Lippincott'S Magazine Of Popular Literature And Science, Volume 26 December, 1880. by Various None (smart ebook reader .txt) 📕

Authors Also Of The _Grande Duchesse De Gerolstein_ And Of _La Belle

Helene_,  Of _Carmen_ And Of _Le Petit Duc_. There Are A Few,  I Know,  Who

Think That _Froufrou_ Was Written By The Fertile And Ingenious M.

Victorien Sardou,  And Who,  Without Thinking,  Credit M. Jacques Offenbach

With The Composition Of The Words As Well As The Music Of The _Grande

Duchesse_; And As For _Carmen_,  Is It Not An _Italian_ Opera,  And Is Not

The Book,  Like The Music,  The Work Of Some Italian? As A Matter Of Fact,

All These Plays,  Unlike As They Are To Each Other,  And Not Only These,

But Many More--Not A Few Of Them Fairly Well Known To The American

Play-Goer--Are Due To The Collaboration Of M. Henri Meilhac And M.

Ludovic Halevy.

Born In 1832,  M. Henri Meilhac,  Like M. Emile Zola,  Dealt In books

Before He Began To Make Them. He Soon Gave Up Trade For Journalism,  And

Contributed With Pen And Pencil To The Comic _Journal Pour Rire_. He

Began As A Dramatist In 1855 With A Two-Act Play At The Palais Royal

Theatre: Like The First Pieces Of Scribe And Of M. Sardou,  And Of So

Many More Who Have Afterward Abundantly Succeeded On The Stage,  This

Play Of M. Meilhac'S Was A Failure; And So Also Was His Next,  Likewise

In Two Acts. But In 1856 The _Sarabande Du Cardinal_,  A Delightful

Little Comedy In One Act,  Met With Favor At The Gymnase. It Was Followed

By Two Or Three Other Comediettas Equally Clever. In 1859,  M. Meilhac

Made His First Attempt At A Comedy In Five Acts,  But The _Petit Fils De

Mascarille_ Had Not The Good Fortune Of His Ancestor. In 1860,  For The

First Time,  He Was Assisted By M. Ludovic Halevy,  And In The Twenty

Years Since Then Their Names Have Been Linked Together On The

Title-Pages Of Two Score Or More Plays Of All Kinds--Drama,  Comedy,

Farce,  Opera,  Operetta And Ballet. M. Meilhac'S New Partner Was The

Nephew Of The Halevy Who Is Best Known Out Of France As The Composer Of

The _Jewess_,  And He Was The Son Of M. Leon Halevy,  Poet,  Philosopher

And Playwright. Two Years Younger Than M. Henri Meilhac,  M. Ludovic

Halevy Held A Place In The French Civil Service Until 1858,  When He

Resigned To Devote His Whole Time,  Instead Of His Spare Time,  To The

Theatre. As The Son Of A Dramatist And The Nephew Of A Popular Composer,

He Had Easy Access To The Stage. He Began As The Librettist-In-Ordinary

To M. Offenbach,  For Whom He Wrote _Ba-Ta-Clan_ In 1855,  And Later The

_Chanson De Fortunio_,  The _Pont Des Soupirs_ And _Orphee Aux Enfers_.

The First Very Successful Play Which Mm. Meilhac And Halevy Wrote

Together Was A Book For M. Offenbach; And It Was Possibly The Good

Fortune Of This Operetta Which Finally Affirmed The Partnership. Before

The Triumph Of The _Belle Helene_ In 1864 The Collaboration Had Been

Tentative,  As It Were: After That It Was As Though The Articles Had Been

Definitely Ratified--Not That Either Of The Parties Has Not Now And Then

Indulged In Outside Speculations,  Trying A Play Alone Or With An

Outsider,  But This Was Without Prejudice To The Permanent Partnership.

This Kind Of Literary Union,  The Long-Continued Conjunction Of Two

Kindred Spirits,  Is Better Understood Amongst Us Than The Indiscriminate

Collaboration Which Marks The Dramatic Career Of M. Eugene Labiche,  For

Instance. Both Kinds Were Usual Enough On The English Stage In The Days

Of Elizabeth,  But We Can Recall The Ever-Memorable Example Of Beaumont

And Fletcher,  While We Forget The Chance Associations Of Marston,

Dekker,  Chapman And Ben Jonson. And In contemporary Literature We Have

Before Us The French Tales Of Mm. Erckmann-Chatrian And The English

Novels Of Messrs. Besant And Rice. The Fact That Such A Union Endures Is

Proof That It Is Advantageous. A Long-Lasting Collaboration Like This Of

Mm. Meilhac And Halevy Must Needs Be The Result Of A Strong Sympathy And

A Sharp Contrast Of Character,  As Well As Of The Possession By One Of

Literary Qualities Which Supplement Those Of The Other.

One Of The First Things Noticed By An American Student Of French

Dramatic Literature Is That The Chief Parisian Critics Generally Refer

To The Joint Work Of These Two Writers As The Plays Of M. Meilhac,

Leaving M. Halevy Altogether In The Shade. At First This Seems A Curious

Injustice,  But The Reason Is Not Far To Seek. It Is Not That M. Halevy

Is Some Two Years The Junior Of M. Meilhac: It Lies In The Quality Of

Their Respective Abilities. M. Meilhac Has The More Masculine Style,  And

So The Literary Progeny Of The Couple Bear Rather His Name Than His

Associate'S. M. Meilhac Has The Strength Of Marked Individuality,  He Has

A Style Of His Own,  One Can Tell His Touch; While M. Halevy Is Merely A

Clever French Dramatist Of The More Conventional Pattern. This We Detect

By Considering The Plays Which Each Has Put Forth Alone And Unaided By

The Other. In Reading One Of M. Meilhac'S Works We Should Feel No Doubt

As To The Author,  While M. Halevy'S Clever Pictures Of Parisian Society,

Wanting In Personal Distinctiveness,  Would Impress Us Simply As A

Product Of The "Modern French School."

Before Finally Joining With M. Halevy,  M. Meilhac Wrote Two Comedies In

Five Acts Of High Aim And Skilful Execution,  And Two Other Five-Act

Pieces Have Been Written By Mm. Meilhac And Halevy Together. The _Vertu

De Celimene_ And The _Petit Fils De Mascarille_ Are By The Elder

Partner--_Fanny Lear_ And _Froufrou_ Are The Work Of The Firm. Yet In

These Last Two It Is Difficult To See Any Trace Of M. Halevy'S

Handiwork. Allowing For The Growth Of M. Meilhac'S Intellect During The

Eight Or Ten Years Which Intervened Between The Work Alone And The Work

With His Associate,  And Allowing For The Improvement In The Mechanism Of

Play-Making,  I See No Reason Why M. Meilhac Might Not Have Written

_Fanny Lear_ And _Froufrou_ Substantially As They Are Had He Never Met

M. Halevy. But It Is Inconceivable That M. Halevy Alone Could Have

Attained So High An Elevation Or Have Gained So Full A Comic Force.

Perhaps,  However,  M. Halevy Deserves Credit For The Better Technical

Construction Of The Later Plays: Merely In Their Mechanism The First

Three Acts Of _Froufrou_ Are Marvellously Skilful. And Perhaps,  Also,

His Is A Certain Softening Humor,  Which Is The Cause That The Two Later

Plays,  Written By Both Partners,  Are Not So Hard In Their Brilliance As

The Two Earlier Comedies,  The Work Of M. Meilhac Alone.

It May Seem Something Like A Discussion Of Infinitesimals,  But I Think

M. Halevy'S Co-Operation Has Given M. Meilhac'S Plays A Fuller Ethical

Richness. To The Younger Writer Is Due A Simple But Direct Irony,  As

Well As A Lightsome And Laughing Desire To Point A Moral When Occasion

Serves. Certainly,  I Shall Not Hold Up A Play Written To Please The

Public Of The Palais Royal,  Or Even Of The Gymnase,  As A Model Of All

The Virtues. Nor Need It Be,  On The Other Hand,  An Embodiment Of All The

Cardinal Sins. The Frequenters Of The Palais Royal Theatre Are Not

Babes; Young People Of Either Sex Are Not Taken There; Only The

Emancipated Gain Admittance; And To The Seasoned Sinners Who Haunt

Theatres Of This Type These Plays By Mm. Meilhac And Halevy Are

Harmless. Indeed,  I Do Not Recall Any Play Of Theirs Which Could Hurt

Any One Capable Of Understanding It. Most Of Their Plays Are Not To Be

Recommended To Ignorant Innocence Or To Fragile Virtue. They Are Not

Meant For Young Men And Maidens. They Are Not Wholly Free From The Taint

Which Is To Be Detected In Nearly All French Fiction. The Mark Of The

Beast Is Set On Not A Little Of The Work Done By The Strongest Men In

France. M. Meilhac Is Too Clean And Too Clever Ever To Delve In

Indecency From Mere Wantonness: He Has No Liking For Vice,  But His

Virtue Sits Easily On Him,  And Though He Is Sound On The Main Question,

He Looks Upon The Vagaries Of Others With A Gentle Eye. M. Halevy,  It

Seems To Me,  Is Made Of Somewhat Sterner Stuff. He Raises A Warning

Voice Now And Then--In _Fanny Lear_,  For Instance,  The Moral Is Pointed

Explicitly--And Even Where There Is No Moral Tagged To The Fable,  He Who

Has Eyes To See And Ears To Hear Can Find "A Terrible Example" In almost

Any Of These Plays,  Even The Lightest. For The Congregation To Which It

Was Delivered There Is A Sermon In _Toto Chez Tata_,  Perhaps The Piece

In Which,  Above All Others,  The Muse Seems Gallic And _Egrillarde_. That

Is A Touch Of Real Truth,  And So Of A True Morality,  Where Tata,  The

Fashionable Courtesan,  Leaning Over Her Stairs As Toto The School-Boy

Bears Off Her Elderly Lover,  And Laughing At Him,  Cries Out,  "Toi,  Mon

Petit Homme,  Je Te Repincerai Dans Quatre Ou Cinq Ans!" And A Cold And

Cutting Stroke It Is A Little Earlier In The Same Little Comedy Where

Toto,  Left Alone In Tata'S Parlor,  Negligently Turns Over Her Basket Of

Visiting-Cards And Sees "Names Which He Knew Because He Had Learnt Them

By Heart In His History Of France." Still,  In Spite Of This Truth And

Morality,  I Do Not Advise The Reading Of _Toto Chez Tata_ In Young

Ladies' Seminaries. Young Ladies In Paris Do Not Go To Hear Madame

Chaumont,  For Whom _Toto_ Was Written,  Nor Is The Varietes,  Where It Was

Played,  A Place Where A Girl Can Take Her Mother.

It Was At The Varietes In december,  1864,  That The _Belle Helene_ Was

Produced: This Was The First Of Half A Score Of Plays Written By Mm.

Meilhac And Halevy For Which M. Jacques Offenbach Composed The Music.

Chief Among These Are _Barbe-Bleue_,  The _Grande Duchesse De

Gerolstein_,  The _Brigands_ And _Perichole_. When We Recall The Fact

That These Five Operas Are The Most Widely Known,  The Most Popular And

By Far The Best Of M. Offenbach'S Works,  There Is No Need To Dwell On

His Indebtedness To Mm. Meilhac And