The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-01-16
PARIS AUTHORS AGen1EvED.
Bsunetiere Not Required to Print Dubout's
Reply to His Criticism OF "FredoEonde."

ASecvNk =
Reply to His Criticism or 'sFredoEonde.o
PARIS. Jan. 5.-The suit brought by the drama
fist, Alfred Dubout. to compel Ferdinand Brune-
there. editor OF the Revue dcs DetLr IMondes, to
publish his reply to a criticism on the play
"FredeRonde. which appeared in the Revue. has
set the dramatic authors and dramatic critics of
Paris by the ears. The critics aro jubilant and
the authors are furious because the court de-
cided the case in favor of the editor; and the
newspaper war now waging bids fair to rival
the original action in interest. There is some
thing Pickwickian in tho whole progress Of
affairs, which Is not the less diverting because
1t Is also intensely Partisan.
According to the French law. when a critic
has anything to say of a play or a book the edi.
tor who publishes his remarks is bound to pub
lish also any reply to them which the author of
the play or book may feel disposed to make.
This Is usually done without q whimper, for In
criticism in France. IL In nothing else, there is q
very strong sense of fair play. In tho present
case. when NJ. Dubout's 'Fredegonde" was
brought out at the Theatre Francois. 1t was
very promptly and very hastily damned by all
the critics. including Jules Lomaitre In the
Revue DIES DeuT Mondes NJ. Dubout was in
censed. and wrote hot letters to all the papers.
also the Revue, saying spitoful things of critics
and criticism. M. Brunetiere alone refused TO
publish in the Reuue the letter to him.. NJ. Du-
bout then brought suit to compel him to do 80.
In explaining the case. NJ. Dubout's lawyer said:
I'm his provincial and Juvenile innocence my
client applied to the Comedi FRANCHISE to have
his piece played. The door was opened to him
immediately-that Is to say. after four years of
waiting; to walt but four years at the Comedie
FRANCHISE Is to DO received Immediately.
'Fred6gonde' was accepted. and its first rep
resentation filled NJ. Dubout with Joy. His
fnture aeemod to him aasured. Iynfortunatalv
he did not count upon the opinions of tho critics.
He knew them the next morning. They were
terrible. 1t was admitted that no had writ
ten O few passable verses-good enough
for a provincial-and that his fourth act
was fair. That was all. Fifteen days after
ward camo the article In the Rcrue. That
article simply killed 'Fredegonde.' My client
wrote O reply-the reply to which no Is on titlod
by IawI,taking up the play almost line by line.
Just. He offered to argue the question with NJ.
Lemaitrc. either as critic, author. or actor; He
offered to spend months over tho job. NJ. Loo
don't know whether NJ. Brunoti6re knew 1t or
not, but he absolutely refused 10 give the play
wright a chance. What sort Of justice is that
M. Brunetiero is a brilliant man, and. l believe,
Law. This sui. is brought to find that out"
fence. He denied that the Repue's criticism had
killed the play; It was moribund from the first
night, and IL had actually been withurawn from
the stage a week before the criticism appeared.
lie went on:
as 'Fr6degonde' Was 1t ], or my criticl In
eismi Did df he not y" SEND 4 a &C copy Of the play to the
Revue, and did he not also cause to be, sent two
produced his work at n subventioned theatre.
and consequently at the expense OF the people,
of whom / am one, and my critic another. He
invited mo to go thoro TO judge 1t, and he does
not permit us to take our revenge for what We
were subjected, to by saying what we think OF
1t! In a word IL is he who provoked, and we
who responded"
The Judges. after mature elaboration. decided
In favor OF tho Revue, principally oil the ground
that IL they compelled 1t TO print the play
wright's response II would take up most OF the
space OF the magazine for ono issue, seeing that
the entire play, with annotations, was contained
in the letter. At the same time they held to the
spir I of tho law. which was an authors only
safeguard against incompetent criticism, The
rolo of tho critic. they said further, was that OF
an educator, a guido for minds frivolous or In
sufficiently informed. a regulator OF good taste;
descend to undeservod abuse.
But even with this qualified decision the au-
thors arc not satisfied. and they are pitching
into tho critics. They have pointed out With
CLEO that In. the sixty or 80. criticisms of
"FredeRonde" that appeared In the Paris daily
press the critics agreed only on one point-the
weakness of the play. On every other point in
the piece they disagreed. often with sixty kinds
OF disagreement. Some OF them ADMIT, how
ever, that that iB not . new thing With critics.
II Paris or elsewhere