Adventures in Theatre - Lugne-Poe and The Theatre de L'oeuvre

r ,,ane-Poe at the Oeuvre from a lith„
Lautrec (1894) reproduced from L a R e v X d e l'O e u n J T ^

U
1914
gunnimiimmmmniminniminimiHnmmnraiimmmmimmmmiiramimmimmmwnminimrararannranmmmimnnminronro
Foreword and Acknowledgments
JLh i s study presents the story of a man and a theatre—

a theatre whose very substance aimed at being dramatic
rather than literary. It is the story of Lugn£-Poe and the
Theatre de l’Oeuvre. The Oeuvre, founded in 1893, is so
intimately linked with Lugn£-Poe’s personality that the
account must start with his birth, in 1869. Lugne-Poe’s
attraction to the theatre and innate tenacity explain the
birth and fighting spirit of the The&tre de l’Oeuvre; his
development at a period of Naturalist and Symbolist
ferment explains the theatre’s Idealist character in the
1890’s, because he anticipated that his theatre would wel
come plays of a Symbolist nature.
The 1880’s in France had witnessed a mounting op
position to the spiritual depression caused by the Franco-
Prussian War and to the cold objectivism of Positivist
philosophy. T he new generation of protesting writers,
who may be termed Idealists, included all those who
sensed a reality of ideas underlying the visible world and
who sought to impart some notion of that other world.
Developing for a time into a deliberate literary endeavor
not to reproduce reality photographically but to enrich
x F O RE W O RD A N D A CK N O W LE D G M E N TS
it with the expression, or at least the suggestion, of that

deeper existence, the movement became known as Sym
bolism, since writers were striving toward an art of sug
gestion rather than of description, consciously using sym
bols to indicate what mere words could not convey.
In the field of poetry, whereas the Parnassian move
ment with its interest in form and imagery had resem
bled the plastic arts, Symbolism with its effort to suggest
facets of the inner life was akin to music. Each writer now
strove to suggest his own feelings in the manner which
seemed best suited to him. This tenuous character of
Symbolism, founded on subtle, deep-rooted individu
alism, prevented the formation of a clearly defined
literary school, though in its scattered, varied manifesta
tions it held militant qualities which sought recognition.
While Symbolism would seem to belong essentially to
poetry, the enthusiastic, troubled poets wished to enjoy
the prestige which victory in the theatre alone could
give. Since the spoken symbol is more difficult to grasp
than the written, Symbolist plays risked being unin
telligible. Thus it was that the Symbolist theatre in its
limited sense readily gave way to the broader realm of
Idealism, which permitted all manifestations of imagina
tion and dream, whether presented through symbols
or not.
Symbolism as a movement got under way in the 1880’s;
though it was already falling into disfavor in the late
1890’s, it left an Idealist heritage of inestimable value,
with such playwrights as Claudel developing the religious
mysticism of Symbolism, Lenormand investigating the
labyrinthine depths of the subconscious, and J.-J. Bernard
making use of the power of silence, each writer empha
sizing some element inherent in the turbulent Symbolism
FOREW ORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
of the 1890’s. Although Lugn£-Poe always remained re
ceptive to works of poetic value, his rupture with the
Symbolists in 1897 indicated that he knew the movement
had about exhausted itself. By 1899 he felt that the
Theatre de l’Oeuvre had served its purpose and should
withdraw from the dramatic picture. Had not Antoine’s
experimental venture, the Th&itre-Libre, lasted only
seven years? Moreover, Lugn£’s 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 increasingly 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.
Therefore, though the Th&itre de 1’Oeuvre later re
gained its vitality with writers like Gide, Samain, and
Claudel, it has seemed logical to bring this study to a
close in 1899, a time when Lugn£-Poe prematurely con
cluded that his theatre had spent itself, just as Symbolism,
championed by the Oeuvre, had waned.
During the summer of 1939 I had the great privilege of
meeting Lugnd-Poe and his wife, Mme Suzanne Despr£s,
and of working in their home in Paris as well as at the
Biblioth&que de l’Arsenal. The boundless generosity of
Lugn6-Poe and Mme Despr^s touched me deeply, and my
fervent hope is that this work may prove worthy of the
confidence they placed in me. Lugn 6-Poe died, on June
19, 1940, at his country home at Villeneuve-l&s-Avignon.
Since his death, Mme Despr£s, by correspondence, has
done all in her power to carry out her husband’s wish to
facilitate my study. I am grateful beyond words for the
warm friendship, trust, and documentary assistance which
these two friends have given me.
Lugne-Poe accepted ingratitude philosophically, tem-
xii FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
pered as he was by the erratic coldness and rebuffs of
many whom he had aided. Possessing the modesty of the
truly great, he was extremely touched by my interest in
his life’s work.
For increased readability, notes which supplement the
text, and which are indicated by letters of the alphabet,
are at the bottom of the page, while documentary refer
ences, marked by numerals, will be found in a p p e n d i x c .
I am very grateful to Professor Justin O’Brien of Co
lumbia University, who, previous to his entry into gov
ernment war service, directed' this work up to its final
stage, and who gave me most generously of his time,
knowledge, and sound critical advice. I also wish to thank
Professor Jean-Albert B£d£ of Columbia University, who
graciously assumed direction during Professor O’Brien's
absence, and to Professor Norman L. Torrey and Dr.
Pierre Brodin, who, with Professor B£d6, were prelimi
nary readers of the manuscript. To Dr. Anne Cutting
Jones I am indebted for the inspiration of undergraduate
days at Wells College, her continued interest in my
studies, and her most valued judgment in criticizing this
work. My sincere thanks go likewise to Dr. Edith Melcher
of Wellesley College, whose scholarly, critical appraisal
has been of very great assistance, and to Dr. Melcher, Dr.
Jones, and Miss Frances R. Brown for editorial help.
For constant encouragement and interest, for faithful
forbearance through long hours of checking details, and
for much varied assistance, I most sincerely thank Dr.
Hamilton Mason of Hunter College. Miss Kathryn D.
Hymes of Hunter College, Mr. A. P. de Weese of the
New York Public Library, Miss Mary Edith Thomas, Mr.
W. Leslie Barnette, Jr., and Miss Elsie M. Fugett are
other friends to whom I owe a special debt of gratitude. I
FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
thank also Miss Marie Mengers, who has been helpful in
giving me information about Henri de R£gnier.
It is likewise a pleasure to thank M. Maurice Maeter
linck, Mme Ludmilla Pitoeff, M. Andr£ Girard, Miss
Ruth Draper, M. Maurice Sloog, Miss Nellie Turner,
and Professor F£lix Weill for contributing their mem
ories, impressions, and evaluations of Lugn£-Poe and the
Oeuvre, all of which have freshened my approach to this
study and made the Theatre de 1’Oeuvre as well as its
creator a living personality.
Gertrude R. Jasper"
New York, New York
December 16, 1943
illllllllJMIIIIIUIIMiMIUIIIIIllllllUIJIillllllllllUJIUiUIJllllllllllllfniMIIIIUtlllllllllllfllltlllllllflllllllllllilfllllllllllllUIIIIIIIIIIIHIItlllUlllttllllUjiE
Contents
FOREWORD and ACKN OW LEDGM EN TS ix

i. Future Man o f the Theatre 1
Hi Early Training 20
hi. Orientation towards Symbolism 41
iv. Acceptance o f Symbolism 59
v. Acting under Contract 80
vi. Birth o f the Oeuvre 92
v ii. Vicissitudes o f the First Season 118
Vin# Scandinavian Dramatists: Discovery 153
ix. Scandinavian Dramatists: Approval 178
x. Some Memorable Performances of the Early
Years 197
L e Chariot de terre cuite 198
Salomd 206
Peer Gynt 213
Ubu roi 222
Ton Sang 236
xi. Entente and Rupture with Symbolism 243
c o n c l u s io n 269
a p p e n d ix a : Programs o f the Oeuvre, 1893-1899 277
APPENbixB: Authors o f the Oeuvre, 1893-1899 285
a p p e n d i x c : References 287
b ib l io g r a p h y 333
XV
...
i: Future Man o f the Theatre
(jr E O R G E S L U G N E , father o f the man who was to

become the celebrated Lugne-Poe of the French theatrical
world, was born in Geneva of French parents and as a
young man went to New York to find employment in a
bank. A young French girl, the daughter of tradespeople,
interested him; they married, and later decided to return
to France.There, on December 27, 1869, a few days after
their arrival, was born their first child, Aur&ien-Franôis.
In Paris Georges Lugne continued the kind of work
he had been doing in America. He became assistant man
ager o f a bank, occupying his leisure hours by giving Eng
lish lessons to a num ber o f private pupils, among whom
was the painter Pissarro. T h e family income, never a large
one, enabled the Lugnes to live in a modest fourth floor
apartment at 8, rue de Paradis, where their second child,
a daughter, was born. T h e thrift and pride of the parents
early inspired in the children a horror o f debts and an
interest in living w ithin their means.
While still very young, their son had his first contact
w*th the theatre in the form o f that traditional French
diversion, the G u ign ol. T h e little boy attended the day
l
2 ADVENTURE IN THE T H E A T R E
school of a certain Pierre Bordier, in the rue Notre-Damcs

de-Recouvrance, not far from the Theatre du Gymnase,
but on the other side of the Boulevard Bonne-Nouvelle.
The pupils’ contributions enabled them to present M.
Bordier, on his saint’s day, with a gift. He rewarded their
generosity by offering them a performance of Guignol,
and each child received a large handful of cherries. Ab
sorbed in the antics of Gnafron and Guignol, they gulped
down the cherries, letting the pits fall where they might.
The two extraordinary puppet characters pursued little
Aur&ien in his dreams.
At home, he used to play in the court where the gossips
of the house chattered busily about the activities of the
neighbors, and particularly about the visits of a young
man whose parents lived on the second floor. His father,
M. Claretie, a porcelain merchant from Limoges, had a
shop on the ground floor. The son, Jules Claretie, was a
writer and was active in theatrical circles. What an un
conventional life he must leadI What people he must
meetl Tongues wagged in conjecture as the good women’s
imagination carried them into a world unknown to them.
In later years, they told Lugn£ that young Claretie, like a
romantic knight, used to prance on horseback along the
street. This characterization always seemed doubtful to
him, especially when, years after, he met Jules Claretie,
then director of the Com&lie-Franâise.
Lugn£’s parents were devout Catholics, and some of
the child’s earliest memories were connected with the
Church. Although he had an irrepressibly lively disposi
tion, which may have distressed his serious-minded par
ents, he derived more from the religious atmosphere than
they could suspect. For a time Aur&ien was in the choir
school of the Cathedral at Meaux until dismissed for his
F U T U R E M A N O F TH E THEATRE 3
deviltry.1 His duties as acolyte required his attendance at

I numerous services, not only at the usual masses and vesper
[ services, but at far more mysterious and moving ordina
ls tion ceremonies. Lugn^-Poe was to keep a vague mem-
1 ory of some such service impressively conducted at four
o’clock in the morning. Abb£ Vivier, who directed the
; school, delighted in employing the most elaborate ritual,
I and of course the youngsters in his charge figured promi
nently. Such magnificent efforts did not leave Aur£lien
Lugn£ unmoved; the spectacular side of the services af
fected him profoundly. It was as though the spirit of the
theatre had cast its blessing and spell upon him.
He was not, however, a m odel choirboy. Priests from
all corners o f the diocese used to say Mass at the Cathe
dral, and it was the duty o f Aur£lien to assist at three or
four services on Sunday morning. In contrast to the sin
cere devotion o f the priests, the little acolyte, as occasion
presented, would sip the wine from the chalice, replenish
the communion cup with water, and embellish the serv
ice with an overabundance o f genuflexions. The despair
ing Abb£ Vivier used to make him atone for his sins by
tracing four, five, or m ore crosses with his tongue on the
flagstone floor o f the Cathedral.
In spite o f the boy's mischievousness, the family gave
him the benefit o f a good upbringing and upon his re
turn to Paris sent him to a continuation class for boys
who had already prepared their catechism. Unfortunately
for the realization o f their aims, the parents were unaware
of the grave conflict o f ideas to which they were exposing
their son. He went to the Lyc£e Fontanes (later called the
Lycee Condorcet), where the liberally trained professors
upset on weekdays all that the priests sought to build up
°n Sundays. T h e child was, o f course, greatly confused,
4 ADVEN TU RE IN THE T H E A TR E
for the pageantry of the ritual appealed to him deeply, yet
he was attracted and stimulated by many of his lycie in.
structors.
His outlook was further complicated when his father
decided that he should take the course of decorative arts
in the evening at the Ecole Germain-Pilon, not far from
their home. There he studied the history of art, modeling
perspective, and designing, all of which later proved valu
able in the theatre but which for the moment seemed to
him like a pointless expenditure of energy.
It is to be wondered whether Abb£ Schlosser, in charge
of the Sunday classes, had a conscious understanding of
the conflict that must necessarily have existed in the minds
of his pupils. After the lesson he always made an effort to
amuse his little flock by taking walks with the children,
or by letting them browse in a distracting library, where
books and papers showed the staging of spectacles given
at the hall of the El£ves de Saint-Joseph, at the far end of
the rue Lafayette. Abb£ Schlosser gave Lugn£ more op
portunity than the others to enjoy this fascinating
collection, perhaps because he knew him to be more ad
vanced than the others in his studies at the lycie, per
haps because he realized that the boy was interested in
anything theatrical and that the best way to combat the
antagonistic, Voltairian influence was to foster the child’s
natural inclinations.
. Lugn£ also derived pleasure from other activities of
Abb£ Schlosser’s group. The boys would act in little
plays, with all women’s roles suppressed, as propriety re
quired. Already the future actor and director felt the
urge to throw himself wholeheartedly into his role. What
lines he had I The priest, a good Alsatian, often chose
little patriotic poems, which never foiled to move him
FUTURE M AN OF THE THEATRE 5
and his friends to tears. Although the selections were

mediocre and the interpretations childish, the perform
ances did serve to quicken the boy’s interest in the arts.
The children’s recitations often provided entertain
ment at various gatherings of priests. One afternoon
Lugn^’s assignment was La Conscience by Victor Hugo.
Unfortunately he made the mistake of overacting his
part, portraying with exaggerated effect the despair of
Cain, pursued by the eye of God. Inspired by his own in
terpretation, at the end of the last line he fell over back
wards! The rush of priests to his aid spoiled the effect of
his daring climax. “ Ce fut mon premier gros effet rat£, je
le pense. II y en eut d’autres depuis dans ma vie . . . ” 2
The associations formed at the Lyc£e Gondorcet pro
vided Lugn£ with wider horizons than those of the
church school. The students began to hear echoes of
the outer world, for Paris o f the 1880’s was teeming with
life. Naturalism, with six or seven years of prosperity still
before it, gained adherents at the same time that it pro
voked a strong reaction, for young men who were to be
known as Symbolists already were beginning to protest
against the movement’s cold objectivity, seeking to ex
press stirring, inarticulate feelings and to convey their
ideas of another and spiritual world. But recently out of
school, wishing to take their place in the sun, they battled
vainly against the hostility o f their elders and found all
newspapers and magazines systematically closed to them.
It was as though the war o f 1870 had created an abyss be
tween fathers and sons. A serious, sad generation was sup
planting the frivolous generations of the Empire. The
impatience of the young men did not permit them to
wait for the disappearance o f their elders; so their only
alternative was to seek expression through reviews of
6 AD VEN TU RE IN T H E T H E A T R E
their own.8 Remy de Gourmont’s incomplete list names

more than one hundred of these ambitious new publica-
tions.4 La Nouvelle Revue Gauche had been founded in
1882, changing its name in 1883 to Lut&ce. Students of
the University of Brussels founded La Basoche in 1884
on which Pierre Quillard collaborated. The same year it
published some verses of Stuart Merrill, the Symbolist
poet born at Hempstead, Long Island.
The activity of several of these young men touched
closely the pupils of the Lyc£e Condorcet, because some
of the poets who were to gain recognition in the nascent
Symbolist domain had attended their school. Pierre Quil
lard, Stuart Merrill, Ren6 Ghil, Ephraim Mikhael, and
Andr£ Fontainas all had studied there. Even as under
graduates, their ebullience had sought an outlet in Le
Fou, which they published every Monday. Later, when
the Symbolist group turned to the theatre, Lugn£ was to
reflect its activity.
This was the epoch when everyone revered Verlaine
and Mallarm£, poets whose influence did much to mold
younger writers. There were passionate discussions of
Les PoHes maudits (1884), Verlaine’s illuminating essays
on Rimbaud, Laforgue, Corbi&re, Marceline Desbordes-
Valmore, Mallarm£, Villiers de l’lsle-Adam, and himself.
The vogue of Des Esseintes was at its height—Des Essein-
tes, the decadent esthete created in 1884 by Huysmans
in A rebours.*
* Anatole Baju first used the term “ decadent” in a literary sense when
he started his sheet, Le Dicadent, in 1886. One Sunday afternoon when
Verlaine was lying ill in the Hdpital Tenon, surrounded by a large
group of admirers, he spied on his bed a paper with “ Le Decadent” at
the head. Indignantly he exdaimed, “ Quel est l’imbdcile qui a os£ ramas-
ser ce titre ridicule?” 8 With a dear, challenging voice Baju promptly
accepted all responsibility, and Verlaine, disconcerted, adopted a more
polite manner and discussed the term. He was so won over to its possi*
bilities that he himself later contributed to Baju’s review.
FUTURE M A N OF THE THEATRE 7
1886 proved to be a decisive period for the new move-

I ment. In April of that year, when Lugn£ was sixteen
[years old, Gustave Kahn published the first number of a
I new magazine, La Vogue. It soon gave the lycte student
I the opportunity of reading Les Illuminations, prose-
I poems by Arthur Rimbaud, composed in the early 1870’s,
when the emotionally torn, gifted poet was scarcely older
I Lugn£. Now, while Rimbaud was in Abyssinia, hav
ing forgotten, or seeking to forget, that he had ever been
apoet,6his poems inspired a new verse form, le vers libre,
[ destined to a great career, although it was not strictly
[ “free,” since any rhythmic phrase must obey intrinsic
rules of harmony.7 Gustave Kahn became the champion
of free verse.
In the early days, when Symbolism was finding its way
in poetry, free verse found favor among young poets, who
1later, as they sought to penetrate the theatre, were con
vinced that here was the vehicle par excellence for their
[ dramatic endeavors, “ puisqu’il £tait une musique et qu’il
pouvait tout dire, tout chanter, tout faire entendre.” 8
During the spring and summer of 1886 discussions
about the so-called decadent writers reached such in
tensity that Le Figaro invited Jean Mor£as to prepare a
manifesto, published in the Saturday supplement of Sep
tember 18, 1886. Insisting upon the sound, natural rise
of the new poetry in the cyclical evolution o f literary
movements, Mor£as dispensed with the questionable term
of decadence to label the contemporary trend as Symbol
ism. He called Baudelaire the precursor of the move
ment, Mallarm£ the master of the ineffable, and Verlaine
the true emancipator of verse form. Inspired by such
masters, young poets were seeking new verse forms, new
conceptions and attitudes, hoping thus to revivify French
8 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
poetry. Some opponents of the group had advocated imi
tation of Victor Hugo as poetry’s salvation, but Mordas
pointed out that true imitators of Hugo would not use
his verse forms but would follow his example of discover
ing still further means of liberating French verse from
restrictive rules. Banality, not innovation, would prove
disastrous. Moreover, Symbolist poets were confronted
with the necessity of finding supple means of expression
since “le caract&re essentiel de l’art symbolique consiste d
ne jamais aller jusqu’i la conception de l’ldde eh soi.” 9i *
The poet must^not confuse the idea in its purity with
mere external manifestations of it. Mor£as encouraged
his contemporaries in their subtle art by urging them to
dare to breathe the air of heaven rather than the breath
of a neighbor, even though that neighbor were a god.
Morâs’ manifesto excited replies from many commen
tators, one of the most sober being Anatole France, who,
a week later, analyzed the article in the conservative news
paper Le Temps. France, blaming the Symbolists for try
ing so hard to revive poetry that their language became
incomprehensible, advocated a simple soul as the only
guide to entrance into the realm of sincere poetry. Other
critics relentlessly called the entire movement a literary
mystification and an idiotic hodgepodge.11
Though the young writers in question remained con
vinced that they had much to offer literature, attempts to
clarify and spread the new principles left the uninitiate
in a sad state of confusion. It was bewildering to realize
1 Writing in the Belgian magazine La Wallonie in the fall o f 1886,
Albert Mockel analyzed a work as embracing action, subject matter, a
series of scenes, ana transitions, while he called the soul o f the work
le symbole, explaining it in these terms: "C ’est l ’intime et vague reverie
de l'artiste, 1’idde ind&mie qui git au tr£fond du livre, la conception
qu’il semble avoir rMuite en fluide pour la r£pandre sur l ’oeuvre entifcre,
d’oii elle dmane ensuite comme un parfum subtil.” 10
FUTURE M AN OF THE THEATRE 9
that every poet questioned would give a different inter

pretation o f Sym bolism .12 Symbols, instead of being gen
erally recognized, were the unique conception of each
poet,18 for individualism o f the most intimate, subjective
character was at the heart o f the movement .14 Since, how
ever, a group exerts m ore influence than one person,
writers rallied rou n d the banner o f Symbolism, accepting
the common epithet w hile retaining their own concep
tions of poetry and the inner life .15 Symbolism’s sole unity
lay in aim, n ot in m eth od ,16
At a noisy gathering o f the undaunted young people
on October 20, 1886, stress was again laid on Baudelaire’s
importance to the group. H is th io rie des correspondances
suited their purpose adm irably, for they hoped to create
unusual and m eaningful impressions by mingling the
perceptions o f all the senses.17
Their art o f suggestion must, indeed, plum b hitherto
unknown subtleties, fo r the most refined and sensitive
of the Symbolist souls shudderingly avoided the naming
of an object as being the surest means o f defiling the pu
rity of the object’s essence. Such an exaggerated attitude
led to a strong tem ptation to allow writing to degenerate
into a literary game. W hereas Baudelaire, Mallarm 6, and
Rimbaud had vitalized poetry, many o f their followers
failed to realize that the very soul o f their thought eluded
them in their extravagant stress on technique .18
All attempts at developin g interest in new tendencies
were fortunately n ot so exaggerated as those o f the most
fervent poets. La R ev u e IndSpendante> founded in 1884
under the leadership o f the courageous and talented
I critic, F£lix F£n£on, only twenty-two years old at the
time, had experienced difficulty in surviving, but in 1886
1 renewed its life under the guidance o f Edouard Dujardin,
10 ADVENTURE IN T H E T H E A T R E
an ardent young man of twenty-five. While the new editor

and F6n6on, now one of the principal collaborators
wished to avoid the extremes both of the conservativ*
academic spirit and of the new agitations, they accepted
some Symbolists as contributors: Jules Laforgue, Ver%
laine, and Mallarm£. Dujardin gave free rein to his en
thusiasm in another direction when in 1886 he inaugu.
rated La Revue Wagnerienne, which became the most
influential of the reviews of the young school.19
Though the opera Tannhauser Jiad failed when first
given in France in the early 1860’s, and though the rela
tions between France and Germany were strained after
the Franco-Prussian war, a certain amount of German
influence was making headway in France. The philoso
phy of Hegel, Kant, Hartmann, and Schopenhauer, and
the music of Beethoven, Bach, and above all of Wagner
were winning some French admirers. Baudelaire had
early recognized a relation between his own thtorie des
correspondances and the Wagnerian theory of the syn
thesis of the arts,20 publishing a pamphlet to point out
the similarity. As the cult for Wagner grew, groups of
ecstatic young men would gather for an evening and,
sprawled over chairs and divans, dissect the score of one
of the master’s operas, seeking the underlying network of
ideas unfolding with the flow of sounds, “comme les reves
sous le bruit des jours.” 21 As early as 1884 a veritable
epidemic of Wagnerism gripped Paris as the works of the
master of Bayreuth overcame opposition to triumph in
all popular concerts.” An enthusiastic reception always
greeted the Wagner programs of the Concerts Lamou-
reux, on Sundays, at the Cirque des Champs-Elys£es-
Charles Lamoureux had founded the Concerts Lamou*
reux in 1881. The P&re Lamoureux,’ distributeur de
FUTURE M A N OF THE THEATRE 11
la manne sonore et celeste/'23 had become a great Wag-

L e r ia n propagandist. The young poets of Paris listened
to the music with rapt attention.
I While a number of people appreciated Wagner’s music
in spite of national prejudice, many to whom his works
did not appeal based their opposition on the patriotic
idea that "les Allemands chantent sur tous les tons que
nous devenons leurs tributaires en industrie et en art.” 34
On May 3, 1887, at the Eden-Th&itre, Lamoureux
■conducted France’s first presentation of the complete
score of Lohengrin, only excerpts of which had been
[previously heard, in concert, under the Empire. The ex
cited listeners acclaimed a triumph for Wagner’s music
—although some street manifestations required police
control. Reproaching Lamoureux for a desire to produce
French works in a position secondary to that of foreign
masterpieces, the opposition group, after this single per
formance of Lohengrin, forced the conductor to abandon
his plans for a lyric theatre.28,0
Although schoolboys could scarcely have been abreast
of all that was going on in the literary and artistic circles
of Paris, a spirit of unrest was in the air and Aur£lien
Lugn£ and his comrades at the Lyc£e Condorcet were of
an age to seize upon every scrap of information, to talk
it over, and to speculate on it.
A breath of the theatrical world reached the boys
through their favorite professor, Emile Faguet, literary
and dramatic critic, whose class Lugn£ attended. The
boys would come upon Faguet’s dramatic criticisms in
the old daily paper, La France, which became more popu
lar with the students than elsewhere in Paris. Though
* In 1891, the controversy was still sufficiently alive to warrant mention
of the fact that Lohengrin had been successively given, without dis
turbances, at Rouen, Nantes, and Angers.**
12 A D VE N TU R E IN T H E T H E A T R E
severe judges, they devoured his opinions and longed to

see every play he reviewed.
If parents took some lucky pupil to the Com^die.
Franâise, his joy would be heightened by a glimpse of
the fabulous Faguet and the opportunity to tell his
schoolmates the next day how the great man appeared in
the same shiny suit he wore to class while everybody else
was in evening dress.27 Faguet became a familiar sight to
them as he marched along easily, squeezing a tremendous
umbrella to his side, and wearing a “vague chapeau
mou." 28 The boys marveled that this man with his in
credible little black mustache and nicotine-stained fin
gers, whose brusque gestures contrasted with the dreamy
expression in his eyes, should frequent the society of ac
tresses, who, to their young minds, were all glamorous.
And it was current information that he lunched often
with the famous critic Francisque Sarcey. Everything
about Faguet’s appearance appealed to his pupils.
Faguet in turn seemed equally appreciative of the boys’
admiring wonder. They were proud to be in his class and
sought the slightest pretext to cross to the Left Bank to
visit him. He occupied a small fifth-story apartment at
the corner of rue Monge and rue de Navarre, where his
windows overlooked the picturesque Arfenes de Lut£ce.
The simple furnishings were almost hidden by the books
and papers strewn everywhere, even on the floor. The
little space needed for his writing materials was “ the only
oasis in the desert of books.” 29 He made it a practice
never to ask a visitor’s name but his age. The younger
the caller, the more expansive he became.80
In the classroom he was unhappy when aloof on the
platform and invariably managed to end the class on a
pupil’s bench. His lectures on Victor Hugo made their
FU TU R E M A N OF THE THEATRE 18
jjgads reel as he left them to form their own conclusions.81
0 e poured out quotations, references, and opinions in
the lively manner of a man relating a story he knows inti
mately.32 He had the knack of foreseeing another’s still
undeveloped idea, of giving it life and form, yet never
inserting in it his own viewpoint.83The students’ admira
tion for Faguet surpassed that inspired by any other in
structor. The boys respected him and were grateful to
him for leading them to form their own opinions.84Faguet
later wrote that it was not he who had given Lugn^-Poe
lessons on the theatre when the boy was in his class, but in
Lugn£’s opinion nothing was so decisive as the prestige
of Faguet and his influence on his pupils. Knowledge en
tered their heads as though through an intelligent friend
ship, and he influenced them more than he ever knew.
Not all the instructors could even hold the attention
of the pupils, much less work so successfully with them.
Bits of paper, slipped surreptitiously from desk to desk,
escaped the none too watchful eyes of the teacher, who
preferred to ignore even whisperings and prompted an
swers. A dictionary thrown with accurate aim struck the
back of a pupil who, quivering in his eagerness to recite,
had momentarily forgotten all else. W ho was blamed?
The lively Aurelien Lugn 6 of course.
In the class at this time was Georges Bourdon, a student
whose poise and assurance in speaking of the theatre im
pressed Lugn6. During the distribution of corrected pa
pers, they took advantage of the lack of discipline to carry
on a clandestine correspondence. Some of the notes passed
in this way contained' plans for the organization of a dra
matic group, the “ Cercle des Escholiers.” —“ Yes, but
there are the expenses of the first circulars. Who will pay
I for them?” or, “ Did you bring the list of friends we might
14 ADVENTURE IN TH E T H E A T R E
get to pay five francs a month?” and finally, a note from
Lugn£, “If our group is formed, you will be president
and I, secretary.”
Georges Bourdon had commanded Lugn£’s respect
ever since the day of Victor Hugo’s funeral, in isgj
' when they were chosen from the lycie to carry a large
wreath, not because of scholastic aptitudes but because
their shoulders were considered sufficiently solid. What
emotions thrilled the young student when Georges Bour*
don pointed out the famous actors, Mounet-Sully and
Jean-Paul Mounet, two superb heroes in their eyes!
With Bourdon the acknowledged leader because of his
ideas of organization and his many friends, the students
of the Lycde Condorcet founded the “Young-Club” on
November 11, 1886.®° It was originally an artistic organi
zation, not solely theatrical, as it became later, changing
its title to the “Cercle des Escholiers.” Lugn6-Poe has
related that the early meetings were numerous and fright
fully useless. On at least ten occasions, Bourdon and oth
ers interpreted the scene of the triumvirs from Ponsard’s
Charlotte Corday. Ernest Daudet, honorary president,
gave early encouragement to the group. The meetings
were held in small hired rooms until Mme Haas, the aunt
of one of the members, generously offered the use of her
apartment.
Lugn£ gained the esteem of his comrades when he ap
proached Gustave Worms, of Conservatoire fame, be
seeching him to become an honorary member of the
Escholiers and timidly telling him that he hoped some
day to be his pupil/ Worms graciously lent his name to
the organization.
* Gustave Worms (1836-1910), born in Paris, had been a printer before
FU TU RE M A N OF TH E TH EATRE 15
Lugne’s association with the first period of the Escho-
I liers’ existence was not brilliant. One evening, during a
[ meeting held by the boys, he was especially bad in the role
[ assigned to him, and his pique caused him to quarrel with
K all those who had been successful. The host, Georges
I Haas, alone defended him. The unpleasant incident pro-
I voked a letter from the president, Georges Bourdon, dated
I 18, 1887, ejecting him from the Cercle des Escho-
I liers.87
Lugn£ also formed at the Lyc£e Condorcet other asso-
I ciations which exerted their influence upon his life. In
I the drawing class with Maurice Denis, he at one time
I actually carried off first prize.88 His friendship with Denis
I was later to lead him into artistic circles, particularly
I when he and Maurice shared a studio with two other
I artists.
During the year 1886—1887 Lugn£ had the good fortune
of being accepted into the intimate circle of one of the
I students, Louis Malaquin, a friend of Maurice Denis.
I They probably met on the way to school or in some of the
I classes. Lugn£-Poe never forgot his gratitude when Mala-
I quin prompted him in a whisper as he blundered through
I an oral test.
■ In the early days of their association, Malaquin, a
i hunchback, moved about nimbly, but he became steadily
I i winning at the Conservatoire, in 1857, the first accessit in tragedy and the
|j second prize in comedy. He made his debut at the Com^die-Franâise
I the following year as Valfcre in Tartuffe. After creating several roles
I I there and playing the repertory, he resigned in 1864 because his nomi-
l l nation as sociitaire was not approved. He next enjoyed a tremendous
I success of ten years’ duration in Russia but, homesick for Paris, he re-
I tamed to appear in 1875 at the Th&Ltre du Gymnase. In Tune, 1877,
I he returned to die Com 6die-Fran$aise, in Le Marquis de Villemer, and
K and in 1887, was elected sociitaire. He then was eligible to teach at the
|i Conservatoire, where he was one o f the finest masters. On January 17,
II 1885, he married the charming and popular actress Blanche Barretta.*®
■
16 ADVENTURE IN THE TH E A TRE
more crippled and was obliged to resort first to a cane I
then to crutches. Yet his genial, patient disposition never I
altered. As Malaquin’s failing health increasingly con> 1
fined him to his room, friends gathered at his bedside^ 9
Lucien Miihlfeld, Maurice Denis, Edouard Vuillard, Jean I
Jullien, and others, many of whom were later associated I
with the Theatre de l’Oeuvre. Malaquin lived in an apart- 1
ment over the Cafe Gutenberg, which was a busy rendez- 1
vous of writers and artists. On Sunday afternoons, when I
he was able, he went down to mingle with his many I
friends of the Thâtre-Libre and of advanced reviews, 1
such as La Plume and Art et Critique. He was interested II
in all artistic efforts and controversies.89 “Anarchiste de ■
chambre,” as Professor F£lix Weill has characterized®
him," Malaquin disliked any suggestion of a group, but I
consented to the addition of his name to the Gercle des 1
Escholiers.
Lugne went to see Malaquin daily and confided in him I
all his disappointments and aspirations. The kindness and I
enthusiasm he encountered there knew no bounds, and I
gave him confidence, while the stimulating exchange of a
ideas kept his thoughts active.
Literary questions interested Lugn£ but the theatre re- I
mained his great preoccupation. While at school, he some- m
times cut his classes to try a few minor roles, and became*
intoxicated with the feverish desire to be part of the 1
theatre. The training of his childhood, especially in con-
nection with his religious education, had arotised in him M
a definite inclination for the theatre, but his first experi- I
ence on a stage revealed a new, mysterious force. The feel I
of a living stage underfoot sharpens an actor’s sensitive- 1
* Malaquin founded the radical paper L’En-Dehors, which encouraged | i
the anarchist outrages of 1892-1893.40
I
F U T U R E M A N O F TH E THEATRE yj
ness, aids his flights of emotion, and fosters his superb

forgetfulness of all else. Eleonora Duse experienced this
sensation whenever she stepped upon a wooden stage.
The feel o f it affected her as a track stirs the blood of a
race horse; the actors near her seemed leaden as her frenzy
grew. A theatre with a cement stage never aroused her
best acting.41
Lugn£-Poe relates that this mysterious theatrical power
elated him at the time of his first professional appearance,
probably in Francois Copp£e’s Severo Torelli.42His small
role required him to wear a shabby costume consisting of
tights (in which the holes were camouflaged by make-up
on his skin), a doublet, and a Florentine cap decorated
with a goose-feather. As he became exalted in the role,
shabby surroundings and the audience no longer existed
for him. He did not rfecognize the comrades with whom
he had been dressing a few minutes earlier; they had be
come authentic Florentines, and he was transported to
the sixteenth century. His lines were brief, but what con
fidence he had! W ith a longer role he would soar to new
heights. At last he truly belonged to the theatre. He even
received seven francs for this important event.
For the fete of Saint-Charlemagne in 1887, one of his
classmates, Gabriel Trarieux, composed a dialogue be
tween a schoolboy of the sixteenth century and a modem
lyceen. He dedicated his literary effort to the “futur
Talma." 43 Trarieux was placing an optimistically high
opinion on Lugne’s fledgling efforts but he showed real
penetration in realizing that his friend would not easily
abandon the theatre.
Unable to pay admission, Lugn£ joined the claque of
the Od£on, although he found it discouraging to try to
arouse enthusiasm in an indifferent audience. Revivals of
Ponsard’s dramas figured too prominently to dra
enthusiastic public, while the burning of the §
Comique with considerable loss of life, on May 25 fo
discouraged many theatregoers. Porel, the director of
Odfon, included some modern plays in his progr
however, and Lugn£ may have been present on Decemh
19, 1888, at the exciting performance of Germinie £a |
certeux, the dramatization by Edmond de Goncourt of
novel that he and his brother had published in 1864. On
that memorable evening all the opposing forces had
gathered to protest the growing stage-influence of Natu- ;
ralist writers.44Tumult reigned as indignant spectators |
shrieked, “C’est ignoble . . . c’est une infection”; men
and women noisily reclaimed the coats which they had
checked, in that way interrupting the performance.45
In his eagerness to live as many moments as possible [
in the theatre, Lugn£ also went to the Com^die-Frangaise, |
where indulgent ushers allowed him to slip in during the |
last intermission when no admission checks had been dis
tributed. Many times he was thoroughly chilled while
awaiting the longed-for moment. But what a rewardl Hi I
the program included Coquelin ain£ playing Les Praa
cieuses ridicules, or Gondinet’s UnParisien, or Richepin s| |
Monsieur Scapin, which also boasted the services of
Coquelin cadet, all his discomfort had been amply repaid. .
His delight was again boundless if the bill was Dumas j
very daring Francillon or Sophocles’ Oedipe roi, in whi(|B I
Mounet-Sully as usual gave proof of his genius.
Lugnd’s mounting enthusiasm for the theatre, both 3s
spectator and actor, can thus be traced to diverse inflU'
ences from childhood on. Not the least of these, as may ;
be seen, was the early religious training, that involved, !
in addition to mere attendance at church, active particip21' j
FU TURE M A N OF TH E TH E A TRE 19
tion in tê service. Still more important, however, was
the vital part contributed by the scholastic milieu: the
theoretical preparation for the theatre fostered by Faguet
and the practical experience provided by the formation
of the Escholiers. Finally, Lugn£’s occasional ventures as
an actor in minor roles plus his attendance at numerous
performances at the State theatres intensified his deter
mination to find a place for himself in the world of the
theatre.- I
ii: Early Training
T he co n servatoire de m u s i q u e « de
Declamation, traditional portal of entry into the theatre,
pointed a tempting and logical direction for Lugne to
follow. It offered free training to young French people
and even to a certain number of foreign students. Its
instructors were all recruited from the actors of the
Theatre-Franâis.
One English student who had permission to visit classes
in 1896 has described the “quaint little classrooms” :
“The rehearsal rooms consisted of a tiny wooden
stage, a little amphitheatre of raised seats, and a Pro
fessor’s deskon a small platformfacing the stage. Noth
ing had changed, one fancied, since Napdeon, before
the walls of Moscow, signed the decree which constiq
tuted the charter of the School of Acting.” 1
The entire building was, indeed, sadly outmoded. Decora
tions which were luxurious at the time of the Empire noW
appeared shabby and paltry.2
Although the building in the Faubourg PoissonniM
was no longer so substantial as in the early years of its
existence, the methods of instruction employed were'
E A R LY T R A IN IN G 21
sound and conventional. A student devoted weeks to the
preparation of a role, analyzing all its aspects. His fellow
students read the replies when it was his turn to interpret
the part. A student was usually allotted the kind of role
to which he was best adapted. It was not a question of
casting each person in a strict type, but of considering in
a practical way personal qualifications such as voice,
build, and general suitability.8
One objection to the Conservatoire system was the
stress placed on a fixed inflection, which must under no
conditions be altered in reading a given passage. The
danger lay in an actor’s tendency to overemphasize his
technical achievements, even during a performance.4 En
emies of the system preferred seeing an actor experiment
with new effects. A defense of the traditional method may
be found in the reply of Constant Coquelin (ain£) to a
person who criticized Gustave Worms on the ground that
he could always predict Worms’ every gesture and intona
tion. Coquelin’s retort was: “On sait du moins que ce
qu’il fera sera bon, et c’est quelque chose. Le plaisir est-il
plus grand de voir un acteur dont on ne sait jamais s’il
ne fera pas quelque folie?” 6 While the declamatory style
stressed at the Conservatoire lay open to discussion, the
purity of diction, equally emphasized, was of the greatest
value.6
Admission to the Conservatoire must, then, be the
first goal of an aspiring actor. To attain this end, Lugn£
wrote to Keraval, a former fellow student of Porel at the
Conservatoire and now acting at the Od£on under Porel’s
direction. Kiraval’s and Matrat’s interpretations of Sgana-
relle and Scapin had impressed him. Keraval consented to
give the young man a weekly lesson to prepare him for
the entrance examination of the Conservatoire.
22 ADVENTURE IN THE TH E A T R E
Among others trying to gain admission was a youn«* •

Marguerite Moreno, who proved a miraculous friend*1’
Lugn£. She and her brothers shared most of his ideas ^
painting and literature. Often she saw to it that L u ^
had meals. Because his family had suffered financially
because his parents did not share his interest in th
theatre, he was now shifting for himself, and occupied a
room in the Belleville section of Paris, not far from the
P&re-Lachaise cemetery. Marguerite Mor&io was fasci
nated by the mysterious contents of the schoolboy’s bag
which he always carried. Since he usually left his room at
eight in the morning to return- at two or three the next
morning, the bag would generally yield such a variety of
articles as a role or two, a copy of Moli&re, a play to read,
the noonday meal—often very frugal—a fresh collar for
the evening if he could afford such a luxury. Lugn£ often
felt ill at ease on account of his worn clothing and tended
to curb his eagerness when rehearsing so as not to display
too much of his sorry-looking shirt and jacket.7
At this time Lugn£ adopted the name of A ur^lien-F , |
Lugri^-Poe, usually shortened to Lugn£-Poe. Poe was a
family name; one still finds people by the name of L ugne-
Poe in the Forez section of France.8As a young actor,
Lugn£ yielded to pride in a possible kinship with Edgar
Allan Poe ‘ and used the full family name, which lent
itself too readily to puns for him to adopt it while at the
lycie.
Lugn^-Poe was entering upon his official d ra m a tic
training at a time when acting was much in vogue in
• Lugn6-Poe believed that Edgar Allan Poe’s father was one of his
ancestors, who joined Lafayette's forces during the American Revolu- I
tion, and then became an itinerant actor in the United States Lutrn^ 3
felt further assured of the truth of his assumption because nf * <trong
likeness between a picture of Poe and a photograph of his father,
Georges Lugni. r 15
E A R L Y T R A IN IN G 23
Paris. Amateur groups, aided perhaps by one or two
professionals, would perform in the salon of some elegant
friend: Mme Aubernon’s home in the rue Vivienne even
boasted a small stage.® Mme Gabrielle Krauss sponsored
musicales. Of a less pretentious nature were the produc
tions by groups such as the Union Artistique, the Cercle
Volney, the Cercle Gaulois, the Cercle Pigalle, or the
Cercle des Estourneaulx.10These clubs, differing from the
salon groups, often gave unpublished plays, sometimes
written by their own members. Francisque Sarcey was
the honorary president of the Estourneaulx, who were
n ot amateurs bent on diversion but true artists working
seriously.11 .
One important dramatic venture originated because of
criticism of the Conservatoire. Charles Bodinier, general
secretary of the Com£die-Franâise, was disturbed about
the future of dramatic art in France. At the State school
most of the rooms were used for musical training. When
two hundred and fifty dramatic candidates applied, only
twenty-seven could be admitted, not for lack of talent but
lack of accommodations.12 Bodinier hoped that such a
deplorable situation could be remedied by the creation
of a separate institution devoted to dramatic instruction.
While the composer Ambroise Thomas was a suitable
director for the musical division, dramatics were entirely
outside his sphere of experience and it was reported that
during one of the competitions in drama, he startled the
instructors by mistaking a candidate in comedy for a
candidate in tragedy. He hastened to justify his blunder
by informing Got, the hapless student’s teacher, that,
dressed in a toga, the pupil would pass anywhere for a
tragedian.13
Bodinier was especially troubled by the serious lack of
opportunity for young students to perform b e flfl
public, except at the annual competitive examination^ 5
his opinion, the only way to become an actor was bv ^
ing. Formerly the graduating students had found a w?
come in provincial and small Parisian theatres of P i
caliber, where they could improve their incomplete train
ing by observing and working with experienced acto|l
But such theatres as the Theatre Doyen and the Theatre
de la Tour d’Auvergne had disappeared from Paris, while
provincial theatres housed stock companies from the
capital which sought to please by the appearance of one
star.14
Other schools operated by the State provided places
where the students could apply what they had learned.
The dramatic school certainly needed a “th&itre d’appli-
cation.” Bodinier even hoped the pupils would receive
remuneration so that they would not find it necessary to
act elsewhere.*
Bodinier’s long association with the theatre and press
well qualified him to take up the cudgels. He submitted
to the Ministre de I’Instruction Publique et des Beaux-
Arts adetailed plan for the formation of a dramatic school
distinct from the music center and for the creation of a
“theatre d’application.” Realizing the importance of the
question, La Revue d’Art Dramatique published his
project16
Theatregoers evinced a lively interest in his ideas,
which were honored by a thorough review in the press.
Edouard Deschaumes continued the discussion in La
Revue d’Art Dramatique,1' urging State subsidy. It would.
people, badly in need of money, who acted under

often appeared as "Philipon." (See pages 29 and 30.) ^ ^
be to the public s advantage, he maintained, to see revivals
of works which had charmed previous generations but
which were not great enough masterpieces to be included
in the repertories of the Th£atre-Fran$ais and the Odeon.
The students of the Conservatoire would benefit from ac
cepting all roles, both important and insignificant, and
from working under supervised direction. Whereas the
Conservatoire roles were learned according to the tradi
tions of glorious predecessors, a “ theatre d’application”
would allow greater flexibility and individual expression.
Every year the Theatre-Franâis had to sell sets and
costumes. This surplus material could supply the pro
posed project. Such a theatre would not rival but comple
ment the Conservatoire.17
The Chamber of Deputies protested that the budget
could not bear the strain of further appropriations for
Fine Arts, but Charles Bodinier felt so keenly the need of
an experimental stage that in 1888 he found the means
of creating a theatre, known as Le Theatre d’Application.
He rented an art gallery opening on a small dark court
at 18, rue Saint-Lazare and converted it into a little
theatre. One climbed a flight of stairs to find a long
gallery where were displayed paintings and works of
sculpture, at the far end of which he had constructed a
small stage. Rooms opening from this part were furnished
with seats, while a balcony and even eight boxes had been
installed. In this way the hall could accommodate about
five hundred people.18
Through his intelligent initiative Bodinier offered a
real service to dramatic art, placing the performances, as
he did, under the direction of the Conservatoire teachers.
Classics were performed there, and a few modems. Since
all the young actors were receiving traditional dramatic
training, the productions were strongly tinged with
servatism.
Diametrically opposed to all such training was the j
new
dramatic group of Antoine, the Th£atre-Libre, which
1Was
to revolutionize traditional concepts of the stage.' Lugn$
though still a student at the Lyc£e Condorcet, contrived
to attend its first performance, on March 30, 1887, and
was impressed by Lion Hennique’s Jacques Damour
drawnfromZola’sstory. The following February he again
saw Antoine, superb in La Puissance des tenbbres by
Tolstoy. At the next performance of the Th£atre-Libre,
on March 25,1888, Antoine’s new simplified staging and
confident acting again thrilled him. When Kiraval, with
whomhe was studying, received permission from Porel
to play at the Th£atre-Libre, Lugn£ saw him there in
Emile Moreau’sMatapan on April 27.
Shordy after, at the springentrance examination of the
Conservatoire, Lugn6 rendered the thankless scene of
ChicaneaufromLes Plaideurs by Racine, and was refused
admission. Kiraval, appreciating his pupil’s bitter disap
pointment andhis love of the theatre, consoled him with
the promise of an introduction to the venturesome An
toine. It was in June, 1888, after the production of Paul
Alexis’ La Fin de Lucie Pellegrin had aroused indigna
tion by its picture of life on Montmartre, that Kiraval
tookhis hopeful pupil to the great Antoine. Lugn£ asked
to join the company—and was accepted.
Still confident of qualifying for the Conservatoire, the
young man planned to visit courses there and probably
attended the institution’s newly formed preparatory!
■
classes. His efforts were rewarded in the fall, when he

succeeded in matriculating at the State school.
Until he left the Th&Ure-Libre in February, 1890,
tugn£ performed an almost impossible feat by working
in the most antithetical spheres possible. The Conserva
toire represented solid, unbending tradition; the Th&itre-
Libre experimented with new types of plays as well as
with radical concepts of staging and acting. Lugn£-Poe
acknowledges with deep gratitude his debt to Antoine.
From him he learned more than at any other time or
place to love the theatre, to give all to it, and not to dread
hardships.18 The producer taught the eager youth to
speak. Antoine’s scoldings counterbalanced the rigidity
he might too easily have acquired at the Conservatoire.
Lugn£ reveled in the long hours of work. As Antoine’s
influence over him gained ascendancy, each new success
of the Th£atre-Libre increased his enthusiasm, and he
learned to scorn conventional actors. He experienced the
joy of sharing the anxieties and expectations of the coura
geous band. The night of the dress rehearsal, the actors'
and authors used to gather in the back room of the Coq
d’Or, a caf£ in the rue Montmartre. They discussed the
difficulties of the evening’s performance and, shivering,
waited till dawn to read the first reviews as they came from
the press.
Lugn£’s first appearance with the Th&Ure-Libre, Octo
ber 19, 1888, was as an extra, a Sicilian gendarme, in
Chevalerie rustique by Verga/ On the same program he
* Jules Christophe, writing in La Plume o f December 15,1893, says that
Lugn6 acted in Les Ronces du chemin, a comedy in five acts, in verse,
by Georges Taylor, with the Thddtre Ind£pendant on June 25, 1888.80
Lugnd was already active in securing roles in as many ventures as
possible. Nozifcre has compiled a list o f nearly fifty plays in which Lugn£
nred from 1887 to the founding o f the Oeuvre in 1893,21
played the role of Thomas Didyme in L’A mante du ch

by Darzens. Wisteaux, a fellow student of Antoine
they were preparing for admission to the ConserviiIj§3
played the leading role under his pseudonym of
Lugn&Poe in later years recalled vaguely having be°
made assistant manager for this second play.22 As f0r ^
costume, Antoine, for economy’s sake, had been oblig^l
to dispense with tights; so, “ce furent des jambes de la
plus belle Velue’ qui signal£rent mes debuts.” 28
Antoine had not been admitted to the Conservatoire
and did not like professional actors.24 Naturally he was
displeased that Lugn£ should be studying at the conven
tional school of drama.25 November 5, 1888, marks the
young man’s entrance into the Conservatoire as well as
his appearance as Rabassol in Louis de Grammont’s Ro-
lande, a much discussed work of the Thâtre-Libre, in
spired by Balzac’s Cousine Bette. One of Lugn^’s friends,
Lucien Miihlfeld, reviewing the performance for La
Revue d’Art Dramatique, named four actors who deserved
more than a mere mention. Lugn£ was among them, and
the reviewer commented that he was a very successful ;
agent des moeurs.2*
When L’Ancien by L£on Cladel opened the perform* .
ance of May 2, 1889, Lugn^-Poe created the role origi
nally reserved for Antoine. At the last minute Antoine
haddecided against appearing, and the ill-prepared Lugn£
replaced him in very mediocre fashion.27For costume he
had to wear a nightshirt the whiteness of which had been
subdued by dipping it in coffee. He distinguished himself, J
however, by his amusing and convincing portrayal of the
father in Les Inseparables by Georges Ancey, a three-act*
comedywhich ended the program. Miihlfeld wrote a glow-
ing account of the young actor. “II a lance les enormites j
de son rdle avec un sang-froid superbe. Bravo M. Phili-

ponl Bravo M. Anceyl Bravo M. Antoinel” 28
At the end of the same month it was a glorious experi
ence for Lugn 6 to be cast in L e Coeur revilateur, adapted
from Baudelaire’s translation of Poe’s Tell-Tale Heart:
He played the role of police officer in this pathologic
melodrama. On the same program he also took part in
Oscar M£t£nier’s La Casserole and in Rszewuski’s Le
Comte Wiltold.*0 Although the Exposition Universelle,
for which the Eiffel Tow er had been erected, was open
in the evenings and offered serious competition to the
theatres, such unusual programs succeeded in attracting
gratifying audiences.81 Lugn£, delighted at sharing in
these productions, gave little thought to the fact that his
associations with this radical theatre group sullied his
reputation at the Conservatoire, where he spoiled his
chance of participating in the concours of 1889.
Yet on the whole, in 1889, everything appeared rosy to
the young actor. H e counted among his friends Miihlfeld,
Malaquin, and Antoine. Several members of the Escho-
liers had subscribed to the Th£atre-Libre because of him
and he had even secured a few recruits from the Conserva
toire. Antoine had sufficient faith in him to make him
stage director and his confidence showed itself in the
letters he wrote to Lugn 6 during the summer. T o Lugn£
they offered more encouragement than any material sus
tenance he could earn by his own talents.
On October 21, Antoine produced L e Pere Lebonnard
by Jean Aicard. H e has noted in his memoirs that the play
• A ccord ing to the p ro g ra m o f the T h 6&tre-Libre reproduced in Les
Cahiers de ‘Bravo* in Septem ber, 1930, o n May 28, 1889, Lugn 6-Poe, as
P hilipon, op en ed the p erform an ce w ith a recitation o f Jean Gascogne's
Assassin! R ecitation s b y M £visto an d A ntoine follow ed. T h e bill then
offered Gringoire, a on e-act play b y T h e o d o re de Banville, with Antoine
in the tide role, M £visto as L o u is X I , and Lugn 6-Poe as Olivier .29
so ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
wouldhavebeenthoroughly successful had it not been f
Lugn£-Poe, who mumbled in the last act.32 Evident
neither the scoldings of Antoine nor the drilling 0f ^
Conservatoire masters had as yet overcome the you^
man's faults. \’s k ^ I
In these early years it is clear that Lugn£-poe alwaS^S
hadseveral irons in the fire. Whenever possible, he played
small roles to supplement his meager living. At cafes and
music halls in Paris, or anywhere outside of Paris where
friends were making short trips, Lugn6 appeared. Pierre
Berton, comedian of the Palais-Royal, included him on
several circuits. Through this group Lugn£-Poe became
acquainted with an entirely different spirit from that in
the TWatre-Libre or the corridors of the Comddie-
Fran$aise. It was the world of boulevard theatres, jealous
of its sovereignty in the realmof comedie-vaudeville. Yet
inthegroup of carefree actors dignity and the traditional
respect of elders existed.”
Upon being admitted to the Conservatoire in 1888
Lugn6had entered the course of Gustave Worms, whom
he so greatlyadmired. As indulgent as he had been when
the lyden approached him concerning his patronage of
the Escholiers, Worms strove to correct Lugni’s bad
habits, allowing himto retain the good he had acquired
elsewhere.®* One day when Lugn6 was doing a number
in acafS-concert on the Boulevard de Strasbourg, he was
startled to seeWorms in the first rowl Worms* only com
ment wasareminder that the Conservatoire pupils should
use a pseudonymfor extracurricular theatrical activities. -2
So Lugnd usedhis mother’s maiden name, Philipon, un
der which he acted at the Th&tre-Libre and even, upon
subsequent occasions, at his own Th&tre de l’O e u v r e 1
Lugn£ledanactivelifeattheConservatoire also, study- I
jng under - K&raval, Got, Delaunay, and others. It was
G u stave Worms, however, who, commanding the highest
respect of his students, exerted most influence upon
L u g n £ . There was no one like Worms for making one
seek human, tragic truth within oneself. Lugn6 wrote:
“II nous faisait d^couvrir des horizons infinis sur les
cavernes du coeur, sur les puissances de la sensibility en
sc£ne lorsqu’elle est conduite par un cerveau intelli
g en t.” 88 Although awkward in his movements, Worms
would scramble to the stage, recite three or four lines of
Andromaque or Birinice, and leave the students breath
less. Lugn£-Poe has declared that a person who never
h ea rd Worms in one of his good classes did not know him
an d could not appreciate the deep beauty of Racine.”
Although Worms was an excellent, dependable actor,
he did not try to fashion pupils after himself, but more
than others encouraged the development of personal
initiative. He became merciless, however, in berating a
student for any unjustified gesture or unsound comic
effect.88
Aware of the poverty in which Lugnd-Poe was strug
gling, Worms procured for him a student scholarship at
the Conservatoire. The bestowal of this favor came as a
surprise because a few days before, Lugn£ had impudendy
interrupted Worms during a class, Worms had walked
out, and everyone expected Lugn£ to be expelled. His
dismissal would have pleased many who disliked the
student’s acting and who resented his independent atti
tude. Lugn£ admits he was acquiring faults but insists
that they were offset by much good. Worms turned a deaf
ear to those who denounced his pupil and remained tol
erant as long as his work at the Conservatoire did not
suffer.*9
In the other great sphere of his activity, Lugn£

times accompanied Antoine on short trips. Afte^^
performance in Paris of Hennique’s La Mort du due <|1|
ghien, on December 10, 1889, the play was taken^
the Royalty Theatre in London, where Lugn£ acted in *°
and where it proved an undeniable but unjustified fail*
ure.40It was on a trip to Brussels to present L’Amante du
Christ that the quarrel took place which temporarifijl
broke off relations between Antoine and Lugn£.
Enmity was bound to arise between them because of
their independent natures. Lugn£ always found it difficult
to submit to the leadership of others, and Antoine was not
the person to tolerate insubordination, although he must
have been pleased with the enthusiasm and energy of the
younger man, whose admiration he evoked. Each, in his
memoirs, published some thirty years later, speaks of the
other in acid terms. Later rivalry and differences arising
as they became more mature may have colored their judg
ment of previous years/
Friction between the young men was sufficient, how
ever, for Antoine to dispense with Lugn£’s services, using
as pretext the award of the Conservatoire scholarship.
Before the performance of Darzens’ play in Brussels,
Antoine, having quarreled with one of his actors, namj|u
Grand, ordered Lugn£ to replace him and to inspect
Grand’s baggage to make sure he was not carrying off any
part of his costume. Lugn£-Poe considered Grand to be
in the right, was disgusted with the whole affair, and
thought Antoine would forget it. But the next day, before
the performance, Antoine met Lugnd in the wings and
'Commenting upon the performance in Paris on January 10, 1890,
^ f -byJurgenev, Antoine singled out Lugn6-Poe to bear
the blame for the ineffectiveness of the production: “La nresse n’a pas
M mauvaise, mais la salle a M odieuse; n faut 7 L Pt f n i a
“ “ » 'cueillir pendant
EARLY T RA IN IN G 33
took him to task for not having carried out his orders,
young, hotheaded, and long irritated by Antoine’s sharp
words, Lugne lost his head, pinned Antoine against the
set, punched him, and shouted angrily.
Two days later in Paris an announcement appeared,
pasted on the mirror o f the little smoking room, to the
effect that from February 1, 1890, M. Dorval would as
sume the duties of manager, replacing M. Philipon, who
was prevented from fulfilling them by his new status as
scholarship student at the Conservatoire.42 It is hard to
conceive of Antoine’s forgiving such an outrageous act,
yet Lugn£-Poe says that Antoine recalled him to play in
Jean Jullien’s L e Maitre on March 21, 1890.48 His rela
tions with the Theatre-Libre were not completely severed
but certainly were not so strong as formerly.
Lugn£’s inexhaustible vitality and his constant need
to eke out his small income led him into various minor
fields of activity. In 1890, when a vogue for monologue
and poetry flourished in the salons of Paris, the concierge
of the Conservatoire was often approached by hosts and
hostesses who desired suitable entertainment for an eve
ning party or anniversary celebration. Able to display
favoritism, the concierge often chose Lugn£-Poe and
Lucien Muhlfeld. Lugn£ was frequently exasperated with
the lack of respect accorded them by host and guests and
with the tone of easy familiarity of the servants. Distaste
ful though such assignments often turned out to be, they
helped him to improve as a monologist and netted him a
few francs, to say nothing of the ices and little cakes
pilfered from the serving trays before they reached the
drawing room .44
In July, 1890, Lugne participated in the concours of
the Conservatoire. Proverbially these competitions were
poorly conducted and consequently much criticized. L*.
ing from ten in the morning to seven o ’clock in the e
ning, they attracted a group of spectators who jammed th*
little theatre of the institution. In spite of the warmth and
discomfort, the doting parents and friends listened with
emotional interest."
On the jury sat such judges as Dumas fils, Claretie, and
Mounet-Sully. They tried to be fair but differences of
opinion were bound to arise and the spectators noisily
voiced their disagreement by shrieking insults at the jury,
howling down those who joyfully acclaimed the success
of a friend, stamping with anger, and protesting in the
language of all the animals of creation." When the up
roar exhausted the patience of the director, instead of
calling upon the numerous guards to eject the trouble*
makers, he quietly picked up his bell and walked out.
Such was the procedure in 1890 when those who received
honorable mention were denied the pleasure of hearing
their success publicly announced.47
Marguerite Mor&io, at least, had the h o n o r of hearing
her name called as the winner of first prize in tragedy and
comedy for girls. Whereas the previous year she had re
ceived only first accessit in both tragedy and comedy, she
now excelled by her understanding portrayal of Ph£dre
and by her charming and subtle rendition of Alcm&ne
in Amphitryon
For the boys, the first prize in tragedy was not awarded,
but first accessit was shared by Godeau and a student said
to be a Rumanian prince, De Max, who showed promise
of a brilliant future and who, like Lugn£-Poe, was study
ing with Worms." The first candidate to perform, he
caused astonishment by his confident attempt to equal
Mounet-Sully, giving a passable imitation of the trage-
EARLY TRAINING 85
dian’s voice, even copying the lock of hair falling on his
f o r e h e a d , and by the manner in which he roared like a
lion Orestes’ lines in Agamemnon.M Lugn£-Poe’s inter
relation o f Arnolphe from L ’Ecole des femmes was tre
mendously successful.51 He shared first honorable mention
in comedy with two comrades, Baron and Schutz, first
prize being unanimously awarded to Dehelly. No second
prize was given.
During the summer Lugn 6 managed to gain a little
more theatrical experience touring under the direction
o f a creator of educational spectacles, playing three times
a day. The repertory consisted of classics, produced with
texts expurgated and rearranged, costumes reversible.
Lugn6 said that the doublet, used in Le Misanthrope,
turned inside out served as a toga in Horace! 52
It is interesting to observe the uniformity of purpose
which guided Lugn£-Poe in his activities. At an age when
most young men scatter their energy in unallied interests,
Lugn6 felt assured that the theatre was to be his world.
The need to become part of the theatre surged through
his veins and pushed him to accept all opportunities to
strengthen himself in it. Here was a young man whose
destiny had identified him with the theatre from his early
years. He gladly played everything from the sublime to
the ridiculous because he loved it all and wanted to learn.
His interest, however, was not detached from other
spheres of activity. Lugn£ was aware of interesting
developments in artistic circles especially, through his
friendship with Maurice Denis, his school chum from the
Lyc£e Condorcet. His contact with artists was to have a
direct influence on his future work as a theatrical director.
In 1888, Denis had entered the famous Acad^mie Julian,
whose crowded studios attracted art students from the
four corners of the world/ The easels were wed
together, the air was stifling, and the shouting Cl°5e
often deafening.84 This studio provided a center
interchange of ideas. Paul Serusier, who had spen*
summer of 1888 with Gauguin at Pont-Aven in Brit
returned to the Acad^mie Julian saturated with m
ideas, which he eagerly exposed to Denis, Vuillard
nard, Ranson, Roussel, and other young students. ' jt |
In connection with the Exposition Universelle of iggg
the proprietor of the Caf£ Volpini offered a showing 0j
lithographs and paintings not acceptable in the conserva
tive Salon exhibition. The pictures were displayed in
white frames, an innovation due to Gauguin. R.
Wilenski has commented upon the exhibit in these words;
“This show, where the pictures were seen amid the
clatter and smell of a cheap restaurant, had considerable
effects in spite of the unfavourable conditions; it revealed
Gauguin to Pierre Bonnard, Edouard Vuillard and other
students from the Acad^mie Julian; it converted Serusier
from a hesitant admirer to an ardent apostle . . .
The interests and development of his artist friends
stimulated Lugn£ and are reflected in his later conception
of the Oeuvre.
After again summering with Gauguin at Pont-Aven
'Julian was said to be a shepherd from the South, who had had a
varied career in Paris; he was said to have been a prize fighter, to have
sponsored wresding matches, to have sat as a model. In despair at not
making a financial success in any of his schemes, he hired a studio, hung
out a sign, and waited patiently for prospective pupils. When a timid
soul did appear and, because of the barren emptiness of the establish'
ment, tried to withdraw, Julian dragged him in, sat as the model, and
the Acadimie Julian was founded. As the number of students increased,
Julian invited well-known artists and sculptors to act as visiting in*
structors. The quarters were expanded and he presided over la r g e stu
dios m the Faubourg Saint-Denis. He was eveS pexs?adJd to S e n a
separate studio for ladies. Noise and general disnrrW °P ?L t
although each studio was provided with an o v e r s e t WCre Pr 5® '
misconduct.63 overseer to prevent senoUS
EARLY TRAINING 37
and Le Pouldu, S&nsier returned to expound even more

enthusiastically than before the art of the painter he so
admired* The cover of a cigar box, painted with the pure
tones dear to Gauguin, served as illustration of the artist’s
theories of rhythm and pattern.66 Endowed with remark
able eloquence and a constructive flair, S^rusier played
an important part in the formation of the Symbolist
movement.57 His comrades, spellbound, in turn sought
new converts, propaganda in which Lugn£ himself joined,
as Maurice Denis wrote in a letter to him the following
year:
“Sais-tu que nous disions l’autre jour: en somme c’est
Lugnt qui est k la clef du succ£s de Gauguin. Rappelle-
toi ce qui s’est passe depuis un an; l'article d’Art et Cri
tique, les relations avec les symbolistes, le nombre de gens
que nous avons int£ress£s k la peinture.” 68
The Symbolist movement was indeed fighting for rec
ognition. Jean Jullien, two of whose plays had been pro
duced at the Th£atre-Libre,* founded Art et Critique in
1889, when the first number of La Plume appeared. Its
aim was to provide a means of expression for talented
young people, varying its list of contributors so as to give
all an equal chance for publicity. January, 1890, inaugu
rated the publication of the present-day Mercure de
France, under the leadership of Alfred Vallette and his
wife, the novelist Rachilde. It numbered among its con
tributors many writers later associated with the Thître
de 1’Oeuvre. Its offices on the second floor of an old house
at 15, rue de l’Echaud^-Saint-Germain provided a rendez
vous of importance in the history of Symbolism.69
This was the period “ oii les £crivains de la g£n£ration
symboliste combattaient pour le vers libre, la glorifica-
* La Serenade, December 23, 1887; L ’Echiance, January SI, 1889.
tion de Verlaine et le triomphe du drame wagn&ie^lPS
Jean Mor&s fondait I’&ole romane et ou Charles M0*.°u
d&larait ne considerer les choses que ‘sous l’angle
i. 'i./ * 99 60 Tm i r"»Cli 1fO fvintv*»-»U _
ternit^.’ ” 90 In order frt
to insure its triumph a «• litera
movement must win the theatre also; the poet Paul F0rj
eighteen years old, responded to this need o f the Sy^
bolists. In June, 1890, he founded the “ Theatre Mixte ”
combining in the fall with the “ Theatre Id£aliste” of
Louis Germain and soon after taking the name under
which it is generally known, the “ Theatre d ’Art.” Wilen.
ski jusdy observes that 1887, when Antoine founded the
Thktre-Libre, fostering realist drama, was really a period
of Symbolist expression.61 Paul Fort was attracted to the
Symbolists as steel to a magnet, though the scope of his
productions was not to be limited to contemporary Sym
bolist writings. His program announced recitations of
poems of all epochs and all literatures, from Homer to
Rimbaud.42
This unusual dramatic venture was of a nature to
entice the ever-active Lugn6, but his first varied period of
apprenticeship in the theatre was abruptly cut short. In
November, 1890, at this time of exciting, youthful activ
ities, he was called for military service. How he dreaded
itl His friends did their best to encourage him. Maurice
Denis wrote that they would take turns writing to him so
that he would receive mail frequently and be kept abreast
of activities in Paris. Echoes of the life he had left, how
ever, merely tantalized him and made him hate the new
life more. He felt that every day away from freedom en
dangered and shortened his life in the theatre. His head
was filled with ideas of the theatre, of revo' ' r
anarchy, drawn from the milieu of Malaquin.
his large build and his “dimensions point ry
E A R L Y T R A IN IN G 3g
unes avec les autres, ’ 68it was so hard to outfit him that
his misfit appearance attracted undue attention. “ En fait,
cette tenue restait particulifcre. Ni soldat, ni civil . . .
une fantaisie point 616gante, mais txbs ‘Oeuvre’ d6j&.” 64
Lugn£ distinguished himself further by determining on
a course of passive resistance; he committed no acts o£
insubordination; he refused nothing, but he was incapable
of doing anything. He exuded ennui and sadness. “Jamais
de ma vie, je ne fus si doux, si passif, si £vad6, que sous le
drapeau de Mars.” 69The officers came to look upon him
as a curious phenomenon, from whom nothing military
could be expected. He took advantage of every opportu
nity, however, to go to the theatre in Reims, where he was
stationed, and to take part in certain fetes there. As often
as possible he slipped off to Paris, whether by official or
fraudulent means. One lieutenant even aided him,
amused at his superb military incapacity.
The climax of his strange career as soldier took place
when Coquelin cadet arrived in Reims to participate in
a military benefit at the Grand Theatre. Lugn£-Poe con
trived to call on Coquelin at his hotel. The famous actor
was ill and voiceless and wanted Lugn£ to take his place.
In order to supersede the orders of the captain, that
Lugn£ was under no circumstances to leave the post,
Coquelin appealed directly to the colonel. Permission was
granted and Lugn£ took unholy joy in informing the
captain of the colonel’s permission and in offering to
place at his disposal two good seats for the evening’s per
formance.
On several occasions officers decided that Lugn<§-Poe
must be ailing. His attitude of sad resignation risked be
coming contagious. When they suggested some indisposi
tion, he id mildly, but he was exempted from cer-
J B I
40 ADVENTURE IN THE THEAT r e
tain duties. Thanks to the efforts and tact
cadet, Lugn^-Poe was transferred to Paris
in March, 1891, after four months o f “ m/lit*1 ^ * 0
At last he could again become part o f 1 * 1 Service
life of the theatre which he loved. :e I
Hi: Orientation towards

Symbolism
A . L T H O U G H Lugn£ had been away from Paris only

from November, 1890, to March, 1891, this absence
marked a definite step forward in his development, for,
returning to his old haunts, he soon realized that his
point o f view had altered. Even before the call to mili
tary service he had been discontented, feeling that the
theatre should offer something more satisfying than the
brutal Realism of the Th&itre-Libre.
T he milieu which he now decided definitely to fre
quent served to foster this new orientation and exercised
a determining influence over him. At 28, rue Pigalle he
shared a studio with three painters, Edouard Vuillard,
Pierre Bonnard, and Maurice Denis. Since Lugn£-Poe had
only occasional engagements at parties and cafis-con-
certs, he soon found it impossible to pay his share, but the
others were glad to help him.
In the studio of pocket-handkerchief size, groups of
friends held excited discussions about art and literature.
Serusier often came to see his close friends, sometimes
— ---------
bringing Gauguin. A solid friendship grew u
the four occupants of the studio, and their stimam°n8
influence made Lugn£ renounce all that he ha^ ^
ously admired in order to find new interests, whi*^'
appreciated with a more mature point of view.
While Lugn£ was away on military duty the v0
artists, more or less under Gauguin’s influence,
considerable strides toward the clarification of their ideaT
Gauguin, returning to Paris from Le Pouldu in Novem
ber, 1890, not only brought theories but impressed hij
disciples with his showy use of fisherman’s clothing»
Sdrusier’s warm admiration of the master still flamed, but
Gauguin was disgusted to find a group of painters less
talented than himself employing the epithet of “Symbol
ist.” He therefore renounced all artistic connection with
them, abandoning the term to S^rusier and his followers.*
Desirous of gaining recognition for their ideas, they
called themselves the “Nabis.” One of their number was
studying Hebrew and chose this word meaning “prophet"
because the group felt imbued with the confident spirit
of the ancient sages. They did not consider themselves
true prophets, however, since, instead of pointing the
way, they were groping to find their own mode of ex
pression* Denis, through his clarity of thought, forceful
expression, and vast musical and literary knowledge, soon
became a leader in the group.4At his suggestion5 they
met once a month, deciding upon a certain bistro in the
Passage Brady, where the proprietor had fastened to a
marrowbone the much used and often misplaced key of
the washroom. Significantly, these gatherings came to be
known as the “Diners-de-l’os-i-moelle.” 8 Painting fur
nished the usual topic of conversation at the meetings.!
where the loyal Sdrusier convincingly propounded Gau*
O RIENTATION TOWARDS SYMBOLISM 43
guin’s theories, thus continuing to serve as a link between
the great artist and the Nabis. The young artists strove to
express their ideas through pictorial language, seeking out
the mysterious meaning of lines, contours, light, and
shadow.7
The group expanded until the Nabis counted among
their number not only S£rusier, Denis, Bonnard, Vuil
lard, and Roussel, but the young Swiss artist F£lix Val-
lotton, who displayed much talent in woodcarving; the
future sculptor Aristide Maillol, at that time still devoting
his efforts to painting; Ibels, and Piot. While not mem-,
bers, Toulouse-Lautrec and Debussy were associated with
the group.8
It was natural that the friends should meet often at 28,
rue Pigalle, where three of their -group lived. Through
his roommates Lugn 6 thus kept in close contact with the
lively discussions, which touched on the theatre and liter
ature as well as on art. Coquelin cadet enjoyed the com
pany of the young artists and frequently brought firsthand
news of the theatre. Paul Percheron came, a school
mate of Lugn£-Poe, who was soon to introduce him to
Paul Fort. Percheron was an enthusiastic friend of the
Symbolist poets Adolphe Rett6 and Charles Morice, and
frequented artistic circles.9
Andr6 Gide, who had published Les Cahiers d’Andri
Walter, was making himself known; everyone was discuss
ing Verlaine, the scandal of whose personal life gave his
poetry wider recognition .10 Lugn£-Poe wrote of this pe
riod, “ II y avait alors une sorte de contagion de mysti-
cit£ ” 11
For Lugn6 the world now centered around these
friends and their fascinating talks. While his months with
Antoine had been his true initiation into the practices
of the theatre, he felt there a lack of imagination which

he realized still more clearly under the stimulus of hi
new associations. The dismal months of military servic
at Reims had caused a break in his life and had given him
the chance to start in the direction where his real path lay
Determined to gain recognition at the Conservatoire
the surest foundation for a theatrical career, Lugn£ had
resumed his studies there under the excellent guidance
of Worms. While the others painted, the would-be actor
overwhelmed them with lines he was practicing. Their
life together presents a strange picture: Lugn£, working
vigorously at all he undertook and requiring admiration
and encouragement; Denis, quietly producing paintings
of sentiment showing the influence of Puvis de Chavannes;
Bonnard, painting indefatigably when he was not out
walking and observing life on the streets and in cafes; u
Vuillard, “a gentle creature with a fierce red beard/’ “
attracted to the Nabis without being able to share all
their varied enthusiasms.14
It was probably with these friends that Lugn£ attended
the thrilling performance of the Theatre d’Art on March
20,1891, which included such items as Rachilde’s Madame
la Mort, the recitation of Mallarmd’s Le Guignon, and,
best of all, La Fille aux maim coupees by the Symbolist
poet Pierre Quillard, a regular contributor to the newly
founded Mercure de France. Gauguin and S£rusier
together had designed the program for the performance,*
while the sets for Quillard’s play were the work of
Sfrusier alone, whom one critic qualified as “le peintre
symboliste bien connu 15 The group at 28, rue Pigalle
must have buzzed with excitement over this achievement
of one of their intimates. It is small wonder that excite
ment swept Lugn6off his feet.
O R IE N T A T IO N T O W A R D S S Y M B O L IS M 45
The performance of the Th<&tre d’Art took place in a

little theatre on the Left Bank, in the rue de la Gait6,
where melodramas were the customary fare.18 The audi
ences attracted by Fort’s enterprise were as picturesque as
the quarter, and the one at the evening of S£rusier’s artis
tic triumph was typical. La Plume contains this descrip
tion of the select, artistic group: “ . . . po&tes d£cadento-
instrumento-maeterlincko-symbolistes, peintres n£o-tradi-
tionnistes, pointillo-impressionnistes ou pas pointillol
Que de crini£res r£volutionnaires! que de feutres mous
a u x tons bizarrement comptementaires! On se serait era
au vernissage des Indipendants, dans une reunion anar-
chiste ou bien aux soirees litt£raires et souterraines de La
Plume.” 11
While the Theatre d ’Art did not appeal to the conserv
ative public, it was gaining much publicity, both favor
able and unfavorable. On January 16, 1891, for example,
it had given Shelley’s Les Cenci, translated by F. Rabbe,
and had received the acclaim of certain critics for its suc
cessful presentation of a play considered unsuitable for
the stage.18 The critic for La Plume said of it, however,
“ Un drame noir, ce qu’on a ri! Pauvre Shelley! qu’avais-
tu fait k ces jeunes gensl Cet ige est sans piti£.” 19
Elsewhere in the same issue of the magazine appeared
a protest against the unbusinesslike management of the
theatre. A critic who had received a pass entitling him to
a good seat took a carriage from the Right Bank to the
other side of Paris to reach the Salle Montparnasse, where
the ticket taker kept him waiting at the door for a half
hour only to tell him to climb to the third gallery. Once
installed in his heavenly perch, he looked down to find
the good seats—one of them supposedly his—occupied by
his concieree. the shoemaker, the corner fruit vender, and
\'^V' '• V-i. V. .' V

the charcoal dealer. Indignantly he protested and fi
wound up in one of the musicians’ seats! 20
In spite of inefficient management the enthusias^ll
the youthful actors and their friends remained undimm°*
and to Lugn£ this theatre offered a new field which h
was soon to enter. He was first, however, to appear tha
spring on April 20, 1891, at the Th&itre d’Application
It is surprising to note how, in spite of the interest the
spirited young man of twenty must have felt in the
radicalism of the Th&tre-Libre movement, he veered
back to the conservative.
Charles Bodinier’s Theatre d’Application had grown in
importance and popularity, although for economy’s sake,
Bodinier had been obliged to dispense with the ornate
decorations and the elaborate foyer dear to the hearts
of elegant theatregoers.21As a businessman Bodinier un
derstood the necessity of putting his project on a sound
financial basis. Since the performances by the untried stu
dents of the Conservatoire were not intended to be pri
marily money-making, and since the budget for Fine Arts
had granted him only fifteen thousand francs annually
instead of the hundred thousand needed,23 the manager
quite naturally turned to many uses the attractive setting
which he had provided, thereby calling down indignant
protests from those who thought he was diverting his sub
sidized stage to unworthy purposes”
Lectures had gained great favor in Belgium, and Bodi*
nier determined to foster this vogue, offering to his
worldly audiences, listening comfortably, men whose hard
work had gained them fame.24Among the distinguished;
lecturers were Brunetifcre, Lemaitre, Barrfes, and Donnay,
who was not yet well known. Yvette Guilbert was invited
O R IE N TA T IO N TOWARDS SYMBOLISM 47
to introduce her individualized interpretation o£ songs to
a public not apt to frequent the cafds-concerts where she
usually sang. It was she who nicknamed the theatre “ La
Bodintere,” a name henceforth associated with the enter
prise, which was called “ un des plus intelligents et des
plus coquets refuges de l’art contemporain.” 25
In this theatre the curtain sank to the floor below in
stead of rising. Lack of space on the stage presented ob
stacles to actors for they could move only with difficulty;
their gestures were necessarily restricted and some were
said to act their parts while standing on one foot.2* Prop
erties were sometimes reduced to a table and a chair or
two. “ C’est un guignol,” Miihlfeld said.27 In the conver
sation of flippant pupils of the Conservatoire, the theatre
became the “ Folies-Bodinier.” 28
Handicaps, however, did not hinder the increase in
popularity of Bodinier’s venture. There were perform
ances sometimes in the afternoon, sometimes in the eve
ning, programs of varied interest which included lectures,
recitations, or tableaux vivants with artistic settings to
create the atmosphere of a dreamworld.
The programs of the Theatre d’Application became
the talk of Paris as the Wednesdays of the Theatre d’Appli
cation rivaled the Tuesdays of the Th&itre-Franâis.29
Carriages choked the streets before performances while
concierges and shopkeepers on their doorsteps gossiped
about the social and intellectual elite passing before
them.80It was even rumored that the lecture series were
rivaling the Op£ra-Comique as a center for gossips.
The elegant patronage was in part due to M. Bodinier
himself, who arranged the programs and presided over the
charming setting. He was a short, stocky man, delightful,
mmamm

distinguished, well educated, and modest. Being practi
also,* he understood the advantage of renting his littl
theatre to individuals or groups seeking a stage. It was *C
this way that Edouard Dujardin produced Antonia at th*
Th&tre d’Application on April 20, 1891.
On account of his studies at the Conservatoire and his
desire to leave the circle of Antoine’s theatre, Lugn£.p0e
logically affiliated himself with Bodinier’s group. Dujar-
din’s play attracted him particularly, because it was truly
Symbolist. Under the influence of Mallarm£, Dujardin
aspired to the realization of the ideal drama, which would
express the eternal tragedy of humanity. This play, the
first of three to constitute La LSgende d’Antonia, is an
exposl of the idea that man is made to suffer and woman
to betray. The man believes that he has found happiness
in the innocent girl of vague dreams. She is tempted. She
resists, but returns to temptation, for it is the unknown,
the new, perhaps. Disillusioned, she goes back to her origi
nal lover who, in a duel, has been mortally wounded by
the man who tempted her.8*
Dujardin wished to give lyric expression to some of the
cries of human passion and when preparing the publica
tion of the work in 1899, he still found in it the lyric
emotion which he had intended should animate it.88
Dujardin himself took the role of the lover and a
charming young actress, Mile Mellot, known for her
melodious voice, played opposite him. Although Lugn£-
Poe was a member of the chorus,* he so distinguishes
himself that he was later accorded the male lead in the
•In 1892 the enterprising Bodinier installed "un gen til et coquet petit
theatre on the first platform of the Eiffel Tower. A dever review based
on current happenings amused the spectators81
c h o S S * t0 d res° urces’ elght corypM*s had to replace the full
remaining parts o f the trilogy. It must have been en

couragin g to the young actor to succeed so well in a
poetic, symbolic play, proving to himself that he should
persevere in this new trend in the theatre. Writing in
1899, Dujardin praised Lugn£, “ qui, pour ses debuts dans
les r61es lyriques, sut donner (avec l'absence de voix qu’il
fautl) cette expression du sentiment int£rieur tant r£v£e
par quelques -pofctes.” 34
The enthusiasm o f Dujardin and his followers was not
shared by the spectators, all o f whom were attending by
invitation. T h e unaccustomed rhythm o f free verse dis
concerted them, as they listened respectfully to the first
act, applauding when they discerned what they thought
to be a verse or an idea." During the second act they
grew impatient and during the third act restless and
noisy.
Nevertheless, Dujardin, delighted in spite of adverse
criticism, was im bued with confidence and determination
which set him to writing the second part o f the trilogy,
Le Chevalier du passS.
A most important event occurred just one week after
the performance o f Antonia. O n A pril 27, Antoine pro
duced The W ild Duck (L e Canard sauvage).4 Ever since
the performance o f Ghosts (Les Revenants), on May 30,
1890, Ibsen had been the subject o f much heated dis
cussion. For Lugn£-Poe, the first performance of Ibsen in
France had been a stirring experience. “ Graces soient
rendues & Darzens qu i traduisit pour Antoine les Reve-
• Following the performance, one critic described his impression of the
style in these words: . des ‘vers’ oil le rythme et la rime itaient
remplac£s par de tr&s vagues assonances, et donnant, si j ’ose dire, l’impres-
sion d'un t£nia immense et 6perdu, d£roulant ses anneaux k perte de vue;
pas des vers: un verl” 86
4Since the dramas of Ibsen, Bj8rnson, and Strindberg are so well known
in English, the English titles will be used, with the French tide in
parentheses when a play is mentioned for the first time.
50 ADVENTURE IN TH E T H EATRE
nants, secoua le Libre et fit suigir la volont 6 de T o

sans m&ne y penser une seconde.” 86 Lugn£-poe an d^'
friends felt that a great dramatic evolution was pren ^
itself as this poet of the North offered a new kind ^
Naturalism, surcharged with Symbolism. This perfor
ance of a second Ibsen play in France confirmed all thefr
impressions. Albert Aurier, reviewing the production in
Le Mercure de France/ Tanalyzed the play and its symbol
ism clearly, proving that at least one French mind could
grasp the symbolism of the North. H e felt that young
playwrights, aware of the theatre’s need o f new life, might
be guided by this disturbing drama to the realization
that the observation of reality is useful only as it aids the
expression of an idea.
Another author now exciting much discussion was the
young Belgian Maurice Maeterlinck, whose reputation in
France was launched by Octave Mirbeau’s review in Le
Figaro, on August 24,1890, of the newly published Prin-
cesse Maleine. It was in this article that Mirbeau com
pared the almost unknown writer to Shakespeare.
Writing on Maeterlinck and Charles van Lerberghe in
Le Mercure de France in October, 1890,88 Alfred Vallette
congratulated the press on having at least once, in the case
of Maurice Maeterlinck, championed an unknown who
deviated from the paths of tradition. H e recalled Les
Serres chaudes by Maeterlinck, which had gained the poet
some prestige in a limited circle, La Princesse Maleine,
and L’Iniruse, this last play resembling in subject Les
Flaireurs by Van Lerberghe. Vallette claimed that Mae
terlinck had perfected a new art of suggestion, but Albert
Mockel, writing in the Belgian review La Wallonie, cred
its the initiation to Van Lerberghe.89 Whereas Van Ler-
berghe relied largely on external factors to create an at-
O R I E N T A T I O N T O W A R D S S Y M B O L IS M 51
jnosphere of expectancy and mystery, Maeterlinck derived
effects from skillful use of silence and from simple con
versation heavy with portent.
Maeterlinck had acquired a certain reputation as a
writer and Paul Fort, with.his great aspirations for pro
ducing the works of unusual young authors, approached
him concerning the presentation of his work on the
French stage. They discussed arrangements for the pro
duction of L ’Intruse, to be given at the performance
which Fort was preparing for May 21, 1891.
Another play, Chdrubin, by the Symbolist poet Charles
Morice, provided, however, the real raison d'etre of the
program. Many people looked to this production as the
solution of the theatre’s mediocrity.
Discussions of the dearth of material in the theatre
had been in order for some time, for the younger writers
were satisfied neither with the typical well-made plays of
Scribe, Dumas, and Sardou nor with the dramatic output
of Naturalists. Stephane Mallarme, revered as a master of
the theatre by young men who respected him and en
joyed his company,40 had voiced his ideas on the theatre
in dramatic notes which he contributed to the first nine
issues of La Revue Independante. In keeping with his
Symbolist theories, he dreamed of an artistic ideal to be
realized through the harmonious accord of artists, music,
and rhythmic verse.
The question of the theatre’s future was so vital that
many wished to express an opinion, and for months there
appeared diagnoses of the theatre’s ailment. Gustave
Kahn41 placed blame on the attempt to adhere to reality
since actors on a stage stamp any reproduction of life with
their own voice, demeanor, and gestures, and an imitation
of life cannot be life itself. His remedy advocated the as-
signment to each actor of a tonal personality, which could

be repeated in various forms while retaining the i d
eated, almost musical individuality. Jean Jullien42on the
other hand proposed greater attention to brutal realitv
as being closer to living truth. Lucien Miihlfeld43took ^
profoundly pessimistic view. According to him, theatri
cal art was dead; modern society could never create mas
terpieces like those of antiquity and of recent centuries
especially of France’s classical period. Now interest cen
tered in sports, band concerts, and spectacular produc
tions rather than in the legitimate stage. Another critic,
F. Lefranc,44complained that the public was satisfied with
the mediocre, that reviewers limited themselves to an
account of the audience’s reaction and to a eulogy of the
play instead of analyzing and offering constructive criti
cism. Authors, hailed by the public, financially successful,
and perhaps honored as Academicians, saw no necessity
for pushing on in quest of finer material to enrich the
theatre. Lefranc suggested State subsidies as a means of
turning the eyes of directors from box-office receipts to
interesting works of young people in need of encourage
ment.
Some of those who counted on the Th£atre-Libre were
disappointed by Antoine’s selections, many of which were
mediocre.45The Naturalists, not possessing any very great
original dramatic talent, were prone to convert novels
into plays, always a risky procedure. Francois de Nion
found it excusable that Antoine liked success but de
plored his desire to seek it.4®
Fortunately Miihlfeld’s gloomy picture of the theatre’s
future was exaggerated and faded even in his own mind
as he turned hopefully to the Symbolists.47 In Chtrubin,
O R IE N T A T IO N TO W A RD S SYMBOLISM 53
Morice thought he had constructed a dramatic work
based on a readily perceived passion, avarice. Desirous of
identifying his work with French classical tradition, he
named the stingy grandfather Harpagon, the prodigal son
Don Juan, and the grandson, who reverted to the grand
father’s character, Ch&rubin. W hile Morice held that life
itself must offer the subject matter of a play, he believed
that he must search beneath the external aspects to dis
cover the subtle meaning that underlies daily existence.
A new means o f expression, symbols perhaps, would be
required.
Paul Percheron, knowing Lugn£’s interest in anything
theatrical and his growing enthusiasm over the new po
etic dramas, asked him to take part in Paul Fort’s pro
gram.
It was a decisive moment for Lugn£. Should he return
to the Th£atre-Libre or cast his lot with the Symbolists?
When one considers the friends with whom he was associ
ated, their interests, the high hopes placed in Morice’s
work, and the stir in Paris over the newly appreciated
authors Ibsen and Maeterlinck, with the Norwegian’s
drama The W ild D uck holding special appeal for Sym
bolists, one does not wonder that he saw his future in the
direction of the T h 6<itre d ’Art.
Unusual interest was attached to the performance of
May 21, 1891, because it was a benefit for Verlaine, ill
and nearly penniless, and for Gauguin, who, on April 4,
had left for Tahiti on an “ official ‘artistic mission’ ” for
which the government would not assume financial re
sponsibility.48 Although the lobby of the T h& tre du
Vaudeville was hung with canvases of G auguin 49 to add
to the prestige o f this matinee performance, the proceeds
were so poor that Verlaine received but little assista

and Gauguin none at all.* nce
In spite of the disappointing financial results, the
formance was of value in providing Maeterlinck witluh*'
first dramatic presentation of one of his plays, L’lntrusl
It was of prime importance also to Lugn£-Poe, who was
making his debut with the Theatre d’Art, a thoroughl
Symbolist venture, and who played not only in Chdrubin
but also in L’Intruse. Thus were brought together the
actor and the author whose destinies were to be closely
interwoven.
Maeterlinck’s play was considered so insignificant that
it was put last on the program where it could be omitted
if there were not time for it. Considered therefore “les
enfants pauvres du spectacle,” 61 Maeterlinck and his ac
tors had to rehearse on the zinc roof of the Theatre du
Vaudeville. When it was not raining, the roof became so
hot in the sun that they had to stand first on one foot,
then on the other, while the midinettes in the workshops
of the Chauss£e-d’Antin laughed merrily at their discom
fort. The little play never had the honor of a stage re
hearsal.52
On the day of the performance, Marguerite Mor&io
received applause for her presentation of Verlaine’s Les
Uns et les autres, although some considered it bad taste
to use this work as a curtain raiser.53 The audience lis
tened with deference to Cherubin, but Morice’s play with
' Verlaine refused to occupy the box of honor reserved for him during
the performance, preferring to be difficult. He paced the street, flourish
ing his cane of holly wood and snapping at admirers who ventured to
offer homage. Then, pounding the pavement, he demanded vociferously]
that Paul Fort bring him his due. Fort asked nothing better, but because
of the expenses of production, only two hundred francs could be scraped
together. Verlaine flew into a rage at Fort, who was dripping with
perspiration and excuses. He predicted dire vengeance to befall the
unhappy director, but the next day he forgot the occurrence «>
O R IE N T A T IO N TO W A R D S SYMBOLISM 55
its metaphysical pretensions revealed little dramatic in
terest,64 although Lugn^-Poe and another actor, Tarride,
vainly did their best to save it .68 The drowsiness of the
audience was encouraged by the one-act play in verse, Le
Soleil de minuit, which Catulle Mend&s had written some
years earlier. It transposed the problem of the eternal tri
angle to prehistoric days in the land of the midnight sun,
with the ghost o f the murdered, deceived husband re
turning, Hamlet-like, to torture his wife. T he only en
thusiasm was displayed in the wings by Mend£s himself,
delirious with excitement and admiration of his own
work. When Rett£ went backstage to congratulate those
who had performed in L es Uns et les autres, he found
Mend£s repeating every few minutes, “ Comme c’est
beau! . . . ” and pointing to his leading lady, proudly
announcing that M me Dufrene was mediocre in anything
else she played, but that in his work, she was sublime.68
The curtain went down as the quavering rays of Bengal
lights, representing the midnight sun, shimmered over
the corpses o f the Eskim os/
The spectators, crowding the theatre by two o ’clock,
eager for enjoyment and appreciation, sank into a re
signed apathy. Suddenly they were aroused by L ’Intruse.
It was the triumph o f the afternoon. T h e next day all
Paris was talking o f the astonishing and tragic Flemish
author.
Jean Jullien, who made no pretense at understanding
the symbolism o f Cherub in, wrote glowingly in La Plume
of the symbolism o f Maeterlinck’s play. It was living the
atre, and soul-satisfying. It required the greatest artistic
11n La Plume Jean Ju llien said that as fo r Verlaine and Mend£s,
“ ces auteurs ne se discutent plus, les applaudissements du p u blic le leur
ont prouv 6.” 67 His subsequent b itin g criticism o f the acting o f Les Uns
et les autres leads on e to believe that appreciation may not have been so
universal as he im plies.
power to stir an audience with the shiver o f death with.

out allowing death to come upon the stage.68
Francisque Sarcey, the conservative critic o f L e Temps
who was attending through duty, sighed deeply at the
end of the play and said, "Est-il possible d ’embSter ainsi
les gens!” 69 Jullien humorously considered Sarcey’s ad
verse judgment as one more proof o f the fact that L ’In-
truse was a little masterpiece/
While the acting was adequate without being perfect
Lugn^-Poe’s interpretation of the blind grandfather was
extraordinary.61* His training was already serving him
in good stead when as a young man o f twenty he could
portray so convincingly the character o f an old man. He
was destined to act many such roles, his tall, gaunt figure
lending itself to the characterizations.
Both Maeterlinck and Lugn^-Poe, then, were acclaimed
by the public, the author of course superseding the bud
ding actor. Dorothy Knowles has well said: “ Un des plus
grands titres k la gloire du Theatre d ’Art, c’est d ’avoir
£t6 le premier k jouer Maeterlinck.” 62
In the midst of so much excitement Lugn£ was pre
paring for the competitive examination at the Conserva
toire. Contact on all sides with youthful enthusiasm stim
ulated his mind to a chaotic state o f nervous excitement.
It is not surprising that he failed to win first place in the
concours of 1891. Nevertheless, his rendering o f L ’Avare
with admirable understanding and fo rce 88 received sec-
•L’lntruse was performed at the Haymarket Theatre in London less

than a year later, on January 27, 1892. Most spectators allowed the
atmosphere of the play to dissipate their early bewilderment, and, as the
curtain fell, fervent applause drowned out the small display of dis
approval. Beerbohm-Tree, in the role played by Lugn£-Poe in Paris,
scored another triumph.80
»To show his gratitude for the understanding acting of L ’lntruse
Maeterlinck sent handsome autographed copies of Les Aveuele* to the
two principals, Mile Cam£e and Lugnd-Poe. g S to §|
0nd prize in competition with De Max, termed “ the an

nual prodigy,” 64who this year received first prize in both
tragedy and com edy/ De Max’s intelligent, skillful in
terpretation of Hamlet aroused excited approval; his por
trayal of Gringoire's Louis X I was equally sensational.88
At the announcement of the decisions, De Max excitedly
expressed his gratitude to the kind jury by throwing them
kisses, “-ce qui est tr£s roumain.” 66
The jury’s sentiments, as often, were not shared by the
entire audience. There was undeniable partiality on the
part o f the jurors .67 One could condone their doling out
honorable mention to their favorites, but not prizes. Of
the ten candidates competing in tragedy De Max alone
displayed sincere passion and the instinctive knowledge
of how to conceive a role in its entirety. H e had improved
since the preceding year, m odifying his windmill gestures
and modulating his shrieks, but he still had faults of dic
tion and accent. W ithout doubt he deserved a second
prize and in another year would have prepared a bril
liant first.68 Although Lugn^-Poe later admitted that De
M ax merited the prizes, at the time he was keenly dis
appointed. His failure to win a first, however, served him
in g o o d stead. Filled with his own importance, he had
urged friends to attend—to praise and applaud. Since he
deserved his prize through experience and ability to ac
cept any part rather than through originality ,69his friends’
reserve staggered him and fortunately deflated his ego .70
Lugn£ vented his wrath in an article in Art et Critique,
in w h ich he inveighed against the favoritism displayed by
the jury of the Conservatoire.
Lugn£ was particularly irritated at receiving only sec
* Although in his m em oirs L ugn 6-P oe dates this exam ination as of

1892, contemporary magazines p lace it in 1891.
ond prize because first prize alone w ould have exempt^
him from further military training. D uring the Sprin
following his return from Reims, he was supposed to
“complete” his year’s military service by one month’s
training in Paris. When he presented himself, requesting
permission to sleep at his own lodgings, he had been re-
ferred to a sergeant who obligingly accepted theatre tick-
ets for duties which Lugn6 might have performed. Now
after his failure at the Conservatoire, it seemed as though
he would have to return to his regiment. Since many of
his friends believed that a Frenchman should have first
prize, Lugn£ was granted, through their influence, a
year’s grace to appeal his case. Even Francisque Sarcey,
little suspecting all that he was to suffer during the per
formances of the yet unborn Oeuvre, thought Lugnd
should have received the prestige of first prize .71
When Coquelin cadet learned the probable outcome
of Lugn6’s failure to win first place, he wrote to the
younger man urging him to brace himself for the two
years’ military service. In order to counteract Lugn£’s
recurring fear that his life in the theatre w ould be en
dangered, Coquelin admonished him not to abandon his
interest in the stage, yet strongly urged Lugn£ to re
nounce Symbolism, and all the fantastic and incoherent
follies which attracted him.72
Such advice was unlikely to be heeded, however, as
Lugnd’s artist-friends continued to gain recognition. %
' ^ ||im i||||lim llmiiirmiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiimiiitHimiirrfiimimnrnnMfiMtMHimiiminMiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiimiiimiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiimiuiiiii
IV: Acceptance o f Symbolism
O n A U G U S T 1, 1891, an exhibition opened at the

chateau of Saint-Germain-en-Laye where were displayed
recent works by Bonnard, Ibels, Denis, S£rusier, and oth
ers Further acknowledgment o f Lugn£’s friends’ success
appeared when the September issue o f La Plume, devoted
to the “Peintres novateurs,” included such artists as S£ru-
sier and Bonnard; in the group o f “ n 6o-traditionnistes”
Maurice Denis shared honors with Vincent van Gogh and
Paul Gauguin. T w o illustrations, one o f Maeterlinck’s
L’Intruse, represented Denis’ work. In an article on his
friend, Rett£ stressed Denis’ ability to carry the motifs
he chose carefully into a world o f dreams. T he artist’s
subtle selection o f subject and an almost painfully in
tense religious feeling marked him as a serious spirit,
mainly preoccupied with the drama o f inner life. Recall
ing Denis’ paintings which had attracted attention at the
last exhibition o f the Ind^pendants and especially the
exquisite illustrations he had prepared for Verlaine’s
Sagesse, Rett£ prophesied for Denis one o f the first places
among Idealist painters. If he continued in this vein he
would become a master.1 This warm recognition ac-
59
i
corded to some o f their grou p m ust h ave ov e rjo y e d th
Nabis and their set.
Denis’ growing success may well have spurred LUetl<i
on to continue his own activity, and when Paul Fort de
cided upon the daring experiment on August 27, I 89i'
of trying a program including L ’Intruse on the middle!
class Asnifcres public, Lugn£ offset the disillusioning fey.
ure at the Conservatoire by scoring a triumph in Maeter-
linck’s play and in Louis Germain’s Frangois Villon/ The
genuine appreciation of the uninitiated bourgeois pub
lic, all of whom came by choice and not by invitation,
heartened the participants, encouraging them to brave
the blas£ scorn of certain city critics.8
Interested in the welfare of the Theatre d ’Art, La Re
vue Indipendante featured substantial savings to be made
from a joint year’s subscription to the performances of
the theatre and to the periodical.4 The magazine’s policy
did not, however, carry the unanimous support of its con
tributors, for the same issue contained an article, “ Le
Fiasco symboliste,” proclaiming the movement a failure.®
Symbolism, as well as other new trends, found an addi
tional mouthpiece in October, 1891, when Thad£e Natan-
son, Lugn6-Poe’s friend from the Lyc£e Condorcet,
started La Revue Blanche * The magazine, formerly Bel
gian, then Franco-Belgian, preserved in its changed form
a broad-minded interest in experimental movements and
foreign literature.7
During this period o f sponsorship o f y o u th fu l enter
prises, although it was not generally know n, L u g n £ -P oe,
•Louis Germain was one of the first collaborators of the TMAtre
Mixte, which presented Frangois Villon in October, 1890, shortly before
the Thi&tre dArt succeeded the earlier theatrical venture Germain onlv
T S ' S tm°ld’ diCd3£CWm°ntbS1)61016** Asniês performance
ACCEPTANCE OF SYMBOLISM 61
under various pseudonyms, contributed discerning criti
cal articles to magazines like Art et Critique, La Plume,
and Le Chat Noir . 8 This fall, while continuing his asso
ciation with the Th&itre d’Art, he also renewed friend
ship with the Escholiers.
A t the Theatre d’Art he took part in an outstanding
performance o n December 11, 1891. In order to immerse
the public in a poetic atmosphere for three or four con
secutive hours, the generous director offered an ample
program: Les Aveugles, Maeterlinck’s second play to be
produced, Le Concile fSerique by Jules Laforgue, Th&o-
dat by R em y de Gourmont, a long-awaited version of Le
Cantique des cantiques by P. N. Roinard, and recitations
of La Geste du roi, adapted by Stuart Merrill, Adolphe
Rett£, and Camille Mauclair.
At Paul Fort’s request Rett£ directed Maeterlinck’s
play. Lugn£-Poe seconded him warmly 8 and was greatly
stimulated b y appearing in it also.
While Maeterlinck was at various times connected with
the theatre, he never cared for its life of bustle. Although
in Paris for rehearsals of L ’Intruse and Les Aveugles, he
preferred waiting in a nearby caf£ the day of the perform
ance.10 For the production of Les Aveugles Lugn^-Poe
was anxious to have a dog on the stage, though Maeter
linck thought it inadvisable. But Lugn£ was insistent and
his request was granted. Maeterlinck had been right. The
dog showed an immediate fondness for the priest and
utterly ignored the blind people, whom he was supposed
to approach first.
The public enjoyed the drama largely because of the
sweet plaintive voice of Mile Cam£e as the youngest blind
person and the fine interpretation of Lugn£-Poe, whose
cry of superhuman horror, “ II y a un mort parmi nous|<.
acted like an electric shock, arousing spontaneous an
plause.u
Julien Leclerq, reviewing the play for L e Mercure de
FranceS expressed disappointment in the dramatization
of Maeterlinck’s beautiful work. Although in the reading
of the play he had considered it superior to L ’Intruse, he
now felt that L’Intruse was more suitable to the stage, be
cause the grandfather, with the sixth sense of the blind,
has keener comprehension than the others, while in Les
Aveugles all have the same kind of perception. The lat-
ter play becomes, then, a chorus rather than a scene to be
acted. La Revue d’Art D ra m a tiq u eon the other hand,
considered the play favorably, while Francois de Nion
hailed Maeterlinck’s genius in his report for La Revue
Independante, declaring: “L’impression d ’horreur, de
terreur £gale ici les plus redoutables scenes d’Eschyle ou
de Shakespeare. Le public exasp£r£, dompt£, £nerv£, em-
balld a fait un succ&s fou &l’oeuvre de ce prodigieux Mae
terlinck qui pour moi resume avec Ibsen l’art dramatique
de notre £poque.” 14
Lugn6-Poe was very enthusiastic about appearing in
Thiodat as well as in Maeterlinck’s play, for the contact
with Gourmont and Maeterlinck encouraged his interest
in Symbolist works.15 Maurice Denis cooperated by de
signing the set and costumes for ThSodat,™ and Lugn£
played the tide role. In spite of a certain reserve, which
further experience would banish, his interpretation of
the Gallo-Roman bishop caused Francois de Nion to rec
ognize in the twenty-one-year-old actor “un com&lien de
race et de sure distinction.” 17
The part of the Theatre d’Art’s program which at
tracted even more attention than Maeterlinck’s or Gour-;
A C C E P T A N C E O F SYM B O L IS M 63
jiiont’s plays was the dramatized version of Solomon’s
Song of Songs, which many Symbolists had eyed long
ingly* ancl *n addition, provided Paul Fort with
Jhe opportunity of carrying out one of his desires. In
keeping with the Symbolist concept of correlating the
senses, expressed by Baudelaire in his Correspondences,
Fort sp ra y e d the theatre with perfume. Since the director
had b u t little money, he was obliged to limit the experi
ment to two atomizers which friends in the orchestra pit
squirted steadily, to the amused delight of the sniffing
a u dien ce .18 Nevertheless, although Fort could not afford
so m u c h perfume as he wished, there was sufficient to
make th e innovation a memorable occasion by blending
the p lea su re of smell with that of sight and sound.19
Sarcey, as might be expected, suffered to the point of
boredom at what to him was a preposterous manifesta
tion. It is said that the poet Saint-Pol-Roux, sitting in the
balcony just above the conservative critic, lowered him
self from the railing until he was dangling over Sarcey’s
head, threatening to drop down if Sarcey did not stop
sighing and groaning.
While the use of perfume was too costly to be repeated,
it was indicative of the Symbolists’ efforts to convey their
ideas in the theatre by suggestion and play upon the
senses. Dorothy Knowles, in her splendid study of Ideal
ism in the French theatre after 1890, accounts for the
new intensity and scope of music and musical effects by
pointing out that the Symbolists rarely had a full concep
tion of an idea, and so needed a new, supple, and pictur
esque language to translate their vague sentiments.20
For the Nabis the production of Roinard’s symbolic
dramatization of the Old Testament Song of Songs was
the realization of their desires. After Gauguin’s departure
for Tahiti, they had continued w ith thfcir theories, m -
gling their admiratipn for G au guin an d the painter
de Chavannes. Through the in flu en ce o f the latter th **
sponsored a vogue for pastel colors an d a ttrib u ted musfcaj
qualities to color, and color q u alities t o m u sic .*1 Th
climax of this mode was reached in the- p erform an ce 0f
Le Cantique des cantiques, “ d escrib ed as ‘huit devises
mystiques et trois paraphrases' designed b y Serusier and
accompanied by music and p erfum es ‘composes dans la
tonalite correspondant aux diffSrents versets’ w ith special
reference to Rimbaud’s Voyelles.” 22
The endeavor was an interesting e x p e r im e n ts even
though the resources o f the T heatre d ’A r t d id n o t permit
the indulgence o f further am bitious plans o f this nature.
The program closed with a strange ad ap ta tion o f frag-
ments of the chansons de geste. U tterly ig n o r in g adher
ence to historical truth, Rett£ placed astonishingly mod
ern sentiments in the mouth o f “ B erthe au gran d pi£,”
impersonated by a girl who had never b e fo re set fo o t on a
stage. Rettd regretted his choice o f the g irl, fo r h er ex
treme stage fright at the public p erform an ce resulted in
her breaking down completely.
This fiasco could not fail to. call d o w n the condem na
tion of critics. W riting in La Revue Blanche, M iihlfeld
complained of the slipshod, quickly p rep ared offerings
of Paul Fort, whom he accused o f striking “ les trois coups,
avant que ses auteurs aient £crit une lig n e .” 28 A nother
criticism of the director, applying especially to this pro
gram of December 11, 1891, was that he p ro d u c e d works
in dialogue, not designed for the stage, such as Les Aveu
gles and Le Concile fterique. T h e dign ified t o n e that
usually characterized the criticisms in La Revue d’Art
Dramatique permitted the remark that “ l ’in terp rd ta tid n
■ je ces oeuvres fut bien grossi&re” ; 24otherwise the review
K •rtiored what it probably could not speak well of, that is,
I |be management and noisy reception. It is particularly
1 .nteresting to see that Miihlfeld, even though a friend of
I i.ugn^"-^>oe an^ doubtless of others in the group, could
I ot approve were undertaking, for they paid
I too little attention to the requirements of the theatre.25
I flot completely absorbed by the Theatre d’Art, Lugn 6-
I poe again turned to his old friends of the Cercle des
I Escholiers,26 in whose activities he saw another oppor-
| tunity for enriching his dramatic experiences. On No-
I vember 14, 1891, they had issued a prospectus announc-
1 jng the preparation of plays by eight authors, among
I whom were Ibsen, Jean Jullien, Maeterlinck, and Gaston
I Salandri. Although all were not actually included in the
f Escholiers’ program, the list of those authors whose works
f were under consideration indicates that Lugn£ had a
hand in the selection.27
At the Theatre d’Application 28on December 20, 1891,
the Escholiers presented a program o f great interest to
Lugn6. In the first play, Anachronisme, a short parody by
Georges Roussel and Hellem, he gaily and skillfully por
trayed the witless father. Les Vieux by Salandri, who was
probably known to most of the audience,* provided Lugn6
with an excellent opportunity to act the part of a seventy-
[ year-old man. In this play he feelingly interpreted the
character of a retired clerk, sitting with his wife and for
mer, now aged mistress. He thoroughly understood Salan-
dri’s clever development of the growing, retrospective
jealousy of the wife, which reached a tension so great that
• the elderly husband murdered her.80
'Salandri had already given Le Mattre, La Mer, La Meule, and La
f Rangon. Croze considered his newest play, Les Vieux, one o f the best
I works of the young contemporary theatre .29
Although successful as an actor in these plays,
found greatest satisfaction in the presentation of a ^
act play, Viardot et Cie., which, for him, was the clira*'
of the evening. This play he had written in collaborate*
with Louis MalaquinI Acting, directing, managing.^,
phases of the theatre intrigued Lugn£; he quite naturall
wanted to try his hand at writing, too. His sympathetic
friend Malaquin was the person to encourage and col
laborate with him.*
Their playlet presented a daring and modern subject
the subjugation of personal honor to the power of busi-
ness. Viardot helps his prot£g£, Andr£, to make a success
ful marriage as well as to push forward in his services to
Viardot and Co. Andr£ is being considered for partner
ship in the firm when he learns that his young wife has
become his employer’s mistress. After an explanation for
form’s sake, Andr£ restrains his impulse to condemn
them, reasoning that by denouncing them he will lose not
only his wife but his status in the business and his grow
ing fortune.
Reviewing the play in La Plume, Jean Jullien praised
the acting of Lugn6 and his young confreres, at the same
time expressing gratitude to the authors for having drama
tized frankly and vigorously so true a thesis, even though
the scenes were sometimes brusque, the words too sharp,
or the hypocrisy not quite authentic.82
Endowed with sufficient energy to participate in multi
ple activities, Lugn6 shared the varied enthusiasms of his
generation. Shortly after its founding in 1889, La Plume
had organized meetings of its friends and contributors for
the first and third Saturday of each month. The editor,
•Lugnd and Malaquin also wrote Les Filles maigres, never produced,
and of which both text and subject have been lost.*1
A C C E P T A N C E O F S Y M B O L IS M 67
lion D escham ps, hoped to create a pronounced esprit de
corps by sp on sorin g spirited discussions. The first gather
ings were so well attended that the Caf£ Fleurus had to be
abandoned as a meeting place in favor of the Soleil d’Or,
1 place Saint-Michel.83 The larger basement hall of this
caf£ was designed to accommodate from eighty to ninety
people, b u t its smoke-filled space was generally crowded
by nearly two hundred. T h e presence of ladies further
complicated the situation since, adorned by nature and
by volum inous clothing, they required more room .84With
the increasing popularity o f the gatherings, even larger
quarters had to be found at the Cafd des Lettres et des
Arts, 41, ru e des Ecoles, and the meetings occurred
weekly.85, a Members o f the group were called upon to
mount the dais at one end o f the hall and to acquaint
their comrades with their talents, either by reading their
poetry, b y sin g in g to the accompaniment of the decrepit
piano, or b y displaying their ability as actors or diseurs.
Lugn£-Poe’s active participation in these gatherings,
both as performer and as spectator, warranted the inclu
sion of a sketch of him in a survey of the soirees, contained
in the issue of La Plume for June 15, 1892.87 Shown in
profile, with a top hat, he is a fine-looking young man
with a determined chin. His presence at the turbulent
meetings was of importance in acquainting him with cur
rent ideas as well as in allowing him, through the oppor
tunity to perform, to make himself known to a group of
people sympathetic to new endeavors. Some of the con
tacts were later to become closer in his Theatre de l’Oeu-
vre. Among those listed as habitues of the meetings
through March, 1892, appear the names of the following
* Later La Plume’s soirees were again held at the Soleil d ’Or, the last
meeting taking t>ls»ce on A pril 6, 1895. La Plume planned to continue
the meetings * er form .86
persons later associated with the Oeuvre: Pierre Bo
Edouard Dujardin, Louis Dumur, Suzanne G a ” ! ^ ’
louse-Lautrec, Camille Lemonnier, Camille Mauclai
bert Samain, Laurent Tailhade, Paul V^rola. Paul**-
was alsd one of the well-known friends o f the soirees °n
The exuberance and lively interest of this gene||fB
sought further expression in the creation of VArt
I’ldee under the editorship of Octave Uzanne.* The pu^.
lication was doomed to an ephemeral existence, the first
issue appearing in January, 1892, the last in December
of the same year/ Hope ran high, for it attempted to sin.
gle out from the masses a distinguished group capable of
appreciating the unusual.88 It was flattering to read the
words of Octave Uzanne declaring that the new magazine
was meant only for ‘‘ultracivilized” artists and writers."
The time was ripe for the triumph of young people who
clamored for recognition, “d£licieusement hostiles aux
fades et salissantes crudites sans art.” 40
While the Th6atfe-Libre was successfully pursuing its
course of producing works mainly Naturalistic/ it is note
worthy that Uzanne was predicting the approaching
downfall of this movement destined to perish in the mire
of its own pessimism and disillusionment.41 He had faith
in the valiant efforts of young men who would be the
glory of tomorrow, for they aspired to richer ideals. To
them he dedicated this avant-garde publication, inter
ested in the theatre and arts as well as in literature, and
•Uzanne had already directed Le Livre and Le Livre Moderne. /Is
'From March, 1893, to June, 1894, it was succeeded by Le Livre et
I’Image, which did not, however, bear the stamp of an avant-garde
magazine.
'October 24, 1891, Le Pire Goriot adapted by A. Tarabant from
Balzac’s novel; November SO, La Ronton by Salandri, L’A bbi Pierre by
Marcel Prdvost, Un Beau Soir by Maurice Vaucaire- December 21, ^
Dupe by Georges Ancey, Son Petit Coeur by Louis MarsoUeau.
A C C E P T A N C E O F S Y M B O L IS M 69
ffering whatever was new, exquisite, and out of the ordi

nary- ■
Responsibility for the rejuvenation of the theatre
seemed to rest upon Lugn£-Poe. The intention of both
the Cercle des Escholiers and the Theatre d’Art to con
tinue their activity made Lugn£ think for a time of join
ing their efforts, since Fort had imaginative ideas but
lacked funds, whereas the Cercle des Escholiers, though
well equipped, was'not progressing.42
Looking to the Escholiers for perhaps more satisfactory
reception of his ideas, Lugn 6, on February 17 of this year,
first spoke to Georges Bourdon concerning the produc
tion of Ibsen’s The Lady from the Sea (La Dame de la
mer).a Imbued with appreciation of the art of Ibsen and
Maeterlinck, he found the strange atmosphere of this play
more akin to the supernatural in the works of Maeter
linck than that of other Ibsen plays. The play fascinated
Lugn£ and he wondered how he could bring about its
production. Certainly it was worth while to maintain his
contacts with the Escholiers, who respected his theatrical
perspicacity and would perhaps provide him with the
means of realizing his dreams.
At Lugn£’s instigation, on February 12, 1892, the
Escholiers had presented an interesting program includ
ing Les Vieux, so successfully performed the preceding
December, and providing Lugn£ with the opportunity of
repeating his remarkable portrayal of the old man. He
also took part in a diverting act by Auguste Germain,
L’Eclipse^. The somber one-act play, La Faux, by Jules
Bois and Gabriel Mourey evoked laughter from a few
unfortunates who did not appreciate the skill with which
the authors had condensed an entire drama into a few
70 ADVENTURE IN THE TH EATRE
scenes “ While the last play, Ma chandelle est m o rte! u
Maurice Magnier, was but a slight and witty product*
it can be seen that the Cercle des Escholiers entertaiPl
a pretentious opinion of its capacity. There was nothi ^
juvenile or amateurish about the aspirations of this ^
ciety. Sober drama attracted it, and, encouraged by jn
creasing success, it announced that The Lady from the
Sea was in preparation.45, * Excellent and indefatigable in
his interpretations, Lugn£-Poe was recognized as the soul
of the Escholiers’ performances,46 and must have been
delighted with the promising future of the dramatic ven-
ture he had helped launch at the Lyc£e Condorcet. ||
Lugne-Poe undoubtedly realized that the Theatre
d’Art could not last. Paul Fort would often leave the
direction of rehearsals to others while he went off seeking
necessary funds. Lugn£ never became thoroughly accus
tomed to the lack of discipline after his valuable years at
the Th£atre-Libre, “ou l’on sentait tout de m&me une
certaine discipline,” 47 but how much more fun and sin
cere enthusiasm there were at the Theatre d ’Art!
In spite of this good will the Theatre d’Art was defi
nitely on the decline. In fact, the performance o f March
30, 1892, at the Theatre d’Application,“ marked disaster.
Three plays appeared on the program: Les Noces de
Satan * by Jules Bois, Vercingitorix by Schur£, and a
dramatic interpretation of the first book of the Iliad, ar
ranged by J. Mfry.
Jean Court spent a difficult evening trying to see the
* Magazines like La Plume, La Revue Blanche, and La Revue d’Art

Dramatique contained various notices that Ibsen’s play would be pre
sented early the next season. r 7 r
\ When Les Noces de Satan was published the following winter Bois,
qualified as a courageousi young writer was giving at the Salle des Capu-
anes a series of brilliant lectures on the approaching mystic renasttW*
which was to announce the sovereignty of love." y renascence
lays so as to review them for L e Mercure de France*0
jpaul Fort had evidently found it amusing to invite eight
hundred people to a room built for three hundredl While
these figures are doubtless exaggerated, it is certain that
lean Court arrived to find a mad confusion of people
fillin g about, all with coupons authentically numbered,
trying to find the places to which they were assigned and
eventually discovering others already in them. Flattened
against a w all and shoved by vigorous shoulders, he finally
withdrew to wait in the gallery for a more propitious
moment to claim his occupied seat. He felt that he was
truly attending the marriage o f Satan and Psyche.
Pierre Valin, the critic for La Revue d’Art Drama
tique, was more fortunate, and even appreciated literary
qualities in the work which lacked theatrical suitability.61
In the midst of interminable monologues and complex
symbols, he succeeded in singling out many magnificent
lines. The voices, however, were sometimes drowned out
by the musical accompaniment which, unfortunately, was
not rendered with sufficient attention to the rhythm of
the lines.62 Among the actors, he was especially pleased
with Lugn£-Poe, whose acting he described in these
words: “ . . . les gestes amples, lents, douloureusement
tortures, la voix gr&le et comme £raill£e, le d£bit expressif
et mesur6, le masque anguleux rendaient parfaitement le
type de Satan de M. Bois (Satan modeme qui n’a rien
de commun avec le bel archange d£û, h£roique et co
lossal de Milton).” 58
The tableaux of Vercingitorix, apparently written
when Schur6 was just out of school, were mediocre,6*
while Le Premier Chant de Vlliade was abominable.66 It
would have required the sure, delicate hand of an artist,
with excellent acting and directing, to keep such an at-
at adaptation from failing completely .68Accord’
te m p t
to Jean Court, Achilles’ helmet was a faithful repr0^ i |

tion of a fireman’s hat! The rest of the costumes were U°
the same level of authenticity, to say nothing of a set tfe
picting, even to details, the facade of a building in parjs
During the performance, which the audience could not
take seriously, a spectator slapped an inoffensive young
neighbor soundly. "Flic, flac . . . cela fit diversion. Les
spectateurs int£ress£s se hiss&rent incontinent sur les fau.
teuils, et, suivant les us et coutumes, des cris d’animaux
furent prof6r&.” 57The tumultuous evening was fateful,
for all agreed that the performance was a disaster, and
Fort abandoned his enterprise.®8,1
The April issue of La Plume bore evidence! that
Lugn^’s artist friends were succeeding. Both Denis and
Serusier were represented in the permanent exhibition of
Impressionist and Symbolist painters at the gallery of De
Bouteville, 47, rue Le Peletier. The critic Y. Rambosson
praised the sincere, profound art of Denis, while he called
the painting by S&usier a "real jewel.” 60 This recogni
tion caused well-deserved rejoicing among the artists’
friends.
Lugn£ again excelled, as actor and director, in Mon
sieur Ghaumont, a one-act play by Gaston Salandri. It was
included in the Escholiers’ next to the last performance^
of the season, at the Theatre d’Application on May 22,
1892- Salandri showed his ability to write easy dialogue
and to interpret the inner life of his characters. Lugn6-
Poe acted so well in it that he was described in La Revue
d’Art Dramatique as the actor who, though still young,
“s’affirme de jour en jour comme un com<§dien intelligent
et chercheur.” 61 La Revue Blanche, in noting this pro-
> La Revue Blanche of May, 1892, contained mention of three lecture*
given at the Th&tre d Art, thus making it “La Bodinifere du pauvre" 1"
am, als° announced the presentation of The Lady from
ifie Sea by the Escholiers for the beginning of the follow
ing season.62 Lugn£’s contagious enthusiasm was making
headway with his friends.
Denis and Lugn 6 soon participated in an exciting
event, the production of the second part of Dujardin’s
trilogy, Le Chevalier du passS, on June 17, 1892, a little
more than a year after the first part had been produced.
Lugn£ played the male lead; Denis designed the set.
Dujardin had decided to mount his work lavishly. He
had the “appearance and manners of a French dandy.
With full brown beard and eye-glass, well-cut clothes and
spotless linen, he looked a figure apart.” 63 Conjectures
arose as to how this son of a famous doctor 64had acquired
so much money. It was rumored that he made money on
the horse races, possibly as a bookmaker.65
In any event, he stinted on nothing that would make
the performance of his play successful and memorable.
With the magnificent gesture of noblesse oblige, he hired
a theatre, actors, decorators, and stagehands, and invited
the elite of Paris to the single performance.
The Th£atre-Moderne, opposite the stronghold of the
atrical tradition, the Conservatoire, in the rue du Fau-
bourg-Poissonni&re, was chosen for the occasion, for this
stage provided adequate facilities which Dujardin had
not had at the Theatre d’Application. The arriving guests
were astounded to find a garnet-colored velvet canopy,
bedecked with gold, at the principal entrance, and flowers
everywhere.66
On the stage was the unusual set executed from Denis’
maquette, showing the inspiration of Impressionist and
Japanese tendencies. A description of it follows:
“Le palais de Circ6 6sot£rique, une haute salle; sur des
circonvolutions d’un gris k peine deving dans la teinte
mate du fond de larges orchid&s rouges saignent par
places. La porte cintrê d&oupe le paysage de l’lle Heu.
reuse, la gr£ve paisible et ces collines boisês qui la re.
joignent.” 67
In this setting young actresses moved about in flowing
gauze costumes designed by none other than the outstand
ing and costly establishment, “ Chez Liberty” [sic]. ;
Unfortunately many spectators failed to appreciate all
that had been prepared for their pleasure. After the cur
tain fell on the first act, everyone was surprised to see it
rise again. Dujardin stepped to the footlights and, address
ing the audience, declared that he considered their laughs
incongruous and that since they were his guests they
should listen or êave.® 8
Because of his professional conscience, Francisque SarT
cey, critic that night for La Plume, did his duty by staying
through the three acts, but his noble example did not
influence his illustrious confreres, Jules Lemaitre and
Henry Fouquier, who left after the first act to go to the
opera.
In spite of the fact that friends demonstrated their
approval in bravos and calls for the author, neither
Jacques du Tillet, the critic for La Revue Bleue, nor
Sarcey could see any merit in the play. Du Tillet’s mock
ing tone is akin to the attitude so often adopted by Sarcey,
that of boasting of his lack of comprehension.
A nota bene added to Sarcey’s review by “ N. D. L. D.”
(Notre directeur, L£on Deschamps) indicates the editor’s
surprise that such a well-known critic as Francisque Sarceyj
should so casually omit all serious commentary. The mag
azine would feel it was committing an injustice if it did
not praise at least the set by Maurice Denis, the grace of
j^lle Mellot, and the exceptional talent of Lugn6-Poe."
While not attempting a detailed analysis of the play,
pierre V£ber, writing in La Revue Blanche/° considered
it far from banal and well above the usual mediocre play.
He stressed the Wagnerian inspiration with which Du-
jardin was always saturated, and even facetiously called
this a three-act modern tragedy by “ MM. Edouard Du
jardin et Richard Wagner.” 71 Henri de R£gnier, review
ing the play for Entretiens Politiques et Littiraires,
thanked Dujardin for the charm of the poetic atmosphere
he had successfully created. “ Cela va d ’un agr£ment l£ger
k quelque Emotion et c’est quelque chose I” he con
cluded.72 The critic for La Revue d’Art Dramatique also
was appreciative of the interest offered by the play for, in
spite of the strangeness of the lines, set, and costumes, he
was grateful for the attempt to bring originality to the
theatre. Experimenters might go astray, but at least they
possessed originality and, consequently, the possibility of
enriching the theatre.78
In this second of Dujardin’s plays, the theme becomes
unexpectedly less broad. Instead of representing woman
in general, the courtesan o f L e Chevalier du passe is one
particular woman, who, repenting of her carnal sins, es
capes in her dreams to the vision of the true love she has
once known with a knight.74
For Lugn£ it was a thrilling experience to be cast in the
leading male role of this unusual play. Always enthusi
astic over the possibility of conveying poetic sensations to
the audience, he proved worthy of the trust placed in him.
Looking back in 1899 when he was publishing his trilogy,
Dujardin hoped that when his plays were performed again
they would find such skillful and understanding actors as
those who had created the roles: Mile Mellot and Lugn£-
\ . - ■ V.
Poe, each so different from the other, yet equally out

standing."
The next day, June 18, 1892, Lugne again acted at the
Th&tre-Moderne, this time in a program of the Escho.
liers. It called forth high praise from Croze, who thought
that this theatre had never seen such a large, exclusive
audience; all the press and all the elegant society of Paris
had accepted the invitation to attend.78The splendid per-
formance marked the group, by far and large the leading
literary organization of the day.
A delightful modern pantomime by Francois de Nion,
Les Suggestions de Colombine, was followed by a deli
cately ironic play, Le Flagrant Dilit, by Paul Ginisty. The
latter enjoyed great success, thanks to Mme France and
Lugn£-Poe. Exceptional acting heightened the interest
in the three-act play, La Famille, by the poet and psy
chologist Thalasso.77 After praising Mile Mellot at con
siderable length, Croze wrote of Lugn£ that he brought
to his part ". I . ses quality de diction, son souci des
effets, sa justesse de geste qui ont fait sa reputation bien
avant le premier prix que notre vague conservatoire va
lui d&erner a l’unanimiti.” 78
All this time, with his customary vitality, Lugnd-Poe
had been continuing his studies at the Conservatoire,
hoping, as did his friends, that this year he would carry
off first prize. The day of the examination the Nabis dis
played their interest by their presence. One artist, Xavier,
living outside Paris, near Creil, and having only thirty
centimes, nevertheless determined to witness his friend’s
triumph. He walked all the way to the outskirts of Paris,
where twenty centimes procured him a refreshing drink,
while the last ten centimes enabled him to climb to the
top of a bus to reach the Conservatoire.79
This year Lugn 6 chose L e Fils de Giboyer. T he jury’s
decision surprised many people, for first prize was unani
mously awarded to Veyret. Since, however, two or three
candidates could be included in the first award, after
much deliberation Lugn£-Poe and Baron were accepted
also. Disagreement over the opinion o f the jury reached
such a pitch that the critic for La R evue d’Art Drama-
tique expressed him self publicly. W hy was so much se
verity directed against Lugn£-Poe and Baron? They were
accused of being too m uch like schoolboys and of lacking
originality; but, he added, “ U n 61£ve est un £l£ve, que
diable!” 80 and it was cruel and unjust to expect more.
Previous years, first prize had been given to candidates
no better prepared; one had had only a fine voice and
good diction to recom m end him. Another was but a
diseur. Both o f them fortunately had been ready for the
theatre and had justified the confidence placed in them.
Lugn^-Poe and Baron were equally well prepared and
had certainly presented their roles successfully. T he jury
had ruled differently, consenting only reluctantly to in
clude them in the first prize, and the reviewer observed
that severity, carried to excess, assumes another name.
A second flagrant injustice was done to a young girl,
Mile Thomsen, w ho portrayed Toinette o f L e Malade
imaginaire with m ore zest and charm than were found in
the productions o f the State theatres. She deserved first
prize and entrance into the O d£on .81 This victim of the
jury’s partiality received only a second honorable men
tion. Indignantly the critic declared that, in her place, he
would leave the Conservatoire .82
It is interesting to see how even at this early date
Lugn£’s activities were dogged with adverse criticism and
prejudice. Already he had acquired varied experience
■
78 ADVENTURE IN THE TH E AT RE
and was frequently mentioned for his outstanding per.

formances. While his work could not equal that of older
widely experienced actors, he was even then making a
definite mark in theatrical circles.
Despite argument and disagreement, Lugn£ was for-
tunate in being included as a winner of the first prize
since he was thus freed from further military obligation.
Released from studies at the Conservatoire, he would
have even more time for other experience. He was deter
mined to follow what seemed original, promising, and
worth while. Already a literary flair convinced him that
the theatre could find refreshing and vitalizing sustenance
in the works of Symbolist authors.
Symbolism appeared to be the literary movement of
the present and the future. The magazines giving expres
sion to it had, in the last few months, discarded their
nebulous character for a more distinct ideal of art.83The
valiant Revue Bleue (Revue Politique et Littiraire) was
in its fourth year. Le Mercure de France already offered a
brilliant roster of names indicating the most promising
talent for the future.84L’Ermitage continued, as well as
La Revue Independante, while La Plume attracted “ toute
la jeunesse spirituelle de l’heure actuelle.” 85 La Revue
Blanche, quietly pursuing its way, suddenly drew atten
tion to itself by publishing Remy de Gourmont’s analysis
of Symbolism in the June, 1892, issue.89 Octave Uzanne,
the editor of L’Art et VIdee, was so impressed with its
revolutionary boldness and elevation of thought that
he reprinted the article the following month.87
Gourmont plunged into the subject by saying that the
time was ripe to say ingenuously and sincerely that two
kinds of writers existed: those with talent, the Symbolists,
and those without, the others. He saw in Symbolism lib
eration from worn theories of art and the opportunity for
writers to express a very personal art, recognizing the
obscurities within themselves, at the same time capturing
a breath of the infinite. Gourmont’s firm declaration of
faith pointed the way to a richer artistic development,
excluding mediocre writers incapable of suggesting the
eternal.
Uzanne was delighted to find this militant approval of
Symbolism, which had been the butt of vague bourgeois
pleasantry. At last the public would acknowledge that in
telligent minds could make Symbolism produce better
works than Naturalism, which Uzanne characterized as
a "vaine £cole et toute de mise en sc£ne.” 88
Perhaps influenced by such discussions, but more than
likely swayed by his satisfying work with avant-garde
groups, Lugn£-Poe determined to adhere to his ambition
of producing Symbolist plays and to continue acquiring
all dramatic experience possible.
........................... ....... .
V: Acting under Contract
P o R E L , director of the Od&m since 1884/ combined

the qualities of artist and businessman and strove to en
rich the repertory of this subsidized theatre while keeping
within the bounds of reason. Since classics must o f neces
sity figure conspicuously, he included works o f Ponsard
and Legouv£, even though they played to a meager audi
ence.* Public response was more sympathetic to other
projects at the theatre, for, aside from the experimenters
of the Th£atre-Libre and the Th&itre d’Art, Porel was
the only well-known director to fight for new tendencies.*
He had championed Edmond de Goncourt and Henry
Becque, thus contributing to the Od 6on’s prestige and
scoring victories for Naturalist theories.4Feeling that care
fully chosen foreign masterpieces should be produced, he
listed among the plays under consideration for 1891—1892,
Macbeth and Othello, Faust, The Rivals (Les Rivaux),
and A Doll’s House (La Maison de poupie).6 T h e inclu
sion of Ibsen’s play, even in the prospectus, indicated
‘ In 1862 Porel won second prize at the Conservatoire, and made his
debut at the Odton the following year. In 1867 he left to act at the
Thldtre du Gymnase, returning to the Oddon, still as an actor, in 1871.
He became director of this theatre on December 27, 1884.1
A C T IN G UNDER C O N T R A C T 81
porel’s interest in the m ost m od em tendencies. Porel
adored the theatre and wanted always to renew and
strengthen its life, especially in the O d 6on, under his
aegis.
As is customary w ith all m en in important positions,
porel was subject to m u ch severe criticism. It was in vain
that he taxed the com pany with his classic Mondays and
Fridays and subscription Thursdays ; 6 he was accused of
being too lenient w ith his actors. Yet such a variety of
performances requ ired constant rehearsing .7 Despite the
popularity o f the program s, some people did not care for
the music, and others chauvinistically objected to foreign
works.
Perhaps because o f criticism , perhaps because of dis
appointment at n o t b ein g nam ed director o f the Op£ra,8
but more probably because he wanted greater freedom,
Porel left the O d£on at the end o f the 1891—1892 season.
In spite o f his efforts, the O d£on rem ained a thidtre de
quartier, recruiting its pu b lic from the Left Bank. Since
plays in the m o d e m trend cou ld n ot persuade an audi
ence from the R ig h t Bank to cross the Seine, Mohammed
went to the m ountain, fo r Porel chose to go to the rue
Boudreau near the rue Auber.® H e rented the Grand
Theatre, form erly know n as the Eden-Th£atre, and espe
cially designed for musical productions.* It was done over
for him, and in spite o f its spaciousness, he proposed to
offer plays w ith ou t musical accompaniment as well as
works with music.
Casting about for new talent, Porel asked Lugn£ to act
with his group. T h e director seems to have been less im-
* T h e E d e n -T h 6&tre o p e n e d January 7, 1883. It was at this theatre
that Lohengrin h a d its first p erform an ce in Paris (see page 11). Under
Porel’s m an a gem en t it to o k the nam e o f "G ra n d T h eatre.” After the
season en d ed o n M a rch SO, 1893, it was dem olished to m ake room for
the Square d e l ’O p ^ ra .10
pressed by the young man’s success with experimental
groups than by the shabby treatment he had endured at
the Conservatoire. Lugn£ had refused to join him at the
Od&m the preceding year, but now the young man recog.
nized the value of a season’s experience working under
the supervision of Porel, one of Paris’ finest directors, and
in close touch with the great actress R£jane, Porel’s wife.
Froma materialistic viewpoint, the prospect of an assured
salary appealed to Lugn£, for it was no novelty to him to
suffer privation even at this early period. For the only
time in his life he agreed to accept the customary liveli
hood. of actors and to work under contract.
Lion Daudet, who frequented the theatres of both
Porel and Antoine, wrote of these men: “Porel £tait plus
artiste, d’une intelligence plus vaste qu’Antoine; mais
Antoine, dans sa fougue, etait et est demeur£ plus cocasse,
plus special.” u To know Porel truly, one had to see him,
transformed, during a rehearsal, when his tremendous
store of energy burst forth, equalled only by his patience.
He believed everything to be in the realm of the possible.
Experiments with staging and sets, no matter how im
practicable, excited him, for his deep love of the theatre
stirred and intoxicated him.12 The rehearsal ended, he
again became the smiling, practical director who realized
the necessity of watching expenses and of not frightening
the good bourgeois public.11It is small wonder that Porel
longed to give free rein to his bursts of enthusiasm by
directing a theatre in which he would not be accountable
to anyone.
To open his venture he selected Sapho by Alphonse
Daudet and Adolphe Belot, originally produced on De
cember 18, 1885, at the Th&tre du Gymnase, with Jane
ACTING UNDER CONTRACT 83
Hading in the role now played by R£jane .14Lucien Guitry
layed opposite R£jane. Lugn£ was cast in the minor role
ofLaBorderie.
The rehearsals, held in a piano salesroom in the rue
je Chateaudun, disappointed Lugn£, who expected Porel
always to direct with smooth; easy rhythm. In Lugn^’s
opinion, the director paid such meticulous attention to
details that he failed to envisage the play as a whole to
b^ng out and correlate all its possibilities.15 It remained
for Rijane to understand and throw into relief the hu
manness of the play.16
Rijane was such a confident actress that she did not
attend rehearsals so often as Lugn 6 wished, though when
she was present, he reveled in her supreme interpretation.
She sent shivers down his spine by the perfect control she
exercised over her voice, nerves, and passion, working up
to a climax which, one felt, she still dominated .17 Her
sincerity made her acting completely convincing. While
it seemed strange to Lugn 6 to be playing a secondary part
after performances which he had even instigated and
directed, he was better able to observe the skill of the great
actress from his humble position, as her powerful acting
overshadowed even the great Lucien Guitry, playing op
posite her.18
Lugn6, in an article he wrote for La Plume o f October
15, 1892/® expressed his admiration for R£jane’s talent.
He sang the praise of her rich voice, of the intense inner
inspiration which raised her to great heights without
apparent effort, though if one chose not to listen, her
gestures and carriage sufficed to elevate one as she in
tended. Since the young man still felt attracted first and
foremost to the projects of a very different theatrical
milieu, he ended his sketch with a humble and ea
prayer that this great actress might remember her p ^
ise to bring to life Ibsen’s heroine, Nora.*
After various delays," Sapho opened on November lg
1892, to win praise for the acting and condemnation for
Daudet’s lamentable attempt at dramatizing his novel.*
Porel had staged the work with care, but was accused of
belying his pretentious aims by watching box-office re-
ceipts rather than by boldly producing a work of artistic
merit. Largely because of Rijane’s charm and passion the
production survived. She showed herself a consummate
artist, as outstanding as she had been in Germinie Lacer-
teux and Porto-Riche’s Amoureuse—" n’est-ce pas tout
dire?” 22Though Lugn6 did little more than pass across
the stage, he very cleverly gave a personality to his brief
part.23
That fall Porel was considering Maurice Donnay’s play,
Lysistrata, adapted and embellished from Aristophanes’
work.24At that time, Donnay, thirty-three years old, was
known to a Bohemian crowd, especially through his con
nections with the popular Montmartre caf£, the Chat
Noir.25When he received Porel’s permission to- read his
four-act play before the famed director and his company,
he was nervous, for it was the first time that he had read
before so many beautiful ladies. He heard frequent “ oh’s”
among his listeners, who were astounded by the audacity
of the subject and by the racy dialogue, which he had
made even more scandalous than the original. This
shocked reaction troubled, yet flattered him. Porel was
smiling, and R^jane delighted.24 The play would consti
tute the next important item in Porel’s program.
• Rejane did not play Nora until April 20, 1894, when A Doll’s House
was produced at the Th6!tre du Vaudeville.
On November 27 Porel produced Lolotte, a one-act
fantasy by Meilhac and Hal£vy, somewhat dated but acted
t0 perfection byjane .27 On the same program the pro
duction o tL e Malade imaginaire was so excellent that the
Grand Theatre completely eclipsed the Com&lie-Fran-
raise and the Od£on .28Molifcre could have asked for noth
ing finer» as reinstatement o f entire passages, usually cut,
heightened the text, making it seem less long. Porel car
ried out a pet idea of com bining music with drama and
comedy, and used music especially arranged by Saint-
Saens.29 Lugn£-Poe, as Bonnefoi, performed creditably,
while his fellow student from the Conservatoire, Mile
Thomsen, gave her lively interpretation of Toinette,
which had caused so much discussion over the injustice of
the national academy’s decisions. T o be sure, Sarcey dis
agreed completely with critics who praised the perform
ance, thus convincing them thoroughly o f the accuracy of
their own opinions.
Acting under contract did not curb Lugn^’s varied
interests. Understanding what the young man was seeking,
the sympathetic director recognized the impossibility of
controlling him and granted permission for him to work
elsewhere.80Lugn 6 expended some of his energy frequent
ing famous caf£s, like the Chat Noir, where he often went
at midnight for an hour or two .81 On November 8 he
attended La Plume’s fifth banquet, an outgrowth of the
magazine’s soirees. His chief supplementary activity, how
ever, concerned the Cercle des Escholiers.
Lugn£’s insistence that the Escholiers should produce
The Lady from the Sea encountered many obstacles,
though Lionel Radiguet had, in La Revue Independante
in 1891, indicated that it ought to suit a French and Eng
lish public more than many of Ibsen’s plays because of
the poetry and power of the sea, which they, living near
the sea, should understand.” Some of the Escholiers dis-
liked Ibsen, were afraid to tackle what they did not under,
stand, and argued that it would be difficult to get Ibsen’s
written permission and that they could ill afford to pro-
ceedwithout proper authorization.88Besides, they thoughtful
far greater success would come to them if they presented
a play by Gyp, whose Mile Eve sparkled with feminine
mundane wit. A compromise was reached, and La Revue
d’Art Dramatique of September 15, 1892; announced the
Escholiers’ plans to continue their interesting programs
by producing The Lady from the Sea and M ile Eve d u ring
the current season.84, *
There was available a fine translation by Chennevi&re,
and Johansen of The Lady from the Sea and An Enemy
of the People (L’Ennemi du peuple), published by Sa-
vine.MThe next step was to communicate with Ibsen’s
friend and official translator, Count Prozor, who finally
gave permission for the performance. He stipulated that
the rehearsals be supervised by Paulsen, a Dane, who
brought a friend, Jens Pedersen. The group benefited
greatly from their advice, especially that of Pedersen, a
Danish art critic, who guided them in discovering the
theatrical riches of the poetic drama.”
At the Grand Th&ltre, Porel was preparing the produc
tion of Lysistrata. Alphonse Allais, who had made Lugnd’s
acquaintance at the Chat Noir, urged his friend Maurice
Donnay to procure a good role for the young actor.
Nevertheless, Donnay’s warm recommendation carried
no weight whatever with the director.*8
Porel assigned him the minor role of Drac&s, an old
* The Eicholieri did not carry out their plans In regard to Gyp's play,
which was not produced until 1895, at the Coraidie-Parlsienne, ana was
considered an Interesting performance.**
eelc, who appeared in the beginning o f the first act and
the*end of the last. Unhampered by serious demands
at n his time, Lugn£ would slip out and hurry to 92, rue
St-Lazare, where he worked enthusiastically with the
Escholiers. When he had been rehearsing in costume at
jhe Grand Theatre, the imposing beard of his Greek role
increased his authority among his comrades. Even Porel
had not recognized the old man whom he met on the stair-
way. On one occasion, returning to the Grand Theatre,
Lugn6 hurriedly donned his pink stockings with toes
painted on them, and discovered too late that he had con
fused the right with the left, with the result that the big
toe figured prominently on the outside o f each foot .89His
bulletins de service o f Lysistrata were covered with scrib
bled notes on the direction and sets o f Ibsen’s play.40
The climax of Lugn^’s activity with the Escholiers
occurred December 17, 1892,* at the Thâtre-Modeme.41
It was daring for these young people to undertake the
interpretation of The Lady from the Sea, for the character
of the Stranger with his fascinating sea-green eyes is enig
matic even to the adult mind. W hile Henry Fouquier of
Le Figaro, always a reactionary, resolved the drama into
the conventional pattern of the wife who dreams of a
former love, seeks release from her husband, yet when
the liberty is granted, rejects it,42 others realized to what
an extent Ibsen conjured up the characters’ innermost
thoughts so that they appeared like spectres of themselves,
propelled by a kind of instinct.48
The critic for La Revue d'Art Dramatique called the
performance one to remember 44 and gratefully acknowl
edged that it offset a number o f mediocre plays he had
endured. Henri de R 6gnier, reviewing the play for Entre-
*The dress rehearsal took place on December 16.
tiens Politiques et Litteraires, ascribed certain made-
quacies in part to faulty translation." Some thought that
the youthfulness of the actors tended to handicap them,
though Mile Cam£e, a charming girl, who was too young
to plumb the depths of Ellida’s character, still displayed
much talent." Mile Meuris, who had been exquisite and
understanding in The Wild Duck at the Th&itre-Libre,
as Hilda now surpassed her previous performance, and
received a contract with Porel at the Grand Thître as a
material reward for her sensitive acting.47 As for Lugng-
Poe as Wangel, Rignier qualified him as a fine actor who
had successfully managed a difficult role .48Alfred Vallette
of Le Mercure de France, who had at times disapproved
of Lugnl’s acting, now had to acknowledge the magnifi
cence of his portrayal, for, fearing to fall into exaggerated
emotion, he had maintained the reserve and sobriety suit
able to the part.4* Jacques des Gachons of L ’Ermitage
prophetically commented that Lugn£ possessed “une con
science littfraire et un go&t qui promettent pour demain
un tr£s curieux artiste.” 80
Lugnl-Poe’s participation in the production of The
Lady from the Sea meant less to him because of his intel
ligent portrayal of Wangel than because of the prestige
which his initiative had brought to the Escholiers. Le
Mercure de France enthusiastically congratulated the
group for stepping into the breach left by the Thître
d’Art.81 Lugn£’s persistence had greatly aided the expan
sion of the dramatic scope of the group and stamped the
Cercle des Escholiers as an important factor in the life
of the theatre.® 2
The following issue of Le Mercure de France contained
a poetic account of a triple vision, inspired by Ibsen’s
play “ While its symbolism wasas vague as the idea it
proposed to clarify, it provided visible proof that the
Escholiers’ production struck a sympathetic chord in
imaginative, sensitive people.
Carried away by the weirdness of Ibsen’s play, Lugn£
could scarcely b e expected to appreciate the fanciful,
witty superficiality of Lysistrata, presented on December
21. Though the lively dialogue had been discussed and
somewhat cut ,54 the play was new in its daring. Handsome
staging and girls with “ le merveilleux don d’avoir des
jambes de d£esse et des yeux de satanes” 55turned the pro
duction into a fine revue. During the intermissions talk
centered on an unfortunate rival event: that day’s tumul
tuous session of the Chamber of Deputies, in the course
of which over one hundred deputies had been suspected
of graft in the Panama affair.56 Donnay was chagrined by
the lukewarm accounts by the press, but Porel still had
faith in him.6T
Lugn£, who got along better with R£jane than with her
husband, was not proving a congenial member of Porel’s
troupe, and the director feared to trust him with an im
portant role. In the beginning Porel probably felt the
necessity of restraining this independent spirit. Now
Lugn£ showed utter lack of interest in the work at the
Grand Theatre, an attitude that scarcely inspired Porel to
place much confidence in him. Lugn6 certainly did not
excel during this brief, experimental period of his life,
when he was a regularly paid actor under another’s direc
tion. Lysistrata bored him, and his small role, which re
quired him to sprawl on a couch, encouraged drowsiness.
One evening, he even fell asleep and had to be awakened
when it was his turn to speak.68
His restless spirit made him feel that everyone was
antagonistic, and the gossip of fellow actors, seeking R 6-
jane’s favor by flattery and cajolery, disgusted him. Lugt^
soon wearied of their pettiness and isolated himself a.
much as possible. In the dressing room which he shared 1
with three others, he outfitted a large wardrobe with a
comfortable chair and a lamp. Since his role did not call
for his presence on stage for the greater part o f the per
formance, he put out the lights in the dressing room s0
as to discourage intruders and then shut himself in the
wardrobe to read. T o avoid meeting other actors, he
would go down the fire escape in the court, Greek costume
and all.**
While keeping his contract with Porel, he appeared
also in other productions: as Lecardonnel in Les Faux
Bonshommes by Barrifcre and Capendu on March 5,
1893,80and as Mathan in Athalie on March 20.® 1 His heart
was far from this work, however. His success with The
Lady from the Sea still intoxicated him and he dreamed
of producing Maeterlinck’s Pelleas et Milisande. The
Escholiers would have none of it; so he turned to Paul
Fort, who still hoped to resuscitate his Theatre d ’Art.
With exciting projects in the air, Lugn£ asked Porel to
release him. Porel agreed to terminate the contract as
of April 30“
Porel was not succeeding financially in spite o f attempt?
to vary his program with a revival of Daudet’s ever popu
lar L’ArUsienne, with music by Bizet/ and the produc-,
tion of PScheur d’Islande, an adaptation of the novel, by
Loti and Tiercelin, with music by Roddez.' The charm of
the novel vanished in dramatization, and the work failed."
Expenses at the Grand Theatre were heavy. Moreover, in
his eagerness to be master in his own theatre, Porel placed
1January 22, 1893.

'February 18, 1893.
ACTTJSTG UlWLfJd.it o c / i v i ti/iKj i
little stock in the opinion of the press. So few invita

tions had been extended for the first productions of the
season that Abb£ de Chazeuil took him to task in La
Revue d’Art Dramatique “ The independent director
failed to realize to what extent the public relied upon
newspaper accounts for information of theatrical doings.
Porel was obliged to close his theatre on March 30,
1893. When he assembled the group for liquidation pro
ceedings, Lugn^-Poe alone had no responsibility since he
had signified his intention of severing connections with
the group; all others were debtors."
Here, thought Lugn£, was sure proof that the gods of
the theatre wreak vengeance on the mercenary; one must
dreamand work with the poets.®6
V i: Birth o f the Oeuvre
F l R M in his belief that Maeterlinck, like Ibsen, would

bring new life to the French theatre, Lugn£-Poe ignored
the Escholiers’ rejection of Pellias et Mdlisande and de
termined to fight for its production. Since Maeterlinck’s
one-act plays had been so successful when performed at
the Th&tre d’Art in May and December, 1891, the pub
lication of. the more pretentious, three-act Pellias et
Milisande in Brussels the following spring had immedi
ately aroused interest in literary circles. Lugn£ promptly
recognized it as a masterpiece of the Symbolist theatre,
and relied on the magic of Maeterlinck’s play to counter
act the banality of the stereotyped theatre. Lugn£ wrote
of this period, “Maeterlinck nous apparaissait alors
comme notre flambeau sur la route th£atrale,” 1 and here
was a play which expressed admirably the dramatic theo
ries which made the Belgian’s work so original.
An article which appeared in January, 1893, in La
Revue d’Art Dramatique discussed the timely subject o f
“Le Mystique dans'le drame: le r£ve.” 2Its author, Adrien
Wagnon, admired Maeterlinck’s plays as fine examples
of the evocation of a dreamworld. He ingeniously upheld.
BIRTH OF THE OEUVRE 93
the place of dreams in the theatre with the theory that
since time and space undergo similar modifications in
dreams and in plays, dreams are, so to speak, the very
essence of the theatre.8 Therefore the dramatist who ap
proaches the technique o f dreams is more logical and will
write more “ realistic” plays than the would-be realist who
garbles reality in his desperate effort to force it upon a
stage. The theatre differs from the world o f dreams, how
ever, since the playwright must present causes which lead
to the desired effect, whereas in dreams, one comprehends
intuitively. In W agnon’s opinion, Maeterlinck excelled
in this borderline between daily reality and dreams.
Maeterlinck used the theatre, in fact, as a vehicle for
his mysticism. Desiring to convey an idea o f the mysteri
ous universal forces which rule m en’s lives," he minimized
the traditional concept o f external dramatic action, re
placing it by action which was inner, subtle, and abstract.
His dramas are often called “ static.” Outwardly they are,
but the relentless dom ination o f the forces he shows at
work proves to be more powerful than the conventional
conflict of visible action.
It is not easy to grasp Maeterlinck at a superficial
glance. Intuition assumes great importance, as his subtle
art depends upon the skillful use o f silence, upon snatches
of sentences, upon a seemingly simple observation
charged with meaning. His genius was compelled to
translate his thoughts by suggestion, since the finite, un-
• Mauclair, reviewing Gide’s Voyage d’ Urien, in 1893, recognized a kin
dred spirit at that time in Maeterlinck and Gide, whom he qualified as
“deux familiers du reve.” He continued: “ J’entends qu’ils possMent tous
deux la puissance myst£rieuse de faire continueUement allusion, et dans
les plus simples paroles, & une signification sp£ciale des £v£nements . . .
ils sont les deux fitres les plus essentiellement mystiques que j’aie encore
rencontres, car le myst&re n’est point chez eux une devotion, un refuge ou
une confiance, mais r£ellement une condition vitale, et ce que j ’affirmerai
une n£cessit£ organique.” 4
able to depict the infinite, can only suggest it thr0uR}l
symbols. Essentially poetic, Maeterlinck aspired
glimpses of the infinite, considering the fundamental role
of the dramatist that of probing the soul o f man, of sh0w.
ing his reactions in the face of superior, inexorable forces*
of conveying some impression of the profound meaning
of the universe as he, the poet, understands it.
In this delicate process of evocation, Maeterlinck felt
hampered by the presence of actors on the stage, since
the personality of the interpreters separated the spirit of
the poet from the spirit of the spectators. He even thought
of using marionettes so as to obviate this difficulty.*
Living actors, however, could gain much effect from
well-meditated gestures, for every movement could take
on meaning. Moreover, nature was given a new role as
storms, wind, sunshine, or the motion of the sea helped
to create an atmosphere of terror, or, rarely, of warmth
and relief. Time and space were not clearly defined, for
the underlying ideas which interested Maeterlinck were
universal and therefore not to be limited. His characters,
instead of having marked individualities, were really the
embodiment of philosophical concepts.
While Ibsen was likewise concerned with basic, myste
rious forces, Maeterlinck was the first contemporary dram
atist writing in French to realize consciously the need for
emphasizing “ the mysterious and unfathomable side.” 5
Though Maeterlinck’s evocation of the soul will never
have a wide appeal,8 it found many sympathetic to the
idea among the Symbolists of France in the early 1890’s.
» Paiis had the Petit-Th&tre des Marionnettes, founded In 1888, which
had offered some pretentious programs. The Cercle Funambulesque, also
functioning at this period, relied upon pantomime. Maeterlinck, how
ever, seems not to have given serious consideration to these theatres,
which provided some of the means of which he thought favorably
even essayed to imitate the master/ Maeterlinck’s
nius, however, is not o f a nature to foster successful
f .tati0n; the delicacy o f his style requires his own talent
for proportion and emphasis so as to avoid falling into
dull pointless repetition. Maeterlinck’s superiority over
other Symbolist playwrights lay in his skill in using subtle
dialogue.8
While many derived pleasure from reading PelUas et
0isandej it required the dauntless courage of Lugn6-
poe to accept the challenge of its mysticism and to insist
upon the right to produce Maeterlinck’s most ambitious
and most recent play. The tenuous charm of the work is
sufficient to frighten any director interested in box-office
receipts.
Without knowing what arrangements could be worked
out for eventual production, Lugn6 and some friends
started rehearsing. Cold winter mornings they went to the
studio of a friend near the Gobelins at Grenelle. Lugn£,
at least, could not have had much rest the night before
since he was still working with Porel, but nine o’clock in
the morning found him eager to direct the rehearsal. Mile
Cam£e, Lugn^’s “ c^rriarade en Maeterlinck,” * who had
also worked with him in The Lady from the Sea, was one
of the faithful. She had the role of Genevi&ve. Mile Meu-
ris, who had acted at the Escholiers with Lugn6, would
be M£lisande, and another young friend, Marie Aubry,
would be Pelldas. Lugn 6 confined his energy to directing.
*As early as January, 1891, La Plume mentioned Les Vieux, a newly
published play by Ernest Bosiers, who tried to imitate Maeterlinck. On
March 20, at the Th&Ltre d’Art, Les Veilleuses, by Gabillard, showed
Maeterlinck’s influence o n the author. In August, 1892, Le Mercure de
France contained a book review of Les Fenitres, a drama by two of his
disciples, Jules Perrin and Claude Couturier, poorly imitating Maeter
linck’s style.7
4Georgette Cam 6e and Lugn6 had first played together in L’Intruse.
rte often felt disheartened in his battle against conven
tional drama, as indifference or mockery faced him on all
sides.10It was the enthusiasm of sympathetic friends and
his own conviction of the value of the work that helped
him overcome depressing opposition. He badly needed
such encouragement as came in a letter from Rachilde on
February 15, 1893, in which the popular novelist ex
pressed wholehearted approval of his desire to produce
Pelleas.n Further encouragement came from Maeterlinck
himself, who, ever since the days at the Theatre d ’Art,
had written affectionately to Lugne and his close friend,
Camille Mauclair, who was now collaborating with Lugn£
in his enterprise. On February 22, the Belgian poet wrote
the young actor a cheering letter, which opened with these
words: “Vous etes un artiste et que je suis heureux d ’avoir
eu en vous seul et sans hesitation, la confiance la plus
absolue, et que je suis stir, maintenant que tout ira bienl
. . .” 12 He regretted deeply that Lugni did not see his
way clear to play the role of Golaud. “Quelles Emotions
profondes n’y perdrons-nous pasl . . .” 13The author was
sure that his enthusiastic promoter knew the play even
better than he did himself.
At about the same time, there were rumors that the
Theatre d’Art was coming to life again through the asso
ciation, of its.director with the well-to-do writer, Mme
Tola Dorian,14 whose father was the Russian Prince
Mestchersky.15 It was to be hoped that Fort had learned
from experience not to overload the programs and not to
experiment with works unsuitable to the theatre.18 One
of Fort’s first thoughts was to communicate with Lugn 6,
who had shared so many of his plans. In his letter he ex
plained that while the theatnyvould be run on a modest J
budget, he could nevertheles^ffer sixty francs monthlva
B IRTH OF THE OEUVRE 97
Recognizing the fact that his friend’s connec-
L u g n e .17
jons with Porel occupied much o f his time, Fort said that
jjg would permit the actor to choose any role, long or
hort, so as not to interfere with his work at the Grand
Theatre.
Paul Fort’s offer and the generous patronage of Mme
porian seem ed a godsend. Lugn 6 was sure that the latter
subscribed heartily to Fort’s interest in those plays whose
production often seemed infeasible and that she was sin
cere in her promise to finance the revival o f the cherished
theatre. H e r e indeed was a group suited to the interpreta
tion o f Pelleas et M ilisande, especially as the same theatre
had already h a d the honor o f producing Maeterlinck’s
earlier plays. Moreover, its aims, expressed by Charles
Morice in L e M ercure de France, were extremely idealis
tic. T h e theatre, he declared, was the church of the fu
ture.18 In it would be consecrated the inspired efforts of
all artists: poets, painters, and musicians. Beauty would
receive reverent attention. Maeterlinck’s work with its
mystical aspirations certainly realized the Theatre d’Art’s
elevated purpose..
When Paul Fort and T ola Dorian sponsored Saturday
night gatherings to stimulate enthusiasm in their theatre,
Lugn£, because o f his previous associations and his pres
ent aspirations, very naturally became one o f the habitues.
Among those who attended were his close friends S^rusier,
Vuillard, and Mauclair, the artists Vogler and Ranson, as
well as the writers Rachilde, Harold, Dumur, and Ran-
don, all later connected with his own theatre.19
When Lugn 6 broached the subject o f Pellias, he was
delighted to find a sympathetic reception, though Mme
Dorian had another plan to carry out first. She longed to
satisfy the dream o f Villiers de l’lsle-Adam by producing
his much-discussed symbolic work, Axel. However, con
fronted with the concerted protests of Symbolist poets
friends of the deceased author, who opposed the mutila’
don of the text necessitated by a dramatic performance
Mme Dorian was forced to abandon the project,^ *
Though deeply chagrined and not at all convinced that
she should renounce Villiers de I’lsle-Adam’s immense
work, Mme Dorian agreed to support Paul Fort, who
willingly turned his efforts to Maeterlinck's play.
As plans took more definite form, Maeterlinck re
quested that Mme Louise France, who had earlier played
with Coquelin, then with Antoine, and whom he had
first seen in Belgium the preceding year, should take the
part of*the old servant. It was a small role, but; he was
hoping for perfection down to the last detail. Lugn^-Poe
finally consented to act the important role of the husband,
complying with Maeterlinck’s wish/
Responsibility for directing fell upon Lugn£, while
Fort occupied himself with various problems o f staging
and business management. One of Fort’s most difficult
tasks was that of getting subscribers, for he had to con-
. vince people of the great dramatic significance o f the
venture though he could not tell them even the time or
place of the single performance of the play.
The date was dependent upon the possibility o f finding
a theatre. The Th&itre-Moderne? It was used as a con-
• Axel was produced February 26, 1894, at the Th&tre Montparnasse,
under Larochelle’s management, and Mme Dorian followed the prepara
tions for the production with deep interest. The appreciative response of
the public proved the value of offering dramatic fare above the mediocre,
while Mme Dorian considered the performance so successful that she
wanted Larochelle to found with her the "Thgitre de la Rive-Gauche” so
as to produce other poetic works.21
t The cast follows: Arkel, Emile Raymond; Golaud, Lugn£-Poe; M£li-
sande. Mile Meuris; Pelldas, Mile Aubry; Genevifrve, Mile Cam£e; le petit
Yniold, Mile Loyer; la vieille servante, Mme France; le m£dedn, not
listed.
ert hall. The Renaissance? Fort would not consider it
because in that theatre the countless expenditures and red
oe would prove fatal to their enterprise. “ Nous ne
voulons point, n’est-ce pas, briller une fois et puis
mourir,” he wrote to Lugn 6.22 Cooperation and good will
always prevailed at the Salle Montparnasse—perhaps this
Left Bank hall could be obtained.
M aeterlinck feared undue haste in the preparations
and urged Lugn£ to proceed slowly and carefully. Paul
fort had acquired the unenviable reputation of giving
slipshod productions; Pelleas, however, deserved meticu
lous care. Lugn 6 was ready to heed such advice, for the
production was too close to his heart for him to risk
negligence.
For costumes, Maeterlinck suggested an evocation of
the Middle Ages; perhaps the work o f the Flemish painter
Memlinc would offer ideas.23 T h e masterpiece of his later
years, Saint Ursula, was outstanding in its variety of
costumes and scenes. T h e delicacy and charm of the paint
ing appealed to the Symbolists.24 Maeterlinck desired,
above all, costumes and sets that would harmonize with
the spirit of the play. He sent Lugn 6 an English version
of the touching tale o f Saint Genevieve of Brabant, illus
trated by Walter Crane, whose imaginative drawings
might well be useful in the preparation o f Pelldas.
Towards the end of March, Paul Fort and Lugn£ were
ready to shop for costume material.25 They would have to
consider carefully, for they must use their limited re
sources as advantageously as possible. Their group would,
of course, make the costumes themselves.
Shortly after, realizing the failings of his impractical
nature, reflected in the comparative futility o f his efforts
to win followers, find a theatre, and keep within a budget,
Fort relinquished all credit for the performance in faVor

of his ardent, more practical friend. For the first time
Lugn6-Poe was completely in charge of a production,
Paul Fort’s note to him is like the birth certificate 0f
Lugn^’s future life in the theatre.
“mars 1893
“Mon cher ami,
Je t’abandonne tous mes droits sur les decors, costumes
etc . . . pour la representation de ‘Pell£as et M61isande’
de Maurice Maeterlinck—et cela sans aucune condition.
Mon amiti£,
Paul Fort ” 28
It would have been too much to expect all to go
smoothly, and right from the start Lugn£ began to en
counter difficulties. Vexed at not being allowed to choose
the cast, Tola Dorian left the group financially in the
lurch, but finally was persuaded to pay at least for scenery.
Lugn6 and his friends were obliged to seek small contribu
tions wherever possible. During one of Maeterlinck’s two
visits to Paris in the course of rehearsals, he and Lugn£
explained the predicament to Lugn£’s father. Although
generally not in sympathy with his son’s enterprises, this
time he tided him over with two hundred francs. Maeter
linck appreciatively exclaimed to Lugn£, “ Quel bon type
que ton pferel” 27
The project had obtained enough publicity to interest
many artists and men of letters, who began to herald it as
an important literary and artistic event, destined to have
decided influence on the future of the French theatre.*8
Lugne, with his glowing salesmanship, his ardent sup
porter Mauclair, and their devoted artist-friends naturally
aroused enmity as well as interest and anticipation. Some
people resented the fact that notice was being paid to a
fM£*TBl D'AKf P v ffiX T tg9 j .
SWMt r«-
J. 7/L • , ( JL \foA/
»>*»» .•*>* X /^ y/«/
v*#" /
/J <*».
y
^ rt . ,Q —
Jit Q* c <r>ZrrzzL^
/)7ctt*J»'u. / sfftu & g l

^.eft-ac/Z S f"
^*v» tfcwwC
Fort’s letter to Lugnd-Poe about the rights to Pellâs
foreigner in a degree never allotted to a French writer,20

while one critic marveled that with all the dull works by
French authors one should seek further boredom in for
eign letters.80
The most general reaction, however, was thoroughly
favorable to the group who, though no unpleasantness was
spared them, dared to defy all claims to patronage from
people of influence or wealth. “Et encore, il parait qu’ils
ont l’insolence de r£ussir . . *V 9
•While the name of Mirbeau is signed to the artide from which the
above quotation is taken, the real author may well have been Mauclair.
Maudair, in his Servitude et grandeur littiraires, relates that Mirbeau
promised to write an article on the forthcoming event in his column in
L’Echo de Paris, and that, too rushed to carry out his plan, he asked
Maudair to imitate his style and prepare the artide. They kept the secret
wdl, and no one suspected that Maudair had contributed to L’Echo de
Paris under such an illustrious nom de plume.82
102 ADVENTURE IN THE TH E A TRE
One of Lugn£’s and Mauclair’s most serious problems

was to find a theatre, since Fort’s efforts in that direction
had been fruitless. For a time it seemed as though Albert
Carr£ would grant the use of the Th&itre du Vaudeville
for the single performance. Even he withdrew.83No one
seemed willing to risk his theatre’s reputation by harbor-
ing a venture which many people would consider scatter
brained. Permission was eventually received to give one
matinee performance of Pelleas et Melisande at the
Bouffes-Parisiens,* on May 17, 1893.
The disappointments, aspirations, and efforts culmi-
nated in this momentous occasion. A gratifying audience
filled the theatre. Among those attending were Mallarm£,
Hervieu, C£ard, Mr. and Mrs. Whistler, and Maurice
Barrfes andhis wife. Maeterlinck’s fervent admirer, Octave
Mirbeau, came to witness the triumph of the Belgian
poet,8®while the presence of Claude Debussy has left an
enduring monument in the form of his exquisite opera,
for it was at this performance that he became acquainted
with the subde charm of Maeterlinck’s play.*
Most of those present approved wholeheartedly of the
undertaking. Some sincerely appreciated Maeterlinck’s
genius; others, surfeited with Naturalism, welcomed any
thing different; still others attended through snobbery.
Indeed, any who foiled to perceive and praise the unusual
beauty of the work were nothing but idiots, in the opinion
of the initiate.88Feeling ran high as the young esthetes
*The Th&tre des Bouffes-Parisiens opened in 1865 on the Champs
Elys&s in a hall used by Dr. Lacaze. At the end of the year it moved to
the Salle Choiseul, already used as a theatre. The building was recon
structed in 1864 and continued in use.8* In 1893 it housed a hit musical
production, Miss Helyett, by Maxime Boudieron with music by Edmond
Audran.*5
4As early as August, 1893, Henri de Rignier wrote Maeterlinck that his
friend Debussy had started some airs for Pellias, "qui en enguirlandent
le texte d&ideusement tout en le respectant scrupuleusement ” «
b i r t h o f THE OEUVRE 103
ove to quell the adverse sentiments of those who came
111 to scoff and find fault.
To the friends of the group the harmony of sets and
ostumes was a triumph. The landscape artist Paul Vogler,
hose paintings were on exhibition at that time at the
Bodini&re,89 had painted scenery which skillfully con
y e y e d the impression of a dreamworld. The heavy foliage
of the forest and the vast mysterious hall of the palace had
' a poetic, archaic flavor indicating an indefinite past. The
backdrops were like ancient tapestries, completely in
keeping with the tale’s remoteness and sadness.40 The
vaporous, neutral effect was reminiscent of Puvis de
Chavannes.41 The lighting, which came from above,
heightened the impression of unreality so that the char
acters seemed like phantoms in the moonlight.42 The
costumes, designed by Lugn£, blended with the setting,
and all colors were subdued; there was not one harsh
note in the simple, harmonious ensemble.
The uninitiate were perplexed by the frequent change
of scene, for Pelteas contains eighteen tableaux, some of
them moments of fleeting moods. The critic Henry Fou-
quier noted irreverently in his review that the busiest
artist of all was the sceneshifter who raised and lowered
the curtain.48
It was rare to find the theme of husband, wife, and
lover treated in a mystical way, with interest rising above
the mundane to center upon the invisible power directing
the lives of the phantom-like figures. With the entire
play a lyric tale of Jove,44 Destiny for a time changed the
grim cloak of Death, worn in L ’Intruse and Les Aveugles,
for the scarcely lighter mantle of Love. Some wished to
see in the play a return to the tragedies of Greece in
which, however, the beauty lay in the struggle of man
against Fate," whereas in Maeterlinck’s play, conflict dis.
Wm I appears with the submission of the lovers. Death hovers
AX- over the love theme since Pell&s and M&isande never re.
ceive from their love the passionate urge to live; instead
\\\ they wait in their love to die. At their last rendezvous
\ they are restless and subdued until the castle door closes
Then for the first time they know joy—a nervous joy
because they are sharing an inevitable danger. They spy
Golaud, know that death is upon them, yet have no
thought of escape; defiantly they embrace." Thus, Maeter
linck’s characters seemto exist not as personalities but as
pawns of an abstract force.47,1
A scene which charmed many people was that in which
A -, Mflisande, singing, leans from the tower window while
Pell&is caresses her flowing hair. Maeterlinck, dissatisfied
with the words he had originally written, asked Mile
Meuris to choose a poem to her liking from about thirty
he thought suitable.49The song she selected, different
from that later used in the opera, was based on the theme,
“Les trois soeurs aveugles.” The poet asked a young com
poser, Gabriel Fabre, to set the words to music. Fabre,
an outstanding exponent of the movement for liberation
from Wagnerian tyranny though he retained respectful
admiration for the master,50prepared a beaudful, plain
tive melody,51 which La Plume later published, along
with the words, for the pleasure of those who appreciated
Maeterlinck’s work.5*
Deserved praise has always been accorded the scene
in which Golaud raises Yniold so that his little son can
spy upon Pell£asand M61isande in the tower room. A|
1 Schurd stresses as a weakness in Maeterlinck’s theatre this lack of will
power on the part of the hero. “S’il est quelqu’un, nous voulons qu’il
soit libre; et s’ll est libre, nous voulons qu’il se mesure avec la destinde.
La volontd est le nerf du drame . . . " 48
feeling of foreboding grips the lad, as he senses Golaud’s
ealousy beneath an affectionate demeanor. Maeterlinck
here cleverly creates dramatic suspense, with the audience
eager to hear an account of what is happening beyond its
vision.68 A t the premiere of PelUas, excellent acting
heightened the effect of the author’s masterful technique;
the naivet^ of little Georgette Loyer contrasted with the
sober, tragic accents of Lugn£ in whose truly inspired
portrayal all suffering humanity cried out.84
In spite of much mockery on the part of some members
of the audience, the play made a deep impression. During
intermissions, before thoroughly Parisian, sophisticated
conversations had the chance to get started, Rett£ sur
prised on several faces the expression of rapt wonder
which brings light into eyes that have just seen Beauty.68
Much adverse as well as favorable criticism was pub
lished. One of the most interesting reviews is that of
Francisque Sarcey, who roared against the whole absurd
affair.58Who could be interested in a heroine who would
not tell where she came from, did not know where she
was going, and who repeated *everything three times?
Yet his long, biting analysis reveals that he understood
Maeterlinck’s aims far better than he cared to admit
openly. In spite of his unfavorable opinion, he devoted
a whole article to the play. Lugn£ and his friends had the
satisfaction of knowing that their enterprise was suffi
ciently important to require extensive criticism.
Some critics were frankly bewildered, though for the
most part they adopted an air of insouciance to conceal
their failure to understand. Some viewed the work objec
tively, believing they recognized a similarity to Othello
when Golaud seizes M£lisande by the hair, and to Romeo
and Juliet in the tower scene.67 True lovers of art ex
pressed enthusiastic gratitude for the performance,88atl(,
the critics in this group were eloquent in their praiSe
Rett£ conformed to Maeterlinck’s own poetic style when
he answered those who complained of obscurities: “s’jj
s’y trouve, 9a et 1&, quelque nuit, c’est une nuit ruisselante
d’&oiles.” “
Le Mercure de France published a letter by Camille de
Sainte-Croix addressed to the woefully abused Tola
Dorian, in which Sainte-Croix indignantly declared that
almost in violation of her wishes, and with her funds
“l’oeuvre inferieure d’un agr&ble £crivain beige” had
been produced instead of Axel.80 Most people, however,
gave credit where it was due: to Lugn£-Poe and his as
sociates.
The actors who had participated in the performance,
together with Mauclair, Malaquin, and a few others,
gathered at the Cafe Gutenberg to discuss the reviews
and especially to celebrate their achievement. "Le souper
de Pelliasf>was a great success. But the pooled resources
of the actors were not sufficient to pay the check, so their
faithful friend Malaquin obliged by supplying the deficit
of thirty francs.
Very substantial approval came to the group a few
days later in the form of a request by Alhaiza, director of
the Theatre du Parc in Brussels, inviting them to repeat
their performance at his theatre.® 1 The Belgian public
greeted the work enthusiastically. Surprisingly enough,
the trip to Belgium was a financial success; that, is, ex
penses were just covered.
Lugn£ was jubilant over the result in both Paris and
Brussels. Far from being discouraged by opposition, he
realized that the lively reaction proved the originality
and value of his undertaking and that tjtie first work which
B IR T H U t T H E O EU VR E lyj,
. alone had staged and directed had caused a genuine

. jn theatrical and literary circles.
StgaCk from Brussels, penniless, Lugn£ could not bear
the thought of giving up his work as director. When he
conSUlted with his comrades, as impoverished as himself,
all agreed that PelUas et Mtlisande marked the creation
of the theatrical group they wished to perpetuate for they
were determined to hunt for a great French masterpiece
0f the contemporary French theatre. Lugn£ as leader
found warm support in Vuillard and Mauclair, while
jâlaquin sometimes joined in their discussions.
The first organization meetings of the still nameless
theatre were h e ld in the Cafe Gutenberg. One evening,
upon the invitation of Marie Aubry, who had acted
Pell&s, the group went to her home for supper. As the
talk turned to the choice of a suitable name for the
theatre, V u illa rd o p e n e d a book at random and, seeing
the word oeuvre, exclaimed that their theatre would be
called the “Th&ltre de 1*Oeuvre.” 62
Although Lugn£’s aspirations were thus becoming more
tangible, he still did not confine his interest entirely to the
formation of plans which seemed to him of paramount
significance, for on June 14, 1893, he again supported
Dujardin’s Symbolist endeavor by playing the male lead
in La Fin d’Antonia, Many elegant Parisians filled the
Theatre du Vaudeville, while others stormed the ticket
office to have their invitations honored. Dujardin was
severely criticized for inviting more than the theatre
could accommodate.
Of those who were admitted, few paid the respectful
attention that the author desired. Although some scenes
seem to have created a profound impression, others pro
voked general laughter.* In this third play of the trilogy
Antonia wishes to renounce earthly pleasures in her
aspiration for divine life but finally, recognizing the
force of nature, she assumes the role of mother.
While many people failed to appreciate Dujardin'*
efforts, the performances of his plays were o f importance
in the history of Symbolism.84 Probably more than any
other Wagner enthusiast, Dujardin had managed to trans
pose into the literary field the technique o f the German
composer, as, for example, by the recurrence o f motif*
based on consonant or vowel sounds. In the production
of La Fin <TAntonia, he adopted even the effective light
ing used only at Bayreuth, the hall in complete darkness
and all light concentrated on the stage.88
In spite of hopeful aspirations, a certain discouragement
marked this period. It was disheartening, for example,
to see that even the lavishly produced work o f a well-
known writer should be unappreciated by many. An
underlying pessimism arose in ambitious writers who
failed to find adequate expression for their ideals. Yet this
sense of frustration did not cause resignation, because
their aspirations seemed to them too noble to be easily
abandoned. It was this note of optimism that triumphed
and that filled Lugn^-Poe with the burning desire to
make another attempt to renew the theatre’s vitality.' Co
operation between author and director would be benefi
cial to both and would serve to enrich the theatre as well.
Memories of the performance of Ibsen’s plays at the
Thâtre-Libre and especially of his own participation in
the production of The Lady from the Sea encouraged him
to consider also the value of foreign works.
Lugn£ cherished his castles in the air but his straitened
circumstances kept him in close contact with reality. His
most imminent problejn was .to get through the, summer
B IR T H OF THE OEUVRE 109
without money. Hence, he was deeply grateful to receive

invitation from the family of a friend, Paul Clerget, to
visit them near Fontainebleau.*® Paul Clerget had been
one of the group at the Conservatoire, and it was Lugne
wf!0 introduced him to the T h 6atre-Libre.97‘
The stay with the Clergets proved extremely valuable
to Lugne, for Mallarm£’s home was close by at Valvins
and the young man enjoyed the precious privilege of
having inspiring, casual conversations with the famous
poet, revered as a leader by Symbolist poets. In his study
overlooking the Seine, or walking on the river’s bank,
Mallarm£ loved to talk of the theatre. He even voiced the
very original dream of an open-air theatre with the play
enacted on the river or in a nearby field, and the spec
tators seated on a kind of barge. His unusual ideas em
boldened Lugn£ in the crystallization of plans for the
new theatre so recently created and named. Lugn£’s
spirits were further fortified by enjoyable hours of bi
cycling and by conversations with such delightful friends
as the artist Anquetin and the writers Paul and Victor
Margueritte, who were staying at Montigny.
When his visit with the Clerget family ended, Lugn£
was strengthened to face the trying days ahead and he
had a better perspective of the enterprise on which he was
embarking. With a capital of forty borrowed francs and
a wealth o f true friendships, he forged ahead. The nucleus
formed by Lugn£, Vuillard, and Mauclair was enlarged
by a bank employee named Gros, and by the diminutive
Adolphe van Bever, a devoted comrade, interested in
books and the theatre, and living from hand to mouth.
They established headquarters at 21, rue Roche-
* Clerget acqu ired som e prestige as an actor and excelled in a panto
mime, La Statue du commandeur, at the Cercle Funambulesque.8* In
1928 he becam e director o f the Olym pia in Brussels.*9
' no ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
chouart, in a tiny room, built under the rounded arch of
the carriage entrance.” Two chairs and a table filled the
cramped quarters. Lugn6 has noted in his memoirs that
if anyone wished to slip into his overcoat, he had to open
either the window or door in order to get his arms into
the sleeves.
Despite the limited space, great plans were discussed
there, and circulars were prepared announcing the pur
pose of the Th&itre de l’Oeuvre. The new venture would
seek primarily to stimulate thoughts, while all artistic
works of merit, whether or not in the line of theatrical
tradition, would be considered.71 Magazines like La Plume
and L’Ermitage published a letter by Lugn£-Poe, em
phatically stating the- theatre’s aims, the greatest being
“de faire du th&itre, de quelque fagon que ce soit, OEU
VRE D’ART ou, tout au moins, de remuer des iddes” 72
Much emphasis would be placed on synthesized produc
tions of poetic fantasies, combining music, dancing,
pantomime, and other scenic effects. Finances permitting,
the enterprise would be a theatre of fantasy and dream.”
While Lugn£ and his friends kept possible Symbolist
works in mind, they were prepared to look beyond the
limits of any one literary movement.
Jacques des Gachons, drama critic of L’Ermitage, prom
ised full support to Lugn£, the most skillful of the
organizers of artistic productions,74 through whose initia
tive he hoped for salvation of the theatre. Le M ercure de
France invited Mauclair to explain the theatre’s plans
with a letter. In the letter he reiterated the importance
of a theatre of ideas and of art,78 and promised the pro
duction of works of beauty without regard to nationality
or era, ending his letter in these terms;
“ Nous nous manifestons selon notre strict droit d’ar-
B IRTH OF THE OEUVRE 111
jstes sous ce simple titre: TOeuvre.' Nous la r£v£lons,
uelle qu’elle soit, cette £ternelle Attendue, parce que,
sans phrases, nous voyons 1k une fagon de devoir, et que
c’est encore une de nos meilleures raisons, mon cher
Vallette, de nous intfresser k vivre.” 79
Lugn£, Mauclair, and their friends prepared more than
two hundred and fifty circulars expressing these ideas,
but since the cost of postage assumed large proportions
in relation to their limited funds, the young people de
livered many of them in person as Antoine had done. It
was unpleasant to brave disagreeable concierges, and
notices presented in such fashion did not carry the pres
tige of those that were mailed. Yet they could not afford
to neglect any possible means of approach. Each one
solicited the subscriptions of those he knew, proceeding
then to likely prospects of whom he had heard. The en
couraging notices of newspapers and avant-garde maga
zines brought much publicity to the group.
In their effort to finance the enterprise, the friends
borrowed a few francs here and there and augmented the
meager sum with any employment they could find. One
Sunday, for example, Lugn6 went all the way to Enghien
to act at the casino.
It was a grave moment when the first subscriber
knocked timidly at the door of the office in the rue
Rochechouart. A certain Pochet, manufacturer of phar
macists’ bottles, had the honor of being this courageous
person. His interest and support were to prove as endur
ing as they were prompt. A flurry of excitement stirred the
friends upon his entrance, though they tried to appear
nonchalant as Lugn6 improvised a receipt. Among the
subscribers who soon followed were Georges Ohnet, Vic-
torien Sardou, Emile Zola, Puvis de Chavannes, Jean-
H2 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
Paul Laurens, and M. and Mme Curie.” Vuillard, Denis

Sirusier, and Bonnard were particularly instrumental in
gaining the backing of artists because their intimacy with
Lugne promised innovations in stage setting."
Feverish with the excitement of establishing his own
theatre, Lugne felt his heart sink upon receiving, in
September, a reminder that he was eligible for two years’
more military service. Towards the end of the month he
ran across the royalist leader Leon Daudet, who relieved
the young man’s mind somewhat by promising to inter
cede for his deferment.” Daudet recognized Lugne’s dra
matic flair and wanted to see him continue in his chosen
work.
While hoping that Daudet could help him, Lugne
dared not rely on an uncertain possibility of exemption,
and pushed plans rapidly. It was decided to concentrate
upon foreign masterpieces for the first season, opening as
early as possible in October with Count Prozor’s trans
lation of Ibsen’s Rosmersholm (Rosmersholm), of which
favorable book reviews had appeared after its publication
in French, with The Wild Duck, in 1891. France had
already witnessed the production of Ghosts and The Wild
Duck at the Theatre-Libre,1 of Hedda Gabler (Hedda
Gabler) at the Vaudeville;" a limited group had attended
a private performance of A Doll's House, and Lugne
with the Escholiers had given The Lady from the Sea.9
The genius of the great Norwegian playwright had pro
voked so much discussion over his other works that the
selection of Rosmersholm kindled impatient interest “
and seemed to augur well for the daring group.
*See page 49.
"The performance of Hedda Gabler, on December 17,1891, was poor,
for Mile Brandis, in the title role, confessed that she did not understand
the play.
To forestall some of the preconceived incomprehen
sion of foreign plays, the friends agreed it would be wise
to follow the current mode of having a lecture precede
each performance, so that the speaker could prepare the
audience for what was to come by giving some notion of
the customs and way of thinking of the other country.81
Leopold Lacour was invited to deliver the talk for the
opening performance. His interest in the theatre was
proved by his reputation as a discerning dramatic critic
who had also tried his hand at writing a play—collabo
rating with Decourcelle on Mensonges, adapted from
Bourget, and produced in August, 1889, at the Vaude
ville “ —while, as a lecturer, he had gained a devoted fol
lowing through brilliant oratory and advanced feminist
views.83
The selection of Ibsen’s play distressed the critics who
immediately feared an invasion by foreign literatures; 84
others reluctantly sanctioned the interest in works of other
lands as long as such interest did not degenerate into a
mania.88 Though Lugn£ did wish to make Ibsen appre
ciated in France, his intention was not to renounce the
national theatre but to give French writers an opportu
nity to learn what was being done elsewhere.88 Vallette
complimented the Oeuvre on its choice of an outstand
ing masterpiece, the production of which would allow
French writers to gain confidence and to work into plays
the sketches which the formula of the Th£atre-Libre had
discouraged them from carrying out.87 He predicted a
full life for the fledgling venture, pointing out “la nette
vision du mouvement litt&raire, un plan, 1’esprit de suite,
l’autorit6, 1’experience de la sc&ne et jusqu’aux facult£s
administratives” of its leaders.88 Like the Th£atre-Libre,
the new theatre in its courage and intelligence, was far
114 adventure in the t h e a t r e
from the spirit o f the Conservatoire; b u t V a llette recog.
nized in the Oeuvre’s plan a wider horizon than that of
the Th&ttre-Libre, which was linked, he felt, to a dying
art.*4
As the group started rehearsing, they d iscov ered that
they needed more space than co u ld b e o b ta in e d at 21,
rue Rochechouart, so they rented a stu d io at 23, rue
Turgot, an address long to be conn ected w ith the O eu vre.
A spiral staircase led from the cou rt to the high -ceilin g ed ,
drab, smelly room. T h e young p eople soon transform ed
the quarters with posters, notices o f p rev iou s trium phs
at the T h& tre d’Art, and old hangings.
Next the group must find a theatre. Lugn^-Poe’s rep
utation, so closely associated with the stir over Pelldas et
Mtlisande, was sufficient in itself to bring refusal from
the managers of conservative theatres. Eventually shelter
was found at the Theatre des Bouffes-du-Nord, near the
Gare du Nord, on the Boulevard de la Chapelle, the only
theatre willing to welcome the Oeuvre.90It was impossible
to heat the building—the director wore his galoshes in his
office to keep his feet warm, and Lugnd suspected that
the furnace, supposed to heat the building, was only
painted, like a stage prop.91 Moreover, the whistles and
rumble of trains in the nearby station were plainly
audible.
The director of the theatre, Abel Ballet, formerly an
actor, extended a welcome to young people, students of
the Conservatoire or others.92 He often showed more in
telligence in the choice of plays and in direction than
better known directors of important theatres.98 On this
stage, where many an aspiring actor had had the chance to
try himself before a neighborhood audience, the Theatre
de l’Oeuvre would inaugurate its policy of making the
french better appreciate Ibsen.
Under Vuillard’s direction, S^rusier, Bonnard, and
Ranson started transforming old sets, which were the
best that they could afford. T h e workshop provided at
the theatre was an uncovered space, swept by the four
winds. From seven or eight o ’clock in the morning, the
faithful artists, often obliged to work on the cold, dirt
floor, risked their health. T h e sight of their discomfort
and loyalty stimulated the actors to continue their own
efforts.
Mme Louise France, who had been under Lugn£’s
direction in Pelleas, now showed her faith in him by
accepting the part o f Mrs. Helseth. Berthe Bady, blonde,
with large brown eyes, a newcomer to the group, was cast
in the role of Rebecca West, opposite Lugne as Rosmer.
She had been a pianist in Brussels but had yielded to her
passion for the theatre and gone to Paris as a more likely
city in which to make her name .84De Max, now associated
with the Od£on, was persuaded to play JBrendel.*
Rehearsals were well under way by the middle of
September with the dress rehearsal scheduled for October
6 and the premiere for October 8. October 6 loomed as
the great date, for the critics were expected en masse
and the dress rehearsal would have the prestige of a
premiere.
A new, exciting personality joined the group only a
•The complete cast follow s:
R ebecca W est Mmes Bady
Mrs. Helseth France
Johannes R osm er Lugn^-Poe
Rector K roll Jen£ris
U lricB re n d e l I>e Max
_ Peter M ortensgaard Charney
week or ten days before the performance, when towards

the end of September Lugn£ received a letter from CoUnt
Prozor, in which the translator recommended Herman
Bang, a man whom Ibsen admired, to assist in directing.1*
Bang, a slight, delicate descendant o f the old Danish
nobility, had inherited little money and high-strung
nerves, and had received the superficial training of a
spoiled child. "Une b&te de luxe,” he had characterized
himself.94 Faced with the necessity of earning his living,
Bang had turned to journalism and had quickly won a
noteworthy reputation for his novels, short stories, poems,
and plays as well as for his critical studies.87 As he de
veloped an impressionistic, passionate, nervous style, he
found a warm admirer in Ibsen.98 Bang was also known
as an actor and theatrical director, in which capacity he
now gained new prestige among Scandinavian-loving Pa
risians, as he advised and guided Lugn£ and his friends.
Work with Bang was an inspiration. The little man
seemed almost lifeless until he sprang into action, direct
ing with all the ardor of his passionate soul.99 One no
longer considered his Danish accent nor noticed whether
he spoke in French or his native tongue; all adored and re
spected him, grasping his meaning intuitively. Berthe
Bady in particular listened to his instructions with piety
as he insisted to one of the group, "Sois vrail . . . pro-
fond! donne-toi . . . pense . . . et . . . sors tout ce que
tu asl” 100 Indeed, she accepted from Bang what only
irritated her from Lugn£. Lugn£-Poe has related that
one day as he and the actress walked through the street
together, Berthe, annoyed at her comrade’s suggestions®
threw her copy of Ibsen in his face and disappeared into
a pastry shop, from which she emerged, a few moments
later, still sputtering, her nose and mouth smeared with
Eclair. It required the firmness of Bang to manage
0ffee
f f and she accepted reverently from him the same ad-
^ that LugnS had offered.101
In spite of disagreements and discomforts, the young
people worked assiduously, and the Theatre de l’Oeuvre
Wasat last on the way to an assured existence. Lugn<§-Poe’s
inspiring zeal, combined with the devotion o f his friends,
showed promise of producing something worthy o f their
I hopes.
IUIIIIUIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIHII
VII: Vicissitudes of the First
1 HE EVEN IN G of October 6, 1893, a heavy rain beat

down upon Paris, seeming to increase the distance to the
remote theatre of the Bouffes-du-Nord. But anticipation
of attending France’s first performance o f Rosmersholm
overcame the discomfort of Ibsen devotees who were
obliged to wait for streetcars. More fortunate were those
who, in the security of a fiacre, could escape the wind-
whipped rain. The rhythmic beat of the horses’ hoofs
lulled one into a sense of unreality, of detachment from
the bustle of Parisian life. This gradual transition in
duced meditation and prepared entrance into a world
enveloped in mist, permeated with the haunting melan
choly of Ibsen’s characters.1
The dismal weather discouraged the attendance of
mere snobs, whereas true artists and lovers of the ideal
gathered in the barn-like theatre. Although some critics
regretted that Paul Alexis’ La Provinciale attracted many
to the Theatre du Vaudeville, on the same evening,* it is
questionable whether the Oeuvre would have recruited
VICISSITUDES O F T H E FIRST SEASON 119
many spectators from such an elegant audience, certainly
none who would feel deep interest in the new undertak
ing- The Bouffes-du-Nord accommodated one thousand
ople for this the first literary event of the season.8
Upon arriving, the audience was pleased with the evi
dence of Vuillard’s collaboration on the production, for
in addition to supervising the artistic part of the work,
the painter had made a lithograph for the program. The
prospect of a talk by Lacour further disposed the public
in favor of the new venture. Lacour, in fact, delighted
his listeners by speaking in a polished manner without
referring to notes. Nor did he repeat euphonious, pre
fabricated sentences.
The curtain rose upon Rosmersholm in an atmosphere
of eager expectation. As the play progressed, a number of
young people displayed considerable enthusiasm, for they
adored “les £nigmes th£atrales du vieil Ibsen” 4 and easily
accepted the gloom which enveloped the stage, apparently
the necessary physical counterpart- of the moral gloom.
Ibsen’s powerful play did not, however, arouse the same
reverent attention in Claveau of L e Soleil, who felt like a
well-bred atheist at Mass.6 Another critic, Adolphe Bris-
son, estimated that of the thousand spectators, about one
hundred took the trouble to penetrate the beauties of the
work; about half the number, without understanding it,
pretended to be lost in admiration; the others yawned
openly. He declared that all, or nearly all, murmured,
“Cela est tres fort, mais cela est tres ennuyeux.” 8
To the less discerning people in the audience the play
seemed little more than another aspect of the banal and
tragic relationship between two women and a man. It is
surprising that those in the audience whose interest did
not penetrate beneath the surface could accept the action
of the drama unquestioningly, finding o n ly a certain odd-
ness in the character o f Rebecca W est .7
The play held far more meaning for those w h o r e a liz e
that Ibsen attacked the problem where oth er writers left
it, for with the wife’s death, nothing should interfere with
the happiness of Rebecca and Rosm er. Y et w h en R ebecca
guided by the force o f nature, is about to attain her goal
of personal happiness, she succumbs to the influence of
Rosmersholm and losds the conviction o f h er right to
happiness. Rosmer, on the other hand, relaxes u n der the
influence of Rebecca’s companionship, on ly to fin d that
he cannot shake off completely the prejudices o f tradi
tion. It is a strange scene o f passion in w h ich R ebecca
confesses her share in Beata’s suicide, revealing her sense
o f guilt and shattering Rosmer’s energy through the re
morse he now feels over the crime com m itted by another
in his behalf. The problem o f purity o f conscience thus
dominates the drama, as both R ebecca and Rosm er,
gripped by the implacable hereditary spirit o f Rosm ers
holm, which has conquered the force o f nature, realize
that happiness will always be denied them. W ith puri
tanical or Jansenist austerity, Ibsen rejects all com p ro
mise and refuses any acknowledgment o f degrees o f vir
tue. Rosmer and Rebecca have but one course— to die.®
It is no wonder that the unusual theme seemed obscure
to members o f the audience accustomed to ju d g in g a play
by its outward ‘merits o f plot and staging, for a drama
based on a profound idea requires more than the casual
attention one bestows upon a vaudeville.® A d o lp h e Bris-
son advised the bewildered to read the play slow ly and
attentively.10
W hile Brisson congratulated Lugn£-Poe and his friends
their disinterested efforts in offering a masterpiece
U^jbsen, he hastened to indicate the incompatibility of
French character with the Scandinavian:
^ ‘les drames d’Ibsen exhalent une noire m^lancolie;
sont noy& de brouillard et de myst&re. Aucun rayon
1 les illumine, si ce n’est un rayon de ce soleil de minuit
dont la pale clart£ est impuissante & r&hauffer les
fiords de la Norw£ge. Et ceci nous explique pourquoi les
frames d’Ibsen ne captiveront jamais les bourgeois de
France, qui ch^rissent la gaiet£ et le bon vin.” n
The critic Piferre Valin, writing in L ’Ermitage, while
jess vehement than Brisson, declared that the public did
not feel completely at home with characters from a for
eign land, and used the objection as a lever to further the
cause of French writers whose works remained unper
formed. His challenge was a stirring call to the cause of
Idealist French playwrights.12
Marcel Bailliot, who represented the friendly Plume,
nevertheless had attended the performance with appre
hension. W ou ld the new theatre ape the Thâtre-Libre?
or would it offer an indiscriminate outlet for mystic,
Symbolist, and Idealist plays? He was most agreeably sur
prised by the wise choice of an Ibsen play new to the
French theatre, heavy with philosophical and psychologi
cal meanings yet remarkably clear.18
While Sarcey groped his way, as he would have us be
lieve, through the fogs of the North, most critics joined
in praising the courage which prompted real artists to
devote themselves to a prodigious task. Alfred Vallette
pointed out the absurdity of wondering why such an out
standing play was not produced at one of the regular
theatres, for, as he explained, a celebrated actor would
122 ADVENTURE IN THE'THEATRE
scarcely wish to submerge himself in favor of a text which
no single person could dominate. Some playwrights, hav
ing openly expressed themselves, boast that a certain
actor completes their thought, but in the case of Ibsen,
the word and gesture do not constitute the drama; th|yj
are only the open-sesame to a superior world, that of
ideas.14 Vallette accorded highest praise to Lugnd-Poe
who possessed remarkable lucidity in such matters, and
who was skillful enough to convey to his comrades his
own subtle understanding.15
With souls attuned to Ibsen’s genius, Lugn£ and Berthe
Bady led the performance, which stirred the audience
and proved the effect of intelligent and artistic interpre
tation of the author’s meaning.1®
“ Ce n’est pas un enthousiasme de jeunes? neophytes
qui a accueilli Rosmersholm; c’est celui de toute une
salle composê aussi bien de flaneurs et de n^gociants du
quartier que de journalistes et de gens de lettres de toutes
espbces.”^0iiJ
There was no doubt that the Theatre de 1’O euvre was
definitely and triumphantly founded .18 T h e conservative
critics whom Ibsen’s ideas bewildered hoped that the
Norwegian writer had run his course in France with
Ghosts, The Wild Duck, Hedda Gabler, A Doll’s House,
and now Rosmersholm. The prophetic cry o f M arcel
Bailliot must have horrified them: “ Ah! pauvres cretins
de critiques influents, vous croyez £tre debarrasses d ’Ib
sen. Le voili plus fort que jamais.” 19
After the dress rehearsal and two regular perform ance s !!
in Paris, the success o f Rosmersholm was repeated about
two weeks later in Brussels. T he enthusiasm o f the au di
ence manifested itself as soon as the curtain fell o n the
first act.20A ll agreed that the Norwegian master m ade o n e s
VICISSITUDES OF THE FIRST SEASON l6a
• k as he brought into play not mere individuals but
1 * osing philosophies and two different worlds.
° Warmly encouraged by the reception of Ibsen’s mag-
•ficent drama, and fearful as usual lest a call to military
°rvice interrupt his activities, Lugn£ wasted no time in
reparing an even more provocative work of the great
Writer, An Enemy of the People.
The Lady from the Sea and Rosmersholm had appealed
primarily to the Symbolists, but with An Enemy of the
People Lugn£ recognized the interests of another group,
the anarchists. Constant fomentation and anarchist out
bursts marked the political scene of the early 1890’s,21
and it was the style for liberal-minded young people—
writers, artists, and students—to support the political agi
tators. The tempting prospect of casting off restraining
rules, whether in the arts or in government, appealed to
them. And they, the elite, considered it their privilege to
bait their inferiors, the substantial, law-abiding, colorless
bourgeois. In Ibsen’s play they found Dr. Stockmann’s
battle to reveal the truth an excellent illustration of the
imbecility of the masses.
The ideal speaker to introduce the drama was Laurent
Tailhade, a “literary anarchist,” 22 who at one time de
lighted in distinguishing himself from ordinary people by
wearing a voluminous black, scarlet-lined cape, who was
well-read, a brilliant lecturer, and a clever, fearless
writer.23 In his biting poems, Au pays du mufle, pub
lished in 1891, he had, indeed, spared almost none of his
contemporaries.
Lugn£-Poe realized the necessity of making as forceful
as possible the climax of Dr. Stockmann’s struggle with
his fellow citizens, which occurs in the fourth act when,
to the detriment of the community’s material welfare,
Stockmann declares that the waters o f the spa are Un.
healthful, and for speaking the tru th h e is c o n d e m n e d
Lugnd followed A ntoine’s in n ov a tion b y u s in g a real
crowd for the mob scene, m ustering a h u n d r e d o r more
interested young writers, artists, and others, w h o vied for
the privilege of being enlisted as extras, b o t h to assure
free entrance to the season's p erform an ces a n d to give
voice to the anarchist ideas w hich, ev en to I b s e n ’s sur-
prise, they discovered in his play .24 W it h m ilita n t an.
archists and their milder com panions in th e g r o u p , the
rehearsals of the fourth act caused so m u ch ex cite m e n t in
the rue Turgot that the police captain o f th e precinct
took the precautionary measure o f station in g p olicem en
at the door .*5The young men rehearsed fr o m e ig h t in the
evening till after midnight, their cries an d exclam ation s
disturbing the neighborhood. T h eir sin cerity, how ever,
disarmed the humble neighbors, w h o c o u ld sym pathize
with some mockery o f established custom s, a n d w ho
looked upon the young people as apostles, a lth o u g h it
was extremely upsetting to have the extras c o n t in u e their
noisy manifestations in the street w hen the g ath erin g
broke up late at night.
A few o f the closest friends would lin ger w ith L u gn £
in the studio, the walls o f which sweated fr o m th e over
heated, bad air. Most faithful was the lanky, en ig m a tic
Deblfcve, who years before had lost an eye in an a ccid en t
backstage at Li£ge. His stage name was M a u rice C he
valier, but his comrades nicknamed him the “ G en eral.'’! !
W ith the gas turned off to save expense, they listen ed to
the “ General” repeat the lines he had read in m in o r roles
at the Com£die-Fran$aise, as he relived days w h ose g lo ry
his forlorn state w ou ld never permit him to k n o w ag ain ;
F or the production in preparation, the role o f th e d r u n k
VICISSITUDES O F T H E F IR S T S E a zlh *
con fid ed to the proud Debl&ve, to him who could

r afford anything but water/
Sparing this period Lugn£ worried over the number of
tras who might be arrested and whether he would be
tfninoned to the army before the production of the play.
Camille Mauclair, Lugn£’s right-hand man, often took
picked delight in letting the others believe that the po
li c e were on his trail, to arrest him the next day.” Laurent
Tailhade, fearful that Lugn£ might be called away, early

0n the day o f the dress rehearsal wrote him a note of ap
preciation for the privilege of delivering the lecture on
An Enemy o f the P eo p le ”
A turbulent audience filled the Bouffes-du-Nord on
the evening of the dress rehearsal, November 8.* Enemies
of Tailhade distributed a scurrilous pamphlet, reputed
to have been written by him, and which had been sent to
the newspapers. L e Journal, pretending to believe it
authentic, had published it.29 Since word had spread that
the program would be lively, one third of the house was
filled with uncomprehending boulevardiers, incapable of
appreciating the courage of the distinguished poet-lec-
turer.80 The audience also contained many of those at
tacked in Au pays du mu fie} whose resentment still flamed
and whose presence assured Tailhade of the hostility of a
large portion of the audience.
.Nevertheless, Tailhade addressed his listeners with his
"Lugnd had deep affection fo r this d evoted friend o f the Oeuvre. He
relates that after the p erform an ce C hevalier spurned the remuneration of
ten francs, saying, “ Je n e m e fais payer qu 'k la Com£die-Fran$aise 06 j ’ai
dnq^ francs.” H e atten ded the rehearsals o f all plays, w hether participat
ing in them o r n ot. T o o reserved and p ro u d to accept assistance, he died
soon after losing his clerk's p osition because o f faulty vision. W hen the
Oeuvre acquired its ow n theatre, in the ru e de C lichy, in 1920, Lugn£-
Poe placed the fa ith fu l Chevalier first o n the h o n o r roll o f those w ho had
died in service.2®
*Some references give N ovem ber 9 fo r the rehearsal; N ovem ber 10 and
11 appear as dates o f the op ening.
customary satirical air. Scarcely had he started when a
number of slips of paper floated from the gallery into the
orchestra.’1 Those who picked them up promptly bel-
lowed the insults against Tailhade scribbled upon them
His friends, the elite who joined him in admiration of
the still unperformed play, reciprocated with outrageous
shrieks of rage at Tailhade’s slanderers. Part of the audi
ence encouraged the interruption; others applauded the
lecturer. Lugn^-Poe stepped to the footlights in a vain
effort to ask the agitators to leave.82
As the turmoil increased, the disturbers crumpled the
bits of paper into spitballs with which they pelted Tail
hade. He, superb aristocrat, waited, arms crossed, un
flinching and arrogant.88From the depths of a loge, one
rowdy began to bray in such overpowering tones as to
make the outcries of the combatants seem like the tremolo
of a languorous mandolin and the sighs of a flute.84 For
nearly a half hour the riotous demonstration continued,
while Tailhade scornfully waited for the hubbub to wear
itself out. He then continued as though nothing had oc
curred, even lashing- universal suffrage without inter
ference.
Restlessness reigned when the play finally got under
way. At the slightest provocation the supporters of the
play applauded and cheered. Excitement reached the
highest pitch in the much rehearsed fourth act, when
the enthusiastic extras crowded the stage to yell impreca
tions at the noble idealist, Dr. Stockmann. Mauclair, per
spiring under a cloak and fur hat, which he felt sure
made him look very Norwegian, directed the boisterous
mob,88 as Lugn£ acted superbly the simple yet difficult
role of Stockmann. When Lugn6 shot out the words
which sum up the spirit of the play, "La majority n’a
VICISSITUDES O F T H E F IR S T S E ASO N 127
is raison. Jamais, vous dis-jel” bedlam again broke
j3 “Non!” roared one faction. "Si!” shrieked the
upt And the insidious cry of “Vive 1’anarchie!” swelled
the tumult.
fiS the curtain fell on the commotion, with the police
utside striving to arrest anarchist suspects, official word
r e a c h e d Lugn£ that he had been liberated that morning
from military service. L£on Daudet’s efforts had ironi
cally borne results just at the moment when Lugn^’s
theatre was stamped as anarchist in the eyes .of the au
thorities. A few hours later, the exemption would not
have been granted.87 What a strange climax to the historic
evening!
Mingled emotions stirred the critics, most of whom
responded to the drama’s grandiose simplicity, which did
not admit one trace of obscurity.88 As for the demonstra
tion over Ibsen’s ideas, Jules Bois observed that Ibsen is
revolutionary only in his desire to give authority to an
intellectual elite, and the young people seized upon the
term and named themselves his agents in promulgating
the idea.88 To the objection of Teodor de Wyzewa, the
Polish critic and translator, who disapproved of Ibsen’s
direct style insofar as one can judge style in a translation,
Alfred Vallette retorted that French writers, like Dumas,
would have encumbered the thought with verbiage. Du-
mas would have expanded the third act alone into five
acts, with the result that one would retain an impression
of some clever dialogue, whereas in Ibsen’s drama, every
thing counts. Even Wyzewa admitted that one leaves
Ibsen’s play with the conviction of having witnessed a
great work.40 The palpitating accuracy of the characters,
' In her study o f Scandinavian writers in France, A. Dikka R eque re
lates that Auguste Vaillant, w ho threw a bom b in the Chamber o f Depu
ties, at his trial named Ibsen as one o f those w ho had inspired him.8®
,128 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
the applicability to everyday life o f Dr. Stockmann’s
tragic endeavor to be honest, the dramatic power of such
scenes as that in which Mrs. Stockmann,* seeing her hus
band deserted and alone, announces with simple courage
"Je suis avec toi, ThomasI” —all these elements combined
to win enthusiastic praise for the work. An undeniable
masterpiece, Jean Jullien called it.42
Financial exigencies prompted a trip to Brussels, where
equally boisterous enthusiasm greeted An Enemy of the
People>but where the police made several arrests.48
Lugnd was eager to return to Paris, for he had decided
upon the next production, Ames solitaires by Gerhart
Hauptmann, a frank admirer of Ibsen, who was the ac
knowledged leader of the young German writers. ?His
splendid drama Les Tisserands had been acclaimed at the
Thdatre-Libre, and while Ames solitaires certainly lacked
the greatness of the play chosen by Antoine ,44it was some
what akin to Rosmersholm. It was a tragedy o f passion, of
the mental incompatibility between a philosopher and
his wife, of the inevitable attraction of the husband to a
young girl with similar interests; it was a drama o f despair
as the simple, loving wife saw her husband turn away and
commit suicide when he realized how dependent he had
become upon the woman who could satisfy his intellec
tual needs.
Stirring though the problem was, it seemed removed
from political significance. Trouble was brewing, how
ever, because of the Dutch translator, Alexandre Cohen,
often suspected of anarchist leanings. The police were
especially anxious to get rid of foreign radicals, and the
morning of the dress rehearsal, December IS, Cohen was
imprisoned and the production of the play prohibit*®*
‘ Rende de Pontry, Sacha Guitry’* mother, played Mrs. Stockmann.** .
VICISSITUDES OF TH E FIRST SEASON 129
By Dunoyer de Segonzac from La Revue de l'Oeuvre, July

; 1912 :
In vain the translator protested that he had not at

tended a public meeting since his arrival in France,
twenty months before. As for the supposedly anarchist,
nocturnal meetings in his room , he explained that with
the performance o f the play im m inent and the pamphlet
about the play incomplete, one o f his friends visited him
four or five evenings in succession to help read the
proofs,45
Lugn^ rushed to police headquarters in the hope of
gaining permission to hold the dress rehearsal at least,
scheduled for one o ’c lo c k . that afternoon. H e argued
against the authorities’ fear that Cohen’s connection with
the play might serve as a pretext for an anarchist demon
stration; the interests o f art held no appeal whatever for
the police.45
Unaware of recent developments, the patrons collected
at the theatre, where a poster informed them that the
play was forbidden by order of the police. The lecturer of
the day, Georges Vanor, a poet and one of the founders
of Entretiens Polltiques et Litteraires/7 circulated among
the groups with such explanations as he could offer. For
an hour and a half the people stood in a cold, fine rain,
some indignantly inveighing against the “superior order”
which obliged them to risk their health. Finally Vanor
called out the good news, “ On joue!” and the patient
devotees entered the theatre.48
The performance started at three o ’clock. Vanor gave a
delightful lecture,49but since he knew more about Ibsen
than about Hauptmann, he dwelt at greater length upon
the merits of the Norwegian writer than upon those of
the German. The audience with one accord applauded
his delicate references to Cohen’s arrest.60.No unpleasant-.
ness marred the performance, although the authorities
maintained the interdiction against the premiere. ' |
The following week an enthusiastic audience greeted
the drama in Brussels,61 and the play served as nucleus to
a repertory for the first extensive tour of the Oeuvre com
pany.52
Lugn^-Poe’s reputation as actor, director, and impre
sario was now far-spread, though he was just embarking'
upon his stormy and courageous career.' Theatrical and;
literary circles expected much of this “ artiste passionn£
sous des dehors frigides.” 64 The roles. of Rosmer and
Stockmann presented great difficulties in their noble bold
ness, yet Lugn^, through the simplicity of his portrayals,;
performed the almost impossible feat of interpreting the
• The director of the Bouffes-du-Nord already had threatened to w ith

draw the use of his theatre if the disgraceful demonstrations co n tin u ed .8*
VICISSITUDES OF T H E FIRST SEASON 131
cters. As for the choice o f plays, he was decidedly

^fitting his aim of stirring m en’s thoughts. One marvels
courage of this young man who, without financial
^ cting, resolved to scrape funds together as best he could
as to continue producing works o f merit.
^The difficulty o f his task looms even larger when one
siders the general condition o f the theatre, which still
C°Iled forth despairing complaints. CafSs-concerts were
0nstantly gaining in popularity because, for as little as
the price of a cup o f coffee, one could be entertained
ithout any mental exertion, could enjoy chatting with
friends, and could even participate in the performance
by helping a singer whose voice failed. T h e man whose
work tied him down all day did not want to have to reach
a theatre at a set time in the evening .58 In the theatres,
commercial interest restrained managers from deviating
from the customary routine o f age-old plots and conven
tionalized gestures.58
As the critic Pierre Valin probed the problem, he came
to believe that the basic difficulty lay in the extension of
the anarchist attitude to all aspects o f life; people hated
rules whether in diversions, in ideas, in home life, or in
politics. When Lugn 6-Poe announced in his prospectus
that one of his aims was to offer productions combining
pantomime, dancing, and all possible scenic effects, Valin
thought that the young director recognized shrewdly the
interests of the public; a new genre might thus be born,
although of necessity it would betray its lowly origin .57
Unlike the majority o f his contemporaries, however,
Lugne did not consider what the public might like; his
ideals were far higher, as he sought the intrinsic dramatic
value of a literary work and aspired to the realization of
artistic dreams.
Another response to the theatre’s need o f rejuvenatio

appeared in the fall o f 1893 when the Theatre des Pofct*1
came into existence. The Thdatre-Libre could not hop
to produce adequately works o f such different spheres as
those of prose and poetry. T h e new theatre would offer
only works in verse.58 Though never rivaling the wider
scope of the valiant Oeuvre, this timely organization did
its share in broadening the theatrical horizon.
The general public was influenced especially by the
reports of Francisque Sarcey, who consistently belittled
productions of unusual character, though his criticisms
indicate that he understood their worth far better than he
cared to admit openly. When Sarcey grew older and his
sight and hearing failed, his judgments became increas
ingly unfair. Although many young people, dubbing him
oncle, adopted an attitude of humorous indulgence to
ward him, at his death in 1899, La R evue d’A rt Drama
tique published a bitter article on his pernicious in
fluence, commenting, “Avec quelle savante cruaute s’ef-
forâ-t-il de ruiner les oeuvres qui apportaient un renou-
veau de pens£e et de beaute!” 59,'
Fortunately Lugn£-Poe, undaunted by the adverse criti
cism, either ignored or scorned it; the opinion o f an elite
carried far more weight with him. His friends stood by
him, cooperating and encouraging. Mauclair proved a
r When, at the Bodinifere, Femand Vanddrem, just starting his career
as critic and novelist, heard the celebrated Sarcey speak to a group of
young girls about literature, he was amazed by the refined, tactful man
ner of the speaker. Why, then, he wondered, was Sarcey so coarse and
unjust in Le Temps'! Vand£rem, who had mistakenly attributed his atti
tude to lack of taste, was shocked to realize that even while retaining his
point of view, Sarcey could have been courteous instead of brutal. ". . .
quand il trdpignait les oeuvres que nous gofltons par-dessus toutes, quand
il nuisait gravement aux hommes, aux amis que nous aimons le mieux, il
savait ce qu’il faisait?” 60 Such a purposeful denial of new interests seemed
incredible.
ble c o n s u l t a n t , and faithfully designed many pro
ms and s e t s for t h e first season.
s f r i e n d s also were achieving fame in other spheres.
, avant-garde magazine L a R ev u e B lanche each month

t u r e d an illustration by an artist such as Vuillard,
Roussel, D e n i s , R anson, B onnard, V allotton, T oulouse-

L a u t r e c , or S£rusier— all friends o f Lugn£-Poe and the
O e u v r e .6 1 Camille M au clair’s activity usually found an

o u t l e t i n L e M ercu re de F rance, for which he was art
critic a n d in w hich his nam e figured frequently.
L u g n ^ ’ s great p reoccu p ation naturally remained the
t h e a t r e . T h e first o f the year fo u n d M aurice Carpentier
d’A°neau, o f La R e v u e d’A r t D ram atique, echoing the

a m b i t i o u s young director’s h igh h op es .8 2 1894 was to wit
n e s s t h e a p o g e e o f the T h ea tre de 1’Oeuvre.
The first three program s o f the O euvre had presented

only foreign works, and fo r the first tim e the work o f a
French author, R a ch ild e’s U A r a ig n e e de cristal, was ac
cepted for presentation on the program o f February 13,
1894. This play o f m ental m orbidity, reminiscent o f the
terror-evoking tales o f Edgar A llan P oe ,63 was based on
Rachilde’s own novel, L e D em on de Vabsurde/ Contain
ing only one act, it was to open the program, the feature
of which w ould be o f foreign origin, for Lugn£ still
looked to foreign literature for the masterpieces he did
not find in French.
Count Prozor, w ho had translated Bjornstjerne-Bjorn-
son’ s Beyond H um an P ow er, Part I (Au-dessus des forces
’ In the twilight a son explains to his mother his horror of mirrors, for,
as a child, he saw a mirror break before his eyes and has never rid him
self of the impression of the spider-like cracks. As the son crosses the
room for a lamp, the reflection of the moon shining on a mirror recalls
the horrible crystal spider. Relentlessly attracted by the fascinating vision,
he dashes his head against the mirror.64
humaines, l k" partie), drew Lugn^-Poe’s attention to th‘
intensely mystical drama o f the North. Paris knew on/*
* one of Bjornson’s plays, A Bankruptcy (Une Faillite)>pe/
formed at the Thâtre-Libre on November 8, 1893. j t
presented a translation of French ideas, whereas Beyond
Human Power bore the mark of the Northern spirit and
permitted a better judgment o f Bjornson’s ability.® jf
Lugn^-Poe chose it, France would have the honor of the
second performance; written in 1883, it had been pro
duced but once, on January 2, 1886, in Stockholm .86 *
Friends advised against the stupendous undertalpB B
but Lugn£ was hard to dissuade. Believing that he could
rely upon Marcel Schwob’s literary sense, the tenacious
director asked the opinion of the eminent man o f letters.
Schwob replied' graciously but frankly. Theological
discussions Would not interest a French public of that
day; the very presence of many pastors on the stage might
prove distasteful. The question of miracles held little ap
peal. In fact, the last scene alone contained possibilities
of stirring the audience. Schwob considered, the drama,
although interesting, inferior to those o f Bjornson’s rival,
Ibsen. With a premonition of Lugn^-Poe’s decision, how
ever, he offered all possible assistance if the Oeuvre pro
duced the play. At the close of his letter he asked if Lugn£
had considered John Ford’s work, 'T is Pity She’s-A
Whore, provided a poet would prepare the translation.® 7
With confidence in his own judgment, Lugn£-Poe de
cided that perhaps Schwob had been mistaken regarding
Bjornson’s drama; yet the suggestion about Ford’s play
was worth considering.* Determining to include Beyond
Human Power on the program of February 13, he tackled
* With the noncommittal title of Annabella, Maeterlinck’s translation
of Ford's drama opened the next season of the Oeuvxe on November 6.
1894. .I -a a i
almost insurmountable undertaking o f staging the
vfrwegi*11 masterpiece. O n e o f the scenic effects difficult
f rea liza tio n was the du ll roar o f a landslide. T h e loca-
„ nf the Theatre des Bouffes-du-Nord furnished the
jjoB u .
lution. At the proper tim e trains obligingly rum bled
^nder the theatre into the nearby Gare du N ord.
A n o t h e r bit o f g ood fortune lent a rare touch to the
e r f o r m a n c e . U nder the leadership o f Herman Bang and
[ h e N o r w e g i a n artist Frits T h au low , ‘ Taim able peintre
d e l a neige, le bon g£ant populaire k l’^poque,” 6 8 Scandi

n a v i a n admirers o f B jornson organized the chorus of
p e a s a n t s and fishermen required in the play, who come
f r o m all parts o f the m ountains singing alleluia in an
e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g paean o f praise until the m om ent o f the
m i r a c l e . Since many o f the participants wore their native
c o s t u m e s , authentic picturesqueness added color to the
scene.
On February 13, R achilde’s play occupied a decidedly

secondary place as it opened tim idly the French phase of
the Oeuvre.69 T h e poignancy o f the fantastic episode was
minimized in contact with the strange foreign master
piece.
Paul Vign 6 d ’Octon, a prolific writer from the South ,70
averaging two novels a year,71' * delivered a lecture on L e
Mysticisme au theatre, supposed to prepare the audience
to understand the high philosophic content o f the drama.
His talk failed to elucidate the problem, however, as his
low voice kept his ideas secret from most o f the audience.
In general the leading press frowned severely upon the
production, L e Figaro not even mentioning it .78 L ’Echo
de Paris, however, offered a keen, understanding review
*111$ output lessened as he became active in politics. In 1897 he was

deputy from his department, the Hdrault.72
by its drama critic, Henry Bauer,” Prejudice and general
incomprehension of a metaphysical subject on the sta
raised doubts as to the plausibility of Sang’s securing hi
wife’s recovery through prayer. All felt the breath of ge^*
ius, however, and were troubled. Undeniably the dram"
raised one’s thoughts above the material world. Not
single discordant emotion stirred the audience at the
climax when Clara, advancing towards her husband, fall,
dead, and as he, smitten in his love, and faith for having
attempted a test beyond human strength, joins her in
death.”
Bjornson had no intention of solving the question of
the psychology of the miracle. Henri Albert, however, in
Le Mercure de France, offered a partial explanation by
the suggestion that in the land of the midnight sun, ra
tionalism had not yet diminished the intensity of religious
feeling. The resultant stem mysticism shook off the sense
of reality and led to a psychic extension of personality, to
an unfolding of cerebral energy that was unprecedented
and almost incomprehensible to the positivist nature.74
Albert Dayrolles of Le Literal voiced the gratitude of
those who admired Lugn^-Poe’s courage and discern
ment. The young director offered intellectual pleasures
of which no other theatre of the period was capable.” >»
As for Lugn^-Poe, he felt more affection for this play
perhaps than for any other of his long career. The diffi
culties of production and his limited means prevented him
from reviving the drama as often as he wished.”
After four of the season’s eight programs, Lugn^-Poe
heeded the clamors of many critics for French works.
Rachilde’s brief drama had failed to satisfy them and
while foreign authors had generously supplied good plays,
certainly French writers deserved recognition. Although
VICISSITUDES OF THE FIRST SEASON 187
. . - jn French, Maeterlinck was Belgian and therefore
|&j| not satisfy the need. Consequently, two plays by
C° nch authors figured on the Oeuvre’s program a fort-
later, on February 27, 1894.
^ G a b r i e l T rarieu x, a sch ool friend o f Lugn£ and son of
Bordeaux lawyer an d politician , showed a certain prom
ise a s p o e t and playw right, and fo r the first time saw the
reduction o f on e o f his plays, an act in prose, Une N uit
avril a CJos. A lth o u g h T ra rie u x inherited a love o f lib
e r t y and o f fine language, he lacked the enthusiasm and
Vigor w i t h w hich his father, w hen senator, startled his

e l d e r l y colleagues so that those near him inched their
chairs a w a y .
The play created an im pression o f continual, dismal

rain,79 boring m ost o f the spectators in spite o f Denis’
charming set w hich show ed dark patches o f cacti and be
yond, a brownish g o ld sea b ordered by the white houses
of C£os.80 T h e subject matter proved too meager for the
hour or more o f perform ance.81,1 T rarieu x’ play had per
haps found tavor w ith the O euvre management because
of the influence o f M aeterlinck, noticeable in the use of
repetition and o f the evocation o f dreams.88 T he poetic
charm of the w ork was too elusive to carry weight with an
audience.
The event o f the evening was the performance of
L’lmage, a three-act play by M aurice Beaubourg. The
author, a friend o f M auclair and Maeterlinck, had to his
credit Contes p o u r les assassins, published in 1890, and
Nouvelles passionndes, published in 1893, and was a great
favorite am ong young writers, who frequently dedicated
1At C 6osf in ancient times, the magistrates authorized those weary of
life to kill themselves. Alc£e, wishing deliverance through death from the
sufferings o f love, expounds his morose philosophy, receives the necessary
permission, and drinks poison .82
their short stories or poems to him. Beaubourg Was par
ticularly interested in furthering the cause of the Idealist
theatre, of which he was the first French exponent.84
As Beaubourg defined the Idealist theatre, in the prefc
ace to L’Image, published later in 1894, all action, enio-
tion, and human interest must stem from a mental crisis.68
He pointed out how Ibsen’s dramas, depending upon the
conscience, and Maeterlinck’s plays, deriving great effects
from the mysterious,8®—as well as Hauptmann’s and
Bjomson’s dramas—deserved to rank as works of the
Idealist theatre. It is interesting to observe how the
Oeuvre remained true tofits taste by choosing. Beau-
bourg’s drama, akin to those of other authors it had fea
tured.
The subtlety of the inner psychological conflict would
seem to make L’Image unsuitable for the stage, but the
opening scenes announced a new dramatic technique
which defied tradition,87for Beaubourg hastened to build
skillfully a crescendo of passion—or of folly. The newly
married couple headed quickly toward a frightful moral
divorce,88 as Marcel’s belief in a reality beyond that of
everyday existence led him to love the image he created
of his wife, rather than Jeanne as she was.
The anguish so cleverly developed in the first act per
sisted throughout the play, although the other acts did
not equal the first. Beaubourg seemed afraid to give free
rein to his talent as irony got the better of him .89 At the
opening of the second act, Marcel was in conversation
with writers whom he knew. His disgust with these visi
tors grew from his conviction that they would never step
beyond the confines.of the material world. Thus limited, :
they were dead, while he alone lived. The satire of this
scene jarred many who considered the bitter criticisms in
bad taste .90 Pierre W b e r pointed out in La Revue
m iche91 t h a t the scene, though awkward, was justified
^ f f l S n e e d o f throwing Marcel’s visionary character into
b'lief. T h e s c e n e was saved as Marcel, pleading the cause

X\ d r e a m s w i t h Rougier, in a rage drove his old friend
f ota t h e h o u s e . Again we are plunged into the poisonous,
f e v e r i s h a t m o s p h e r e of t h e first act.9*
The difficult task now remained for the author, by

means of a gesture, a word, or expression, to conjure up
the image, loved by Marcel, until one is convinced of
hearing it mount the stairs, o f seeing it enter the room,
brush against the curtains and finally stand between the
desperate couple .98It was a real tour de force to transport
the audience into such a state o f mind that no one ques
tioned Jeanne’s death, as Marcel, wildly pushing the im
age into her body, strangled her and lavished caresses
upon the pitiful inert' form which, for him, vibrated with
life. Beaubourg succeeded in creating such a pitch of
emotion that Marcel’s “ idealist” crime seemed plausible.94
The weight of the performance fell mostly upon Berthe
Bady and Lugn£-Poe. M ile Bady was benefiting from her
work with the Oeuvre; the role o f Jeanne revealed her as
a great artist.95 T he poet Albert Samain, reviewing the
performance for L e M ercure de France, reported of
Lugn£ that he was equal to himself, that is to say, that he
was "le comddien sur, personnel et compr£hensif, l’artiste
que l’on sait.” 96 Jean Carr&re emphasized in La Plume
that Lugn£ offered another example of his extraordinary
ability not to act but to live his characters. The actor was
so deeply moved that his usually impassive features vi
brantly reflected the most varied emotions.97
The stirring production excited anger and enthusiasm.
One faction proclaimed it pure folly, another called it a
MO ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
miracle. The critic for Le Gaulois, who signed himself
"Frimousse,” maintained that after the second act several
spectators, who felt themselves going mad, suddenly hur-
ried away. Others, who stayed till the end, doubtless
reached the Charenton asylum later.88
After all the cries for a French work, here was a play
written by a Frenchman, but it bore the unquestionable
stamp of the North. The play was perhaps even stranger
than if it had come from foggy Scandinavia. The critic for
L‘Eclair wondered whether the Oeuvre had condescended
. to choose a French drama only because no more foreign
writers remained to be “discovered.” 89Although not pre
tending to be a devotee of foreign productions, “Fri
mousse” was not bitter in his criticism. In his review he
poked fun at the Scandinavian, programs, but with a
kindly sympathy for the Oeuvre and its director. He ad
mired Lugnd's courageous perseverance, which resulted
in so many productions, some of which this critic found
interesting.
Georges Bertal of Le Rappel deplored the sombemess
of the tragedy as he begged for a little laughter. “ En
voili des audacieux qui aiment & broyer du noir! Par
pitid, messieurs de la nouvelle dcolel Riez un peu, un tout
petit peu: 9a ne vous fera pas de mal, et 5a nous fera tant
de bien.” 100Yet he seriously declared his conviction that
Beaubourg would make a name for himself in the theatre.
The reviewer for La Revue d’Art Dramatique recognized
some fine scenes in excellent style, and maintained that
one should not expect perfection from young writers but
should be grateful to them for showing promise and
for learning their trade.101 Pierre Wber declared that
L’Image marked a conquest for the Idealist theatre.10* It
was a triumph which proved that young dramatists were
• to rejuvenate art and that the public was ready to

see j^d.103 The Theatre de 1’ Oeuvre was filling a need
aPP productions jolted public lethargy, focusing at-
S*n<tion upon writers whom no other director, would dare
^consider.104 Looking back in 1898, Georges Bonnamour
t0,i1 felt that one of the Oeuvre’s most beautiful evenings
^ th a to fW m a g ,-
Artistically the Oeuvre was succeeding. Unfortunately,
however, expenses were heavy. The first five productions
0 f t h e s e a s o n had exhausted the money paid by subscrib
es e v e n though the actors accepted starvation pay. As

Lugn^ cast about desperately for means of carrying on,
t h e o n l y solution he found was the customary tour to
B e l g i u m and Holland.10* W ith the meager funds earned
i n t h i s w a y he and his friends hoped to offer the season’s
last t h r e e p r o g r a m s .
For the next program , since Ibsen already had a small

following, Lugn£-Poe proceeded to satisfy this group’s
t a s t e as well as his ow n predilection for the master. Pre
c e d e d b y a lecture b y M auclair, Ibsen’s newest drama, The
Master Builder (Solness le constructeur) * was produced

on April 3, 1894.
Analyses o f the play and its symbolism promptly ap
peared. This drama was a work o f courage and sincerity,
not merely an artistic effort. Ibsen showed his own soul
tortured with the impossibility o f attaining the desired
ideals.108 Youth, in the guise o f Hilda Wangel, attracted
Solness, yet made him realize his own loss o f youth. With
Hilda’s support he m ight even now go higher .109But Ibsen
believed that man’s lot was to attain a certain height, to
grow dizzy and to fall. Various interpretations of Ibsen’s
‘ The original Norwegian text had been published in the middle of

December, 1892.107
meaning mingled with favorable and adverse criticism as I
the usual furor of argument raged about the Norwegian I
playwright.
Justly pleased at having again furthered Ibsen’s renown I
in France, Lugnd-Poe turned to the problems o f the next I
production. For several months it had been in his mind I
to comply with the wish of Mme Lardin de Musset by I
producing her brother’s play, Lorenzaccio.110 The very I
fact that Alfred de Musset had not thought o f theatrical I
presentation of this work had permitted all the greater I
depth, variety, and fantasy in its conception .111 The poet’s I
sister relied upon the Oeuvre to do justice to the charm I
of the picture of sixteenth-century Florence.
Lugn£ never ceased to marvel at the confidence placed I
in him, nor at the interest of one of the Oeuvre subscrib- I
ers, Georges Ohnet. This already recognized novelist and
dramatist, offered to have expenses defrayed by an impor
tant club of Paris, which, in return, would reserve the
first performance.
The casting of the role of Lorenzo presented a delicate
problem, but Lugn£ and Berthe Bady both felt that the
right person had appeared. During the rehearsals o f The
Master Builder, a small figure often slipped in for fifteen
or twenty minutes. The mysterious silhouette vanished
if the "General” or some other observer approached. It
was finally learned that this person was a painter who
recommended the Oeuvre to well-to-do friends, and who,
though a subscriber, seldom used the seats himself. His
name was Henry Bataille.
When Bataille heard of the plans for Lorenzaccio, he
too thought that the title role would suit him, although
he later accused Lugnd of forcing him to agree against his
will. Berthe Bady’s refrain was, “ Ce petit Bataille, il ferait
0iagnifique Lorenzaccio . . . Je le vois si bien en
jg Florentin vicieuxl . . 112
Encouraged by so many auspicious circumstances,
ffnt th o u g h t first of consulting his former teacher,
r stave Worms. By chance Sarah Bernhardt got wind of
u plans and expressed a desire to give the work herself.
ent hesitated, but when Henry Bauer, critic for L'Echo
Hj Paris and a staunch friend of the Oeuvre, especially re
sted that deference be shown her wishes, Lugn£ re
linquished his project.1
B a t a i l l e assiduously continued his efforts in behalf of
t h e O e u v r e in spite of the change of plans, while in the
b a c k o f his mind he was formulating a project which he
f i n a l l y communicated to Lugn6. Bataille had written a
play, La Belle au B ois dorm ant , m with the intention of

o f f e r i n g it to the Oeuvre. Through some error, his letter,
t h e p r e c e d i n g December, had gone astray. Changing his
m i n d , h e had then turned to Sarah Bernhardt, whom he
w a n t e d to p l a y the prince at her own theatre.114 She de
m a n d e d too many cuts and revisions to suit his artistic
p l a n s , a n d he now thought again of the Oeuvre. Lugn£
w o u l d confine his attention to the problems of staging,
w h i l p Bataille would retain full liberty in regard to text,
sets, costumes, and muSic. Bataille had already obtained
t h e assistance of Burne-Jones for designing sets and cos
t u m e s , which were executed by Rochegrosse, a son of
1Mme Bernhardt postponed playing the role of Lorenzaccio until No

vember, 1896, at the Thd&tre de la Renaissance. As (or the Oeuvre, she
made Lugn6 many unfulfilled promises, such as that of playing The Lady
from the Sea at his theatre.118
* Bataille’s play opens where the fairy tale ends. Awakened by the
prince’s kiss, Sleeping Beauty marries her rescuer. Living in the modern
world, Prince Charming and the Princess are unhappy because the latter,
encouraged by the bad fairy, dreams of another love. At the prince's re
quest the good fairy setdes the problem by casting both Sleeping Beauty
and Prince Charming into eternal slumber.
H4 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
Theodore de Banville,11' and another young artist, Anqu
tin, Georges Hue would provide the music."
Anodier requirement of the author was that the p]a
be performed at some theatre in the center of Paris. Th
chic sponsors of the performance could not endure the
remote Bouffes-du-Nord. Probably to impress Lugng
Bataille frequently referred to the "Princess,” who proved
to be only the synthesis of several friends of more humble
station. Viscount Robert d’Humi&res, a cavalry officer
would be named as collaborator. Bataille promised that
D’Humifcres would not appear at rehearsals. Lugn6 never
learned whether Bataille’s association with D’Humi&res
a polished man of letters with a noble soul,11Tcame from
his desire to frequent the upper classes or from his wish
to add prestige to the Oeuvre.
Lugn£ hesitated to accept this arrangement, but finally
consented because of his feeling that Bataille possessed
the qualities of a poet and o f a man o f the theatre. With
the play definitely withdrawn from Sarah Bernhardt,
Bataille selected the Nouveau-Th£atre, in the same build
ing as the Casino de Paris, at 15, rue Blanche.
A large audience of Oeuvre subscribers and aristocratic
friends of the authors attended the dismal failure o f the
play on May 24 and 25* 1894. Prejudice immediately
sprang from the fact that the Symbolist followers o f the
Oeuvre resented the lavish backing which transformed -
' their theatre. Moreover, they preferred their own poets
to the newcomer,118 whose fairy-inhabited w orld they
scorned. Hoots and a few resounding slaps punctuated the
" One of the prizes which Hue had won was the Premier grand prix de
Rome, in 1879. Among his best known compositions were Resurrection, a
sacred episode, played at the Conservatoire concerts in 1892, and Le
^893 usand Fantaisie P our violon’ Played at the Concerts Colonne in
s rehearsal; the skeptical, blas£ audience o f the open-
7 sUbsided in to b ored resignation .119
^Shortcomings o f the play itself sufficed to call down
ê unanimous condem nation o f the press. Rachilde was
startled by this inexcusably du ll play, as she thought over
ê glorious record o f the Oeuvre, which, in its noble
efforts, had persevered in the face o f chauvinistic fault
finding* personal anim osity, and the jealousies of rivals.120
The critic H en ri de W e in d e l declared that in one eve-
njng the Theatre de l ’ O eu vre had undone all it had previ
ously accomplished. I f its director did not take care, even
its most ardent friends w ou ld desert his theatre.121 An
other reviewer recalled w ith statistical precision that
three plays had previously appeared with the same title
and that in each case the p u b lic had shared the Sleeping
Beauty’s slum ber. T h is play was not different.122 The
more kindly disposed critic o f L a R evu e d’Art Drama-
tique urged in du lgen ce because the youthful actors had
valiantly attem pted the m aterially impossible task of cre
ating the unreal. “ C e sont des im beciles forcen£s et il faut
leur. pardonner,” he declared .128
The play failed because o f its basically anti-scenic quali
ties. Floods o f spiritualist philosophy drowned the work.124
One could on ly pity the unhappy actors who had taken
considerable pains to cram the long, incoherent speeches
into their heads .126 It was in fact an extraordinary feat to
recite w ithout faltering these “ tirades somnifkres et kilo-
m£triques.” 126 Since the actors had devoted so much time
to their roles they doubtless cou ld grasp a meaning which
escaped the listeners ,127 bu t n ot even the expression on
the faces o f the actors offered any assistance since the stage
was so ligh ted that on ly silhouettes were visible .128
Matters w ere further com plicated by the fact that the
146 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE \
voices of the actors were not strong enough to carry. R j^
voices, such as Mounet-Sully’s, might have helped.128 j t
was only with Lugn<5-Poe’s entrance that the audience
realized the existence of some poetic lines in the text.1**
In a fairy-like play, the spell relies as much on variou*
changes of scenery as on the words. A series of incidents
left in the wings, should have been shown.131 The two sets
did not suffice to enliven the dullness of the text. While
Burne-Jones’ painting, L’Amour au milieu des ruines
inspired the setting for the first and last acts,182 the second
act showed a sumptuous drawing room with light filtering
in on a couch covered with furs and rare silks, upon which
lolled the princess, in modern dress. The bad fairy, who
held a long conversation with the princess in . this, act,
wore a costume with sleeves supposedly, like wings; but
when she raised her arms, she created the unfortunate
appearance of a wet umbrella.188Prince Charming caused
consternation by his. ridiculous, heavy portrayal.184 Ra-
childe reproached Lugn£ bitterly for having offered a
luxurious setting, a feast for the eyes; at the expense of
sustenance for the soul.185
The only one to approach an impression of the unreal
was Georges Hue, whose score, reminiscent o f Wagner,
of Faust, and'of old romances sung in castle courts,184 had
much penetrating charm.187As interminable as the text, it
contained a few outstanding parts, to which gentle souls
responded in desperation.188 The music had the distinct
advantage of drowning out much of the painful and mys
tifying experiment.189
It was not enough for Rochegrosse and Burne-Jones to
work out sets and costumes, nor for Burne-Jones to illus
trate the program with a delicate sketch of the Sleeping
Beauty. The words of Shakespeare, quoted on the pro-
0 “ Mourir . . . dorm ir . . . r£ver peut-Stre . . .
ere far too applicable. H enri de W eindel accused the
O eu v re of omitting exactly what it needed—a play.140
It had seemed logical to Lugn 6 to present Bataille to
the public after Beaubourg, since Bataille “ flirtait avec les
oo&es symbolistes.” 141 T h e director felt that the crushing
failure was unjustified, for the text contained some beau
tiful passages,142 in spite o f “ d ’innombrables gaucheries
n£cessaires aux debuts de quality.” 148 For others, the pro
duction remained assuredly a monument of excessive
boredom,144 and even friends sorrowfully agreed that
Lugn^-Poe had made a mistake.
T h e undertaking left the Oeuvre poorer than before.
W o r r i e d o v e r her health, and doubtless influenced by

B a t a i l l e , Berthe Bady deserted her close friend and his
t h e a t r e . Coupled with this severe loss was the handicap of
h a v i n g to store the cumbersome sets, as Bataille had
s t i p u l a t e d , in case o f a revival. A nd it the Oeuvre was to
k e e p i t s w o r d , it must offer one more program, though
t h e t h e a t r i c a l season was rapidly drawing to a close.
For the final performance o f the first season, on June

21,1894, the Oeuvre found shelter at the centrally located
Comddie-Parisienne. Lucien Miihlfeld, whose interest in
the theatre was known through a number of studies on
the theatre’s needs, published in La Revue d’Art Drama-
tique and La R evue Blanche, amused the audience with
a witty lecture on the uselessness o f all lectures, ranging
from Francisque Sarcey’s to his own. His own talk, how
ever, had the unsuspected merit of allowing late-comers to
enter before the curtain rose on the first play.148 He spoke
so cleverly that it was hard to realize he was saying noth
ing.146As M uhlfeld neither read nor referred to notes, the
people he delighted most on the opening night were those
who, at the dress rehearsal, had heard him make the same
"extemporaneous” hesitations, as he supposedly groped
for the desired phrase.147
The bountiful program presented three one-act plays.
Freres by Herman Bang, La Gardienne by Henri de
R^gnier, and Strindberg’s drama Creditors (Crtanciers).*
Bang’s unflagging interest in the Theatre de l ’Oeuvre
would in itself have justified the inclusion on the program
of Freres, published less than a year before in La Revue
d’Art Dramatique. Bang’s reputation in England, Hoi-
land, and Germany, as well as in Scandinavia, offered
further reason for introducing the notable Scandinavian
playwright to a French public; but Bang’s philosophy,
based on the futility of pushing through interminable
dark days to the tomb,150 was not o f a nature to suit the
French. In Freres the gloomy picture o f the successive
love of two brothers for the same woman was classified as
melodrama. Bauer placed the blame on the episodic char
acter of the work.151 Henri Albert found the play dull be
cause Bang had not developed its dramatic possibilities
and had not made the characters live.152
Next on the program was a dialogued poem, La Gar
dienne, by Henri de R^gnier, whom Mauclair had classed
with Gide and Maeterlinck as capable o f expressing the
insaisissable.16S After his timid start as a poet in 1885,
R^gnier had received considerable attention among the
literary elite, contributing to avant-garde reviews and, in
1894, already had several volumes o f verse to his credit,
the most important being Poemes anciens et romanesques,
which had appeared in 1890. Introduced to R^gnier by
• With Strindberg as director, Creditors inaugurated the Th&itre des
Essais of Copenhagen. In January, 1893, the play was again performed, at
the Residenztheater in Berlin on a special program in honor of the
author.148 Strindberg’s newest play, Jouer avec le feu, was unmercifully
hissed in Berlin when presented in the spring of 1894.140
. r(^n> Lugn^-Poe became interested in staging La
dienne, which now brought this leader of the young
koiists to the attention of a wider public than that
âched merely by publication.
1 ja Qardienne, not intended for the theatre, yet possess-
scenic possibilities, was outstanding on the Oeuvre’s
r0oram as a bold innovation. A vague greenish glimmer-
j^provided the only light154 as actors in the orchestra
it read the lines while others, on stage, behind a veil,
followed the text in pantomime.155 A shocking discrep
ancy occurred, however, as the actors on stage, moving to
and fro, were seldom near the source of the voice to which
they supposedly belonged.158, §
Lugn£ wished to give suitable interpretation to R£-
gnier’s poem. Some painters believed that if they did not
rive definite contours to figures, a soft, misty effect would
e v o k e feelings that realism could not arouse.158 Since
Regnier’s theory likewise relied upon suggestion,159 Lugn£

s o u g h t the best manner of creating this dreamy impres
sion. The actors submerged their personality, thus re

maining entities of purely verbal creation meant to serve
as symbols.160
As was to be expected, the artistic endeavor awakened
various responses. Sarcey, more or less hardened to any
thing outlandish at the Theatre de 1’Oeuvre, did not even
laugh at seeing the green veil. He listened, impassive and
resigned, even when, after a half hour, noisy protestations
started. The uproar increased as friends of the author
applauded vociferously or yelled retorts to the comments
’ To some extent the staging complied with Mallarm&’s aspirations for
a theatre, freed from the binding requirements of reality, which would
encourage flights of the imagination and in which music and verse would
harmonize with beauty of action. Mallarm£ had even thought that a thin
veil should separate the actors from the audience in order to enhance the
impression of distance and mystery.157
150 ADVENTURE IN THE THEA TRE
of the unappreciative. The numerous poetic souls in tu
audience might have enjoyed many sympathetic emot{<§f
in the nostalgic call to the past, had the desired iHusi0 *
not been thoroughly broken.1® Georges Bertal of i e
Rappel wondered indignantly if such methods, to him
puerile, were supposed to revive dramatic art.162
The main difficulty lay in the fact that R£gnier had in-
tended his lines for reading,16* and the mysterious chaittj
of the verse required more than the fleeting vehicle of the
spoken word, for the images passed too quickly; only
reading would allow penetration of their subtle beauty.1*
Moreover, a churchly silence was necessary for the ap
preciation of the poetic harmony of the production. The
Oeuvre had made a most interesting experiment in any
case, though Lugnd afterward abandoned the idea con
tained in the Oeuvre’s prospectus, o f combining panto
mime with recitations or music to produce scenic effects.*
The curious program of June 21 now featured a master
piece by Strindberg, the most anguished playwright of the
North/ whose fierceness was the antithesis o f R^gnier’s
delicate charm.1*7 Creditors expressed Strindberg’s mi
sogyny far more forcefully than his Miss Julia (Mademoi
selle Julie), produced by Antoine on January 16,1893.
In Creditors, Tekla’s first husband, Gustave, and
Adolphe, his weak successor, both throw Tekla's selfish
perversity into relief. Gustave’s desire for vengeance leads
him to torture Adolphe brutally, with knife-like thrusts,
as Gustave uses his knowledge of Tekla against his puny,
•According to Alfred Jarry, Lugnd-Poe and his friends gave another
performance of La Gardienne at Presles, on the edge of the Isle-Adam
forest, in an open-air theatre set on a hillside.165
'Lugni used a translation by Georges Loiseau, though Strindberg,
hoping to win renown in the Paris he loved, had already translated some
of his works into French. Recognition as a playwright came to Strindberg
too late, and he remained lonely and dissatisfied, busying himself mostly
with alchemy md occultism.168 ' ° a
. rjval, who is nevertheless drawn uncannily to
I W ronger nature which will ruin him. W hen A dolphe
tke ? ds T e k l a how much he has helped her, she considers
I uncomfortable creditor, for Strindberg based the
I ESi 0IJ his conviction that men give while women re-
I * e In this instance, Gustave inflicted cruel punishment
the woman indebted to him.
| Considerable enthusiasm greeted this bitter drama,168
I the audience recognized the presence o f a truly dra-
atic work.169Even the ladies admitted Strindberg’s mas-
ter« of dramatic effect.170 Superb acting increased the
wer of the play. “ Heureux auteur qui n ’a q u ’& se louer
Je ses interpr^tes!” 171 Sarcey himself expressed gratitude
to the Oeuvre for having produced it.
An additional performance o f CreditorSj in Brussels,
b r o u g h t the Theatre de l ’Oeuvre’s first season to a close.
In Paris and outside France, a total o f thirty-two perform

ances had been given .172
With the theatre's vitality more apparent than ever,
ambitious plans for the next season’s tours and produc
tions in Paris were discussed. As Lugn 6 said, when one
has nothing it costs no more to have great dreams. A
manifesto and survey o f the first season 178 showed the
group as valiant as ever. Recognizing mistakes and mate
rial limitations, the young people planned to continue
the Oeuvre as a venture for free ideas and independent
efforts.174While the first year had been given over to the
atrical productions, they hoped to have the means to
sponsor programs in what they vaguely designated as,the
vastest domain of thought.175 Since adversity tests friend
ship, the Oeuvre could be sure that the subscribers who
remained were devoted. Expressing gratitude to the press,
the Oeuvre declared its need of the moral and financial
support of all its friends, as well as that of all a r t i s t s hay
ing faith in beauty.
Arrangements were made for the regular use of th
Nouveau*Th£atre, whose directors abandoned their own
troupe because it absorbed the profits of the Casin
lodged in the same building.178,' The Oeuvre was pleased
to find an accessible theatre as well as a larger stage
needed by the group to produce such plays as King
Le Chariot de terre cuite, and other works.177, ' When An-*
toine relinquished leadership of the Th&itre-Libre to La-
rochelle in April, 1894, the responsibility of the Theatre
de l’Oeuvre towards the French theatre increased. More
over, the Oeuvre’s emphasis on foreign literature, espe
cially on Ibsen’s dramas, pointed to a fruitful future for
the new theatre. Jacques des Gachons optimistically pre-
dieted that a theatre offering works by Ibsen alone could
have a brilliant life.178
This review of the Oeuvre’s turbulent first season will
serve to illustrate the nature of the theatre’s history.
Material hardships, biting condemnations, the faith of
friends, and ultimate recognition of genius affected every
step of its progress. More and more the extraordinary
fighting leadership of Lugnd-Poe overshadowed the valu
able aid of all collaborators. The young man was gifted
with a rare ability for detecting dramatic and literary
merit and with a courageous idealism for carrying out his
dreams. It is to the honor of both Sarcey and Lugn^-Poe
that the critic, despite his many adverse opinions, prophe
sied an interesting future for the Oeuvre in his preface to
Le Thiatre a cott by Adolphe Aderer, published in 1894.
* After attempts to maintain The Nouveau-Th&tre (opened October
17, 1891) failed, it offered refuge to experimental groups.
j Of these plays, named in an announcement of La R evue d’A rt Drama
tique, Le Chariot de terre cuite alone figured in the final plans.
—
.jjj: Scandinavian Dramatists'.

Discovery
T h e SUCCESSFUL P E R F O R M A N C E S o f Scan-
dinavian works during the Oeuvre’s first season, in 1893—
1894, established the Theatre de l’Oeuvre as the cham
pion of the new foreign current. Northern playwrights
must at last be reckoned with in the French theatre.
Just how had Scandinavian literature achieved its rapid
ascendancy in France? * Russian literature, heralded by
Eugfcne-Melchoir de Vogii£ in L e Roman russe (1886),
entered France, as it were, by the main door, whereas
Scandinavian literature had to slip in through a window.
As early as the 1860’s, a few short stories of Bjornson, in
French translation, illustrated rural Norwegian life, but
only one bore the author’s name.1 Echoes of the North
reached France through Germany, where in the 1870’s the
modern dramas of Ibsen and Bjornson received due ap
preciation.* In spite of some German influence in France,
•A. Dikka Reque deals with the subject at length in Trois Auteurs
scandinaves devant la critique frangaise: Ibsen, Bjornson, Strindberg.
* Schur6 heard o f Bjornson at a W agnerian festival at Bayreuth, and
wrote the first French study o f the Norwegian playwright, w h ich ap
peared in La Revue des Deux Mondes, March 15, 1870.3
153
as shown by Wagnerism, the strained relations between
the two countries retarded free interchange o f thought at
a time when Bjornson’s A Bankruptcy and Ibsen’s Pillars
of Society (Les Soutiens de la sociitt) might well have
found as much favor in France as in Germany »*
It is curious that though Bjornson and the Swedish
master, Strindberg, had spent much time in France and
were abreast of intellectual movements there/ it required
Ibsen, who had not visited France, to attract the attention
of the French public to Scandinavian literature.5' *
In 1887, La Revue d’Art Dramatique published a study
of Jacques Saint-C£re, “ Un Po£te du N ord: Enrik Ibsen,”
in which the critic was the first to bring. Ghosts, The Wild
Duck, and An Enemy of the People to the attention of the
French.7After studying Ibsen’s dramas, he warned that if
France was to maintain its reputation in the theatre .it
would be necessary to become acquainted with the new
dramatic formula.8As for Ghosts, he boldly proclaimed it‘
the most extraordinary play ever written.9
France made its first literary acquaintance with A
Doll’s House when La Revue Independante published a
fragment of the third act of Prozor’s translation in Octo
ber, 1888.10, * This drama, which startled Scandinavia a
few weeks after its publicationpn 1879, had received
prompt and continuous approval throughout Germany
ever since the spring of 1880.u> f A complete French trans-
*After 1888 Strindberg's dramas even showed the influence of Zola and
the ThMtre-Libre.4
*Reque points out that all three writers at first suffered in France at
the hands of inadequate critics. Bad first impressions had to be modified,
for Bjornson the novelist was considered “le rude pofete du Nord,” Ibsen's
romantic dramas had been stressed, and Strindberg as a dramatist re
mained unknown.®
*The same magazine published Prozor’s translation of Ghosts in full in
January, 1889.
t The German actress, Mme Niemann-Raabe, refused to play the part
of Nora without a change in the ending of the drama. Since no rightfl;
^SCANDINAVIAN DRAMATISTS: DISCOVERY 155
by L&>n Vanderkindere, appeared in Brussels in
^ T w ith the title o f N o r a 14 and was received coldly
1 h e n p e r fo r m e d at the Theatre du Parc o f that city. De-
^ ‘t e the efforts o f the audience to appreciate the foreign

Sôrk jt was so different from the customary fare as to
n o r 0 v e disconcerting.
In 1889 the Parisian publisher Savine brought out a

olume, H enrik Ibsen , T heatre: L es Revenants, Maison
d e P o u p t e , translated by Prozor, with an introduction by
the Swiss novelist Edouard R od , an admirer of Ibsen who

had helped Prozor find a publisher in Paris. Albert Savine
placed the sale o f the volu m e during the first year at only
eighty-nine copies, half o f w hich went to readers outside
of France.16
Nevertheless, the translation o f Ghosts and A Doll’s
House motivated Jules Lemaitre, the impressionist critic
of Le Journal des D ebats, to write detailed studies which
were to have a lasting effect upon the attitude o f many
French people towards Ibsen. W riting on Ghosts in his
column o f August 19, 1889, and on A D oll’s House a
week later, Lemaitre analyzed the heroines, pointing out
their dissimilarity from French women. In Mrs. Alving’s
place, a French wom an w ould have assumed, outwardly at
least, some semblance o f grace and insouciance, whereas
Mrs. Alving’s austere determination to cover her hus
band’s dissipations and the violent release o f her pent-up
emotions stamped her as a woman of the North. Summing
up his observations, Lemaitre expressed a thought which
was later to cast off its negative note for a positive tone:
protected Ibsen ’s w orks in Germ any, Ibsen preferred m aking the altera
tion himself rather than allow in g som eone else to suit his fancy. In the
revised form N o ra learns that her children are ill and stays with them .12
Ibsen later expressed his indignation at the deform ation, saying that it
was almost because o f the last act and the ending o f the original version
that he had w ritten the play.1*
"Vous voyez que, tout de mime, cette Mme Alvina
quelque chose d’autre qu’une r£volt£e k la Geor^
Sand.” 17 As for Nora, Lemaitre again indicated the dU
ference between an Ibsen heroine and a heroine of Geortr
Sand. Unable to understand Nora’s need to be alone to
face her complex development, Lemaitre felt reassured
only when she told Helmer that she no longer loved him
What other reason could she possibly require to justify
her departure? 18 So Lemaitre found Mrs. Alving and
Nora interesting not because of their actions but because
of the sincerity and anguish which stirred them.
“Et de meme, ce qui nous int&resse chez Ibsen, ce n’est
point qu’il pense juste (cela, vraiment, nous n ’en savons
rien), c’est qu’il pense hautement, qu’il sent profond&
ment,—qu’il est m£content du monde,—et inquiet avec
g&iie.” u
Nora, as uncompromising as Mrs. Alving, was also a
woman of the North, unlike the misunderstood heroines
of French novels of 1840. “Vous voyez la nuance,” added
Lemaitre.”
While Ibsen’s dramas were barely gaining a precarious
foothold with the French reading p u b lic/ Germany con
tinued its interest in the production of his plays. Ghosts,
censored but already given at private performances/ ap
peared on the first program of the Freie Buhne on Sep
tember 22, 1889. The choice of this literary group pub
licly acknowledged the importance to young German
writers of Ibsen’s leadership.28
Since Ibsen had not received adequate recognition in
'From 1889 on, one or two translations appeared every year until all
Ibsen’s dramatic works were available in French In 1903.*1
* Ghosts had its first German performance at the Stadttheater of Augs
burg in 1886, was riven again at the Court Theatre at Meiningen the fol
lowing winter, and in 1887 at the Residenztheater in Berlin. These pro
ductions were all private.1*
S C A N D IN A V IA N DRAMATISTS: DISCOVERY 157
ce although his fame in Germany was well estab-
**hed, in a letter dated ° ctober 25» 1889, he wrote to*
lor, his first French translator, in regard to the publi-
11t'on of Prozor’s two translations. T h e playwright, so
Cften considered aloof from any desire for renown, made
° interesting statement. “ T h e introduction o f my dra-
atic works into France has lon g been my dream,” he
wrote.24He thanked Prozor for the start in that direction
nd added, “ M y earnest request to you is that you will
continue to take charge o f my French affairs and every
thing connected therewith.” 25
From this time indeed, Ibsen’s work increased in popu
larity in France. R eports o f the Freie Biihne’s epochal
performance o f Ghosts echoed in France. In January,
1890, Zola urged A n toin e to consider the drama,28for the
revolutionary director was seeking plays that deviated
from the prescribed form ula o f the “ well-made” play.27, *
Since Germany glorified Ibsen as a Naturalist, it followed
that the play held special appeal for Antoine with his
Naturalist interests.29 Disregarding Prozor’s translation of
Ghosts, Antoine considered a clumsy version based on a
German translation .80Fearing that the play would drag in
this form ,81 A ntoine preferred a new and shorter transla
tion, prepared from the Norwegian text by Rodolphe
Darzens, whose L ’Am ante du Christ had figured at the
Thâtre-Libre in O ctober, 1888.82
The performance o f Darzens’ translation o f Ghosts at
the Th£atre-Libre on May 30, 1890, for the first time
brought Ibsen to the French stage. It will be recalled with
what profound interest Lugn£-Poe and his friends greeted
* When Savine p u b lish e d Ghosts in 1889, after the play's appearance in
La Revue Indipendante, the reviewer o f La Revue d’Art Dramatique
noted with surprise: “ Je n e com prends pas q u e M . A ntoine ait pu laisser
6chapper u n e telle oeu vre .” 28
France’s introduction to Ibsen/ In some people, however
the performance caused consternation, in others, bore*
dom, while a few recognized the advent o f a strong new
genius. Certain disapproving spectators argued noisily
about the checking of coats and umbrellas, making jt
difficult for others to hear the actors "• *
In addition to the newness o f the subject, the public
may have been justly bewildered by the fact that the play
was a translation, as well as by Antoine’s way o f acting,
still considered unusual.84 Indeed the subtler the work
the more it risks losing in translation^ Norwegians ac
knowledge Ibsen’s mastery of the subtleties o f his native
language, nuances which vanish in translation.85 As for
Antoine’s interpretation of the role o f Oswald, Antoine
himself wrote that he had never experienced such an
eclipse of his own personality.86 It is questionable, how
ever, whether his conception o f the role contributed to
the clarity and power of the play, since he made o f Oswald
a man outwardly stricken with disease from the beginning
of the play, a man whose movements were hampered by
paralysis.' Such an interpretation would dissipate the
force of the drama, especially at the end when Oswald
exacted from his mother the cruel promise to give him
poison if he suffered another attack, and when Mrs.
Alving, hoping the moment would never occur, at that
instant saw the devastating malady overtake him.
Further opposition to Ibsen’s play flourished in the
patriotic aversion of some people to any foreign work, an
1 See pages 49-50.
* One wonders if such rudeness was a customary "technique” for inter
rupting a performance. The Odton’s production of G&rminie Lacerteux
was marred in the same way (see page 18).
1Mme Ludmilla Pitoeff, though she never saw Antoine act the role,
told me in an interview that those who had seen Antoine play Oswald
had all told her of this interpretation.
ngonism destined to gain in magnitude and intensity
311works of foreign authors, particularly Scandinavian,
*on increased favor. In the late spring of 1890, in a
lecture on Ibsen at the Theatre d’Application, Paul Des-
■rdins answered such an objection by declaring that
there is no such thing as foreign literature; there are only
e o p l e foreign to literature, and one is no less French for
having glimpsed the spirit of another country.87 The

literature of other lands was indeed commanding atten
tion in France, to the satisfaction of broadminded people.
Georges Viollat, writing a criticism of the Theatre d’Art’s
performance of Shelley’s L es Cenci on January 16, 1891,
noted the already growing interest in foreign plays. “Nous
commengons k comprendre que rien n’£largit plus l’esprit
que de regarder ce qui se fait chez les autres peuples.” 88
On June 29, 1890, Ibsen wrote to the Swedish lyric
poet Carl Snoilsky about the Parisian performance of the
preceding month:
“The effect produced by Ghosts in Paris was very
satisfactory to me. But I was exceedingly sorry that Count
Prozor’s translation was not the one used. I have no idea
why it was not; but often, when I think of the matter, I
blame myself for not having made a formal protest, even
though it might have been to no purpose. My reason for
not doing so was that Count Prozor himself wrote to me
that he did not wish it." 89
When, however, Antoine considered producing The
Wild D uck, using the translation by Armand Ephraim
and Th. Lindenlaub, Count Prozor protested, but An
toine replied that Ibsen could scarcely refuse him the
privilege of producing another play since it was the
Th£atre-Libre which had first performed Ibsen in
France.40 Ibsen consented, but he urged Antoine to use
Prozor’s translation. Writing to Prozor, Ibsen said of An
toine, “Of course I cannot tell what he will decide. But
the Thâtre-ftbre is really of the nature o f a private soci-
ety, it is probably not possible to procure a legal injunc
tion.” 41 ,
Antoine carried out his plans, offering Ephraim and
Lindenlaub’s translation o f The Wild Duck on April 27
1891. While the Th&ttrerLibre considered Scandinavian
plays as essentially realistic,42 the symbolic character of
The Wild Duck occupied the thoughts o f many critics.
Antoine had reason to term Sarcey’s review “ lamentable.”
He could understand that the critic might join with those
who joked about the performance, but such an attitude
did not hinder Sarcey from criticizing like one who, while
not admitting it, had really understood.4®
Lemaitre wondered why the play bewildered people.
In view of Ibsen’s other dramas, The Wild Duck was "une
franche com&lie, et meme par endroits une bouffonnerie,
qui tourne finalement au tragique.” 44 In his opinion,
Antoine treated it too majestically, for Lemaitre con
sidered the play a huge joke on Ibsen, who had always
advocated truth, and who now showed how little place
there is for truth in the average life.45 If Ibsen was paint
ing himself in the person of Gregers Werle, a bitter comic
element indeed invades the drama.
After the first introduction to Ibsen’s dramas by the
Th£atre-Libre, Paris witnessed the production o f Hedda
Gabler on December 17, 1891, at the Theatre du Vaude
ville, with a lecture by Lemaitre preceding the perform
ance. Although a good actress, Mile Marthe Brandfcs, in
the title role, showed an utter lack o f comprehension o£
this most objective of all Ibsen’s works."1m G. Bernard
-When the Cornddie-Frangaise first gave Hedda Gabler, in 1925, Mme
hler writ i n g of the play in L'Ermitage, expressed re-
tment at conservative critics who automatically con-
jflined a n y a t t e m p t to raise the level of theatrical pro-
ducti0118'48
The fo u r th Ibsen play to be given in France was A
iys House, performed privately in 1892 at the little
t h e a t r e of M m e Aubernon in the rue Vivienne. She and
her niece, M m e de Nerville, maintained a salon of such
republican flavor that the two hostesses received the nick
name of “Les Pr£cieuses Radicales.” In keeping with the
style of t h e d a y ,49 they liked to have plays performed at
t h e i r r e c e p t i o n s , and Ibsen’s drama of a heroine bent on
em ancipation could have found no setting more sympa

thetic .50
Paris was not alone in showing interest in French per
formances of the Norwegian master. After a tour through
France in the summer of 1892, Antoine recorded his sur
prise in his diary: “L’Strange, c’est que c’est Ibsen, avec
ses Revenants, qui semble avoir le plus secou£ le pu
blic.’’ 81
The popularity of the Scandinavian writer was increas
ing. In “ Notes sur un essai de dramaturgic symbolique,”
published in La R evue Indipendante in 1892, Camille
Mauclair foresaw the advent of a vogue for Ibsen in
France.82 Shortly after, the same magazine supplied the
information that Ibsen was writing a new play, different
from Ghosts and Hedda Gabler. The publishers already
had the first act.
Although Scandinavian literature, still limited to the
dramatic works of Ibsen, was slowly making headway in
France, an article by Francois Coulon, “ De l’action dans le
Pi6rat, in spite o f her talent, d id not interpret the character study suc
cessfully either.47
dramc symbolique," appeared in La Plume of December
I, 1892, in which Coulon observed that the French were
less sympathetic to the Idealist endeavors of youth than
were Germans* Dutch, and others. As for the greatest
dramatic masters of the period, Wagner had encountered
much opposition in France, and now, another, Ibsen, was
still not wholeheartedly accepted on the French stage.**
In 1892, however, Auguste Ehrhard’s conscientious
work, Henrik Ibsen et le theatre contemporajn, did much
to further Ibsen’s renown in France." Taking into ac
count the complex variety of Ibsen’s work, Ehrhard classi
fied the dramas in four groups: romantic, philosophic,
modern, and symbolic. With Symbolism the order of the
day, Ehrhard studied the symbols in the Norwegian
dramas, drawing attention to a new angle of the writer
whom Antoine considered as primarily realistic. Ibsen’s
development seemed thoroughly logical to the reviewer
of Ehrhard’s book in La Revue d’Art Dramatique, who,
favoring Symbolism, observed that after Ibsen had been
led to Naturalism (the modern group o f plays), he was
now plunged into Symbolism, the logical goal for his
magnificent talent."
Since the early part of 1892, Lugn^-Poe had longed to
have the Cercle des Escholiers produce The Lady from
the Sea, for he recognized in it the strange presence of a
force foreign to the realistic theatre. The performance of
The Lady from the Sea on December 17, 1892, was the
first Ibsen production in France which sought to give
expression first and foremost to the playwright’s symbol
ism.* After this important production by the Escholiers,
Antoine prophesied, “D&ormais, il y a autour du drama-! ^
"In 1891, Charles Sarolea had published Henrik Ibsen, the first French
work of considerable length devoted to Ibsen.
•For an account of the production see pages 85-89.
S C A N D IN A V IA N DRAMATISTS'. DISCOVERY 163
scandinave un mouvement qui sera f&ond et du-
wf„»
«.ble
L 0 Antoine goes credit not only for giving the first
en performances in France but also for presenting
! jndberg and Bjornstjerne-Bjornson to the French thea-
After the production o f Strindberg's Miss Julia on
Tnuary 16, 1893, and Bjornson’s A Bankruptcy on No-
ember 8, 1893, Antoine did not, however, seek to make
wn other plays o f the Scandinavian dramatists.
By 1893 it was the style to read the works of Russians
nd Scandinavians ,57 and when actors and critics alike
acclaimed Francois de Curel, Antoine’s discovery, his
name was mentioned with as much mystery and awe as
though he belonged to one of these exotic peoples.58 In
May, 1893, La P l u m e published the translation by Ernest
Tissot, a young Swiss critic,5* o f three of Ibsen’s poems,*
and announced the forthcoming publication of Le Drame
norwdgien by Tissot, containing the biography and a
critical study o f both Ibsen and Bjornson.*1 The studies,
already published in La Nouvelle Revue,** aimed to bring
an analysis of the Norwegians’ similarities and differences
within reach of the public ,68 for most people needed a
guide in this labyrinth where more than one had already
gone astray.64Tissot analyzed several masterpieces of each
writer, pointing out their common moral outlook on life,
their observation of daily existence, their tendency to
proceed from outward appearances to the inner meaning,
and thence, to philosophical concepts.65 Tissot then
’ Antoine, w ho h a d set the ball rolling, seemed not to grasp the import
of what he had started n or the value o f following it up. In November,
1892, he m ade an entry in his diary to 'the effect that Ibsen "ne peut,
malgre l ’int£rfit considerable de son oeuvre, absorber indlfiniment les
forces du Thd&tre-Libre.” 86
« Georg Brandes later complained bitterly o f the possible deformation
through translation o f an author’s thought and style. He blamed Tissot
for translating certain lines o f Ibsen so that they defied comprehension.®0
I64 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
stressed the importance to Ibsen of solitude, which dev
ops man's personality, whereas Bjornson, wanting to hav
a wider appeal, sought people out in an unsatiated desi/
to understand them better
In 1893, the annual survey, L ’A nnie littiraire—1892
by the drama critic Ginisty/ was prefaced by Ibsen’s ac
count of his recollections of the composition of his first
play, Catalina, though Ginisty’s conservatism was gener.
ally known, and he had spoken harshly o f young writers’
magazines."8 In 1893, Doumic published a valuable vol.
ume, De Scribe &Ibsen, in which he traced dramatic de
velopment in France by studying outstanding plays," and
in which he said that the French were becoming better
acquainted with Ibsen, though in his opinion, there would
always be a margin of incomprehension between two
peoples of different spirit and culture.70At this time, such
magazines as La Revue Bleue, La Revue d’Art Drama-
tique, and Le Mercure de France, contained reviews of
new translations and studies of the Northern writers, and,
of course, dramatic criticisms after each performance of
a Scandinavian play.
In the rush to acquaint the French public with a
broader selection of Scandinavian plays, two zealous trans
lators of Scandinavian literature, Viscount de Colleville
and Fritz de Zepelin, translated three plays of doubtful
merit71 by Edvard Brandes, brother of the famous critic
Georg Brandes, and who himself exercised considerable
influence as a critic in Christiania. The plays first ap
peared in La Revue d’Art Dramatique during the fall and
winter of 1893, and the translators’ introduction in La
Revue Indipendante.
'O n June 4, 1896, Ginisty was named co-director o f the Od£on with
Antoine. On October 29,1896, he became sole director.67
S C A N D IN A V IA N D RAM ATISTS• DISCOVERY 165
Although some felt that Bjomson, “ le Victor Hugo du
” excited even greater discussion, enmity, and affec-
^°r m 5Candinavia than Ibsen,72 in France it was Ibsen
always far outstripped all others. At last France was
^Jcnowledging the Norwegian master as an important,
; Spelling writer. ,
fbsen’s genius was so many-sided that it could bear the
brunt of various emphases. While one element in France
seized upon supposedly anarchist tendencies in Ibsen, as
the riotous performance o f An Enemy of the People in
November, 1893, demonstrated/ the French in general
hailed him as a Symbolist.' Although emphasis on Ibsen’s
realism characterized the Th£atre-Libre performances o f
Scandinavian works, Lugnd-Poe felt sure that Antoine
sensed the Symbolism in Ibsen, but that the director was
too immersed in a Naturalist atmosphere to interpret
Ibsen differently.74
The Oeuvre troupe, in its first season springing to the
fore as champion of Scandinavian drama, faced the full
impact of hostile criticism, which, especially at first, must
often have been justified. As adherents of Symbolism, the
young actors endeavored to interpret Ibsen’s dramas ac
cording to the technique used more effectively for Maeter
linck’s plays. The fact was that Lugn£ did wish to continue
Maeterlinck’s idea of the inner drama,75 and hoped to
emphasize subtleties of thought by means of supposedly
judicious hesitations, repetition of words, and a general
air of suspense. Lugn6 in particular was accused of speak
ing in a hollqw voice, and of chanting, as though partici
pating in a ritual. Indeed, the fervor of Ibsen devotees,
* See pages 123-127.
1 The French were not alone in seeking symbols in Ibsen’s work. Czech
oslovakian students and German ladies were constantly writing the author
for verification o f symbols they felt sure o f having discovered.7*
both on the stage and in the audience, created the itnpfes,
sion of a Mass at which the uninitiate felt themselylf
superfluous. L&m Daudet declared that at Ibsen perform-
ances in the I890’s, “ le tout Paris des repetitions g^n^rales
tombait en extase.” 76
In accordance with Ibsen’s wishes, Herman Bang tried
to induce the Oeuvre to adopt a more natural interpreta
tion.77Lugne.blamed the exaggerated way o f acting upon
German precedent,78 though some thought the German
tradition was human and true to life, and had been well
demonstrated by the Th&itre-Libre.78Antoine had amazed
the audience by putting lights out in the hall during the
performances; 80Lugn^-Poe, especially for Ibsen’s dramas,
went even further by extinguishing them almost entirely
on the stage as well. While Symbolists heartily endorsed
the Oeuvre’s technique,81 many members o f the audience,
bewildered by an unaccustomed kind o f play, often by a
poor translation and by unusual acting, easily found the
general obscurity spiritual as well as physical.
Prozor later related that Ibsen resented being classified
as a Symbolist for he was madly jealous o f his independ
ence which association with a literary movement would
have menaced. Furthermore, he was horrified by “ les
monstruosit& qui commenâient, sous l’influence d’un
symbolisme voulu, a d£figurer ses pieces sur la scene.” 88
His conception of Symbolism recognized all people as
living symbols, because, he said, “Tout ce qui se passe
dans la vie arrive d’apr^s certaines lois qu’on rend sensi-
bles en la repr&entant fid£lement. Dans ce sens je suis
symboliste. Pas autrement.” 88
Adverse criticism does not belittle the value o f the
early Oeuvre campaign in behalf of the Scandinavian.,
theatre; rather, it augments the prestige of Lugn£ and hisi
S C A N D IN A V IA N D R A M A TISTS: DISCOVERY 167
d e s who continued to battle through a maze of
C° 0rs and animosities because they recognized in Ibsen a
e sanding writer o f power and depth.
c f o r t u n a t e ly the young people found encouragement in
backing o f a few critics. T h eir outstanding supporter
was Henry Bauer o f L ’Echo de Paris, famous for his intel
ligent und erstan d in g o f new enterprises. Bauer’s lucid
discussions of Scandinavian dramas did much to dissipate
ê befuddled reports o f others. Among the well-disposed
was H enry Bordeaux, w ho in 189S spoke out boldly for
Ibsen in his Am es m odernes,8* and who again took Ibsen’s
defense in September o f the following year, when La
Revue Blanche published his sound, forceful study of the
Ibsen plays known in France at that time.85 More and
more the public was being made aware of the vitality of
the Scandinavian theatre.
In addition to the plays performed by the Theatre de
l’Oeuvre, the theatrical season o f 1893-1894 numbered
several other Scandinavian productions. After A Bank
ruptcy on N ovem ber 8, 1893, at the Th£atre-Libre and
the Oeuvre’s presentation on February 13, 1894, of Be
yond Human Pow er, two other plays by Bjornson, A
Gauntlet (L e Gant) * and Leonarda (Leonardo), were
given privately in May at the salon of Mme Juliette
Adam.* La N ouvelle Revue, the magazine owned and
directed by the novelist and essayist, Juliette Adam,
shared a conservative attitude with La Revue des Deux
Mondes, though in reality the vivacious editor wished to
“ Prozor’s translation of A Gauntlet, preceded by a foreword by the
translator, had been published in La Revue d’Art Dramatique in 1892.
* Mme Adam fell in love with the theatre at her introduction to it dur
ing her first visit to Paris, when she was about twenty. The only interest
she shared with her uncongenial husband was that of going to the the
atre. “ T’y riais, i’v pleurais, ie m’y enthousiasmais,” she wrote of her new
experiences.88 -s| i
keep abreast of new movements, while exercising her pre.
rogative of using her sound judgment.87 It was quite in
keeping with her literary interests to treat her friends to
the production of two of Bjornson’s plays in her home in
the rue Juliette Lambert, even though A Gauntlet seemed
inconsequential with its story of a girl who, in love with
a rich young man of good family, refuses to marry him
when she learns that he has had a mistress.88
Since these performances, including those in the Oeuvre
program, reached only a limited audience, the public per
formance on April 20, 1894, of A D oll’s House at the
Theatre du Vaudeville assumed particular importance.
Mme Rijane interpreted Nora under Porel’s direction;
Herman Bang took charge of the mise-en-scene.BB
The production of Ibsen’s newest play, The Master
Builderby the Oeuvre on April 3 occasioned some inter
esting remarks on the status of Ibsen in France at that
time. Edmond Stoullig, not completely in sympathy with
the new foreign literature, compared it to “ une nuit
polaire avec, de temps k autre, de superbes aurores
boreales.” 90 Likewise reviewing The Master Builder,
Lemaitre returned to the thought contained in his criti
cisms of Ghosts and A Doll’s House, and, apparently
jealous of Ibsen’s greatness, asserted, positively this time,
that the very essence of Ibsen’s philosophy could be found
in the novels of George Sand.91 He did confess, however,
in concluding, that “ malgre tout, il est impossible, n’est-ce
pas? qu’un drame sign£ Ibsen soit sans interet.” 92, ”
“ La Revue Bleue of March 31, 1894, contained an item which indi
cated the opposition to Ibsen’s dramas in England at that time. Clement
Scott, dramatic critic for The Illustrated, London News in the 1890’s, had
just founded an anti-Ibsen society for the purpose of preventing the pro
duction of Ibsen’s plays in London. Denying that he was either Puritan
or bigot, Mr. Scott declared that he merely wished to take his wife and
daughters to the theatre and that Ibsen's plays "sont faites pour d£-
SC A N D IN A V IA N D R A M A T I S T S : D ISC O V E R Y 169
Lugn£-p ° e an(* his friends realized the magnitude and

he siguificance o f the m ovem en t w hich was now well
nder way. As they com pleted the O euvre’s first season on
Tune 21,1894, w ith tw o m ore Scandinavian works, Bang’s
{rtfres and Strindberg’s Creditors, they determined to
strive even harder to further in France the cause of
Scandinavian drama, in w hich they placed great faith.
Bang’s reiterated instructions and advice convinced them
that in order to gain prop er appreciation o f Ibsen’s
dramas they must seek to interpret Ibsen’s theatre as the
master truly intended his works to be presented. T he
surest course indicated a trip to Norway to confer with
the great writer in person.
It scarcely need be said that the Theatre de l’Oeuvre
ended its first season w ith ou t funds. Yet means must be
found to get the grou p to N orw ay before the next theatri
cal season; it seemed im perative to d o full justice to Ibsen
as soon as possible, and M m e R ejane, who had just played
A Doll’s H ouse, liked to travel and might get there first.95
The Oeuvre’s short excursions to Belgium and Holland
gave Lugne some n otion o f how to manage a more ex
tended tour. Preparations filled the summer o f 1894.90
The repertory w ou ld include Pelleas et Melisande,
L’Intruse, L ’A raignee de cristal, L ’lm age, and, by the
Northern playwrights, Creditors, Rosmersholm, and The
Master Builder. It seemed rash indeed to brave a Scandi
navian public with French interpretations of its own
dramas, but further encouragement came from the Scan
dinavian artists and men o f letters who had participated
in the production o f Beyond Human Power.91
The choice o f repertory caused little concern in com-
moraliser leurs au diteurs .” 93 A lready in 1890 C lem ent Scott had p ro
tested against using the stage as "a platform fo r the discussion o f curious
social problem s.”
parison with material problems. T o be sure, Count |>r
zor arranged to have a Swedish manager, Mollander, and
his associate, Grandison, attend to theatres and itinerar
in the Northern capitals. A pamphlet for publicity
secretly prepared by a Norwegian writer, Hans Jaeger
living wretchedly in Paris.88
Real difficulty appeared, however, when Lugnd con-
suited a map. Copenhagen, the first objective, was at a
staggering distance. Lugn£ has noted that “le prix des
voyages directs me fit reculer de terreur.” 89 So it was
planned to depend upon the generosity of friends to get
the troupe .t'o, Antwerp, where a performance would.be
given. With the expected profits, the, young people could
push on to Amsterdam, for two performances, and thence,
God willing, to Scandinavia. It required deep courage for
this “tournee dans le Nord entreprise avec zdro franc z6ro.
centime en pochel” 100
Towards the end of September, on the eve of the depar
ture, a young woman of about twenty appeared at the
office door just as it was being closed. Sent by Ren£ Gil
bert, a painter and friend of Paul Clerget; she wanted an
audition. Lugn£ tried to put her off, but she insisted upon
being heard. Her plunge into Dumas pore’s Charles VII
chez ses grands vassaux released a discouraging flood of
lines. In the face of her insistence upon continuing—be
cause, she claimed, she did. the next part better—Lugn^-
Poe found himself listening w ith. interest. Her eyes
sparkled, she read with authority, and while she needed
guidance, Lugn£ recognized her latent possibilities
coupled with a real love for the theatre. Surprised by his
own change of judgment and even more by the victory
which the stranger won over his own determined will,
SCANDINAVIAN DRAMATISTS: DISCOVERY 171
<rn£ w rote a note to one o f his friends and Conserva-
oire teachers, Georges Guillemot, asking him to help the
young
woman, Marie Bonvalet, during his absence. Marie
valet’s dark eyes lighted with pleasure, and her con
fidence in him seemed to increase his own optimism over
the forthcoming trip .101
The n e x t morning, with tickets to Antwerp and sixty
francs surplus, the Oeuvre troupe set forth on its first big
tour.102 The troupe numbered ten or more; * the average
age was under twenty. Georgette Loyer, who had played
little Y n io ld in PellSas et Mdlisande, went along, and
Bataille was prevailed upon to allow Berthe Bady to join
the grou p. Berthe Bady was more than eager to meet the
writer whose plays she had helped the Oeuvre to make
known .104 T he stopover at Antwerp, where Rachilde’s
one-act play appealed more than in Paris,108 fortunately
supplied money for expenses to the Dutch city. There the
group had to play as a rival o f the Thdatre-Libre troupe,
but the Oeuvre’s repertory attracted a good audience.10*
Lugn 6 sh o w e d foresight and skill in arranging to have
his trou pe s p e n d every night traveling so as to avoid the
expense o f hotels. From Kiel to Korsor, they spent a most
u n com forta ble night on a small boat. The tiny ship tossed
and d a n ced in a rough sea. T h e already fatigued young
people s u c c u m b e d unanimously to the hopeless despair
of le mal de mer. Those who went ,to the cramped quar
ters had o n ly their suitcases for pillows. As Lugn 6 de
scribed it,. . . nos petits colis . . . roulent sur nos
tetes, et nos t&tes sur nos colis .” 107 The forlorn rSgisseur
’ In later years Lugn6-Poe could not recall the number and identity of
all those included. In his memoirs he has spoken of nine or ten besides
himself; La Revue d’Art Dramatique in its "Nouvelles” of October 1,
1894, announced that sixteen members comprised the group on tour.103
preferred to remain on deck, where fortunately the sailor
tied him to the railing to keep him from slipping over,
board. He howled futilely into the storm that he refused
to go farther.
The arrival at Copenhagen proved for the moment to
be less uplifting than the champions o f Symbolism had
anticipated. Lugn<§ solicitously devoted himself to the
other members of the troupe, all of whom had a greenish
pallor and were “comme liquifies,” while at the same
time he kept an eye on the luggage.108 Grandison met
them. As bearded as Agamemnon and obviously overfond
of drinking, he explained that he did not understand
Danish. Herman Bang saved the situation and even, that
night, in spite of his unpopularity with many people
(especially those writers whom he had not introduced to
Paris), presented the Theatre de l’Oeuvre troupe to the
audience. Despite defeatists’ discouraging attitude to
wards the whole idea of the Oeuvre’s tour, the perform
ance of Pelleas et Milisande was successful.
In eager haste the young people left for Christiania,
where Bang promised to rejoin them. Early on October
8, 1894, a ruddy, autumn day, they reached the goal of
their pilgrimage. Bewildered but excited, they knew only
that Ibsen lived nearby, that Grandison was as ignorant
of Norwegian as of Danish, and that he had left them
dependent on their own initiative. Courage came as they
noticed with delight the Norwegian names on shops,
names which their enemies in Paris had mocked. A t last
the faithful band found itself truly in Ibsen’s country.
The publisher Hammer, beloved of all Frenchmen.^.!
who visited Norway,108soon came to their assistance. He
promptly took Lugn£ to the influential critic Edvard
SCANDINAVIAN DRAMATISTS: DISCOVERY 173
ndes, who, although opposed to Bang, defended them
* n o r e 110. »
■ the papers.
l0^t noon on the first day, the young people could not
jst the temptation o f watching for their master’s arrival
16jgi Grand Hotel. It was impossible to restrain Berthe
pady when she spied him, neatly attired, coming towards
diera- She impetuously accosted him, stammering a few
words. Emboldened by her example, Lugn 6 ventured a
word or two also. Ibsen promised to attend the perform
ance of Rosmersholm that evening and made an appoint
ment for the following day.
D elirious jo y ! Lugn£-Poe wrote, “ Toute la joum£e
nous fum es dans les trances d ’un d£lire sacr£.” 112
T h e performances were scheduled for the small Karl
Johann Teatret, scarcely more than an oversized shed,
neither eleg a n t nor particularly friendly. Yet a good audi
ence ap peared, mocking and curious, to see what the p r e
sumptuous y o u n g French people planned to do with the
Scandinavian plays.
The entire troupe reached the theatre early and with
reverent em otion prepared for the performance. In nerv
ous excitement, M ile Bady gave Lugn£ last-minute advice.
Her voice, always rich, assumed “ des sonorit£s ‘caves’ ex-
traordinaires. Etait-ce le trac? Non, mais plut 6t la proxi
mity du dieul” 118 Flowers, sent by Ibsen, arrived for the
leading lady. W hen the whispered word spread that h e
had arrived, the neophytes did not dare to peek through
the curtain at their god.
A thousand misgivings assailed Lugn£, especially when,
in. his opinion, a comrade read a line poorly. In fact, the
* Lugnd-Poe has noted that strong factions existed in the literary circles
of the Scandinavian capitals: “ . . . qui dtait l’ami de Bang ne l’dtait pas
de Brandfes.” 111 *
adven tu re i n t h e t h e a t r e
ring Kroll so irritated the director that Lll

actor r-y 6 . d on his foot under the table *?•?,
P e rfo rce than he intended, and for the rest 0£ § f
S e actor reproached him with an unmistakable S
While Ibsen displayed no great emotion, he M M
i l end of each act and before leavingi bowed to ,hc
leading lady and then to his admiring public. Such ,ignj
of approval transported the young people to the heights
° f m e next morning Herman Bang took LugntPoe to

Ibsen’s home. The interview proved momentous. To
Luenfs surprise and delight, the playwright declared that
the French were better suited than other people to inter.
et his dramas since an author o f passion must be acted
with passion.11" Lugn£ found this observation so impor.
tant that it altered his conception o f the proper way to
interpret the Norwegian masterpieces.
Ibsen himself expressed anticipation o f the production
of The Master Builder, his latest play, which had passed
almost unnoticed in Scandinavia.11* The French actors
understood the play as a duel between genius and love,
and hoped to please the great author with their vitalizing
interpretation. The performance of the drama on the
following evening marked the climax of the Oeuvre tour.
In his memoirs Herman Bang has told o f that eve
ning.117 Ibsen, in his box, as usual remained immovable
until, towards the end of the first act, it was as though a
chord had been touched in him. It is curious that Ibsen
first showed keen interest at this point, for it is towards
the end of the first act that Hilda stresses her admiration
of Solness, who had climbed to the dizzy summit of the
tower without a thought pf falling. Lugn^-Poe and his
group were paying special attention to the development
iv % \ B
\
SCANDINAVIAN DRAMATISTS'. DISCOVERY 175
love them e. Freud later associated the idea o f fail
ed jth sex, an d this foreshadowing of Freud seems to
held special significance for the Norwegian master.
^During the second act, Ibsen stood at the back of his
fixedly observing every move on the stage. The
sensing his intense interest, seemed to draw fresh
? iration fr o m him so that the love theme swelled
1 a g n i f i c e n t l y . Ibsen leaned eagerly over the edge of his
boX/£or the last act; his unmitigated approval was obvious.
When Bang realized the extent of the group’s triumph,
he told the Norwegian students who had served as extras
to hail their compatriot as he left the theatre. Bang joined
Ibsen soon after at the Grand Hotel. It was the only occa
sion on which Bang ever saw Ibsen moved. The play
wright stretched his hands, clammy with emotion, to him
and cried that that was the resurrection o f his play.
Berthe Bady preceded Lugn 6 to the Grand Hotel,
where Ibsen awaited them. As the excited young man
arrived, he saw the window open and the great writer
take Mile Bady by the arm to acknowledge with her
the enthusiastic cheers of the young Norwegians in the
street.118
Although the contacts between Ibsen and his French
interpreters were to multiply, no incident was ever so
eventful as this, when they received the firstkindly signs
of approval from their adored master. Ibsen inspired
them m ore profoundly than he realized and strengthened
in them a lifelong devotion .118
A t last the courageous idealism of the youthful group
was rew arded. Material discomforts no longer counted,
for they w ere walking on air. It did not matter that high
living costs prevented them from eating properly; Scandi
navian Smorgaasbord were sufficiently satisfying when
SC A N D IN A V IA N DRAMATISTS : DISCOVERY 177
176 ADVENTURE IN TH E TH E A TRE
If instead of the asking price of seven or eight francs,
one could breathe the same air as Norway's outstandin
3 Mea well-dressed customer would pay double the price
man of genius. 8
^înore. When the baker discharged her, she found work
The tour called for a visit to Stockholm, then anoth
f milliner’s S^°P' ®ut» ^CT mind spinning with verses
stopover in Copenhagen. By this time the young pe0DT*
111 she memorized and declaimed whenever possible,
elated with their success, were anxious to impart the'*
gjjfl tunelessly mixed up the ribbons and flowers and had
exhilaration to Parisian audiences. The return trip Waj
f be dismissed.- ■
as lighthearted as the northward journey had been dole
Lugn^ was delighted to work with such an apt dramatic
ful. Even the disappearance at Kiel of some of the pr0p.
oil and recommended her to Worms, who became her
erties did not daunt them. At the French frontier a
Cstructor at the Conservatoire.
bearded gentleman in high hat was pacing the platform' 1 it was necessary, however, to choose a stage name for
Lugnd recognized a familiar form. It was Henry Bataille
jlje girl. The name of Marie Bonvalet seemed unsuitable
rigged out in exaggerated make-up, who was lying in wait
for a theatrical career, and as a student at the Conserva
to see in what state the troupe was returning, and who
toire, she must adopt another name for her supplementary
was especially anxious to assure himself that Mile Bady
theatrical activities. Joking about a current musical show,
had not suffered from the journey.*
Les Pris aux clercs, Marie’s friends at the Oeuvre dubbed
The annoyance of losing Berthe Bady’s regular support
her “Suzanne des Pris aux clercs ” The name stuck, and
was unexpectedly counterbalanced by the discovery that
the talented girl was henceforth known as Suzanne
the Theatre de l’Oeuvre had acquired a zealous devotee
Desprds-Auclair, Suzanne Auclair, or Suzanne Despr£s.121
in the person of Marie Bonvalet, who, in the few weeks
So looking back upon the highly successful Scandi
of Lugnd’s absence, had worked madly to improve her
acting. Her incredible progress astounded Lugn£, and he navian tour and forward to the encouragement of Su
zanne’s enthusiasm, Lugnd-Poe had reason to believe that
soon realized that her eagerness to share dreams and
worries would make her indispensable. the Theatre de l’Oeuvre could fulfill expectations of “un
When Lugn£ inquired as to the young girl’s back bel hiver d’art.” lsa
ground, he learned that her father, a locomotive me
chanic, wanted his daughter to find work as a cashier in
a store; but she, who read avidly, dreamed of one day be
coming an actress, and had run away from home. As sales
girl in a pastry shop, she had the novel but impractical
idea of adjusting prices to the resources of the customer,
so that a needy woman bought a large pie for a franc and
* Bataille’s appearance was so surprisingly artificial that the conductor
inquired where the troupe was performing that evening since one of their
number was already made up.
S C A N D I N A V I A N DRAM ATISTS: APPRO VAL 179
efiting from the experience acquired on the Scan-
^ vfcn trip* Lugn£ guided his group into increasingly
d*pahf i interpretations, which were more understandable
^ tics than the earlier languishing accents 8 which
t0 c ^ poe jater admitted he did not cast off completely
IX: Scandinavian Dramatists'. ^ l l 8 9 6 . 4His endeavors were in the right direction, for
utltl g .p oe’s actors understood and conveyed remarkably
Approval ^ H the mysterious undercurrents of Ibsen’s characters.
^ * to Lugn6 and his group that credit must be given for
h1acclimatization in France at this time of Ibsen, and of
BjSrnson and Strindberg as well.8
In addition to an improvement in dramatic interpreta
tion of foreign works, there gradually became available
T h e RETURN of the Oeuvre’s troupe to Paris in re plays in translation, ,valuable for purposes o f study
October, 1894, inaugurated a rush of activity for the pro- and comparison, so that even those critics most likely to
gram of the theatre’s second season. After Annabella be unfriendly came to feel the power of Scandinavian
Maeterlinck’s translation of Ford’s Elizabethan drama,
drariias.8, *
on November 6, and on November 27, La Vie muette of
While Naturalism, in perhaps distorted form, plodded
Beaubourg—which disappointed the hopes placed in this
on, shaping many playwrights for years to come, the in
writer—the Oeuvre presented Strindberg’s The Father
crease in the number of Ibsen’s plays indicated the de-
(.Pkre) on December 13. The success of the grim Swedish
dine of the movement as the literary school of the day in
tragedy scored a decided victory for the Scandinavian
favor of the ascendant Symbolist group .8In the preface to
theatre in France and necessitated some twenty consecu
tive performances, followed on December 26 by a two his translation of Rosmersholm, Prozor had voiced an
weeks’ run olAn Enemy of the People.1To be presenting idea of great importance to the understanding of Ibsen’s
a play for a number of consecutive performances for the dramas. Ibsen believed, Prozor explained, that the forces
general public was a novelty and tremendous triumph for of nature find expression in the symbols we see about
the Oeuvre company, whose experience was ordinarilyMI us, and that the penetrating observer .recognizes eternal
limited to a dress rehearsal and two performances before later, humorously recognizing the practical, he remarked that Ibsen had
a restricted audience. The Theatre de l’Oeuvre was as more than once saved the Oeuvre in a way he never suspected, fo r the
medal was left at the pawnbroker’s in times o f financial stress.*
suming a progressively more important place in the Pari ‘ One reflection of the stir which Scandinavian literature was causing
sian theatre.* appeared in La Plume of March 15, 1895, in the opening observation o f
one of Paul Masson’s series, “ Les Regards littdraires d ’u n Y ogh i.” In a
• Further encouragement came to Lugn6-Poe when the Kine of Norwav piqued tone he wrote, “ Je trouve qu’il fait d 6jk beaucoup trop froid dans
at Ibsens request, sent him a gold medal. The honor thrilled Lugni, but le d£partement de la Seine. Pourquoi voulez-vous que je m e fasse encore
178 une ame norv£gienne?” 7
truths beneatli fleeting expressions. T h e more careful the
observation, the more living the symbol shows itself t0
be.8Like the Russians, Ibsen saw body and soul as one - ll
idea and reality became identical.11 It was this funda
mental truth that Lugn^-Poe was striving to express.
Reports of the interesting endeavors o f Lugn£-Poe and
his actors in Paris aroused the curiosity o f London.” The
Independent Theatre was instrumental in arranging a
brief visit of the Oeuvre troupe to L ondon’s Opera
Comique from March 25 to March 30, 1895.
Since the repertory included Pelleas et MSlisande and
L’Intruse as well as Rosmersholm and T he Master
Builder, Maeterlinck accompanied the group .18 Miss
Dorothy Leighton, a director o f the Independent Thea
tre, organized a banquet to honor the Belgian author and
the French actors on the day of their arrival.14
English newspapers devoted columns to accounts o f the
performances. Pierre Caume, who wrote up the English
visit for La Revue d’Art Dramatique, 1B observed that in
many instances the English seemed to appreciate Ibsen’s
works more in French than in English. W hile Lugn^-Poe
as well as other members of the troupe received great
praise, Caume seemed to lack confidence both in the
Oeuvre’s ability and in the value o f Ibsen’s dramas. He
experienced a patriotic concern but felt that the fates had
been kind in according so much success to the undertak
ing. The last performance especially, when T h e Master
Builder alone was given, won the sincerest acclaim. The
entire enterprise was not only a financial success but a
feather in the cap of the sponsors.4
'Belgium and Holland had already had the chance to judge the
Oeuvre’s production of An Enemy of the People, early in 1895, after
.12
Lugnd, who was ill, recovered sufficiently to take his troupe there
* While recognizing the success o f the Oeuvre’s trip to London, Caume
i
SC A N D IN A V IA N D R A M A T IS T S : A P P R O V A L 181
G e o r g e Bernard Shaw, w ho attended the performances,
disapproved o f M ile M ellot’s interpretation o f Rebecca
West, but he fou n d her charming in the role o f Pelleas.
The production o f Pelleas et Melisande "brought down
the house in the Rapunzel scene, settled the artistic su
p e r i o r i t y o f M . Lugn£-Poe’s company to the Com£die
fran$aise,” Shaw declared .17 Even though the troupe

could not afford m uch in the way o f settings, the energetic
c r i t i c insisted u p on paying tribute where it was due.
Shaw said n othing o f L ’lntruse. In The Master Builder,

he disliked M m e Gay as Mrs. Solness, thought Mile Su
zanne Despr£s g o o d as H ild a only in the first five minutes,
but he heartily endorsed Lugn^’s portrayal of Solness, so
different from the English, which attempted to give a
poetic treatment o f the master builder. He attributed
Lugn£’s success to the fact that “ he recognized Solness as
a person he had m et a dozen times in ordinary life, and
just reddened his nose and played him without preoccu
pation.” 18
At their next Parisian performance, the Oeuvre intro
duced another o f Ibsen’s plays. L ittle Eyolf (Le Petit
Eyolf), which had been com pleted in 1894, was performed
on May 8, 1895. T h e response o f critics to this play showed
plainly “ q u ’o n ne considerait plus les com 6diens de
l’Oeuvre com m e des apotres de l’erreur, mais comme des
r£v£lateurs justifies de la literature scandinave.” 19
Naturally some unfavorable opinions still appeared,
especially as all three main characters are difficult to in
terpret.' F ouquier, o f L e Figaro, complained o f Lugn£-
was loathe to ad m it th e sincerity o f the praise. H e concluded his article
with the idea that “ m algr 6 ces cordiales receptions a un po&te mystique
et t£n£breux, et k u n e trou p e trainant dans son chariot les tristes theories
d’Ibsen,” one must n o t think that the English really like such authors,
for they are n o t “ fanatiques de ce genre de theatre .” 18
• M agnificent actress th ou gh she is, M m e Pitoeff told m e that she has
Poe’s dull voice as the young actor sought to suggest dee
meanings beneath commonplace words.20 One wonders if
such a critic comprehended the scope o f the drama. per.
haps the most provocative study o f Little Eyolf was that
of Jules Lemaitre. William Archer, who had helped make
Ibsen known in England, felt that Lemaitre stressed what
the French critic considered an incestuous attraction be
tween Allmers and his supposed half sister, Asta. Archer’s
reply to Lemaitre called forth a letter from Ibsen, in which
the playwright thanked his English exponent for having
cleared up the misunderstanding.21
When Lugnd-Poe gave as his final production, on June
21, 1895, one of Ibsen’s earlier plays, Brand (Brand),
written in 1866, he bewildered a large number o f people/
The better informed realized the reason for Ibsen’s desire
to have his dramas performed in chronological order,
since a definite evolution occurred in the master’s devel
opment,28and they appreciated the greatness o f this drama
of Ibsen’s philosophical period, based on the authentic
story of an inhabitant of Ibsen’s native town o f Skien.24
Others more nearly shared the attitude o f one large lady
in a pink hat who voiced her opinion twice. First, im
pressed not so much by what Lugnd-Poe, as Brand, was
saying as by the steady flow of words, she exclaimed,
“What a memory!” 25 Later, when Brand asked of his
gentle wife a complete abnegation in order to share his
own undivided consecration, the same lady snorted, “ You
wouldn’t catch me staying with a man like that!” 28
never dared attempt the difficult role o f Rita Allmers. T o her husband’s
requests she replied that she did not yet feel her dram atic ability suffi
ciently developed to interpret Rita’s vast jealousy in her desire to possess
her husband wholly, nor especially the tremendous love fo r humanity
which appears in the last act.
1 Prozor pointed out the similarity between this theme o f Brand and
Renan’s idea in L'Avenir de la science, that man’s role is to give himself
wholly, without understanding, but feeling and using his im agination .22
SCA N D IN A VIAN D R A M A T IS T S : A P P R O V A L 183
R e m a i n i n g loyal to his mission o f interpreting Ibsen’s
dramas as t h e writer wished, Lugn£-Poe, this time ac-

omp a n i e d by Suzanne Despr^s, returned to Scandinavia
d u r i n g t h e summer o f 1895 to absorb the atmosphere of
l a c e s important in Ibsen’s life and to talk again with the
m a s t e r . Similar pilgrimages took Lugn£ and Suzanne to
Ibsen’ s country many summers.
The only Scandinavian play on the Theatre de l’Oeu-

vre’s program for the season o f 1895-1896 was the first
performance in France o f Pillars o f Society, on June 17,
1896. The general response o f critics was that Ibsen’s
earlier plays did n ot equal his later works. T h e next
fall the first production by the Oeuvre was the ambitious
staging of P eer Gynt, on N ovem ber 12, 1896/
While the O euvre’s projects now received the approval
of many open-minded people, battles over Ibsen were the
greatest literary storms o f the day .27 Aside from the prob
lem of literary quality, Ibsen’s dramas were a work of
combat28 because Ibsen believed in liberty as a living
force.29
Various other reasons contribute also to the explanation
of the violent reception in France o f Scandinavian litera
ture. Ibsen’s dramas baffled French audiences because they
presented an entirely different mentality from the
French.80 It was impossible to make fun o f Ibsen as one
did of Maeterlinck; the Norwegian’s mastery o f dramatic
technique was too im pelling .31 T h e spectators protested
during intermissions, but when the curtain rose, they
again became absorbed, even though sullen .82 Ibsen did
not evoke laughter; furthermore, he made absolutely no
attempt to amuse.88 Consequently Sarcey wrote in his re
* For a detailed account o f the prod u ction o f Peer Gynt, see Chapter X ,
"Some M em orable Performances o f the Early Years.”
view of The Wild Duck that some day pe 0pie
credit to a certain writer named Scribe, whose pia 8ive
clear and entertaining.84 L<§on Daudet was anoth^ ^
could not accept Ibsen’s dramas. He wrote nf
acers:
“On devine qu’ils n’ont jamais bu une goutte d
jamais contempt un paysage clair. Aussit6t qu’j f Vin>
une femme, une fiancee ou une bonne, amie ° nt
songent qu’i l’interroger, qu’& la scruter, q u’& i’jH * ne
qu’i la tourmenier, qu’& lui infliger un secret p o u ^ ’
surprendre ensuite. Les dames agissent de m£me vi I la
des messieurs. Si c’est 5a les amours du Nord, alors v' V' S
Rom&> et Juliette, vivent Don Quichotte et Dujcin ^ ? 1
Toboso!” jj du
An amazing reproach sometimes made against Ibse
was the absence of love, as in An Enemy of the Peobl
Henry Levet’s indignant reply in La Plume to such shal
low people was a forceful “ Cochons!” 87 The publicatio "
in La Revue Blanche of 1897 of the French translation of
Marie, a love story by Peter Nansen, ought to have dis
pelled all doubts in regard to Scandinavian interest in
the subject.
Perhaps the greatest opposition of all to the penetration
of Scandinavian literature into France lay in a patriotic
refusal to accept kindly any foreign work. Why turn else
where for the works which Frenchmen could certainly
supply if given the recognition?
Snobbery accounted for part of the earliest success of
Scandinavian works88and instigated indignant opposition
from adversaries. Sarcey complained frequently of the
*rT e in SeP‘ember< 1897« reprinted from an earlier

d a nre^ nd t n J th f su^Pn s’nS discovery that the Sw edish liked to
dance and sing, therefore these Scandinavian p eo p le h a d a t lea st two
points m common with the French.”
SCANDINAVIAN D R A M A T IS T S : APPRO VAL 185
•sts and fogs enveloping the Northern dramas; Jules
Lemaitre referred to Ibsen as a polar bear, and used ex
pressions relating to the midnight sun and the aurora
borealis. These two critics led the opposition against
Tbsen.89 On the one hand Sarcey, it would appear, went
so far as willfully to complicate and confuse the poet’s
symbolism,40 while Lemaitre, on the other hand, based
his aversion mostly upon “ a vein of narrow, and at times
almost chauvinistic, self-sufficiency, in which he dismissed
with a gesture the idea that foreign literatures may have
contributed something to modern French letters.” 41
Obliged to recognize the greatness o f Ibsen’s genius,
Lemaitre now patriotically set about finding Ibsen’s ideas
in French literature .42 Although in his book reviews of
1889 Lemaitre made observations in passing,* others took
up his ideas emphatically .43 Lemaitre himself gave them
positive expression in his widely read essay, “ De l’in-
fluence r£cente des literatures du N ord.” 44
Lemaitre considered Ibsen’s ideas the reappearance of
the thoughts o f George Sand and Dumas fils, touched by
the Northern spirit, and in which the French rediscovered
their own thoughts. H e explained French approval of
Russian and Norwegian literature by declaring that the
French unconsciously recognized their own qualities in
foreign works. T h ou gh it becomes increasingly difficult
to determine the source o f ideas that pass from nation to
nation, Lemaitre believed firmly that Ibsen was return
ing to the French the substance o f their own literature.
Lemaitre’s essay called forth a vigorous response from
Georg Brandes. In “ Henrik Ibsen en France,” published
in the January, 1897, issue of Cosmopolis/*•i the Danish
4See page 156.
>Ibsen’s letter of thanks to Brandes for his defense bears the date of
O ctober 11, 1896.
|86 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
critic wrote strongly against p resu m p tu ou s foreig n ers who
judged and condem ned an a u th or o f w h o m they knew
neither the language, the b a ck g rou n d , n o r the country's
history and literature. Brandes cla rified his p o in t w hen he
reversed the situation, suggesting a S ca n d in a via n p u blic
uncomprehending before an isolated F ren ch w ork. H e
insisted that one must k n ow S can d in a via n p e o p le in
order to appreciate the d eep truth o f I b s e n ’s characters.
W hile Sand’s and Ibsen’s ideas m ig h t o ffe r som e simi-
larity at first glance, G eorge Sand was essen tially French
in her form ation and ideas; Ibsen ca m e o f a different
race. Ibsen him self w rote B randes assuring h im o f his
complete unfamiliarity with the F ren ch n o v e lis t’s works.
As for Dumas fils, the N orw egian h a d le a rn e d fr o m him
how to avoid mistakes.48 Brandes asserted that n o t o n e of
Ibsen’s ideas could be rationally d ra w n fr o m D u m a s fils,
"tandis que les sources de ces idees son t m an ifestes k tous
ceux qui connaissent les lite r a tu r e s scan din av es.” 47, ‘
Brandes continued by saying that th e D a n e s praised
1 Brandes’ article did not settle the question of French influence in

Ibsen’s formation. Emile Faguet sided with Lemaitre. Victor Basch, in
"Ibsen et George Sand,” in the February, 1898, number of C osm opolis,
supported Brandes’ viewpoint energetically. After Ibsen’s death, in 1906,
Jean Bayet took up Lemaitre’s attitude in an article, “Henrik Ibsen,”
published in La N ouvelle R evue. In 1925 Mme Jacques de Coussange
studied the problem in “L’Influence frangaise dans l’oeuvre d’lbsen,”
which appeared in La R evue d e L ite r a tu r e C o m p a r ie . She even went so
far as to point out the indirect influence of France through the Nor
wegian constitution, based on the French constitution of 1791, augmented
by the ideas of 1830 and 1848, with the result that a certain amount of
French background permeated Norwegian society. A fine and thorough
study of one phase of the question is the work of Tore Linge, L a C on
ception de Vamour dans le dram e de D u m a s fils e t d ’l b s e n , in which
Linge decides of the authors: “Ce qu’il y a de vraiment analogue dans
leurs oeuvres n’est done que le caract£re universel de la vie intellectuelle
de leurs temps. Plus on approfondit les caractferes et les conflits de leurs
drames, et plus on se laisse p6n6trer par les tendances d’&mes qui meuvent
tous ces £tres humains, plus on se sent dans deux mondes absolument
difftrents: dans celui de Dumas fils et dans celui d’lbsen.48
SC A N D IN A VIAN DRAMATISTS: APPROVAL 187
n o t t h r o u g h patriotism, bu t rather because they
^ SC above patriotism to acknow ledge Ibsen's claim to
v B r a n d e s m entioned Ibsen’s occasional use o f mystic
\ r a s e o lo g y ; it caused as m uch surprise in the N orth as
F p rance. It was unfortunate that foreign critics, through
n a t t e m p t to ju dge Ibsen according to their ow n back
ground i n s t e a d o f according to Scandinavian history and
l i t e r a t u r e , denied the N orw egian’s greatness.
A n o t h e r cause o f the initial hostility to Scandinavian
d r a m a s in France lay in the fact that Ibsen’s first appear
ance o n the French stage, at the Thâtre-Libre, placed

h i m w i t h a daring group, and guaranteed prejudiced re
v i e w s by critics like Francisque Sarcey .4 9 M oreover, while

A n t o i n e had given fou r Scandinavian dramas, the p ro
d u c t i o n s had played on ly to lim ited audiences. In addi
t i o n , the texts used were often cut and badly translated .5 0

While Ibsen preferred the French translations o f C ount
Prozor because the Russian’s intelligent discretion pleased
him,51 some people, like R o d , thought that Prozor som e
times sacrificed an easy French style for the sake o f cling
ing more closely to the original .52
Clearer understanding o f Ibsen’s works m ight have
b e e n a c h i e v e d sooner if, as Ibsen advised Prozor, his plays
h a d b e e n given chronologically. As early as the N ovem
b e r , 1893, performance o f A n Enem y o f the P eo p le, this
c r i t i c i s m was directed against Lugne-Poe, although his
c r i t i c freely acknowledged the Norwegian’s greatness .53
B y 1897, however, Northern literature was causing

such a stir in France that La R evu e Blanche conducted
one of its popular inquiries, in which it asked twenty-
five people to give their opinion o f the influence o f Scandi
navian literature in France. T o the two questions,
jgg ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
whether Scandinavian literature had influenced French
writers, and whether such an influence should be en
couraged, Lugn£-Poe answered decisively and briefly;
“A votre premiere question.1
Je rdponds Non!
C’est done coUper court A la seconde." M
In the varied opinions of the others, the idea most often
expressed was that Scandinavian literature had had un-
til then no visible effect upon French letters, although it
aroused interest and stimulated thoughts.
In the first six months of 1897, three more Scandinavian
plays unknown to the French stage were produced. Lugn£
revived the first part of Bjornson‘s Beyond Human Power
on January 10 and introduced on January 26 the more
recent second part, in which Bjornson replaced the re
ligious theme by a social theme. On March 23, Mme
Aubemon, who had already produced A Doll’s House
in 1892, again sponsored a new Ibsen play, John Gabriel
Borkman (Jean-Gabriel Borkman), which Ibsen had com
pleted that very year. The Oeuvre closed its season on
June 23 with the first French production o f Love’s
Comedy (La ComSdie de Yamour), written in 1862 and
belonging to Ibsen’s romantic period.'
The well-disposed, intelligent critic Henry Bauer rec
ognized in Ibsen’s early play, germs o f a more mature
outlook, and in spite of its slow pace, he considered the
play significant." While some critics admitted the liter
ary interest of the performance, the general response was
one of annoyance at the work’s long-winded dullness.
One critic protested against what seemed to him a boring
lecture. He could not understand why the young men
1 Lugn£-Poe used Colleville and Zepelin's translation of Love’s Comedy,
which Le Mercure de France had published in the spring of 1896.
SCAN D IN AVIAN D R A M A T IS T S . A P P R O V A L 189
er fe lt the slightest temptation to embrace their fian-

* so Gamier acted best, caricaturing splendidly the
C tented father o f a large family. Rameau as Falk, the
Coung man who belittled the role of conjugal love, dis-
essed the critic F61ix Duquesnel, who felt that Rameau
not only sang his part, b u t dropped the ends o f his words
nd then leaned over as though to pick them u p ”
The Theatre de l’Oeuvre was the first to present John
Gabriel Borkman to a larger audience than that of Mme
Aubernon’s salon. Lugn£-Poe produced the drama to
open the theatre’s fifth season, on November 9, 1897.
Laurent Tailhade introduced the play, which aroused
sincere admiration.
Thus, o f fourteen Ibsen plays produced in France
starting with the performance o f Ghosts in 1890, Lugn£-
poe was responsible for nine, the first being the Escho
liers’ performance o f T h e Lady from the Sea. After he
incorporated the Norwegian dramas into its repertory,
Mme Aubernon was the only other person to add a new
Ibsen play to those already performed in France. And
though Mme R£jane was the first after Mme Aubernon
to present A Doll's H ouse, the Oeuvre was the first to fol
low up Mme A u bem on ’s production o f John Gabriel
Borkman.
1897 marked a happy moment for the Oeuvre, for
Ibsen recognized Lugn^-Poe and Suzanne Despr6s as “ des
fidfcles,” and refused to have dealings with any other di
rectors or actors in France.88, " Lugnd-Poe must have satis
fied the desires o f the Norwegian playwright, for Lugn£
never had any business difficulties with him, no matter
where or for whom he arranged performances.89
m A ntoine retained the rights to Ghosts, and M m e R ija n e kept A Doll’s

House in her repertory.
When Lugnd revived Rosmersholm, ' on January 22
1898, the play proved as successful as in 1893,90 although
Lugnd-Poe’s own performance may have been less good
Ignoring the continuing influence of Naturalism and val-
iantly defending the importance of Lugnd’s campaign for
Ibsen, Victor Charbonnel, who prepared an article on the
drama for the program, declared that such writers as
Brieux, Hervieu, Curel, and Mirbeau could play in
crowded houses because the Oeuvre’s Ibsen performances
had to a certain extent prepared the way.
In his journal, on February 6, 1898, Antoine noted
that Ghosts had been so well received at the Th&tre
Antoine, which he was then directing, that he thought it
would at last be possible to keep the, drama in the rep
ertory.*1
On February 18, 1898, Lugnd sought to enlarge French
acquaintance with Scandinavian literature by presenting
Gunnar Heiberg’s Le Balcon, published in L e Mercure
de France in March, 1897. Heiberg was the son o f a Danish
Republican who had had to leave Denmark; hence Hei
berg had spent the greater part of his life in France. As
early as 1851-1857, when Ibsen was director of the
theatre in Bergen, Heiberg had adapted French plays for
Ibsen to produce." Critics agreed that Le Balcon did not
warrant a production in France, although the transla
tion of the brutal drama had been of interest as an ex
ample of Scandinavian literature.*4
The popularity of Ibsen’s dramas in France was rec
ognized by the celebration of Ibsen's seventieth birthday
in 1898. On March 29, La Revue Blanche and L e Mercure
de France sponsored a brilliant revival by Lugn£-Poe’s
company of An Enemy of the,People at the Th&itre de la
S C A N D IN A V IA N D RAM ATISTS: APPROVAL 191
Renaissance. La Revue d’Art Dramatique devoted its
April issue to the Norwegian master. Georg Brandes,
jdouard Schur£, Lugn£-Poe, and others contributed.
There were articles on such topics as the Scandinavian
celebration for Ibsen, French critics of Ibsen, Ibsen in
Germany, Ibsen’s attitude towards Scandinavian women.
There were also accounts o f interviews with French actors
who had played in Ibsen’s plays.
On February 18, 1899, during the Dreyfus trial, the
Oeuvre gave a sensational performance of An Enemy of
th e P e o p le .™ Lugn 6 has noted the Norwegian’s pleasure
at the reception o f his provocative drama."
In the fall Of 1899, when circumstances caused Lugn£
to think that his theatre had run its course,1* the political
significance o f A n Enemy of the People nevertheless im
pelled him to produce the drama again. Opening on Oc
tober 29, 1899, at the Theatre du Gymnase, it was per
formed nightly for two weeks,87 an experiment as daring
as that of the fall o f 1894. T he greatest interest of the
performances lay, however, in the fact that the play again
reached a wider circle than that o f the theatre’s sub
scribers, proving that a popular audience cared for theat
rical fare superior to the coarse melodrama and vaude
ville which was all that was usually available at reason
able prices. T h e intelligent, enthusiastic response to the
Oeuvre’s enterprise proved the wisdom of extending the
people’s theatrical horizon. At this time Harold hoped
that Lugn 6-Poe would continue the life of his theatre, in
which further experiment with foreign masterpieces
might be carried on. He suggested such a project as the
means of creating a people’s theatre, for which many were
" See pages 266-268.
clamoring.1’8 The critic of La Revue Blanche was so
pleased with Lugn<§-Poe’s undertaking at the Gymnase
that he called the revival of An Enemy of the People a
more significant event than the premieres of a fortnight.68
Although Ibsen made no effort to attract attention to
his works, Prozor felt that the playwright really did want
to be understood.™ Lugn^-Poe, who, in his frequent trips
to Norway, spent many hours with the Northern writer
declared that “Ibsen aimait cette France dont l’esprit
critique et libre le passionnait,” 71 and blamed Ibsen’s
timidity for his refusal to visit Paris when his reputation
there was established.
Feeling about the Scandinavian theatre still ran high
at the turn of the century, but the battle was virtually
won. Early in 1899 a lecturer on “ Le Theatre contem-
porain, son role,” regretted that vaudeville, melodrama,
and revues offered only facts, whereas the theatre d’idees
went to the other extreme. The first type o f theatrical
offering amused at least, but in his opinion, the second
produced only a gentle slumber. The great exception he
made to his sweeping statement was the performance of
an Ibsen drama, for the spectator felt himself swept to
great heights, then dropped suddenly and dizzily to great
depths, sensations scarcely conducive to sleep. Ibsen made
people angry, he said, but he never let them doze .72
Le Mercure de France in February, 1900, noted that
Norway was very much in style.73 In 1901, Ernest Tissot
surveyed the course of Ibsenism in France in an article,
“Petite Histoire du courant ibs&iien,” which appeared
in La Quinzaine. Tissot observed that critical works on
Ibsen were not popular, but as Edouard R od later com
mented, critical works never have a wide appeal .74 Tissot
said that in spite of lively discussion o f Ibsen’s works, box-
SCA N D IN A VIAN D R A M A T IS T S : APPROVAL 193
office receipts remained slim. By 1906, R od was able to
ote an improvement in financial returns.18, *
Puring the summer o f 1903, Suzanne Despr^s accom
panied A ntoine’s group on a tour of South America.
When Lugn6 join ed her, he was surprised to find the Nor
wegian masterpieces as well known in R io de Janeiro and
Buenos Aires as in Paris and Berlin, for the Italian
troupes o f Eleonora Duse and Ermete Zaccone had intro
duced them .77
Mme Despr£s’ tour with Antoine had the great advan
tage of supplying the actress and Lugn£-Poe, now her
husband, with funds for producing A Doll’s House for
the first time at the O euvre .78 Dorothy Knowles names
this performance, on O ctober 10, 1903, as possibly the
first occasion when the press and public united in prais
ing a drama by the great writer.79, p Mme Despr^s scored
a triumph as Nora, a role which remained famous in her
repertory.
The follow ing m onth Antoine gave three consecutive
performances o f Ghosts, for which the box-office receipts
were splendid, in fact, almost as good, he noted, as for a
new play .81
In 1903, after consulting Count Prozor, Ibsen made
Lugn6-Poe his mandataire gin ira l .82
When, on A pril 21, 1904, Lugn£ lectured on “ Ibsen et
son public” in the Salle des Agriculteurs, under the
auspices o f L a R evu e B leue, he admitted the faults of
early performances and described his efforts to under
stand m ore fully the background and inspiration of Ib-
• It is curious to note that though Ghosts was played on May 30, 1890,
it was not until June 15, 1921, that the ComMie-Franâise accepted a
drama by Ibsen, An Enemy of the PeopleJ®
'F ou r or five times after this entrance of A Doll’s House into the
Oeuvre repertory, Lugn6 used the revised ending, prepared for German
audiences. In this form the play produced no effect, he said.80
sen’s dramas. He observed that though the French were
among the last to know Ibsen, they had become "leg
mieux initios.” 83 And in fact, Mary Morison, in her in-
traduction to The Correspondence of H enrik Ibsen, pub
lished in 1905, frankly attributed to Lugnd-Poe the ex
istence of “a more vigorous development o f ‘Ibsenism’ in
France than in any other country.” 84
When Ibsen died in 1906, numerous articles appeared
reviewing his stormy career in France. H enri Davignon
expressed gratitude to the noisy anarchists and fervent
Symbolists of the early years, who had insisted upon a
hearing for their god .80Acknowledgment o f Ibsen’s gen
ius generally characterized the articles.
The activities of the Oeuvre had been o f prime impor
tance in the propagation and acceptance o f Scandinavian
literature in France. It had required all Lugnd-Poe’s de
votion to continue the combat. T h e frequent trips which
he and Suzanne Desprds made to Norway to see Ibsen and
to absorb the feeling of the places which Ibsen had known
qualified Lugnd more than any other to be the suitable
leader in interpreting the Norwegian’s masterpieces.
Mme Desprds, as sensitive as her husband to the beauty
of the master’s work, intelligently seconded Lugn 6. Count
Prozor wrote that these artists never required assistance
from him for staging because “ [ils] ne se sont jamais
preoccup^s sur la scene des idees cacMes que la lecture
suggerait a leurs vives intelligences, si ce n ’est pou r mettre
dans leur jeu plus de vie intense, avec la certitude que les
idês en sortiraient d’elles-memes.” 88
Ibsen’s theatre, vibrant with intensity and meaning, at
tracted Lugne like a magnet but was not o f a nature to
have a wide appeal.87 The critic Henry Bauer proved one
of the staunchest defenders of the new foreign master-
SC A N D IN A V IA N D R A M A T IS T S : A P P R O V A L 195
pieces. His discerning articles on Ibsen, whom he exalted
fervently ,88 supported the efforts o f the Oeuvre most ef
fectively.
The ve ry violence o f the feeling for and against Ibsen
raised prejudices w hich w ou ld have retarded the assimila
tion of N orthern literature in France even if the Scandi
navian tem peram ent had m ore nearly resembled the
French .80 Ibsen’s works gained in provocativeness because
he considered it his mission, as a writer, to give voice to
the solemn understanding o f his m ind and his con
science.00 C on vin ced o f the truth he set forth, he then
presented questions w ith ou t ,feeling the responsibility of
answering them ,91 fo r his m ission demanded only that .he
incite m editation and discussion. Indeed, he revealed the
souls o f people in conflict w ith society rather than the
souls o f writers in conflict with critics like Sarcey.02W hile
his art left n o ro o m fo r follow ers ,03 he infused life-giving
strength into the theatre by shattering the worn tech
nique o f intrigue plays, and by offering new thoughts,
thus broadening immeasurably the playwright’s hori
zon.04, 4 Like M aeterlinck and Tolstoy, Ibsen encouraged
exploration in the vastnesses beyond material reality, his
unaccustomed ideas startling men into investigating new
4Naturally there have been some instances of imitations of Ibsen’s
works, among the most apparent being Donnay’s Le Torrent and Brieux’
Les Avarids^ though the Norwegian’s influence has been far more pow
erful when subtle. Lenormand, for example, is jealous of his originality,
yet acknowledges a debt to Ibsen, and it is interesting to see how Le
normand has absorbed Ibsen’s spirit, never servilely, but merging it with
his own rich view o f life. One of Lenormand's most striking similarities
to an Ibsen theme occurs in La Dent rouge, with his use of the projection
of an evil thought into future reality. Just as Solness saw the realization
of his hope o f having the house burn, in Lenormand’s drama, Claire,
for a split second, wishes Pierre would follow his mad desire to dimb
the mountain and then would slip and be killed, and she experiences
deep remorse at seeing her fleeting, angry vision come to pass. In such
plays as Le Temps est un songe and L’Ombre du mal Lenormand like
wise shows that he has studied Ibsen’s dramas, not to imitate but to make
the Norwegian’s spirit a part o f himself.
J96 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE
channels of thought." While for a time Symbolism ac.
counted for a fair share of French interest in Ibsen, the
Symbolists did not fully realize that Ibsen had already!
done majestically what they were striving for. The com-
mon ground of preoccupation with values and forces be.
yond visible reality attracted the Symbolists, however, t0 1
Ibsen, and they waxed enthusiastic over The Master I
Builder, which presented the miracle o f no longer keep. I
ing the symbol parallel to the action but o f making sym. I
bol and action one and the same thing.*7
The impact of Ibsen’s genius was so strong that as early I
as 1904 Lugn6-Poe felt that, Ibsen’s ideas affected people I
without their knowing it, and even without their attend- I
ance at performances of the plays.88The impelling stinni- I
lation of Ibsen’s spirit penetrated social and political I
thoughts, helping to liberate men’s viewpoints. The very I
fact that Ibsen’s spirit seeped into daily life as an under- I
current gave it an added, mysterious power, for it sank I
into men’s inner thoughts before reactionaries realized I
what was happening."
...lliuml.iii... ........ ............ ....... ..................
0 Some Memorable Performances

of the Early Tears
A n y S E L E C T IO N o f memorable performances of
the Theatre de l’Oeuvre is distinctly arbitrary, since jus
tification could be advanced for classifying any one of its
productions under such a heading. The theatre’s varied
programs were never mediocre in their interest nor in
their effect upon the audience. The faithful hailed suc
cesses as great successes, while enemies voiced equally in
tense condemnation. Whether a play was a triumph or a
failure, at least it was never banal.
Of the five plays chosen for this chapter, L e Chariot de
terre cuite, adapted from the Sanskrit, formed part of a
program of Lugn£-Poe to present masterpieces of many
epochs and literatures. The premiere o f Oscar W ilde’s
Salomi showed Lugn£-Poe’s faith in literary beauty and
proved his readiness to support an artist in distress.
Gynt represents the Scandinavian interest of the Theatre
de l’Oeuvre, for no selection of “ memorable” perform
ances would be complete without a play by Ibsen. Jarry’s
fantastic, prophetic Ubu roi comes to the minds of many
197
as an example of the theatre’s daring, outstanding ner.
formances. Finally, Ton Sang affirmed the talent of Henrv
Bataille, who was orienting himself in the theatre.
mrfiiinmitiitimiiiininnninii
January 22, 1895 nouveau -thj&Atre
Le Chariot de terre cuite, adapted by V ictor Barru-

cand from the Sanskrit drama M ric’ chakatika, attrib
uted to Soudraka.
When Lugn^-Poe included Le Chariot de terre cuite

one of the great masterpieces of Hindu literature,1 in his
program of fine works of all nations and eras, he reflected
the interest of the 1890’s in Chinese, Buddhist, and In
dian culture. Le Chariot de terre cuite, supposedly writ
ten by Soudraka, the kingly hero of many adventures and
doubtless a legendary figure,2 was the outstanding ex
ample of popular Hindu drama, as L ’Anneau de Qakun-
tala, given by the Oeuvre the following December, was
the masterpiece of Hindu heroic drama.®
Le Chariot de terre cuite recommended itself in several
ways. Van Bever, who wrote an article for the program,
stressed the lyric beauty of the masterpiece, remarkable
for “un suave parfum d’exotisme” and “ une podsie d£-
licieusement p£n£trante.” 4 The play held special appeal
for Symbolists because of the courtesan Vasantasena’s pu
rification by love, the theme which dominates the work.”
* The courtesan VasantasenS is redeemed through her love for the virtu
ous but penniless Brahman TcMroudatta, who believes in non-resistance
and following the way of the gods. The evil prince Samsth&naka, thwarted
in his amatory advances to Vasantaseni, strangles her, leaving her for
dead. Taking advantage of his elevated caste, he succeeds in having
Tchdroudatta condemned for the crime, but just before sentence is car
ried out the courtesan arrives. She is reunited with her lover, who mag
nanimously spares his accuser.
MEMORABLE PERFORM AN CES OF EARLY YEARS 199
They also appreciated the beauty of the scene in which
Vasantasena cast her jewels into a child’s clay cart to give
•t aS m u ch worth as another child’s golden cart.5 Her
etty gesture showed that love and kindness can trans
form the triviality o f existence .8 An attraction for many
people lay in the anarchist tendencies which smoldered
beneath the picture o f H indu society.
Victor Barrucand, who adapted the drama, found it
greatly to his liking. Early in 1894 he had followed the
spirit of the day by defending anarchy, replying to Paul
Desjardins’ trenchant condemnation of anarchy, “ L’Id£e
anarchiste,” which La R evu e Bleue had published in De
cem ber.7 Barrucand’s Ecritures bouddhiques, then but
recently published in La R evu e Blanche, attested to his
interest in Orientalism.
The adapter o f a work exposes himself to severe criti
cism; Barrucand was not spared. T h e fact that few people
were capable o f a true evaluation o f the adaptation and
performance—since the Sanskrit courses at the College
de France were practically deserted8—did not deter them
from accusing Barrucand o f cutting the play badly. Obvi
ously the ten acts o f the original text were unsuited to a
modern production, but Jacques du Tillet blamed Barru
cand for trying to make the Hindu work resemble a play
of 1895.9, * A.-Ferdinand Harold, in his favorable review,
termed the adaptation skillful and faithful to the origi
nal; 11 but the presence o f anarchist ideas made most
critics feel that the general character of the play had been
altered. W hy had not Barrucand frankly written a play of
his own? Barrucand declared that he had no intention of
turning H indu ideas against modern institutions; it was
1 It is interesting that R ev ilo Pendleton Oliver, in a study preceding his
translation of the play, calls the Mric1 chakatika “ m ore like Western
dramas than m ost .” 10
ironical that they applied.1* There was a tendency, how
ever, for what was merely accessory in the Sanskrit* to ^
sume primary importance in the modern version, f0r ^
tirades which Barrucand retained burst like bombs i^
stead of blending with the whole.1*
Paul Gruyer of La Revue d’Art Dramatique d e p lo y
Barrucand’s omission of the polygamous theme, an in.
tegral part of the Sanskrit play, but which would prob.
ably have caused amusement in 1895. He added, however
. “Tant pis pour qui aurait ri; un Theatre comme l’Oeuvre
ne doit pas jouer pour les imbeciles.” 14 Although as a
rule he disapproved of a lecture preceding a performance
in this instance a few words of explanation could have
perpared the audience for the Hindu custom. Teodor de
Wyzewa delivered a lecture before the performance, but
Gruyer considered the production too fantaisiste to be
clarified.18Judged on its own merits, the lecture was clever
but offered only vague notions and platitudes on India
and the Hindu theatre.
The audience which supported this unusual artistic
enterprise was typical of the Oeuvre’s public o f the early
years. Elegant mundane dilettanti attended, as well as
friends of modest appearance, and strangely clad esthetes.
Long-haired gentlemen with flourishing beards sported
long coats with velvet collars or ample capes fastened with
silver clasps. Their pretty, slim companions affected coif
fures in the Botticelli manner, and rapturously seconded
their escorts’ enthusiasms. It seemed that the stranger the
costume and the more complicated the arrangementfof
hair, the more vociferous was the reception o f the per
formance.1* In the approved fashion, this vibrant public
applauded frantically at the slightest pretext. It required
a mere “Ahl que la nuit est belle!” to make those in the
MEMORABLE PER FO R M A N CE S O F E A R LY YEARS 201
icony stamp and applaud with joy.” T h e cautious an-

cj1y which Barrucand expressed very naturally provoked
a e noisy support ; 18 Du T ille t felt certain that the good
king Sofidraka was n ot the anarchist that those in the
llery supposed .19 T h e frenzy o f such supporters discour
sed other spectators,20 and one wonders that anyone
could appreciate passages o f delicate, lyric beauty, which
Symbolism and slowness o f action further obscured .*1
The collaboration o f H enri de Toulouse-Lautrec and
the painters A ndr 6 and Valtat added to the prestige of the
production. For the program, Toulouse-Lautrec sketched
F&ix F6n£on, anarchist/ Symbolist, and art critic, since
Lugn6 had asked him to deliver the prologue of the play.
Toulouse-Lautrec likewise designed the principal set, the
splendor o f which was unfortunately obscured by poor
lighting/ Andr£ and Valtat designed an especially good
set for the second act.24, *
The artistic qualities o f the work and its production
were greatly overshadowed for most people, however, by
the amazing spectacle o f a m ob scene in the last act. At
the opening performance, F£lix F£n£on pronounced the
prologue suitably draped in a length o f lightweight flan
nel, bought at a bargain sale. A ll that the group could
afford, this same piece o f material, cut into strips, was to
provide oriental garb for the fifty or more members of
the mob. Consternation grew as it became evident that
the strips, cut smaller and smaller, could not encircle the
wearers. A ll that could be fashioned was a turban, which
* Fdnten, on trial in the Prods des Trente in 1894 because o£ his con
tributions to anarchist papers, was acquitted like most of the defendants;
Laurfent T ail hade was one of those to be imprisoned.22
* Lugn 6-Poe kept the maquette and years later mused over the striking
effect w hich the modern equipment of the Th£dtre Pigalle could have
brought o u t .28
* Leon d e la Quintinie painted the sets.
had to typify Hindu dress. Ochre, diluted with red
yellow paint, was a desperate resort to eke out the co
turning. A few fortunates hurriedly borrowed costume*
others made imitation charm ornaments. But the genera]
and impelling impression remained one o f nudism.
Dismayed at the undeniable horrors before him, LugnV
thought quietly. What would the regular subscribe^
think? and the boulevardiers, sometimes surprisingly
prudish? and the police? Seizing upon a daring solution
he singled out one of his “plus . . . nus,” clad in a tur!
ban and a bit of cord picked up backstage and knotted
as effectively as possible. During the intermission this
pseudo-Hindu quietly stepped to the center footlights
where he sat, cross-legged, back to the audience, arms
raised as in prayer. As Lugnd had foreseen, titters of as-
tonishment rusded over the diminished audience but
subsided before the room filled up. Then a new wave of
gasps and giggles arose, and died down before the act
started.25 The motionless fakir succeeded in obtaining
silence-or had the audience become in a rticu la te*
Blasts of indignation burst in most reviews of the play.
A few critics were amused by this “ figuration . . . pitto-
resque et z&de,” 28and particularly by one monkey-like
little man, in trunks and turban, who wore his pince-nez.*1
The discouraging display of anatomy had little in com
mon with the traditionally statuesque bodies o f Hindus.**
For the esthetic sense at least, one critic begged for the
return of tights, “le pr^cieux maillot qui dissimule les
imperfections physiques de la race.” 29 Another, unaware
of the desperate plight which had necessitated the sketchy
costuming, deplored what he considered an excessive ef
fort towards realism.80
While some shocked and disgusted critics scarcely men-
MEMORABLE PERFORMANCES OF EARLY YEARS 203
tioned the play, others saw an opportunity to exercise
{heir wit. Alfred Delilia’s review in L e Paris is an out
standing example o f this attitude. H e wrote as follows:
“Nous avons la pom m e cuite, la terre cuite, et la
pomme de terre cuite.
Le Chariot de terre cuite est tout autre chose.
Nous avons des cymbales et des symboles.
La nouvelle £cole jou e k la fois des deux.
La cymbale: £clat.
Le symbole: mystfcre.
Le Chariot de terre cuite, k la fois cymbale et symbole.
C'est une oeuvre que repr&ente l’Oeuvre. Union, com
munion.
Oeuvre Strange et £trang£re. Davantage l’une; mais
beaucoup plus l’autre.
Etrange, elle est de V. Barrucand.
Etrangfere, d’apr£s la M ric’ chakatika.
II y a plus de quatre mille ans et cinq ou six jours que

ce drame hindou fut 6crit par le roi Soudraka, tres peu
connu k cette 6poque dans les caf£s du boulevard.
Mais M. V. Barrucand veillait et il n’a pas permis que
son ami tombat ainsi dans l’oubli.” 81
Delilia could not resist the puerile, mirth-provoking
technique, dear to young students of Latin, of adding
strange suffixes. Under the influence of Sanskrit, Delilia
noted that the little cart became worthy o f a visit to the
“Montdepi6tat&,” while, he added, the Sanskrit basis of the
play “ n’est pas une raison pour que je comprennikatika.” 32
Fortunately some reviewers gave an intelligent ap
praisal of the Oeuvre’s production. Romain Coolus, the
dramatic critic for La Revue Blanche, expressed his grati
tude to Victor Barrucand and Lugn£-Poe for their rec-
204 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE MEMORABLE PERFORMANCES OF EARLY YEARS 205
ognition of the rare qualities present in this incompar. inposer Erik Satie. In 1892 Satie had severed relations
ably beautiful work,88 “d’une jeunesse inftechissable." •< c the Rosicrucian movement and had expressed his
A.-Ferdinand Harold thought the production one o£ the f o n d n e s s for religious forms by founding a “church,”
best and most unusual of the Oeuvre’s enterprises." ac. r’Eglise metropolitaine d’art de Jesus conducteur, decli
quainted with the original,** he was in a position to testify n e d to the interests of art, and in the name of which he
to the thoughtful care of the adaptation. Jules Lemaitre excommunicated those who, in his opinion, sinned against
summed up his admiration of the masterpiece by declar- beauty and morals.40 Satie addressed a violent condem
ing that “rien dans les th&tres grecs, anglais et franîs nation, impressively written in red ink, to Lugn^-Poe
ne me parait sup£rieur k cette com&Jie indienne.” MThe I a n d to the editors of Le Mercure de France, La Revue
poetic qualities and the portrayal of character impressed Blanche, and La Plume, the base magazines which in
Henri Tourade of La Petite RSpublique, who exclaimed s p i r e d and supported the Oeuvre’s director. Amused con
"Que de belles pens£es exprim&s fortement en une tempt defied Satie’s pompous denunciation of those male
langue puissante et gracieuse; quelle d£licatesse dans factors who, he said, sought human corruption. La Plume
l’&ude de cet amour de courtisane qui se fait humble et commented that Satie should have signed "Erik Sottise.” 41
pauvre pour devenir digne du bien-aim£; quelle saisis- By publishing the text of the "excommunication,” the
sante vfrit£ dans le portrait du prince, pervers et timide, magazine generously gave Satie free publicity, then scorn
sournois et malfaisant, cruel et souple, redoutable et fai- fully terminated the affair with, " —Et dire qu’il se trou-
blel” ** vera toujours des nigauds pour ‘couper’ dans de pareilles
While the acting called forth the usual diversity of fumisteriesl” 42
opinion, a newcomer was noticed with interest. Suzanne Montmartre had reason to remember the performance
Despr&, who had first claimed Lugn^’s attention the pre of Le Chariot de terre cuite if only because of the unfor
ceding fall, made her debut, creating a charming Mada- gettable sight, during the three or four days of the pro
nika, Vasantasena’s slave. duction, of strange streaked creatures, for the coats of
The performance of the opening night held calamity paint stayed on all too well for the sighdiness and comfort
for Lugnl. A curtain-weight backstage fell on his leg, of the victims.4® In the interests of dramatic art, how
crippling him completely for several days. Those dark ever, the production was momentous. As Barrucand later
hours of suffering tortured the active man, who longed wrote, “L’apparition d’un Orient v6ridique, indulgent,
desperately to be with his troupe fighting for his enter- , sensuel et d£licat, sur la scfene condamnê aux chass^s-
prise." croises de l’adult&re, surprit Paris eri 1895, comme un
In this discouraging state of immobility, Lugn£ re £vangile de grace.” 44
ceived an astonishing mark of disapproval of the Oeuvre’s
performance in the form of a communication from the
ADVENTURE in THE T H E A T R E
206 ,
February 11. 1896
Salrnl drame en un arte, by Oscar Wilde. Incid
music by Ren<! Lardi. Set by Sirusier. Progr,^'3'
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec.
Although Oscar Wilde had enchanted the public I*

Lady Windermere’s Fan,*3 Salomd, a product o f his
mature period," written in 1891, was slow to win reco/ * 1
tion. Wilde already enjoyed a more cordial recepti0rf ^ '
France than in England. It was even suggested that h”
had written this drama in gratitude to the French f0r th
politeness shown him,47 although some people, not rec0 C
nizing Wilde’s fundamental originality/8 considered
closeness to Flaubert, Maeterlinck, and even LaforgUe ^
strange way of expressing appreciation.49 Written directl3
in French, the play appeared in book form simult3n ^
ously, in 1891, in Paris and London, illustrated with
single design by Felicien Rops. The English translation
prepared by Lord Alfred Douglas, was published the fol’
lowing year in London and Boston.80A cover design
twelve illustrations by Aubrey Beardsley, the most d
cussed English artist of the day, adorned the volume1'1
Since Beardsley delighted in shocking the bourgeois h’
daring illustrations must immediately have prejudiced I
number of people against Wilde’s work .82 3
Despite the author1* denials, many people persisted in
believing that Wilde had really written the
Sarah Beruharde. In a„y g | the m a n ^ m l fa
I 3 1 ^ sJ te d
atre in London a year b e W i . Ce The‘
voking a law forbidding the presenter * PU.bIlCation- In‘
subject on the stage, the Lord Ch ^ BiblicaI
g> the Lord Chamberlain stopped the
MEMORABLE perform ances of early YEARS 207
ehearsals.03 M m e Bernhardt appeased W ilde’s fury by
promising to give the play in Paris at her own theatre, the
p o r t e - S a in t -M a r t in , a promise which she did not keep,
however/ T h e Theatre d ’Art also thought of producing
play, but nothing came o f the intention.'
After W ild e ’s trial and during his imprisonment,
Lugn^-Poe, w ho sometimes went to London, sought out
the writer’s friends, w ho had faded from view. Lugn£ was
always eager to help an artist in trouble and, moreover,
he recognized the lyric beauty o f SalomS, well deserving
of the O euvre’s attention. T h e main difficulties which
harassed L u gn 6 were financial rather than moral or legal,
although there was the danger that an English injunction
might be invoked. Since the Oeuvre was supported by
subscribers and the theatre therefore was not open to the
general public, it seemed within reason to take the risk.58
Announcements appeared o f a performance at the
Comedie-Parisienne * o f a three-act play, Raphael, by
Romain Coolus, dramatic critic o f La Revue Blanche.
Lugnd decided to announce Salome only at the last min
ute, for fear o f stirring up unpleasant publicity .58
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec designed an effective litho
graph for the program. On one page was an excellent like
ness of Coolus and opposite, a sketch of Wilde, with West
minster A bbey and the Tow er of London in a misty
background.
Despite the cooperation of the Oeuvre’s friends, mate-
1M m e B ern h a rd t d id indeed consider producing the drama and enter
tained the n o tio n o f in clu d in g La Belle au Bois dormant, revised to her
taste, o n the same p rog ram (see page 143). Bataille was more than a
litde an noyed at the prospect o f having his work linked with “ 'la Salomi
d ’O scarwald’ [sic]." 54
" Paul F o rt claim ed that W ild e had written Salorrii for the Th&ltre
d ’Art, that A d o lp h e R ett£ and Pierre Louys had gone over it for Wilde,
and that W ild e h im self had read it to Fort.6®
k N ow the T h 6S.tre d e l ’Ath£n£e .B7
208 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE UEMORABLE PERFORMANCES OF EARLY YEARS 209
rial problems and near-catastrophes accompanied the n noticed at the Th&itre-Libre in January, 1893, Raphael
duction of Salomd. The most difficult and the most Let with considerable success.*0
portant “prop” was the head of Iokanaan, for without I Salomd was decidedly the event of the evening." The
l a s t - m i n u t e announcement of the play's inclusion on the
good likeness, the audience would become hilarious 3
I p r o g r a m minimized gossip.” Nevertheless, a violent dis
the dramatic moment. Lugnl found the Negro execu
tioner and a suitable platter, but it was harder to locate a pute occurred during the intermission between the plays.
R o d o l p h e Darzens, tenaciously defending Wilde’s cause,
bloody head. An inspiration led Lugn£ to the Mus&
Grdvin, where the director of the waxworks museum con and Maurice Maeterlinck, arguing against him, nearly
sented to lend a realistic head, for which Lugnl assumed came to blows. Friends who separated them made arrange
full responsibility. The Oeuvre troupe was delighted. At ments for a duel, which, however, never took place.**
the last private rehearsal, the executioner in the cistern The staging of Salome required more courage than one
raised the frightening object on the platter, but before would suppose.*4 In view of the scandal of Wilde's trial,
Saloml could embrace it, his arm trembled and the head many passages might excite manifestations, and it was im
crashed to the floor, shattering like a saucer. The pieces perative to subdue such possibilities and to inspire appre
were carefully glued together for the performances and ciation of the work’s passionate beauty. Suzanne Despr£s,
the museum director was sympathetic, but Lugnl had to as Hlrodias’ young page, passed off with such exquisite
pay many small installments to make up the three hun grace the provocative line, “II £tait mon frfcre et plus
dred francs which the head cost.89 qu’un fr&re,” that no one suspected the danger lurking
The ComMie-Parisienne itself raised another problem. beneath it.**
The only building standing in a block of demolished While the soaring harmony of the lines, so understand
houses and holes in the ground, the theatre towered above ing^ rendered, captivated the audience,** near-disaster
its desolate surroundings. At the last minute the police backstage almost nullified the actors’ successful efforts be
condemned the theatre as unsafe, especially as access to it fore the footlights. As the Com^die-Parisienne was being
was most inadequate. Lugn6 pleaded with the business altered, dressing rooms were unusable, and costumes clut
like architect in charge of rebuilding the block, and on tered the plaster-filled passageways. Suzanne Desprds dis
the day of the dress rehearsal persuaded him to construct covered a fire, rapidly spreading in some flimsy costumes.
a makeshift, wooden tunnel, satisfactory to the police. Single-handed, she set about extinguishing it. By the time
The Oeuvre’s devotees, arriving at nine, were able to Lugn6, in costume as H 6rode, wearing his cardboard
enter the theatre with comparative ease by means of the crown, could reach her, smoke and flames filled the cor
covered passageway, some thirty feet long, which led from ridor. Thanks to the concerted efforts of those not on
the rue Boudreau. stage, Suzanne and the blaze were thoroughly drenched,
Coolus’ play opened the performance. Although his and the Oeuvre’s spectators remained unaware of the in
one-act play, Le Manage Bresile, had passed almost un- cident."
Those who attended the performance hoping for mani
festations68 were disappointed, for the attitude towards
the author seemed one of pity rather than of blame.80
Moreover, the drama's passion and beauty occasioned
warm applause, for the ancient and bloody legend as
sumed new power in Wilde’s version.70Wilde used a mas
ter stroke when he unified the action with the motivating
love theme. His play, unlike Flaubert’s conte Htrodias
for example, thus gained the moving interest of a per
sonal drama.71It was a logical, intensely human, but origi-
nal sequence to give H6rodias a dash of jealousy as H6-
rode’s infatuation for her daughter irritated her.72 The
symbolism of the work, as well as the love theme, reached
a climax as Salom£ desired Iokanaan even in death; her
passion showed the mystery of love greater than the mys
tery of death.7*
While Lugnd-Poe portrayed H6rode excellently, with
all the indolent cruelty suitable to the role, and Max
Barbier as Iokanaan, speaking in a superbly rich voice,
used gestures that made him seem gigantic, Lina Munte
as Saloml dominated the performance.74Interpreting the
poetic lines with intelligent use of her warm beauty and
lush voice, she became an enchanting seductress. Jean de
Titian, who attended two performances, experienced the
same sensations on both occasions. He enthusiastically
wrote, "Cette voix et cette beaut£ m’ont emport6 dans
une des plus fr£n6tiques Emotions que j’aie jamais con-
nues.” 76Hence, superlative acting enhanced to a rare de
gree the drama’s subtle combination of poetry, mystic
suggestiveness, voluptuousness, and horror.
Perhaps the most frequent criticism of SalomS was that
Wilde obviously knew thoroughly the works of Flaubert
and Maeterlinck. One critic found Wilde's repetition of
an idea three or four times monotonous, and felt a lack of
dramatic power in the dialogued poem,” while another
critic, who would have preferred a recitation of Flaubert's
fferodias or of passages of his melodious Tentation de
Saint Antoine, suggested that the Oeuvre justified the
staging of Wilde’s play by the interest aroused over the
author’s difficulties in England.” As a literary curiosity,”
the work held merit, but perhaps Wilde was “ plut6t un
litterateur adroit qu’un pofcte inspire, c’est-^-dire & peu
pr£s le contraire de ce qu’on veut nous faire croire.
. . 79It seemed as though many critics, in their eager
ness to ignore Wilde’s misfortunes, refused to recognize
poetic and dramatic qualities in his tale of passion.
While the English author undeniably knew Flaubert's
conte, he exercised his originality as artist and poet in de
veloping his scenic presentation of the subject.80Although
Wilde was accused of imitating Maeterlinck’s Les Sept
Princesses, published in 1891, a few months before Wilde
started writing his play, his debt to Maeterlinck was less
extensive than one might at first believe, for writing in a
foreign language, he still was not an author to adapt him
self to another’s style. Even more important was the fact
that Wilde made an artist’s use of images instead of giving
them mystical value, as Maeterlinck did.81
Fortunately the whole audience was not made up of
critics. The harmony and fierce beauty of Wilde's stirring
drama won an enthusiastic and appreciative response
from the Oeuvre’s supporters. The faithful seemed even
confident of easing Wilde’s suffering in England.82, * Ech
oes of the French welcome did indeed reach London and
resulted in some alleviation of the unhappy man's situa-
<Jacques du Tillet pretended to be distressed at writing about the play
when responsibility for a prisoner's liberty might be involved**
tion.84 The successful premiere of Salomi meant even

more to Wilde, however, for as Holbrook Jackson has said
during this first year of imprisonment, Wilde “ tasted, in
Reading Gaol, the bitterness of something like posthu-
mous fame when his adored Paris gave the play hospitality
while London was smugly forgetting his work and apolo
gizing for his fame.” 85
Lugn£-Poe did all in his power to protect Wilde’s rights
in France, and registered the French text of Salome with
the Soci£t6 des Auteurs et Compositeurs. When Lugn£
was visiting London a year later, Oscar Wilde, in a. note
dated February 19,1897, authorized Lugn6-Poe to watch
over his interests in France.88
At the time of Wilde’s release Lugn6 again went to
London, hoping to greet him there. As Lugn£ waited at
the home of friends, he received a note from Dieppe
signed “S^bastien Melmoth,” a Balzacian pseudonym of
Wilde, who extended the following invitation:
“L’auteur de Salomi prie le t^trarque de Jud6e de lui
faire l’honneur de dejeuner avec lui demain a midi, lundi
24 mai.” 87
Wilde had slipped away during the night, but. Lugn£
kept the appointment with him and Lord Douglas at
Dieppe.
Several times in Paris Lugn£-Poe again met Wilde, dur
ing the latter’s exile.88Lugn£ always felt proud of having
helped himby starting Salome on its glorious career. The
premiere at the Theatre de l’Oeuvre has been followed
by successful performances in all parts of the world. Rich
ard Strauss made the work even more familiar by basing
an opera upon Wilde’s drama. The opera SalomS had its
first performance on September 9, 1905, at Dresden. In-
dubitably, Salomi has contributed enormously to Wilde’s

prestige in the world of art and letters.
n u iiiiiH iiiiiiiiiiitiiiv iim n m iti
November 12, 1896 n o u v e a u -t h £atre
Peer Gynt, poeme dramatique en cinq actes, by Hen

rik Ibsen. Music by Edvard Grieg, conducted by Ga
briel Marie. Program by Edvard Munch.
Peer Gynt, written in Rome in 1867, is one of the most

nebulous and most beautiful of Ibsen’s dramas.89Bernard
Shaw has declared that even those who dislike Ibsen make
an exception of this play, for none can escape the spell of
the hero, who appeals to the imagination like Hamlet,
Faust, or Mozart’s Don Juan.80Although Peer Gynt con
tains many allusions to situations in Norway, it becomes
universal as a history of a soul and its tragedy, since many
people have known within themselves the counterpart of
Peer Gynt’s experiences/
Before 1896 the French knew Ibsen as a thinker who
was sure of himself. Now Lugn£-Poe wanted to offer them
the excitement of discovering a new aspect of the writer,
that of a dreamer, a visionary.92 Lugn6 planned to close
the season of 1895-1896 with Peer Gynt instead of Pillars
of Society, but necessary documents concerning staging,
as used at the theatre in Copenhagen, reached him too
late,93 forcing postponement of the production until the
following season. Lugn6 realized the care required in pro-
* Ernest Lajeunesse, in a leaflet for the Oeuvre, spoke o f the play in
these terms: “ C'est le cauchemar et le vain cauchemar, l ’homme, le pauvre
homme qu’est Peer et que nous sommes, pris par l’horreur de la sociltl,
de ses phantasmes, de sa monotonie, de sa f£rocit£ et de sa lk h e ti.” 01
ducing the play, with its “ magnificent, reckless profusion
of fantasy.” 94
The director received encouragement and assistance
from two Norwegians living in Paris, Frits Thaulow, who
had already helped with Beyond Human Power, and the
great Norwegian artist Edvard Munch, who provided a
lithograph for the program. Further suggestions about
the production came from the Swedish actor Lundbergh.
Lugn£ did not look for advice from Ibsen, for the play,
wright did not expect the play to appeal outside of Nor
way.95-|
An important part of the production was the music.
Ten years after Ibsen finished the play, he wrote to the
Norwegian composer Edvard Grieg, asking him to pre
pare music needed to replace scenes which would have to
be cut in a stage production.97In 1896, Paris already knew
Grieg’s music well, for it had often delighted the audi
ences of the popular Colonne and Lamoureux Sunday
symphonic concerts.98
In His eagerness to provide the best possible interpreta
tion of the score, Lugn£ asked G rieg him self to conduct.
The composer regretted his inability to accept, as well as
the lack of time which prevented him from sending the
director the entire score, although he recom m ended the
version published in Leipzig, which contained most of it.
Grieg hoped that Edouard C olonne w ould replace him.
The French conductor was not in France at the time.
Grieg then requested Lugn^-Poe to get in touch with
Gabriel Marie, a fine musician whom G rieg had met at
Vichy and in whom he placed great confidence. Through
*The Norwegians regarded Peer Gynt almost as a national poem and
organiz^d .as though by a tourist bureau. Lugn£-Poe
protested with horror at their mutilation of the beautiful work.96
MEMORABLE PERFORMANCES OF EARLY YEARS * 215
corresp on d en ce Grieg informed Marie of his wishes in re
gard t o t h e interpretation of the music.9*
For the text of the play Lugn£-Poe used Prozor’s trans
lation, which had been published in La Nouvelle Revue
in May and June, 1896. T o make the text manageable, it
was unfortunately felt necessary to reduce some passages
and to eliminate others, such as the trip to Egypt, in the
fourth act.100 While the material difficulties of staging
were great, it was regrettable to cut the play without the
most scrupulous respect for the text,101 and some people
bitterly claimed that the Oeuvre had spoiled the drama.103
Bernard Shaw, a distinguished member of the audience,
deplored the fact that Prozor had cut the original text in
his translation of it and that Lugn£-Poe had cut it even
more. Shaw bluntly characterized the omission of the
Button-Molder’s explanation to Peer of what it means to
be oneself as “ an indefensibly stupid mutilation.” 108Even
in the shortened version, however, the performance lasted
more than four hours.104* 1
A performance of such artistic, literary, and material
proportions attracted the followers of Ibsen in great num
bers. Henry Fouquier resented the presence of foreigners,
of devotees of the Scandinavian, and of snobs, many of
whom, he declared, did not understand the play, were
bored to death, and yet strove to appear inspired or pro
foundly thoughtful.10®It irritated Edmond Stoullig to see
serious, long-haired esthetes frown on those who smiled
at what they themselves, he thought, could not fathom.107
In spite of an unfriendly element in the audience,
Gabriel Marie achieved a real triumph with Grieg’s pic-
* Shaw observed that the performance was prolonged by "a good deal
of silly encoring o f Grieg’s music, and some unavoidable intervals between
the scenes." 105
turesque music. Under his direction the orchestra of some
sixty musicians, provided by Lugn£-Poe at considerable
expense,108 played Grieg's suave music superbly,108 R l
more intelligence than it had ever received.110
Ibsen’s opening scene, in which Peer Gynt teases and
terrifies his mother, aroused immediate interest. Its sim
plicity and exultant life rivaled the Th£atre-Libre in
realism, declared Lucien Besnard, the critic for La Revue
d’Art Dramatique.111Sarcey indicated this tableau and the
following wedding scene among those worth producing.112
Unanimous acclaim was accorded the scene in which
Peer Gynt comforts his dying mother, Asa, by reliving
with her the fancies they had shared when he was a child,
tenderly imagining a fairy-like scene in which they ride
together to a great castle."* Sarcey found the scene exqui
site,114 and the hostile critic Georges Boyer admitted its
undeniable beauty, declaring that he knew of no passage
so soberly magnificent and moving in any play.118 Lucien
Besnard suggested that Ibsen’s moving poetic passage had
a basis of reality in people or incidents he had known.™
Shaw wrote of the scene, “We should have Peer Gynt in
London this season if any of our actor-managers had been
there to witness it.” UT
The reception of Peer Gynt would not have conformed
to that traditionally given Ibsen’s plays if some critics had
not encountered bewildering fogs. Except for three or
four scenes, Sarcey pronounced the work impenetrable,
impenetrable in the most mystifying manner of all, for it
mGrieg’s music enhanced the exquisite beauty of this scene. Charles-
Henry Hirsch has described this portion of the score as follows: “ On sent
vraiment que la Fatality est pass£e, une seule phrase fugule suffit & 3*
lustrer toute la destinfe triste d’Aase, une seule phrase qui se d^veloppe,
se redouble, ou, plus loin reprise, s’arrtte court, en crdant une at-
ct de *etriblf- Le lh^me et sa rfpitition k travers des
mconstances de ton susatent la disparition de ce monde qu’est une
was symbolic.118 Besnard and Fouquier found confusing
indeterminate borderline between reality and fan
tasy; 119 Fouquier blamed the stage setting for not show
ing clearly where dream ended and reality began.
peer’s disconcerting visit with the trolls * was followed
by the one scene which even Shaw acknowledged as unin
telligible, Peer’s encounter with the Boyg.
“The audience stared in wonder at a pitchy dark stage,
with Peer howling, a strange voice squealing behind the
scenes, a woman calling at intervals, and not a word that
anyone could catch. It was let pass with politely smoth
ered laughter as a characteristic Ibsen insanity.” 121
Shaw made a spirited attack upon Lugn£-Poe’s inter
pretation, in the fourth act, of the glimpse of Solveig, in
the North, devotedly awaiting Peer’s return, while Peer
plotted new adventures in Africa. The Oeuvre inserted
the vision as a dream while Peer slept, but Shaw protested
that Peer Gynt had not lost one iota of his waywardness
and never gave a thought to the woman who loved him.
Because of Lugn£-Poe’s failure to understand the scene,
the director, Shaw thought, despite his friendly disposi
tion towards him, “ ought to have been gently led away
and guillotined.” 122
After Peer’s diversified adventures, during the course
of which, in the minds of most people, the play lost unity,
Ibsen’s genius succeeded in recapturing and again ab
sorbing all the spectators.128 Everyone was interested in
the moral conclusion, when the Button-Molder, that tra
ditional figure of the Norwegian countryside, who went
* Romain Coolus maintained that the symbolism o f the scene with the
trolls was less obscure than many people pretended. He explained the
trolls as the personification o f "[des] demons int^rieurs, demons de luxure
et de domination, qui s’emparent d ’une flme faible et perpltuellement
flottante, en qui ne s'est jamais dress£e la volont£ d ’exister d'une vie
propre . . . * * * *
■ ■ ■ ■
from house to house buying old or imperfect silver but

tons for recasting, assured Peer Gynt that his epitaph
would be the disheartening: “ Here No One lies bur
ied.” 124 The dramatic conclusion seemed to move the
audience even more, as redemption came to Peer through
Solveig’s love. Indeed, the high and consoling tone of the
conclusion seemed to turn the play into a morality.125
Shaw accounted for the popularity of the ending by just
such an appeal to middle-class sentimentalism, whereas
Ibsen’s decision is that no solution exists.128, *
The philosophic import of the play occasioned com
parisons between the antithetical philosophies of Brand
and Peer Gynt * Singleness of purpose motivated every
action of Brand, yet Brand caused suffering as his abstract
ideal hardened his heart.129 On the other hand, every pe
riod of Peer Gynt’s life is characterized by dissipation of
his capacities, for Peer is the victim of weakness, who gives
in to the slightest difficulty and is governed by supersti
tions.180Yet the worthless Peer Gynt, who at least could
say that he had enjoyed life, was saved, whereas the con
clusion of Brand is enigmatic.181
Since Peer Gynt offered so much food for thought it
involved serious problems of interpretation. Lugn£ re
cruited Abel Deval from the Theatre de la Renaissance
to play the title role. As Deval had the only real role of the
drama, the weight of the acting fell on him. He inter
preted the crushing part with remarkable and sustained
skill, and, indeed, owed the Oeuvre a debt of grati-
* Coolus’ analysis substantiated Shaw’s scoffing observation, for the
French critic daimed as the optimistic thought o f Peer Gynt the fact that
Solveigs love could save a lying, selfish person, whereas Brand failed be
cause he did not love and was not Iovea.127
* Archer suggests as cause for the lighter vein o f Peer Gynt despite its
bitter satire the fact that after the publication of Brand, Ibsen received a
pension from the Norwegian government.128
MEMORABLE PERFORM ANCES OF EARLY YEARS 219
tude for this opportunity to reveal his true worth, for he
might have continued unnoticed in thankless mediocre
roles.1®
2’ s
S u z a n n e A u c l a i r , whom the English members of the
audience r e m e m b e r e d with pleasure from her appearance
in L o n d o n , had t h e charming and difficult role of Solveig.
S h a w p r e f e r r e d h e r in the early scenes, for at the end of
the p l a y , s h e s e e m e d scarcely forty-two, “ although Peer

w a s c l e a r l y a t l e a s t ninety-nine, and by no means young
f o r h i s a g e . ” 184 Her pretty voice delighted the audience,188

and C o o l u s d e f i e d anyone to be “ plus ‘petite fiancee’
n o r v £ g i e n n e ” t h a n her Solveig o f the second act.186
For Anitra’s colorful dance, Lugn£ sought the collabo
ration of Jane Avril, whom he had first met at the Chat
Noir, and whom his friend Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec
has immortalized in such famous works as L e Divan japo-
nais and Jane Avril sortant du M oulin R ou ge/ Mile Avril
wore peonies in her black hair, which contrasted with her
pale skin.188An artist with such an inborn sense of rhythm
that Jacques des Gachons said she had “ de l’esprit tout le
long du corps,” 189 she danced with her customary fervor
and grace 140 to the joyOus accompaniment o f Grieg’s
music.141, *
4Deval’s participation in the O euvre’s prod u ction remained associated

with his activities and the m em ory o f Peer Gynt. W hen Le Mercure de
France announced his plans for the fall o f 1898, it identified him as the
actor who had appeared at the Oeuvre, and m ore recently with Mme
Bernhardt.18*
'W hile La Goulue seemed the perfect m odel fo r T oulouse-Lautrec, the
dainty, very fem inine Jane Avril also tempted him and she appears as
the central figure in a num ber o f his paintings and in the background o f
others, like Au Moulin Rouge: la Danse and Au Moulin Rouge: les deux
Valseuses. She danced alm ost nightly at the M oulin R ou ge for several
years, usually w ithout pay, for her independent spirit kept her from jo in
ing Zidler’s regular troupe .1*7 , _ . . ,
* Shaw endorsed the brutally unappreciative view o f Fouquier ot Le
Figaro, w h o described M ile A vril’s dance as "les con torsions d'u n hevre
qui a re$u un cou p d e feu dans les reins. 143
In addition to solving the problem s o f directing and
staging, Lugn£-Poe found it necessary to play two minor
roles, that of Solveig’s father and that o f the traveling Eng.
lishman, Mr. Cotton. Lugn<§ proved the accuracy of his
powers of observation as he delighted the audience with
his imitation of an Englishman’s French accent .148
It was amazing that Lugn 6 dared tackle the production
of the poetic masterpiece with such lim ited means, yet
Shaw declared that his initiative put the sluggish English
stage to shame. While the critic’s frankness spared no un
fortunate detail,' he firmly upheld Lugn£-Poe’s mastery
in the theatre. While on tour in L on don, Lugn£-Poe,
again with Peer Gynt, convinced Shaw “ that he could
catch more of the atmosphere o f a poetic play with the
most primitive arrangements than some o f ou r managers
succeed in doing at a ruinous outlay.” 145
Although philosophic speculations scarcely constitute
the French conception o f theatrical fare ,146 the production
of Peer Gynt arrested attention. H enry Fouquier usually
was categorically opposed to Ibsen and the Oeuvre pro
ductions, yet was forced to admit “ un je ne sais quelle
impression myst£rieuse de po£sie,” which he further de
scribed in these words: “ On est en face de quelque chose
qui a de la valeur et de la grandeur com m e un volcan qui,
environn£ de fum£es, s’illumine de temps en temps et se
couronne d’£clairs.” 14T
* Shaw analyzed the costume of Peer Gynt as a prophet as an old dress
ing gown and a shabby, though authentic, turban. Anitra’s make-up
seemed to him desperately amateurish. A chair knocked over backstage
simulated the explosion of the yacht. The Green-Clad One—the only
thoroughly inefficient member of the company, in Shaw’s opinion, al
though others appreciated her efforts—was accompanied by a ludicrous
embodiment of the Brat, since the supposedly ugly, deformed child was a
inad«,uaMly disfigured by a dab of
MEMORABLE p e r f o r m a n c e s o f e a r l y years 221
When Emile Faguet addressed the graduating class of
the Lyc£e Charlemagne in 1897, he admonished the stu
dents not to imitate Peer Gynt, who squandered his life
in the search for new experiences. Faguet laid Peer’s
tragic lack of happiness to the fact that he had never had
a profession to love and a home to return to at night
where, the day’s work ended, he could watch the logs
burning in his own fireplace and hear his own clock strike.
“Aimez done votre profession, mes chers enfants,” Faguet
warned.148
And indeed Lugn^-Poe did love his profession, as was
proved when he produced this poem of impressive and
suggestive beauty, rich in imagery and ideas, in the va
riety and unexpectedness o f its episodes .149 The play en
joyed a tremendous success,180 and the staging of Peer
Gynt was perhaps the most ambitious enterprise to date
of the Oeuvre group, bringing glory to Ibsen, Lugn£-Poe,
and the Theatre de l’Oeuvre .181
So successful was the play that La N ouvelle Revue con
taining Prozor’s translation o f P eer Gynt sold out imme
diately after the perform ance .182 Less than a month later,
in December, 1896*Le M ercure de France announced an
edition o f Prozor’s translation o f the drama.188, *
Thanks to the impulse o f the Theatre de l’Oeuvre’s
production,’ the figure o f Peer Gynt was making its mark
on French consciousness.
"In 1899, Perrin brought out Peer Gynt, translated and prefaced by
Count Prozor.
•When La Revue Blanche sponsored a gala revival of the dramatic
poem at the N o u v e a u -Th 6&tre on December 16 and 20, 1901, Lugn£-Poe
again did justice to the work’s fantasy and thought.184 Camille Chevil-
lard’s orchestra participated. Peer Gynt has since been performed in
France at the Oeuvre and elsewhere.
December 10, 1896 nouveau-th& tre
Ubu roi ou les Polonais, drame en cinq actes en prose

by Alfred Jarry. Incidental music by Claude Terrasse
Program illustrated by the author. Sets by Serusier
and Bonnard. Masks designed by the author.
Alfred Jarry was a well-known figure in the studios of

Montmartre. Short, sickly, and eccentric, he wandered
about reciting snatches from his masterpiece, Ubu roi.
Some called him a man of genius while others tolerated
him as a ludicrous humbug. His favorite—or perhaps his
only—clothing was a bicyclist’s Outfit, in’ which he ap
peared at the most varied gatherings. He was fortunate in
possessing the devoted friendship of Vallette, the editor
of Le litercure de France, and of Mme Rachilde, Val-
lette’s wife. They did not object when he attended their
brilliant Tuesdays in his soiled, shabby clothing, wearing
carpet slippers with his toes poking through. Such money
ashe had he spent for absinthe, which to him was “l’herbe
sainte.” 1M
Frequenting Bohemian circles, Jarry heard much of the
Theatre de l’Oeuvre. In the spring of 1896, when Lugnd-
Poe’s faithful friend and assistant, Adolphe van Bever,
decided that for his health’s sake he must seek more stable
employment, Lugn£ gave shelter to Jarry, who was eager
to associate himself with the fortunes of the Oeuvre.188
Lugn£ knew that Jarry was preparing a work he hoped to
have produced at the Oeuvre. Although apprehensive of
what the peculiar young man might offer, Lugn£ was dis
armed by the thoughtful manner in which Jarry attended
to mail and kept him informed of all matters during
LugnS’s summer absence from Paris.157 The perpetual
La Joie des Paysans by Pierre Fau
224 ADVENTURE IN THE TH E A TR E
garb of cyclist proved unexpectedly useful, as Jarry would
pedal to the outlying home of a delinquent subscriber
with the intention of jogging him up; yet the visit had the
appearance of a casual call made during a pleasurable
outing."
When Jarry showed Lugn6 an unfinished version of
Ubu roi, the play on which he was working, the director
was dismayed; he had no idea of how to set about produc
ing it. Jarry, however, was not to be put off, and in Au
gust, 1896, Lugn6-Poe announced Ubu roi as one of the
Oeuvre’s offerings for the coming season.189
Ubu roi was by no means a new creation. One of Jarry’s
instructors at the lycSe at Rennes had so impressed the
observant lad that Jarry, perhaps abetted by two com
rades, personified him, in the first version of Ubu roi, as
the essence of stupidity and absurdity.160He gave his play
at the school as a marionette show of the “ Theatre des
Phynances” in 1888, when he was fifteen years old/
Hence, Jarry’s exuberant adolescence inspired Ubu roi,
and Ubu was to Jarry what the first volume of poetry is to
others.188Ubu’s monumental proportions captivated Jarry
to such an extent, however, that instead of laying the
work aside, he returned to it to revise it. Le Mercure de
France made the third act known to the public in Septem
ber, 1895, and in July of the following year it announced
the publication of the play in book form.164
Louis Dumur, devoting an understanding review to the
book in the September issue of Le Mercure de France,
called Ubu roi a most revealing display of Jarry’s fantasy
" Lugnd-Poe has noted that Tarry paid one such visit to Victorien Sar-
dou at Marly. One wonders what the conversation could have been be
tween these two men at opposite poles of literary conventions.158
, ' Gustave Kahn skeptically refers to this early production as by “ un
trfcs hypothdtique th&tre de marionnettes.” 181 Tail hade states however,
that Jarry’s family had made him a present of a marionette theatre.16*
and astounding powers as caricaturist. He recognized the
presence of a new kind of burlesque with hitherto un
sown depth and potentialities.168 The joyous and ironic
qualities of Ubu roi likewise struck Gustave Kahn, who
reviewed the book for La Revue Blanche.166
Everything conspired to persuade Lugn£-Poe to pro
duce Ubu roi—sympathetic reviews of the text, Jarry’s
constant references to his work, the interest of those who
really wanted to see the play and of those curious to wit
ness a performance o f a fantastic work by a fantastic
author. Moreover, during preparations for the season's
first enterprise, Peer Gynt, Jarry had shown fine coopera
tion in playing the part of a troll and in adapting the
scene to French taste.187 Still hesitant about Ubu roi, how
ever, Lugn^-Poe consulted Rachilde. The novelist warned
him against disappointing Jarry by not keeping a promise
made to him. Moreover, Lugn£ should think of the many
people awaiting the production. She advised him to stress
the guignol aspect of the work, to stage it frankly as a
drdlerie, and not to expect a hit.1® 8
With Lugn£-Poe won over, preparations got under way.
Lugn6’s reliable friends S£rusier and Bonnard, assisted by
Vuillard, Toulouse-Lautrec, and Ranson, worked on the
sets and staging. A newcomer to Paris, Claude Terrasse,
prepared a suitable score, which satisfied Jarry's desire for
a musical accompaniment. Terrasse had been organist
and music teacher for the Dominican Fathers at Arcachon
and later, during his military service at Grenoble, courted
and married Andr£e Bonnard, sister of the artist. A few
months after the young couple’s arrival in Paris Bonnard
enlisted the talent of his delightful brother-in-law in his
friends’ enterprise.188,9
• Claude Terrasse later had a marionette theatre at 6, rue Ballu. He
226 ADVENTURE IN THE TH E ATRE
Problems of production multiplied as a restless genius
seemed to torment Jarry.170His unusual play required un
usual treatment, and he wanted the Theatre de l’Oeuvre
to use all its inventive power. He wished to upset tradi-
tion and cause some scandal by having an intelligent
youngster of the right age play fourteen-year-old Bougre-
las. He even had the child picked out, a handsome, bright
eyed boy with long wavy hair, whom Jarry had met on
Montmartre.171
The principal innovation lay in the interpretation of
the parts. Jarry insisted that he did not intend his play
for marionettes but for living actors performing as mario
nettes, a very different matter.172In order to magnify the
elemental forces embodied in the characters, Jarry per
suaded the actors to efface themselves behind masks,
which he himself designed.
The roles requiring the most attention were those of
Ubu, Mfcre Ubu, and Capitaine Bordure. Louise France,
an Oeuvre supporter of long standing now, accepted the
part of M&re Ubu. Jarry chose a lanky individual for
Bordure, as a contrast to Ubu’s obesity.178 Although
Lugn£-Poe studied the part of Ubu, he did not wish to
undertake the important role, burdened as he was with
numerous responsibilities; so he approached Firmin Ga
mier, known to be friendly to avant-garde movements,
and who was playing in Villiers de lTsle-Adam's La R&-
volte at the Od£on.174After Gamier received permission
from Ginisty to absent himself for two evenings, he feared
that the daring role at the Oeuvre might endanger his
reputation, and pleaded that he did not know how to play
Ubu. But Lugne had no intention of letting the splendid
l l * dy^ ° l Ubu roi in 1898 with sets painted by Ranson, Vuil-
te operettas'! C distinSuished himself by composing music
MEMORABLE p e r f o r m a n c e s o f EARLY YEARS 227
away. Since Jarry wanted a special voice or ac
a c to r s l i p
c e n t for the leading character,178 Lugn£ advised Gamier
to imitate Jarry’s own peculiar speech, which struck on
two notes only .176Starting with this clue, Gamier became
the incarnation of Jarry’s conception of Pfcre Ubu .177 As
the keynote of the costume, Ubu wore a grotesque mask
with a nose like an elephant’s trunk.178
In order to stress the universality of the satire Jarry de
sired costumes as devoid as possible of local color, al
though he did specify “ modernes de pr£f£rence, puisque
la satire est moderne; et sordides, parce, que le drame en
parait plus miserable et horrifique.” 179
Jarry simplified the problem of scenery by having one
all-inclusive set. Max Maurey described the fantastic cre
ation as having on the left a wide bed, beneath which was
the inevitable pot de chambre. On the right, painted on
the wall, were a gallows and views of the sea, woods, and
open country. A fireplace at the back opened in the mid
dle to serve as a door in spite of the clock and candelabra
on the mantlepiece.180Jarry relied on large signs to keep
the audience informed of the location of the action and,
in some cases, of the action itself.181 A combat between
two men, for example, conveniently labeled “A Battle,”
would let the audience appreciate the seriousness of the
struggle and at the same time dispense with crowds of
extras, who often proved an encumbrance on stage.183
Determined not to risk ambiguity concerning Ubu’s
ruthless slaughter of nobles, judges, and financiers, Jarry
astounded Lugn£-Poe by having forty life-size, wicker fig
ures delivered at the theatre. These mannequins, all of
which must be clothed, could be handily toppled into the
pit with Ubu’s famous crochet &phynances. The author's
reckless gesture seriously affected les phynances of the
228 ADVENTURE IN THE T H EATRE
Theatre de l’Oeuvre since Jarry, who had not made suffi.
cient inquiry, thought that the figures could be rented
whereas Lugn£ discovered too late that they must be
bought.'
Ubu roi, announced as a “com&lie guignolesque,” was
fabulous even before its performance. Some people at
tended because the rumor spread that the Theatre de
l’Oeuvre was presenting a scandalous program.184The pro
duction also attracted a large number of Jarry’s friends,
whose excited curiosity was really little more than snob-
ism; they were delighted to “discover” a great man and
to acclaim him.18 5 In addition, the audience included
more serious-minded people who were genuinely inter
ested in artistic enterprises but who reserved the right
to admire as they saw fit.188The Nouveau-Th£atre, ac
commodating between two and three thousand people,
was filled to capacity.187
Jarry chose to introduce Ubu roi with a brief talk.
Henri de Rignier, to whom Jarry always seemed like a
jack-in-the-box, described him on that occasion as dressed
in a baggy black suit, his neck enveloped in a billowing
chiffon scarf, his face heavily powdered and painted—a
figure that was at once fantastic and pathetic.188In keeping
with the spirit of the evening, a coal sack covered the
table on which he laid his notes.189The author confided
to the public that a former teacher, to him the epitome of
everything grotesque in the world, had inspired the crea
tion of Ubu.190Jarry startled the audience by announcing
the scene of the play as Poland, “c’est-ci-dire, nulle part.”
* The prospect of dothing the forty dummies in itself staggered Lugnd.
Jarry then added that “on dut les loger." Loger proved the appropriated
T ’ a£t® beinS obliged to buy them, he housed
them at the theatre for long after the performance. At least. Luen6 ob-
l i B l i a £o°' “,0U6h ^ « “ • S ? « “ n o t* S |la ta
MEMORABLE p e r f o r m a n c e s o f EARLY YEARS 229
}je bewildered his listeners with the prospect of mantle-
ieces split asunder to become doors opening on snowy
olains under a blue sky," and of palm trees flourishing at
the foot of a bed so that little elephants perched on shelves
could munch the foliage.191 The strange little man made
special mention of the cardboard horses which Ubu and
the Tsar would straddle in their equestrian encounter; **
the preceding night had been spent painting them.198 He
expressed disappointment that a suitable orchestra was
not available; he had hoped for an ensemble of percus
sion instruments with a trombone supplement; pianos and
kettledrums in the wings would have to suffice194
A.-Ferdinand Harold thought Jarry’s short, witty talk
the best possible commentary on Ubu.196 Many people
found it mystifying, while Fouquier maintained that he
could not catch a word of it. But, he added, it did not
matter since the talk was printed and distributed with
the program and incoherent anyway.19*
The curtain went up, and P£re Ubu promptly greeted
his wife with an astounding “ Merdre!” The additional
letter characterized Ubu’s version of the word, for, as
Jacques des Gachons observed, “ il n’y en a pas deux.” 197
Howls of rage and laughs of delight broke out. The un
initiate were shocked and people immediately began to
leave. An infernal uproar prevented Gamier from con
tinuing for a full fifteen minutes.198 In the midst of ap
plause, laughter, hisses, and cries of anger,199 he wildly
improvised a jig until he sank panting on the prompter's
box.200Commanding in that way a comparative degree of
“ Jarry heightened the effect of his remarks by using the plural to refer
to a single mantlepiece and to a single vista, but distortion of reality was
the order of the evening.
**Jarry originally suggested a cardboard horse’s head around the neck
of each actor supposed to be on horseback,192 but the larger figures doubt
less appealed to him as more effective.
attention, Ubu and his female counterpart were able to
continue.
Edmond S<5e has likened the commotion over Ubu roi
to the battle of Hernani.201 Without a doubt the produc*
tion was ascandal.202The crowd, furious at being insulted
shook clenched fists, eager to throw even the seats if they
could be dislodged.2 08Catcalls and bitter invectives rose
on all sides; people in boxes incited comments from those
in nearby seats.204Every time that P£re Ubu uttered Cam-
bronne’s famous word—which, indeed, permeated the
work like a leitmotiv 205—the clamors redoubled. As the
crowd became more obstreperous, Ubu bellowed in vain;
his voice was scarcely audible.20 6
Jean Lorrain was among the spectators who left.
Georges Courteline, standing on a strapontin, exploded
with, “Vous ne voyez pas que l’auteur se fout de
nous! . . .” “ •
Indeed if the excellent actor Firmin G&nier had not
impersonated Ubu the house would have been empty at
the end of the first act.208Gemier’s sidesplitting creation
forced the audience to accept the production sportingly,
and when they understood that Jarry was making fun of
them, some even yelled comments and received answers
from those on the other side of the footlights.20 9
The spectators’ participation in the production pre
vented most of them from heeding the work’s satirie.
Moreover, they were constantly disconcerted by the antics
on the stage. There was a tall, spectral figure in black
with a flowing white beard who stepped lightly forward
to fasten to a harlequin’s coat signs indicating changes of
scene.210A simple white placard assuring them that they
were gazing upon the snow-covered province of Livonia
aroused legitimate surprise and laughter, which, in turn,
p ro v o k ed cries from the valiant defenders of Jarry’s
experiment. The presence of the wicker mannequins,
fla n k e d by minor characters who manipulated them, fur
ther confused and amazed the audience.211 Nor should
one forget the effect of the music, “ une parfaite musique
de foire,” which emphasized the entrances and exits of
the actors,212for Claude Terrasse in the wings coolly con
ducted his little orchestra, straining to catch the cues in
spite of the din .218
With one accord the critics acclaimed Firmin G£mier’s
extraordinary portrayal of Ubu. Scarcely less praise was
accorded Mme France’s epic caricature of M£re U b u .214
The actors, muffled by their masks, succeeded in creat
ing puppets of flesh and blood which seemed weirdly
unreal and which, as simplified men, evoked with their
mechanical gestures, “ les gestes kernels de 1’humanity.”215
Gemier made Ubu unforgettable, for he captured a weird
quality of voice, assumed a truly astonishing bearing, and
contracted his hands and feet in extraordinary gestures.218
Some blamed Jarry for the uproar, feeling that the
author could have introduced his work more intelligi
bly.217 T o others Jarry’s appearance seemed sufficient to
prepare the audience to be indulgent and not to take the
mystification too seriously.218 It was a production which
would cause much ink to flow, not over the intrinsic value
of the play nor its philosophic import, but over the daring
break with tradition and the advisability of amassing so
much coarseness to create a type.218
Jarry himself defended his work in an article amazingly
lucid for a person supposed to be crazy. La Revue Blanche
published Jarry’s “ Questions de th&tre,” in January,
1897. In the opening paragraph Jarry expressed an idea
which must have made many dramatists squirm with a
sense of guilt. The only justification Jarry recognized for
writing a play was the vision of a character which could
be presented better on stage than in a book. •,
Jarry claimed that with a few changes the play would
have conformed to current Parisian taste. The opening
word could have been “Zut” (or “zutre” !); the army could
have worn the uniform of the First Empire; Ubu could
have reflected the popularity of the Russian alliance by
embracing the Tsar; “et l’on aurait cocufi£ diverses per-
sonnes; mais 9’aurait £t£ plus sale.” 220
Jarry wanted the stage to be a mirror where the char
acters were deformed in proportion to their vices. The
public should have surmised from the masks that at best
there would be “le comique macabre d’un clown anglais
ou d’une danse des morts.” 221Ubu was not meant to be
clever, but to make stupid remarks with all the positive
ness of the ignorant. Jarry lashed the public’s dullness by
saying that frequent observation had convinced him that
art and the comprehension of the majority were incompat
ible. The crowd needed to be whipped at times so that
one could judge from its grumblings where it was and
how it felt. The most telling blow fell when he declared,
“La foule est assez inoffensive, malgr£ qu’elle soit le
nombre, parce qu’elle combat contre l’intelligence.”222
And he had confidence that the light of intelligence
would ultimately overcome the darkness of incomprehen
sion.
Jarry humorously showed his knowledge of human
nature by acknowledging the legitimate distress of older
men in the face of extremes typical of youth, for there
will always be young men horrifying middle-aged Ubus.**
“ Jarryspiquant visualization of the future follows: “Nous deviendrons
aussi des hommes graves et gros et des Ubus et aprfes avoir public des
livres qui seront trfes dassiques, nous serons tous probablement maires de
M EM ORABLE PERFORMANCES OF EARLY YEARS 288
Instead of blaming Jarry for excesses, Romain Coolus
regretted that he had not been more extravagant in his
satire.224 Since adults require more to stir them than do
children, Ubu was an especially brutal guignol character,
although, Coolus felt, Jarry might have introduced more
vehemence and unexpectedness in the fantasy. There
were people disappointed because they looked to Ubu roi
to herald the art of the future; but as far as Coolus knew,
Jarry had never expressed such pretentious claims. Coolus
was grateful for an amazing production, and considered
the reception of Ubu rather stupid, for it was a unique
and curious spectacle. A splendid evening, and historic,
he termed it.225
The bold lines o f Ubu, incarnating the most simple
and violent passions—gluttony, brutality, cupidity, coarse
ness, cowardice—shocked Parisian sensibilities. Public
indignation was partly due to bewilderment at Jarry’s
comic of the inappropriate—the comic of a clown being
ridiculous while keeping a “ dead-pan” expression. Re
ports spread and were magnified as people who had not
been present embellished hearsay accounts.226
The outstanding reviewer in defense of Jarry’s play
was Henry Bauer, whose influence many critics envied.
During the performance, he seems to have tried from his
box to whip the audience into a demonstration of ap
proval.227 In his criticism he stoutly maintained that the
audience should have understood Jarry’s satirical intent,
but, he bluntly declared, “ le spectateur n’a la permission
de se r£jouir que d’un type sacr6 d’hilarit£: le vaudeville
petites villes oil les pompiers nous offriront des vases de Sevres, quand
nous serons acad£miriens, et k nos enfants leurs moustaches dans un
coussin de vdours: et il viendra de nouveaux jeunes gens qui nous trou-
veront bien arri£r£s et composeront pour nous abominer des ballades; et
il n’y a pas de raison que 9a finisse.” 228
avec quiproquos et obscenity k bonne fin.” 228 Serious
folk were angry, but Bauer laughed heartily at the auda
cious mockery. He was inconsolable, however, over the
omission of Ubu’s encounter with a bear in frigid
Lithuania. “ Pourquoi, 6 Lugnel nous avoir 6t£ notre
ours?” m' " Bauer recognized the suitability o f Terrasse’s
score with its charming buffoonery ,230 and admired the
excellent interpretations of the characters. His final ver
dict was, “ La folle, l’extraordinaire soiree!” 281
Henry Fouquier led the opposition. T h e very fact that
theatres a cdt&, like the Th&itre-Libre, had produced a
dozen writers of merit made it imperative to speak at
length about outrageous abuses of such enterprises. Fou
quier saw no excuse for the incoherent satire. Ubu alone,
he said, made some pretense at originality, while the other
characters were merely musical comedy puppets. As for
the language, “ c’est un pastiche superficiel de la langue
de Rabelais, dont les ordures sont surtout retenues et
r£p6tees avec amour.” 232 He smugly found satisfaction in
labeling the performance a literary ninth o f Thermidor,
which was starting to abolish a Reign of Terror in the
world of letters. At last the intelligent public was revolt-.
ing against browbeating by snobs and fumistes.28S
In spite of Bauer’s discerning analysis o f the. play’s
satire and other merits, Fouquier’s criticism assumed the
prestige of an official pronouncement. Bauer’s attitude
towards Ubu roi provided his opponents with the oppor
tunity for which they had been waiting. 'Feeling ran so
high that Bauer was no longer permitted to express his
opinions in I!Echo de Paris. A few months later he took
over the drama column in La Petite Ripublique, but was
** In his preliminary talk Jarry said he had conform ed ab so lu tely to the
actors wishes in regard to cuts. It seems regrettable, as B au er said, that
Lugn6 did not indude the delightful scene w ith th e bear.
M E M O R A B L E PERFORM ANCES OF EARLY YEARS 235
n0t allowed to give free rein to his convictions.234 The
cause of new endeavors lost a courageous champion, whom
n0 one replaced.238
The production o f Ubu roi proved costly indeed. In
spite of considerable expense, Gamier was free for two
performances only, and the play offered no possibility of
revival. The financial fiasco dwindled in importance,
however, in the face o f Bauer’s unfortunate demotion.
Yet December 10, 1896, remains a memorable date.
Almost immediately after the performance Ubu roi was
acknowledged as historic, for it marked the first produc
tion by a recognized theatrical group of an utterly gro
tesque work. Dadaism and Surrealism later exploited the
genre, but Ubu bore the brunt o f the public’s first shocked
response.** Mme *Rachilde claimed that this unforgettable
performance o f Ubu roi foretold "le r£gne du grotesque
fantoche lanc£, comme un ballon rouge, par la main d’un
enfant terrible, tres au-dessus de toutes les barrikres de la
vie courante.” 287
By the speed with which Ubu invaded Parisian life he
showed himself no empty fantasy. Only a few days after
the performance, a certain M. Rochefort, in an article,
wishing to show his scorn of some cabinet members, com
pared them to P&re U bu .238 U bu’s spirit popped up in
literature, art, politics ,289 for Ubu roi spared nothing in
its sweeping satire of tradition and bourgeois dullness.240
A particularly revolting act o f vandalism in Brussels was
immediately branded as Ubuesque stupidity."
** Mme Rachilde insists that Jarry was a precursor of Cubism, saying
that his prolific sketches scattered on cafe tables influenced young art-
ists.2*«
ff The director of the Brussels’ Acaddmie des Beaux Arts, in his effort
to dislodge a young sculptor of talent who had every right to the use of a
studio, ruthlessly pitched the sculptor’s unfinished statue out the window
one night; the artist found only a mass of debris as the result of long
months of work.241
The lugubrious farce of Ubu has outlived early antici.
pations. As a satire of war, Jarry’s play gained in meaning
during the events leading up to 1914.242Astonished people
declared Ubu roi prophetic. It is prophetic in Ubu’s
absurd reasons for going to war, in the overwhelming im.
portance of finance, in the stress on ridiculous remedies*
the continual solution is the machine a deceruelage, to
pull out everyone’s brains. More and more Ubu seemed
to foretell the cataclysmic war of 1914, and its bitterly
accurate satire is equally applicable to 1939.
fTTTTTnrmnnnrmnrrnmmmm
May 8, 1897 nouveau-th £atre
Ton Sang, tragedie contemporaine erfquatre actes, by

Henry Bataille. Program designed by the author. ,
People turned to the Theatre de 1’Oeuvre for stimulat

ing plays, hoping to find French writers represented; yet
as the theatre neared the end of its fourth season, foreign
writers still eclipsed the French. Perhaps the Oeuvre’s
most sorry failure had been that of La Belle au Bois
dormant on May 24, 1894, when a French author, Henry
Bataille, had made his debut in the theatre." Floods of
language obscured the promise of a new dramatic talent.
After a brilliant return with La Lepreuse on May 6, 1896,
Bataille was to have the opportunity of establishing his
place in the theatre with the production of Ton Sang. The
critics were predisposed in favor of the drama for it
seemed that Lugn6, at last taking their recommendation,
was recognizing a French writer.248
Despite Lugn£-Poe’s confidence in the author’s talent,
"Seepages 145-147.
M E M O R A B L E PERFORMANCES OF EARLY YEARS 237
he realized the many drawbacks to staging a play by Ba
taille* Since the fiasco of La Belle au Bois dormant had in
no degree lessened the author’s self-confidence, Bataille
had been urging Lugn£, ever since the spring of 1895, to
consider another of his plays,244seeming to resent the fact
that L ugn£ even contemplated producing the works of
other authors. Bataille jealously expected the director to
work and die in his service,246 maintaining that the
Oeuvre’s sacrifice over his debut was unintentional and
that the theatre owed him the chance to make good.246
Lugn£, however, feared Bataille’s increased stubbornness
over details as the author seemed determined to make the
director go against his judgment and rely wholly upon
the playwright’s notions.247
Bataille seemed irritated, too, that Lugn£ did not react
violently when he took Berthe Bady from him at the end
of the first season.248Although Berthe’s desertion shattered
Lugn£’s hope of Bady’s corroborating his conviction that
the success of a theatre is linked to the triumph of a star,249
pride buoyed him up and he deprived Bady and Bataille
of the chance to gloat over his ruin. It was extremely
annoying to Lugn 6, however, to have his erstwhile friend
betray little confidences of their former intimacy and to
publicize evidences of his poverty, which he tried hard
to conceal. Moreover, when Bady cast her lot with Ba
taille, she maliciously questioned how Lugn£ could man
age without her undeniable talent. In fact, she even began
to doubt the Oeuvre’s aims, and showed only an occasional
interest in her friend’s enterprise.200 She and Bataille
seemed to expect the Oeuvre’s vitality to wane and
wanted to make use of Lugn6 before it was too late.
Complying with Bataille’s wishes, Lugn6 had the
Oeuvre rehearse La Lipreuse in 1896. Bataille bore the
scar of an unhappy childhood, and it was extremely ||gj
cult to get along with him. After a series of disputes
Bataille broke off relations with Lugn 6, independentl'
rented the Com&lie-Parisienne, and on May 6, 1896, pr/
sented his drama, acted by the Oeuvre troupe. Afterwards
even Bataille gave Lugn&Poe and the Theatre de l’Oeuvre
credit for producing La Lepreuse.2M
With Lugn£-Poe’s decision to consider Ton Sang, the
trying experiences started anew. In spite of Bataille’s
good intentions, he did not submit the manuscript to
Lugnd until the beginning of 1897. He then harassed the
director by taking the manuscript back for revision, con*
stantly thinking up changes.
Lugn£ wanted his friend of Conservatoire, days, De
Max, to take part in the production preceding Bataille’s
play, La Cloche engloutie by Hauptmann. Bataille skill
fully dissuaded De Max from participating because he
wanted him to take the lead in Ton Sang and feared the
actor might be tired. Bataille counted upon De Max’s
vibrant, nervous qualities for the part of Daniel, and said
that he had composed the role especially for De Max.*1
As a matter of course Berthe Bady prepared the role
of Marthe. Bataille was as merciless toward her as toward
himself.** Irritability increased on all sides. Whereas for
La Belle au Bois dormant Henry Bataille had been very
much in evidence, he now often remained in his apart-
* In his memoirs Lugn£-Poe has quoted from a le tte r in w h ich Bataille

defined De Max’s art with precision. B a ta ille wrote: “L u i seu l A Paris
poss&de les qualitls de nerfs, de chat, q u ’il m e fa u t, e t les m oyens . . .
Lui seul peut arriver, s’il le veut, par son absence d ’h£roism e e t d e m ile
constitution, A me donner sans effort, e t sans exaggeration aussi, s’il le
veut, le diapason du d£g£n£r£ lyrique. . . . et qui meurt sans bouger
dans d'immenses efforts . . 252
” Mile Bady expressed her attitude toward B a ta ille w h en later, acting
Ton Sang in Brussels, she turned to h im as sh e w e n t o n sta g e an d said,
"Votre esdave est pr£te.” 288
ment in the Avenue Frochot, while Mile Bady executed
his orders.264 Berthe Bady and Lugn£-Poe no longer were
congenial, and Lugn£ was at his wits’ end. He was dis
tressed by the petty threats, disguised swindlings, sugar-
coated peace offerings from the actress, promises made
only to be ignored .255 It seemed as though every time bills
were presented for payment Bataille conveniently dis
appeared.
Rehearsals were a veritable inferno with Bataille as
the presiding demon, for his presence was felt even when
he was not in the theatre.256 Whenever Bataille felt his
arguments weakening, he went home to bed. He compli
cated rehearsals by keeping De Max from working with
the others. Berthe Bady obediently seconded him in his
disturbing notions, although she and the dramatist had
natures too fiery and sensitive to be in constant accord.287
Sooner or later every member of the cast had an alterca
tion with the author. Marie Samary, who had the impor
tant role of the grandmother, went so far as to give up her
part, but at the last minute Bataille rushed to her home
and persuaded her to return.
Bataille insisted that the only link between Ton Sang
and La Lipreuse should appear in the announcement of
Ton Sang as a contemporary tragedy, while he had termed
La Lipreuse a legendary tragedy. He instructed Lugn£
clearly on his wishes in this matter.258
A lithograph on the program testified to the author’s
artistic skill. Bataille had executed a misty, swirling,
crayon sketch, suggesting two people in an embrace.
The stormy preparations did not mar the warm recep
tion o f T on Sang at the Nouveau-Th£atre on May 8,
1897. One sour critic resented what he considered the
unreasoned enthusiasm of the audience. Before the cur
tain rose, he said, men were pounding the floor with their
canes, applause was bursting out, and an atmosphere of
rejoicing pervaded the theatre.2*9 In spite o f a few un
favorable reports, there was no doubt that the perform
ance had decided merit. Mile Bady, expertly interpreting
the role of the submissive blind girl, was almost painfully
touching.2® Opinion was divided over De Max’s perform
ance, for some felt that he overacted,261 while others said
that he played the difficult role well.262
The play itself received the most significant criticisms.
It was a decidedly modern idea to utilize a blood transfu
sion, especially as Marthe’s blood, in addition to helping
Daniel physically^ exhilarated him emotionally with the
joy of having her blood mingled with his own. It is rare
to find so much sadness and pity in one tragedy, where
physical suffering is incidental to the tortures of the
mind.283Coolus admired the way Bataille threw into relief
the complicated organic and psychological needs, the
futile struggle against the inner and outer fatalities of
existence. The oppressive weight o f accumulated artifi
cial and wretched exigencies of social and family ties
found its most passionate outlet in the stirring scene at
the end of the second act, when the grandmother forced
Marthe to dictate the letter which broke off her relations
with Maxime.264
It was generally conceded that the last two acts were
inferior to the first two, with an especially unfortunate
scene ending the third act, when Daniel, mad with
jealousy and sorrow, dragged Marthe in a wild, lugubri
ous waltz." Taking into account the effect o f such a scene,
painful to witness, Coolus called the play gripping rather
gGustave Charpentier composed the m usic fo r the waltz, but pre-

terred not to sign it.265 r
than moving. Jacques des Gachons of L’Ermitage like
wise rebelled against the torturing physical reaction which
the drama inspired.2*6 The intensity of the play’s daring
scenes was hard to endure. The very theme was bitter:
Daniel and Maxime cruelly exploited Marthe and, sup
posedly in the name of love, committed the crime of steal
ing another’s life instead of giving their own.
Despite imperfections, the play’s construction was bet
ter than that of La Ldpreuse.267 Moreover, Bataille’s three
attempts in the theatre proved him rich in possibilities,
for each time he sought to vary his approach. Though La
B e l l e a u Bois dormant had been far from successful, it
was an ingenious idea to mingle legend and reality, and

some passages foretold a writer of talent. La L6prev.se
with its picturesque Breton setting had won wide ap
proval, and now his modern tragedy was equally success
ful, perhaps more so.268
The play, though long, impressed some critics as un
finished, but still they were appreciative of passages of
gracious, poetic feeling .260 One critic especially liked the
purity of style, and another, the powerful, original
rhythm.270
Henry Fouquier and Catulle Mendfcs, pleased that the
Oeuvre was doing its duty by giving the work of a French
writer, resented the Symbolist qualities which they found
in the drama. True to his conception of the Th&Ure de
1’Oeuvre, Fouquier accused the actors of reading every
line as though it contained a symbol.271 Mendfcs decided
that the motivating idea of the drama lay in the character
of Marthe, who never hesitated in her submission and
who therefore was shown as blind. Had she been able to
see, she might have been tempted to make her own
decisions. Mendfcs even saw a similarity between the
muteness of Kundry in Parsifal and the visual muteness
of Marthe.272
Another critic lost sight of most of the drama’s merit
in what seemed to him to be nebulous, long-winded, and
pretentious.278 Most of the audience did not share his
opinion, however, and warm applause broke out several
times in recognition of the play’s fine qualities.274
The performance of Ton Sang was portentous inas
much as critics understood the promise it revealed. Harold
called Bataille one of the most gifted of the young writers,
and looked forward with confidence to Bataille’s next
play.275 Coolus declared that the drama showed rare
qualities of a dramatic and lyric poet.276 Another critic
found the play of special interest because o f “ l’indice
trfcs precis qu’elle apporte sur un certain theatre de
demain.” 277
Bataille had tried in Ton Sang to give an example of
drama which he believed would ultimately triumph. He
had faith that dramatists with poetic souls would search
and harry reality to bring out a mysterious, deeper mean
ing, to find harmony in the simple patterns of life .278 It
must have been gratifying to Bataille to have T on Sang
included, in 1898, in the Theatre du Parc’s program in
Brussels for its new series of literary Mondays, similar to
the literary Saturdays at the Od£on.279While the produc
tion of Ton Sang terminated Lugn£-Poe’s association in
the theatre with Henry Bataille, Lugnd had started the
author off well on his career as playwright.
X i:Entente and Rupture with
Symbolism
T h e P R O T A G O N IST S of the short-lived Sym-

bolist movement, which lasted only from the 1880’s to the
late 1890’s,1 felt in honor bound to gain theatrical recog
nition of plays based on its doctrines, as had the exponents
of literary movements from the Pleiad to its own day.*
Justification for such ambitions lay in the fact that Sym
bolism represented more than the output of a coterie of
men of letters. As Naturalism was the literary expression
of the philosophy which relied on science to explain the
mysteries and satisfy the aspirations of life, Symbolism
aimed to be the literary reflection of an Idealist attitude
towards life.8 This Idealist reaction to Positivism pene
trated all realms of activity and thought,4having its philo
sophic counterpart in the system of Bergson, who sought
to replace an intellectual concept of reality with an intui
tive attitude in order to reveal a rich inner life.®
In the theatre of the early 1890’s, this unrest manifested
itself in the creation, first, of the Theatre d’Art, then, of
the Theatre de l’Oeuvre, which sought to broaden the
* 243
theatrical horizon since the Th£atre-Libre favored Natu
ralism in particular. Symbolist writers were clamoring
for a place in the theatre, while many critics interested in
new tendencies felt that all playwrights should be given
equal opportunities.
With the theatre’s needs in mind Jacques des Gachons,
the forceful critic of L’Ermitage, undertook an annual
analysis of each theatrical season, using the pointed title
of “Le Theatre que nous voulons.” In the first o f these
studies, apparently in the fall of 1893, he presented his
well-ordered dream of a Utopian theatre, advocating a
thorough reorganization which would include everything
from the choice of plays to an improved system of hat-
checking. Maurice Barrfcs, while hastening to assure him
that his ideas were splendid, prophesied more admirers
than collaborators.8 Mme Rachilde answered Des Ga
chons in outspoken fashion, seeking to explode his dream
with a practical consideration o f the French theatre’s
status.7 She claimed that the younger generation had no
dramatists, with the result that the Th&itre d ’Art had
died from lack of plays more than from any other cause.
She stripped promising young writers o f all lofty aims
when she said they were far more anxious to create a work
that would win them entrance to the traditional Com^die-
Franâise than to devote their talent to the less showy but
more valuable effort of enriching the French theatre. Her
final pessimistic verdict was that new endeavors would be
wasted on the general public, for artistic productions at
tracted an audience of the elite only, and the few out
siders who attended were unappreciative.
Des Gachons believed, however, that the decisive mo
ment was at hand to rescue the French theatre from ba-
nality, and, in the struggle towards Beauty and Truth,
e n t e n t e a n d RUPTURE WITH SYMBOLISM 245
advocated the collaboration of all schools of dramatic
art. L u g n e ’s schoolmate, Georges Bourdon, still president
o f the Cercle des Escholiers, glowed with pleasure and
proposed the Escholiers as the perfect answer to Des
Gachons’ high-minded hopes .8 Not one of the existing
experimental theatres—the Th&itre-Libre, the Escholiers,
and the Oeuvre—satisfied Des Gachons’ requirements
because admission to their performances was limited to
friends a n d subscribers. Maeterlinck seconded Des Ga
chons’ preference for a public theatre with daily perform
ances instead of occasional triumphs, but spoke favorably
of Lugn£-Poe’s venture. Des Gachons, also, acknowledged
the interest of Lugn£’s undertaking and seemed often to
have the Oeuvre in mind as he planned the realization of
his hopes.
In his first article, when the Th&itre de l’Oeuvre was
barely started, Des Gachons hailed Lugn£-Poe as a capable
organizer and a vibrant director .9 Reviewing the theatri
cal season of 1892-1893, he cited The Lady from the Sea
and Pelldas et MSlisande among the plays to be remem
bered, and expressed confidence in the director's initia
tive.
Pierre Valin, likewise writing for L ’Ermitage during
the fall of 1895, believed firmly that the Oeuvre promised
to be the theatre of the future, and advised its director to
refuse Naturalistic plays and to pay special attention to
Idealist playwrights.10Both he and Des Gachons admitted
the desirability of staging foreign masterpieces to quench
the public’s thirst for new interest while awaiting a wider
selection of French works. Valin’s penetrating analysis of
the problems of the French stage was a stirring call to the
cause of Idealism and, more specifically, to faith in the
Theatre de l’Oeuvre. While both Valin and Des Gachons
looked beyond the limits of Symbolism to the broade
realm of Idealism, the majority of Symbolist writer
more or less organized as a cdnacle, considered the Oeuvre
their theatre, and took it upon themselves to answer the
appeal and supply the needs of the French theatre.
The very excesses of the Th£atre-Libre benefited
Lugn^-Poe’s Oeuvre, as they aroused a sturdy opposition
from which the Theatre de l’Oeuvre drew strength. The
Oeuvre was forced to wage an energetic combat against
Naturalism in order to survive,11 and its continuance in
the face of innumerable obstacles proved the great need
which it was answering.12
Added responsibilities fell upon the Th&itre de
l’Oeuvre when Antoine announced the performance of
April 25, 1894, as the last of the Thâtre-Libre.' While
there arose on all sides acknowledgment of the valiance of
Antoine, who, without subsidy, and confronted with hard
ships, gave daring productions that put the Od£on and
the Theatre-Franâis to shame, it was generally conceded
that experimenting writers would now turn to the
Theatre de l’Oeuvre as their most likely outlet, since the
Cercle des Escholiers, although interested in new en
deavors, was somewhat classic in character.14
The closing of the Thâtre-Libre, indicating that Natu
ralism had almost burned out, ended an epoch and left
the Oeuvre as the only serious experimental theatre to
champion new tendencies, of which Symbolism appeared
the most robust. Lugn£, indeed, was convinced that the
future of the theatre lay in Symbolism. In the theatre, on
the other hand, Symbolism looked to Lugn£-Poe. While ;
Paul Fort had entertained ambitious dreams, he was im-
I B i management of Larochelle, performances resumed on Feb

ruary 14, 1895, but the pioneering character of the theatre had changed.18
ENTENTE AND RUPTURE W IT H SYMBOLISM 247
practical a n d la ck e d the perseverance which was one of
Lugn^'s prime qualities. Moreover, Lugn£’s varied theat
rical training and his intelligent enterprise as seen in
The Lady from the Sea and PelUas bred confidence in
anything he undertook. Symbolist writers hoped to win
the theatre, and Lugn£-Poe was determined to champion
them.
Symbolists found their main outlet in poetry, yet con
sidered the theatre their rightful domain, since in it they
could have the combined assistance of music, dancing,
and effects of color and light. Indeed poetry in the
theatre aspired to be the supreme art which would create
the richest surge of feelings.15 Interested in the tendencies
of the day, Lugn6-Poe was willing to welcome the dra
matic output of his contemporaries, though while weigh
ing literary values, he maintained the stage, not books, to
be the natural habitat of plays.
From the viewpoint of suitability to dramatic produc
tion, the Symbolist theatre skirted many pitfalls. In eager
ness to depose “ well-made” plays, pieces a th&se, and the
more recent Naturalist dramas, the young playwrights
easily persuaded themselves that curiosity, anxiety, and
the usual emotions developed in a play were unnecessary.18
The inevitable sequel to such a conception of dramatic
art was that the poet-playwrights were apt to ignore the
theatre’s basic need for clarity in their belief that people
on stage have value only as the visible incarnation of an
idea.” Yet while Symbolist playwrights ought to have
curtailed their tendency toward abstract treatment of a
subject, actors, for their part, needed to penetrate the
author’s deepest meaning and strive to convey that mean
ing by working actions, gestures, and lines into a harmo
nious whole.
Dramatic critics thought that the then current custom
of having lectures precede stage productions could be
used to enlighten the audience about the author’s un
derlying intentions. This procedure placed considerable
responsibility upon the speaker’s understanding and
skill. Unfortunately in many instances there was scant
justification for depressing the audience with the sight
of a little table and a glass of water before the curtain
the setup for many a futile flight of oratory.18
Plays filled with symbols and ideas were likely to have
little dramatic quality and to present difficulties of com
prehension which even a clever lecturer might easily fail
to interpret adequately to an audience. Symbols require
discreet use, for, especially on stage, they are usually hard
to grasp. The Master Builder is an excellent example of
an ingenious presentation of a profound meaning; the
logical succession of events holds the attention of those
who do not care to go beneath the surface, whereas the
deeper sense reveals itself to those who meditate. This
second, symbolic, sense never hinders the smooth flow of
the drama.19
In their eagerness to delve into the spiritual world
underlying physical reality, Symbolist playwrights were
led to appeal to all the senses instead of relying on mere
words, and so tended to forget that the test of their
creative power lay in their ability to convey their visions
to others.20They faced the basic necessity of including
dramatic qualities, without which it is little short of
treason to produce a play.21 Even though the action may
be slow, it must be readily grasped by the audience, for
any work which requires several readings for its full im
port to be seized certainly has no place on the stage.22
The Oeuvre s experiment with La Gardienne proved that
poetry often is designed for reading rather than for pres
entation.23'* Such productions held much artistic value
but were doomed to denunciation by all but a very few.
The pleasure of even the elite more nearly resembled
that inspired by a concert than by a play.*4
The necessity of scenic as well as esthetic qualities
limited, then, the scope of the Symbolist theatre. Further
complications appeared with material problems of pro
duction. Maeterlinck decried the intruding influence of
an actor between the author and his public, for another’s
interpretation destroyed the purity of the author’s con
ception.25 Ill-timed applause disrupted the harmony
which an author strove to create; the most fervent dev
otees often applauded the loudest, and their ardor was
usually matched by the noisy disapproval of other factions.
Music offered one means of preparing a state of mind
receptive to appreciation of the poetic atmosphere of the
performance and was used by Lugn£-Poe with Pellias et
Mtlisande, La Belle au Bois dormant, Jean Lorrain’s
Brociliande, Peer Gynt, and a few other productions
lending themselves to this form of stimulus.
Wishing to highlight subtle shades of meaning, Lugn£-
Poe and his troupe endeavored to speak with a suitable,
and unaccustomed, rhythm, and were promptly accused
of chanting. Psalmodier was the verb used in all its forms
to brand interpretations of pioneering and artistic merit.
The Oeuvre’s method at least produced an effect, as is
shown, for example, by the reference of Henry Fouquier
to Lugn£’s voice in The Master Builder: “ une voix par-
ticuli&re, k la fois mauvaise et impressionnante.” 28Espe
cially the varied rhythms of works in verse called for care
ful reading to bring out the full measure of richness. To
•See pages 149-150.
the objection that the resulting artificiality destroyed the
illusion of reality, one could reply that such a play was
a work of art, and was not preoccupied with mirroring
reality.17 The disconcerted critic of L e M oniteur Univer
sal who attended the Oeuvre performance of Une Nuit
d’avril d Ceos by Trarieux, on February 27, 1894, vented
his spleen against the troupe in these words:
“Les choses les plus simples et les plus sensdes pren-
draient tout de suite une apparence diff£rente en passant
par la bouche et par les gestes des acteurs de l’Oeuvre,
places sous la direction de Lugn^-Poe. Ils ont l’air con-
tintiment extatiques et perp&uellement visionnaires.
Hallucin£s, ils regardent devant eux, loin, tr&s loin, vague-
ment, tr£s vaguement. Leur voix est caverneuse, leur
diction est hachê. Ils s’appliquent k se donner l’air d ’etre
fous. C’est afin de nous procurer la sensation de l’au-del&.
Ils nous feraient rever de l’au-deli en disant k leur ma
nure: ‘Nicolas, apportez-moi mes bottes.’ ” 28
Such a distressed reaction to the first play on the pro
gram that evening undoubtedly prevented that critic from
appreciating the importance of Beaubourg’s L ’Image,
next on the program. Jacques des Gachons echoed the
widespread enthusiasm as he asserted that the French
Idealist theatre was founded when Beaubourg wrote the
supremely moving dialogue between Jeanne and Marcel
as she pried from him proof that he loved her image.™
Beaubourg demonstrated, the critic wrote, that all poetry
must have life’s passion and action as base, and an idea
as goal.”
Des Gachons’ survey of the theatrical season o f 1893-
1894 sounded an optimistic note. The most striking char
acteristic of the season was the significant increase in Ibsen
productions. Without mentioning the interest Lugn<§ had
E N T E N T E AND R U PTU R E W IT H SYMBOLISM 251
already displayed in the Norwegian masterpieces, Des
G a c h o n s maintained that a theatre could flourish on
Ibsen’s plays alone. He realized the universality of Ibsen’s
appeal and blamed the legend of Ibsen’s obscurity upon
the deliberate campaign o f certain critics who were ruled
by a petty, fidgety mentality.81
Ibsen and Maeterlinck stood out as the masters of a
theatre of suggestion which did not consider a play com
plete without some attempt at penetrating the souls of
the characters, revealing spiritual beauties of lasting
value. Symbols helped open the vast Idealist horizons
which Ibsen and Maeterlinck sensed, since the finite can
suggest but not depict the infinite. Ibsen was gaining
world renown; Maeterlinck was receiving increasing rec
ognition as the master of the Symbolist theatre in French.
The production of Maeterlinck’s Intdrieur at the Oeuvre
on March 15, 1895, reflected the interest in his work,
again gave proof of his superiority over other Symbolist
playwrights, and marked the Oeuvre as the Symbolist
theatre par excellence.
Plays presenting spiritual problems found a sympa
thetic reception at die Theatre de l’Oeuvre, where a
contagious atmosphere quickly magnetized the audience,
acting as a reflector to the author’s ideas.82An author like
Maeterlinck required just such a sensitive response since
even slight dissent could spoil his effects.88 Outsiders
looked upon the habitues of the Oeuvre as bizarre mem
bers of a mutual admiration society.84While some critics,
making an honest effort to evaluate performances, in
telligently praised and condemned as they saw fit, others,
whose prosaic conservatism instinctively turned them
against the seething aspirations of youth, should have
stayed in the music halls where they belonged. Anything
these critics failed to understand they labeled a symb
and counted upon their influential reputations to di
courage acceptance of performances o f merit.85
While Lugn£ was hopeful of producing Symbolist plav
in such a way that they would hold their own with other
theatrical productions, the movement was low in dramatic
appeal and his efforts consequently not lucrative. Few
people cared to listen to plays which made them think
Moreover, Symbolists, highly individualistic, were prone
to fraternize with anarchists, who likewise opposed re
straining rules. This failure to distinguish between artis
tic and political license made many law-abiding art lovers
who might have been won over, shy away from the Oeu
vre’s enterprises. Those who did back Lugn 6-Poe were
usually as poor as he. The “ d&icieuses petites Botticelli,
qui n’ont pas d’oreilles mais qui ont des yeux 'k faire
damner les saints’ ” 88 and their long-haired escorts con
tributed lively moral support, but their sharing o f the ma
terial problems contrasted with the loftiness o f their as
pirations and complicated the carrying out of their
dreams.
At the close of the 1893-1894 season L ’Ermitage men
tioned the existence of a crop of little experimental
theatres (even the Theatre des Refuses, an imitation of
the Salon des Refuses), but instead of expressing alarm,
congratulated them on their initiative and reassured its
readers at the same time that the poorest would geter out
of their own accord.87 The Theatre de l’Oeuvre with its
ambitious aims and the colorful dramatic training of its
director, stood head and shoulders above other enter
prises. Magazines like Le Mercure de France, La Revue
Bleue, La Revue d’Art Dramatique, followed its course
with keen interest. The most ardent supporter o f the
e n t e n t e a n d RUPTURE W IT H SYMBOLISM 253
movement was La Revue Blanche, which by 1897 or 1898
ained the false reputation of subsidizing and even die
tin g the theatre's programs/
As the Oeuvre started its second season, in 1894, in
addition to the loss of Berthe Bady, Lugn6 lost the active
cooperation of De Max, who was and continued to be an
ardent defender of youth ,89 but who was busily engaged
with roles opposite Sarah Bernhardt. A new source of
support and vitality appeared, on the other hand, when
Suzanne Auclair, during the winter of 1894-1895, asso
ciated herself heart and soul with Lugn 6’s work. Lugn£
did not immediately suspect the magnitude of the new
comer's devotion, but Berthe Bady scented a usurper and
rival. The younger actress’ conscientious efforts to im
prove her talent and to further the cause of the Oeuvre
vexed Bady.
Suzanne Auclair was taking the traditional training of
the Conservatoire, studying, as Lugn6 had done, with
Gustave Worms. Lugn6 supplemented her work by help
ing her keep a balance between the conventional teachings
of the national academy and the newer instruction of his
experimental group. The serious-minded girl, feeling the
responsibility of assimilating as much as possible in order
to assist the Oeuvre, did not enter into carefree camara
derie with the other students of the Conservatoire, who
eyed her with suspicion and hostility because of her
association with the Oeuvre.40 In her eagerness to scrape
together a few francs to help Lugn6’s enterprise, Suzanne
accepted engagements in the homes of generous friends,
•It was L6on Deschamps o f La Plume, however, who approached
Lugnd at a difficult time in the spring o f 1895, offering him twenty-five
hundred francs to produce L’Ecole de I’idial by Paul V£rola. Lugn6 con
sented only when Deschamps agreed to let him add Little Eyolf to the
program. T he Ibsen play, naturally, overshadowed V£rola's.“
whom she then overwhelmed with recitations. Su*air
Auclair was unmistakably identifying herself with L u J 1
/
Poe’s Th&tre de l’Oeuvre.
It was gratifying to the two young people to rea,
Jacques des Gachons’ summary o f the theatrical season 0f
1894-1895. Of sixteen plays he considered worth whfl
eight were Oeuvre productions! 41,4
The Oeuvre’s status, however, was not stable. Sub
scriptions reached a bare eighteen thousand francs, a
scanty sum for the staging of the customary eight well,
padded performances.42 But the worst handicap was the
suspicion of anarchist tendencies which fastened on the
Oeuvre after the performance of An Enemy of the People
on November 8, 1893. Noisy undesirables often attended
performances hoping to stir up a demonstration, their
presence keeping serious-minded subscribers away.48 M.
Andrd Lebon’s invitation to perform Alfred de Musset’s
Carmosine at a garden party at the Ministry o f Commerce
on June 10, 1895, did much to cleanse the sullied repu
tation of the company.44’*
The summer of 1895 passed dismally with Suzanne ill
and the meager resources melting away quickly. Yet
neither Suzanne nor Lugn6 lost faith in the mission of
the Th&tre de l’Oeuvre. Lugn 6 reasoned that the way to
become effective was to produce. Consequendy, while
awaiting a great French masterpiece from the fermen
tation of Symbolism, he planned a series o f performances
intended to revive often neglected works o f art o f many
literary periods. While actual performances in 1895-1896
‘ Beaubourg, La Vie rnuette; Maeterlinck, IntM eur; J. Cladel, Le
Volant; Maeterlinck’s adaptation of Ford, 'Tis Pity She’s A W hore; Strind
berg, The Father; Barrucand’s adaptation from the H indu, Le Chariot de
terre cuite; Ibsen, Little Eyolf and Brand.
‘ The profits from Carmosine financed the Oeuvre’s final program of
the season, Ibsen’s Brand, on June 27,1895. fj
ENTENTE a n d RUPTURE W IT H SYMBOLISM 255
deluded only Otway’s Venice Preserv’d (Venise sauvie),
|Harold's adaptation from the Hindu, L’Anneau de
rakuntala, and Arfcne’s translation of the Chinese play,
la Fleur Palan enlevie, the program of living, literary
restorations in this and other seasons enriched the Oeu
vre’s contribution to the French stage of the 1890’s.
Encouraged by the successes in Paris and stirred with
the vision of similar triumphs elsewhere, Lugn6-Poe con
ceived the idea of an “ Oeuvre Internationale.” He would
take the performances from Paris to London, The Hague,
Amsterdam, and Brussels. The ambitious program dwin
dled to eight regular visits to Brussels and Amsterdam.
Lugn£ failed to foresee that the exhausting whirl of
travel would be further complicated by the fact that plays
which pleased the people of Brussels bored the public in
Amsterdam, and vice versa, while both cities remained
cool to Paris successes. The result was a hectic scramble
to offer the eight promised programs in each city, but
with a completely different billing in each.45
When one considers the devoted energies of Lugn£-
Poe and his troupe and his discerning selection of artis
tic works, one does not wonder that the Theatre de l’Oeu-
vre was acknowledged as assuming a very real literary and
artistic position. The cordial welcome accorded to Ed
mond S£e’s La Brebis on May 29, 1896, confirmed the
Oeuvre’s reputation; it had become the leading art the
atre of Paris.49
It was at this period of increasing glory that the irri
tability caused by incessant financial pressure made
Adolphe van Bever decide to seek steady employment
elsewhere while Jarry took over as secretary of the Oeu
vre. During the summer Edouard Dujardin, seeking to
repay some of his indebtedness to Lugn^-Poe for his fine
performances in Antonia, did all he could to give Lugn<J
publicity by extolling the merits o f the Theatre de l’Oeu-
vre to the frequenters of the popular French spas which
he visited."
Nevertheless, rancor against the Oeuvre’s choice of
many foreign plays still smoldered in the minds o f certain
French critics. Le Mercure de France took cognizance of
this undercurrent of feeling with a brief observation
published in February, 1897:
“Certains critiques,. m£contents peut-£tre du succ&s
des representations de l’Oeuvre et ne pouvant traiter en
quantitds n^gligeables les pieces d’Ibsen ou de Bjornson
que monte M. Lugn£-Poe, se lamentent r£guli£rement de
cette invasion £trang£re et regrettent de ne pas voir sur la
sc£ne de l’Oeuvre des auteurs frangais. Comment done se
fait-il que chaque fois que l’Oeuvre jou e une pike
d’auteur frangais, ces memes critiques ne se donnent
meme pas le mal d’en parler?” 48
The Oeuvre’s fourth season, 1896-1897, proved par
ticularly disheartening to Lugne. Peer Gynt, which
opened the season, was difficult to stage, and then there
was the notorious success of Ubu rot/ after which the un
predictable avant-garde audience began to fall away.49 It
seemed as though it would soon be necessary to give up
the familiar offices at 23, rue Turgot. W ith the precious
aid of Henry Bauer lost, the cause o f Symbolism seemed
decidedly uncertain. T o be sure, mysticism had for long
been discussed on all sides, mysticism understood to in
clude all the articulate and inarticulate Idealist or Sym
bolist aspirations of the day.50But Maeterlinck alone lived.
up to the expectations of creating important Symbolist
plays. Lugnd sensed that Symbolism as a literary move
ment was on the wane.
The young director had at his disposal at that time an
effective means of disseminating his ideas; L£on Bailby
had offered him the hospitality of his newspaper, La
presse, to publish criticisms of plays or to express any
opinions he chose/ Bailby regretted his inability to pay
him, but Lugn6 was delighted with the opportunity.
Boldly taking the bull of Symbolism by the horns,
Lugn6 wrote a manifesto of revolt, published in La Presse
shortly before the Oeuvre’s last performance of the sea
son, Ibsen’s Love's Comedy, on June 23, 1897. He firmly
declared that the Theatre de 1’Oeuvre owed its Symbolist
character largely to the fact that it had come to life at a
time of busy Symbolist activity. Because its lofty aims
raised it above the ties of any literary school, it was time
for the Oeuvre to free itself from all restrictions. During
the season of 1896-1897, only three of the eight programs
were supplied by French authors. Since unmistakable ap
proval greeted the translations of foreign masterpieces
and comparatively little notice was given to French plays,
Lugne defiantly inferred that French works were without
interest and that France was poor in original dramatic
productions since neither the Oeuvre nor any other ex
perimental theatre had discovered the awaited French
masterpiece. Lugn£-Poe bluntly asserted that the Theatre
de 1’Oeuvre would henceforth insist upon works which
dealt primarily with humanity and life, regardless of their
origin.82 If necessary, foreign plays alone would appear.
This frank statement of policy with its slur on French
talent dropped like a thunderbolt upon the unsuspecting
avant-garde group. Pierre Quillard promptly retorted in
Le Figaro, accusing Lugn£-Poe of breaking with the Sym-
t After Antoine was named co-director of the Oddon with Ginisty in
1896, disputes arose. Lugn6, recognizing in Antoine a true man of the
theatre, made use o f his freedom in La Presse to take his defense
bolists because it suited his convenience to do so. As f0r
thejealous and disastrous tyranny which Lugn<* declare^
that Symbolism had exercised over him, the Symbolic
flatly repudiated any connection with such dull, pseudo.
Symbolist works as La DernUre Croisade, L ’Ecole
I’idial, and Le Fils de I’abbesse, all staged by the Oeuvre
Through its spokesman Quillard, Symbolism therefore
disclaimed all association with the producer-manager
Lugn£-Poe, claiming that he, on the other hand, had
taken advantage of the stir caused by ideas which young
writers had expressed and, leaning upon their prestige,
had staged French and foreign plays. It was not his place
to judge the works of authors who, though favorably dis
posed to his experiments, politely reserved their opinion
of the sometimes strange way in which he staged their
works.63These young writers “ne lui'permettent pas de
rompre des relations purement fictives, s’il lui plait de
donner ce nom a la trop grande condescendance^ dont ils
t£moign£rent k son £gard.” 64
Following is the surprising list of writers, many of them
close friends of Lugn£, who signed Quillard’s proclama
tion: Henry Bataille, Romain Coolus, H. D. Davray,
Louis Dumur, Paul Fort, Henry Gh£on, A.-F. Harold,
Alfred Jarry, Gustave Kahn, Tristan Klingsor, Georges
Pioch, Rachilde, Henri de R^gnier, Saint-Pol-Roux, Jean
de Tinan, Auguste Villeroy. Sainte-Claire, who reviewed
the outbursts for La Plume, commented upon the fla
grant audacity of “ce petit bouquet de symbolards.” 85He
asserted that the signers who had not yet had plays pro
duced had no business including their future work in
what had already been done. As for Henri de R£gnier,
Sainte-Claire singled him out: “M. de R£gnier, l’opportu-
niste du symbolisme, a de l’applomb en signant cette
ENTENTE AND RUPTURE WITH SYMBOLISM 259
lettrel” 58Sainte-Claire characterized the entire affair as
nothing but a vaudeville stunt, unfortunately at the ex
p en se of Symbolism.57
A lth ou gh feeling little sympathy for Lugn£-Poe, Sainte-
Claire recognized the director’s accurate timing in seek
ing to sever relations with the Symbolists. Symbolism had
rlin its course, Sainte-Claire conceded, but Lugn£-Poe
had been too closely allied with the movement to break
loose merely by writing a few lines. The critic further
prophesied that the Symbolists’ turmoil would gradually
quiet down as they themselves realized the wisdom of rec
ognizing newer trends.
In L’Ermitage Jacques des Gachons deplored the bad
taste of publicly denouncing one’s erstwhile collaborators,
but refused to condemn Lugn^-Poe before seeing what
the director proposed to offer. Des Gachons recalled that
Lugn6-Poe, going beyond the confines of any one school,
had given him the pleasure of applauding works by Ibsen,
Bjornson, and Hauptmann and had provided true drama
tists like Beaubourg, Coolus, Villeroy, Bataille, Tristan
Bernard, and others with a chance—often their first—to
face the public.58Robert de Flers, at that time president
of the Cercle des Escholiers, aired his indignation by writ
ing to Jules Huret, who had reprinted Lugn6’s manifesto
in Le Figaro. Like other irate writers who overlooked the
true meaning of Lugn^’s words, De Flers accused Lugn£
of haste in deciding to limit the scope of his theatre to
foreign works, for great national masterpieces are rare;
even one per century is an optimistic estimate, yet the
Theatre de 1’Oeuvre had been in existence only four
years. De Flers further accused Lugn^-Poe of ignoring the
promise shown in works like Bataille’s La Ltpreuse and
Ton Sang, Villeroy’s Heraktta, Coolus’ Raphael, Beau-
bourg’s L’Image, Edmond S£e’s La Brebis, and Trista
Bernard’s Le Fardeau de la libertS. He saw in the whol**
quarrel an opportunity for the Cercle des Escholiers to
supersede the Th&tre de l’Oeuvre, which, he said,
voluntarily withdrawing from competition, and he pr0ni.
ised that the group he led would endeavor to increase it8
resources and would welcome the works of any French
authors whose creative output would belie the pessimistic
view of Lugn6-Poe.58
Le Figaro then saw fit to print, on June 25, Lugng’s
reply to his critics/ Lugn£ expressed small concern over
the air of condescension displayed by the “ p&res nobles du
symbolisme.” 80He reiterated his determination to wel
come all good plays, whether French or foreign. He de
clared himself the last to forget the proud successes of
French writers at the Oeuvre, and denied the existence
of the vacancy which Robert de Flers was rUshing to fill.81
Lugn6-Poe showed that he had not lost his fighting spirit.
Henry Bauer deplored Lugn£’s outspoken remarks, and
expressed the opinion that young authors had suffered
sufficiently at the hands of paid critics without being
humiliated by the judgment of the man who had pro
duced their works. Bauer as well as the critic who re
viewed the quarrel for La Revue d’Art Dramatique82
wondered that Lugn£-Poe seemed to expect as much from
his young compatriots as from the mature, tried masters
of other countries. Bauer’s confidence remained firm that
Lugn6would carry out his aim of seeking valuable plays
in all fields; the critic trusted the director to continue
* The June 25 number of L e Figaro likewise printed a letter, to Lugn6
from Maeterlinck, and submitted by Lugnd, in which Maeterlinck sec
onded the director’s suggestion against producing A g la v a in e e t S ily s e tte .
When Maeterlinck discovered his letter in the newspaper he wrote to
protest against the implication that his letter, written a month previous,
had anything to do with the current problem.
looming hopeful indications among untried writers.
*CThe reverberations of the quarrel aroused disgust in
I hose who considered the incident petty and a source of
cheap publicity for the Oeuvre’s director. They did not
ossess Lugn£-Poe’s basic feeling for the theatre’s require-
Pents and could not appreciate his foresight, for foresight
it was, however bluntly expressed. General interest in the
dispute called for an interview with Lugn6-Poe, duly re
corded in L ’Eclair. Lugn£ voiced surprise at the noisy
protests to his declaration, and called attention simply
and emphatically to his announcement of future policy,
which in no way excluded French authors. He merely
wished to free himself from the “ influence tyrannique des
petites chapelles de lettres.” 68
Lugn^-Poe’s rupture with the Symbolists momentarily
attained more dignity than a mere journalistic exchange
of brief and irate letters when Catulle Mend&s, a critic
and poet who often showed interest in the activities of
young writers,® 4 devoted an analysis to the problem of
foreign literatures in La Revue Blanche in July, 1897,
under the provocative heading of “ Le Cr6puscule polaire
et l’aube franâise.” 88 In addition to considering the
status of Scandinavian literature in France, Mend&s re
ferred to Lugn£-Poe as a “com&lien mediocre” who had
the presumption to insult young Frenchmen. Mend£s rec
ognized the broad-minded receptiveness of the French to
new ideas, but resented Lugn£-Poe’s desire to foist foreign
works of varying merit on his public.
The authoritative style with which Mend&s proposed
to put Lugn6 in his place angered the already thoroughly
irritated director. The “ com£dien mediocre” abused his
liberty in La Presse by inserting a virulent attack on
Mendfcs. He called the writer a disorderly old soak, who
had recently been seen to collapse in public; he accused

Mend&s of prostituting letters; he advised the literary
parasite to hide his face, and so on.
A speedy response came to the abusive outburst. Over-
zealous supporters of Lugn£ congratulated him on his
courageous and necessary article, adding, “ Y ou will fight
of course?” Such indeed was the sequel. N ot understand-
ing the import of what was to come, Lugn£ received the
seconds whom Mend&s sent. A duel I
Friends advised Lugn6 to invite L£on Bailby and Aris
tide Briand, chief editor o f La Lanterne, to be his sec
onds. They accepted immediately and Briand very practi
cally inquired as to Lugn£’s skill at fencing. Lugn£ had
never handled a foil, much less a sword; so friends from
La Lanterne escorted the faltering young man to a recom
mended fencing studio. The lesson that followed plunged
Lugn6 into a dazed whirl like that o f Monsieur Jourdain
and left him more perplexed than confident. After one
more abbreviated lesson, Lugn£ was still ignorant o f fenc
ing and was worried about the expense o f the lessons, the
rental of a sword, the cost of carriages, doctors, and good
ness knows what else.
On July 20, 1897, Lugn£-Poe, his seconds, those of his
adversary, and some ten friends and newspaper reporters
went to Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where Mend£s was sum
mering/ The duel was to take place in the forest, on the
Carri&res road. During the preliminary arrangements, the
contestants walked by the roadside. Be it to Lugn^-Poe’s
credit that he managed to give the impression o f a man
aware of the seriousness of the situation without being
disturbed by it. Catulle Mend£s walked with an easy gait
* In his memoirs Lumd-Poe relates the episode in his own words and
also indudes the account published in Le Temps.90
ENTENTE AN D R U PT U R E W IT H SYMBOLISM 263
nd smiled confidently. W hile the doctor in charge, Louis
T u l l i e n , brother of the dramatist Jean Jullien and a de-
oted fr ie n d of many writers, sterilized the swords, the
ixtagonists took their places. Mendfcs suddenly looked
sUrprisiiigly sturdy, Lugn£ thought, not at all like the
doddering sot he had called him. Mendfcs did not seem a
bad sort, though a day or two earlier the writer had ac
cused Lugn£ of receiving money from Scandinavian blue
stockings. W ould that it were so!
T h e instructions were given and the duel began.
Lugn^-Poe assumed his newly learned position, stretched
his righ t arm before him, and rigidly maintained the
stance. At each thrust of his adversary he retreated a step
or tw o but determinedly got arm and sword back into
position. His system of breaking ground at each onslaught
enabled him to maintain the position he had learned.
After Lugn£ had backed about twenty-five yards Men-
d£s’ seconds protested that he had overstepped bounds.
A lively dispute among the seconds forced Mendfcs’ back
ers to agree that no clause setting limits appeared in the
written conditions, though they vigorously upheld the
sanctity of an unwritten law. Lugn£ received five yards as
a compromise. He soon backed over that area, and with a
second dispute about to occur, Briand’s sharp eyes saw
the point of Lugn 6’s sword scratch his opponent’s hand.
Mend&s stoutly denied Briand’s assertion and the argu
ment over terrain grew louder. Mend£s settled it by sug
gesting that the duel continue anyway. Then, suddenly
casting off his debonair manner, he lunged at Lugni-
Poe in a determined effort to settle the matter. Lugn£
maintained his curious defensive tactics, against which
Mendfcs’ skill made no headway. In anger Mendfcs tossed
his sword aside, bellowed that he had no tim^ to waste
chasing a coward over the countryside, and swung on his
heel, leaving his astounded antagonist with sword raised
and the onlookers openmouthed.
The unheard-of procedure of insulting an opponent in
combat stirred new dissent among the seconds and Briand
was restrained with difficulty from matching his superior
skill with that of the outraged challenger. Then a cry
arose: Mend£s’ shirt front was bloody! The doctors in.
sisted upon investigating and discovered that Lugn£ had
indeed injured him, on the thumb of the right hand.
There was little Mendes could say by way o f refutation
and to save his face his seconds publicly announced that,
in view of a new situation created during the duel, the
incident was considered closed. Lugn£’s seconds made a
separate report of the encounter, while Lugn<§ waited out
side the Pavilion Henri IV, marveling at the view and re
gretting wistfully that he could not afford to invite his
friends to dinner, either in that sumptuous setting or else
where.
Before the affair was finished, one of Mendfcs’ seconds
published an article insulting Bailby and Briand, who
promptly sent their seconds to the new challenger. The
matter was settled amicably and Lugn£-Poe breathed
more freely. A few days later L£on Bailby, who generously
paid all Lugn^’s expenses, invited the young director,
Suzanne, and Briand to luncheon. It was a gracious ges
ture and a gala occasion.
That same summer Suzanne Auclair, about that time
deciding definitely to use the “ Despr£s” part o f “ Des-
pr£s-Auclair,” won first prize in the competition o f the
Conservatoire. Since her association with Lugn£-Poe in
1894, she had stood by him through thick and thin, shar
ing hunger and worries, and devoting all her energies to
success of the Th& tre de 1’Oeuvre. As her acting im-
tfoved, Lugn£ entrusted her with more and more roles.
?je was careful, however, not to cast her in plays with
jjerthe Bady, though on the few occasions when the older
ctress consented to return to the Oeuvre, she had sug-
ested that Suzanne act with her. After Suzanne Despr£s’
^but in Le Chariot de terre cuite, she appeared in a num
ber of plays, among them IntSrieur, Les Pieds nickeUs,
les Flaireurs, Raphael, SalomS, The Pillars of Society, La
Cloche engloutie, and Love's Comedy. Already in 1897
she qualified as a veteran of the Oeuvre’s combats.
Suzanne Despr^s’ performance when she won the Con
servatoire’s first prizes in tragedy and comedy in 1897
aroused admiration. Jacques des Gachons called her one
of the most interesting actresses discovered in recent
years.67 As Ph&dre, she brought freshness to the role
through her descriptive gestures and her expressive, mu
sical voice, which seemed to come from the soul.68 As
Catarina in Hugo’s Angelo, she became a different person,
changing her expression and attitude and even making
her voice imploring. Des Gachons paid homage to her
artistry and promising future in these words: “ Sa faôn
pr6cieuse de vivre ses personnages fait d’elle une artiste <t
part qui rendra de grands services aux auteurs de de-
main.” 69, *
In July, 1898, during a visit to London, Suzanne
Despr£s and Lugn6-Poe were married.70 Their means, as
slender as usual, precluded a celebration, although Lugn6
presented Suzanne with a small piece of New Zealand
jade which they had admired in a shop window.
It seemed as though in 1897-1898 the Theatre de
( Because of her connections with the avant-garde group of the Oeuvre,
she was refused at the Com&lie-Franâise and the Od£on.
l’Oeuvre, freed of all ties with literary movements, an(j
guided by the unselfish loyalty of energetic young pe0pje
could expand in scope and influence. In October, 189-7’
Lucien Besnard announced a new campaign for art about
to open on three stages, at the Oeuvre, the Escholiers, and
the Th&tre-Antoine.71,1 At that time Lugn^-Poe voiced
his attitude towards life—and consequently towards the
theatre—in his reply to Le Mercure de France’s wide-
spread inquiry about Alsace-Lorraine. Disclaiming any
opinion on the problem of Alsace-Lorraine, Lugn£ added
significantly, “C’est vous dire que je suivrai toujours les
minority.” 78
Lugri£-Poe put his words into practice by siding with
Dreyfus in the storm of dissension which rocked France
in the late 1890’s. It was widely known that Lugn£ fre
quented the company of Malaquin, whose sense of justice
had called the old group together to participate in the
Dreyfus case.74Lugn^’s frank admission o f policy lost the
Oeuvre countless subscribers. He staged two provocative
plays by Romain Rolland, A 'ert, on May 3, 1898, and
Morituri ou les Loups, on May 18, a play for which Rol
land preferred using the pseudonym o f Saint-Just, who
had died on the scaffold with Robespierre. O n February
18,1899, Lugn£ gave a timely revival of An Enemy of the
People.
In spite of continued interest in artistic productions,
Lugn£-Poe began to think that perhaps the Theatre de
l’Oeuvre had run its course. The director, only twenty-
nine and a half years old, had already waged a vigorous
JThe Thtttre-Antoine came into existence because devoted friends

wanted Antoine to continue as an independent producer and LarocheUe
did not wish to give up the name of the Thâtre-Libre. The Th&ltre des
Menus-Plaisirs opened on September 30, 1897 under Antoine’s leader
ship, with the name of the Theatre-Antoine.72
ENTENTE AND RUPTURE W IT H SYMBOLISM 267
combat in the cause of art, and had influenced the theatri
cal and literary turmoil of the 1890’s. He could not help
thinking that the pioneering Th£atre-Libre had found
justification for living only seven years. Was the ephem
eral existence of the Th£atre-Libre like a portent that his
experimental theatre was about to hear its death knell?
In view of the fact that Lugn 6 was at all times the de
fender of minorities, of which an outstanding example
was his championship of the Dreyfus case, he was bound
to encounter personal antagonisms as well as financial
obstacles. Though Lugn£-Poe tried never to allow finan
cial difficulties to keep him from carrying out what
seemed to him important plans, he was nevertheless
forced to admit that humiliating rebuttals, sustained on
attempts to renew subscriptions, increased the already
numerous problems involved in upholding the Oeuvre’s
program of presenting eight performances annually. If
the theatre must depend for sustenance on revivals only,
he would mercenarily betray the exalted aims of the
Th&ltre de 1’Oeuvre. Moreover, Lugn£ knew that he was
too independent to work under another’s direction. For
tunately he found support in his determination to stand
alone since no director wanted himl Furthermore, and
even more important than these considerations, was the
fact that the Theatre de l’Oeuvre had been first and fore
most a vehicle for Symbolism, and that Symbolism as a
literary movement had grown steadily weaker after 1897,
at which time Lugn6 had broken with Symbolists. Nor
was there any young generation ready in its ebullience to
replace the once vigorous and now waning activity of the
1890’s.
Therefore, when Lugn6-Poe staged Rolland’s Le
T r io m p h e d e la raison on June 21, 1899, he thought that
the end had come, though contrary to the evidence, bef0re
many months had passed, the Oeuvre gave renewed sig^
of life, notably the daily performances in October, I 899
of An Enemy of the People, followed by periodical ari(j
varied recrudescences which eventually culminated in a
veritable rebirth of the Theatre de l’Oeuvre early in the
twentieth century.
[iJllllfiiiiiiititiiummu|llllllllllllllllll>lllimlllllll>><lltln>ltlwullH>w*ltl>**l*mmim***l>lllllt*l*lln*lm,tlll*w*tllwtlt*m*t*Mllltl11111
Xll: Conclusion
H u R I N G the origin and development of the Th£atre-

Libre, the Cercle des Escholiers, the Theatre d’Art, and
the Theatre de 1’ Oeuvre, Lugn^-Poe had associations with
those four most important experimental theatres which
sprang from dissatisfaction with the French stage in the
late 1880’s and the 1890’s. While it would probably have
been more lucrative to fall in with the methods of dra
matic convention, it was far more exciting to work with
groups that stimulated the audience with productions of
unaccustomed and varied interest. Mistakes and excesses
confirmed the vitality of enthusiastic avant-garde move
ments, which waged war against banality and encouraged
broadmindedness, as the spectators, after protesting
against innovations, emerged from the conflict, and with
out realizing it, were more intellectually flexible than they
had been before.1 Experimental ventures opened wide
fields alike to authors, actors, producers, and the public.
While the Cercle des Escholiers, like the Th&ktre-
Libre, gave its first performance in the spring of 1887, the
Escholiers, started by schoolboys, lacked the unity of aim
which guided Antoine. The very vigor of Antoine’s fight
269
for Naturalism whipped up a Symbolist reaction in a.
theatre, just as in literature Symbolism was the north
reaction to Realism and Naturalism. With the creati^
of the Theatre d’Art, Symbolist writers won a foothold ?
the theatre, though Paul Fort’s lack of sound financial
and dramatic judgment doomed the enterprise to failUre
The fervor of Lugne-Poe, with his varied theatrical
training, gave Idealist writers new hope. Already this di
rector at the age of twenty-two stirred the lethargy 0f the
Parisian theatre with the epoch-making performances of
The Lady from the Sea and Pelleas et Melisande, which
marked the beginning of his valiant Theatre de 1’Oeuvre
With the Oeuvre’s assuming the responsibility of the
Symbolist movement in the theatre, Paul Fort’s visionary
plans sometimes found expression at Lugn£’s theatre, for
Rosmersholm, L’Anneau de Qakuntala, and other plays
under consideration at the Theatre d’Art, were produced
at the Oeuvre, making it the direct successor of the Th&
atre d’Art. Lugne-Poe?s dynamic directorship so animated
the Oeuvre that it overshadowed its predecessor, proved a
worthy rival of the Th&itre-Libre, and, as an outlet for
unconventional works, was prepared, when Naturalism
waned, to become the successor of the Thâtre-Libre.2
The Theatre de l’Oeuvre, in its early years, was essen
tially a theatre of combat. Nevertheless, since it tried first
and foremost to encourage artistic merit, an attitude of
basic soundness, it gave the theatre strength to survive
long after the battle of Symbolismwas won and forgotten.
“Querelles de trissotins” flourished during the Symbolist
period; * Ibsen was acclaimed as a Symbolist; 4 the nar
rowing aims of a literary movement tried to direct dra
matic output. Yet Lugn&Poe’s keen sense of values guided
him beyond the limits of Symbolism and made him fight
CONCLUSION 271
for recognition of Ibsen as a dramatist of universal genius,
jjis discernment implanted in him the spirit to champion
cause of dramatic art regardless of cenacle or nation-
mm mm 1. .
Lugn^-Poe further served the interests of dramatic art
by providing actors with the opportunity to develop more
originality than traditional theatres allowed. In many
commercial productions a mediocre supporting cast was
subordinated to the brilliance of a star, who was well paid
and who did not want any possible rivals near.8The lim
ited funds of new ventures, of which the Oeuvre soon be
came the most important, precluded this inequality of
remuneration, and consequently encouraged recognition
of the acting ability of all members of the cast. Thus,
many prize winners at the Conservatoire had broadened
their experience on small stages, and even after receiving
the academy’s award, used such enterprises as the founda
tion for a successful career in the theatre.
Authors, too, realized the importance of an outlet as
valuable and discerning as the Theatre de 1’Oeuvre. Re
jection by the directors of commercial theatres did not
necessarily mean condemnation of a play, for Lugn£-Poe
might well see merit in the work and give the author a
chance to present it to the public.®
Lugn£-Poe’s fighting spirit gave him the courage to ac
cept plays which commercially minded directors would
not consider. When Lugn6 decided upon the ambitious
staging of Peer Gynt, Jarry wrote him, “ Ce sera le meil-
leur dementi k ceux qui disent que ce n’est pas monta-
ble.” 7 Jarry’s words might be considered a slogan for
Lugn6, for he reveled in accepting the challenge of works
of originality and depth which made conservative direc
tors shudder. T o be sure, the Oeuvre’s public was rela-
tively small, a fact which, in itself, justified the protl
tion of plays that could never hope for a wide appeal. 7? i
majority of people will laugh to scorn strivings bey0n! j
the commonplace toward something finer and higher
subtle and delicate for their comprehension. Any o r ig ^ I
work was condemned from the start to provoke scorn« '
Only a limited group could plumb the intrinsic value I
unrecognized works of art, and to those few Lugn6
pealed.
One of the most troublesome stumbling blocks was the
noisy disapproval stirred up by the Oeuvre’s attack on
public apathy to new, original ideas. In order for the
theatre to develop, the public must adapt itself to authors, '
and not authors to the public, as critics like Sarcey and
Fouquier believed.9 In the struggle to win acclaim for I
new dramas of varying merit, overzealous supporters fre
quently applauded so violently as to antagonize other
spectators, who registered their disapproval with boos and
hisses. Disturbances so often marred artistic dramatic ef- J
fects that one marvels that Lugn^-Poe could persevere
and conquer in the face of such odds, when even his back- j
ers unwittingly worked against him.
In addition to the problems of the public’s reception of
plays, there were constant and serious financial difficul- 1
ties. The sum collected from the subscriptions barely cov- ]
ered the most meager expenses of production, and fre
quently the proceeds of short tours had to eke out the
Oeuvre’s resources. People accustomed to attending plays
staged by well-to-do producers were often dismayed at the
Oeuvre’s sets and costumes, which, in their opinion, were
inadequate. True lovers of art admitted that it was better
to give interesting plays with only limited means than not
at all, though to many it seemed regrettable that the
CONCLUSION 273
Oeuvre d id not have strong financial backing.10Misinter-
reting the Oeuvre’s seriousness of purpose, some people ,
in the theatre’s presentations a pretext for merri
ment; 11others expressed horror at the newness of produc
tions like Ubu roi which almost eclipsed their sympathy
f0r the Oeuvre’s endeavors.12 When the Oeuvre troupe
vent to London in the spring of 1895, Bernard Shaw
evaluated the Oeuvre’s achievements in these words:
“In the Theatre de l’Oeuvre there is not merely the
ordinary theatrical intention, but a vigilant artistic con
science in the diction, the stage action, and the stage pic
ture, producing a true poetic atmosphere, and triumph
ing easily over the shabby appointments and ridiculous
incidents.” 18
Protesting against those who refused to appreciate
PelUas, Shaw then continued:
“But when I find players speaking with such skill and
delicacy that they can deliver M. Maeterlinck’s fragile
word-music throughout five acts without one harsh or
strained note, and with remarkable subtlety and convic
tion of expression; and when I see these artists, simply
because their wigs are not up to Mr. Clarkson's English
standard, and the curtain accidentally goes up at the
wrong time, denounced as ‘amateurs’ by gentlemen who
go into obedient raptures when M. Mounet-Sully plasters
his cheeks with white and his lips with vermilion, and
positively howls his lines at them for a whole evening
with a meaningless and discordant violence which would
secure his dismissal from M. Lugn6-Poe’s company at the
end of the first act, then—Well, what then?” 14
Lugn6-Poe was an inspired director for he identified
himself completely with the theatre. Henry Bataille’s defi
nition of dramatic art also expresses Lugn£’s conception
of it. Bataille wrote: “N’est-il pas en somme l’art Uniq.
oil tous les autres viennent se fondre, puisqu’il est la a
role aussi bien que le silence, l’exprim^ aussi bien q^
rinexprimk le geste, l’ame, la nature? II d^peint l’JL*
integral.” 15
Lugn6 understood the deep meaning of the theatre as
a living form of art, with plays attaining their full mean-
ing as harmonized productions given for a public. Re.
newing dramatic art in France was to him such a sub-
lime mission that even though he worked at a mad pace
he in later years feared that perhaps he should have
managed to give even more of his energy to the theatre.1*
Yet he was unstinting in his devotion to the stage, under
standing it, living and sacrificing everything for it. Keenly
sensitive to its power, emotion, and stimulation, he loved
the real theatre, which exacts wholehearted consecration
of one’s life. Often would-be actors thought him harsh,
but the director felt it his duty to discourage those who
did not possess the inner urge to accept the sacrifices
ahead. Just as Lugn£-Poe had a talent for evaluating plays,
he was a clever judge of aspiring actors’ potentialities.
When he found genuine talent, whether in authors or
actors, he did everything in his power to encourage that
talent’s full and free expression. Even before the found
ing of the Oeuvre, Maurice Denis recognized Lugn^’s in
domitable desire to realize visions. Denis wrote to Lugn£,
“Des reves, des reves . . . et quand on songe plus s£-
rieusement k les r£aliser, tu arrives sans faute, l’homme
n£cessaire pour les bons coups d’£paule.” 17
Material hardships left Lugn£ undaunted when many
a weaker character would have faltered. Even during his
student days at the Conservatoire, he had had to manage
with very little and early learned not to fear poverty. It
CONCLUSION 275
aSpainful schooling, but he discovered long before the
I oeuvre’s founding that it meant more to him to work for
I the glory of the theatre than for his own well-being. Mme
I pespr^s, as deeply devoted to the theatre as her husband,
I .gjj the same exalted conception of their service to dra-
I matic art, and encouraged Lugn£ to remain true to the
I |jeais of the Th&itre de l’Oeuvre instead of succumbing
I to the temptation of enterprises which would unquestion-
I abiy be financially successful.
Adherence to one’s ideals is a hard master when one
^ is hungry, and Suzanne and Lugn£ experienced many
I weeks and months of physical discomfort, yet were never
i tempted to appropriate the Oeuvre’s funds for their per-
I sonal use or to ask for help. Every franc they could gather
| disappeared in the Oeuvre’s productions. Understanding
friends tried to ease the couple’s distress, but were some
times too bashful to carry out their good intentions, as on
one occasion when Lugn6 was ill and a friend called
on two successive days. He was too timid to offer the
money he wanted to lend, and Suzanne and Lugn£ were
too proud to ask for a loan. As he left the second day they
looked despairingly at each other, counting his footsteps
on the stair.1 Suzanne then insisted that Lugn£ eat their
last remaining croissant.“
Lugn^-Poe excelled as a director, yet always regretted
he could not at the same time be one of his leading actors.
The many critics of his early acting pointed to him almost
invariably as a fine actor, who created his portrayals by
living them. His superiority as director likewise proved
his sensitiveness to fine characterizations. As an actor,
however, he seems often to have stumbled, as though he
had not learned his role well. Yet the testimony of Mme
Suzanne Gonnel, an actress who worked under his direc-
tion and knewhim well, explains the error of such a i
8“
“Ce grand artiste, si stir de lui, si dldaigneux en
parence, du jugement d’autrui, avait un trac £norme.
grincheux pr&endaient qu’il n’apprenait pas ses
^
Quelle erreurl Je l’ai vu r^p^ter, sans manquer une lig^
des textes difficiles. Et pourtant k la representation, dej
trous gSnants arretaient quelquefois son jeul peur et pr&
occupations reuniesl” 19
The responsibilities of Lugn^’s duties as a conscientious
director undoubtedly aggravated the nervousness which
troubled him as a young actor and which he never com
pletely outgrew. Lugne excelled, however, in his pene-
trating understanding of a role, and he possessed the
happy knack of guiding others to subtle interpretations.
Founder and, with Suzanne Despr^s, the inspiration of
the Theatre de l’Oeuvre, Lugne-Poe was as proud of de
feats as of victories,80for his own evaluation of a produc
tion lifted him beyond the reach of the unstable judg
ment of public and critics. Lugne-Poe’s vitality, enthusi
asm, andcouragenever deserted him; even as an adolescent
he felt the theatre’s magnetic attraction, which increased
with experience. The years of activity at the The&tre-
Libre, the Escholiers, the Theatre d’Art, and elsewhere
developed his penchant for the theatre, equipping him
with the experience of testing his own abilities and of ob
servingothers. His Theatre de l’Oeuvre was, from 1893 to
1897, die Symbolist theatre par excellence because, at the
time of its creation, Lugne’s theatrical genius encoun
tered fertile tendencies in need of recognition. Nothing,
however, could have prevented Lugne-Poe from fulfilling
his destiny, for even as he gave himself to the Theatre de
1Oeuvre, the theatre was already a part of his soul.
.......... -M.nniiimr— ........................ ..................— if h i m ............ .........................
APPENDIX A
Programs of the Oeuvre 1893-1899 ,

May 17> 1893 b o u f f e s - p a r is ie n s
Pelleas et MSlisande, drame lyrique en cinq actes, by

Maurice Maeterlinck.
October 6, 1893 bo u ffe s du nord
Rosmersholmi| drame en quatre actes, by Henrik Ibsen,

translated by Count Prozor.
November 8 , 1893 b o u ffe s d u nord
An Enemy of the People (Un Ennemi du peuple), drame

en cinq actes, by Henrik Ibsen, translated by Ad. Chennevi£re
and H. Johansen.
December 13, 1893 bou ffes du nord
Ames solitaires, pifece en cinq actes, by Gerhart Haupt

mann, translated by Alexandre Cohen.
February 13, 1894 bo u ffe s du n ord
L’Araignie de cristal, un acte en prose, by Mme Rachilde.

Beyond Human Power, Part I (Au-dessus des forces hu-
maines, l 'r* partie), pifcce en deux actes, by Bjdrnstjeme-
fijdrnson, translated by Count Prozor.
February 27, 1894 bou ffes du nord
Une Nuit d’avril h Ceos, un acte en prose, by Gabriel

Trarieux.
L’Image, pifcce en trois actes, by Maurice Beaubourg.
•For foreign plays as well known in English as the works o f Ibsen,
Bjomson, and Strindberg, the English tide will be listed, followed by the
French tide if the latter differs from the English.

Adventures in Theatre - Lugne-Poe and The Theatre de L'oeuvre

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Adventures in Theatre - Lugne-Poe and The Theatre de L'oeuvre

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

r ,,ane-Poe at the Oeuvre from a lith„

Lautrec (1894) reproduced from L a R e v X d e l'O e u n J T ^

Foreword and Acknowledgments

JLh i s study presents the story of a man and a theatre—

it with the expression, or at least the suggestion, of that

FOREWORD and ACKN OW LEDGM EN TS ix

i: Future Man o f the Theatre

(jr E O R G E S L U G N E , father o f the man who was to

school of a certain Pierre Bordier, in the rue Notre-Damcs

deviltry.1 His duties as acolyte required his attendance at

and his friends to tears. Although the selections were

their own.8 Remy de Gourmont’s incomplete list names

1886 proved to be a decisive period for the new move-

that every poet questioned would give a different inter­

an ardent young man of twenty-five. While the new editor

la manne sonore et celeste/'23 had become a great Wag-

severe judges, they devoured his opinions and longed to

ness, aids his flights of emotion, and fosters his superb

Among others trying to gain admission was a youn«* •

people, badly in need of money, who acted under

classes. His efforts were rewarded in the fall, when he

played the role of Thomas Didyme in L’A mante du ch

de son rdle avec un sang-froid superbe. Bravo M. Phili-

In the other great sphere of his activity, Lugn£

and Le Pouldu, S&nsier returned to expound even more

Hi: Orientation towards

A . L T H O U G H Lugn£ had been away from Paris only

of the theatre, he felt there a lack of imagination which

The performance of the Th<&tre d’Art took place in a

46 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE

48 ADVENTURE IN THE THEATRE

remaining parts o f the trilogy. It must have been en­

nants, secoua le Libre et fit suigir la volont 6 de T o

signment to each actor of a tonal personality, which could

were so poor that Verlaine received but little assista

power to stir an audience with the shiver o f death with.

•L’lntruse was performed at the Haymarket Theatre in London less

0nd prize in competition with De Max, termed “ the an­

* Although in his m em oirs L ugn 6-P oe dates this exam ination as of

IV: Acceptance o f Symbolism

O n A U G U S T 1, 1891, an exhibition opened at the

ffering whatever was new, exquisite, and out of the ordi­

* Magazines like La Plume, La Revue Blanche, and La Revue d’Art

to Jean Court, Achilles’ helmet was a faithful repr0^ i |

Poe, each so different from the other, yet equally out­

and was frequently mentioned for his outstanding per.

V: Acting under Contract

P o R E L , director of the Od&m since 1884/ combined

1January 22, 1893.

little stock in the opinion of the press. So few invita­

F l R M in his belief that Maeterlinck, like Ibsen, would

Fort relinquished all credit for the performance in faVor

fM£*TBl D'AKf P v ffiX T tg9 j .

/)7ctt*J»'u. / sfftu & g l

Fort’s letter to Lugnd-Poe about the rights to Pell^as

foreigner in a degree never allotted to a French writer,20

One of Lugn£’s and Mauclair’s most serious problems

. alone had staged and directed had caused a genuine

without money. Hence, he was deeply grateful to receive

Paul Laurens, and M. and Mme Curie.” Vuillard, Denis

week or ten days before the performance, when towards

VII: Vicissitudes of the First

1 HE EVEN IN G of October 6, 1893, a heavy rain beat

that every poet questioned would give a different inter

remaining parts o f the trilogy. It must have been en

0nd prize in competition with De Max, termed “ the an

ffering whatever was new, exquisite, and out of the ordi

Poe, each so different from the other, yet equally out

little stock in the opinion of the press. So few invita

In vain the translator protested that he had not at

• The director of the Bouffes-du-Nord already had threatened to w ith

d e l a neige, le bon g£ant populaire k l’^poque,” 6 8 Scandi

w a n t e d to p l a y the prince at her own theatre.114 She de

t h e assistance of Burne-Jones for designing sets and cos

1Mme Bernhardt postponed playing the role of Lorenzaccio until No

sion. The actors submerged their personality, thus re

In Paris and outside France, a total o f thirty-two perform

em ancipation could have found no setting more sympa