Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T03:15:23.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theatrical Success and the Chronology of Productions at the Hotel de Bourgogne: New Evidence from Racine and Quinault

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

William Brooks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a commonplace regret of theatre historians that, for the Hôtel de Bourgogne (as, indeed, for the Théâtre du Marais) there exists no continuous record of performances analogous to that maintained by La Grange in respect of Molière's troupe. Thus one cannot always be certain which plays were performed, still less when. Such dates as are certain—or even, virtually certain—are so, only because they arise in the writings of contemporaries. In particular, the gazetiers (Loret, Robinet, and others) are an invaluable source of information. One can say, for example, that the first performance of Quinault's Stratonice took place on January 2, 1660 at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, that of Pierre Corneille's Sertorius on February 25, 1662 at the Théâtre du Marais, that of Racine's Andromaque on November 17, 1667 in the Louvre (given by the troupe of the Hôtel), and that of Quinault's Pausanias at the Hôtel on November 16, 1668—provided, of course, that the gazetiers are not mistaken (and, as a fact, they are not infallible). Clues may also be found in other miscellaneous writings (one such, to be mentioned again below, establishes the date of Racine's Bérénice).

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Survey , Volume 30 , Issue 1-2 , May 1989 , pp. 35 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 This is not to say that La Grange is completely reliable. Sometimes he omits the petite comédie; when the troupe is at court or otherwise en visite he often fails to record which plays it performed; sometimes the titles he gives are not the ones usually used, or could apply to more than one play. See Le Registre de La Grange (1658–1685), edited by B. E., & Young, G. P. (2 vols, Paris, Droz, 1947), vol. 1Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as “La Grange.” It seems certain that registers were kept by all the troupes: see Chevalley, S., “Les registres de théâtre à l'époque de Molière,” in XVIIe siècle, 98–99 (1973), 17–32 (pp. 17–18)Google Scholar.

2 Loret, , La Muze historique (4 vols, Paris, 1857–1878); vol. 3Google Scholar, letter of January 3, 1660, p. 150; vol. 3, letter of March 4, 1662, pp. 475–76. Robinet, in Rothschild, Les Continuateurs de Loret (3 vols, Paris, 1881–1899); vol. 2Google Scholar, letter of November 19, 1667, col. 1089; vol. 3, letter of November 17. 1668, cols. 322–23.

3 Molière occasionally alternated plays week by week. There is no evidence that the other troupes did so. If they did, the practice was unusual for them too.

4 John Lough suggests that “10 to 15 performances represented a modest, but definite success; 15 to 22 or 23 was a very considerable figure. Twenty-four or so to 30 meant a very striking success. whilst figures in the 30's and 40's were altogether exceptional” (Paris Theatre Audiences, London, Oxford University Press, 1957, p.52Google Scholar). One may dispute both the criteria and the epithets employed, but the scale of values remains revealing. Different criteria may be needed for Molière's theatre: see (not just for Le Misanthrope) Gossip, C. J., “The initial success of Le Misanthrope,” French Studies, 39 (1985), 143–151Google Scholar.

5 Lancaster, H. C., A History of French Dramatic Literature in the Seventeenth Century (5 parts in 9 vols, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1929–1940)Google Scholar. Deierkauf-Holsboer, S. W., Le Théâtre du Marais (2 vols, Paris, Nizet, 1954–1958)Google Scholar. Deierkauf-Holsboer, , Le Théâtre de l'Hôtel de Bourgogne (2 vols, Paris, Nizet, 1968–1970)Google Scholar.

6 Robinet's letter of September 28, 1669, in Rothschild, vol. 3, cols 962–63.

7 Gros, Etienne, Philippe Quinault, sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, Champion, 1926)Google Scholar.

8 The two criticisms may be read in well-known, Granet'sRecueil de dissertations sur plusieurs tragédies de Corneille et Racine (2 vols, Paris, Gissey, 1740), vol. 2Google Scholar. They are, however, reproduced with greater textual accuracy in Michaut, G., La Bérénice de Racine (Paris, Société française d'imprimerie et de librairie, 1907)Google Scholar. Villars's pamphlet received privilège on December 31, 1670, registered on January 10, 1671; but it lacks an achevé.

9 Robinet's letters for this period have not been reprinted, but Picard, Raymond (Nouveau Corpus Racinianum, Paris, CNRS, 1976, pp. 57–58)Google Scholar and Mongrédien, Georges (Recueil des textes et des documents du XVIIe siècle relatifs à Corneille, Paris, CNRS, 1972, pp. 231–234)Google Scholar reproduce all the passages relating to these two plays.

10 All translations from French are my own.

11 Chappuzeau, Samuel, Le Théâtre françois (Paris, Bonnassies, 1875), livre 2, chapitre 15, p. 70Google Scholar.

12 Christmas Day, 1670, was a Thursday. At Molière's theatre, only when Christmas Day was itself a Friday, Sunday, or Tuesday were performances suspended for the day. According to La Grange, this occurred in 1665, 1668, 1671, and 1672. On other days in Christmas week, performances took place as usual. There is no reason to suppose that the practice at the Hôtel de Bourgogne was different.

13 BN, ms., f. fr. 21945, f˚. 99, cited by Picard, Nouveau Corpus Racinianum, p. 59.

14 In an uncharacteristic error in his Nouveau Corpus Racinianum, p. 60, Picard gives February 24 as the date of the achevé. The mistake occurs first in the original Corpus Racinianum (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar, and remains uncorrected. Picard gives the correct date in La Carrière de Jean Racine (Paris, Gallimard, 1961), p. 162Google Scholar.

15 See, for example, Mélèse, P., Le Théâtre et le public à Paris sous Louis XIV 1659–1715 (Paris, Champion, 1934), pp. 296–297Google Scholar.

16 Couton, Georges, La Vieillesse de Corneille 1658–1684 (Paris, Maloine, 1949), p. 183Google Scholar. Couton also suggests that there may have been a race to publish first, but the evidence does not support this hypothesis.— It is possible, of course, that it was Racine who doubled Corneille's play; Lancaster (vol. 3, pp. 574–75) inclines toward this view. But the question of which play was written first has no bearing on the timing of publication.

17 I know of no play between Bérénice and Bellérophon. If there was one (and not more than one or two performances of it can have been possible, as the chronology I am about to establish will show), my argument about the run of Bérénice is strengthened. But I doubt it.

18 The Frères Parfaict give 1670 (Histoire du théâtre françois depuis son origine jusqu'à présent, 15 vols, Paris, 1735–1749, vol. 10, p. 359Google Scholar). Gros gives “à la fin de décembre 1670 ou au début de Janvier 1671” (p. 93), and Lancaster (vol. 3, p. 607) and Deierkauf-Holsboer, (Hôtel de Bourgogne, vol. 2, p. 144) follow GrosGoogle Scholar.

19 In his dedicatory epistle, Quinault writes of “the public's favorable response to Bellérophon.” The Frères Parfaict (vol. 10, p. 358) assert that the play met with success.

20 Robinet, letters of January 24 and January 31, 1671 (Paris, Bibliothèque mazarine, 296 A5.Rés.); Gazette de France, January 1671, p. 107. The wedding of Saint-Aignan's son is also mentioned in the Correspondance de Roger de Rabutin, comte de Bussy, edited by Lalanne, L. (5 vols, Paris, Charpentier, 1858), vol. 1, pp. 357, 361Google Scholar. For no apparent reason, Lalanne suggests amending the date of it to Wednesday, January 21. Even if he is right, my argument remains unchanged.

21 Le Mercure galant, January 1710, pp. 278–79. Also quoted by Watts, Derek A. in his edition of Camma (Exeter, University of Exeter, 1977), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

22 Brooks, William, “Chappuzeau and the orateur: a question of accuracy,” Modern Language Review, 81 (1986), 305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 The case of the Théâtre du Marais may be analogous, but must await further investigation. The tendency of many commentators to assimilate the practices of the two theatres, sustained in some instances by the unique testimony of Chappuzeau, is unhelpful.