The Politics of Appropriation in French Revolutionary Theatre Submitted by Catrin Mair Francis to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in French in October 2012. The thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: 1 ABSTRACT This thesis examines the popularity of plays from the ancien régime in the theatre of the French Revolution. In spite of an influx of new plays, works dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were amongst the most frequently performed of the decade. Appropriation resulted in these tragedies and comedies becoming ‘Revolutionary’ and often overtly political in nature. In this thesis, I will establish how and why relatively obscure, neglected plays became both popular and Revolutionary at this time. I shall draw on eighteenth-century definitions of appropriation to guide my analysis of their success and adaptation, whilst the theoretical framework of pre-history and afterlives (as well as modern scholarship on exemplarity and the politicisation of the stage) will shape my research. To ensure that I investigate a representative selection of appropriated plays, I will look at five very different works, including two tragedies and three comedies, which pre-date the Revolution by at least thirty years. Voltaire’s Brutus enjoyed successive Revolutionary afterlives from 1789-1799, whereas Lemierre’s Guillaume Tell was only truly successful as political propaganda during the Terror. Meanwhile, Molière’s Misanthrope was subjected to censorship and Revolutionary alterations, but could not rival the extraordinary success of one of his lesser known comedies, Le Dépit amoureux, which suddenly became one of the most popular plays in the theatrical repertoire. Finally, Regnard’s Les Folies amoureuses became popular in the highly politicised theatre of the Revolution in spite of the fact that the comedy had no obvious connection to politics or republicanism. The power of appropriation was such that any play could become Revolutionary, as both audiences and the government used appropriation as a method of displaying their power, attacking their enemy, and supporting the progress of the French Revolution. 2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................p. 5 2. The Theory and Methodology of Revolutionary Appropriation...................p. 31 3. Defining the Corpus: Performance, Statistics and Political Appropriation...p. 57 4. Revolutionary Brutus: Royalist, Republican, Reject ....................................p. 86 5. Guillaume Tell: From Laughing Stock to National Hero .............................p. 121 6. Resetting the Clock on Le Misanthrope and Le Dépit amoureux: Positive and Negative Appropriation.................................................................................p. 158 7. Cross-Dressing, Role Play, Knights Errant and Tyrants: Overthrowing the Stereotypes of Power in Regnard’s Les Folies amoureuses .........................p. 187 8. Conclusion ....................................................................................................p. 206 9. Appendix.......................................................................................................p. 212 10. Bibliography..................................................................................................p. 214 3 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Bust of Voltaire..........................................................................................p. 153 Figure 2: Lucius Junius Brutus..................................................................................p. 154 Figure 3: Guillaume Tell et Gesler ...........................................................................p. 155 Figure 4: Section de Guillaume Tell..........................................................................p. 156 Figure 5: The Warship Guillaume Tell......................................................................p. 157 4 1: INTRODUCTION French Revolutionary theatre did not only see an influx of new dramas, but also the return of previously unpopular works to the stage.1 Those plays which suddenly became popular did not, however, make their re-appearance in their original form. It was necessary for them to be ‘appropriés aux circonstances’, which, in some instances, changed their very foundations.2 A clear example of this can be found in the changes wrought on the dénouement of Voltaire’s tragedy, La Mort de César. Performed mere days after Louis XVI’s execution in 1793, the play could not close on its original ending, in which Antoine (Mark Antony) rallies the Romans to join his cause against Brutus and Cassius shortly after Caesar’s murder. Such a scene was, as the journal reviewing the production made clear, out of step with Revolutionary events: ‘Dans la mort de César, les aristocrates et compagnie s’attendoient à applaudir la harangue d’Antoine en faveur du tyran massacré par les conjurés; mais les acteurs, trop patriotes pour ne pas changer un dénouement aussi peu compatible avec les circonstances, ont laissé ces messieurs avec un bon pied de nez, en terminant la pièce par la tirade [...] de Cassius’ (p. 228).3 The speech in question was entirely new, and transformed the tragedy’s plot: CASSIUS Que la haine des rois et de la tyrannie Suscite des vengeurs à la terre asservie. Le moment est venu de finir à-la-fois Les longs malheurs du monde et les crimes des rois; Qui monte sur un trône outrage la nature, Et c’est un saint devoir de venger cette injure [...] En enfonçant ce fer dans le coeur d’un tyran, Nous offrons à vos yeux un présage effrayant. 1 Susan Maslan indicates that no less than a thousand new plays were performed in Paris during the Revolution. See Revolutionary Acts. Theater, Democracy, and the French Revolution (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2005), p. 15. 2 Journal des Théâtres, 1 August 1795. 3 La Vedette, ou journal du departement du Doubs, 8 February 1793. Although this journal is fervently pro-revolutionary and thus biased, there is no reason to doubt this portrayal of the adjustment to the play. 5 La liberté bientôt étendant ses conquêtes, Va fouler à ses pieds vos insolentes têtes, Et vous n’emporterez, en quittant l’univers, Que l’horreur des humains affranchis de vos fers.4 After the Revolutionaries had executed Louis XVI in much the same way that Brutus and Cassius had killed Caesar, the political and ideological basis of the tragedy had to be altered to approve of this act. This also ensured that ‘les aristocrates’ did not have an opportunity to protest against the Revolution through the play. Appropriation was not, however, a single, one-off event, but rather an ongoing process, with the plays it affected continuing to change in different ways. Another ending created for La Mort de César saw Brutus, Cassius and the Roman people swearing an oath of loyalty - or devotion - to Rome: BRUTUS S’il faut d’autre sang affermir ton empire, Ah! que Rome soit libre et que Brutus expire. CASSIUS Formons les mêmes voeux aux pieds de cet autel: Mourir pour son pays, c’est se rendre immortel. ROMAINS Nous jurons d’imiter son courage héroïque. VIVE LA LIBERTE! VIVE LA REPUBLIQUE! (III. 10)5 These additions were probably inspired by other ancien régime tragedies. The line ‘Ah! que Rome soit libre et que Brutus expire’ is an echo of the words spoken in Lemierre’s tragedy, Guillaume Tell:: ‘Que la Suisse soit libre, et que nos noms périssent!’6 Meanwhile, the vows of Brutus and Cassius recall Lucius Junius Brutus’s similar oaths sworn on l’autel de Mars in Act I of Voltaire’s tragedy Brutus.7 Historical accuracy was clearly subservient to the Revolutionary cause: it was more important that La Mort de 4 La Mort de César, cited in La Vedette, p. 228. 5 Voltaire, La Mort de César, tragédie en trois actes. Avec les changemens fait par le citoyen, Gohier, ministre de la justice (Lyon: L. Cutty, 1793-4). Louis-Jérôme Gohier was an ‘avocat, magistrat et homme politique’ (BnF catalogue). See César: calendrier électronique des spectacles sous l’ancien régime et sous la révolution <http://www.cesar.org.uk/cesar2/> [accessed 29 June 2012]. 6 This was also a revolutionary slogan. See Chapter 5, ‘Guillaume Tell: From Laughing Stock to National Hero’. 7 See Chapter 4, ‘Revolutionary Brutus: Royalist, Republican, Reject’. 6 César supported the course of the Revolution, even if its very content had to be radically changed to achieve this goal. The necessity of ensuring that every single play within the theatrical repertoire was pro-Revolutionary in sentiment was described in a police report dating from 1793: ‘Il est temps qu'une loi sage fasse taire tous ces échos de la tyrannie, et que la voix de la Liberté ait seule le droit de se faire entendre’.8 This did not always require plays to be entirely rewritten - as was the case with La Mort de César - but could be effected by replacing royalist, ancien régime terminology with more ‘Revolutionary’ vocabulary. Another of Voltaire’s tragedies, Adélaïde du Guesclin (1734), was altered in this way, with references to the ‘roi’ replaced by ‘foi’.9 In some cases, even these minor changes were not necessary, with plays