I am not a writer of literary columns; what I write here is merely a review, it is neither an analysis nor a criticism: these are a few observations that I have made
after attending a theatrical play, a few thoughts that came to me on my return home, in my bed, after the performance of L'Abbé Constantin at the Gymnase.2 They are
totally my own; I submit them to the reader so that he may make them his own or respond according to his own feelings. One morning last summer, reading in a theatre report that L'Abbé Constantin,
a play, was about to be put on I exclaimed: "I can't see any point putting that on the stage! Why? Why? But [several illegible words] the book is charming, delightful - how can they do that?
You would have to change it out of recognition, add [illegible] rushing to the ark.3 Do you not think that it is too perfect to give a play of any interest
[several illegible words]. What was agreeable about it will disappear; The descriptions in it are delightful, what is to become of you? No, L'Abbé Constantin in the theatre, that
will not make a good play." For all that I prefer not to go to hear a play with the firm resolve of finding it bad. So, as I sat down in my seat I was fully disposed to spend an agreeable
evening. On my return I thought back about my anticipated opinion, it seemed to me quite fair. The wonderful charm of its descriptions had gone. I just give one example: do you recall
that delightful painting4 of the priest taking a little nap, about ten o'clock in the evening, in a comfortable armchair, on a pleasantly sheltered balcony. Do you find the spectacle
of Lafontaine5 letting the grey locks of hair tumble from his wig onto his plate amidst the peelings of some fruit, sitting on a rickety iron chair comes to mind? No,
certainly not. But that is the same for it all.
How do you picture the priest? In my case the novel presents to my mind a country priest, and something more, perfection so to speak. Is that not also your opinion? In any case,
a man, in the full force of the term, and an intelligent man? Well, on the stage he is, I am ashamed to say, a fool. He is too old, too imbecile, too blind. Perhaps it is a mistake
to produce a cassock on the stage, I don't have to like it, but in any case it shouldn't be made to look ridiculous.
It also seemed to me that Desclauzas6 was far too grotesque, too farcical, too overdone, basically, which is not entirely her fault - if there were puns written into
her role, she is not the one to blame. But she insists too much on this aspect of her role which, to my way of thinking, is completely wrong. Madame de Lavardens should be noble,
serious, melancholy about... her son's mistakes? At least for us, who have read the novel, that's what we thought. How wrong could we be! She is a scheming, bitter woman, and from
whom her son has, no doubt, taken away every bit of joy (!) in her character. It was in the blood apparently. No no, ye gods! This is not how it should have been done!
As for the duel, it is quite simply groteque the way Jean, a serious man, could take the words of his completely grey haired friend seriously and go so far as to fight with
him rather than taking him off to bed, which is beyond the boundaries of human intelligence.
In summary, I am now quite unable to come to any conclusion, as I don't wish to judge the play in general. I will limit myself to state that, despite its imperfections, the play
continued to enjoy unadulterated success, as if to taunt the critics. Perhaps that is owing to the novel; in any case, its interpretation plays a part in it. Lafontaine is excellent
in it, as are Magnier, Grivot, Darlaud and Noblet; as for Marais7, Madeleine Lemaire's Jean Reynaud8 is much lighter than the one at the Gymnase,... and is not wrong.
Compère Loriot.
1. Le Lundi, no. 4. The handwriting appears to be by Proust. Even though his youthful handwriting varied considerably this is very similar to eg NAF 16611, 20r from March 1886.
2. L'Abbé Constantin by Pierre Decourcelle and Hector Crémieux, based on the book of the same name by Ludovic Halévy, was performed at the Gymnase, 4 November 1887.
3. Speculative passage due to the difficulty of interpreting the reproduced handwriting.
4. Illustration by Madeleine Lemaire, L'Abbé Constantin, p.130, Calman-Lévy, 1888.
5. Lafontaine played the part of Abbé Constantin.
6. Mme Desclauzas played the part of Mme de Lavardens.
7. Mlle Magnier, Mme Grivot, Mlle Darlaud, M. Noblet, M. Marais were all actors in the play.
8. A new edition of L'Abbé Constantin with illustrations by Madeleine Lemaire had recently been published.
Created 26.11.25