below this figure.

In the best months of the prosperous years a well-filled house seldom produced 1,000 livres." Here M. Despois adds in a note, "Except in the last years of the reign of Louis XIV." In the winter of 1712-1713 the receipts several times went beyond 2,000 livres. On the 23rd January, 1713, Phèdre and Les Fâcheux produced 2,346 livres 16 sous. On the 24th November, 1713, Ariane and La Comtesse d'Escarbagnas produced 3,038 livres 14 sous. M. Despois tells us also that in November, 1713, the "part" of an actor was worth 850 livres, and in December, 701 livres. On the 6th April, 1715, a representation of Polyeucte and M. de Pourceaugnac produced 4,758 livres 3 sous, or 1901. M. Despois says that he believes that to be the highest receipt during the reign. Taking the average, I do not think we shall greatly err if we consider that a fairly well-filled house at the Palais Royal produced from 700 to 750 livres. At the Théâtre Guénégaud the troupe was not so prosperous. When Mdlle. de Champmeslè, a famous actress, first went there, we find that four plays of Racine's produced on the mean average 590 livres.

I have said that the "parts" of the actors rose in value after the fusion of the Hôtel de Bourgogne and the Théâtre Guénégaud. But this good fortune only lasted for a few years. After the fusion had taken place, the old Hôtel de Bourgogne was abandoned, and the Hôtel Guénégaud became the established theatre. On the 20th June, 1687, the actors received an order from the king, commanding them to leave the theatre within three months, and to establish themselves elsewhere. They could only bow their heads and obey. During the three months' grace that was given to them they made active preparations towards finding a new theatre. An interesting romance might be made out of the wanderings of the troupe to find a new home. They succeeded in getting the king's consent four different times to establish themselves in four different places, and at each time, after the royal

This

voked. All this was owing to the intrigues of the clergy. The actors at last submitted to the king the names of four different sites, praying to be allowed to have one of these four given to them. One of the four was accorded-that in the Rue des Fossés-Saint-Germain-des-Prés, now the Rue de l'Ancienne Comédie, but not until eight months after they had received the order to quit the Hôtel Guénégaud. All this while they were put to infinite trouble and annoyance. Their expenses for journeys to and from the Court cost them 1,869 livres. Moreover, the building that had been allowed to them was found to be practically useless. They determined to buy the ground, to pull down the old building, and to construct a new theatre. altogether cost them 198,233 livres 16 sous 6 deniers. According to M. Bonnassies' computation of the value of money, this sum would now be worth nearly 50,000l. sterling. At this time the "parts" of the actors had risen to 23 in number, so that each actor who had a "part" became indebted to the amount of 8,618 livres 17 sous 2 deniers. This was the capital that each actor had in the troupe. But above and beyond this there were other large sums which each had to pay. In 1686 the actors had decreed amongst themselves that when any one of them retired from the troupe, or died, the successor, if admitted to a whole "part," should pay to the retiring actor, or to his heirs, 4,400 livres, and half that sum if admitted to half a part," &c. This was paid by the new actor to the troupe, who had paid the 4,400 livres either to the retiring actor, or to his heirs. Moreover, this sum of 4,400 livres was independent of the payment of 1,000 livres a year pension which each retiring actor received from his successor until he died. This was formerly paid by the troupe, but now by the succeeding owner of the "part." We find, therefore, that each actor who was admitted into the troupe with a whole "part" was indebted to the following amounts:-8,618 livres, 17

as sociétaire, and 4,400 livres to be paid to the troupe, either at once or gradually, the troupe having paid the same amount to the outgoing actor, or to his heirs. These two sums make 13,018 livres, 17 sous 2 deniers, or 5201. sterling. And then there was the 1,000 livres, or 407. per annum which each incoming actor paid annually to his predecessor until the death of the latter.

These figures, I fear, are wearisome, but they enable us to see the burdens that the troupe had to bear. If their new house was to be well filled, and the receipts continued good, the debt would not signify. M. Bonnassies says, "The change that the Comédie made into the Rue des Fossés ought to have been a profitable one; but it was really the reverse. First of all the troupe was overweighted with the debt caused by the building of the new theatre, and then there came a great decline in dramatic authorship. The house was probably often better filled than it had been at the Guénégaud, but the balancesheets were not so good as they had expected, and hard times followed, and lasted a long while. This is shown by the registers. On the minute, dated 3rd September, 1691, is written-'For several years past the receipts have decreased,' and the events that followed at the close of the reign of Louis XIV. did not make matters any better. These were very bad years during the war, both for the theatre and the country at large; and in the year 1709, especially, the theatre was in a deplorably bad condition. At this time, and for many years after, the receipts rarely exceeded 1,000 livres, and those of 2,346 livres and of 3,038 livres in 1712-1713, and of 4,758 livres on the 6th April, 1715, were quite exceptional."

It was in 1709 that Le Sage's Turcaret was first performed. This was perhaps the best French comedy written between the days of Molière and of Beaumarchais; and yet after seven representations it had to be withdrawn. On the first night the receipts were 2,320 livres and on the seventh 533 livres 4 sous.

account for the failure of this play :the excessive cold of the winter, the evident hostility of the author to the actors, and the subject of the piece itself, which contained a severe satire upon the financial managers of the time. But I think we may affirm that had it not been for the general decline into which the theatre had then fallen, Turcaret, would for a while have helped to raise the pecuniary condition of the actors, and have received at the time the acknowledgment which it deserved. A five act tragedy written in verse was then more highly thought of than any comedy. Tragedy was held to belong to the genre noble, a class of literature of its own, holding a position to which the vulgar could not aspire, and authors, capable or incapable, burned to enrol themselves among its members. When Corneille had brought out the Cid three quarters of a century earlier, he had surpassed with giant strides Hardy, Mairet, and Rotrou, the authors who then held possession of the stage. Racine afterwards followed, and rose into his full fame as his older rival was declining. Racine died in 1699, and from that time till the end of the reign of Louis XIV. we find very few tragedies of value. These few were the Manlius of La Fosse, and one or two plays of Crébillon's. Racine's Esther and Athalie were not performed publicly until the days of the Regency, so that for the greater part of the public they were then new. In comedy, though it was less esteemed by the beau monde, we do find some names of merit, and more plays that an audience would nowa-days see without yawning and longing for the final drop of the curtain. We learn from M. Despois that in the fifteen years from 1660 to 1675 there were sixty-three new tragedies represented and a hundred and twenty-nine comedies; and in the same length of period from 1700 to 1715 there were thirty-three tragedies and seventy-two comedies.

Until the definite establishment of the Comédie Française in 1680, the

The making of the affiche and the annonce, mentioned above in the extract from the play Le Baron de la Crasse, was the business of the orateur of each troupe. A capable man was chosen to make a short discourse to the audience, extolling the play they had just seen, or excusing its defects, and informing them at the same time of the piece that was next going to be performed, using soft words and begging them to come and see it. And there seems to have been the free right of interpellation to any of the audience of the orateur, who was bound to answer them and yet not disclose the secrets of his comrades. Molière was for some years the orateur of his troupe; he afterwards intrusted the office to La Grange, who acquitted himself with much tact and courtesy.

The

It was a custom common to all the theatres during the early representations of a popular piece to increase the price of the places. This was called jouer au double, or, à l'extraordinaire. ordinary prices were five livres ten sous, for each seat in the first row of boxes, and the same for each seat on the stage. (The placing of benches on the stage was a custom of which I shall speak presently.) The seats in the amphitheatre, corresponding to the dress-circle in a modern London theatre, were charged three livres. Sitters in the second row of boxes paid one livre ten sous, and those in the third row one livre. Spectators in the parterre paid fifteen sous. When the performance was au double the parterre and the third row of boxes paid thirty sous and two livres respectively-exactly double the ordinary price. The second row of boxes paid three livres, or more than double the ordinary price; and the amphitheatre was raised from three livres to five livres ten sous. The seats in the first row of boxes and those on the stage always remained at five livres ten sous. The first instance that we have of Molière's theatre playing au double was at the second representation of Les Précieuses Ridicules, on the 2nd December, 1659; but there is reason to believe that the

practice earlier. This custom lasted a long while; but except quite at its commencement the price of the parterre was never raised.

In the seventeeth century, the custom among the grands seigneurs was to pay for their seats in the theatre at the end of each month; but sometimes they were very backward in their payments. The Prince and Princess de Conti had their separate accounts, for which the actors found it difficult to obtain a settlement. "Ce jeudi 7 Octobre 1694, on a reçu de Monseigneur le prince de Conty la somme de 104 livres pour un mémoire de l'année 1691. On en a donné un écu à Subtil pour ses peines.' Subtil paraît être un garçon du théâtre." And, "Le lundi 25 avril 1695, on reçoit de Mme. la princesse de Conty 94 livres pour les places qu'elle a occupées avec sa suite en 1691 et en 1692. Les autres princes et princesses ne sont guère de meilleures pratiques." Nor was this all. "M. le prince de Turenne chicane noblement la Comédie pour 8 livres qu'il doit sur un arriéré de 33 livres. La Comédie est obligée de se résigner à cette perte. M. le Marquis de Rochefort paye 12 livres 10 sous sur ce qu'il doit de vieux:' restent dus 'cinquante sous' pour lesquels la Comédie est obligée de faire crédit à ce gentilhomme; il doit les payer plus tard quand il sera en fonds." The pension that the king was supposed to pay regularly to the actors was also constantly in arrear. On the 4th July, 1697, the Comédie received 837 livres that were due to them for the months of October, November, and December, 1694. And it was the same towards the end of the reign. M. Despois says, "A la fin du règne la pension est toujours en retard; le 15 août 1706, reçu au Trésor 6,000 livres pour le premier semestre de 1705, payées en deux billets de monnaie, mille francs en espèces, le restant en une assignation à échoir le 10 octobre.' Les billets de monnaie avaient une assez mauvaise réputation, et on ne tarda pas à les abolir." This was the trickery practised by the king and by his courtiers towards the end of

"In Molière's time all the servants of the king's household, and especially on the military side, pretended to have the right of entering the theatre without payment." from the king the suspension of these gratuitous entries. This gave rise to an uproar, in which the porter of the theatre was killed while defending himself against the king's musketeers. La Grange in his journal constantly makes mention of expenses incurred for dressing the wounds of the porters of the theatre. These riots were not peculiar to the Palais Royal. At the Marais we find mention of more than one porter being killed. If fighting with swords and pistols took place outside the theatre, we need not be surprised to find that disturbances took place inside during the performance of the play. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the audiences of the Paris theatres seem to have been very noisy. In 1635 pages and footmen were forbidden to go into the theatre wearing their swords; and Scarron, in his Roman Comique, complains bitterly of the disorders of the parterre. In a little book, "Documents inédits sur J. B. Poquelin Molière," M. Campardon quotes sworn evidence showing that during the performance of the Amour Médecin at the Palais Royal, some one in the parterre threw a large tobacco pipe on the stage; and on the same day, inside the theatre, but after the performance, an unfortunate youth was caught hold of and belaboured with a stick. Bonnassies appals us by giving a list of the dates of fifty-two police ordinances, passed between December 1672 and January 1787, the greater part of which were prohibitions against going into the theatre without paying and against disturbances; and he says that probably the list is not complete.

Molière once obtained

M.

I am partly inclined to believe, however, that in the earlier part of Louis' reign, the uproars in and about the theatre were not so much attributable to the parterre as to the servants of the king's household-especially the musketeers, who pretended to have the right of entering without payment. The ordi

nary bourgeois was then generally content to pay for his place, and to keep himself quiet when he got there. We have abundant evidence showing that it was the judgment of the parterre that the actors appreciated, and their praise that they tried to win. It was in fact the judgment of the parterre that decided the fate of a play. Molière in his Critique de l'Ecole des Femmes says: "Tu es donc, marquis, de ces Messieurs du bel air, qui ne veulent point que le parterre ait du sens commun, et qui seroit fâchés d'avoir ri avec lui, fût ce de la meilleure chose du monde." Racine, too, complaining of the coldness. with which Les Plaideurs was received by the beau monde, says: "Ceux même qui s'y étaient le plus divertis eurent peur de n'avoir pas ri dans les règles, et trouvèrent mauvais que je n'eusse pas songé plus sérieusement à les faire rire." But the parterre, who were not afraid of having their judgment criticised, laughed and enjoyed themselves. M. Despois states as an incontestable fact that literature generally-apart from that of the theatre-has been much less soundly judged than dramatic plays, and that the parterre has committed fewer blunders than the beaux esprits, and certainly than the Academy.

It appears that the theatre built for the Comédie Française in 1687, held very nearly the same number of persons as the present Théâtre Français in the Rue Richelieu. In the year 1867, there was a representation of M. Victor Hugo's Hernani, at which 1,401 persons were present, that being the greatest number the house would hold, and the same number at a representation of the Cid in 1872. On the 24th November 1713, there was a performance in the Rue des Fossés, at which there were 1,394 persons. We find, on one occasion, that Molière's theatre held 944 persons. During the seventeenth and the greater part of the eighteenth century, the spectators in the parterre always used to stand during the performance. They were not seated until 1782. By this means the space occupied under the old system contained a