during this period.. It is

small wonder that about 1909,when he was already in his six­

ties, he began to share his vork-load vith Ciocarri. The

latter, however, apparently collaborated on Only two pro­

ductions for the Comedie-Francaise, Prjmerose (Act I) and

and Bagatelle (Act I).

The output of Jambon, Bailly, Lemeunier and Jusseaume,

though less staqqerinq, was quite large. In the brief

span of eiqht years, Jambon (who died in 1908) was associ­ ated with more than twenty productions at the Comedie,

yearly contributions to the Op^ra ^ and sporadic work at the Opera-Comique, the Sarah-Bernhardt, the Ambigu-Comique, the Chatelet and at least ten other Parisian theatres. Like

Amable, he was no doubt able to maintain a high level of output through his collaboration with another artist, in

® For an extensive listinq see the Enciclopedia Dello Spettacolo (Rome, Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1954-62), column 718. 52 this case, with Bailly. Unlike Ciocarri, however, Bailly continued to work for the Comedie on his own, contributing to at least a half dozen productions after Jambon*s death.

Jusseaume, too, was a prodigious contributor in the decor of the French theatre. The Enciclopedia Pello Spet- tacolo credits him vith fifty-six productions for the

Op^ra-Comique alone and forty-seven elsewhere ® from 1901 to 1920 and the list may not be complete. He was associ­ ated vith at least ten productions at the Comedie-Francaise.

The evidence on Lemeunier is a little scantier but in the seven years of this period that he was active Le The&tre contains references to ten Comedie-Francaise productions and more than thirty at other theatres, notably the Sarah-

Bemhardt, Renaissance, Ambigu-Comique and Varietes.

The Comedie-Francaise*s principle non-resident scene designers, then, were responsible for literally hundreds of settings at a vide variety of Parisian theatres.

The Multiple Designer Practice. — There were cer­ tainly examples to be found in Paris of a multi-set show for which the entire scenic composition was the product of a single artist's talent. Amable designed all of the set­ tings in 1902 for Wagner's Siegfried at the Opera, Hermant's

L'Archiduc Paul and Collus* Lucette at the Theatre du

6 Enciclopedia Dello Spettacolo. columns 849, 50 53

Gymnase. He handled all ten scenes for Germinie Lacerteux at the Vaudeville in 1903. Opera designer Visconti was the sole contributor of at least ten settings for the five acts of Berlioz* La Damnation de Faust at the Sarah Bern­ hardt in 1903. Paquereau designed all five acts of Quo

Vadis at the Gaite in 1909, and numerous other examples could be cited. The usual practice, however, was for the theatres to hire two or more painter-decorators per pro­ duction, commissioning the settings for each scene or act individually as if they were autonomous units. For exam­ ple, for a production of La Veine at the TheStre Des Varietes in 1901, Ronsin provided the settings for Act I and II,

Lemeunier for Acts III and IV, For Theodora. at the Sarah-Bernhardt in 1902, Lemeunier*s settings for Scenes

3 and 5 were accompanied by contributions from both Jambon,

Scenes 1, 2 and 6, and Amable, Scene 7. The same three men were associated with Francesca da Rimini, also at the

Sarah-Bernhardt,and La Chatelaine at the Renaissance. The same year, 1902, found each of them working other produc­ tions and sharing the design credits with a number of other designers. Amable, for instance, was represented by set­ tings for Act III and V of La Terre, by Zola, with Menes­ sier and Cornil supplying the balance. He was joined by

Ronsin and Chaperon for Les Deux Ecoles at the Theatre des

Varietes and by Rube, Carpezat, Moisson and Jusseaume for

Manon at the Op^ra-Comique. Since Rube was already de- 54 ceased in 1902 it is clear that the work of the painter- decorators shared the stage not only vith new settings by their contemporary colleagues but with old creations pressed

into new service. There vere occasions when as many as four or five of the designers would be associated with a single, usually spectacular, production. This was true of Varennes at the Sarah-Bernhardt in 1904 (Amable, Ronsin, Lemeunier and Jam­ bon), Vers 1'amour at the Antoine in 1905 (Amable, Jus- seaume, Bertin and Paquereau), Notre-Dame de Paris at the

Porte-St. Martin in 1907 (Marechal, Chaperon, Paquereau and

Amable), La Griffe at the St. Martin in 1909 (Marechal,

Cassina & Roqer, Couder and Amable), La Vierqe folle at the Theatre du Gymnase in 1910 (Amable, Chambouleron &

Mignard, Paquereau and Bertin) and La Dame de Monsoreau at the Sarah-Bernhardt in 1911 (Amable, Ronsin, Bertin and

Bailly). Other examples could be cited and, of course, the occasions when three designers vere utilized on single productions were far more frequent.

The practice at the Comedie-Francaise was similar to that of the other theatres of Paris, Occasionally one indi­ vidual or a pair of collaborators could be credited with a total scenic conception for a production requiring more than one set. The Devreds, for example, provided the three sets needed for the four act production of Wolff's Les Marionettes in 1910 and all the settings for Sapho in 1912. 55

The usual practice, however, was to combine the work of two or more men. At times this meant that the entire produc­ tion was the creation of artists not in residence at the

Comedie, Jambon, Ronsin and Amable were responsible for

Patrie in 1901| Amable, Jambon and Lemeunier for Le Duel in 1905* Leclerc, Anselme and Bailly for Le Foyer in 1908*

Simas, Bailly and Amable for La Furie in 1909| Simas and Amable (with Cioccari) for Bagatelle in 1912t and Bailly,

Amable and Jusseaume for Macbeth in 1914.

It was more usual, however, for Alfred and Leo Devred, either sinqly or in collaboration, to provide one or two of the required settinqs for a new multi-set production with the outsiders providing the balance. In this way the de­ cors produced by the Comedie-Francaise itself through its resident designers mingled onstage with the work of vir­ tually every other decorator to be associated with it.

Thus, the Devred name was associated with Jusseaume and Lemeunier for Les Affaires sont les affaires (1903)| with

Amable and Lemeunier for Notre ieunesse (1904)* with Jambon and Lemeunier for Le Paon (1904)* with Jambon and Amable for the ambitious Don Quichotte (1905)* with Amable, Cio- carri and Bailly for Primerose (1911)* with Jusseaume and

Bailly for Le Menage de Moliere (1912)* vith Simas for

Riquet a la houppe (1913)* and with Cillard, Jenselme and

Guerard for Vouloir (1913), 56

A number of Comedie-Francaise productions required but

a single setting, thus providing the scenic artists an opportunity to create decors unimpeded by the efforts of

others. Menessier's single setting for Brieux* Blanchette

has already been mentioned (pages 46 and 47). The same

year (1903) Amable designed Medee. a three-act play set

outside Medea's palace. Examples of other single-set, long plays vere Les Mouettes (1906) vith decor by Jambonj

Electre (1907) by Jusseaumei Amoureuse (1906) by Devredi

T and Connais toi (1909) by Bailly* Other cases could

certainly be cited but the evidence suggests that the majority of the plays required more than one setting and

the contributors to the decors of the Comedie-Francaise found themselves sharing the platform vith other artists.

It is logical to conclude that the practice of having different designers provide the various settings for a

single production vould result in a lack of unity. No doubt this vas sometimes the casei in any event the kind of pro­ duction •synthesis* called for by the advocates of the "New

Movement"vould be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

In a period of eclecticism in design such as ve find our­ selves in at the present time (1970), vhen there are real stylistic options, the attempt to utilize the products of three or four designers vorking separately on different acts of a productions vould be entirely absurd. At the beginning of this century, however, vhen the painter-deco- 57 rators were consistently turning out products hardly dis­ tinguishable from one another, the practice was not nearly so unthinkable and the major evil of the multiple desiqner approach was not so much that it resulted in a lack of pro­ duction unity but that it resulted in a lack of originality and innovation. There was little opportunity for exper­ imentation when a given setting had to fit in with the per­ haps unseen work of one, two or even three other artists.

True innovation was impossible until the system was aban­ doned and it took * radicals* like Rouche and Luqne-Poe to make the first moves in that direction.

The Comedie-Francaise, like the other major theatres in

Paris, would eventually adopt the sinqle desiqner concept, but during the period from 1901 to 1920, or, at least, dur­ ing most of it, the men who provided the decors for the

National Theatre were obliged to work under the imposition of the multiple designer practice. This accounted in no small measure for the conventionality of its scenic product

just as the employment of Amable, Jambon, Bailly, Lemeunier and Jusseaume gauaranteed a similarity between this pro­ duct and that of nearly every other theatre in Paris. 58

The Stage of the Theatre-Francais 'The theatre occupied by the Comedie-Francaise in 1901

had already been its home for one hundred years. Known as

the Theatre-Francais, it had been completed in 1790 but

not occupied by the players of the Comedie until 1799.

Though old, the building had been afforded several reno­

vations by the turn-of-the-century and its aspect in 1901

(and today) was that of the reconstruction of 1860-64, ^

For the members of the audience this meant a 1400 seat,

four tiered, horseshoe-gallery theatre similar to countless

other Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century continental houses

— and similarly plagued with poor sight lines from the

side galleries to the stage, particularly from those seat­

ing sections flanking the proscenium wall.

On March 8, 1900, a fire broke out which severely damaged the Theatre-Francais* particularly demolishing

the stage and its equipment. Ten months later the recon­

structed theatre was re-opened and the stage on which pro­ duction resumed at that time is the same one still being used in 1970, Ostensibly, then, the stage in which we are

interested, that utilized from 1901 to 1920 for the pre­ sentation of the premiere productions, dates from precisely the beginning of the period (it opened three days before

7 Sylvie Chevalley, "Historigue du Monument Actuel,** included in La Comedie-Francaise. a monograph by Sylvie Chevalley. (Paris, Comedie-Francaise, 1961), p. 14. 59

New Year's Day, 1901). Actually, it can be thought of as dating back much further, for the new stage was essentially a replica of the old and not a modern theatre in any sense.

At the time of the re-opening, Georges Bourdon wrote, for La Revue d'Art Dramaticrue, a scathing article critici- g zing virtually everything associated with the renovation.

His disillusionment began, he maintained, the moment he entered the auditorium, and it obviously continued un­ diminished as he carried out his very thoroughgoing exami­ nation of the facilities. The essence of his complaint was that there was really nothing new at MLa Nouvelle

Comedie-Francaise.** At a time when other European the­ atres, especially those in Germany, vere being equipped with revolving stages and hydraulic or electrically powered machinerv, plus the space and equipment for the lateral shifting of dimensional set pieces, the Theatre-Francais was provided with a typical eight-'plan* French stage, raked from front to back, and equipped with a full contin­ gent of * rues,* *trapillons,' 'chariots,* 'tambours,* and all the other trappings which perpetuated the practice of relyinci heavily on the machinery under the stage floor for the vertical shifting of scenery limited to two dimensions.

B Georges Bourdon, "La Nouvelle Comedie-Francaise," La Revue d'Art Dramatique, XVI(l90l), pp. 138-149. 60

As Bourdon put it t

The truth is that nothing vas changed in the old machinery except for substituting iron for wood. The stage of the Comedie-Francaise is constructed the same as all theatres are con­ structed in France, as they have been construc­ ted for the past two hundred and fifty years, as, for that matter, they were constructed in Italy in the Seventeenth Century. We have simply borrowed the plans....All the elements of the wooden machinery are here, but in iron. The iron construction, whether fastened or mobile, dismantable or not, is an exact copy of the old machinery The iron chariots are monu­ ments hard to move and as for the ease of dis­ mantling, I hope that the crew of the Corned ie-^ Francaise does not need to operate them often.

One of the curious aspects of the reconstruction was that while a very substantial cellar depth was assured, making it possible to raise units of nearly thirty feet

in height through the floor and onto the stage (there were ten meters of cellar distributed between four levels), nothing was done to make the fly space more functional than

it had been before. Again, quoting Bourdon*

It is deplorable that the fly space is not as high as it should be* consequently, whenever they are hoisting a drop, they have to fold it in order to hide it from the spectators.... Added labor is needed to take care of this incon­ venience and since each drop has to be folded, the flies become cumbersome and crowded.

^ Ibid., pp. 147,8.

l0Ibid., p. 144. 61

To this day it is necessary at the Comedie to "trip" the

bottom of all flovn units of any major proportion. Though boasting an impressively high proscenium open­

ing, the stage space of the Theatre-Francais is relatively

modest. The proscenium opening is eleven meters vide and,

in 1901, at least, vas apparently adjustable to as much as nine meters in height, 11 The depth of the stage vas thirteen meters, seventy centimeters, or about forty- five feet, but the distance betveen the downstage edge of the first 'plan* and the upstage edge of the eighth

is slightly under forty feet. The stage floor is raked at the very slight ratio of four centimeters to the meteri too little, it vould seem, to improve substantially either the sight lines from the orchestra or the perspective of the decor but just enough to cause problems in the construction of the scenic units and to limit the flexibility of unit placement on stage. Wing space vas limited to approximate­ ly sixteen feet on each side of the stage. Storage space vas minimal.

The division of the stage into its eight 'plans* is

illustrated in the printed stage floor diagrams (in use both now and during the period studied) on vhich the set floor plans vere dravn for every scene of every play in the

11 According to Chevalley, the stage currently opens up to a height of seven and a half meters, not nine. 62

repertoire. Five such diagrams are included in Chapter

VII* Figures 34, 37, 40, 52 and 54. Rebuilding the stage of the Theatre-Francais in

1900 along Nineteenth Century rather than modern lines may

have been regrettable, as M. Bourdon insisted, but even in

retrospect the decision to do so hardly seems surprising.

The new stage was simply constructed to accommodate a vast

stocK of scenic units necessary to the production of the

Coined ie*s continuing repertoire — units which had been

shaped and outfitted to conform to the specific rake of the old stage and the positions and configurations of its machinery. Had the scenery all been stored at the theatre and destroyed in the fire there might have been more impetus to alter the basic nature of the stage during the process of remodeling. As it vas, most of the scenery, stored at the Comedie-Francaise workshop at Neuilly, survived the destruction, and many of the plays for which these settings had been designed vere still performed with regularity.

The Comedie-Francaise was peculiarly unsuited, then, to be­ gin afresh in 1901 simply because it had been temporarily forced to abandon its home of one hundred years. Chapter IV

SCENE DESIGN AND THE REPERTOIRE

The Magnitude of the Total Repertoire

If the commitment of the Comedie-Francaise to its repertoire served as a reactionary force which affected the reconstruction of its staqe and facilities it may have been regrettable, as M. Bourdon insisted at the time, but it was certainly understandable. Apart from the organizational structure of the company the repertoire was, and remains, its most characteristic feature. By the turn of the Century, the Comedie had produced hundreds of plays. Many of these, though technically always a part of the total repertoire, had either been abandoned as unworthy or, at least, shelved indefinitely, A great many others were Kept alive and made available — sometimes frequently, sometimes sporadi­ cally -- t.o Twentieth Century audiences. During the period from 1901 to 1920 the Comedie-Francaise continued to per­ form 191 of the pieces which had been introduced into the repertoire during the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Centuries, Some of these were hardly more than short mon­ ologues and some of the plays were presented vith qroat rarity, but all received attention and an appreciable num­ ber of pieces were performed with consistency throughout 63 64 the period. In fact, thouqh there vere slight fluctuations, nearly half of the performances in any qiven year vere de­ voted to works which became part of the repertoire prior to

1901. The remaininq half vere qiven to the presentation of the 295 new titles introduced between 1901 and 1920. The bottom line on Table One, on the follovinq paqe, lists the percentage of performances each year which were devoted to the works introduced in the Twentieth Century. Some of the new pieces were not really playst nearly 70 of the premieres durinq this period were essentially non-dramatic in character. Nevertheless, the administrators and soci- etaires of the Comedie, in the determination of their week­ ly, monthly and yearly schedules, vere blessed with a vast number of titles from which to choose. By 1920, approxi­ mately 350 plavs had been presented at least once durinq the past twenty years and were therefore at least potentially a part of the active repertory.

The maqnitude of the repertoire — and, therefore, of the problems it generates -- is further reflected in the yearly figures. The Cornedie-Francnise was commited to per­ forming every day of the year. At least twice a week, some­ times more frequently) there were matinees as well as evening performances and a typical bill often offered two or three separate works rather than just one. Thus it vas possible for the National Theatre to loq as many as 700 or BOO per­ formances in a single year. Thouqh the figure ran as 65 TABLE 1

THE STATUS OF PREMIERES AND THE “TWENTIETH CENTURY" REPERTOIRE IN THE TOTAL REPERTOIRE OF THE COT-SEDIE*-FRANCAISE, BY YEAR 1901 TO 1920

*01 *02 *03 *04 *05 *06

Number of works performed from the Classical Repertoire 30 27 28 29 31 37

Humber of works performed from the Kodern Repertoire 52 51 37 34 34 42

Number of Premieres performed 10 11 12 13 13 19

Number of works performed from the Twentieth Century Repertoire 10 16 19 26 33 43

Total number of works performed in all categories 92 94 84 89 98 122

Number of performances of works from the Classical Repertoire 162 146 141 103 136 187

Number of performances of works from the Kodern Repertoire 389 324 240 218 192 204

Number of performances of Premieres 155 182 180 156 280 197

Number of performances of works from the Twentieth Century Rep. 155 257 290 305 422 380

Total number of performances in all categories 706 727 671 626 750 771

Percentage of total performances devoted to works from the 2 2 % 36^ 43^ 4 9 % 56 % 49"' Tv/entieth Century Repertoire 66

TABLE 1— Continued

'07 108 *09 *10 11 12 '13 14 *15 16 17 18 19 20

32 29 33 37 38 37 31 33 28 40 44 41 45 45

27 30 38 32 31 29 36 27 32 33 28 27 22 19

15 10 18 21 14 10 13 14 14 8 16 8

44 36 44 44 37 42 45 33 21 46 45 43 44 43

103 95 115 113 106 108 112 93 81 119 117 111 111 107

158 178 130 165 177 171 180 117 90 200 131 165 206 204

193 226 246 230 189 162 218 91 169 132 91 118 124 110

296 193 251 249 201 155 167 101 55 72 lc4 5 81 191 109

471 332 413 395 333 403 338 230 165 274 324 342 405 369

822 796 789 790 699 741 736 4 38 424 6 56 596 6 25 735 683

57yS 4 3 ‘/t 52^ 50^ 48^ 55'Z 46^ 52^ 3 9 % 4 2 % 54-1 55^ 55 ct 54^ 67

high as B22 in 1907, the mean number of performances for the

entire twenty-year period was closer to 700 per year, with

lows of 438 and 424 in 1914 and 1915 respectively because

of the temporary closure of all Parisian theatres during

the war* (See Table 1). As already noted, some of these

performances were not of plays but eulogies, monologues,

poems and other essentially non-dramatic pieces* The effect of the non-dramatic presentations on the over-all statistics,

however, is slight, for such a piece rarely received more

than one or two showings in an entire year* Like the number of performances each year, the number

of separate works included in the yearly repertoire fluc­

tuated somewhat, but it was not unusual for the Comedie-Fran-

caise to offer the public as many as 100 or more different

works in the space of one calendar year (the low, eighty-ore

in 1915* the high, 122 in 1906* for additional information,

see Table l)* It hardly matters that some were presented

but once or twice for the prodigious task of preparing so many different pieces for presentation is largely unaffected

by the actual number of performances. The day to day significance of these yearly totals can

best be illustrated by an examination of monthly schedules during a sample year* Tables 2 and 3 present the reper­

toire of the Com^die-Francaise during the months of Febru­ ary and September, respectively, in 1912* The selections

are random except that the atypical war years were deliber- TABLE 2 68

A MONTH' § REPERTOIRE AT TICS CQMSD IE - FRANC Al SE FEBRUARY* ,1912 *

Lav Matinee nr Productions Evening (Number of Acts in Parentheses)

1st Mat. Gribouille (l) ~ Alkestis (4) Eve. La Surprise de I 1amour (l) -- Alkestis 2nd Eve. Primerose (3) 3rd Eve. Primerose 4 th Mat . Alkestis -- Les Fourberies de Scapin (3) Eve. Lee Tenailles (3) -- L fAventuri^re (4) 5 th Eve. Primerose 6 th Eve. La Surprise de I 1amour -- Alkestis 7 th Eve. Primerose 8 th Mat. La Conversion d*Alceste (l) — Le Monde ou l'on s*enuuie (3) Eve. La Surprise de 1*amour -- Alkestis 9 th Eve. Primerose 10 th Eve. Primerose 11th Mat. Gringoire (1) -- La Brebis perdue (3) Eve. Le Bonhomme Jadis (1) — Oedipe roi (5) 12th Eve. Primerose 13 th Eve. Les Cloches de Port-Royal (poem) -- Les Limites du coeur (l) -- Le Voyage de M. Perrichon (4) 14 th Eve . Primerose 15th Mat. La Conversion d'Alceste — Le Monde ou 1 1 on s'ennuie Eve. Les Cloches de Port-Royal -- Les Limites coeur -- Le Voyage de K. Perrichon 16th Eve. Primerose 17th Eve. Primerose 18th Hat, Alkestis -- Tartuffe (5) Eve. Le Mari age de Figaro (5) 19 th Hat. La Brebis perdue -- Le Hal-ade imagined re (3) Eve. Poliche (4) 20 th Hat. Le Cid (5) -- Monsieur de Pourcenugnac (3) Eve. Le Plaisir de rompre (1) -- Les Cloches de Port-Royal -- Le Voyage de M. Perrichon 21st Eve. Primerose 22nd Hat. Hithridate (5) -- Monsieur de Pourceaugns Eve. Le Plaisir de rompre -- Les Cloches de Port Royal -- Le Voyage de M. Ferric! 69 TABUS 2 — Continued

Day Matinee or Product!ons Evening (Number of Acts in Parentheses)

23rd Eve. Primerose 24 th Eve. Primerose 25 th E a t . Primerose Eve • Le Luthier de Creraone (l) -- Cher mattre (3) 26 th Eve • Le Roi s 1 amuse (5) 27 th Eve. Les Affaires sont les affaires (3) 28th Eve. Primerose 29th Hat . llithridate Monsieur de Pourseaugnac Eve ♦ Les Affaires sont les affaires

* For the complete 1912 repertoire see A. Joanides, La Comedie-FrancaiBe, 1911-1912 (Paris* Plon Nourrit et Cie» 1913)109-127.

TABUS 3

A MONTH' S REPERTOIRE AT THE COIfEDIE- FRANC A133 SEPTEMBER, 1912

Day Matinee or Producti ons Evening (Number of Acts in Parentheses) l3t H a t . Brltannious (5) -- Le Jeu de 1* amour et du hasard (3) Eve. Denise (4) 2nd Eve. Hernani (5) 3rd Eve. Le Depit araoureux (2) — Oedipe roi (5) 4 th Eve . L'3c ole des femmes (5) — Le Depute de Rombignac (3) 5 th Mat. Le M^decin malgre lui (3) -- Le Barhier de Seville (4) Sve. Hernani 6 th Eve. XI etait une bergere (l) -- La Parisienne (3) -- Les Prdcieuses ridicules (l) 7 th Eve . Antony (5) 8 th Hat. Denise E v e . Hernani 9 th Eve. I*e Luthier de Creraone (1) -- Le Cid (5) 70 TABLE 3 -- Continued

Day llatinee or Producti ons Evening (Humber of Acts in Parentheses)

10 th Eve. La Joie fait peur (l) -- Blanchette (3) 11th Eve. Antony 12 th Hat. Hernani Eve • La Paix chez sol (l) -- Le Voyage de M, Perrichon (4) -- L 1Anglais tel qu’on le parle (!) 13 th Eve, Le Ponhomme Jadis (l) -- Blanchette 14th Eve, Poliche (4) 15th Hat. Le Passant (l) -- MaTtre Pavilla (1) -- La Parisienne Eve. Les Romanesques (3) -- L 1Aventuriere (4) 16th Eve. Le Monde ou 1 1 on s'ennuie (3) -- L* Ann;la tel qu*on le parle 17 th Eve, Sapho (5) 18 th Eve. La Nuit. de docenibre (scene) -- Blanchett -- Les Precieuses ridicules 19th Eat. Britannicus -- Le Jeu de l'amour et du hasard Eve. Primerose (3) 20 th Eve. Poli che 21st Eve. Le Bonhorane Jadis -- Cher nattre 22nd Hat. Les Romanesques -- Blanchette Eve, Sapho 23rd Eve, Hernani 24 th Eve. Le Luthier de Cr^rione — Cher ma^tre 25 th Eve. Les Affaires sont les affaires 26 th Hat. 11 etait une hern;ere -- Mademoiselle de la Seinli^re (4) Eve. Un Jour de ffete (1) -- Le Monde ou 1'on s1ennuie 27 th Eve, Primerose 28 th Eve. Sapho 29 t’n Hat. Hernani t— a-' > • i Le Marquis de Villemer (u) 30 th Eve. Ruy Bias (5) 71 ately avoided* Audiences at the Com^die in 1912 witnessed

741 performances of 108 different works. Ten new pieces were premiered and a little better than half of all the performances were devoted to plays introduced sometime after

1901, Except for a three-day shut-down* the actors performed every day of the year and on 105 of those days there were matinee as well as eveninq performances. There was one production oddityt the record 104 performance 'run* of Primerose. Otherwise* it was a fairly typical year. Some plays were revived for several performances after not being presented for several years. A representative example might be La Mere confident — three performances of a three act play after a hiatus of four years. Eleven plays* in­ cluding the classics* Athalle and Berenice, were presented only once. In fact, twenty-seven pieces received two per­ formances or less and sixty-two received five or less. Only nine ran more than ten performances.

In February (Table 2)* twenty-nine different pieces were presented* an averaqe of one a day, in spite of the fact that Primerose. the year's run-away favorite, was granted fifteen performances. In September (Table 3), there were thirty-nine separate works in thirty days. Obviously, the day to day routine of the Cornedie was characterized by con­ stant alternation. Even when a play received just a few performances they were generally not consecutive. In 1912V 72

three-performance, consecutive runs were the maximum, utilized only for new plays (Primerose. Sapho. Bagatelle.

Le Menage de Moliere) and rare. Not only did performances of a given play seldom follow on successive eveings, but matinees usually did not include plays from the same, or even the preceding, evening's bill. The result of this was that at least twice a week there was a three-program sequence, evening-raatinee-evening, with no repeat perfor­ mances. Since there occasionally were matinees on suc­ cessive days, there could be as many as five or six major works presented in just two days. See, for example, the bills for the 18th and 19th of February in Table 2.

Alkestis. Tartuffe. Le Mariaqe de Figaro. Le Brebis perdue.

Le Malade lmaainaire and Poliche — none of them one-acts

(four, five, five, three, three and four acts respectively) — were all performed within the space of two days. It was a staggering repertorial load by any standard, particularly when one considers that twenty-three othe*- pieces were being presented during the same month.

The Role of the Classical and Modern Repertoires

Strictly speaking, the Com^die-Francaise has only one repertoire which includes all the works performed thus far in its history and to which are added a number of new works each year. However, because of the size and complexity of the repertoire, it has proven convenient to con­ 73

sider it in terms of three major categories. The first category, the Classic Repertoire, encompasses the work of those authors who have survived the vicissitudes of time and achieved 'classic* status. During the period 1901 to

1920, and at the present time, for that matter, ^ the classics at the 'House of Moli&re* were the works of Moliere,

Racine, Corneille, Regnard, Beaumarchais, Marivaux and de Musset, the latter being the most recent to join the exalted ranks.

All other plays are considered by the Cornedie-Francaise to be in the non-classical or 'Modern' Repertoire. The term, 'Modern,' is admittedly ambiguous, for plays in this category were sometimes well over 100 years old, but they were also of more recent vintage and included every new play as soon as it had received its premiere performance at the Coiwldie. For the present study, however, the plays which had their premieres between 1901 and 1920 are consi­ dered to be in a separate category, the Twentieth Century ftepertoi re.

The Classical Repertoire. -- The preservation of the areat works of French dramatic literature is the single, most important function of the Cornedie-Francaise and the

For a contemporary summation of the Classical Repertoire, see the monogram. La Cornedie-Francaise. hy Sylvie Chevailoy, published by the Cornedie-Francaise in 1961. 74 maintenance of the Classical Repertoire is a reflection of that function. Each year from 1901 to 1920 the repertoire of the Cornedie included from twenty-eight (in 1903 and 1915) to forty-five (in 1919 and 1920) pieces from the Classical

Repertoire. 2 For most years this constituted approximately one-third of all the pieces presented* from 1917 to 1920 the percentage was slightly higher. The Classical share of the total number of performances each year (as opposed to the number of titles) never ran quite as high as one-third but it was a rare year in which the Cornedie-Francaise did not devote at least one out of five of its performances to the classics and the ratio was usually somewhat higher, especially in the later years of the period.

An appreciable number of classical pieces were thus offered the French public each year but a given play re­ ceived, on the average, very few performances. It was a relative rarity for a classic to be presented more than ten times in the space of a year. Alfred de Musset's

Les Caprices de Marianne ran for thirty-six performances in 1906, but this was a gross exception to the rule. Four, five or six performances per year was normal and there were occasions when even major dramas like Britannicus or Atha- lie received only one showing in an entire year. Even those

See Table 1, pages 65 and 66. 75

classics that received the most performances durinq the period from 1901 to 1920, Andromaque (106), Le Cid (ill),

Les Depit amonreux (111), Les Femmes savantes (108),

II ne faut jurer de rien (132) , Le Jeu de 1*amour et du hasard (126), Le Malade imaqinaire (158), Le Medecin malqre Ini (102), Les Precieuses ridicules (115), and

Tartuffe (141), averacred less than six performances per year over the twenty year span.

Though presented only a few times a year, classical plays enjoyed a substantial consistency of inclusion in the repertoire over the years. Of the seventy works in this category appearinq between 1901 and 1920, nearly half were

included for ten years or more. Nine were part of the rep­ ertoire for all twenty of the years covered by this study.

By comparison, of 111 long plays which premiered durinq these years, only five survived for more than ten years and seventy-four were presented only one or two years. The same thing was true for one-act play premieres: only five of the seventy-six remained in the repertoire for more than ten years and two-thirds of them succombed their first or second season. Some of the plays introduced in the latter years of the period rereived additional performances after

1920, but not in sufficient quantities to appreciably alter the general tendencies.

Other generalizations about the conduction of the 76

Classical Repertoire are difficult to make because examples can be found to illustrate virtually any situation. Irregu­

larity and flexibility were more characteristic than sta­ bility and regularity.. While many classics were presen­ ted with considerable consistency, others were presented spasmodically with four, five or even ten years elapsing between performances. Moli^re's Le Bourgeois qentilhomme, for example, was performed five times in 1903, another five time in 1906 and then was not offered again until 1916,

L*Amour medecin, thouqh naturally part of the existinq repertoire in 1901, was not presented for the first nine­ teen years of this period and then was reprised in 1920 for ten performances. The same thing was true of de Mus­ set's Barberinc. Marivaux’s L* Epreuve received four per­ formances in 1901 and then lay dormant for sixteen years»

When revived in 1917,it was presented each year following.

Les Facheux, by Moliere, was presented twice in 1911 for its only appearances between 1901 and 1920. L * 111usion comiqup was presented only in 1906.

*Tho Modern Repertoire. — The non-classical or

’Modern* Repertoire, for our ourposes, included all the works introduced at the Comedie-Francaise prior to 1901, exclusive of the classical plays, which were retained and presented at least one time from 1901 to 1920. Like plays in the Classical Repertoire, many of these works were in­ 77 eluded only one or two seasons while others were popular enough to gain exposure over a considerable number of years, occasionally matching the record of the most successful classics. The most frequently produced writers were the

French dramatic giants of the Nineteenth Century, Victor

Hugo (five plays for a total of 489 performances) and

Alexandre Dumas fils (nine plays for a total of 380 perfor­ mances), Other particularly popular playwriqhts were

Emile Auqier (five plays for 310 performances), Edouard

Pailleron (four for 32l), Theodore de Banville (three for

229), and Francois Coppee (three for 207), These perfor­ mance totals do not include the plays by these individuals which became part of the repertoire after 1901, All were represented with premieres between 1901 and 1920,

Of the 121 pieces in the Modern Repertoire only nine received more than 100 performances durinq the period and only one, Pailleron's Le Monde ou 1 'on stennuie, more than

200 (actually, 251), The only foreign play to be honored with more than 100 performances was Oedipe Roi with 113.

Oedipe Roi was part of the repertoire for seventeen years out of the twenty but plays by foreiqn writers were rare in the repertoire. In the Modern Repertoire, the only foreigner t.o be represented other than Sophocles was William

Shakespeare (Hamlet. Taming of the Shrew and Othello).

Two Hugo plays enjoyed fairly long runs. Marion 78

Delorme was performed forty times in 1907, Ruy Bias, forty-three, in 1902, but it was quite rare for a play from the Modern Repertoire to receive more than twenty performances in a qiven year and most, like the plays in the Classical Repertoire, received less than ten. It is. one of the Qlories of the repertory system that worthy plays can be offered without the promise of lengthy runs and the Coined ie-Francaise exploited its advantage from 1901 to 1920,

The Status of Premiere Productions in the Repertoire

While fulfilling its obligation to Keep the older plays alive and available to French audiences, the Comt^die chan­ neled a substantial share of its time and resources into the production of a number of new plays each year. From

1901 to 1920, seventy-six one-act plays and 111 lonq or

*full-lenqth* plays were premiered, in addition to sixty- 3 eight miscellaneous offerings. This averages out to approximately four one-act plays and between five and six long plays added to the repertoire each year. In actual practice the number of plays introduced fluctuated somewhat- over the years and the production of lonq plays was particu­ larly curtailed durinq the war. In 1915 and 1916 only

^ This is in reference to those pieces that were premiered and were considered part of the repertoire, but which were essentially non-dramatic in nature and were seldom presented more than one or two times. 7 9 two lonq plays were premiered each year, with three in

1918. There were only four in 1901 but five, six or seven was normal practice. The ambitious years were 1910 and 1919 with eiqht new lonq plays each. The larqest number of one- acts premiered in a sinqle year was six (in 1907,1911,1916), but three or four was normal, with no particular altera­ tion of the pattern durinq the war. The non-dramatic per­ formances occurred randomly throughout the period but even when there were as many as ten in one year (1906) the effect on the repertoire was negligible. References to them in the balance of this study will be minimal.

The new plays as a group were qranted substantially more performances on the average than plays in either the

Classical or Modern Repertoires. In 1901 eight new plays were presented, four one-act and four long. There were eighty-two other plays presented, but the premieres received one out of five of the total performances. The following year seven more new plays were added, two one-act and five long, and five of the new 1901 entries continued to be per­ formed. More than one-third of all performances in 1902 were devoted to the new works. By 1904, nearly half of all performances at the Cornedie-Francaise were of plays added to the repertoire after 1901, With slight fluctuations in both directions, this remained the production pattern for twenty years. New plays were added, others were dropped. Some years there were as many as forty-four plays in the reper­ BO

toire which had premiered after 1901 (plays in the Twentieth

Century Repertoire)! occasionally they commanded a fifty-

six or fifty-seven per cent share of the total performances.

(See Table 1). While precise statistics are not of great

importance in this study, it is significant, when consider­

ing the design activity for premieres, to note that approxi­

mately half of the work viewed by Comedie audiences from

1901 to 1920 had been created durinq that same period.

It is convenient to consider one-act plays as a qroup

separate from the lonq plays, not because of an arbitrary

difference in length, but because they tended to be treated

somewhat differently by the Comedie, They received, on the averaqe, much shorter runs when first introduced than the

lonqer plays and were revived in successive years with far

less consistency. Also, as is demonstrated in Chapter

V, new settings were provided for one-act. plays with

considerably less frequency than for long plays.

The 'drop-out* rate for one-act plays was hiqh. Out of a total of seventy-six offered new during the period, twenty-six were presented for only one season, twenty-one others for only two. Only eighteen received more than twenty-five performances in all and more than thirty were presented ten times or less. One of them, Amoureuse ami tie.

(1901 ), was performed only oncec The longest, run in a single year was qranted En vislte. with eighty-eight, per­ formances durinq its premiere year of 1905. Modest ie was 81 next with forty-nine performances durinq its first year in the repertoire, 1909. Normally, it was quite rare for a one-art play to receive more than about fifteen perfor­ mances a year and most were performed less than ten.

Nevertheless, a number of one-act plays proved popular and durable durinq this period. L*Anglais tel gu*on le parle. by Tristan Bernard, was performed 190 times over fourteen seasons, En visite, by Lavedan, 11? times over five seasons. II etait une berqere, by Rivoire, and 1807, by Ederer and Ephraim, remained in the repertoire for fif­ teen years — the lonqest duration for one-act plays.

L*Anolais tel go*on le parle did nearly as veil with four­ teen years to its credit. Table 4, on the next page, lists the one-act plays which received more than twenty-five per­ formances between 1901 and 1920. The seventeen one-act plays which survived for at least five or more years are presented in Table 5, on page 3 3 ,

The longer plays were generally granted longer runs than the one-acts. While only seven of the latter pre­ mieres loqqed more than fifty performances between 1901 and

1920, twenty-eight long plays did and thirteen received more than one-hundred. Table 6 , on pages 84 and 85, lists these twenty-eight plays and the total number of perfor­ mances each received between 1901 and 1920. As evidenced by the table, two plays, Primerose and La Marquis de Priola, were presented more than 200 times. With 278 performances 82

TABLE 4

ONE-ACT PLAY PREMIERES WHICH RECEIVED MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE PERFORMANCES FROM 1901 TO 1920

Title Author Year of Number of Premiere Perf ormances

L'Anqlais tel cfu'on Bernard 1907 190 1 e pa r 1 e

En visite Lavedan 1905 112

11 etait tine berqere Rivoire 1905 88

1R07 Aderer &. 1903 78 Ephra im

Le Paix chesr roi Courteline 1906 63

Le Plaisir de rompre Renard 1902 58

Les Fresnny Vanderem 1907 52

Modesti e Hervieu 1909 49

Le Bonheur aui passe Germain 1901 47

Foil de carotte Renard 1912 45

Le Coeur a ses raisons Caillavet & 1904 39 Flers

Trilby Lomon & 1904 35 Gheusi

L» Ktradivarins Maurey 1909 35

La Conversion Courteline 1905 32 d ' * 1 reste

Deux rouverts Guitry 1914 31

Sans lui Gi rette 1903 29

Le Sonqe d'un soir Batai1le 1910 27 d * amour t

Jean-Marie Theuriet 1903 27 83

TABLE 5

ONE-ACT PLAY PREMIERES WHICH WERE IN THE REPERTOIRE FOR FIVE YEARS OR MOPE

Title Author Year of Number of Premiere Years

11 etait une berqere Rivoire 1905 15

1807 Aderer & 1905 15 Ephraim

L'Anqlais tel qu'on Bernard 1907 14 le parle

Le Paix chez soi Courteline 1906 13

Le Bonheur qui passe Germain 1901 10

Les Fresnay Vanderem 1907 10

Le Plaisir de rompre Renard 1902 12

Poil de carot.te Renard 1912 9

Le Coeur a ses raisons Caillavet & 1904 8 Flers

Jean-Marie Theuriet 1903 8

Veni se Caillavet & 1913 7 Flers

La Conversion Courteline 1905 6 d 'A1reste

Sans Ini Girette 1914 6

Le Stradivarius Maurey 1909 6

Deux couvpr t s Guitry 1914 5

En visite Lavedan 1905 5

Moliere et Scaramouch^ Leloir 6. 1904 5 Gravollet 84

TABLE 6

LONG PLAY PREMIERES WHICH RECEIVED MORE THAN FIFTY PERFORMANCES FROM 1901 TO 1920

Title Author Year of Number of Premiere Perf orrrances

Primerose Caillavet & 1911 278 Flers

La Marcruis de Priola Lavedan 1902 200

Le Duel Lavedan 1905 1 82

Les Affaires sont les Mirbeau 1903 181 af fai res

Les Marionnettes Wolff 1910 168

La Marche nuotiale Batail le 1913 158

L * En tome Hervieu 1 901 151

L*Ant re danaer Donna y 1 902 1 39

Le Voyage de Labiche & 1906 121 M« Perrichon Martin

Amoureuse Porto-Riche 1908 112

Paraftre Donnay 1906 108

L'Amour veille Caillavet. & 1907 105 Flers

Notre -jpiinesse Capus 1904 105

Pa t r i e Sardou 1901 99

Le Dedale Hervieu 1903 93

Blanchette Prieux 1903 80

Le Pere Lebonnard Aicard 1 904 6 R / / L* Elevation Bernstein 1917 67 85

TABLE 6 — Continued

Ti tie Author Year of Number of Premiere Performances

Poliche Bataille 1906 66

Connais-toi Hervieu 1909 63

Ohacun sa vie Guiches & 1907 60 Gheusi

L*Abbe Constantin Cremieux & 1917 58 Decourcelle

La Fleur merveilleuse Zamacois 1910 58

Le Bon roi Daqobert Rivoire 190R 5 7

L* H^rod i enne Du Bois 1919 53

Le Goftt du vice Lavedan 1911 53

Les Soeurs d ’amour Bataille 1 919 51

Electro Poizat 1907 51

TABLE 7

LONG PLAY PREMIERES WHICH WERE IN THE REPERTOIRE FOR FIVE YEARS OR MORE

Title Author Year of Number of Premiere Years

Les Affaires sont les Mi rbeau 1903 17 affaires

La Marquis de Priola Lavedan 1902 16

Le Pere Lebonnard Aicard 1904 14

Le Vov^qe de La hi che f. 1906 12 M. Perrichon Mart in 86

TABLE 7 -- Continued

Title Author Year of Number of Premiere Years

Blanchette Brieux 1903 12

Pri nwrose Caillavet & 1911 10 Flers

L * Eniqme Hervieu 1901 10

Le Duel Lavedan 1905 10

La Fontaine de Bergerat 1906 9 iouvence

Electre Poizat 1907 9

Les Marionnettes Wolff 1910 8

La Marche nuptiale Bataille 1913 8

Poliche Bataille 1906 7

Boubourorbe Courteline 1910 7

Notre ieunesse Capus 1904 6

L*Autre danger Donnay 1902 6

La Novelle idole de Curel 1914 5

La Fleur merveilleu^e Zamacois 1910 5

I-e Dedale Hervieu ] 903 5

Amoureuse Porto-Ri rhe T 90ft 5 87 to its credit, Pri merose was easily the most popular Com-

^die-Francaise offerinq of the period. On the other side of the picture, eighteen of the long plays were given ten or less times and forty-three, less than twenty times, even though in many cases new scenery had been created especially for these openings. A notable case in point was La Furie.

Elaborately mounted for its 1909 premiere, it was abandoned after only twelve performances.

Yearly runs were frequently of far qreater length for long play premieres than for one-act premieres or either the classical or non-classical plays already in the repertoire and the Com^die-Francaise was criticized for appearing to place itself in obvious competition with the other Parisian theatres with its exploitation of contemporary successes. ^

The more successful premieres averaged forty or fifty per­ formances their initial year. The record run was that for

Primerose with 104 performances in 1912 following close on the heels of a forty-eight performance, three-month run in

1911 after it’3 premiere in October. Le Duel received ninety-one showings its first year in 1905 and Le Autre danger, eighty-five in 1903. Runs of sevpntiy-spvon, seven­ ty-one, sixty-three and sixty-one performances were granted

4 A sample comment 1 "There were periods of lonq runs when the National theatre shed its glory, as it were, and came into sharp competition with the commercial theatre." Huntley Carter. The New Spirit in the European Theatre (New York, George Dorain Company, 1 ^J25) , p^ 125. 88

Patrie (1^10), Parattre (1906), Le Pedale (1904) and

Conn.i i s -toi (1909) respectively, and approximately fifteen other plavs received more than forty performances in a sin- qle year. The longest runs generally occurred durinq the first year a play was introduced, but there was one nota­ ble exception. Amoureuse * s run of forty-nine performances occurred in 1919, eleven years after its premiere0 Be­ tween 1910 and 1917 it was not presented at all.

Interestingly, initial success was not necessarily a sign of durability, Connais-toi, for example, after its fine 1909 showing, was performed only twice in 1910 and then was ignored for the balance of the period* Similarly,

L* Embuscade was presented forty-nine times, but all in

191?. Thirty-five other long plays shared the fate of

L* Embuscade in that they were included in the repertoire only the year of their premiere and thirty-nine more were stretched, like Conna is-t.oi, to only one additional year,

A mere eight, had the durability to survive for ten or more years du^ino the period from 1901 to 1920, though jt must be remembered that some continued to be performed after 1920.

Table 7 lists the twenty lonq-play premieres which remained actively in the repertoire for at least five of the twenty years covered by this study* 89

The Nature of +~he Premieres in the Repertoire

In the minds of nost people, the name, Cornedie-Fran­ caise, undoubtedly conjures up imaqes of classical period pieces from a distant and gloriour past staged with elab­ orate and appropriate stylization. However accurate the

image in reference to the classical repertoire itself, it

is grossly misleading in reference to the total repertoire, for the plays which were premiered at the Cornedie-Francaiso from 1901 to 1920 were overwhelmingly the work of major, contemporary, French playwrights, most of whom were iden­ tified with the realistic camp.

The Repertoire was French. — That the new plays at the Comedie were primarily French provides no surprises, but it was relentlessly so. Foreign plays were very nearly as rare as premieres during the first two decades of the century as they were in the existing repertoire, particu­ larly if we exclude from this category pieces by men such as Maeterlinck and Emile Verhaeren who, though Belgian born, were very much a part of the French literary scene. Modern plays of foreign oriqin were simply not done at all* in fact, only William Shakespeare and the ancient Greeks were permitted to break through the harriers erected to keep the repertoire 'pure.*

Shakespeare was represented by three plays* Shylock. ou le marchand de Venise (1905); translated by Vigny* 90

Macbeth (1914), translated by Richepin; and Juliette et

Romeo (1920), translated by Rivoire. All were given elabor­ ate productions but none gained a real foot-hold in the repertoire. Shylock was presented a total of nineteen times, Macbeth. thirteen, and Juliette et Romeo, twenty- one times. The latter received an additional three perfor­ mances in 1921.

All three of the major Creek traqedians were represen­ ted. Sophocles* Elect re premiered in 1907 in a translation by Poizatj Euripedes* Andromaque et Pelee. in 1917 with

Silvain and Jaubert providing the translation. Aeschylus was represented by Les Perses, again with a translation by

Silvain and Jaubert, and, less directly, by Les ^rinnyes, authored by Leconte de Lisle and based on the Oresteia.

Further ancient influences were evidenced in Moreas*

Iphirrenie (1912), Mend^s* Med^e (1903) and Rivollet*s

Les PheniciennesP (1905). With the exception of Electre,* which received fifty-one performances over a nineteen season spread, the ancients fared little better than Shakespeare.

The Cornedte*s alleqiance to French drama was in no way com­ promised by its occasional and brief encounters with plays from foreign sources. 91

^h™ Rcportoi re was ront.^mpornry, — The Greek and

English rlassirs lister! above were unique in the Twentieth

Cnntury Repertoire not only because they vere foreign but

also bemuse they were not contemporary. The great Frnnrh

classics were all part of the repertoire of the Comedip-

Franraise prior to 1901 and trost of the worthy Nineteenth

Centurv plays had also been tried. Consequently, the plays

premiered between 1901 and 1920 were, for the most part,

not rediscovered 'gems* from the past, but relatively new

plays by contemporary plawrights. Some of the new plays even received their first, performances at the Comedie,

though most were produced at other Parisian theatres before

becoming part of the repertoire at the National Theatre.

Of the 140 authors whose works were premiered between

1901 and 1920, more than eighty per cent were living at the time of the Comedie-Franraise opening of their play and most of those who were already deceased were nevertheless considered modern piavvrights at the time, certainly in the sense that ve consider Shaw and O ’Casey modern in the con­ temporary Frglish-speaking theatre. As a matter of fact, most of those in this latter group, 1ivo Shaw and o ’Cnrey today, had only recently vacated the literary scene and only a very few died significantly before 1890. Alexandre

Dumas, pere (d. 1870), Francois Ponsard (d. 1807), Genrqe

Sand (d. 1876) and Alfred de Vigny (d. 1863) are the most 92

prominent examples in this catoqorv and their plays (Dumas*

Antonv, nine pprformnnro^i Ponsard's Mariaqo d*AnqoliqMo,

seven perf ormances j Sand's Claud i e and Ma'i^ro Favilla,

sixteen and twenty-one performances respectively} Alfred

do Viqnv*s translation of Shyloekt on 10 marchand de Vonise,

nineteon performances) can hardly be said to have dom­

inated the period.

Several plays, thouah, were authentically pre-modern.

Le Pedant iouo, for example, written by Cyrano de Bergerac

in 1654, was given two performances by the Comedie in I9i0.

Jean-Pierro Claris de Florian wrote Da Bonne m^re in 1785.

This one-act. play also premiered at the Comedie in 1910 and was presented a total of fifteen times over throe seasons.

Marivaux is considered one of the classic playwrights

the French National Theatre but his La Surprise de l * amour was not attempted until the Twentieth Century and received eleven performances in 1911 and 1912. Armide, a tragedy

by Philippe Quinanlt, dating from 1686, was abandoned after only two perform?none. Sirco this latter work was offered to th« public in 1°10, the same year as Le Pedant

jone and I.a Bonne ^oro, and one year before La Surpri se de 1 * amour, it would seem that a special effort was being made in the middle of our period to perhaps answer the critics and mount some distinctly pre-modern pieces as premieres — an effort which was demonstrably unsuccessful, 93 judoino bv thp performance records, and, apparently, dis- con^inued,

There were plays beinq offered, such her Idopros pauvres, written as ea>*ly as 1858, which were not pre­ miered at the Cornedie-Francaise until after 1901, and so the impression should not be qiven that the plays were all hot off the writing desk, but examples like this one and those ci ted in the paragraph above merely become the excep­ tions that prove the rule. What we are calling the Twen­ tieth Century Repertoire — those plays which premiered between 1901 and 1920 — was predominantly just thati the creative efforts of men who lived and worked in the

Twentieth Crrturv. Of the top twenty—fi'""' nuthnrs o*" pre­ miere productions at the Cos»dio, in terme of the number of performances their works received between i 901 and 1920

(see Table 8 on the next two pages), only Labiche, Renard and Fanvjlle were deceased by 1901.

The Repertoire was popular. — With 140 authors re­ presented, it follows that many were of relatively minor status in the theatrical world. Seme had earned reputations off the stage as novelists or poets; some e n j o v e d no real reputation at all. But the ir«n whose works dominated the staoe of the Cornedie-Francaise during these years were the major contemporary playwriqhts of the Parisian theatre, major both in the sense of popularity with the public and 94

TABLE 8

THE TWENTY-FTVF PLAYWRIGHTS OF THE COMEDT R-FRANCAT SE WHOSE PLAYS. PREMIERING BETWEEN 1901 and 1 920, RECEIVED THE MOST PERFORMANCES

P2 ayvriqht Number of Number of Play? Performances

Henri Lavrdan 6 617

Paul Kpr''ipii 7 480

Gaston Armando do Cai1lavpt 4 441 and Robert do Flers

Maurire Oonnay 4 314

Henri Bataille 5 304

Octave Mirbeau 2 224

Tri stan Bernard 3 217

Pierre Wolff 4 208

Andre Rivoire 5 202 \ Eugene Birieux 4 177

Alfred CnpnR 3 167

Georges de Porto-Riche 2 153

Georges Oourteiipp 4 1 SO

V Euaeno i.n bi oho 2 1 24

Ado! pbe Ade*-or and Ephrnim 7 1 1 6

G u s f' a vo G i n cb e s 3 111

Jnlecj Repard 2 1 01

Victorien Sardou 1 99

Chous i 2 95

Fernand Vanderem 2 90 95

TABLE 8 — Continued

Pi ayvright Number of Numbe*- of Pi avs Perf ormnrof

Henri ^istomaockers 2 79

Henri Bernstein 2 74

Theodore de Ranville 3 68

Jean Aicard 1 68

Alfred Poizat 2 63

acclaim with the critics. This, of course, was no accident,

for the modern repertoire was considered to be a "sort of honours list of contemporary drama," even encouraging

"authors to offer the best of their new plays for orinin3!

production at. the Franchise." ^

In an article entitled "The French Post-War Theatre," published in Dickinson's The Theatre in a Changing Europe,

Edmond See, eminent French critic and sometime playvriaht, prefaced his remarks about the post-war years with a summarv of a ccompi i shrm=*nts prior to the war:

I have said that the dramatic accomplishments of the generation before the war were exception­ ally rich and varied. The psychological drama, the comedy of manners and character, flourished under the leadership of the two great masters and

^ Philip Carr, "Comedie-Francais," Edinburgh Review. CCXLVI (July, 1927), 147. 96

innovators, Hen»-i Becque and Gporgns do Porto- RichP, Ranking with thorn vpre such writers jus Maurice Donnay, Henri Lavedan, Pricnx, Lomaitre, Abel Hermant, Guinon, Pierre Wnl ♦’f, Octavo Mir- beau, Paul Bourqet, Emile Fabre, and later Henri Rataille, Henri Bernstein, Romain Cnolus, Jules Renard, and Gaston Devore, Dramatic comedy was represented by Paul Hervieu and bis disciples, Henri Kistemaeokors, Charles Mere and Frondaio. Writers of historical dramas vere Paul Fort, poet- laureate and founder of the Theatre d'Art,r I-eon Hennique, Ernile Berqernt , Emile Moreau, leeotre and Romain Holland; of ideolooical and symbolic dramas, Francois de Curel, Paul Claudel, Maurice Maeterlinck, Edouard Pujardin, S a int-Georges de Bouhelier, Jules Romains, and Georges Duhamel, Comedy and vaudeville vere represented by Georges Courteline, Alfred Capus, Tristan Bernard, Georges Feydeau, Pierre Veber, Robert de Flers and Cail- lavet, Rip, Francois de Croiseet, Franc-Nohain, Sacha Guitry| the theatre in verse by Henri de Bornier, Francois Copnee, Alexandre Parodi, Jean Ricbepin, Oatulle Mendes, Haraucourt, Famain, Bauchor, Edmond Rostand.....Jacques Ricbepin, Rivoire, Zamacois, Ren^ Fauchois, Alfred Mortier, Andre Dumas, and others, ^

Of those cited by See as responsible for the Mrich and varied" accomplishnents befc-e the war, thirty-tvo vere contributors to the Cornedie-Francajse and the list reads like a Who's Who of the authors of plays most seen by

Comedie audiences during this period (^ec T^blc R). g Barrett Cia’-v, in his book, Cont<—nno-nrv French Dramatists;

^ Edmond See, MTte French Post-War Theatre," in The Theatre in a Chancing ^urono, ed. by Thomas H, Pirkirson {New Yorki Henry Holt and Company, 1917), Barrett H. Clark, Contemponrv French Dramatists (Cincinnati, Stewart and Kidd Company, 97 singles out a more selprtive list for ccnsiderationt Corel,

Brieu::, Porto-Rirhe, Hervieu, Ponrny, Rostand, Lemaitre,

Cnpus, Eataille, Bernstein and Oaillavet and Flers. Of these, only the names of Curel, Rostand and T.ema^tre are missing from the list of the Comedie*s most-produced authors.

The paqpR of T.e Theatre further document the fact that plays by the writers associated with the Comedie proliferated in the theatres of Paris. The major playwrights of the pop­ ular French stage and the major contemporary playwrights of the National Theatre were categorically synonymous.

The Repertoire was predominantly realistic.--

Generalizatiors about the literary styles represented by the

187 new plays by the 140 authors of Compdin-Frrnnise pre­ mieres between 1901 and 1920 must be less sweeping and some­ what more qualified than those concerning the nationality, contemporani t y or popularity of the playwrights, but ■* t can be seated with certainty that the Comedie was very much a part, of th" realistic movement prevalent in France and else­ where during the early part of the Twentieth Century, Its commitment to dramatic realism on stage was by no means absolute and probably was not a matter of conscious and de­ liberate policy. However, the attempt to present th° best worlcs of the foremost French dramatists of the day inevitably led to the selection of many 'realist* pieces for the stage of the National Theatre and, given the temper of the times 98 and the appetites of the public, if followed that the pop­ ularity of the^e plays would pia^e the administrators of the Comedie under some pressure in the allotment o* perfor­ mances. The result va? that. at. lea'* two out of three

0f *-tio performances of plnvs in the Twentieth Century

Repertoire vere of pieces by authors clearly associated with the realistir school.

M*»nf inn has been made of the premierinn of a small number o r foreiqn classics and the minor flirtation with distinctly pre-modern ^rench works. In addition, the ro­ mantic impul se of the mid-Nineteent.h Century had not been fully extinquish^d and the belief in the supremacy of poetic lanqmqe not totally abandoned. Consequently, the per­ formance of plays written in verse continued and rirty- so'fon of the premieres were in this cateqorv. Verse plays qarnered about one out o*" five of the performance? devoted to plays in 'his par4- of the repertoire. When combined with plays of the Classical Reperfoire, nearly all of which were in v«rsef and the plays of the Modern Repertoire, many of which were, it can be seen that poetic lanquaqe played a formidable role at the House of Molie^e, even after 1000. Considerin'-' the new pluvs of the Twentieth

Century Repertoire as n solf-corfained qrouo, however, it is also evident that verse vns rapidly losinq nround to prose, and classicism, romanticism, et ai, to some form of real ism. 99

Tn b ' s hook, The Main Currents of Modern ^rr-rr^, Drrima ,

Huoh Allison Smith rhirt-H the realistic movement froir the

* rni 1 ist 5 ~ socir1 Mneatre' of the lsto NinPtnpn^h Century throuqh *■h° • eontemporary realistic theatre* of bis own day B (the broV wr*s published in 1 9?5) . Those foremost in the movement be identifies as Pum.as fils, Annie1', L^b1 ,

Paillernn, Sardou, Brienx, Ourel, Hprvi.ru, Lavodan, Donnay,

Lema?hre , Porte—Riche, Pintail 1o and Bernstein. Rpfprri m to Table Eight, anain, ve see that these men *ormed the backbone of the qroup the most successful of the Come He *3 contributors — and Smith’s list, of course, is selective rather than exhaustive. There is no reason to exclude

Caillavet and ^lors, Octave Mirboan, Pierre Wolff, Alfred

Cnnus, deo*-'~eq Courteline, Jules Renard, Herri Kistnmcrkprs , or even Tristan Be^mrd ^rcn association with Smith’s appointees. in fart- , the twenty-five most produced piayvriph*-s listed in Table Eight, only four, the authors of verse plays, are clearly outside the realistic movement and th-rce of the^o, Theodore de Banviite, Jean Aicard and

Alfred Poicat barely make the list. Andre Rivoire is really the si nolo example of a domonst r abl11 successful noet-piay- wriqh*". His five plays, Juliet to et Romeo (vhirh he tran- s) at ed ) , le Pen rni Pag abort, L ’Kumhic o^f *-Tn^o , T .

8 llu-h Allison Snitb, Main • Currents o*~ Modern French Pramn. (New York, H»nry Holt and Company, 1925). 100

Sourire do faur.o, and T1 ^tnit unr» borqerc, accounted for

a total nr 202 performances during this period. Thm figure

is inflated largely borav.se of the considerable popularity

of the one-act II eta it un^ borq^ro (eig h t y - e i qht perfor­

mances) which premiered in 1 hOf and v.sos presented every

year but one through 1 920,

The Scenic Tmplications of the Repertoire

For the present study, there are two particularly pertinent facts reqardinq the place of premiere productions in the reprrtorial schem» of the Comedie-Francaise. The first is that ‘■here were premieres, that in spite of its official mission to devote itself to the preservation and presentation or the great classics o^ French dramatic liter­ ature, the Comedie accepted the perhaps related but non- theless secondary role of exploring (some cf the critics preferred to call it *exploitinq'), what it considered the best of contemporary drama. To this end it introduced an average of about nine new plays each year; new to its own repertoire and, occasionally, new to the public. The mere existereo of premieres generated the kind of p^odn^tion activity which is ^h" subject of this paper.

Secondly, while a year's premieres were n tiny frac­ tion of the total works in the repertoire, cumulatively the plays introduced after lhOl enjoyed a disproportionately large share of the stage action. References to design 101

and scenic practice for those p") ays, therefore, ar^ rra] lv

rpforerrf's to at least fifty per co^t of the perfromances

at ♦'ho CothpV i p iuri na these years nnd, indiroet-iy, becaurn

nf the continuation of r>arv existing traditions and nrar-

tires, to many more.

For all of its glories, the repertoire of the Pomedie-

Francaise is a staggering -- though, perhaps, satisfying —

burden to those who must maintain it. ArcorH ing to M, Pog or

Hoff, current stage manager of the Cornedio-Fran^aiso

(Directou”* General de la Scene), such is certainly the

case in 1970 and, according to the historical evidence, 9 . . . such was the case from 1901 to 1970. And while it is

true that the ability the acting company to boar the

repertorial load may astound ns more than the ability

the bacV-stnge personnel to keen pace, the vork-load of the

latter group was non+'heiess extremely heavy, T^e staging

of 100 or more separate nlavs each year, many of them multi­

set productions, the alternation of as many as *:hirty di. f-

forppf works in the snace of a si nolo month, and tv,o

a^oi dance consecutive performances ^or ppo same plav,

demanded an ilnorh daily rO"riggin*j oF the stage — a con­

tingency to which the scenir form had to comply, Mention war made earlier of the occurrence, at times, of as many

Q M. Hoff accompanied the touring company or the Pomedip- Francaiso on its North American tour in 1970, affording the author an opportunity to meet with him and discuss many aspects of current and past sfaq0 practice at the Comedie, as five or sir: major unrks on the staqc of the Como-die in the qpnro of only t-vo days. The example nivon wan for

Ppbrij.r"'' ] Rth and 10th, 3 Di ? # and the plays i p'"ol vp'j ,

AlVectis, Tnrt,rPfp, I.q Ma r i a^o ^o Figaro, bp Pr^hjr ne^^uo,

Le Mai ado i ma qi na i -q and Pol i rh^, Four of ra^inrp but on" sett-ire each, but Fi qa *~n in a fi're nr*-, r ivn se+- production and Po1i ct e a Four act, four not production, makinq a total of thirteen full set tines to bo deployed in

just tvo days. popjoyed and stored. Siren the units fo»* only a few productions can be stored in the Theatre Franca is itsel*', it was necessary to constantly truck scenery back and fo*-*-h boM/eon the theatre and the workshop of the

Comedie at Nuilly. Thp*-e are two ma jor consequences rn- sul^inq froTr the constant re-riqqinc, sfo^nip and truckinq o c ennuic uni *-'7, bos'dee * be nbvioue wear and tear. One is pb'reioal; one, ir a sense, logistical. Physically, the only kind o^ scepir form really suitable for this kind of frpr-itT«r.rt is the t vo -d i men s i ona 3 . The handling of three- dimension'll, .sculptured set pieces multiplies the problems, quits* i ’‘•orally, by geometric p^oqnoss i on . I.oqi e*- i r? 1 i y , such ^ao^linq requires a tremendous nyponHi tp m of *■ i m" and ene**qv which mioht otherwise be mor" rr^n1- ivp] y inv^s' ed.

Th" Comedie 'brouoht in*, as indicated above, about nine i »\t plays, on the avernqc, each vea**. Not all of th^se were n^wly designed, As we shall see in Chapter V# one- act plays in particular seemed rarely to have be~n pp.r-rorrred 103 within rpprinVl y scpnnrv and snw1 of the lon'j^r olavs vrrp similarly treated, Distributed tr it was Mronq a number of pa in tor-deeora t o r r', t bo design load -m s rar fron! overwhelming and o'-en the bni Idor^ and painter- at tho Ooneiio*s vprknhop, it would s p p t i , worn not laboring under an i . nsnoerabl o burdon. At tho Theatre it"nif, v,nv- over, tho problems inherent in bringing -my now piny to li^e vere great1’/ aggravated by the fart that the va <■' never really noop?fiiblp to any degree of permanence prior to the premiere performance of a Pl^y because of tho daily demands of the on-qoino repertoire. In one sense, the stage of the Cornedi e-F*-*inca i so is never vacant. In another mnr^, it. must always bo moment ini ly -'ra on tea bl e . Neither ritual ion is roorirci',ro to the preparation of now and untried works and it is particularly inhospitable to the use of complex or innovative staging and/or design. Ambitious or exper­ imental work requires the luxury of time and space — or at. least nrpat^r flexibility in their use thin stage prac­ tice at the Comedie affords. The storace problems, the time and f'n

The maintenance of a vast repertory of plays inevitably

recommends some re-use of scenic units. Plays with a short

life expectancy would not be worth the cost of new scenery

and, with a warehouse full of handsome and serviceable units.

— many of which were originally executed for productions

no longer presented — the tendency would be to re-use

scenery when feasible. This was clearly the practice at the Coinedie-Francaise between 1901 and 1920, as we shall

observe in Chapter V. It requires just a small leap from

this well-documented fact to a speculation that the Know­ ledge that this was the case affected the actual design

of the original units. Due to its splendid repertory

system — and, franKly, to its government subsidy — the Cornedie-Francaise could withstand the set-bacKs of some

short-lived productions (if* in the repertorial context,

it is even appropriate to speaK of set-backs). Stated differently, the Comedie had no greater guarantee of pop­ ular or critical success for its new productions than many modern production companies and many of its new plays were quickly abandoned. Even some of the plays which enjoyed some initial success were not prone to longevity. There­ fore, while scenery was designed and executed for plays with the awareness that the units might be required to serve a given play and endure the rigors of the system for ten or fifteen years, perhaps even longer, the normal expectation -vis* ^a^e ty'pr i hat- the sow plays vo'iM probably he prp^^r-

ted nni v pti'5 or *-vn reasons, throe n* w f -, and, quite no'-ri bl y , for iusf n fo: p p r ^ o r i r ^ ’irpj:. Tho

placed in storage, would then bo -ivai !nbb? 'or nr^ in other forthcoming productions -- provided 4 vnro rot- ro unique as to p-rrludo ro -?ppl icat ion. It i ^ d i i cul t to believe, therefore, that potential re-n<;o vras rn* something of a faevor in ♦‘he* doojen of now scenery at tho CnTO'die, a factor vhicv' vould militate against any k'nd o^ iin'quo

innovation in ojthor tho construction or tho paintinq o* tho in its.

The evidonee suggests that tho few pre-modern pieces premiered during these years wore not afforded specially dec i pnod sp,-4iTr,s and thus prertei no influence over sceric design prartice. The pre.?entatinr tho qj-ep't and Pngl i sh clas^i ee (•'iot4. of whi rh were q i vep p1 rbor? 1"; productions) and tho conti auinq (if declining) dedication to vsr’m n i-ind o^ poet i c d^ana, provided the pa i’-ter-doooratorr associated with ^he Comedie oprorturity to oromul gate tto rrenir practices «-ho 1 ^tp N i net ppp 4 h Pepf nj-yt But to he truly

T-o^noos i ve to fV 1. i tvrarv s t y 1 o or the irrriit’r"v which dominated the Twentieth Century Repertoire of *“ho Pnrr,ed->‘n -

Fmncri^0, come ^ortn of realistic illusion was <-~i«^rly mandated. As Chapter VI will demonstrate, thn mandate was h . o r o r o d . Chapter V

SCENIC FORM AND PRACTICE

Scenic Form The magnitude of the repertoire and the limited stage

space at the Theatre-Francais do not combine to preclude absolutely three dimensional complexity in the application

of scenery to the mise-en-scene. These factors do make such a goal difficult to attain and during the period from

1901 to 1920 there is no evidence of any attempt to do so.

The scenic units employed vere consistently two-dimensional, steps and levels were modestly and sparsely applied and

dimensionality was achieved largely through the arrange­

ment of the scenic units in the stage space and the appli­

cation of the various items of set dressing. Conclusions about the actual form of the scenery used

by the Coinedie-Francaise during this period are based pri­ marily on materials from four sources! scene designs, floor plans, set photographs and a detailed record of the flying requirements. The scene designs are part of a col­ lection in the archives of the Comedie which have been micro­ filmed and given the tile, "Maquettes de Decors.** This

106 107

document contains some floor plans, as well, and others

are recorded on another film from the Comedie which is un­

titled but which might be identified simply as “Plans.”

The set photographs were originally published in magazines

of the period, most notably, Le Theatre. The flying

requirements were detailed in a hand-written record book

called the”Livre des Cintriers," which has also been

microfilmed. The above microfilms are now a part of the

Ohio State University Theatre Collection.

From the available evidence it seems incontrovertible

that virtually all interior settings at the Comedie-Francaise

were some form of the traditional box set or ’salon.* If

there were exceptions, they are not discernible, other

than possibly in the case of Patrie. which premiered in

1901 and was one of the small group of what we might con­

sider “scenic spectacles” of the period — those produc­

tions utilizing substantially more scenery than the average one-to-four set show. Set photographs suggest that the

interiors for Patrie may have been achieved by reliance

on the older wing and drop arrangement but there is no cor­

roborative evidence and the other “spectacle” plays (Don

Quichotte. Macbeth. Shylock. ou le marchand de Venise.

Le Menage de Moliere, Juliette et Romeo). 1 while <

1 La Partie de piquet (1901) probably belongs to this group as well but it Is not included in the ”Livre des Cintriers” and no pictures or other materials were avail­ able for analysis. 108 heavily "hung" shows, nevertheless utilized the box set arrangement for interiors.

The actual shape of the units making up the standard box set interior at the Comedie is revealed in the elevation

’maquettes* from the archives. Figure 1, on page I09^is a patterned rendering of one of the settings for L*Enigme. a

1901 production which, according to the inscription at the top right of the picture, was used again more than twenty years later for Le Tombeau sous l*Arc de Triomphe. The i forced perspective of the ceiling line, evident in many Comedie interiors, helped to provide an added illusion of depth to this setting which, like most others of the period, was in reality quite shallow. It also provided the ceilings with a certain prominence which warranted the careful atten­ tion to their painting detail which was characteristic of

Comedie decors. The ceiling unit for L*Autre danger, illustrated in Figure 2, page HO , is a case in point.

While the L ,Eniame setting is a true box set, that is, it completely encloses the stage area, the extreme right and left units would not actually be joined with the center unit on stage but would be placed slightly forward of and slightly overlapping the downstage edges of the center unit, thus improving on the illusion of depth suggested by the painted columns. The false beam, top of the picture, placed on top of the columns and seemingly supporting the center of Figure 1. Rendering for L*Enigma (1901) o 10 Figure 2. Rendering for L1Autre danger (1902) 110 Ill the ceiling, would further enhance the illusion.

The necessity to angle the floor line of each flat to conform to the rake of the stage of the Theatre-Francais is not evident in the I^Enigme rendering, but the 'maquette* for Le Duel. Figure 3, page 112, reveals the slight, built-in angles which were an absolute necessity for the bottom of every unit not placed parallel to the proscenium opening. The Le Duel plate is of further interest be­ cause it demonstrates the considerable attention given, at times, to the creation of specific middle and back-ground units, an area in which stock or •repertoire* units were frequently deployed. The interior setting itself consists only of the unit in the lover left-hand corner of the illustration. The remainder of the units pictured were arranged upstage and seen through the windows of the inter­ ior set and the various arches of the middle-ground units, providing an illusion of considerable depth without the con­ struction of a single three-dimensional unit. The tree and foliage wing-flat pictured is typical not only of those used in backings but in exteriors of all kinds throughout the period.

The 2nd Act setting for Les Marionnettes. shown in

Figure 4, page 113 , presents a clearer, because enlarged, picture of the floor-line taper and shows how cornices and moldings, though always painted rather than real, were given increased dimension by placement in a plane separate from that Figure 3, Rendering for Le Duel (1905) 112 Figure 4. Rendering for Lee Karionnettes (1910) H* H U) 114 of either the ceilinq or the wall. The angle of taper for each unit had, of course, to be calculated accurately or the units would not fit toqether properly or result in a ceiling line which would be flush with the ceilinq itself when that unit was lowered into position. The cornice sections were apparently hinged to the top of their respective wall flats.

While the units are pictured in the various 'maquettes' as they would appear when joined on stage they would, like most modern settings, need to be broken into individual components for shipping and storage. It is unlikely, in this regard, that the maximum width of any unit exceeded two or two and one-half meters. Notice in Figure 1, for example, the very faint vertical white line dividinq the large center unit and indicating where it would either have to break or fold for handling.

Additional material relative to the box set form is in­ cluded in the evidence, in Chapter VII, of the settings for Le Marquis de Prlola. L*Amour veille and Les Soeurs d *amour. Conclusions about the success of the painter- decorators in achieving the desired illusion in their use of the form are treated in Chapter VI.

Exterior settings, a fairly common requirement of the new scripts chosen for production at the Comedie, were primarily achieved through a combination of backdrops and borders and profile wing units. Since references to 115

•pendrillons,• or legs, are infrequent in the "Livre des

Cintriers," it is probable that most of the side units were framed wing-flats handled and secured at stage level rather than soft scenery suspended from the flies. The wing-flats represented either foliage, rocks or other natural phenomena or, in what might surely be considered the most successful exteriors, the sides and/or corners of btildings. Ground rows ('terrains*) and free-standing cut-outs ('fermes*) were used to penetrate the on-stage space and provide some of the over-lap so requisite in the creation of illusory depth when the perspective horizontal lines of man-made structures cannot be exploited. The over-head borders were generally either foliage or sky. The latter, the

*bandes d'air,' were utilized with some consistency in spite of the fact that they were particularly hated by those advocating scenic reform during this period. The back­ cloths were often painted with specific and appropriate scenes but could consist, as well, of neutral sky curtains such as the 'rideau d'air* or 'panorama d*air.* The use of the term 'panorama* in this instance does not imply a moving background but, rather, a particularly wide sky-piece, the ends of which curved down-stage and extended for some dis­ tance, much as our U-shaped eycloramas now do.

There is no evidence to support the notion that exter­ ior units utilized in Cornedie-Francaise productions were 116 other than painted, two-dimensional pieces cut or "profiled” to reflect natural and architectural shapes and deployed in successive planes in the stage space to increase the illusion of spatial distance. The set photographs, themselves two-dimensional, are not particularly reliable in revealing the two-dimensionality of the scenery, especially because they were evidently retouched prior to publication in Le

Theatre magazine, no doubt to simply make them more credi­ ble and less artificial to the readers. In the exterior settings for La Court!sane and Don Quichotte. shown in Figures 5 and 6 on the following two pages, the downstage, profile wing units are discernible in front of the elabor­ ately painted backdrops. The small, cut-out tree in the center of the Le Pretexte setting, Figure 7, page 119, is rather obvious in its artificiality, and overlapping foliage borders are clearly evident on stage left of the setting for Le Paon. illustrated in Figure 8, page 120.

This photo, incidentally, is of a rehearsal rather than an actual performance, and includes stage liands as well as actors, including the man up left holding a •mat* or mast of the type used to support wing-flats like those of the building stage right. Exterior units which seem,at least in photographs, to belie more successfully their two- dimensionality are illustrated in Figures 16 and 27. Production Photo of Act I of La Courtisane (1906) 117 Figure 6, Production Photo of Tab. 6 of Don Quichotte (1905) Figure 7, Production Photo of Act I of Le Pretexts (1906) 119 Figure 8, Rehearsal Photo of Act III of Le Paon (1904) 120 121

The La Court1 sane setting In Figure 5, while typical of wooded exteriors, is rather atypical in its use of the hiqh upstage level for accomodating the additional troops.

Because of the shifting and storage burdens incumbent upon i the use of weight-bearing structures, they were infre­ quently and usually modestly employed and the movement of the actor through the stage space, or his placement within it, va3 severly constricted. The long, narrow level re­ quired for La Court1sane, however, could have been achieved

— and, no doubt was — with no surface maneuvering of the platform at all. It could easily have risen to its re­ quisite height from the cellars below through one of the upstage ’rues* or traps. Other major levels for produc­ tions, then, might also be expected to be placed parallel to the proscenium in order to utilize this mechanical ad­ vantage of the stage and such was the case with one of the palace scenes in Patrie, In this scene, two broad stair­ ways, left and right, rise to a balcony or second floor level which Is perhaps six to eight feet above stage level.

While the stairs hold large groups of soldiers, the highest level, running nearly the width of the stage — and parallel to the proscenium -- seems to hold but a single line of soldiers, much as in the La Courtisane example, and was no doubt accomplished in the same manner. The Patrie setting also utilized a large downstage platform/landing in front of an entrance arch, with stairs rising on three 122

sides, the type of platform which completely ignores the

trap configuration of the stage and which would therefore

ha\'e required lateral movement and manual handling on

stage level. There may have been other platform appli­

cations as ambitious as that of Patrie. but among the settings for which evidence is available, it remains the single example of a dependence on a really massive plat­ form arrangement. Repetitions of this practice must have

been rare.

The low porch, two or three feet in height, located stage right in the Le Pretexte setting, Figure 7, is quite

typical of the maximum reliance on stage levels for pre­ mieres during this period, though there are isolated ex­

amples of stairways that rise a few steps higher. Interior

settings rarely called for more than a simple three or four

step unit leading to a small entrance platform, as in the

Act II setting for L*Amour vellle. illustrated in Figure 45 on paqe 209 in Chapter VII. The majority of decors were independent of this type of spatial dimension and the directors of the mise-cn-scenes were obliged, even in the handling of large groups of actors, to rely primarily on the slight verticle advantage provided by the incline of the stage. In the case of the frequently shallow sets, this advantage was slight indeed. 123

The Scenic Repertoire

Every repertory company maintains its stock of scenic

units designed, constructed and painted to suit the re­

quirements of the various plays in its repertoire. As the plays are dropped from the active repertoire, the units of scenery are at least potentially available for use in

subsequent productions. In time the original association of a particular piece of scenery with a particular produc­

tion is either forgotten or ignored and "the piece becomes what is generally considered a "stock" unit. The reliance

on stock scenery for the mounting of ftew productions has

been condemned for decades as a shoddy practice which over­

looks the environmental requirements Unique to each indi­ vidual work of drama.

At the Cornedie-Francaise,during the first two decades

of the Twentieth Century, scenic practice was character­

ized by a considerable re-use of existing scenery — scenery created for previous,.usually recent, productions, many of which ceased to be performed. Scenery clearly identi­ fied with a former production and designated by the name of the production rather than simply by inventory number and generic type, constituted,at the Comedie, a kind of

specialized scenic stock which was drawn upon in the mounting of new productions. There was also a reliance on purely

•stock" elements, known at the Comedie-Francaise as

'repertoire* units, and it is doubtful that any play during 124

this period, old or new, was staged without the use, some­ where on stage, of units that could be so identified.

The role played by the 'repertoire* units at the

Cornedie-Francaise, however, was usually a supplemental

rather than primary one and the difficulty of identifying them in set photographs is indicative of this. They were

consistently used as maskings, backings, flooring and ceil­

ings — and seldom as major set pieces. In set photos

they are the units either cropped off the picture at the

top and sides or those which cannot quite be seen through window and door openings.

The stock of 'repertoire* units was comprised of about

eight generalized categories* Floor coverings, Curtains,

Legs, Borders, Backings, Flats, Draperies and Ceilings.

Though floor cloths especially designed for a play were not unknown, most productions utilized one or more of the very

standard *rep* pieces, the ground cloth ('tapis de toila*) for exteriors, one of the carpets('tapis gris le grand,*

•tapis rouge,* 'tapis du lion*) for interiors. The 'reper­

toire* curtains Crideaus') were primarily the neutral

backdrops, not the specialized scenic ones, such as the

'rideau de foret,* 'rideau de raer,' 'rideau d'air* or, in combination, the'rideau d'air de mer.* Closely related to the back curtains were the stock leg drops (*pendrillons*) which served as masking at the sides of the stage, primarily for exteriors ('pendrillons d'air,' 'pendrillons de verdure,* 125

'pendrillon de draperie’). The infrequency of reference

to these units suggests not only that they were seldom used

but probably avoided as undesirable. Border curtains

matched the ’rideaus* and ’pendrillons.* These were refer­

red to either as'bandes* (’bandes d ’air, • etc.) or as

•plafonds,’ though neither term is used today in reference

to borders and the proper translation of ’plafond* is ceiling.

•Repertoire’ units in this category included the vague but

much used ’plafond de toile,* as well as the tree and fo­

liage units such as the 'plafond de toile de for£t,* ’pla­

fond de toile de verdure,* 'plafond de verdure,' etc.

The most frequently employed type of backing was something

referred to as a 'fond en decoration,* which surely was not

a reference to a specific piece of scenery but, rather, to

a genre. The ’fond en decoration* was used as a backing

behind doors and archways and its function was simply to

convey the image of another room or hallway beyond. Pre­

sumably, in these instances, the specific aspect of the

backing did not matter and the choice of the actual unit

was left to the discretion of the stage manager or one his

technical assistants. At other times, somewhat more

definite references were given for the required backings

(’fond d ’escalier,’ 'fond bleu repertoire,* *fond de mer,*

•petite fond de forfit,* ’petite fond gotique*). There are

references in the available source material to flats Cferme^),

ground rows ('terrains'), and complete box sets (’salons’), 126 but units of this type were generally referred to specifi­ cally by name (the name of the play for which they were originally created) rather than abstractly, by number.

References to draperies are infrequent but there was some stock of drapery pieces which could be deployed as tormentor units or used to drape a large arch or window unit. Finally, there were in the scenic •repertoire* a seemingly endless variety of ceiling pieces ('plafonds*), in spite of the fact that it was quite usual to build and paint new ceilings to correspond to the 'salons* of new decors. The "Livre des Cintriers" refers to more than fifty different types, shapes and sizes of *rep* ceilings

(e.g. 'plafond de bois simple #268,* 'plafond de bois blanc simple le petite,* etc.). Cumulatively, the

'repertoire' units provided the decorators and technicians at the Comedie with one of their scenic options.

The Scenic Options In the mounting of a new production at the Com^die-

Francaise, the painter-decorators commissioned to design the decors, together with the craftsmen of the National

Theatre, were confronted with a number of very basic scenic options. Settings could be newly designed, con­ structed and painted for every scene of the new offering, with perhaps only a modest reliance on 'repertoire* units for masking and backing purposes. Or, new settings could 127

be created only for those acts of the play which demanded

a quality or configuration not already present in existing

scenery# \lsing the latter for the balance of the show.

It was also possible to rely rather completely on existing

settings with perhaps only a new piece inserted or substi­

tuted to somewhat alter the scenic aspect. Finally# it

was possible to opt in favor of the truly conglomerate

setting, pieced together with appropriate units from all

available sources. Focusing first on new design activity, there seems to

have been a sharp distinction made between the practice re­

garding one-act plays and that regarding the longer pieces.

There is very little evidence that new settings were re­

gularly commissioned for the premieres of one-act plays.

Possibly because of the relatively short life expectancy

of these plays# as revealed in our study of the repertoire,

or perhaps because they were often unsubstantial little

pieces, it was felt unwise to go to the expense and bother

of new settings. The most notable exceptions to this

policy occurred late in the period (191B and 1919) when

Les Uns et les autres was premiered with a setting by Jean

Gabriel Domerque, and Interieur. with decor by Jean

Gabriel Daragnes, also opened. These productions reflec­ ted significant stylistic departures for the Comedie# as well, and are therefore considered again in Chapter VI* 128

The "Livre des CintriersM notes some newly painted ‘plafonds* or ’fonds* for a few other pieces as well (Neiqes d*Antan.

1911j Le Sourire du faune, 1919J Le Stradivarius. 1909*

Trilby. 1904), and when ’plafonds* were called for it often meant that new 'salons* were in order as well. There were undoubtedly some other one-act productions graced with newly painted units — but there could not have been very many or the available information, sketchy though it is regarding floor plans, would certainly reflect it.

The situation was quite different in the case of the longer plays. At least fifty per cent of these plays were substantially created anew and probably from seventy to seventy-five per cent of them were presented at least with some new elements, and the percentages could easily have been even higher. Of the twenty-five productions for which there are no indications of new decor (though some of these may well have had some), nearly half were premiered during the war years from 1914 to 1918 and this may account for the apparent cut-back in scenic construction. Less than ten per cent of the long plays can be said with certainty to have contained no new elements and half of these were also presented for the first time during the war.

Relevant to a consideration of scene design activity at the Comedie-Francaise during this period is the fact that several pieces from the Classical Repertoire were reprised and provided with new decorsi Le Misanthrope and Monsieur 129

de Pourceaugnac. in 1908* Phedre. apparently in 1910;

Amphitrvon and Les Femmes savantes» in 1914* and Barberine

and L*Amour medecin, in 1920. L *Avare. Le Kalade

tmaginaire and Le Medecin malqre lui are known to have

received new ’plantations* but whether this also meant

that they were newly designed is uncertain. As always,

there may have been a few more examples than the evidence

reveals. The majority of one-act plays, then, were performed

either in a setting created specifically for another play or in what we are calling a conglomerate setting, one made

up of units from various sources. There are specific

references to set re-use for several one-act plays and they

are probably representative of many more. The decor for Le

Flibustier. which premiered in 1088, was used for Jean-

Marie in 1903 and again for La Faute d*un autre in 1911.

This must have been a useful decor for it was pressed into

further service as the single setting required for the three-

act play, YVonic. in 1913. Indications that individual

sets were used over and over again during the period are,

fortunately, rare. In fact, the Le Flibustier example, with four repetitions, is really in a class by itself. Consequently, it is most likely that audiences were more

or less unaware that they were viewing anything on stage that

they had had the occasion to see before, particularly since

there was often a time lapse of several years between uses. 130

It was quite different from the repititious use of a truly

"stock" interior or garden setting and it can be stated with some confidence that the Cornedie-Francaise was most

judicious in its re-use of scenery. iliey did not overdo the practice and made at least modest attempts to alter the old decor for the new showing. This is illustrated in

Figures 9 and 10, on the following two pages. Figure

9 is the original setting for Le Flibustier and Figure 10

is the later adaptation of it for the premiere of Yvonic twenty-five years later. While most aspects remained the same in the two settings, including, rather surprisingly, a few of the furnishings, the window and door sections have been altered by the insertion of new units. The same type of alteration is evident in the comparison of the setting for Act III of Le Foyer, in 1908, and Act I of La Marche nuptiale. in 1913, shown in Figures 11 and 12 on pages

133, and 134, Not only has the set dressing changed, including furniture, chandeliers, wall sconces, etc., but the upstage solarium of Le Foyer has been replaced by a

French door unit for La Marche nuptiale.

The one-act play, Aan£s Mariee(1908) made use of one of the sets from Chacun sa vie (1907) in spite of the fact that Chacun sa vie, rather than being retired, was still being performed in 1908 (and after, for that matter). Agnes

Mariee received seven performances in its premiere year and Figure 9 Production Photo of Le Flibustier (1888) 131 Figure 10. Production Photo of YVonic (1913) 132 Figure XI. Production Photo of Act III of Le Fover (1908) 133 Figure 12* Production Photo of Act I of La Marche nuptiale (1913) 134 135

then ceased to be presented, a good example of the practi­

cality of set re-use at the Comedie-Francaise. L*Augusta

(1916) was performed in the midst of the cavern decor from

the Macbeth spectacle of 1914. The latter, elaborately

and expensively mounted, was presented only eleven times

its first year and twice more in 1916. The setting for

the first act of Le Gout du vice was used for Les Deux

couvorts. which opened in 1914, and the third act of

Lucrece Borgia (1918) found reapplication the following

year in the production of Triomph. Triomph is another example of the type of piece that hardly' warranted a com­

pletely new furbishment. It was presented once in 1919, four times in 1920, and then two or three times more after

1920 on a once-a-year basis.

Occasionally, the evidence relative to set re-use is confusing rather than enlightening. Le Soupcon is a one- act play which received its Comedie premiere in 1920. It presumably used a setting originally created for the 1907 opening of Monsieur Alphonset at least this is the conten­ tion of a note contained on the *maquette* for Monsieur

Alphonse. though the MLivre des Cintriers” entry for

Soupcon makes no mention of it. Moreover, the "Livre des Cintriers" not only fails to support the premise that the 1907 decor for Alphonse was new but claims that the fourth act * salon* of La Courtisane was used instead, a fact that set photographs for the two fail to corroborate. 136

The contradictions can perhaps be explained simply as errors

in the keeping of the backstage records, but might also be

attributed to changes made in the mounting of the various

productions subsequent to their opening* Marginal notes

in the "Livre des Cintriers" attest to numerous incidental

alterations made in the settings over the years. Settings designed for prior productions were utilized

in at least a fourth of the long plays which premiered be­

tween 1901 and 1920. Often, though, the older sets were

used for only one or two acts out of the total* There is

no need to refer here to every instance of set re-use for

the long plays as the examples are similar to those already

cited in connection with one-act plays and productions such

as I*a Marche nuptiale, Le Foyer and Yvonic. Further ex­ amples are forthcoming in Chapter VII concerning La

Marquis de Priola and L*Amour veille. Several special

cases are of interest, however. While the settings which

were re-used between 1901 and 1920 were nearly always those

which had been originally produced during these same years,

there were a very few instances of the use of decors created

for modern plays which premiered sometime before the turn

of the century* The example of Le Flibustier has already

been cited. Le Clottre. in 1917, used as its first act

setting the interior set of the fifth act of La Reine iuana.

an 1893 premiere, demonstrating that even plays initiated 137

during the "renaissance" period of the late teens were some­

times presented with scenic backgrounds dating back as

many as twenty-five years. Full settings from plays in the Classic Repertoire were

seldom pressed into service for premieres (though individual

scenic pieces might be), but there were at least two ex­

ceptions. Sophonisbe (1913) was performed in the setting

normally reserved for Nicornede. a Corneille play, and the

one-act play La Conversion d*Alceste, a comic sequel to

Misanthrope written by Courteline and premiered in 1905,

understandably utilized scenery created originally for the

Moli^re work.

Comme ils sont tous (1910) is an interesting example

of a four act, four set show in which not a single act ben­ efited from the use of a decor designed especially for it.

The Act I setting was the * salon* of the second act of La

Marquis de Priolaj Act II, the first act * salon* of Par-

altrej Act III, the * salon* of R^velli and Act IV, a

•salon* of Le Paillonne (a pre-1900 play). Pour 1a couronne. premiering during the war, was similarly put together, but such practice was not usual. Old settings were generally finessed into the production scheme in the company of freshly executed decors. 138

The Conglomerate Setting

Many exterior settings, and some interiors, were e-

volved from a combination of 'repertoire* units, isolated

units from one or more previous and recent productions,

and, occasionally, a newly designed and/or painted piece

or two. The result might very well be considered a con­

glomerate set. Such a setting, in other contexts, would

undoubtedly be placed in the general category of ’stock*

scenery, but that would be somewhat misleading. While the

units of the conglomerate setting at the Comedie certainly were selected from the available "stock” they were put to­

gether in new combinations and configurations and utilized

many specialized pieces designed for previous productions*

the Comedie did not, in short, rely solely on a standardized

usage of 'repertoire* units, A few examples will suffice.

In 1906, for the one-act play, Le Parasite. purely stock

elements were used for the ground cloth, the down-stage

draperies and the sky curtain at the back of the stage,

but the overhead units, the ’plafonds,* combined a unit

created especially for Parasite with those of three other shows: Amphitryon, Don Quichotte and Medee. La Premiere

Berenice (1915) used the stock ground cloth ('tapis de

toila*) on the floor, a 'plafond* from Paon hanging

above the first ’plan' of the stage, 'plafond for£t reper­ toire* units in the third, fourth and fifth ’plans,* a 139

■band d ’air* in the sixth, a 'ferme* from Don Quichotte

in the seventh and, finally, a 'rideau d'air repertoire'

in the eigth. The practice was similar for at least

some of the longer plays* Les Err1nnyes. a 1910 two- act, single set production, is an example. There is no evidence that anything new was provided for Les Errinnyes. but it combined the stock ’tapis de toile' and 'pendrillons d'air* with ’plafonds de toile* from Don Quichotte (seventh tableau). Parasite and Amphitryon* ’bandes d'air' from La Fleur merveilleuse (fourth act), and a 'rideau* from the first act of La Furie.

The conglomerate setting was at its most obvious ex­ posure for exteriors* For interiors, most piece-meal scenic work was relegated to a position upstage of the basic ’salon' and therefore functioned primarily as back­ ings of various kinds. Because of the rake of the stage and the fact that the flats used for interior 'salons' were built to conform to the rake, re-deployment of the units was virtually impossible. Only those units parallel to the proscenium were really disposed to be used elsewhere on stage. But specialized units painted for other produc­ tions were helpful, as were the ’repertoire’ units, in regard to ceilings, scenic back-cloths, backings, etc., and it was in this way that they were principally utilized. 140

Scenic Handling Other than the MLivre des Cintriers,** which details the flying requirements for the plays in the repertory at the Com^die-Francaise, the source materials utilized in this study are not particularly informative about the spe­ cifics of scenic movement. The "Livre des Cintriers" it­ self is immensely useful in determining which items of scenery were flown and which were not and in what particu­ lar 'plan' they were deployed but, while it contains some references to scenic units which were not flown, princi­ pally the 'salons,* it was b®yond the scope of that record to deal with other types of scenic handling. When the revelations of the "fly book" are considered in the con­ text of the physical limitations of the Theatre-Francais

— i.e., that the low stage ceiling made necessary the tripping of all large flown pieces — a fairly clear pic­ ture of the vertical movement of scenery emerges. What occurred on and below the stage during scene shifts is not so clear, for even the floor plans are not revealing in this regard. Putting all the various bits of information and observation together, however, it is possible to reach two general and, for our purposes, sufficient, conclusionsi first, that set changes at the Oomedie during the years from 1901 to 1920 were complex and frequent; and, second, that they were cumbersome. 141

Mention was made in Chapter IV of the fact that the monthly calendar of performances at the National Theatre mandated an almost daily re-rigging of the stage. We can now add to this the fact that the shifting of scenery on stage during the performances themselves was also a daily occurrence.

Not all the offerings of the Cornedie-Francaise during these years were scenic spectacles. As a matter of fact, the true scenic spectacles, such as Don Quichotte

J f» V* { ^ o IT* ^ ^ «— — *•* ».!» i ft W ltll 1 t O V, 1 ^ lit O C ai 4 | n ^ m r w a m w a » j » w A- >w new worKs premiering at the Cornedie-Francaise from 1901 to 1920, averaging only one such piece every three years or so. Seventy-six of the new plays were one act in length and, to state the obvious, required only one setting. The same was true of an appreciable number of long plays. About thirty plays of the 111 in this latter category utilized the same decor throughout regardless of the number of acts involved. This did not eliminate the need for nightly scene shifts, however, for the one-act plays were always performed with at least one other piece on the same bill and this was often true of the longer plays as well.

Occasions on which no shifting of scenery was required for an evening or afternoon bill at the Comedie were quite rare. This is demonstrated by the production record, for example, of the year 1912, chosen randomly for a consider- 142

ation of the repertoire in Chapter IV. Of the hundreds

of performances in 1912, only seven were free of scenic movement. The four-act play, Denise, by Dumas fils, which

requires but one setting throughout, was performed a total

of seven times during the year, each time without a com­

panion piece. Every other performance occasion in 1912

was characterized by at least one complete set change and

there were frequently more, for three and four set shows

were commonplace.

The set photographs for Le Dedale, presented in

Figures 13 through 16 on the following four pages, illus­

trate the complexity of the settings which had to be shifted

during the intermissions for a rather typical multi-set

production. Le Dedale is a five-act piece requiring

four separate settings, the decor for Acts I and IV being

the same. At least three of these were created new for the

premiere of the play in 1903. The fourth, the setting for

Act I, is described in the **Livre des Cintriers*' simply as

* salon* #110, and was, therefore, probably part of the available stock of re-usable scenery. Scene changes for

Dedale involved the shifting at stage level of three com­ plete — and not necessarily simple — box sets or * salons* without the aid of wagons or other mechanical devices, the handling of more than sixty pieces of furniture, some of it twice, plus the placement and removal of numerous set dres- Figure 13. Set Photo of Act I of Le D^dale (1903) »-» u> Figure 14. Sat Photo of Act XI of La Dedale (1903) 144 Figure 15. Set Photo of Act III of Le Dedale (1903) Figure 16. Set Photo of Act v of Le Dedale (1903) 146 sing props such as clocks, vases, pictures, etc. In ad­ dition to the manipulation of the units making up the

•salons' and the corresponding 'fonds* for backings -- as well as the tree trunks for Act V, all at stage level, there was a rather heavy reliance on the flies as well.

Suspended above the stage were four different ceilings

(Act II utilized two ceilings, one large one for the main room and a small one for the alcove up right) two chandeliers, border and backdrop lights, the interior arches, the various forest and sky borders for the exterior, the newly painted backdrop for Act V and a number of neutral masking pieces. Even with the avoidance of weight bearing structures on stage, the crews for Dedale would have had i o a full evenings work. According to M, Hoff* the Comedie-

Francaise currently employs about forty stage carpenters to rig the stage and effect scene changes. Backstage techni­ cians must have been at least as numerous in the early years of this century.

The majority of Comedie settings for premieres during this period were interiors* yet the box-set interior is a scenic form for which the stage of the Theatre-Francais can only be considered to be inhospitable. The incline of the stage is of no particular benefit for interiors but,

* M. Roger Hoff is currently (1970) the stage manager of the Comedie—Francaise. 148 rather, is a considerable nuisance factor* The traps of the stage floor and the machinery below the stage are generally useful in providing masts when needed for miscel­ laneous support but are largely ineffectual as devices for change of scenery where 'salons' are concerned except in those instances where the back wall of the room is deliber­ ately placed parallel to the proscenium and can therefore be stored in the cellars and brought up to stage level during the shift. While it is true that a considerable number of settings utilized such a wall, probably for this very reason, the floor plans of many other sets completely ignored the 'rue plan' of the stage, thereby relegating the unit's to shifting via "running* by stagehands.

The Nineteenth Century equipment of the theatre was potentially more useful, however, for exterior settings and for the areas upstage of the basic box for interiors.

The 'salons,* as evidenced by the floor plans, were quite shallow, seldom extending further upstage than the third

'plan.• This meant that the interiors were usually no more than about fifteen feet deep at the deepest point and the stage action was thus confined to a downstage area comprised of only about a third of the available stage space, a factor dictated by the poor sight lines of the side galleries of the theatre. Even for exteriors the major action seems to have been played rather shallow — 149

In spite of the fact that such settings often terminated far upstage in the eighth ’plan# * Consequently, the up­ stage four or five*plans’ were relatively more susceptible to the use of ’rues,’ ’chariots,* et al. Open trap sections would not present any particular problem and the various ’fermes’ of the middle and back-ground units could make good use of the cellars and the machinery installed there* Chapter VI SCENIC STYLE AND COMPOSITION

Realism at the Cornedle-Francalse

In his dissertation, "The Changing Concepts of Real­

ism in Scenery on the New York Stage, 1900 to 1915," 1

Richard Arnold traced the evolution of American scenic

style from vhat he termed the "pictorial realism" of the

late Nineteenth Century to an ever-increasing reliance on

"actualistic" or "facsimile realism}" from the seemingly

reasonable "illusion of reality" espoused by turn-of-the-

century scene painters to the absolutely reasonable "fac­

simile of reality" championed by men like David Belasco.

So clearly did a continuum of change become evident as a

result of his research, Mr.Arnold was able to divide his

period into five-year blocks of time and consider the

trends seriatim. For the last year or two of the period

he was able, of course, to document the somewhat declining

interest in the configurations of surface reality and the

slowly awakening interest in the less tangible but more

* Richard Lee Arnold, "The Changing Concepts of Realism in Scenery on the New York Stage, i900 - 1915." Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1962.

150 151 intrinsic qualities of scenic environment — as the "New

Movement” began at last to gain a foothold in the United

States. At the Comedie-Francaise during this same period the bulk of the new plays belonged* as we have seen* to the broad genre of realism. The scenery produced for the

Comedie from 1901 to 1920, therefore, was responsively realistic, and* with rare exceptions* this realistic mode was deemed suitable even for those works — such as the verse plays — which were demonstrably "unreal,*'

But the realism of the Com^die-Francaise was not that in which real architectural and natural features adorned the stage. Stylistic practice at the Comedie did not really make even a tentative move in that direction* for repertory — particularly the brand of tepertory identified with the French National Theatre — and "actualism" in scenery are mutually exclusive concepts. Real things (e.g. cornices* moldings, columns* beams* solid walls* trees* bushes, rocks, etc.) possess bulk and weight which render them difficult to maneuver on stage and impossible to store efficiently in modest spaces. Even if the men responsible for designing scenery for the Comedie had not been painters with roots in the scenic practices of the

Nineteenth Century and even if they had not been supplying scenery for use in a theatre boasting a stage and machinery of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century origin* the demands 152

of a constantly alternating repertory alone would have mil­

itated against any asserted move in the direction of "actual-

ism." In fact, there were no trends discernible at all

in scenic design at the Cornedie-Francaise until, in 1918,

the "New Movement" made its first modest appearances on the

boards of the Theatre-Francais.

Realism at the "House of Moli&re," then, was what Arnold would label "pictorial," the evocation of reality through the use of expertly painted surfaces which sliced up the stage space in occasionally interesting but usually routine patterns. Real dimension in the scenic background was limited to depth pieces around window, door and archway openings, the doors and windows themselves and such accoutrements as firesplaces and balustrades. But a large measure of verisimilitude was directly attributable to the generous use of "real" foreground objects, namely, furni­ ture and set properties. The Comedie*s arsenal of exquis­ ite furniture was enormous, as was the supply of pictures, clocks, vases, plants, statuettes, pedestals, rugs, cushions, lamps, sconces, chandeliers and drapery fabrics which adorned the space of most interior settings during the period

— in spite of the considerable nuisance they must have been to set and strike during the numerous scene changes.

Examples of obvious artificiality in set dressing are for­ tunately limited to such things as painted books in the 153

supposedly "built-in" bookcases painted on the flats,

as evidenced in the rendering for the third act setting for

L*Amour veille (Figure 46, page 2l0)» and the solarium

plants in the background of the third act setting for Le

Foyer (Figure 11, page 133). In fact, scenery at the Comedie was characterized by stylistic consistency* the

background dimension was painted rather than real but it

was consistently so and the disturbing juxtaposition on

stage of real and painted dimension side by side was thus

largely avoided. The same thing was true, in reverse,

for the real objects of the foreground.

The world depicted by the scenic artists of the Com^-

die-Francaise was primarily the idealized milieu of draw­

ing rooms, studies and grand parlors inhabited by people of

position and wealth* These were the people, apparently,

in whom the playwrights continued to be interested and with

whom the French people, like theatre and movie-going audi­

ences everywhere, delighted in identifying. Characters

lower on the social scale were depicted on stage as well,

though in smaller numbers, and provided with humbler accom­

odations, as evidenced, for example, by the kitchen

setting for Le Flibustier/Yvonic (Figures 9 and 10, pages 131 and 132).

There were productions of the works of some of the

Comedie*s leading realists which consisted almost entirely 154 of simplified interior decors. Lavedan's Sire (1909),

Courteline's Boubouroche (1910), Daudet and Belot's Sapho (1912), and Brieux* La Robe rouge (1909), for example, were all provided with scenic environments appropriately depicting the bumbler, less adorned, working-class world of bars, offices and modest apartments. For other pro­ ductions throughout the period such settings could be found in the company of the grander, more ornate decors which tended to dominate the practice. The mixing of the two# however, provided no particular incongruity, for the simpler settings certainly did not display the earthy ex­ cesses usually associated with the "naturalistic" school.

They were afforded a much higher degree of artistic selec­ tion than that. Nevertheless, it would be easy to ascribe a stronger realistic impulse to the creation of settings like those for Sire. Boubouroche. etc., than to those more elaborately conceived. It would be an erroneous ascription, for the one was no more or less realistic than the other.

The lofty and exquisitely decorated interiors were meant to represent real places faithfully, perhaps places to which the average spectator may have had little hope of access in his own life, but places for which surface ornament, whether tastefully or qrossly applied, was undeniably part of the reality. The settings depicting the work a day world may have seemed somewhat more realistic because the places alluded to were both more familiar and less inherently artifical. 155

They were, however, executed in the same basic stylistic mode.

The Role of Decoration It seems a fair assumption that the role played by scenic decoration at the Cornedie-Francaise was thought at the time to be realistically motivated. Ornament was pro­ vided when it was warranted and withheld when it was not.

This is not to say that there wasn't a certain self-indul­ gence apparent on the part of the artists. They were, after all, painter-decorators, and with the declining opportun­ ities at the National Theatre for exquisite back-drop painting, the opportunity to demonstrate their technique rested primarily, though not exclusively, in the rendering of the detailed surface ornament for interior settings

(or the rocks and leaves of exteriors). Whatever else can be said for the simplistic, humble, working-class, wall­ papered, box-set room, its execution presents a dreary outlook for a fine painter. So the Comedie designers no doubt went a little further in the self-gratifying exploita­ tion of decoration than was strictly warranted by the de­ mands of realism. The penchant for murals and tapestries is surely a reflection of this. They were prominent in such productions as Le Pere Lebonnard. Lea Ames en peine.

La Robe rouge. Les Victoires and La Paon and Shylock. ou le marchand de Venise. Just in the settings illustrated 156 in this study there are seven examples testifying to the popularity of this type of artistic display among the artists of the Comedie*

Whatever pleasure other types of applied decoration might have brought the painter-decorators — and, of course, there vas hardly a foot of canvas that was not painstakingly detailed — it can be said that the productions, on the vhole, benefited. The decoration for settings created between 1901 and 1920 was seldom really overdone and cer­ tainly never approached the excesses of settings like those for Le Misanthrope. Le Barbier de Seville and other pieces from the Classic Repertoire. Even the jewel-box ornate­ ness of the third act setting for Les Deux homines (Figure

17 on the following page), surely one of the busiest and most ostentatious of the period, is rather delightfully delicate and is palatable and acceptable precisely because it is not typical. Most of the elaborate decorative work for realistic plays vas judiciously applied, as evidenced in the third act setting for Les Affaires sont les affaires

(Figure 18, page 158). There is in this setting a myriad of detail so characteristic of the age but it is not indif­ ferently applied. The range of values from the dark, richly carved woodwork to the subdued tones of the murals to the bright reflections of the ornamental fireplace, results in Production Photo of Act III of Les Deux hommes (1908) Figure 18. Production Photo of Act III of !#• Affilrea aont lea affaires (1903) 158 159

composition of considerable balance and restraint. The

weakness of the settlnq is similar to that of many during this period — the overwhelming of the actor. It is,

however, more the fault of the genre than the shortcoming

of one particular setting. There was a very positive contribution made by the

tastefully ornate settinq at the Comedie as exemplified in

the decors for La Courtisane (Figure 19, on the next page),

and the Foyer/Marche nuptiale combination (Figures 11 and

12, pages 133 and 134), In an era devoid of eclecticism in

design, when scenic shapes were appreciably altered only

for exterior settings and then, normally, without exagger­ ation, the realistically motivated but accentuated surface

decoration served as a kind of stylization. Whatever ela­

boration of motif, exaggeration of line or intensification

of rhythm was desired had to be accomplished by a slight

excess in the application of paint to the interior surfaces,

for the rather stultifying adherence to realism was an un­

fortunate limitation on the artist's natural inclination

to interpret reality rather than merely represent it faith­

fully. The opportunities J7or the painter-decorators of the

Cornedie-Francaise to push realism to its pictorial limits

seem to have been afforded primarily by the several pieces of romantic derivation premiered during the period (and nearly all of the spectacles could be so identified).

161

For example, whatever its artificiality — perhaps even because of it — there is in the setting for the sixth tableau of Don Quichotte. Figure 6 , page 118, a sense of rugged adventure and excitement that makes it rather unique among the settings of the period at the Comedie, Similarly, in the fourth tableau setting for the same pro­ duction, Figure 20 on the next page, the really fine com­ position of suggested masses diagonally framing an impres­ sionistic vista of distant windmills (impressionistic, perhaps, so something more than surface reality can be implied?), surely enhanced our affinity for the quixotic mission. This setting is also one of the rare examples among the pictorial evidence of Comedie settings from 1901 to 1920 in which the compositional focal point is undeni­ ably the actor himself, or, more accurately, the char­ acter himself. In a slightly different vein but one also romantically inspired, one of the decors for La Fleur merveilieuse is worth citing. The setting, illustrated in Figure 21 on page 163, is recognizably artificial and,in terms of form, nothing that could not have been achieved simply by the use of drops and wings (though it wasn't), but it possesses a quality of rustic charm and good humor that are directly attributable to the fact that the painting is mildly stylized.

If it does not go beyond the bounds ot pictorial realism Figure 20, Production Photo of Tab, 4 of Don Quichotte <1905) Figure 21. Production Photo of Act I of

La Flour aerveilleuae (1910) 163 164 then it certainly hovers on the edge. These three examples and the very few others that might be culled from the decors for premiere productions, plus the evidence of the scenic environments afforded the great romantic pieces of the middle and late Nineteenth Century, demonstrate clearly that the nearly total adherence to realism during these years vas a most unfortunate suppression of stylistic flourish. It provides something of a rationale for some of the more exaggerated examples of decorative flair the painters displayed on the walls of interior settings. The impulses were there and needed venting.

However, regrettable or not, the mode of the period was realism and the usual intent of the painter vas to play the role of interior decorator. There can be little ques­ tion of hie success in accomplishing this task. There was an added theatrical advantage, though, to the concentration of minute detail on the walls beyond the representation of particular places. The painted detail of the wallpapers, panels, sculptured plaster reliefs, etc., provided surface texture and subtle dimension which turned the flimsy scenic forms of the stage into believable masses. What­ ever else It might be, the detailed surface is not flat, and that is a definite advantage on stage at any time and a distinct adjunct of realism. 165

Applied Depth and Implied Space

It was the conscious and necessary goal of the scenic painter, of course, to do more than render surfaces real­ istically credible. It was necessary to trick the eye in­ to believing that it was seeing something other than it actually was, that it was seeing depth where little or none existed. A good deal of illusory depth was achieved in the rendering of the objects which in "actualistic’’ settings would have possessed real dimension. Examples abound in all of the illustrations accompanying this study of the expertise with which the painter-decorators could induce the illusion of shape and depth relative to forms like rocks, tree trunks, cornices, columns, capitals, fireplace facings, and on and on. But these are matters that can be assumed basic to the art of scene painting. Of greater interest than the use of shadow and highlight to achieve surface depth is the use to which the designers put the stage space at their disposal. The available space on any stage is severely and rigidly defined. At the Theatre-Francais, as was noted in Chapter III, the stage "cube" was a space of about forty feet in depth, thirty-six feet in width and potentially as much as thirty feet in height. Because of the height, it was a very ample space, but the height proved a liability as well as an asset, for its utilization was dictated by the sight 166

lines from the galleries fully as much as by the needs of

the particular scene.

The setting for the first tableau of Shvlock. ou le

marchand de Venise. seen in Figure 22 on the next page,

makes magnificent use of the very substantial vertical space

available. Not only is a tremendous scale established by

the size of the foreground buildings but, by constrasting

them with the much smaller building painted on the back­

cloth, a rather vast horizontal space is implied as veil —

a space that the stage of the Th^fitre-Francais simply does

not contain. The success of this particular setting is

heavily dependent, though, upon the use of the neutral space

between the buildings, a feature too seldom exploited in

exterior settings at the Comedie during this period and,

given the basic tenets of realism, a feature not to be

countenanced for interiors. The space created by the huge

proscenium elevation that is so beneficial to the first

tableau decor for Shvlock becomes for many other scenes, even those for the same play, a considerable detriment, as shown by the Shylock setting in Figure 23 on page 168.

Here the space, serving no useful purpose, was filled with totally unnecessary scenic bulk and even the artist's at­ tempt to minimize the upper reaches of the set through his use of contrasting tones (which demonstrates his avareness of the problem), does not save the actors from being Figure 22, Production Photo of Tab, 1 of

Shvlock. ou la marchand de Venise 167 7i§65} ,1 X

Figure 23. Production Photo of Tab. 2 of ShylocX. ou le marchand de Veniee 168 (1905) 169 needlessly overwhelmed by about two-thirds too much surface detail. In the case of Shvlock and other examples which could be cited, the problem is not simply one of proscenium height, but of the misapplication of realistic scenery to pre-modern, non-realistic plays. Fragmentation, sugges­ tion and the exploitation of neutral space could have dealt satisfactorily with the problem. For many plays requiring interior settings, however, the problem was precisely that the proscenium opening had to be high enough to accomodate the sight lines from the top gallery and that was too high to be conducive to the presentation of credible and inti­ mate interiors of a more contemporary nature. The vertical space could be made splendid capital of when required, as in the setting for Les Affaires sont les affaires. Figure 18, page 158, which has already been cited. But it imposed a grand scale on many other productions for which it was ill suited. It is noteworthy that the artists did what they could to reduce the scale to more intimate and human proportions, as witnessed in the renderings for Les Noces d *argent. Figure 24 on the next page, and for Le Gout du vice. Figure 25, page 171, but it was a problem with which they were constantly plagued. Figure 24. Rendering for Les Nocea d*araent (1917) 170 Rendering for Le Gout du vice (1911) 172

The regrettable irony relative to the available space at the Th^atre-Francais was the inability — or, at least, the difficulty — of placing the actor anyplace within it other than the narrow band close to the audience and close to stage level. As in architecture, the best use to which space can be put in the theatre is the provision of paths and plateaus for human use. The difficulty of han­ dling levels on stage at the Comedie resulted in their scarcity and it was a rare production in which the actor could rise appreciably above his fellow actors. A notable exception can be seen in the set photo for Juliette et Romeo.

Figure 30, page 184, where Juliette was afforded the benefit of a balcony.

It has already been observed that the interior sets were usually very shallow, a factor which limited the spatial possibilities within the setting and taxed the ingenuity of the designers. The possibilities were fur­ ther limited by the fact that many of the upstage walls of interior settings were placed parallel to the proscenium, no doubt to utilize the storage potential of the cellars and the scene shifting expediency of raising the already connected'fermes* making up the wall through the floor and into secure position on stage. This led to a repeti­ tious use of the simplified box arrangement of units and a much too frequent reliance on symetrical composition. The 173

fourth act setting used for L * Amour veille and illustrated

in Fiqure 48, page 212, is an example of this practice

in one of its less imaginative applications. Attempts to penetrate the downstage space with scenic elements (other than chandeliers, which were very popular) were infrequent, but in the setting for Poliche. Figure

26 on the next page, the stage right set piece simultan­ eously sculpts the internal space and breaks up the syroetry of the upstage walls. More frequently the space was altered by the use of arches and headers which opened up and borrowed space from outside the limited confines of the basic box. The generous use of alcoves, bays, hallways and distant rooms contributed significantly to an improved scenic composition, provided additional space which was relavent to the actor and greatly increased the degree of realistic credibility.

The use, by the actor, of only about one-third the depth of the actual stage provided more space for the deployment of middle and back-ground units than would other­ wise have been possible and enhanced the possibility that the implied depth of the exterior portions of the setting would be reasonably credible to the audience. It made possible a workable separation of actor and painted back­ cloth and a succession of two-dimensional planes containing trees, bushes, ballustrades, ground swells, etc. It is the Figure 26. Production Photo of Act I of Poliche (1906) 174 175 over-lapping of such planes which, in the absence of hori­

zontal lines to exploit perspectively, make possible the

implication of increased spatial depth.

The Success of the Illusion Nevertheless, success in achieving the desired illusion of reality for exterior settings remains doubtful. At their best, as in the fourth act settings for La Petite amie, Figure 27 on the next page, and Le Dedale. Figure

16, page 146, they vould seem to have been both charming and credible, though photographs constitute notoriously poor bases for judgements of this kind. The photographic reduction of everything to two dimensions enhances the be- lievability of painted two-dimensional pieces because the eye is denied the use of its depth perception faculty which would ordinarily betray the lack of a third dimension, and, since even the real, three-dimensional objects -- including people — become two dimensional, there is a loss of valid contrasting references. Leaves, which in nature occupy thousands of individual spatial planes, become more believ­ able in photographs because our mind makes all the necessary three-dimensional inferences, which would not be true in the theatre where the obvious separation of the foliage into two or three simple planes would be only too apparent.

Furthermore, the set photographs are both taken and crop­ ped in such a way as to prevent such grossly artificial Figure 27. Set Photo of Act IV of La Petite amie (1902) 176 177 devices as sky borders ('bandes d*air*) from appearing in the picture, Firolly, the photographic problem here is further complicated by the fact that the set photos in Le

Theatre magazine, the source of most of them, were very obviously re-touched prior to publication for the very pur­ pose of removing clues to artificiality — such as the tell-tale line where the back-cloths and set pieces met the stage floor* It seems warranted to conclude, therefore, that if the exterior settings appear somewhat artificial in production photographs, as many of them certainly do, in spite of retouching and in spite of the normal photographic enhancement, then they must have projected an illusion in the theatre that was something less than realistically credible. It was a different matter for the interior setting, the execution of which was not grossly different from that of many realistic sets of our own day. The ability of painted texture and dimension to deceive the eye success­ fully is irrefutable. In the absence of selective, direc­ tional lighting such dimension is often far more credible and seemingly dimensional than actual three-dimensional trim, A modern director of a realistic play would no doubt be most content to work with the best of the

Com^die's early Twentieth Century decors.

The "best* would not include, however, most of v.he 178

settinqs produced for the premieres of plays in the ancient

classic vein. Plays like Meriee. Electre, Les Pheniciennes.

Iphioenie. Les Errinyes and L*Herodienne were plagued

on three separate counts. They were exteriors, which

quaranteed a certain amount of artificiality, they were

composittonally very static and they were ill-suited for the

realistic treatment they were afforded. They were exemp­

lifications, in short, of the kind of stage setting which

the innovators of the "New Movement" were quite justifiably

condemning. A scenic revolution was necessary not because

realism was bad per se, for it was most appropriate for a good many plays — even at the "House of Moliere" — but

because it was being indiscriminately applied to non-real­

ist ic plays as well. The non-realistic nature of much of

the total repertoire of the Comedie-Francaise was a cer­

tain guarantee that scenic innovation, though perhaps slow to arrive, would be a welcome guest.

The Comedie-Francaise and the "New Movement"

Because of the lack of pictorial evidence for produc­ tion work at the Comedie during the war years, chiefly due to the fact that Le Theatre magazine, the rich source of production photographs, ceased publication in 1914 and did not resume until September of 1919, it is impossible to 179

pin-point the exact production in which the first, tenta­

tive signs of departure from the realistic stranglehold

became apparent. If it occurred before 1918 then the

event went unnoticed at the time, for it wasn't until

that year that a break in the continuity of Comedie-Fran­

caise scenic practice was sufficiently dramatic to attract

attention. The occasion that did it was the commission­

ing of a young painter named Jean-Gabriel Domergue to pro­ vide decors for two 1918 premierest Lucrece Borgia, a four act drama by the great romantic playwright, Victor

Hugo, and Les Uns et les autres. a one act verse comedy

by Verlaine. The settings for both productions Were hail­ ed by one writer, Noziere, as joining those of Dresa and

Dethomas (painters closely associated with Jacques Rouche and the Theatre des Arts) in constituting a "renaissance of decor" in the Parisian theatre, and design critic

Raymond Cogniat has also confirmed that it was at this point that the Comedie-Francaise became part of the "Hove- 3 ment." It is noteworthy that for Aeither play was real­ ism suitable and surely the Comedie's greatest need for scenic innovation was in regard to its vast repertoire of

9 Noziere, X "Une Renaissance de Decor0 de Theatre," La Renaissance de L*Art Francaise et des Industries de Luxe. I(June, 1918), pp. 124-130.

^ Raymond Cogniat, Les Decorateurs de Theatre* Cinguante Ans de Spectacle en France (Paris', Librairie Th^&trale, 1955), p. 18. 180

non-realistic dramas. Of the seven productions from 1918

to 1920 for which the evidence clearly indicates a depar­

ture from the realistic mode# only one, Les Soeurs

d 1 amour in 1919, by Henri Bataille, was generically

realistic. (The settings for Les Soeurs d*amour are pre­

sented in Figures 49 to 46 on pages 215 to 222.

The decors for Les Uns et les autrea and Lucrece

Borgia. as reflected in sketches accompanying the Noziire

article, introduced stylization by way of fragmentation,

simplification of surface decoration and the imposition of

compositional lines not strictly motivated by respresenta-

tional needs. It is interesting that five years earlier,

in 1913, for a production of Kisternaecker * s L* Embuscade.

the Comedie's artists had provided two settings which em­

bodied many of the same qualities as those of the "break­

through" productions of 1918, But the first and fourth

act decors for L*Embuscade (Figures 28 and 2 9 on the next

two pages) were happy accidents of the realistic theatre

and not attempts to blaze new trails. The locale for Act

IV, for example, is an automobile factory which has under­

gone an explosion and so the fragmentary setting and the

intermingling lines and shapes (machines, belts, girders)

are therefore satisfactorily explained, but, in contrast to

the predictable regularity of most of the Comedie*s settings during these years, its erratic composition places it dis- f m * " + * ”

Figure 28. Production Photo of Act I of L,Embuecade J(l9l3) Figur* 29 Production Photo of Act IV of L*Embuscade (1913) 182 183

tinctly in a class by itself. The Act I setting is, of

course, not really fragmentary at all,but the generous

use of neutral space and the irregularity of the lines

which intercept the space make it seem almost as if it was.

At any rate, it is a marked contrast to the usual scenic

bulk.

In 1919 a second young, non-theatrical painter, Jean-

Gabriel Daragn&s, was retained to provide decors for Mae­

terlinck’s one-act prose piece, Int^rieur. and Hugo’s

Manqeront-ils?, a two-act verse play. The latter is ap­

parently not represented by any published pictures, and

the tree-shaded cottage setting for Int^rieur cannot be

said to be startlingly innovative. There is, however, in

the mild stylization of the weeping willow foliage for this

decor, a feature which places it at the very beginning of

a stylistic trend at the Comedie-Francaise. The believ-

ability of exterior settings was seriously compromised by

the inability of the eye of the spectator to be sufficiently

deceived by the two-dimensional representations of trees

and leaves, and so the designers, when given the oppor­

tunity to innovate, readily abandoned the unsuccessful

pursuit of realism in the creation of exteriors and substi­

tuted obvious stylization for obvious artificiality. This

is clearly evident in the settings for Juliette et Romeo.

Figures 30 and 31 on the next two pages, the first act Figure 30. Production Photo of Act I of Julietta at Romeo (1920) 184 Figure 31. Production Photo of Act III of Juliette et Romeo (1920) 185 186

setting for Les Soeurs d*amour in the next chapter (Figures

49 and 50) and even in the cartoon-like setting for the

reprise of L fAmour medecin. on the next page. It is true

that all of these examples possess other qualities that

would place them in the Comedie*s "New Movement" but it is

surely not coincidental that they are all exteriors. A

primary tenet of theatrical stylization is the frank admis­

sion that scenery is scenery and not reality — and that

point was practically self-evident in the case of exterior

settings.

Moliere*s L* Amour medecin was not, of course, pre­

miering at the Comedie-Francaise, but it had not been pre­

sented in over twenty years when it was reprised in 1920.

New decors were therefore warranted and the result was the

most radical stylistic departure Comedie audiences had

experienced. Just how radical the departure was can be

seen in the contrast between the L 1Amour medecin setting

on the next page and that created in 1914 for a reprise of

Les Femmes savantes. Figure 33 on page 188, The boldness

of approach does not, of course, guarantee the success of

the decor and in many ways the latter setting has more vir­ tue than that for L*Amour m^decin. but it was uniquely ap­

propriate that the attempt was made for a production of a

Moli^re play. For much of the repertoire of the Comedie-

Francaise the realistic era had truly been the dark ages and the break-throughs of the late teens a renaissance. Production Photo of Act I of L*Amour medecin (1920) Figure 33. Set Photo of Lee Femmes savantee (1914) lfl8 Chapter VII

THREE REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTIONS

This chapter is intended primarily as a pictorial record of three productions representative of the majority of realistic Comedie-Francaise settinqs vhich appeared on staqe between 1901 and 1920. Assembled from three primary sources — the microfilmed 'plans* from the machinest's records at the Comediei the "Maquettes de Decors" from the Com^die*s archives) and Le Theatre and

La Petite Illustration - Th^atrale magazines — it is as complete a pictorial documentation as is available for any of the 179 plays which premiered during the period.

The twenty-three items comprising this production record are divided and arranged as followsi *

For La Marquis de Priola (1902)

Figure 34 Act I Floor Plan

Figure 35 Act I Rendering

Figure 36 Act I Production Photograph

1 Source credit for each item is presented in the Bibliography.

189 Figure 37 Act II Floor Flan

Figure 38 Act II Rendering

Figure 39 Act II Production Photograph

Figure 40 Act III Floor Plan

Figure 41 Act III Rendering

Figure 42 Act III Production Photograph

L* Amour veille (1907)

Figure 43 Act I Rendering £. Floor Plan Figure 44 Act I Production Photograph

Figure 45 Act II Rendering & Floor Plan

Figure 46 Act III Rendering & Floor Plan

Figure 47 Act III Production Photograph

Figure 48 Act IV Production Photograph

Les Soeurs d*amour (1919)

Figure 49 Act I Production Photograph

Figure 50 Act I Production Photograph

Figure 51 Act II Production Photograph 191

Figure 52 Act III Floor Plan

Figure 53 Act III Production Photograph

Figure 54 Act IV Floor Plan

Figure 55 Act IV Rendering Figure 56 Act IV Production Photograph

Supplementary notes accompany each of the three groups of illustrations.

Notes on La Marquis de Priola

La Harouis de Priola received its first performance at the Coinedie-Francaise on February 7th, 1902. Presented seventeen out of the tventy years from 1901 to 1920, it was the second most produced play of the period. With

200 performances it was bettered only by caillavet and

Flers* Primerose in terms of popularity, and the playwright,

Henri Lavedan, with six new plays for a total of 637 per­ formances, was the Com^die’s most produced author.

The play concerns a diabolical "Don Juan," the Marquis de Priola, and his last attempts at amorous exploitation

-- the pursuit of his former wife and one of her closest friends. The first act of the play takes place in the

* salon* of the Ambassador to Italy where a grand ball is in progress and where the Marquis encounters his ex-wife and her friend. Act II is set in the Marquis* own quarters and 192

the final act in the home of the wife's friend, Madame

Savieres. For the record, the Marquis pays for his evil

ways before the final curtain by sufferinq a stroke of apo­

plexy which dooms him to a life of blindness and paralysis.

It is difficult to determine whether or not the three

required settings for La Marquis de Priola were created

especially for it. The language of the "Livre des Cin- triers" suggests that they were new. It refers, for ex­

ample to 'salons de la piece* for each of the three acts

and this would normally indicate that settings were designed,

constructed and painted expressly for it. The renderings

included as part of the "Maquettes de Decors," however,

contain notations which associate the settings with prior

productions; Act II with Le Demi-monde and La Loi de

1'homme, both pre-1900 productions, and Act III with

Demi-monde and Les Corbeaux (1882). The differences

between the rendering for Act II, seen in Figure 38, and the production photograph for Act II, Figure 39, would

seem to indicate that at least that setting was an adapta­ tion of one originally built for some other purpose. But

Demi-tnonde continued to be performed throughout this period and so it is not logical that its setting would have

been altered to fit another production. The failure of either the renderings or the Le Theatre reference to name the designers, on the other- hand, tends to support the pre­ 193 raise that the Marquis decors were not brand-new in 1902.

The probability is that this was the case. The lines drawn through the floor plans no doubt were put there when the plans were superceded by new •plantations* at a later date. In the Act I plan (Figure 34), the ex­ treme shallowness of the interior setting is very apparent

— even though a grand ballroom is called for — and the value of the forced perspective of the rendered units in

Figure 35 in suggesting additional depth can be appreciated.

The set photograph in Figure 36 is testimony to the success of this particular illusion. The scenic aspect of this setting is also greatly enhanced by the sizable upstage rooms seen through the various arches.

It is notable that the placement of units for Act I completely ignores the configuration of the 'rues' of the stage floor and therefore precludes the use of the under­ stage machinery for shifting. The same thing is not true of either of the other two acts, however, where the back walls run right along the 3rd and 4th ’plans* respectively.

This latter depth is probably maximum for Cornedie interiors and it is somewhat paradoxical that the smallest, most in­ timate of the three settings needed for La Marquis de

Priola was in fact the deepest. The symmetrical compo­ sition of the settings for both acts II and III is one of the unhappy bi-products of the use of those parallel back 194 walls. Unhappy or not, it was characteristic of a good deal of scenic practice at the National Theatre during this twenty-year period. Figure 34, Floor Plan of Act I of

La Marquis de Priola (1902) 195 Figure 35. Rendering for Act I of Le Marquis de Priola (1902) Figure 36. Set Photo of Act I of 197 La Marcrula de Priola (1902) Pigure 37, Floor Plan of Act II of La Marouiade Priola (1902) J U M i U

Pigure 36. Rendering for Act II of 199 La Marquis Priola (1902) Figure 39, Set Photo of Act II of Mftrquis de Fripj* (1902) 200 JJL

' P*\tl__

— -jPfndmiJ — ■■ g u n » i i m o c i l i SmfOn ' cSm m fO ► I U M M m 6S« l 2

Pigura 40. Ploor Plan of Act III of La Marquis da Priola (1902) HfcMt m u

£KS

F

Figure 41. Rendering for Act III of La Marquis de Priola (1902) 202 Figure 42. Set Photo of Act III of La Marquis de Priola (1902) 203 204

Notes on L*Anour vcille L*Amour veille. which premiered at the Com&Jie-Fran- caise on October l# 1907, was written by the National

Theatre’s most popular writing team, Gaston Armande de

Caillavet and Robert de Flers, Presented only over a four year span during the period under consideration in this study (it was presented frequently after 1920) its 105 performances nevertheless place it on the list of the

Com£die*s most produced plays (see Table 6, page 84).

The play is a sentimental comedy about a young wife who endeavors to repay her husband for his unfaithfulness by encouraging the approaches of a bookish young man no­ toriously inept and heretofore unsuccessful in the arena of love. The highlight cf the piece is their confronta­ tion in Act III in his library. In the end she returns to her husband and her Mcorrespondent" at last finds a worthy object for his affections in the person of one of those faithful girl friends who had been close at hand all along..

The first and third act settings were created especial­ ly for the 1907 premiere. The Act II 'salon* had orig­ inally been used for La Plus faible. a 1904 premiere which had been dropped from the active repertoire after 1905.

The setting for Act IV was created for another production no longer being performed, Thermidor (1891), and used 205 again for Gertrude in 1902 before being pressed into service for L1Amour veille. Subsequent to the four year run of L*Amour veille three of the settings were utilized again — at least that is the indication of nota­ tions on the renderings themselves. The Acts I and III settings are said to have served for La Nouvelle idole in 1914i the second act setting (originally built for

La Plus faible) vas used for Notre jeunesse in 1918 and, repainted, for L,Indiscret in 1919. It may have functioned for Le Voile dechire in 1919 as veil. Three of the four sets utilized vere created by the resident painter-decorators of the Comedie-Francaise* Al­ fred Devred and his son Leo. As vas indicated in Chapter

III, it seems to have been the custom for multi-set shows at the Coraedie to have the resident artists produce one or two the required sets and commission an outside artist or artists for the others. For L*Amour veille. Lemeunier supplied the new decor for Act I and Leo Devred the library setting for Act III. The other two sets had been created by the Devreds for the earlier productions.

Only the set borrowed from La Plus faible was free of the rigid symmetry so common in Comedie settings but that for Act III* because of its oval shape* was certainly none the less interesting because of it. The Act IV setting* on the other hand* is as uninteresting a treat­ 206 ment of stage space as one is likely to find.

The Act III rendering in Figure 46 is interesting on several counts -- in addition to its curved aspect (achieved, however, with flat units). The mirror stage right has a painted reflection on it and the books in the bookcases are, with the exception of three practical shelves, painted on as well. The functional .shelves are evident in the production photograph for this act as well (Figure 47).

Finally, this setting constitutes a very successful handling of the vertical space. Though the walls were at least sixteen or eighteen feet tall there is an evocation here of a homey, comfortable, middle-class intimacy that is very pleasing. Figure 43. Rendering and Floor Plan for Act 1 of L*Amour veille (1907) 207 Flgur« 44* Production Photo of Act I of L,Awour veille (1907) M

a Ul ■■■ fc »■* tmm «/l . »■.*■■ »«<^. i 4 4j . «M~ ***n K-- U»

Figura 45, Randaring and Floor Plan of Act II of L'Amourvellle (1907) to O to ___ 0 C L u w m . 2 ' 1^1 i J * f t . . |wwnT te. *^»J. r’**' **!'»■■ m trnjwi. . twt * *^[1^.^ U»M Uijjt ^ ".C Av.t,~»t-C A JUiwutfc . ' W l n t a C IK £* f l W * A *w- <44 1 - t l C 4. “ - * ^ K»*L J"

Figure 46* Rendering and Floor Plan of Act III of L 1Amour veille (1907) 210 Figure 47. Production Photo of Act III of 211 fAmour veille (1907) Figur* 48. Production Photo of Act IV of L*Amour veille (1907) 212 213

Notes on Les Soeurs d'amour Les Soeurs d*amour opened at the Comedie-Francaise on April 15, 1919 and ran for a total of forty-eight per­ formances that year with three more following in 1920.

Henry Bataille, its author, with five plays to his credit

in the Twentieth Century Repertoire and a total of 304 performances, ranked fifth among the writers who worked for the Com^die (see Table 8, page 94). The play is a serious love story enacted respectively in the garden of a Chateau, a lounge in a fine hotel, an architect's studio and the birth place of the hero in the town of Huelgoat.

The four settings were all created new for the pre­ miere, which accounts in part,;surely, for the uniformity of style throughout the production. But the multiple de­ signer concept was still in force and at least two painter- decorators were involved in the project. Leo Devred ex­ ecuted the rendering for Act IV, seen in Figure 55, and

Paquereau is credited on the third act floor plan with the creation of that setting.

The Les Soeurs d 1 amour settings are of particular in­ terest because they reveal the subtle influence on the de­ sign for realistic plays of the "renaissance" of style evi­ dent in the Parisian theatre after the war. The soft, half­ tone quality of the settings revealed in Figures 49, 51, 53 and 56 is the result of the reproduction process used by 214

La Petite Illustration magazine and not the actual appear­

ance on stage* The production photograph from Le Theatre

in Figure 50 is included to provide a somewhat more liKely

view of what the members of the audience actually saw.

It does seem, however, judging by the rendering by Leo

Devred for Act IV (Figure 55), that a somewhat muted,

impressionistic quality was precisely the goal. A com­ parison of his rendering style for this production and that

displayed for, say, the third act of L * Amour veille

(Figure 46, page 210) would suggest a new intention behind his work. At any rate, there is in the design of Les

Soeurs d*amour evidence of a simplicity and reserve and,

at least in the case of the exterior, a gentle stylization which were new to the Comedie — particularly in regard to realistic plays. And certainly nothing was done here that

in any way did violence to the realistic nature of the piece. Figure 49. Set Photo of Act I of Lea Soeura d*amour (1919) Figure 50. Production Photo of Act I of

Lea Soeure d*amour (1919) 216 Figure 51, Set Photo of Act II of Lae Soeura d*amour (1919) l^txSo.

i t‘*»<

4

5 "VO DMMRiiNOiiLi It Lid

Figure 52* Floor Plan of Act 111 of Lee Soeure d*amour (1919) 216 Figure 53, Set Photo of Act III of Lee Soeure d*amour (1919) 219 T- g-0 i i jLtiJf |«4 Wjt U,

? '-*v . 1,1 h *. A- j* J* - htii -w h \-

**V-.

Figuro 54, Floor Plan of Act IV of

Lo« Sooura d»a>nour (1919) 220 Piguro 55* Rendering for Act IV of

L e a S o e u r a d*amour (1919) to Figure 56• Set Photo of Act XV of Lee Soeure d*amour (1919) 222 Chapter VIII

SUMMARY

The advocates of a "New Movement" or a "New Stage­ craft" during the early years of the Twentieth Century vociferously condemned certain aspects of conventional scenic practice which they felt were not only objectionable bat definitely detrimental to the achievement of the thea­ tre's true potential. Among these were* the absence of plastic and spatial features) the corresponding reliance on painterly techniques) the use of two-dimensional scenery and the attempts to render it illusionistic through the use of painted perspective) the proliferation throughout the stage of useless detail) the overwhelming of the actor by scenic bulk) and the absence, due to a slavish adherence to realism, of stylization. The lack of stylization was symptomatic of the denial of the artist's freedom to inter­ pret his reality rather than merely represent it, and also of the failure to permit the style of each production to reflect the values unique to and inherent in that par­ ticular dramatic work* As this study has shown, such alleged abuses were characteristic of most of the scenic

223 224 practice at the Cornedie-Francaise between 1901 and 1920.

Though we can conclude that the scenic artists at the Comedie were very good at what they were attempting to do, the fact remains that what they did epitomized the conven­ tional practice which the innovators hoped to abolish from the stage. Why this was true when the Comedie could have benefited greatly from the scenic simplification associated with the new theories of stagecraft has been the concern of much of the foregoing study.

The Cornedie-Francaise was not in a position to champion the cause of scenic reform, but neither was it in its ulti­ mate best interest to reject it. It therefore responded to the new spirit, but the response was eventual, not im­ mediate. The seemingly lethargic rate of response on the part of the Comedie was due. In some measure, to the inertia char­ acteristic of a theatre group run by committee and guided by tradition. In such a situation it takes time to convince a sufficient number of people that the old ways of doing things are no longer viable to meet the needs of changing conditions. Moreover, while certain other theatres have become associated with the boldest kinds of innovation dur­ ing this period, it was always an individual or pair of individuals that dreamed the dreams, provided the momentum 225

and possessed the nearly absolute control of the theatre's

destiny to accomplish goals congruous with their vision.

At the Comedie-Francaise a situation of this nature has > never had the remotest possibility of existing. Moreover,

the leading practitioners of reform commanded fledgling theatrical groups without an iota of tradition with which

to contend and certainly without the burden and responsi­

bility of several hundred works to maintain and afford daily performances. Given the staggering production sched­ ules of the National Theatre, the constant need to re-rig

the stage in preparation for the next performance and the

resulting lack of stage time for the working out of new

techniques, the wonder is that new plays were premiered at all, much less productions boldly innovative in nature.

But even if the conditions were suitable, experimentation

is not the business of the Comedie-Francaise, whose man­ dated function is to preserve rather than discover. The normal operating procedure was to assimilate practices after they had been tested elsewhere and found desirable, and this

Is a gradual, not a sudden, process..

The Comedie was also slow to respond to the pleas of the scenic critics because the Parisian theatre in general was slow to respond. There were few native French break­ throughs during the period at any of the major theatres and the Comedie*s kinship with the non-subsidized houses 226 and their conventional practices vas assured by the reten­ tion of the same painter-decorators that monopolized design activity throughout Paris, The rate of change was affec­ ted too by the fact that these artists were already the old men of the business in 1901, men trained in the prac­ tices of the late Nineteenth Century and constituting a type of conservative establishment in the theatre. Real progress on the Parisian stage and at the Comedie-Francaise was necessarily retarded until most of these men had passed from the scene and/or until the Comedie*e administrators mustered the courage to commission work; from less estab­ lished but younger, more vital artists.

The rate of change at the Comedie was also affected by its practice of commissioning settings for the various acts and scenes of a play as if they were autonomous ve­ hicles, thereby assigning two, three or more designers to a single production. This resulted not so much in a lack of production unity, as might be expected, for all of the major painter-decorators worked in essentially the same manner, employing the same basic scenic forms and working within the same narrowly defined stylistic limits. It did result, however, in a lack of originality, for an artist could hardly indulge himself experimentally in the creation of a setting that had to blend onstage with the work of other men. 227

The Comedie*s custom of re-using existing scenery was

an additional factor detrimental to the adoption of new approaches, for such practice is feasible only so long as the new units being created are essentially compatible with

the old and, in turn, susceptible to further use themselves* Whatever the inclinations might have been, the espous­

al by the Comedie-Francaise of practices relative to the

creative use bf stage space and three-dimensional "plastic"

scenery was seriously handicapped by the nature of the

Theatre-Francais and the demands of repertory* Obliged

to work with a newly constructed stage which was Inhospi­

table to anything but two-dimensional forms, faced with the necessity to truck and store a vast number of settings

and unable to install units on stage with any degree of permanence (one day, maximum), the artists and craftsmen of the Com&die found the admittedly desirable goal of ex­

ploiting space for the benefit of both actor and mise-en-

acene tauntingly out of reach.

The Comedie was slow to incorporate other aspects of

the "New Stagecraft" because the plays in its repertoire

most suitable for non-realistic staging were not the ones

being provided with new decors — except in a few instances.

Under the best of circumstances and the most concerted of efforts it would literally take years to overhaul sceni-

cally a repertory system as vast as that of the Comedie- 228

Francaise. The innovations of 1918 through 1920, impor­

tant though they were, constituted but a tiny proportion

of the production output and the plays involved took their

places beside scores of others for which old style scenery

existed and continued, naturally, to be used. Most of the plays for which new decors were being pro­ vided, on the other hand, were not categorically suited

to innovational staging, and the slow response to the move­ ment can therefore be partially ascribed to the Comedie*s

participation in the modern theatrical milieu and its production of the plays of the major, contemporary, French playwrights — the majority of whom were identified with the realistic school. Considering all of the various circumstances, the artists of the Comedie-Francaise can be said to have served this school with credit. APPENDIX A

THE REPERTOIRE OP THE COMEDIE-FRANCAISE

1901 TO 1920 ft

PART It THE CLASSICAL REPERTOIRE b

No. of No. of No, of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 Tb 1920 1901-20

A QUO I RE VENT LES JEUNES FILLES 1 17 5 de Musset

L* AMOUR KEDECIN 274 10 1 Moliere

AMPHITRYON^ 867 23 6 Moliere

ANDROKAQUE 853 106 20 Racine

ARLEQUIN POLI PAR L ’AMOUR 9 18 4 Mari vaux ATHALIS 457 30 7 Racine

L* AVARE 1503 97 17 Moliere

a. Based on statistics compiled "by Alexandre Joannides in La Comedie-Francaise 1901 - 1926. 10 vols.,(Parisi Plon- Nourrit et C . , 1902 to 1927).

b. The Classical Repertoire includes the works of Moli&re, Racine, Corneille, Marivaux, Regnard, Beaumarchais and de Musset. __ 230

THE CLASSICAL REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 To 1920 1901-20

BAJAZET 407 15 5 Racine

BAHBERINE 12 6 1 de Musset BARBIER DE SEVILLE (LE) 766 87 19 Beaumarchais

BERENICE 156 64 17 Racine

BOURGEOIS GENT ILHQMME (LE) 533 26 5 Moliere

BRITANNICUS 707 73 11 Racine

CAPRICE (UN) 340 42 11 de Musset CAPRICES DE MARIANNE (LES) 169 68 8 de Musset

CHANDELIER (LE) 130 25 5 de Musset

CID (LE) 919 111 20 Corneille

CINNA 619 26 9 Corneille

COMTESSE D'ESCAHBAGNAS (LA) 551 14 5 Moliere

CRITIQUE DE L'ECOLE DES PEEKES (LA) 79 5 3 Moliere

DEMOCRITE 416 14 5 Regnard 231

THE CLASSICAL REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

DEPIT AMOUKBUX (LE) 968 111 20 Moliere

DON JUAN 71 17 2 Mol i fere ECOLE DES FEMMES (L*) 1203 41 14 Moliere

ECOLE DES MARIS U') 1211 28 9 Moliere

EFREUVS (L*) 382 24 5 Marivaux

ESTHER 159 12 3 Racine

ETOUHDI (L1) 486 28 12 Moliere f Xc h e u x (l b s ) 226 2 1 Moliere

FAUSSES CONFIDENCES (LES) 358 36 8 Marivaux

FEMMES SAVANTES (LES) 1189 108 20 Moliere

FOLIES AKOUHEUSES (LES) 1039 50 14 Regnard

FOUHBERIES DE SCAPIN (LES) 865 69 16 Moliere

GEORGE DANDIN 914 11 5 Moliere

HORACE 596 81 20 Corneille 232

THE CLASSICAL REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

IL FAUT qU«UNE FORTE SO IT OUVERTE 365 32 10 OU FERMEE de Musset

IL NE FAUT JUHSR DE RIEN 409 132 20 de Musset ILLUSION CCMIQDE (L') 12 4 1 Corneille

I PHI GENIE EN AULIDE 773 22 6 Racine JALOUSIE DU BARBOUILLE (LA) 2 2 1 Moliere

JEU DE L* AMOUR ET DU HASARD (LE) 652 126 20 Marivaux

JOUEUR (LE) 818 13 3 Regnard

LEGATAIRE UNIVERSEL (LE) 925 35 13 Regnard

LEGS (LE) 619 11 5 Marivaux

LORENZACCIO 1 1 de Musset

MALADE IMAGINAIRE (LE) 1074 158 19 Moliere

MARI AGE DE FIGARO (LB) 725 98 14 Beaumarchais

MARIAGE FORCE (LE) 895 78 16 Mol^ £x«

MEDECIN MALGRE LUI (LB) 1592 102 20 Moliere 233

THE CLASSICAL REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Througl . 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

MELICERTE 3 11 3 -xoli&re

MENECHMES (LES) 532 9 4 Regnard

MENTEUR (LE) 650 16 11 Corneille

MERE CONFEDENTE (LA) 13 16 2 Marivaux

MISANTHROPE (LE) 1206 93 19 Molidre

MI THRU) ATE 512 22 8 Racine

MONSIEUR DE POURCEAUGNAC 659 23 11 Moliere

MORT DE PCMFEE (LA) 165 5 2 Corneille

NICOMKDE 290 21 8 Corneille

NUIT DE MAI (LA) 4 10 7 de Musset

NUIT DE OCTOBRS (LA) 66 42 14 de Musset

ON NE BADINE PAS AVEC L * AMOUR 270 66 12 de Musset

PHSDHE 984 78 18 Racine

FLAIDEURS (LES) 1219 57 18 Racine 234

THE CLASSICAL REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of, No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

POT.YEUCTE 418 78 17 Corneille p e £c i e u s e s r i d i c u l e s (LES) 799 115 19 Mollire

PSYCHE 143 29 11 Moliere, Corneille, Quinault

REMERCIEMENT AU ROI 2 1 1 Moliere

RODOGUNE 396 7 3 Corneille

SGNARELLK 584 9 1 Moli&re

TARTUITE 2058 141 20 Moliere APPENDIX A

THE REPERTOIRE OF THE CCMEDIE-FRANCAISE

1901 TO 1920

PART lit THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE a

No. of No. of No • of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

A MOLIERE 1 1 1 Bornier

A RACINE 1 2 1 Grangeneuve

ADRIENNE LECOUVHEUR 329 27 2 Scribe and Legouve

ALKESTIS 13 14 3 Rivollet

AMI DES FEMMES (L1) 125 37 5 Dumas fils

AMI FRITZ (L») 252 113 14 Erckman and Chatrian

AMIRAL (L1) 23 25 6 Normand

a. This category includes all works presented between 1901 and 1920 which were not part of the Classical Repertoire and did not premiere during these years. 235 236

THE NON* CLASS IC AX OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901*20

ANGLAIS (L») 46 8 2 Patrat ANTIGONE 49 14 2 Meurice and Vacquerie AU PRINT EM PS 147 13 4 Laluye

AUTOGRAPHE (Lf) 69 24 4 Meilhac

AUTRE MOTIF (LE) 99 6 2 Pai He r o n AVENTURIEHE (L‘) 441 120 17 Augier

BAISER (LE) 70 65 15 Banville

BARON D* ALBIKRAC 166 2 1 T. Corneille

BATAILLE DE DAMES 354 63 14 Scribe and Legouve

HKT.LE SAINARA (LE) 26 11 2 D'Hervilly

BONHGKME JADIS (LE) 322 69 17 Murger

BHEBIS DE PANURGE (LES) 51 20 5 Meilhac and Lud* Halevy BURGRAVES, LES 33 67 8 Hugo

CABOTINS 135 8 1 Pailleron 237

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN” REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

CHAINS (UNE) S43 8 2 Scribe

CHANCE DE FRANCOISE (LA) 58 17 4 Porto-Ri che CHANT DU DEPART (LE) 3 6 5 Chenier

CHARLOTTE CORDAY 57 2 1 Pons&rd

CHEZ L'AVOCAT 226 26 9 Perrier

CIGALE CHEZ LES FOURMIS (LA) 162 10 3 Legouve and Labiche

CONSCIENCE DE L*ENFANT (LA) 36 3 1 Devore

CORNEILLE ET RICHELIEU 24 12 6 Moreau

COUPE ENCH ANTES (LE) 480 4 3 La Fontaine and Champmesle

CRISPIN MEDECIN 846 3 1 Hauteroche

DEMI-MONDE (LE) 249 130 17 Dumas fils

DEMOISELLES DE SAINT-CYR (LES) 245 33 9 Dumas

DENISE 198 66 12 Dumas fils

DEPUTE DE BOMB IGN AC (LE) 107 41 7 Bieson 238

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No* of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20 DERNIER MADRIGAL (LE) 6 11 4 Marcolleau DEUX MENACES (LES) 203 7 1 Picard, Wafflard and Fulgence

DIANE DE LYS 28 4 1 Dumas fils

DINER DE PIERROT (LE) 85 5 2 Millanvoye

EFFRGNTES (LES) 234 38 4 Augier

EPITRE A RACINE 1 2 1 Eoileau and Despr^aux

ETE DE LA SAINT-MARTIN (Lf ) 228 38 10 Meilhac and Lud. Halevy ETINCELLS (L*) 151 56 15 Pai He r on

ETRANG&KE (L*) 221 21 3 Dumas filB

FAUTE DE S*ENTENDRE 129 5 2 Duveyrier FEMME DE TABARIN (LA^ 56 19 3 Mendss

FILLS DE ROLAND (LA) 199 45 12 Bornier

FILS DE GIBOYER (LE) 159 24 2 Augier

FILS NATUHEL (LE) 47 37 5 Dumas fils 239

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No* of No* of No. of Ferf. Perf* Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep, 1900 - 1920 1901-20

FLIBUSTIER (LE) 117 74 16 Richepin FRANCE X CORNEILLE (LA) 1 1 1 Essarts

FRANCILLON 165 20 3 Dumas fils

FRANCOIS LE CHAMP I 45 21 3 Sand

FRELE ET FORTE 9 7 1 Veyrin

FROUFROU 99 4 1 Meilhac and Lud* Halevy

GENDEE DE MONSIEUR POIRIER (LE) 465 118 17 Augier and Sandeau

GHEVE DES FORGE RONS (LA) 32 22 6 Copp^e GRINGOIRE 294 151 20 Banvilla

HAMLET 156 50 5 Dumas and Meurice (after Shakespeare)

HERNANI 562 172 15 Hugo

HISTOIRS DU VIEUX TEMPS 7 3 1 Maupassant

HONNETES FEMMES (LES) 93 5 1 Becque

HONNEUR ET L »ARGENT (Lf) 148 28 3 Fonsard 240

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

HORACE ET LYDIE 159 67 10 Ponsard

JOIE FAIT FEUR (LA) 486 69 14 Mine. de Girardin KLEFHTE (LE) 46 10 3 Dreyfus

LARUES DE RACINE (LES) 3 2 2 Saint e-Beuve

LOI DE L*HGMKE (LA) 59 12 4 Hervieu

LOUIS XI 239 17 4 Delavigne

LUTHIER D E #CRSMONE (LS) 147 76 17 Coppee

MADEMOISELLE DE BELLE-ISLE 437 29 4 Duma 8

MADEMOISELLE DE LA SIGLIJ^RS 576 92 17 Sandeou

MARI DE LA VEUVE (LE) 150 19 4 Dumas, Durieu and Bourgeois

MARIAGE DE VICTORINE (LE) 94 2 2 Sand

MARION DELORME 120 62 6 Hugo

MARQUIS DE VTLLEMSR (LE) 165 49 8 Sand

MEGEKR APPRI VO I SEE (LA) 73 18 1 Delalr (after Shakespeare) 241

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

MERCADET 124 8 1 Balzac MERCURE GALANT (LE) 526 9 3 Boursault MONDE OU L*ON S’ENNUIE (LE) 542 251 19 Pailleron

MONSIEUR SCAPIN 45 11 2 Richepin NAUTRAGE, OU LES HERTTIERS (LE) 330 3 1 Duval OEDIPE ROI 196 113 17 Lacroix (after Sophocles)

OTHELLO 25 14 2 Aicard (after Shakespeare)

OUVRIERS (LES) 205 8 4 Manuel

PAIX DU MENAGE (LA) 15 2 1 Maupassant

PARISIENNE (LA) 17 82 9 Becque

PARISIENNE A CORNEILLE (UNE) 1 2 2 Blemont

PASSANT (LE) 76 109 14 Coppee

PETIT HOTEL (LE) 89 20 4 Meilhac and Lud. Halevy

PETITS OISEAUX (LES) 41 2 1 Lahiche and Delacour 24 2

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No* of No* of No. of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

PHILIBERTE 114 10 2 Augier

PHILO SOPHE SANS LE SAVOIR (LE) 343 5 1 Sedaine

PIERRE CORNEILLE 1 1 1 Gautier

POUR ET LE CO NT RE (LE) 166 22 5 Feuillet

POUR L 1ANNIVERSAIRE DE RACINE 1 1 1 Bornier

FRINCESSE DE BAGDAD (LA) 44 6 1 Dumas fils

PRINCESS GEORGES (LA) 15 28 5 Dumas fils

PROLOGUE POUR LA REOUVERTURS 3 2 1 DE LA COM-iniE-FRANCAISE Richepin

PYGMALION 68 1 1 J.J. Rousseau

RANTZAU (LES) 107 26 3 Erckmann and Chatrian

HEINE JUANA (LE) 36 15 3 Parodi

REVANCHE D'IRIS (LA) 207 31 9 Perrier

REZ-DE-CHAUSSEE (LE) 45 27 7 Berr and Turique

ROI S * AMUSE (LE) 53 19 2 Hugo 243

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. Of No. of No. Of Perf. Perf. Years Title and Author Through 1901 in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20 ROMANESQUES (LES) 38 85 . 12 Rostand

ROME VAINCUE 35 24 4 Parodi

RUY BLAS 309 169 20 Hugo

SOCRATES ET SA FEMME 68 13 4 de Banville

SUR CORNEILLE 1 1 1 Deroulade

TSNAILLES (LES) 62 42 10 Hervieu

TESTAMENT DE CESAR GIRODOT 245 39 8 Belot and Villetard

TRICORNE ENCKANTE (LE) 12 9 2 Gautier and Siraudin

TROIS SULTANES (L5S) 232 9 1 Favart

TURCARET 432 13 1 La Sage

VIE DE BOH&ME (LA) 61 3 2 Barriere and Murger

VILLAGE (LE) 329 7 2 Feuillet

VINCENETTE 68 13 3 Barhier

VISITE DE NOCES (UHS) 30 31 6 Dumas fils 244

THE NON-CLASSICAL OR "MODERN" REPERTOIRE (Continued)

No. of No. of No. of Perf. Perf, Years Title and Author Through 19ul in Rep. 1900 - 1920 1901-20

VRAIE FARCE DE MAI THE PATHELIN 60 25 5 (l a ) Fournier

ZAIRE 473 6 2 Voltaire APPENDIX B

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE OP THE COPED IE-FRANC AISE

1901 TO 1920

PART I* LONG PLAYS a

Year No. of No of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

ABBE CONSTANTIN (L1) 1917 58 4 Cremieux and Decouroelle

AFFAIRS SONT LES AFFAIRES (LES) 1903 181 17 Mirbeau

AMES EN PEINE (LES) 1903 4 1 Janvier de La Motte and Ballot

AMIS (LES) 1909 7 1 Dreyfus

AMOUR VEILLE (L») 1907 105 4 Caillavet and Flers

AMOUREUSE 1908 112 5 Porto*Ri die

a* This category includes all plays longer than one act*

245 246

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE! LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20 _

ANDROMA^UE ET PBLEE 1917 13 1 Si1vain and Jauhert

ANTONY 1912 9 2 Duma a

APR3S MOI 1911 7 1 Bernstein

ARMIDE 1910 2 1 Quinault

AUTRE (L') 1907 10 2 Margueritte

AUTRE d a n g e r (l 1 ) 1902 139 6 Donnay

BAGATELLE 1912 45 2 Hervieu

BLANCHETTE 1903 80 12 Brieux

BON KOI DAGOEEBT (LE) 1908 57 4 Rivoire

BOUBOUROCHE 1910 41 7 Courteline

BREBIS PERDUE (LA) 1911 21 2 Trarioux

CAS DE CONSCIENCE (UN) 1910 28 2 Bourget and Basset

CHACUN SA VIE 1907 60 4 GuicheB and Gheusi

CHER MAITHE 1911 38 2 Vanderem 247

Piroirsnss IN THE REPERTOIRE: LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

CLAUDIE 1904 16 2 Sand CLOITHE (LE) 1917 21 2 Verhaeren COLETTE BAUDOCKE 1915 23 2 Barr&s and Frondaie

COMME ILS SONT TOUS 1910 38 1 Adorer and Ephraim

CONNAIS-TOI 1909 63 2 Hervieu

COURSE DU FLAMBEAU (LA) 1916 31 4 Hervieu

COURT I SANE JLA) 1906 5 1 Amyvelde

CHUCKS (LA) 1919 14 1 Courteline and Wolff D&DALE (LE) 1903 93 5 Hervieu

D* UN JOUR A L*AUTRE 1917 24 2 Croiseet

DEUX ECOLES (LES) 1920 22 1 Capus

DEUX HOMMES (LES) 1908 40 1 Capus

DON QUICHOTTE 1905 25 2 Ri chepin

DUEL (LE) 1905 182 10 Lavedan 248

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No* of No* of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 In Rep. - 1920 1901-20

ELECTEE 1907 51 Poizat

j£l £v a t i o n (L») 1917 67 2 Bernstein EMBUSCADE (L») 1913 49 1 Ki stemaeekere

ENTGME (L*) 1901 151 10 Hervieu

ENVOLEE (L*) 1914 8 1 Devore

ERINNYES (LES) 1910 15 2 Deconte de Lisle

ESOPE 1918 29 3 de Banville

FIGURANTE (LS) 1916 10 X Curel

FLEUR MERVEILLEUSE (LA) 1910 58 5 Zamacols

FONTAINE DE JOUVENCE (LA) 1906 43 9 Bargerat

FOYER (LE) 1908 43 Mirbeau and Natanson

FURIE (LA) 1909 12 1 Boie

GEORGETTE LEMENUNIER 1914 34 1 Donnay

GERTRUDE 1902 9 2 Boughinet 249

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No* of No. of of Perf* Year Title and Author Prem* 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

GOUT LE VICE (LE) 1911 53 2 Lavedan

HERODISNNE (L*) 1919 53 2 Du Bois

IMPREVU (L') 1910 12 1 Margueritte

INDISCHET (Lf) 1919 23 2 See

I Hi I GEN IE # 1912 10 1 Moreas

IRRESOLU (L* ) 1903 35 3 Berr

JULIETTE ET ROMEO 1920 21 1 Rivoire (after Shakespeare)

LIONNES PAUVRES (LES) 1917 7 1 Augier and Foussier

LUCHSCE BORGIA 1918 12 1 Hugo

MACBETH 1914 13 2 Richepin (after Shakespeare)

MAI SON D'ARGILE (LA) 1907 18 2 Fab re

MAMAN COLIBRI 1920 2 1 Bataille

MANGERONT-ILS? 1919 13 1 Hugo

MARCHE NUPTIALE (LA) 1913 158 8 Bataille 250

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Autnor Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

MARI AGS D * ANGSLIQUE 1910 7 1 Ponnard

MARIOIINETTES (LES) 1910 168 8 Wolff

MARQUIS DE PRIOLA (LA) 1902 200 16 Laved am

MEDEE 1903 26 4 Mondea

MENAGE DE MOLIEHE (LE) 1912 33 1 Donnay

MONSIEUR ALPHONSE 1907 30 3 Dumas fils

KORT ENCHAINES (LA) 1920 14 1 Magre

M0U3TTES (LES) 1906 19 1 Adam

NOCES 00 RINTHISNNSS (LES) 1918 15 2 H. Busser and Prance

NOCES D*ARGENT (LES) 1917 26 2 Geraldy NOTRE JEUNESSE 1904 105 6 Capus

NOUVELLE ID OLE (LA) 1914 29 5 de Curel

NUAGE (LE) 1901 15 2 Gulches

PAON (LE) 1904 26 3 de Croisset 251

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE* LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

PARAITHE 1906 108 2 Donnay

PART IE DE PIQUET (LA) 1901 12 2 N. Fournier and Meyer PASSE (LE) 1902 41 2 Porto-Riche

PATRIE 1901 99 4 Sardou

PEDANT JOUE (LS) 1910 2 1 Cyrano de Bergerac FERE LEBONNAHD (LE) 1904 68 14 Aicard

FERSES (LES) 1919 9 1 Si1vain and Jaubert (after Aeschylus)

PETITE AMIE (LA) 1902 24 1 Brieux

HIENICIENNES (LES) 1905 17 3 Rivollet

PLUS FAIBLE (LA) 1904 30 2 Prevost

POLICHE 1906 66 7 Bataille

POLYTHKKE . 1908 19 4 Samaln

POUR LA COURONNE 1915 11 1 Coppee

PRETEXTS, LS 1906 20 2 Riche 252

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No* of No. of of Perf* Years Title and Author Prem* 1901 in Rep* - 1920 1901-20 PRIMEROSE 1911 278 10 Caillavet and Flora

PRINCE CHAEMANT (LE) 1914 13 1 Bernard PRINCE D f AUHEC (LE) 1919 43 2 Lovedan RENCONTRE (LA) 1909 38 2 Berton

REPAS DU LION (LE) 1920 20 1 do Curol

REVEIL (LE) 1905 48 3 Hervieu

RiqUET k LA HOUPPE 1913 29 4 Banville

RIVALE (LA) 1907 30 3 Kiatemaeckera and Delard

ROBE ROUGE (LA) 1909 28 2 Brieux

ROI (LE) 1901 9 2 Schefer SAPHO 1912 33 2 Daudet and Belot

SHYLOCK, OU LE MAROLAND DE 1905 19 3 VENISE Vigny (after Shakespeare)

SIMONE 1908 45 2 Brieux

SI HE 1909 47 2 Lavedan 253

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: LONG PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem* 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

SOEURS D* AMOUR (LES) 1919 51 2 Bataille

SOHIONISBE 1913 12 1 Polzat

TRI0MPHATRIC3 (LA) 1918 8 1 Mile Leneru

VOILE DECHI RE (LE) 1919 16 2 Wolff

VOULOIR 1913 38 2 Guiohee VOYAGE DE M. PERRICHON (LS) 1906 121 12 Labi che and Martin

YVONIC 1913 11 1 Perrier and Perrier APPENDIX B

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE OF THE COKED EE-FRAN CAI S3

1901 TO 1920

PART II* ONE-ACT PLAYS

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

AGNES MARINE 1908 7 1 Allou

AM-3 DES iC&ROS (L») 1907 12 1 Bilhaud and Carr4

AMOUREUSE AKITIE 1901 1 1 Vaucaire ANGLAIS TEL C^U1 ON LE PARLE (L1) 1907 190 14 Bernard

AUGUSTA (L1) 1916 8 1 Fauchoie

AU PALAIS CARDINAL 1908 3 1 Martel

BEAU LEANDKS (LE) 1918 10 1 de B a m i lie and Siraudin

BONHEUR qui PASSE (LE) 1901 47 10 Germain

BONNE M&HE (LA) 1910 15 3 de Florian

CHAINES (LES) 1920 11 1 Bourdon 254 255

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE) ONE-ACT PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem* 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

CHAMH4ESLE AU CAMP (LA) 190 S 4 2 Olivaint

COEUR A SES RAISONS (LE) 1904 39 8 Caillavet and Flers

CCMKDIANTE 1912 12 2 Mag re CONVERSION D 1ALCESTE (LA) 1905 32 6 Courteline

DERNT^RE ID OLE (LA) 1904 6 2 Quatrelies and Daudet

DEUX COUVERTS 1914 31 5 Guitry

DEUX GLOIRES (LES) 1916 10 2 Wolff DIEU TERME (LE) 1907 13 1 Nigond

ECRAN BRISS (L*) 1908 16 3 Bordeaux

EN VI SITE 1905 112 5 Lavedan ESSAYEUSE (Lf) 1914 19 3 Veher

ETERNELLE PRESENCE (L1) 1917 5 1 Andre Dumas

PAIS CE QUE DOIS 1915 6 1 Coppee

PAUTE D 1UN AUTRE (LA) 1911 7 1 Destrem 256

PREMIERES IN TICE REPERTOIRE* ONE-ACT PLAYS (Continued)

Year No* of No* of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem* 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

FLEURS D 1AVRIL 1907 16 3 Vicaire and Truffier

FREHE A?NE (LE) 1901 6 1 Daudet and Manuel

FRESNAY (LES) 1907 52 10 Vender An

GRAMMAIRS (LA) 1902 3 1 Labiche and Jolly

GRIBOUILLE 1911 10 2 Souchon and Av&ze

HUMBLE OFFRANDE (L») 1916 14 2 Rivoire

HYACINTHS, OU LA FILLE DE 1905 5 1 L f APOTHICAIHE Gruyer

IL ETAIT UNE BERGEHE 1905 88 15 Rivo i re

INTER I EUR 1919 2 12 Maeterlinck

JAKDIN DE MOLIEKE (LE) 1909 4 2 Yvan

JEAN-MARIE 1903 27 8 Theuriet

JOUEUR D*IILUSION (LE) 1918 18 2 Girette

JOUR DE FETE (UN) 1911 20 4 Faure

LIMITES DU COEUR (US) 1910 12 3 Beaunier 257

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: ONE-ACT PLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No# of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem# 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20 m a It r e f a v i l l a 1912 21 3 Sand

MARI AGE DE HOCKS (LE) 1916 5 2 Aderer MASQUE ET LE TANDEAU (LE) 1909 8 1 FI ament

MEMOIKE (LE) 1902 4 2 Victor-Meunier 1807 1903 78 15 Aderer and Ephraim

MODESTIE 1909 49 1 Hervieu

MOLL&KE ET SCARAMOUCHS 1904 24 5 Leloir and Gravollet

NEIGES D*ANTAN 1911 14 3 de Marthold

NOUVSAUX FAUVRES (LES) 1916 9 2 Fonson OCCASION (Lf) 1917 5 2 Normand and Rivollet

OMBRES (LES) 1913 4 1 Allou

ON N f0U3LIE PAS... 1904 15 2 Norm and

PAIX CHEZ SOI (LE) 1906 63 13 Courteline

PARASITE (LE) 1906 4 1 Pailleron 250

PREMIERES IN THE HEPERT01HE: ONE-ACT FLAYS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

PASSE-NOHTAGNE (LE) 1916 5 1 Oirette

FEINTRE SXIGEANT (LE) 1910 14 1 Bernard

PETIT CHAPERON ROUGE (LE) 1919 8 1 Gandera and Gevel

PLAISIR DE ROMPHE (LE) 1902 58 12 Renard

FOIL DE CAROTTE 1912 45 9 Renard

POUR LA VI CTOIHE 1917 8 1 Droin PREMIERE BERENICE (LA) 1915 9 2 Bertrand and Bar

PREMIER COUPLE (LE) 1920 10 1 Andre Duznas

RACINE CHEZ ARNAULD 1904 10 4 Basset

RAISON DU MOINS FORT (LA) 1907 4 1 Valade and Blemont

RESPECT DE L»AMOUR (LE) 1911 11 2 Laroze

REVOLTE (LA) 1914 8 1 Villiers de Isle-Adtn

SANS LUI 1903 29 6 Girette

SONGE D 1UN SOIR D ’AMOUR (IB) 1910 27 3 Bataille 259

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: ONE-ACT PLAYS (Continued)

Year No, of No. of of Perf, Years Title and Author Prem, 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

SOUPCON (LE) 1920 9 1 Bourget SOURIRE DU FAUNE (LE) 1919 22 2 Rivoire

STRADIVARIUS (LE) 1909 35 6 Maurey

SURPRISE DE L 1 AMOUR (LA) 1911 11 2 Marivaux

TRILBY 1904 35 4 Lomon and Gheusi

TRICMHffl 1919 5 2 Gregji

UNS ET LES AUTRES (LES) 1918 9 2 Verlaine

VEILLS DES AHMES (LA) 1915 10 2 Fauchoia VEILLE DU BONHEUR (LA) 1909 20 4 Nion and Buysieulx

VENISE 1913 21 7 Caillavet and Flers APPENDIX B

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE OP THE COKED IE-FRANC AISE

1901 TO 1920

PART III: NON-DRAMATIC PRESENTATIONS

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

A CORNEILLE 1913 1 1 Truffier

A LA GLOIHE DE MOLIERE 1915 1 1 de Banville

A LA MEMOIRE DE MOUNET-SULLY 1917 3 1 Clerc

A MADAME BARTET 1919 1 1 Clerc

A MOLIERE 1910 1 1 Truffier

A RACINE 1910 1 1 Marthold

ALLOCUTION 1918 2 1 Fab re

APOTHSOSS DE MUSSET (L») 1906 6 2 Olivaint

AU FOYER DE LA COMKDIE (1730) 1910 1 1 Clnretie and Truffier

AYMERILLOT 1909 11 3 Hugo 260 261

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE* NON-•DRAMATIC PRESENT AT I ON 3

(Continued)

Year No. Of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

BAISER DE FHEDRE (LE) 1905 6 3 Montoya

BERGERS DE THEOCRITE (LES) 1910 3 1 D 1Artois

BOUQUET HEM ININ (HOMKAGE A RACINE) 1907 1 1 Croze

CANTATE AUX MO RTS 1916 2 1 Saint-Georges de Bouhelier

CHEVALERIE 1915 4 1 B^dier

CINQ ANS APRES 1919 3 1 Andre Dumas

CLOCHES DE PORT-ROYAL (LES) 1911 7 Mme Dortzal

COttHDLSN DE CORNEILLE 1910 5 1 Lambert

COMPLIMENT 1905 1 1 Claretie

CORNEILLE 1917 1 1 Volland CORNEILLE ET LULLI 1903 5 1 Jouin COURONNE DE RACINE (LA) 1901 1 1 Mae. Pardriel-Valeelore

DANS L* ID^AL PAYS 1901 2 1 Gruyer

DISPUTES DE LA SAINT-JEAN (LES) 1916 3 1 Berr and Truffier 262

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: NON-DRAMATIC PRESENTATIONS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

DUPONT ET DURAND 1904 2 2 Musset

ENFANTS DE CORNEILLE (LES) 1917 1 1 Truffier

FILLES DE CORNEILLE (LES) 1902 1 1 Gourcuff

FRONDEUSE CHEZ CORNEILLE (UNE) 1913 3 2 Olivaint

GOULATROKBA 1909 1 1 Hugo

IDEAL ET LS REEL (L*) 1909 9 1 Hugo

IDYLLS 1905 1 1 Kusset

IMPROMPTU DU BARBIER (Lf) 1907 9 1 Trebor

IN KEMORIAM 1916 1 1 Gregh

INSINUATION 1909 2 2 Hugo

JEUN3 MALADE (LE) 1909 4 1 Chenier

LARMES DE CORNEILLE (LES) 1906 5 2 Le Lasseur

LOISISRS DE RACINE (LES) 1913 3 2 Montoya

1000® DU CID (LA) 1913 1 1 Rivoire 263

PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: NON-DRAMATIC PRESENTATIONS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. YearB Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

M0LI&HE 1906 1 1 Boyer MOLIERE ET SA SERVANTS 1903 4 1 Millot

MONSIEUR PURGON 1911 9 1 Montoya

NUTT D'AOUT (LA) 1910 19 5 Musset

NUIT DE E^CiMBHE (LA) 1910 24 6 Musset POUR LE CINqUANTENAIRS DU PASSANT 1919 2 1 Clerc PRIEHE A CORNEILLE 1904 1 1 Lavigerie

RACINE 1914 2 1 Lemaltre

REGNARD CHEZ LUI 1909 1 1 Regnard

RSMERC IEMENT 1906 1 1 Claretie HENONCEMENT (US) 1903 7 3 Dooquoie

HSVAMCKS DS THOMAS DIAJOIRUS (is) 1902 1 1 Lif»Wr»-H«nri

HUS SACTT-THCMAS DU LOUVRE 1905 8 2 Dooquole

SACRIFICE (LE) 1912 5 2 Gille PREMIERES IN THE REPERTOIRE: NON-DRAKATIG PRESENTATIONS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem, 1901 in Ren. - 1920 1901-20

SALUT A CORNEILLE 1906 2 1 Claretie

SALUT AU PUBLIC 1913 1 1 Claretie

S^H^NADE A MUSSET 1919 2 1 Clerc

SHAKESPEARE CHEZ MOLIERE 1916 2 1 Aicard

SHAKESPEARE ST CERVANTES 1916 2 1 Harau court

SOUBRETTE DE MOLIERE 1916 1 1 Blemont

STANCES A CORNEILLE 1906 2 1 Sully-Prudhomme

STANCES A MOLIERE 1911 2 1 Truffier

TOUR DE NINON (UN) 1906 7 2 DocquoiB

TRICMHtS H^ROI^UE 1906 2 1 Zidler

TROIS DUMAS (LES) 1908 3 2 B o m i e r

TROIS SONNETS (LBS) 1909 4 1 Millot

VERS L* AUBE DE CORNEILLE 1906 1 1 Houdaille

VICTOIRES (LES) 1906 8 2 Francklin 265

PREMIEHSS nr THE REPERTOIRE* NON-DR AM AT IC PRESENTATIONS (Continued)

Year No. of No. of of Perf. Years Title and Author Prem. 1901 in Rep. - 1920 1901-20

VOIX DE CORNEIHLE (LA) 1912 2 2 Levaillant

VOYAGE AU PAYS DE RACINE (LE) 1917 1 1 Fort BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books

Arnavon* Jacques. L* Interpretation do la Comedie- Classicruei Le Don Juan do M a l l d r o T Copenhagen i Gyldendal# 1947.

Arnavon* Jacques. L*Interpretation do la Comedle- Classiorue* L'Ecole des fe— oo do Moli^re. Paris* Plon Nourrit, 1936*

Arnavon# Jacques. L*Interpretation do la Comedle- Classiquet Le Malade imaalno^yo de Moli&re. Paris t Librairie Plon# 1998#

Arnavon* Jacques. L*Interpretation do la Conedie- Classioue» Le" Misanthrope i Mioo-en- »c£ne #decor s . represent at loril Paris i Plon Nonrrit* 1914 and 1930.

Bablet* Denis. Esthetioue Gcnrfrajo du Decor de Theatre de 1870 a 1914~ Paris* Centro National de la Recherche Scientifique* 1965. Bapst* Germain. Essai sur l ’hiofcolro du the&tre. Paris* Librairie Hachette* 1B93.

Boll# Andre. Du Decor du T h ^ l t r o . Paris* Chiron, 1926.

Braun* Sidney David, ntrf*gnjfr AC P^ooch Literature. New York* Philosophical Library# 1958. Carter* Huntley. The New Spirit in the Buropean Theatre. New York * George H. Doraln Colony, 1925. Chandler * Prank N. The Con|^flf||fy ^ Pfance. Boston i Little# Brown and Coopony* 1921.

Chevalier# Sylvie. La Con^dln-Prancaiao (Monograph). Parle* La Ca3n6 aie-Francalse#1 9 6 1 .

266 267

Clark, Barrett H. Contemporary French Dramatlsts. Cincinnati * Stewart and Kidd Company, 1915.

Cogniat, Raymond. Les Decoratcurs de Theatre* Cinouantc Ansde Spectacle en France. ParisiLibrairie Thdfitrale, 1955.

Cogniat, Raymond. Decors du Thdfitre. Parist Editions des Chroniques du Jour, 1930.

Coquiot, Gustave. Nouveau du Peintre- Ddcorateur de Th^Stre. Paris* L. Muio. 1927. Decugis,^Nicole, and Reymond, Susanna. Le Decor de Theatre en France du Movan Agp a 1925. Parisi Comagnie Francaise des Arts Graphlques, 1953,

Encyclopedia du Theatre Conte: • (Two Volumes). Parisi Les Publications , 1957.

Fuerst, Halter Rene, and Hume, « J. XXth Century Stage Decoration. London* Alfred A. Knopf, 1928. (Two Volumes) Harvey, Sir Paul, and Heseltine, J* S., compilers and editors. The Oxford Coasjuni,^ to French Literature Oxford* The Clarendon Press, 1959.

Jasper, Gertrude R. Advent atre * Luqne-Poe and the Theatre de 1 * Oe New Brunswick* Rutgers University Press, 1

Joannides, Alexandre. ____ 1901 - 1926. Paris* Plon Nourrit, 1 Ten Volumes). Joannides, Alexandre. ____ _ de 1680 a 1920. Parist Plon Nourrit, 1921. Laver, James, and SherIngham, George. Oasicm in t: 23na&a. London* The Studio, Limited, 1927. Hoderwell, Hiram Kelly. The Thapi ^ of Today. New York* John Lane Company, 1914. Moussinac, L^on. La Decoration Theatrale. Paris, 1922.

Moussinac, Leon. Tendances Nouvelles du Theatre. Paris t A. Levy, 1931. 268

Propert, W. A. The Russian Ballet in Western Europe. 1909 - 1920. New Yorki John Lane Company, 1921.

Reynaud,^Charles. Mus^e Retrospectif de la Classe 18» Theatrei A L*Exposition Universalle Internationale de 1900 a Paris. Saint-Cloud * (no publisher or date given). Rouche, Jacques. L»Art Theatral Moderne. (Nouvelle Edition) Parisi Librairie Bloud and Gay, X924.

Sarcey, Francisque. A Company of Actors. New York* Dramatic Museum of Columbia University, 1926.

Smith, Hugh Allison. Matin Currents of Modern French Drama. New Yorki Henry Holt and Company, 1925.

Talvert, Hector, and Place, Joseph. Bibliography des Auteurs Modernes de Lanoua Francaise, 1801 -_i 927. ParisiHorizons de France, 1928.

2. Articles

"Amable." Enciclonadia Dallo Snettacolo. Romei Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1 9 5 4 - 6 2 . Vol. I, Columns 444 and 445. Apthorp, William F. "Paris Theatres and Concerts* I. The Com&tle-Francaise and the Odeon." Scribner's Magazine. XI(January, 1892), pp. 3-25. "Au Theatre des Arts (Saison 1910 - 1911)* Les Projets de M. J. Rouche." Comoedla 11lustre. (September, 1910), p. 693.

Boll, Andre. "Le Decor." Included in Les Spectacles A Travers Les Ages* Theatre. Paris* Editions du Cygne, 1931.

Bourdon, Georges. "La Nouvelle Com^die-Francaise." La Revue d'Art Dramatique. XVI(1901). pp. 138 - 149.

Bourdon, Georges. "Staging in the French and English Theatres." Fortnightly Review. LXXVII(January 1, 1902), pp. 154 - 169. 269

Brisson, Pierre. "The Cornedie-Francaise. " London Mercury. XXXIX(December, 1938), pp. 145 - 155,

"Carpezat." Enciclopedia Dello Spettacolo. Rome* Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1954-62. Vol. Ill# Column 94.

Carr, Philip, "Com&lie-Francaise." Edinburgh Review. CCXLVI(July, 1927), pp. 134 - 147.

Child, Theodore. "The Cornedie-Francaise." Harpers Nev Monthly Magazine. LXXIV(April, 1887), pp. 691 - 714.

Claretie, Jules. "Cornedie-Fraicaise." Fortnightly Review. LXXXIX(June, 1906), pp. 1153 - 1159.

Claretie, Jules. "La Com^die-Francaise." Figaro Illustre. XXI(October, 1910), pp. 1 - 24.

Clourot, Henri. "La Decoration Theatrale en France." Revue Hondiale. XLIV, new series (July 1, 1933), pp. 31 - 34.

"Daragnes, Jean Gabriel." Enclclopedla Dello Spcttacolo. Romei Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1954-62. Vol. Ill, Column 170.

Henry, Marc. "The Future of the French Stage." The Living Age. CCXCIX(October, 12, 1918), pp. 85 - 88.

"Jambon, Marcel." Enciclopedia Pello Spettacolo. Rome* Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1954-62. Vol. VI, Columns 718 and 719.

"Jusseaume, Lucien." Enciclopedia Pello Spcttacolo. Romei Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1954-62. Vol. VI, Columns 848 - 850.

Laver, James. "Continental Designers in the Theatre," in Design in the Theatre, edited by Geoffrey Holme. Londoni The Studio, Limited, 1927.

Lestrange, Robert. "L*Art Decoratif au Theatre des Arts." L*Art Decoratif. (May, July, October, 1912).

Loge, Marc. "Some Old Theatres of Parisi The Com^die- Francaise. " Academy (London), Part Ii LXXXII(March 9, 1912), pp. 310, 311i Part II* LXXXII(March 23, 1912), pp. 369, 370) Part IIIi LXXXII(March 30, 1912), pp. 403, 404. 270

Marx, Claude-Roger. "Une Exposition d'Art Decoratif Theatrale." Corooedia-IIlustre. V(May 20, 1913) pp. 749 - 751. Morton, Frederick. "The National Theatres of France.** Theatre Arts. XXI(September, 1937), pp. 716 - 720.

Moussinac, Leon. "La Decoration Th^Strale." Comoedia- Illustre. VIII(December-20, 1921), pp. 661 - 683.

Noxiere. "Une Renaissance de Decor de Theatre." La Renaissance de L*Art Francais et des Industries De LuxeT I^June, 1918), pp. 124 - 130.

Richard-Mounet, L. "Les Transformation de la Comedie- Prancaise." L*Illustration. XCIII(October,26, 1935), pp. 250, 251.

"Ronsin, Eugine." Enciclopedia Dello Spcttacolo. Romei Casa Editrice le Maschere, 1954-62. Vol. VIII, Columns 1192 and 1193.

See, Edmond. "The French Post-War Theatre," Included in, Dickinson, Thomas H., editor, The Theatre in a Changing Europe. New York* Henry Holt and Company, 1937.

Thiebault-Sisson, "Decors et Decorateurs de Theatre." L*Illustration. CIII(February 24, 1894), pp. 155 - 157.

Valmy-Bayse, Jean. "Lob Decors de La Cornedie-Francaise." L'Art et les Artistes. CLXVI(April, 1936), pp. 240 - 244.

3. Unpublished Materials

Arnold, Richard Lee. "The Changing Concepts of Realism in Scenery on the New York Stage, 1900 - 1915." Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1962. (Microfilmed)

Boyle, Walden Philip. "The Decor of the French Symbolist Theatre and Its Influence." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 1940. 271

Cole, Wendell. '•Scenery on the New YorK Stage, 1900 - 1920." Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, 1951. "Livre des Cintriers." Paris * Cornedie-Francaise. (Handwritten, microfilmed).

"Maquettes de Decors." Plates #93 to 114. Parist CoiM$die-Francaise. (microfilmed). "Plans." Paris* Com^die-Francaise. (microfilmed).

Steele, Evelyn. "A Survey of Existing National Theatres." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1938.

Thompson, James Robert. "Twentieth Century Scene Design* Its History and Stylistic Origins." Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1957. (microfilmed).

4. Illustrations in Periodicals

L*Art Du Theatre. Consecutive Issues, Numbers 28 to 48, 1903 to 1904.

Comoedla-Illu3tre. Consecutive Issues, Volume 3, 1911 to 7th Annt^e, 1920.

L*Illustration - Theatrale and La Petite Illustration - Th^atrale^ Consecutive Issues, 1901 to 1920.

Le Theatre. Consecutive Issues, Volumes 49 to 384, 1901 to 1920.

5. Illustrations Reproduced

(In Figure Number Sequence)

1. L'Eniqme. Rendering by Leo Devred, 1901. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #93.

2. L*Autre danger. Rendering by Lemeunier, 1902, "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #96. 272

3* Le Duel. Rendering, 1905. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #100.

4. Les Marionnettes. Rendering by Leo Devred, 1910. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #105.

5. La Courtisane. Act I Photo, Setting by Jambon. Le Theatre. #189(November, 1906), p. 5.

6. Don Quichotte. 6th Tableau Photo, Setting by Devred. Le Theatre* #167(December, 1905), p. 13.

7. Le Pretexte. Act I Photo. Le Theatre. #185(September, 1906), p. 5.

8. Le Paon. Act III Rehearsal Photo, Setting by Jambon. Le Theatre. #I36(August, 1904), p. 12.

9. Le Flibustier. All Acts Photo. Le Th^Atre. #306(September, 1911), p. 4.

10. YVonic. All Acts Photo. Le Th^Stre. #355(October, 1913), p. 11.

11• Le Foyer. Act III Photo, Setting by Bailly. Le Th^?tre. #241(January, 1909), p. 9.

12. La Marche nuptials. Act I Photo, Setting by Bailly. Le TheStre. #360(December. 1913), p. 5.

13. Le Dedale. Act I Photo, Setting by Devred. Le Theatre. #123(February, 1904), p. 4.

14. Le Pedale. Act II Photo, Setting by Amable. Le Th6&tre. #123(February, 1904), p. 5.

15• Le Dedale. Act III Photo, Setting by Lemeunier. Le Theatre. #123(February, 1904), p. 6.

16. Le Dedale. Act V Photo, Setting by Jusseaume. Le Th^Stre. #123(February, 1904), p. 7.

17. Les Deux hommes. Act III Photo. Le Th#jftre. #222(March, 1908), p. 5,

18. Les Affaires sont les affaires. Act III Photo, Setting by Devred. Le Thdfitre. #107(June, 1903), p. 11. 273

19. La Courtisane. Act IV Photo# Setting by Devred. Le Theatre. #189(November. 1906), p. 8.

20. Don Quichotte. 4th Tableau Photo# Setting by Amable. Le Th^&tre. #167(December. 1905), p. 10.

21. La Fleur mervejlleuse. Act I Photo. Le Th^&tre. #276(June, 1910), p. 7. 22. ShvlocTc. ou le warchand de Venise. 1st Tableau Photo# Le Th^itrel #l57(July, 1905), p. 5.

23. ShvlocK. ou le marchand de Venise. 2nd Tableau Photo. Le Theatre. #157{July# 1905), ^>. 6.

24. Les Noces d*argent. Rendering by Alfred Devred. "Maquettes de M c o r a . " Plate #110.

25. Le Gout du vice. Rendering# Act I. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #107.

26* Poliche. Act I Photo# Setting by Amable. Le Theatre. #194(January, 1907)# p. 4.

27. La Petite amie. Act IV Photo, Setting by Jambon. Le T h ^ t r e . #83(June, 1902), p. 18.

28. L*£mbuscade. Act I Photo. Le Theatre. #341(March, 1913), p. 11.

29. L*Embuscade. Act IV Photo. Le T h ^ t r e . #341(March# 1913), p. 15.

30. Juliette et Romeo. Act I Photo# Setting by Ronsin c cn*oo Marc Henri, Laverdet. Le Theatre. #384(1920), p.

31. Juliette et Rom£o. Act III Photo# Setting by Ronsi Tiarc Henri, Laverdet. Le Theatre. #384(1920), p.

32. Les Femmes savantea. All Acts Photo, Setting by Deshaye• Le rh^ltre. #37l(June, 1914)# p. 11.

33. L *Amour medecIn. Act I Photo. Le The&tre. #382(1920), p. 15.

34. La Marouls de Priola. Act I Floor Plan. "Plans." Cornedie-Francaise.

35. La Marquis de Priola. Act I Rendering. "Maquettes de Drfcors." Plate #94. 274

36. La Marquis de Priola. Act I Photo. Le The&trel #77(March, 1902), p. 4.

37. La Marquis de Priola. Act II Floor Plan. "Plans, " Coined ie-Francaise.

38. La Marcmis de Priola. Act II Rendering. "Maquettes de Drfcors." Plate #94. 39. La Marquis de Priola. Act II Photo. Le T h & t n T #77(March, 1902), p. 5.

40. La Marouis de Priola. Act III Floor Plan. "Plans.H Com£die-Francai se.

41. La Marquis de Priola. Act III Rendering. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #94.

42. La Marquis de Priola. Act III Photo, Le T h & t r e l #77(March, 1902), p. 6.

43. L*Amour veille. Act I Rendering and Floor Plan, Setting by Lemeunier. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #102.

44. L*Amour veille. Act I Photo, Setting toy Lemeunier. Le Th^Stre. #211(October, 1907), p. 6. 45. L*Amour Veille. Act II Rendering and Floor Plan, Setting by Devred and fils. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #98.

46. L* Amour veille. Act III Rendering and Floor Plan, Setting by Leo Devred. "Maquettes de Decors." Plate #102.

47. L*Amour veille. Act III Photo, Setting by Leo Devred. Le T h ^ t r e . #211 (October, 1907), p. 8.

48. L*Amour veille. Act IV Photo, Setting by Devred and fils. Le Th6#tre. #211(October, 1907), p. 9.

49. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act I Photo, La Petite Illustration - The&trale. (August 2, 1919), p. 2,

50. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act I Photo. Le Th^Atrc. #378(September, 1919), p. 4. 275

51. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act XI Photo. La Petite Illustration - Thrfatrale. (August 2, 1919), p. 13. 52. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act III Floor Plan. "Plans," Comddie-Francaise.

53. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act III Photo, Setting by Paquereau. La Petite Illustration - Th6£trale. (August 2, 1919), p. 24.

54. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act IV Floor Plan. ^*Plans." Comrfdie-Francai se• 55. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act IV Rendering by Leo Devred. ’’Maquettes de Decors." Plate #112.

56. Les Soeurs d*amour. Act IV Photo, Setting by Leo Devred. La Petite Illustration - The&tralc. (August 2, 1919), p. 35.