1 See, for instance, Bouquet, Guy, “Naissance d'une troupe, genèse d'un répertoire,” Revue d'histoire du théâtre XXXII (1980), 105–126Google Scholar, for a very general discussion of the Hôtel Guénégaud based principally on two masters' papers from the University of Paris X, the first by William Huss (1978) and the second by Pierre Schaffer (1979), which concentrate on repertory and audience composition. Deierkauf-Holsboer, S. Wilma, in Le Théâtre du Marais (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar tells the story of the merger from the point of view of a partisan of that theatre. H.C. Lancaster discusses the repertory of the Hôtel Guénégaud in A History of French Dramatic Literature in the Seventeenth Century. Part IV, Volume I (Baltimore, 1942)Google Scholar.

2 de La Grange, Charles Varlet, Registre, ed. Thierry, Edouard (Paris, 1876)Google Scholar. Materials concerning repertory, receipts, and expenditures of the troupe not otherwise cited can be found in this volume which is organized chronologically.

3 “Le Registre d'Hubert,” ed. Chevalley, Sylvie, Revue d'histoire du théâtre XXV (1973), 1–195Google Scholar.

4 La Grange, p. 145. Molière, once a friend and colleague of the “Florentine,” had been treated shamefully by Lulli after the latter's acquisition of the privilege of establishing an Académie de Musique. For a careful description of the early days of the Paris Opéra see Nuitter, Ch. and Thoinan, E., Les Origines de L'Opéra français (Paris, 1886)Google Scholar.

5 Thierry, Edouard. Documents sur Le Malade Imaginaire, estat de la recette et despence faite par ordre de la compagnie (Paris, 1880)Google Scholar.

6 According to La Grange, the King's first impulse was to “make a single troupe of the one which had just lost its illustrious chief and the actors who occupied the Hôtel de Bourgogne, but as the diverse interests of the families of actors could not be accommodated, they begged His Majesty to have the goodness to leave the two troupes separate as they were; the which was granted them.” Préface aux oeuvres de M. de Molière, ed. Monval, Georges, (Paris, 1882), pp. xxix–xxxGoogle Scholar.

7 Thierry, p. 309.

8 Jurgens, Madeleine and Maxfield-Miller, Elizabeth, Cent Ans de recherches sur Molière (Paris, 1963), p. 678Google Scholar.

9 Nuitter and Thoinan, pp. 142–149, give a summary of the information available about this least-studied of all the 17th-century Paris theatres.

10 Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller, p. 678.

11 Nuitter and Thoinan, pp. 145–146.

12 La Grange, p. 145.

13 Bonnassies, Jules, La Comédie-Française: histoire administrative (Paris, 1874), p. 27Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., pp. 28–29.

15 Ibid., p. 31.

16 Ibid., pp. 28n., 29n. Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller, p. 659. This convoluted arrangement sounds like it was invented by Béline's notary. Bonnassies suggests that if Mile Molière had made the loan directly she might have been accused of violating the rights of her daughter, whereas M. Boudet, who was the child's legal guardian, could make it without suspicion of chicanery. Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller, on the other hand, believe that Mlle Molière “acted with a delicacy inspired by that shown by Molière when he loaned his father 10,000 livres through an intermediary in 1668.” Neither remarks that the third-party loan made it possible for Mlle Molière to collect interest from her colleagues without their knowing it. In 1673 neither La Grange nor Hubert seemed to know the ultimate source of the money used to buy the theatre. On April 5, 1675, however, when the arrears of interest were paid, the troupe knew who its patroness had been. The Grand Registre (conserved in the Archives of the Comédie-Française) for that date records the event rather sourly: “The actors have paid to Mlle Molière the remainder of the 700 livres of interest that they owed: each 15 livres 7 sous, thus they have shares of only 91 livres 13 sous.”

17 Thierry, p. 315.

18 La Grange, p. 146.

19 Deierkauf-Holsboer in Volume II of her Le Théâtre du Marais develops an ingenious if unusual reading of the events surrounding the merger of the two companies. She argues from the record of a lawsuit in which Mlles de Surlis and La Vallée accused their former colleagues at the Marais of violation of an Act of Association of 1673. They demanded 2,000 livres from each of the defaulting actors, the agreed upon fine for leaving the company before the expiration of the Act. A judgement of August 4, 1673, found in favor of the two actresses, and that they were eventually paid something is suggested by the fact that Mlle de Surlis had 6,000 livres on May 12, 1674, which she gave to the wardens of St. Gervais in return for an income of 545 livres a year during her lifetime. The two women sued again for their share of the decors and machines, now the property of the new troupe, and were again successful, with the proviso that they must also assume their share of the troupe's debts. From this information Deierkauf-Holsboer infers that La Grange was lying when he reported that the Troupe of the Palais Royal was able to choose which of the Marais actors it wanted. She then vilifies La Grange who, according to her, grabbed Molière's place as head of the troupe, drove out Baron, La Thorillière, and the Beauvals, stole Rosimond from the Marais, and was only held in check by the fact that the actors from the Marais held the voting majority in the new company. De Surlis and La Vallée, in her view, refused to join the troupe at the Guénégaud because of the detestable La Grange. Actually, Mlle La Vallée was La Grange's sister-in-law, having married his brother Verneuil in 1673. Mlle de Surlis was ready for retirement; she had been acting since 1643 when she was a member of the original Illustre Théâtre. Deierkauf-Holsboer has also found no records of the various appeals which must have taken place after the first judgements in these two cases, and very often first judgements of the Châtelet were overturned by higher courts or by the Council.

20 The “qualified person” was probably M. de la Reynie, Lieutenant of the Police, not for any romantic reason, but because Pierre Auzillon, Mlle Auzillon's husband, was a valued and devoted police agent. The records show three trips by sedan chair to see de la Reynie “about the Auzillon business.” Thierry, p. 341.

21 Lancaster, IV, 1, 16n.

22 Apparently one of the points negotiated with the King and Colbert in April and May of 1673 was the payment of the pension for 1671–72. The bills and receipts published by Thierry show that in early May La Grange bought a large money sack, made a trip to see M. Duché at the office of Menus Plaisirs to pick up the money, and hired a porter to carry it home. Seven thousand livres in divisible coins must have made a substantial load. The final pension for 1672–73 was paid in June 1674.

23 Bouquet, p. 111.

24 Chappuzeau, Samuel, Le Théâtre Français (Lyon, 1674), p. 189Google Scholar.

25 Grand Registre, 9 July 1673.

26 Grange, La, Préface to the Oeuvres de Monsieur de Molière, I, xxx.Google Scholar

27 Mlle Molière had rented the Hôtel d'Arras behind the theatre on the Rue du Seine and had opened a connecting door. She was thus very much physically in possession. Also, the troupe was often referred to during this period as that of La Molière.

28 La Grange, p. 159.

29 Daily expenses for the original run of Le Malade Imaginaire with 12 violins, 3 symphonists, 7 singers, and 12 dancers were 250 livres. Daily expenses for the same play in the season of 1674–75 were 85 livres 1 sou. (La Grange, pp. 142, 156.) The second prologue was written for the later production which was also the one seen at Versailles in the summer of 1674.

30 When the King granted the theatre of the Palais Royal to Lulli, the agreement stipulated that Lulli would pay 1,200 livres a year to the Italians to make up for their loss of a free theatre. No such arrangement was made for the similarly-placed French company.

31 La Grange, p. 161.

32 Accounts of Pierre Turlin, treasurer general, cited by Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller, pp. 496–502.

33 Mélèse, Pierre, Le Théâtre et le public à Paris sous Louis XIV, 1659–1715 (Paris, 1934), p. 276Google Scholar.

34 La Grange, p. 122–123.

35 Ibid.

36 Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller, p. 498.

37 Tralage, Nicolas de, Recueil, III, 207. Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal.Google Scholar

38 Bonnassies, p. 48.

39 La Grange, p. 162.

40 Ibid., pp. 162–63.

41 Bonnassies, p. 47. Apparently the actors entering in June 1673 were bound by the act signed by the former troupe of the Palais Royal and Rosimond on May 3.

42 La Grange, p. 163.

43 Bonnassies, p. 47.

44 See Note 19, above.

45 Sourdéac, contemptuously listed by La Grange as a “machinist,” was famous for his private production of Pierre Corneille's La Toison d'or, performed in 1660 at Sourdéac's chateau in Normandy. He had a theatre built, commissioned the play from Corneille, imported the Troupe of the Marais to play it, and designed the machinery for it himself. See Deierkauf-Holsboer for a summary of the production in Normandy and in Paris. Sourdéac also designed machines for two operas at the Guénégaud in 1671–72. There seems to be no question of Sourdéac's participation in Circé as designer of the machines. Whether he also designed the decors is unclear, although it was usual in this period for the same artist to do both. Why Sourdéac agreed to participate in a production he opposed is difficult to understand, but it must be noted that his opposition was apparently not expressed in a refusal to sign the deliberation and may have been exaggerated by La Grange, for whom Sourdéac was undeniably the source of all discord in the troupe.

46 Lancaster, IV,1,34.

47 Grand Registre. October 23, 1674.

48 La Grange, p. 165.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., p. 166.

51 Ibid., p. 167.

52 Ibid., p. 148.

53 Ibid., pp. 166–167. The two were always in dire need of money. The Grands Registres of the Comédie-Française after the union of 1680 show that more often than not Sourdéac's creditors attached his pension before it was paid to him.

54 Ibid., p. 155, p. 167. The actors had subtracted from the shares between July 9 and October 19, 1674, the money for the 700 livres of interest owing Mlle Molière via M. Boudet, a debt for which Sourdéac and Champeron were not responsible. Apparently after October 19 money for the interest was not collected. The settlement of February 12, 1675, made up for whatever Sourdéac and Champeron had unwittingly or unwillingly contributed to the debts of the troupe. As to the controllers, a troupe named one of its own members controller to be “present at the accountings” and to write “in the Registre who takes money from the community money box which remains in the hands of the secretary or treasurer.” (See Chappuzeau, p. 235.) What La Grange may have meant was not that Sourdéac and Champeron were granted two controllers but that the troupe agreed to have two, one representing each faction, to avoid questions or accusations about the handling of the troupe's money.

55 Mélèse, p. 239. Some evidence seems to suggest that the troupes in this period may have paid large sums to people who were in a position to write favorably about them. The Troupe of the Guénégaud paid Donneau de Visé, owner-editor of the Mercure galant and literary man about Paris, 486 livres in September 1673 and gave 55 livres to Samuel Chappuzeau who spoke so favorably of the troupe and its theatre in his book published in 1674.

56 The actors devoted part of the first day's net and all of the second day's to extraordinary expenses. Further, a late payment by the Court of 600 livres for the August 1674 performance of Le Malade Imaginaire arrived on April 26 and was used for the expenses of Circé. La Grange, pp. 160–168.

57 The final payment was made to Boudet on May 17, 1677, although the troupe had to borrow to do it. The payment was made during a general accounting ordered by the courts during an action to exclude Sourdéac and Champeron. The new loan was paid off in October 1677. Boudet paid Mlle Molière 4,800 livres plus 700 livres of interest on September 3, 1675, and 6,200 livres plus 460 livres of interest on October 26. The final 3,000 livres of principal with 150 livres of interest was paid to her on May 17, 1677. Boudet tried to keep the money in 1675, acting on the pretext that he disapproved of her plans for investing it. She had to call a council of all those involved in the guardianship of her daughter and threaten him with legal action. (See Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller, p. 194 and pp. 664–665.)

58 Lancaster, IV, l, 39n. The troupe gave Corneille double shares for four of the first nine performances and for the following sixteen. After that he was paid one-fourteenth of the net for the rest of the first run. Finally, on May 8, 1676, the troupe bought his remaining rights in Circé for 660 livres. La Grange, p. 171, p. 180.

59 Corneille, Thomas, Circé (Paris, 1675)Google Scholar. So far as I know, no engravings memorializing the visual glories of the production have survived.

60 La Grange, p. 168.

61 Mercure galant, January 1710, p. 284. Actually, the first run did include some brief interruptions.

62 La Grange, pp. 183–84.

63 Bouquet, p. 119.

64 La Grange, p. 188. The Italians paid half the cost of the chandeliers. They had been paying 3 livres a performance to rent the old ones.

65 It was only in this final season and after the opening of La Devineresse that amicable relations between the French and Italian companies who had shared theatres since 1658 broke down. The French troupe filed a lawsuit against the Italians “on the subject of the machines and the innovations they wanted to make to our theatre.” The courts upheld the French company and reminded the Italians that they were merely renters and were obliged to “carry away or at least put to one side each evening everything they used for their plays.” (See La Grange, pp. 225–226.) The trouble may have begun because the Italians felt that their own particular kind of spectacle had been stolen by the French, while they were prevented from doing traditional spectacle. It is also possible that the Italians, who still received 15,000 livres a year from the King and who spent a month at Fontainebleau entertaining the Court every fall, began to lobby for a separate theatre, adding still another motive for the King to merge the two remaining French companies and free one of their theatres for the Italians.

66 Research for this article was made possible by a Fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation.