Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Beaumarchais's petition, Paris (1791)
Source: Bibliothèque Universitaire de Poitiers (SCD) : Oeuvres complètes de Beaumarchais, tome sixième, Paris, Furne, 1826.
Citation:
Beaumarchais's petition, Paris (1791), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
26 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
THE COMPLETE
WORKS
of
BEAUMARCHAIS,
preceded
by an account of his life and works
by LA HARPE.
My life is a battle.
Voltaire.
SIXTH VOLUME.
[Emblems of the
theatre and stage]
PARIS,
FURNE, BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER,
Quai des Augustins, Nr. 37;
A. Sautelet & Co., Place de la Bourse.
~~~~~~~
1826.
Chapter 1 Page 2
196 PETITION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PETITION
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY,
BY CARON DE BEAUMARCHAIS
Against the usurpation of authors’ properties by theatre directors, read by the author to
the committee of public instruction, the 23rd of December 1791, and printed
immediately thereafter.
________
Up until now the directors of theatre troupes in the towns of the departments of the
kingdom have opposed only sophisms and insults against the imprescriptible right of
dramatic authors to the property of their works, recognised and assured by two decrees of
the constituent National Assembly, and against the claims that they have not ceased to
make against their usurpation. I will, disdaining the insults, refute the sophisms with the
ardent zeal that I have devoted to the progress of the dramatic art and to the pressing
interests of the men of letters who exercise it. You will forgive me, Sirs, if slightly harsh
terms strike you during the course of this petition: they are disagreeable; but, regarding the
act that we all complain of, I know of none
Chapter 1 Page 3
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 197
gentler, unfortunately for the cause and for our ardent adversaries.
A first observation has struck everyone. It is, one says, very strange that a
formal law was necessary to attest to all of France that the property of a dramatic
author belongs to him; that no one has the right to take possession of it. This
principle, derived from the first rights of man, went so much without saying for all the
properties of man acquired by work, donation, sale, or heredity, that one would have
thought it very derisory to be obliged to establish it by law. My property alone, as
dramatic author, more sacred than all others as it comes to me from no one and is not
subject to dispute for deceit, or fraud, or seduction, the work coming from my brain,
as Minerva fully armed from that of the master of gods; only my property has needed
that a law pronounce that it is mine, assuring me the possession of it. But those who
observe thus have not understood the text of the law.
It is true that one did not dare say to me: The work that has come from you is
not of you. But the theatre directors have laid down this other principle: Dramatic
author, they have said, the work that has come from you is of you, but it is not yours.
You will obtain no fruit from it: it is ours; as for the past hundred years, by a long
succession of abuses of a depredatory regime and your established weakness, we have
been entitled to enrich ourselves
Chapter 1 Page 4
198 PETITION
with it, without granting you any part of the profit that we obtain.
The law, to suppress this scandal of an entire century, did not state in its two
decrees: The work of an author is his own. These decrees might have been futile; but
it [the law] expressed formally: That given the past abuses, the continual usurpations
established in oppressive rights, none can henceforth invade the property of authors
without incurring such a reprimand or such a penalty. So, starting to understand this,
the troupe directors sought, not to deny the soundness of this law, but to elude it if
they could, to escape its justice by all the means of Escobar.*
The first [means] that these directors thought they could use was simply to flout
this law and to continue to perform our plays as if the legislator had never pronounced
against them; for, they said, a lot of time will pass before the restored order will have
armed its repressive force against us; that which we will have taken will be taken and
will remain with us: many of us will no longer exist in the position of directors; and
what means of recourse against an insolvent director? Now during that time at least
the law will be nil for us. They had very well reasoned, not in law, but in abuses; for
since the decrees that forbid all directors from continuing to usurp the property of
authors, their works have been performed with the same audacity in all the towns
________
*) In France the name of the Spanish theologian and casuist Antonio Escobar y
Mendoza (1589-1669), whose writings were sharply criticized by Pascal, became
proverbial for that of a hypocrite.
Chapter 1 Page 5
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 199
of the departments of the empire, except in the capital, without their permission, in
spite of them, as if there were no law, without any of the men of letters able to obtain
justice from the tribunals of the towns where these spectacles [theatrical
performances] are established, and that they have invoked in vain. One refuses us an
audience, another replies coldly: Although there is a formal law, the authors are well-
off, they can well expect that our director has made a new attempt to have this law
changed: as if this change itself, in supposing that it should be made, could save a
troupe director from the obligation of paying the author that which belongs to him by
right, during all the time passed between two laws that would exclude one another.
And if the director has gone bankrupt during that time, who will pay me, partial judge,
the deficit created in my fortune by your negligence or your denial of justice? Here,
Sirs, is the state of affairs.
But finally, this brigandage arousing a general outcry, the despotic directors
have thought it necessary to unite with the enslaved actors to create an imposing mass
of ten thousand claimants against thirty isolated authors.
This coalition formed, the troupe directors have all paid their contingent for the
costs of deputation, of solicitation, of recording, of chicanery and even of insults. A
very insulting editor took on all the work. Insults apart, here is what he has stated for
them:
Chapter 1 Page 6
200 PETITION
1o The authors have formed an illegal corporation so as to have executed the law
pronounced in their favour: therefore each individual’s request, and his claim
regarding his constantly invaded property, merits no answer, no consideration on our
part.
2o The authors have sold their works to booksellers and to engravers; therefore
we, who have bought one of these printed copies for the large sum of twenty-four
sous, or an engraved copy for the exorbitant sum of eighteen livres tournois, we have
effectively become the proprietors of these works so as to enrich ourselves with them
and without paying anything to the authors, despite the law that states expressly: that
one cannot perform the play of a living author without his formal written permission,
whether it has been PRINTED or ENGRAVED, under penalty, etc. Such is the clear
meaning of the directors’ argument.
3o They do not blush to add that the permission granted in the past to authors by
the government, to print and perform, evidently allocated to the individual who
bought this printed play for twenty-four sous, the right to perform it without giving
anything to the proprietor. Although one cannot articulate such absurdities other than
in profound desperation, I will not leave this without response; not so as to enlighten
the assembly, I do not affront it so, but to shame our adversaries for employing such
means.
Chapter 1 Page 7
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 201
4o We were in the habitual practice, say moreover these directors, of performing
the plays of living authors without giving them the slightest part of the proceeds that
we obtain from them: not one of them has ever claimed against what they name an
abuse: thus each of them has recognised that our right was incontestable, to pay
nothing to the authors when representing their plays in all the provincial towns,
although no theatre of the capital could nor dared perform them without paying the
agreed price, whether they were printed or not, and under a regime that always
protected the actors against the gens de lettres. But you will soon see, Sirs, if we have
not claimed.
5o Finally, we would all be ruined, state moreover the directors, we, merchants
of the sale of dramatic plays, if one obliged us to pay the suppliers; just as all the
fabric retailers, in boutiques and stores, would see themselves ruined like us, if by the
same fate a greatly unjust law obliged them all to pay the manufacturers of Lyon, of
Amiens or of Péronne who supplied them with these fabrics. One senses how much
this would be a crying injustice! Happily for them, no law subjects them to this, and
we well presume that they do not pay them. Our right is similar to theirs; for if these
merchants rent shops to sell, we, we pay halls to perform. If they pay salaries to shop
boys and bookkeepers, we pay wages to actors
Chapter 1 Page 8
202 PETITION
and ushers. If they pay their lighting, their heating, their sales representatives, their
porters, the taxes of their town and all other commercial costs, we are subject to these
as they are. Thus in virtue of so much forced expenditure, as it would be too
iniquitous for a law to oblige all these vendors of fabrics to pay the manufacturers for
them, so one could not, without the greatest iniquity, oblige us to pay the authors
whose works we recite, even though every day we sell the performance of these plays
to the public that comes to see them in our hall, paying us cash down; for we are the
only retailers that do not give credit, which makes our cause even more favourable
than that of the fabric merchants who are often robbed the price of an imprudent sale.
Such is the exact conclusion of the directors’ argument.
One of these authors, add these gentlemen, in dealing with this affair in
financial terms, even though he is the richest of them all, has degraded dramatic
literature by this sordid avarice of demanding some money from us for a noble work
that should only yield glory, and often does not merit it.
This so-called “financier” author – it is I, whom a true love of literature compels
to dedicate myself to this great matter. Despite the gross insults that these Sirs have
heaped upon me, I swear to my colleagues that I will not abandon the interests that
they have entrusted me with: this step is the
Chapter 1 Page 9
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 203
proof, and this petition contains my true motives.
Such are in substance, Sirs, the directors’ arguments against the dramatic
authors, their providers in all times.
I will refute them, following the same order in which they are recalled and
citing only myself as an example so as to kill in a single word the idea of a
corporation.
The authors, they tell you, Sirs, have formed an illegal corporation to uphold
together a very unjust law, etc., etc.
My answer is clear and very simple. I am a dramatic author: I present myself
alone to the National Assembly to prevent one from continuing to do me a habitual
wrong that has lasted but too long. By this alone that I stand alone for the cause that
interests me and that I defend before you, one can not object against me, Sirs, this
demurrer that one claims results from a very illegal procedure, if it were true that
there was one in the authors’ petition under the name of corporation. Each author will
use, if he desires, the means that I employ here to rebut and pulverise such a
despicable attack. All those that I will use will have an equal advantage for the
injured interest[s] of dramatic authors. There is no corporation in using the same
defence, to rebut the same attack, on the same interests.
The authors, they further tell you, have all sold
Chapter 1 Page 10
204 PETITION
their plays to booksellers or engravers: therefore their property transferred to us by the
latter, for twenty four sous the printed plays and eighteen francs those engraved,
belongs to us beyond any dispute, etc., etc. On this general sale, I will recall in two
words that which one of these authors prints.
What! says Mr. Dubuisson in his excellent response to the directors, would a
bookseller or an engraver have the right to sell to you that which he has not bought
from me? Does he sell the right to counterfeit my book to those who buy it to read?
He would be ruined, so would I. Never a theatre of Paris thought itself in the right to
perform the printed play of an author, if it had not bought this right from the
proprietor of the play, even though the actors often have it printed at home; for they
have bought it like you. Would you exercise a right that one does not have in the
capital? Eh! Who then gave it to you? You claim to have acquired that of earning a
thousand louis and more with a play that cost you twenty four sous, and often half
less, thanks to the theft of counterfeiters, who are as great logicians as you as far as
the right to pillage authors is concerned! This truly means to mock those who are
listening to you!
But finally, letting each author defend an incontestable right, I will reply for
myself only. I have never sold The Marriage of Figaro, whose usurped property I
here reclaim, to any bookseller or engraver.
Chapter 1 Page 11
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 205
It was printed at my expense or in my atelier at Kehl. As pitiful as the argument is, its
transmission by a bookseller cannot be used against me. But a concrete example is
worth more than all reasoning[s]; I will cite one that is without retort.
Weary of seeing the brigandage of which the unfortunate gens de lettres were
constantly the victims; I wanted, insofar as it was in my power, to attempt to remedy
this. Having long been appointed one of their commissioners and perpetual
representatives by all the dramatic authors, I had had the pleasure, in stipulating their
interests, of having reformed a number of abuses in their continual relations with the
French theatre; I wanted to take advantage of the success of one of my works that one
wished to perform in the provinces, to work towards the reform of the greatest of all
the abuses, that of performing works without paying anything to their authors. I
replied to those requesting the Marriage of Figaro that I would have it printed and
would permit its performance in the provinces, only when the troupe directors had
submitted themselves by legal act to paying, not only to me, but to all living authors,
the same retribution that they enjoyed in the capital.
What, then, did these directors do? They had someone write down my poor
play while it was being performed, and had it printed on the spot, filled with all the
stupidities, with all the obscenities and improprieties
Chapter 1 Page 12
206 PETITION
that their very-clumsy copyists had inserted everywhere, and performed it thus
disfigured in the provincial theatres: and my play, dishonoured, stolen, printed,
performed without my permission, or rather in spite of me, became, by this turpitude,
the honest property of the adversaries that I fight. I complained to our ministers, sole
judges in these matters at the time. I obtained no justice, for I was but a man of
letters; my request held no favour, for I was not an actress. In vain would I address
the tribunals of the time, even the supreme courts [cours souveraines]: every time the
case came up, the actresses would solicit; the solicited court would transfer the affair
to the council, where it was never judged. And my account, accompanied by one of
those scandalous copies that I lay down on the desk, is my response to the absence of
claims that the directors oppose against us. The following will reinforce it.
Obliged to attempt to take the law into my own hands, and the play badly
printed by those that had badly stolen it being also much too stupid, which I had said
everywhere in disavowing this horror, certain provincial directors came to ask me to
perform my true work: I showed them my conditions. Those of Marseille, of
Versailles, of Rouen, of Orléans, etc., accepted them without hesitating; drew up a
notarised act, of which I attach a copy.
_________
I will copy the preamble, as well as several of the articles. It is
Chapter 1 Page 13
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 207
From the reading of such an act, which all the others resemble, one might well
be surprised
_________
quite curious to see how I explained myself regarding the properties of authors,
and how I forced the directors to recognise them, seven years before the constitution
had made a formal law of an incontestable right, and that these gentlemen claim never
existed.
“BEFORE the councillors of the King, attorneys of the Châtelet de Paris, undersigned:
“Were present Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, squire, residing in Paris,
Vieille rue du Temple, Saint Paul parish, in name and as one of the commissioners and
perpetual representatives of the authors of the French theatre, authorised for the
execution of the present by the deliberation and unanimous consent of his assembled
colleagues, on the one hand:
“And the sir André Beaussier, trader in Marseille, normally residing there in
the rue Longue des Capucines, being present in this town of Paris, lodged at the hôtel
des Milords, rue du Mail, Saint-Eustache parish, both in his name as principal share-
holder, and one of the chief administrators of the Marseille spectacle, AND REPRESENTING
HERE THE WHOLE BODY OF THE ADMINISTRATION, THAT HE ENGAGES WITH HIM, on the other hand.
“Who have stated and recognised that it is rigorously just that the directors of
the provincial troupes, whose fortune is founded on the need to recall the public to
their spectacle by the attraction of new sorties from the capital, share the profit with
the authors in an equitable proportion, as it is recognised as just in Paris that the
authors receive a share in the takings of their works on the original stage. The play of
a man of letters being an honourable property and justly assimilated to the product of
a land belonging to him, all the actors that perform it are, in his regard, like town
merchants, who sell to the public the fruits of culture only after having bought them
from the most noble proprietors, who do not blush at receiving the sum; and just as the
merchant’s profit from the foodstuffs would be a theft if they sought to seize them
without giving anything to the cultivators, it would be unjust that the provincial
directors enrich themselves with the plays of living authors, without offering them a
just portion of the declared profit that they obtain from it.
“These principles recognised by the parties named herein, AND LAID DOWN AS THE BASIS
of the present Act, they have agreed and settled as follows:
ART I. “That any dramatic author whose new play, performed
Chapter 1 Page 14
208 PETITION
that I was never able to extract a denier from all these troupes with my notarised acts,
neither I nor any authors, despite that I had deliberately dedicated these proceeds to
the poor of these big towns,
_________
in Paris, should be requested by the directors or shareholders of the Marseille spectacle,
will send his manuscript, with the roles copied, to the directors, if the play is not
printed at the time of the request; or, IF IT IS PRINTED, one of the first copies of the
work, so that the shareholders or directors might allow the public of their town to enjoy
as soon as possible the new spectacle that the capital delights in.
II. “That the directors or shareholders of the Marseille theatre should stand surety
towards the author, and under all the prejudices of law, for the non-printing of the said
manuscript and the faithful preservation from all undertaking in this regard.
III. “That the directors or shareholders of the said theatre should submit themselves
to paying to the author, or to his representative in Marseille, one net seventh of the
gross takings that will be obtained at the entrance of the spectacle every time that his
play is performed; or the entire gross takings of one out of seven performances, subject
to the author’s choice, which he will take care to explain once his play is to be performed.
And in the case of his choice of one performance out of seven, the shareholders and the
directors commit themselves to marking on the posters that day: That this performance is
entirely dedicated to FULFILLING THE RIGHTS OF THE AUTHOR; excluding from that which one
here names gross takings solely the annual subscriptions, which, after a careful examination
of their current state, and to avoid longer calculations, appear to us should remain
entirely with the directors, in compensation for the spectacle’s daily expenses.
VI. “That if during the first success of a new work in Paris, the directors or the
shareholders had neglected to request the manuscript from the author, or if some obstacle,
reasons of convenience or of interest had prevented the author from sending it to them
before the printing of his play, this delay will give no right to the said shareholders
and directors to have the work performed in their theatre, PRINTED OR NOT, and at no time
during the life of the author, without submitting themselves to all the conditions of the
present Act: the opinion that they have of the profit that the play ought to yield being
always presumed by their adoption of it,
Chapter 1 Page 15
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 209
hoping that this good employment would produce active defenders of the cause of
the gens de lettres; but it is no less true that my play printed by me, so that
these directors would perform it while paying me my fees, has once more been stolen
from me, and that it is for this reason alone that it is performed all over France.
Such are the directors’ rights over The Marriage of Figaro.
It is also no less true that I have claimed loudly against such a manifest abuse,
as much for the authors as for me. One thus cannot oppose against me an absence of
claims, and use it as justification today to continue to rob us all.
But of what use were these personal claims against the troupe directors, when
the government itself could not command obedience? Witness the case of The Honest
Criminal,* whose performance the
_______
no matter when they had it performed; and this adoption being a sufficient title for
the authors to enter into the rights stipulated with respect to them here above,
every time one performs the play.
IX. “Sirs the dramatic authors concur and agree that the same conditions will
hold with respect to them for all the novelties of their portfolio that will not
have been performed in Paris, and which the directors and shareholders of Marseille,
desiring to perform first, will agree to this point with the authors of the desired
work.
“It is thus that all has been agreed and finalised between the parties, with
the said names and qualities, who, for the execution of the present, elect their
domicile in their aforementioned residences.
“Drawn up and executed in Paris, the year 1784, the 25th of June. And the 21st
of September 1791, copy of the Act above, executed at M. Momet, attorney, has been
issued by M. Dufouleur, his successor, etc., etc.”
_______
*) L' Honnête Criminel, ou L'Amour Filial was a play by Charles-Georges Fenouillot
de Falbaire (1727-1800), published in 1767.
Chapter 1 Page 16
210 PETITION
Court forbade, and that was performed in all the provinces, even though the minister
la Vrillière had expressly ordered our lordships the intendants to oppose the
performances.
What became of all this? That the government was obeyed nowhere; that the
author was robbed everywhere, and that the directors grew richer, while disregarding
the laws, the proprietor and the minister with impunity: which we still see today; for
despite the constitution and two consecutive decrees that assure our properties, our
rights and our claims are nil: this is the cause that we plead.
At about the same time, sirs the directors of Lyon, forced by the citizens of their
town to contribute to public charities for its noble establishment in favour of the
mothers who breastfeed, and of which I had been the very-happy instigator in
spreading the idea everywhere and in sending, at various times, a thousand pistols to
add to the alms of the generous citizens of Lyon: the directors of this town asked me
whether I wanted them to perform The Marriage of Figaro, which was not yet printed
by me, nor by those who stole it from me during its performances, in aid of the poor
mothers. Yes, I replied, provided that after the showing for the poor, you will never
perform this play nor any others without paying living authors the remuneration of
Paris,
Chapter 1 Page 17
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 211
according to a notarised act identical to that of Marseille; and I, to commit you to it, I
give to the poor mothers that which belongs to me as author.
What did the directors of Lyon do? Not wanting to accept this condition that
the mothers or their virtuous protectors would have rigorously executed, they
performed another play in aid of the mothers who breastfeed; and to properly take
their revenge on me for this forced sacrifice, they stole the play Figaro from me and
have performed it since that time without paying anything either to the author or to
the poor mothers that breastfeed. To this account of the Lyon directors’ actions, I will
add, Sirs, that, since the decrees that at last assure us the property of our plays, I have
complained to the Sieur Flachat, who, from being procurer of spectacles, has done so
well done from his events that he has now become their proprietor and the signatory
of the insults that all the directors articulate. I was complaining to him that one
continued to perform, without permission from me, The Marriage of Figaro; he gave
me this curious reply that it is germane to cite here.
We perform YOUR MARRIAGE because it provides us with excellent
receipts, and we will perform it in spite of you, in spite of all the decrees in the world:
I even advise no one to attempt to prevent us; he would have a bad time of it. Here
we are now threatened by the masses!
Chapter 1 Page 18
212 PETITION
This principle adopted by all the troupe directors, the evasions of tribunals, the
denial itself of justice, one day wrenched from me this very severe reflection: What
secret merit does theatre then have everywhere to thus escape the laws? Is it then
universal mistress of those that it is servant to? Is it the Serva padrona* of the
kingdom? The parliaments and the nobles have ceded; the clergy and all the great
abuses have been vanquished by the voice of the legislator: theatre alone has found
unjust support of its wrongs in the masses and in the tribunals, in the streets and in the
alleys! But the authors have confidence that the National Assembly will prevail in the
end.
Not trusting too much in the principles they employ, the troupe directors want
you to take pity, Sirs, on their ruin, which they claim to be certain, if these sons of
Mercury and of the nymph Echo** were forced to give to the children of Apollo, who
alone create the plays that they perform, a modest part of the profit of their works,
after deducting the expenses. I have well proved, by the comparison with fabric
merchant retailers, who all pay their manufacturers without coming before you, Sirs,
to deliver the great stupidity that they are ruined by these payments (for who would
want to listen to them?); I have effectively proved that the theatre alone in the world
dares to rave thus in order to interest the audience by the voice of its directors.
One day I was saying to one of them: But if the times
__________
*) La serva padrona (The Servant Mistress) was a very popular opera buffa of 1733
by Pergolesi. It shows how a maidservant succeeds in taking over the household in
which she is working.
**) Mercury was regarded as the god of thieves and liars. The nymph Echo was
punished by Hera with the loss of her voice, so that she was only able to repeat the
last words which others had said. It is these qualities which Beaumarchais ironically
ascribes to the theatre directors, who were unable to create anything themselves and
had to steal from others!
Chapter 1 Page 19
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 213
are so unfortunate that you cannot pay the authors (without whom, however, there
would be no spectacle) for their works, how then can you pay your actors, your
decorators, the painters, musicians, cobblers, candle-makers and wigmakers of your
theatres; for none of them is as necessary to the success you aspire to, as the
performed play that puts them all to work? Oh! But, he said, they would force us!
This response, so naïve, seems to me to settle the question. Fifty very isolated
authors, far from the places where they are pillaged, have never had, to obtain justice,
the power nor the credibility that thousands of suppliers of accessories for these
spectacles have, who, being present at the employment of their materials, oblige
justice, by their cries, to listen to them. The authors have never been able to do so;
they have always been robbed.
Another troupe director, a famous actor from Paris, requested one day that I
convince some of my fellow authors to allow him to perform their works for almost
nothing, in the week referred to as Holy, in his provincial spectacle.
Eh! But how, I told him, would I dare propose this to the gens de lettres who
know that you are bringing to Rouen one of your colleagues, whose great reputation
will draw large crowds in this harvesting week?
Oh! But, he said, you know perfectly well that I am forced to pay twenty-five
louis per performance to the
Chapter 1 Page 20
214 PETITION
colleague that I am bringing; she would not come otherwise; which takes away all my
profit. I replied to him in turn: If you cannot obtain from your own colleague, who is
but a sixth part of the cast for my play, the slightest diminution of the twenty-five
louis that she demands to go there to play a role, how can you ask the author who
does not obtain from you, for his whole composition, the tenth of what you pay your
beautiful colleague, that he should reduce this tenth to nothing? He heard me, did not
insist, my answer was without retort. The true answer to the riddle is thus that the
directors of spectacles, forced to pay everything at high costs, submit to this without
complaint, as long as they can pillage the authors: This is here the probity of all.
Another director hesitatingly expressed these words: You, Mr Beaumarchais,
whom everyone claims are so rich, how are you not apprehensive that, in severely
demanding payment for your works, one should accuse you of avarice? My dear sir, I
replied, the late maréchale d’Étrées had two hundred thousand livres annuity; never
was I able to obtain a bottle of Sillery wine from her without first giving her an écu of
six francs, and no one accused her of avarice nor of injustice; and yet my play is much
more my property than her grapevine was hers. And moreover, do you know what
use I make of this money? If it helps me to support some unfortunate individuals,
have I instructed
Chapter 1 Page 21
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 215
these directors to be my secret chaplains? And the little girls that they confess are
they to be numbered in my paupers? But whether I be miserly or not, does anyone
have the right to invade my property?
If one believed oneself obliged to take pity on all these troupe directors, who
claim to be suffering, while taking possession of our works, what would one do for
the authors, whose property, almost nil during their lifetime, is lost for their heirs five
years after their death? All legitimate properties are transferred pure and intact, from
one man to all his descendants. All the fruit of his industry, the land that he cleared,
the things that he created belong, until the sale that they always have the right to
undertake, to his heirs, whoever they might be. No one ever says to them: The
meadow, the picture, the statue, fruit of labour or of genius, that your father left you,
shall no longer belong to you, once you have reaped that meadow, or engraved that
picture, or cast that statue during five years following his death; everyone will then
have the right to benefit as much as you: no one says this to them. The property of
authors, by a distressing exception, is the sole kind of property whose heritage has a
duration of only five years, under the terms of the first decree. And yet what clearing,
what laborious workmanship, what creation emanating from the brush, from the chisel
of men, belongs to them more exclusively, more legitimately, Sirs, than the work of
Chapter 1 Page 22
216 PETITION
the theatre, escaped from the poet’s genius, and cost them more work! Yet all their
descendants retain their properties. The unhappy son of an author loses his after five
years of an enjoyment more than uncertain or even often illusory: this very short
heredity being possible for the directors of spectacles to elude, by not touching the
plays of authors who have recently passed away, during the five years that follow,
until the moment when the works, under the terms of the first decree, become their
property; it follows that the children of the very-miserable gens de lettres, most of
whom only leave as fortune a vain renown and their works, will find themselves
disinherited by the severity of the laws!
See, Sirs, the state of certain old gens de lettres! Many have lost the newspaper
pensions that they lived off: one of them, weighed down by more than eighty years, so
as not to die from need, forced to have performed two tragedies that he had been
keeping aside for a very long time, so that his niece would inherit, might die before
they have had the success that can sustain his old age! If he has them printed, Sirs,
the troupe directors will perform them without paying him anything. If he has them
performed without printing, he will obtain almost nothing: one will let them lie during
the five years that follow his death. And, having become public property, neither he
nor his
Chapter 1 Page 23
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 217
heir will have collected any fruit from the works that might enrich, after his death, all
the spectacles that will want to stage them; while a troupe director, having earned one
hundred thousand écus by paying nothing to the authors, will allow his children or his
heirs to benefit perpetually, by leaving them both plays and spectacle. Who are the
most unfortunate? The authors or the directors?
The gens de lettres are almost all hard-up, but proud; for there is no genius
without pride: and this pride is so becoming to public teachers! I, the least capable,
perhaps, but one of the better-off, I thought that I ought to render myself miserly for
their sake. That which they all disdained to do, I believed that I should honour. One
did not do me the injustice of believing that it was for me an object of personal
interest. But solely because I made myself the methodist [i.e. champion] of an affair
that until then had been but trouble, loss and but disorder, one took up arms against
me; libels and insults have become my reward. I do not want to take any account of
it: if these considerations were stopping us, we would be useful for nothing.
I promised to say a word about the absurd argument being made regarding the
text of the permissions that one granted to authors to print and to perform their plays.
All these authors being neither printers nor actors, it is clear that this permission was
for them that of to have printed and to have performed. The precaution
Chapter 1 Page 24
218 PETITION
taken in favour of mores did not relate at all to their property, neither giving it nor
taking it, but granting it to no one else. How dare one plead from a uniquely moral
phrase, in order to usurp a property? If such a law existed, that deprived authors of
the property of their plays as soon as they have them printed or engraved, no author
would have his works printed; there would be nothing left for public instruction; all
the printers and engravers would be ruined by this law. These sorry reasoners, who
direct the troupes and live off the talent of actors and of authors, would become even
worse off themselves; for, independently of the price of these works, that they could
no longer steal from the authors, they would have to have made as many copies by
hand, at three louis for the spoken plays, instead of twenty-four or twelve sous that the
printing comes to; instead of the eighteen francs that the play with engraved music
costs them, they would spend twenty-five louis for each score with separate parts.
This is when, Sirs, they would cry out loudly! This impolitic measure, having taken
the shape of law, would be fatal for all the Empire.
I believe that I have effectively answered all the false assertions of the directors
of our spectacles.
In presenting myself alone, I have destroyed in one word the futile appearance
of a supposed corporation.
Chapter 1 Page 25
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 219
I have shown, by my sole example, that they have not said a word of truth about
our conduct with them, concerning our claims. I have proved that all the authors
never ceased to make them; and that in my role as their representative I had made
them for all.
I have proved that, in spite of public acts and all my claims, one had stolen my
work, after having dishonoured it.
I have effectively proved that our claims must never have had any effect, for a
very despotic minister was unable to make himself obeyed by these provincial
directors; so certain and powerful is the secret influence that they have everywhere at
their disposal!
I have proved that they had no right to perform in the provinces, and without
paying the authors, the plays that one did not perform in Paris without giving them an
agreed sum, whether they were printed or not.
I have well proved, by comparison with fabric retailers, how ridiculous this
grievance, founded on the necessity of paying the author for his work, becomes,
especially when this author contents himself with asking, all expenses deducted, for
one-seventh of the proceeds. For that which could happen most advantageously to
these perfidious reasoners, would be to have to pay an author, for his seventh [part],
seventy thousand francs; which would only prove that the troupe obtained from the
work
Chapter 1 Page 26
220 PETITION
four hundred and ninety thousand francs of net profit.
I have spoken, wise legislators. The gens de lettres, full of confidence, await
with respect your final decision.
Signed CARON DE BEAUMARCHAIS
Translation by: Silje Normand
Source: Bibliothèque Universitaire de Poitiers (SCD) : Oeuvres complètes de Beaumarchais, tome sixième, Paris, Furne, 1826.
Citation:
Beaumarchais's petition, Paris (1791), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
26 translated pages
Chapter 1 Page 1
WORKS
of
BEAUMARCHAIS,
preceded
by an account of his life and works
by LA HARPE.
My life is a battle.
Voltaire.
SIXTH VOLUME.
[Emblems of the
theatre and stage]
PARIS,
FURNE, BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER,
Quai des Augustins, Nr. 37;
A. Sautelet & Co., Place de la Bourse.
~~~~~~~
1826.
Chapter 1 Page 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PETITION
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY,
BY CARON DE BEAUMARCHAIS
Against the usurpation of authors’ properties by theatre directors, read by the author to
the committee of public instruction, the 23rd of December 1791, and printed
immediately thereafter.
________
Up until now the directors of theatre troupes in the towns of the departments of the
kingdom have opposed only sophisms and insults against the imprescriptible right of
dramatic authors to the property of their works, recognised and assured by two decrees of
the constituent National Assembly, and against the claims that they have not ceased to
make against their usurpation. I will, disdaining the insults, refute the sophisms with the
ardent zeal that I have devoted to the progress of the dramatic art and to the pressing
interests of the men of letters who exercise it. You will forgive me, Sirs, if slightly harsh
terms strike you during the course of this petition: they are disagreeable; but, regarding the
act that we all complain of, I know of none
Chapter 1 Page 3
gentler, unfortunately for the cause and for our ardent adversaries.
A first observation has struck everyone. It is, one says, very strange that a
formal law was necessary to attest to all of France that the property of a dramatic
author belongs to him; that no one has the right to take possession of it. This
principle, derived from the first rights of man, went so much without saying for all the
properties of man acquired by work, donation, sale, or heredity, that one would have
thought it very derisory to be obliged to establish it by law. My property alone, as
dramatic author, more sacred than all others as it comes to me from no one and is not
subject to dispute for deceit, or fraud, or seduction, the work coming from my brain,
as Minerva fully armed from that of the master of gods; only my property has needed
that a law pronounce that it is mine, assuring me the possession of it. But those who
observe thus have not understood the text of the law.
It is true that one did not dare say to me: The work that has come from you is
not of you. But the theatre directors have laid down this other principle: Dramatic
author, they have said, the work that has come from you is of you, but it is not yours.
You will obtain no fruit from it: it is ours; as for the past hundred years, by a long
succession of abuses of a depredatory regime and your established weakness, we have
been entitled to enrich ourselves
Chapter 1 Page 4
with it, without granting you any part of the profit that we obtain.
The law, to suppress this scandal of an entire century, did not state in its two
decrees: The work of an author is his own. These decrees might have been futile; but
it [the law] expressed formally: That given the past abuses, the continual usurpations
established in oppressive rights, none can henceforth invade the property of authors
without incurring such a reprimand or such a penalty. So, starting to understand this,
the troupe directors sought, not to deny the soundness of this law, but to elude it if
they could, to escape its justice by all the means of Escobar.*
The first [means] that these directors thought they could use was simply to flout
this law and to continue to perform our plays as if the legislator had never pronounced
against them; for, they said, a lot of time will pass before the restored order will have
armed its repressive force against us; that which we will have taken will be taken and
will remain with us: many of us will no longer exist in the position of directors; and
what means of recourse against an insolvent director? Now during that time at least
the law will be nil for us. They had very well reasoned, not in law, but in abuses; for
since the decrees that forbid all directors from continuing to usurp the property of
authors, their works have been performed with the same audacity in all the towns
________
*) In France the name of the Spanish theologian and casuist Antonio Escobar y
Mendoza (1589-1669), whose writings were sharply criticized by Pascal, became
proverbial for that of a hypocrite.
Chapter 1 Page 5
of the departments of the empire, except in the capital, without their permission, in
spite of them, as if there were no law, without any of the men of letters able to obtain
justice from the tribunals of the towns where these spectacles [theatrical
performances] are established, and that they have invoked in vain. One refuses us an
audience, another replies coldly: Although there is a formal law, the authors are well-
off, they can well expect that our director has made a new attempt to have this law
changed: as if this change itself, in supposing that it should be made, could save a
troupe director from the obligation of paying the author that which belongs to him by
right, during all the time passed between two laws that would exclude one another.
And if the director has gone bankrupt during that time, who will pay me, partial judge,
the deficit created in my fortune by your negligence or your denial of justice? Here,
Sirs, is the state of affairs.
But finally, this brigandage arousing a general outcry, the despotic directors
have thought it necessary to unite with the enslaved actors to create an imposing mass
of ten thousand claimants against thirty isolated authors.
This coalition formed, the troupe directors have all paid their contingent for the
costs of deputation, of solicitation, of recording, of chicanery and even of insults. A
very insulting editor took on all the work. Insults apart, here is what he has stated for
them:
Chapter 1 Page 6
1o The authors have formed an illegal corporation so as to have executed the law
pronounced in their favour: therefore each individual’s request, and his claim
regarding his constantly invaded property, merits no answer, no consideration on our
part.
2o The authors have sold their works to booksellers and to engravers; therefore
we, who have bought one of these printed copies for the large sum of twenty-four
sous, or an engraved copy for the exorbitant sum of eighteen livres tournois, we have
effectively become the proprietors of these works so as to enrich ourselves with them
and without paying anything to the authors, despite the law that states expressly: that
one cannot perform the play of a living author without his formal written permission,
whether it has been PRINTED or ENGRAVED, under penalty, etc. Such is the clear
meaning of the directors’ argument.
3o They do not blush to add that the permission granted in the past to authors by
the government, to print and perform, evidently allocated to the individual who
bought this printed play for twenty-four sous, the right to perform it without giving
anything to the proprietor. Although one cannot articulate such absurdities other than
in profound desperation, I will not leave this without response; not so as to enlighten
the assembly, I do not affront it so, but to shame our adversaries for employing such
means.
Chapter 1 Page 7
4o We were in the habitual practice, say moreover these directors, of performing
the plays of living authors without giving them the slightest part of the proceeds that
we obtain from them: not one of them has ever claimed against what they name an
abuse: thus each of them has recognised that our right was incontestable, to pay
nothing to the authors when representing their plays in all the provincial towns,
although no theatre of the capital could nor dared perform them without paying the
agreed price, whether they were printed or not, and under a regime that always
protected the actors against the gens de lettres. But you will soon see, Sirs, if we have
not claimed.
5o Finally, we would all be ruined, state moreover the directors, we, merchants
of the sale of dramatic plays, if one obliged us to pay the suppliers; just as all the
fabric retailers, in boutiques and stores, would see themselves ruined like us, if by the
same fate a greatly unjust law obliged them all to pay the manufacturers of Lyon, of
Amiens or of Péronne who supplied them with these fabrics. One senses how much
this would be a crying injustice! Happily for them, no law subjects them to this, and
we well presume that they do not pay them. Our right is similar to theirs; for if these
merchants rent shops to sell, we, we pay halls to perform. If they pay salaries to shop
boys and bookkeepers, we pay wages to actors
Chapter 1 Page 8
and ushers. If they pay their lighting, their heating, their sales representatives, their
porters, the taxes of their town and all other commercial costs, we are subject to these
as they are. Thus in virtue of so much forced expenditure, as it would be too
iniquitous for a law to oblige all these vendors of fabrics to pay the manufacturers for
them, so one could not, without the greatest iniquity, oblige us to pay the authors
whose works we recite, even though every day we sell the performance of these plays
to the public that comes to see them in our hall, paying us cash down; for we are the
only retailers that do not give credit, which makes our cause even more favourable
than that of the fabric merchants who are often robbed the price of an imprudent sale.
Such is the exact conclusion of the directors’ argument.
One of these authors, add these gentlemen, in dealing with this affair in
financial terms, even though he is the richest of them all, has degraded dramatic
literature by this sordid avarice of demanding some money from us for a noble work
that should only yield glory, and often does not merit it.
This so-called “financier” author – it is I, whom a true love of literature compels
to dedicate myself to this great matter. Despite the gross insults that these Sirs have
heaped upon me, I swear to my colleagues that I will not abandon the interests that
they have entrusted me with: this step is the
Chapter 1 Page 9
proof, and this petition contains my true motives.
Such are in substance, Sirs, the directors’ arguments against the dramatic
authors, their providers in all times.
I will refute them, following the same order in which they are recalled and
citing only myself as an example so as to kill in a single word the idea of a
corporation.
The authors, they tell you, Sirs, have formed an illegal corporation to uphold
together a very unjust law, etc., etc.
My answer is clear and very simple. I am a dramatic author: I present myself
alone to the National Assembly to prevent one from continuing to do me a habitual
wrong that has lasted but too long. By this alone that I stand alone for the cause that
interests me and that I defend before you, one can not object against me, Sirs, this
demurrer that one claims results from a very illegal procedure, if it were true that
there was one in the authors’ petition under the name of corporation. Each author will
use, if he desires, the means that I employ here to rebut and pulverise such a
despicable attack. All those that I will use will have an equal advantage for the
injured interest[s] of dramatic authors. There is no corporation in using the same
defence, to rebut the same attack, on the same interests.
The authors, they further tell you, have all sold
Chapter 1 Page 10
their plays to booksellers or engravers: therefore their property transferred to us by the
latter, for twenty four sous the printed plays and eighteen francs those engraved,
belongs to us beyond any dispute, etc., etc. On this general sale, I will recall in two
words that which one of these authors prints.
What! says Mr. Dubuisson in his excellent response to the directors, would a
bookseller or an engraver have the right to sell to you that which he has not bought
from me? Does he sell the right to counterfeit my book to those who buy it to read?
He would be ruined, so would I. Never a theatre of Paris thought itself in the right to
perform the printed play of an author, if it had not bought this right from the
proprietor of the play, even though the actors often have it printed at home; for they
have bought it like you. Would you exercise a right that one does not have in the
capital? Eh! Who then gave it to you? You claim to have acquired that of earning a
thousand louis and more with a play that cost you twenty four sous, and often half
less, thanks to the theft of counterfeiters, who are as great logicians as you as far as
the right to pillage authors is concerned! This truly means to mock those who are
listening to you!
But finally, letting each author defend an incontestable right, I will reply for
myself only. I have never sold The Marriage of Figaro, whose usurped property I
here reclaim, to any bookseller or engraver.
Chapter 1 Page 11
It was printed at my expense or in my atelier at Kehl. As pitiful as the argument is, its
transmission by a bookseller cannot be used against me. But a concrete example is
worth more than all reasoning[s]; I will cite one that is without retort.
Weary of seeing the brigandage of which the unfortunate gens de lettres were
constantly the victims; I wanted, insofar as it was in my power, to attempt to remedy
this. Having long been appointed one of their commissioners and perpetual
representatives by all the dramatic authors, I had had the pleasure, in stipulating their
interests, of having reformed a number of abuses in their continual relations with the
French theatre; I wanted to take advantage of the success of one of my works that one
wished to perform in the provinces, to work towards the reform of the greatest of all
the abuses, that of performing works without paying anything to their authors. I
replied to those requesting the Marriage of Figaro that I would have it printed and
would permit its performance in the provinces, only when the troupe directors had
submitted themselves by legal act to paying, not only to me, but to all living authors,
the same retribution that they enjoyed in the capital.
What, then, did these directors do? They had someone write down my poor
play while it was being performed, and had it printed on the spot, filled with all the
stupidities, with all the obscenities and improprieties
Chapter 1 Page 12
that their very-clumsy copyists had inserted everywhere, and performed it thus
disfigured in the provincial theatres: and my play, dishonoured, stolen, printed,
performed without my permission, or rather in spite of me, became, by this turpitude,
the honest property of the adversaries that I fight. I complained to our ministers, sole
judges in these matters at the time. I obtained no justice, for I was but a man of
letters; my request held no favour, for I was not an actress. In vain would I address
the tribunals of the time, even the supreme courts [cours souveraines]: every time the
case came up, the actresses would solicit; the solicited court would transfer the affair
to the council, where it was never judged. And my account, accompanied by one of
those scandalous copies that I lay down on the desk, is my response to the absence of
claims that the directors oppose against us. The following will reinforce it.
Obliged to attempt to take the law into my own hands, and the play badly
printed by those that had badly stolen it being also much too stupid, which I had said
everywhere in disavowing this horror, certain provincial directors came to ask me to
perform my true work: I showed them my conditions. Those of Marseille, of
Versailles, of Rouen, of Orléans, etc., accepted them without hesitating; drew up a
notarised act, of which I attach a copy.
_________
I will copy the preamble, as well as several of the articles. It is
Chapter 1 Page 13
From the reading of such an act, which all the others resemble, one might well
be surprised
_________
quite curious to see how I explained myself regarding the properties of authors,
and how I forced the directors to recognise them, seven years before the constitution
had made a formal law of an incontestable right, and that these gentlemen claim never
existed.
“BEFORE the councillors of the King, attorneys of the Châtelet de Paris, undersigned:
“Were present Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, squire, residing in Paris,
Vieille rue du Temple, Saint Paul parish, in name and as one of the commissioners and
perpetual representatives of the authors of the French theatre, authorised for the
execution of the present by the deliberation and unanimous consent of his assembled
colleagues, on the one hand:
“And the sir André Beaussier, trader in Marseille, normally residing there in
the rue Longue des Capucines, being present in this town of Paris, lodged at the hôtel
des Milords, rue du Mail, Saint-Eustache parish, both in his name as principal share-
holder, and one of the chief administrators of the Marseille spectacle, AND REPRESENTING
HERE THE WHOLE BODY OF THE ADMINISTRATION, THAT HE ENGAGES WITH HIM, on the other hand.
“Who have stated and recognised that it is rigorously just that the directors of
the provincial troupes, whose fortune is founded on the need to recall the public to
their spectacle by the attraction of new sorties from the capital, share the profit with
the authors in an equitable proportion, as it is recognised as just in Paris that the
authors receive a share in the takings of their works on the original stage. The play of
a man of letters being an honourable property and justly assimilated to the product of
a land belonging to him, all the actors that perform it are, in his regard, like town
merchants, who sell to the public the fruits of culture only after having bought them
from the most noble proprietors, who do not blush at receiving the sum; and just as the
merchant’s profit from the foodstuffs would be a theft if they sought to seize them
without giving anything to the cultivators, it would be unjust that the provincial
directors enrich themselves with the plays of living authors, without offering them a
just portion of the declared profit that they obtain from it.
“These principles recognised by the parties named herein, AND LAID DOWN AS THE BASIS
of the present Act, they have agreed and settled as follows:
ART I. “That any dramatic author whose new play, performed
Chapter 1 Page 14
that I was never able to extract a denier from all these troupes with my notarised acts,
neither I nor any authors, despite that I had deliberately dedicated these proceeds to
the poor of these big towns,
_________
in Paris, should be requested by the directors or shareholders of the Marseille spectacle,
will send his manuscript, with the roles copied, to the directors, if the play is not
printed at the time of the request; or, IF IT IS PRINTED, one of the first copies of the
work, so that the shareholders or directors might allow the public of their town to enjoy
as soon as possible the new spectacle that the capital delights in.
II. “That the directors or shareholders of the Marseille theatre should stand surety
towards the author, and under all the prejudices of law, for the non-printing of the said
manuscript and the faithful preservation from all undertaking in this regard.
III. “That the directors or shareholders of the said theatre should submit themselves
to paying to the author, or to his representative in Marseille, one net seventh of the
gross takings that will be obtained at the entrance of the spectacle every time that his
play is performed; or the entire gross takings of one out of seven performances, subject
to the author’s choice, which he will take care to explain once his play is to be performed.
And in the case of his choice of one performance out of seven, the shareholders and the
directors commit themselves to marking on the posters that day: That this performance is
entirely dedicated to FULFILLING THE RIGHTS OF THE AUTHOR; excluding from that which one
here names gross takings solely the annual subscriptions, which, after a careful examination
of their current state, and to avoid longer calculations, appear to us should remain
entirely with the directors, in compensation for the spectacle’s daily expenses.
VI. “That if during the first success of a new work in Paris, the directors or the
shareholders had neglected to request the manuscript from the author, or if some obstacle,
reasons of convenience or of interest had prevented the author from sending it to them
before the printing of his play, this delay will give no right to the said shareholders
and directors to have the work performed in their theatre, PRINTED OR NOT, and at no time
during the life of the author, without submitting themselves to all the conditions of the
present Act: the opinion that they have of the profit that the play ought to yield being
always presumed by their adoption of it,
Chapter 1 Page 15
hoping that this good employment would produce active defenders of the cause of
the gens de lettres; but it is no less true that my play printed by me, so that
these directors would perform it while paying me my fees, has once more been stolen
from me, and that it is for this reason alone that it is performed all over France.
Such are the directors’ rights over The Marriage of Figaro.
It is also no less true that I have claimed loudly against such a manifest abuse,
as much for the authors as for me. One thus cannot oppose against me an absence of
claims, and use it as justification today to continue to rob us all.
But of what use were these personal claims against the troupe directors, when
the government itself could not command obedience? Witness the case of The Honest
Criminal,* whose performance the
_______
no matter when they had it performed; and this adoption being a sufficient title for
the authors to enter into the rights stipulated with respect to them here above,
every time one performs the play.
IX. “Sirs the dramatic authors concur and agree that the same conditions will
hold with respect to them for all the novelties of their portfolio that will not
have been performed in Paris, and which the directors and shareholders of Marseille,
desiring to perform first, will agree to this point with the authors of the desired
work.
“It is thus that all has been agreed and finalised between the parties, with
the said names and qualities, who, for the execution of the present, elect their
domicile in their aforementioned residences.
“Drawn up and executed in Paris, the year 1784, the 25th of June. And the 21st
of September 1791, copy of the Act above, executed at M. Momet, attorney, has been
issued by M. Dufouleur, his successor, etc., etc.”
_______
*) L' Honnête Criminel, ou L'Amour Filial was a play by Charles-Georges Fenouillot
de Falbaire (1727-1800), published in 1767.
Chapter 1 Page 16
Court forbade, and that was performed in all the provinces, even though the minister
la Vrillière had expressly ordered our lordships the intendants to oppose the
performances.
What became of all this? That the government was obeyed nowhere; that the
author was robbed everywhere, and that the directors grew richer, while disregarding
the laws, the proprietor and the minister with impunity: which we still see today; for
despite the constitution and two consecutive decrees that assure our properties, our
rights and our claims are nil: this is the cause that we plead.
At about the same time, sirs the directors of Lyon, forced by the citizens of their
town to contribute to public charities for its noble establishment in favour of the
mothers who breastfeed, and of which I had been the very-happy instigator in
spreading the idea everywhere and in sending, at various times, a thousand pistols to
add to the alms of the generous citizens of Lyon: the directors of this town asked me
whether I wanted them to perform The Marriage of Figaro, which was not yet printed
by me, nor by those who stole it from me during its performances, in aid of the poor
mothers. Yes, I replied, provided that after the showing for the poor, you will never
perform this play nor any others without paying living authors the remuneration of
Paris,
Chapter 1 Page 17
according to a notarised act identical to that of Marseille; and I, to commit you to it, I
give to the poor mothers that which belongs to me as author.
What did the directors of Lyon do? Not wanting to accept this condition that
the mothers or their virtuous protectors would have rigorously executed, they
performed another play in aid of the mothers who breastfeed; and to properly take
their revenge on me for this forced sacrifice, they stole the play Figaro from me and
have performed it since that time without paying anything either to the author or to
the poor mothers that breastfeed. To this account of the Lyon directors’ actions, I will
add, Sirs, that, since the decrees that at last assure us the property of our plays, I have
complained to the Sieur Flachat, who, from being procurer of spectacles, has done so
well done from his events that he has now become their proprietor and the signatory
of the insults that all the directors articulate. I was complaining to him that one
continued to perform, without permission from me, The Marriage of Figaro; he gave
me this curious reply that it is germane to cite here.
We perform YOUR MARRIAGE because it provides us with excellent
receipts, and we will perform it in spite of you, in spite of all the decrees in the world:
I even advise no one to attempt to prevent us; he would have a bad time of it. Here
we are now threatened by the masses!
Chapter 1 Page 18
This principle adopted by all the troupe directors, the evasions of tribunals, the
denial itself of justice, one day wrenched from me this very severe reflection: What
secret merit does theatre then have everywhere to thus escape the laws? Is it then
universal mistress of those that it is servant to? Is it the Serva padrona* of the
kingdom? The parliaments and the nobles have ceded; the clergy and all the great
abuses have been vanquished by the voice of the legislator: theatre alone has found
unjust support of its wrongs in the masses and in the tribunals, in the streets and in the
alleys! But the authors have confidence that the National Assembly will prevail in the
end.
Not trusting too much in the principles they employ, the troupe directors want
you to take pity, Sirs, on their ruin, which they claim to be certain, if these sons of
Mercury and of the nymph Echo** were forced to give to the children of Apollo, who
alone create the plays that they perform, a modest part of the profit of their works,
after deducting the expenses. I have well proved, by the comparison with fabric
merchant retailers, who all pay their manufacturers without coming before you, Sirs,
to deliver the great stupidity that they are ruined by these payments (for who would
want to listen to them?); I have effectively proved that the theatre alone in the world
dares to rave thus in order to interest the audience by the voice of its directors.
One day I was saying to one of them: But if the times
__________
*) La serva padrona (The Servant Mistress) was a very popular opera buffa of 1733
by Pergolesi. It shows how a maidservant succeeds in taking over the household in
which she is working.
**) Mercury was regarded as the god of thieves and liars. The nymph Echo was
punished by Hera with the loss of her voice, so that she was only able to repeat the
last words which others had said. It is these qualities which Beaumarchais ironically
ascribes to the theatre directors, who were unable to create anything themselves and
had to steal from others!
Chapter 1 Page 19
are so unfortunate that you cannot pay the authors (without whom, however, there
would be no spectacle) for their works, how then can you pay your actors, your
decorators, the painters, musicians, cobblers, candle-makers and wigmakers of your
theatres; for none of them is as necessary to the success you aspire to, as the
performed play that puts them all to work? Oh! But, he said, they would force us!
This response, so naïve, seems to me to settle the question. Fifty very isolated
authors, far from the places where they are pillaged, have never had, to obtain justice,
the power nor the credibility that thousands of suppliers of accessories for these
spectacles have, who, being present at the employment of their materials, oblige
justice, by their cries, to listen to them. The authors have never been able to do so;
they have always been robbed.
Another troupe director, a famous actor from Paris, requested one day that I
convince some of my fellow authors to allow him to perform their works for almost
nothing, in the week referred to as Holy, in his provincial spectacle.
Eh! But how, I told him, would I dare propose this to the gens de lettres who
know that you are bringing to Rouen one of your colleagues, whose great reputation
will draw large crowds in this harvesting week?
Oh! But, he said, you know perfectly well that I am forced to pay twenty-five
louis per performance to the
Chapter 1 Page 20
colleague that I am bringing; she would not come otherwise; which takes away all my
profit. I replied to him in turn: If you cannot obtain from your own colleague, who is
but a sixth part of the cast for my play, the slightest diminution of the twenty-five
louis that she demands to go there to play a role, how can you ask the author who
does not obtain from you, for his whole composition, the tenth of what you pay your
beautiful colleague, that he should reduce this tenth to nothing? He heard me, did not
insist, my answer was without retort. The true answer to the riddle is thus that the
directors of spectacles, forced to pay everything at high costs, submit to this without
complaint, as long as they can pillage the authors: This is here the probity of all.
Another director hesitatingly expressed these words: You, Mr Beaumarchais,
whom everyone claims are so rich, how are you not apprehensive that, in severely
demanding payment for your works, one should accuse you of avarice? My dear sir, I
replied, the late maréchale d’Étrées had two hundred thousand livres annuity; never
was I able to obtain a bottle of Sillery wine from her without first giving her an écu of
six francs, and no one accused her of avarice nor of injustice; and yet my play is much
more my property than her grapevine was hers. And moreover, do you know what
use I make of this money? If it helps me to support some unfortunate individuals,
have I instructed
Chapter 1 Page 21
these directors to be my secret chaplains? And the little girls that they confess are
they to be numbered in my paupers? But whether I be miserly or not, does anyone
have the right to invade my property?
If one believed oneself obliged to take pity on all these troupe directors, who
claim to be suffering, while taking possession of our works, what would one do for
the authors, whose property, almost nil during their lifetime, is lost for their heirs five
years after their death? All legitimate properties are transferred pure and intact, from
one man to all his descendants. All the fruit of his industry, the land that he cleared,
the things that he created belong, until the sale that they always have the right to
undertake, to his heirs, whoever they might be. No one ever says to them: The
meadow, the picture, the statue, fruit of labour or of genius, that your father left you,
shall no longer belong to you, once you have reaped that meadow, or engraved that
picture, or cast that statue during five years following his death; everyone will then
have the right to benefit as much as you: no one says this to them. The property of
authors, by a distressing exception, is the sole kind of property whose heritage has a
duration of only five years, under the terms of the first decree. And yet what clearing,
what laborious workmanship, what creation emanating from the brush, from the chisel
of men, belongs to them more exclusively, more legitimately, Sirs, than the work of
Chapter 1 Page 22
the theatre, escaped from the poet’s genius, and cost them more work! Yet all their
descendants retain their properties. The unhappy son of an author loses his after five
years of an enjoyment more than uncertain or even often illusory: this very short
heredity being possible for the directors of spectacles to elude, by not touching the
plays of authors who have recently passed away, during the five years that follow,
until the moment when the works, under the terms of the first decree, become their
property; it follows that the children of the very-miserable gens de lettres, most of
whom only leave as fortune a vain renown and their works, will find themselves
disinherited by the severity of the laws!
See, Sirs, the state of certain old gens de lettres! Many have lost the newspaper
pensions that they lived off: one of them, weighed down by more than eighty years, so
as not to die from need, forced to have performed two tragedies that he had been
keeping aside for a very long time, so that his niece would inherit, might die before
they have had the success that can sustain his old age! If he has them printed, Sirs,
the troupe directors will perform them without paying him anything. If he has them
performed without printing, he will obtain almost nothing: one will let them lie during
the five years that follow his death. And, having become public property, neither he
nor his
Chapter 1 Page 23
heir will have collected any fruit from the works that might enrich, after his death, all
the spectacles that will want to stage them; while a troupe director, having earned one
hundred thousand écus by paying nothing to the authors, will allow his children or his
heirs to benefit perpetually, by leaving them both plays and spectacle. Who are the
most unfortunate? The authors or the directors?
The gens de lettres are almost all hard-up, but proud; for there is no genius
without pride: and this pride is so becoming to public teachers! I, the least capable,
perhaps, but one of the better-off, I thought that I ought to render myself miserly for
their sake. That which they all disdained to do, I believed that I should honour. One
did not do me the injustice of believing that it was for me an object of personal
interest. But solely because I made myself the methodist [i.e. champion] of an affair
that until then had been but trouble, loss and but disorder, one took up arms against
me; libels and insults have become my reward. I do not want to take any account of
it: if these considerations were stopping us, we would be useful for nothing.
I promised to say a word about the absurd argument being made regarding the
text of the permissions that one granted to authors to print and to perform their plays.
All these authors being neither printers nor actors, it is clear that this permission was
for them that of to have printed and to have performed. The precaution
Chapter 1 Page 24
taken in favour of mores did not relate at all to their property, neither giving it nor
taking it, but granting it to no one else. How dare one plead from a uniquely moral
phrase, in order to usurp a property? If such a law existed, that deprived authors of
the property of their plays as soon as they have them printed or engraved, no author
would have his works printed; there would be nothing left for public instruction; all
the printers and engravers would be ruined by this law. These sorry reasoners, who
direct the troupes and live off the talent of actors and of authors, would become even
worse off themselves; for, independently of the price of these works, that they could
no longer steal from the authors, they would have to have made as many copies by
hand, at three louis for the spoken plays, instead of twenty-four or twelve sous that the
printing comes to; instead of the eighteen francs that the play with engraved music
costs them, they would spend twenty-five louis for each score with separate parts.
This is when, Sirs, they would cry out loudly! This impolitic measure, having taken
the shape of law, would be fatal for all the Empire.
I believe that I have effectively answered all the false assertions of the directors
of our spectacles.
In presenting myself alone, I have destroyed in one word the futile appearance
of a supposed corporation.
Chapter 1 Page 25
I have shown, by my sole example, that they have not said a word of truth about
our conduct with them, concerning our claims. I have proved that all the authors
never ceased to make them; and that in my role as their representative I had made
them for all.
I have proved that, in spite of public acts and all my claims, one had stolen my
work, after having dishonoured it.
I have effectively proved that our claims must never have had any effect, for a
very despotic minister was unable to make himself obeyed by these provincial
directors; so certain and powerful is the secret influence that they have everywhere at
their disposal!
I have proved that they had no right to perform in the provinces, and without
paying the authors, the plays that one did not perform in Paris without giving them an
agreed sum, whether they were printed or not.
I have well proved, by comparison with fabric retailers, how ridiculous this
grievance, founded on the necessity of paying the author for his work, becomes,
especially when this author contents himself with asking, all expenses deducted, for
one-seventh of the proceeds. For that which could happen most advantageously to
these perfidious reasoners, would be to have to pay an author, for his seventh [part],
seventy thousand francs; which would only prove that the troupe obtained from the
work
Chapter 1 Page 26
four hundred and ninety thousand francs of net profit.
I have spoken, wise legislators. The gens de lettres, full of confidence, await
with respect your final decision.
Signed CARON DE BEAUMARCHAIS
Translation by: Silje Normand