In the era we have now reached in the history of civilization,
productions in the dramatic arts can no longer be considered other than
from two points of view: as business enterprises or as a means of
government. Upon one of these points of view as on the other, the support
of Censorship has become vital.
The newspapers, preoccupied before all else with the security of
directors and the interests of authors to find stages on which to play,
are sufficiently extensive on the first point without there being any need
to insist upon it. It is enough to remember that, if we replace prudent,
Preventive Censorship with interdiction, our theatre directors will
unfailingly fall into bankruptcy even more frequently than in the past,
and that our dramatists will be continually appearing before the courts to
answer for the erotic, political or sentimental improprieties that their
masterpieces might contain. As a result, up until the seventy ninth
performance, before which it is impossible to know whether a play will not
cause a scandal, writers will always have to fear seeing the rights of the
author, which up until that point they may have enjoyed, transformed into
condemnatory fines and prison; and the directors, for having had the
courage to shock public taste and conscience, would always have to ask
themselves, like Hamlet, if they were not about to be seized by the
bailiffs.
All of these disadvantages vanish, as may be seen, by the
administration of Preventive Censorship. We saw it clearly in the case of
Thermidor2. Besides, all of these disadvantages are
quite secondary. There is no need to dwell on it.
But we, preoccupied as we are more than anything with the major
interests of society, we consider that in an age where not a single
spectator in ten thousand goes to the theatre to seek the pure enjoyment
of aesthetic pleasures, it is no bad thing that the dramatic arts are left
in the hands of the State, and that in such a way Preventive Censorship
becomes an instrument of government. It would even be the only way of
making known to the lower orders the ideas that are exciting the higher
spheres. In this way the slightest words exchanged in apparently literary
speeches would take on capital importance in the eyes of the public,
interested to see in them the ideas at the back of their minds that are
exciting our governing bodies. So it is that, when Rémonin the doctor
accepts "with pleasure", in the fifth act of L'Étrangère3,
the proposal that will make him verify the death of the Duc de Septmonts,
our grandchildren will see this declaration, which to us simply appears as
witty, by a series of possible reconciliations and as yet little apparent
affinities, the fixed design of the government to renew the privileges of
the Banque de France or to condemn the "pioutiotes"4.
In this way it would be in the theatres that serious matters would be
dealt with. The Stock Exchange would move there, and the bulls and the
bears would make the walls ring with their applause or their catcalls,
whilst during the intermissions Scandinavian play-bills and Spanish
oranges would be offered around. Moreover, since the government would need
to renew or refuse its authorization every night, so as not to expose to
grave cataclysms the way in which government thinking could be understood,
the writers and directors, in order to avoid, on their side, the harsh
extremity of refunding money or resorting at the last minute to
irregularities of duty, would be authorized to modify certain lines, in
agreement with the Censor and according to the Agance Havas5,
now become a simple theatrical agency. So that, instead of replying: "With
pleasure", doctor Rémonin would say: "That would be very awkward for me",
in the situation where he had been told about the death of a great
nobleman and friend of the government and that the unexpected votes of the
Chamber with respect to the Pari Mutuel6 would be
suddenly quashed. The gallery would immediately forget all the concerns of
the moment and one would see then what public mourning is. It would result
in some surprises for those of the spectators who are called every night
to the same theatre by their occupations, and who are condemned to hear
from twenty five to seventy five times the year's great successes, Dernier
Amour or Passionnément.7 This may be rather a
shock, it is true, to the habits of the ancient subscribers to the Opéra,
who at first will be astonished to hear sung, instead of the traditional
"Come into a new homeland", "You go; I'm staying in Paris" as the
necessities of politics demand. But that would have some excellent
effects, especially in the small theatres, where the changes that they
undergo from the habitual cascades of actors will completely upset the
calm of the toffs come for the two hundred and fifty third time to admire,
after thirty seven matinées, the same delights of the same people. It is
easy to see that here we have the means, by frequently varying the
performances, to swiftly raise the takings. Subscriptions from then on
would become so much less worthwhile, since all the theatres would be
subscribed to morally. In addition to which, because different theatres
would not be allowed to perform plays on the same night in which the bias
and the sense could be contradictory, we can see too that the
administration of the theatres must be centralized, and care must be taken
that they all sing to the same tune, from the Théâtre-Lyrique to
the Concert-Parisien. The Théâtre-Libre alone would be
left outside of all hierarchical influence. From that time on, a simple
private institution, entrusted solely to the caprice of M. Antoine, a
place of recreation for a few idlers where literary things (!!!) would be
presented, it would no longer be of the slightest importance. And this
would be the single means of ruining M. Antoine's enterprise, M. Antoine
who, no longer being able to fill his hall, would turn scandalmonger.
So, far from calling for the suppression of Censorship we request that
its power be greatly extended. Far from diminishing its activity, it would
on the contrary greatly augment it. We have an absolute need to know the
thoughts of the government. So, no more unofficial press, more acceptable
candidates. The Journal Officiel8 would be
inadequate, as long as it has the naievety to include speeches by the
enemies of government. It must not be that a vain liberalism prevents the
executors of the law from creating "collaborations with the authors of
drama", as was said very wittily by Monsieur the Minister of Public
Instruction about La Fille Élisa.9 On the contrary
everybody will win: the actors, whose prestige will be doubled; the
directors, whose authority will be consolidated; the public, and even the
writers. Liberty has had its time. But if somebody tells us that he is
going to the theatre for his own pleasure and to applaud the fine
productions by artists of the day, we demand that this outmoded specimen
of our civilization be nourished at the expense of the State, at the
Military School of the Champ de Mars.10 As for us, we
are the serious people, all of us friends of order and morality. We wish
people to be logical with themselves, and, since Censorship exists, it is
necessary that the State be responsible for everything that is
performed in our theatres. We ask that Aesthetics be the means of
government.
1. Published in Le Mensuel, No 4 April 1891. Opinion is divided as to whether this was written by Proust or not. In Jérôme Prieur's introduction to Marcel Proust, Le Mensuel retrouvé he says: "As for 'Y' which Proust made use of on one occasion, the signature is used once again certainly by a different author, so little does the article about the widespread use of censorship seem, stylistically, to come from his pen." I am including this article simply because, on the strength of the signature alone, there is a possibility that it could have been written by Proust.
2. Play by Victorien Sardou. Public outrage at its depiction of
Robespierre during the Revolution caused it to be cancelled after two
performances at the Comédie-Française in January 1891. The
government of President Carnot prohibited the production from all
state-funded venues.
3. Play by Alexandre Dumas fils, first performed 1876.
4. I have completely failed to find a translation of pioutiotes or discover its meaning.
5. French press agency.
6. Parimutuel betting system.
7. Dernier Amour play by Georges Ohnet?, Passionément - ???
8. The official gazette of the French Republic.
9. La Fille Élisa, Edmond de Goncourt, 1877.
10. Champ de Mars, Park in Paris.
Created 28.01.18