Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Le collaborateur fantomatique’: Zola, William Busnach, and the Stage Adaptations of Les Rougon-Macquart

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reappearing Characters in Nineteenth-Century French Literature

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Modern European Literature ((PMEL))

  • 164 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines Zola’s attitude towards the introduction of naturalism to the theatre. While he declared that naturalism would have to reject dramatic conventions, he collaborated with a commercial playwright, William Busnach, to stage a series of melodramatic adaptations from Les Rougon-Macquart and repeatedly denied his involvement in their creation, stating that adaptations were by definition inferior and unoriginal works. The chapter focuses on the adaptation of Germinal, the only one whose first draft was written by Zola, and argues that the characters from the novel which reappear in the play dramatise the contradictory views he expressed on the matter of the introduction of naturalism to the stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Francisque Sarcey, ‘Chronique théâtrale,’ Le Temps, 13 May 1878. The quotation in the title of the chapter is taken from James B. Sanders, ‘Busnach, Zola et le drame de l’Assommoir,’ CN 52 (1978): 112.

  2. 2.

    Luce Czyba, ‘Flaubert et le théâtre, Le Candidat,’ in Le Théâtre des romanciers, ed. Marie Miguet-Ollagnier (Besançon: Annales littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté, 1996), 31–56.

  3. 3.

    See OC, 10:529; 14:579.

  4. 4.

    On the impact of James’s failure in the theatre on his late work, see Leon Edel, ‘The Dramatic Years,’ in Henry James, Guy Domville: Play in Three Acts (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1960), esp. 108–21.

  5. 5.

    Edmond and Jules de Goncourt, Journal: Mémoires de la vie littéraire, ed. Robert Ricatte, 3 vols (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1989), 2:1281 (19 November 1886).

  6. 6.

    Zola in 1892 refused to give his permission to an anonymous playwright to adapt an unidentified work with the excuse that he no longer wished to authorise adaptations of his works: see Martin Kanes, ‘Zola et les adaptateurs: Une lettre inédite,’ CN 41 (1971): 86–87. Zola gave his authorisation to Henry Céard and Léon Hennique to adapt La Conquête de Plassans as ‘L’Abbé Faujas’, a play which was not staged; see C. A. Burns, ‘L’Abbé Faujas, une adaptation dramatique de La Conquête de Plassans,’ CN 8–9 (1957): 378–81; for a list of the adaptations he authorized but in whose creation he did not participate, see Lawson A. Carter, Zola and the Theater (New Haven: Yale University Press; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1963), 149–53. On his relation with André Antoine, who staged Jacques Damour (1887), Tout pour l’honneur (1887, based on Le Capitaine Burle), and La Terre (1902), see James B. Sanders, ‘Antoine, Zola et le théâtre,’ CN 42 (1971): 51–60; James B. Sanders, ‘Antoine et Zola,’ CN 50 (1976): 9–18; Diane Henneton, “La Terre”, du roman au Théâtre Antoine (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2012).

  7. 7.

    This is, for instance, the case of Henri Lafontaine’s and Georges Richard ’s Pierre Gendron (Paris: Tresse, 1878). In a letter to his wife, Zola remarks that the play ‘paraît avoir été tranquillement taillée dans L’Assommoir’ [seems to have been quietly modelled on L’Assommoir] but expresses his doubts as to whether a case of plagiarism could be substantiated (see ZC, 3:128). In his review of the play, Zola interestingly refuses to treat it as an instance of plagiarism but argues that ‘des auteurs qui ne seraient tenus à aucun respect envers l’Assommoir, et qui préféreraient même s’en écarter un peu, n’inventeraient pas une adaptation plus adroite que Pierre Gendron’ [authors who would not be bound to respect L’Assommoir and who would even prefer to deviate from it a little would not have come up with a more skilful adaptation than Pierre Gendron] (OC, 10:148). A relevant but more complicated issue is the ‘appropriation’ of Zola’s works in parodies, on which see Catherine Dousteyssier-Khoze, Zola et la littérature naturaliste en parodies (Paris: Eurédit, 2004); for an anthology of parodies of naturalism, see Zola. Réceptions comiques. Le Naturalisme parodié par ses contemporains, ed. Daniel Compère and Catherine Dousteyssier-Khoze (Paris: Eurédit, 2008); for a one-act parody which may have been written by Zola himself, see Clélia Anfray, ‘“Conférence sur l’Assommoir”, une saynète inédite d’Émile Zola?,’ CN 83 (2009): 245–61.

  8. 8.

    For an interesting sampling of opinions of authors on adaptations from the second half of the nineteenth century, see Christian Chelebourg, ‘Splendeurs et misères de l’adaptation: Pièce-conférence en trois actes et six tableaux,’ in Roman-feuilleton et théâtre: L’Adaptation du roman-feuilleton au théâtre, ed. Florent Montaclair (Besançon: Presses du Centre UNESCO de Besançon, 1998), 305–27.

  9. 9.

    For a brief account of critical attitudes towards Zola’s work before L’Assommoir, see Robert Lethbridge, ‘L’Accueil critique à l’œuvre de Zola avant L’Assommoir,’ CN 54 (1980): 214–23.

  10. 10.

    See, e.g., Un romancier, ‘Zola critique,’ Le Figaro, 15 December 1878; Louis Ulbach, ‘Notes et impressions,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 2e série, 22, no. 26 (28 December 1878): 612–13; Arvède Barine, ‘Les Revues étrangères: Le Messager d’Europe. Lettres parisiennes de M. Émile Zola,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 2e série, 21, no. 36 (9 March 1878): 850.

  11. 11.

    Édouard Rod, À propos de “L’Assommoir” (Paris: Marpon et Flammarion, 1879), 71–72.

  12. 12.

    See OC, 9:372–75.

  13. 13.

    See OC, 10:25.

  14. 14.

    Louis Ganderax, ‘Revue dramatique,’ Revue des deux mondes, 3e période, 80 (15 March 1887): 453.

  15. 15.

    A constantly recurring expression in Zola’s essays on the theatre: see, e.g., Le Naturalisme au théâtre, in OC, 10:26, 28, 51, 101, 105, 132; Nos auteurs dramatiques, in OC, 10:274–75, 373.

  16. 16.

    See OC, 6:602, 605.

  17. 17.

    Jules Claretie, ‘Revue théâtrale,’ La Presse, 20 January 1879.

  18. 18.

    In Émile Zola and the Artistry of Adaptation (Oxford: Legenda, 2009), Kate Griffiths discusses the ‘adaptability’ of Zola’s works by examining a series of ways in which he problematises the notion of origins and thematises, in his narratives, aspects of the process of adaptation which are also at work in the cinematic adaptations of his works in the twentieth century.

  19. 19.

    See OC, 9:324.

  20. 20.

    On Zola’s attitude towards genre, see David Baguley, ‘Zola and the Bane of Genre,’ L’Esprit créateur 25, no. 4 (1985): 71–79.

  21. 21.

    See the preface to the adaptation of Nana, in OC, 9:309–13.

  22. 22.

    On Zola’s early dramatic attempts, see Colette Becker, ‘Deux œuvres de jeunesse de Zola,’ CN 63 (1989): 189–92; Colette Becker, Les Apprentissages de Zola (Paris: PUF, 1993), 199–214.

  23. 23.

    Reviewers of the plays identified other influences; it was Zola himself who, in his preface to Les Héritiers Rabourdin, made a point of mentioning Volpone as his source, remarking that ‘pas un critique ne s’est avisé de cela’ [not a single critic noticed this], instead, ‘la critique […] m’a jeté à la figure des poignées de vaudevilles […] dont j’ignorais jusqu’aux titres’ [critics […] threw in my face handfuls of vaudevilles […] even the titles of which were unknown to me] (OC, 6:404). In his preface to Le Bouton de rose, he also identified Balzac’s tale as his source (OC, 8:489–90).

  24. 24.

    For the outline of ‘Un homme à vendre’, see OC, 21:561–72; see also Jacqueline Frichet-Rechou, ‘“Nantas”: De la nouvelle au drame,’ CN 41 (1971): 22–34.

  25. 25.

    For this adaptation, whose manuscript has been lost, see Janice Best, Expérimentation et adaptation: Essai sur la méthode naturaliste d’Émile Zola (Paris: José Corti, 1986), 22–23; Becker, Les Apprentissages de Zola, 322–23. For reviews of the play, see H. Mauris, ‘Causerie dramatique,’ Le Mémorial d’Aix, 31e année, no. 41 (13 October 1867): 2; anonymous, ‘Chronique locale,’ Le Sémaphore de Marseille, 8 October 1867.

  26. 26.

    The practice of turning plays into novels was less common than the stage adaptation of novels and it was mostly the case with unsuccessful plays: for examples of this practice by Dumas, see Claude Schopp, ‘Le Théâtre-roman d’Alexandre Dumas, ou métamorphoses du drame disgracié,’ in Montaclair, Roman-feuilleton et théâtre, 113–36.

  27. 27.

    On the dramatic structure of the novel, see Best, Expérimentation et adaptation, 43–52 and Blandine Rickert, ‘Thérèse Raquin: Observations sur la structure dramatique du roman,’ CN 55 (1981): 42–51; on the dramatic qualities of his novels in general, see Colette Becker, Le Saut dans les étoiles (Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2002), 167–90; on his constructing the novels in dramatic tableaux, thus anticipating the strategy he and Busnach employed in adapting them for the stage, see Martin Kanes, ‘Zola and Busnach: The Temptation of the Stage,’ PMLA 77, no. 1 (1962): 109–15.

  28. 28.

    Henri Mitterand, Zola, tel qu’en lui-même (Paris: PUF, 2009), 3–14.

  29. 29.

    Best, Expérimentation et adaptation, 24.

  30. 30.

    On Zola and lyrical theatre, see Jacqueline Frichet, ‘Le Théâtre lyrique de Zola,’ CN 42 (1971): 171–80; Louis Bilodeau, ‘Le Rêve: Des Rougon-Macquart à la scène lyrique,’ CN 71 (1997): 239–50; Jean-Sébastien Macke, ‘Une adaptation inédite de la Fortune des Rougon: Miette et Silvère d’Alfred Bruneau,’ CN 77 (2003): 299–311; the section devoted to Alfred Bruneau in CN 82 (2008): 219–73; Jean-Max Guieu, Le Théâtre lyrique d’Émile Zola (Paris: Fischbacher, 1983); Alfred Bruneau, À l’ombre d’un grand cœur: Souvenirs d’une collaboration (Geneva: Slatkine, 1980); Carter, Zola and the Theater, 170–99; Henri Mitterand, ‘Zola et la scène lyrique: “L’Ouragan”,’ in Champ littéraire fin de siècle autour de Zola, ed. Béatrice Laville (Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2004), 29–39; Elizabeth Emery, ‘Naturalism on Stage: The Performance and Reception of Zola’s Messidor,’ in Novel Stages: Drama and the Novel in Nineteenth-Century France, ed. Pratima Prasad and Susan McCready (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007), 126–54.

  31. 31.

    Chabrillat, the director of the Ambigu-Comique also asked Adolphe Dennery to collaborate in the creation of L’Assommoir but Zola made it clear that they did not wish to work with him: see Henri Mitterand, Zola, 3 vols (Paris: Fayard, 2001), 2:478–79, 480n2. In an 1891 interview, Zola would claim that it was Dennery who decided that his help was not needed: see OC, 14:602.

  32. 32.

    Kanes, ‘Zola and Busnach,’ 110.

  33. 33.

    Émile Zola, Germinal: Drame inédit en 5 actes et 12 tableaux, ed. James B. Sanders (Québec: Editions du Préambule, 1989), 10, 14. The play is also reprinted in OC, 21:425–556.

  34. 34.

    Un monsieur de l’orchestre, ‘La Soirée théâtrale: L’Assommoir,’ Le Figaro, 19 January 1879; François Oswald, ‘La Représentation,’ Le Gaulois, 20 January 1879; anonymous, ‘Théâtres,’ Gazette anecdotique, 12e année, 1, no. 4 (28 February 1887): 117–19.

  35. 35.

    Théodore Massiac, ‘Critique dramatique,’ Revue moderne et naturaliste 1 (1878–79): 153–54; H. Pene, ‘Ambigu-Comique,’ Paris-Journal, 21 January 1879; ZZ., ‘L’Assommoir à l’Ambigu,’ Le Figaro, 18 January 1879; Claretie, ‘Revue théâtrale’; Clément Caraguel, ‘La Semaine dramatique,’ Journal des débats, 30 May 1881; Léon Chapron, ‘La Première de Nana,’ Gil Blas, 31 January 1881; Gramont, ‘Dramaturges et romanciers: Le Théâtre de M. Zola,’ Revue d’art dramatique 5 (15 February 1887): 198; Francisque Sarcey, Quarante ans de théâtre (feuilletons dramatiques), 8 vols (Paris: Bibliothèque des Annales politiques et littéraires, 1900–2), 7:43, 53–54. Even Paul Alexis treats Zola’s refusal to reveal his involvement as ‘une simple attitude littéraire qu’il entendait garder’ [a simple literary attitude that he meant to keep]: see Paul Alexis , Émile Zola: Notes d’un ami (Paris: Charpentier, 1882), 144.

  36. 36.

    On Busnach and Zola as collaborators or co-authors, see Théodore Massiac, ‘Le Théâtre moderne,’ Revue moderne et naturaliste 1 (1878–79): 602; Maxime Gaucher, ‘Causerie littéraire,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 2e série, 23, no. 30 (25 January 1879): 708; A. X., ‘Les Grandes Premières: Théâtre de l’Ambigu-Comique, L’Assommoir,’ Le Gaulois, 20 January 1879; Auguste Vitu, ‘Premières représentations,’ Le Figaro, 14 December 1883; Sarcey, Quarante ans de théâtre, 7:31–32; Un monsieur de l’orchestre, ‘Pot-Bouille,’ Le Figaro, 14 December 1883; Ganderax, ‘Revue dramatique,’ 459; Stéphane Mallarmé, ‘Notes sur le théâtre,’ La Revue indépendante, n.s., 2, no. 5 (March 1887): 389; Henri de Lapommeraye, ‘Critique dramatique,’ Paris, 28 February 1887; Corbinelli, ‘Germinal au théâtre,’ La Revue socialiste 7, no. 42 (1888): 638; Robert Dorsel, ‘Causerie dramatique,’ Le Moniteur universel, 30 April 1888; Jean Lorrain, ‘Une mauvaise action,’ L’Événement, 26 April 1888; Aurélien Scholl, ‘Courrier de Paris,’ L’Événement, 27 April 1888; Fernand Bourgeat, ‘Germinal,’ Gil Blas, 23 April 1888.

  37. 37.

    Henri de Lapommeraye, ‘Critique dramatique,’ Paris, 21 February 1887; Gustave Kahn, ‘Chronique de la littérature et de l’art,’ La Revue indépendante, n.s., 7, no. 19 (May 1888): 365; Edmond Villetard, ‘Causerie,’ Le Moniteur universel, 30 April 1888; Albert Wolff, ‘Courrier de Paris,’ Le Figaro, 24 April 1888.

  38. 38.

    Auguste Vitu, ‘Premières représentations: Théâtre de Paris, Le Ventre de Paris,’ Le Figaro, 19 February 1887.

  39. 39.

    Xavier Aubryet, ‘Premières représentations: Théâtre de la Renaissance,’ Paris-Journal, 14 July 1873; Daniel Bernard, ‘Théâtre,’ L’Union, 14 July 1873; Lucien Biart, ‘Le Mouvement dramatique et littéraire,’ La France, 14 July 1873; François Oswald, ‘Théâtres: Renaissance, Thérèse Raquin,’ Le Gaulois, 13 July 1873; anonymous, ‘Théâtres,’ La République française, 20 July 1873.

  40. 40.

    Henri Chabrillat, ‘Critique dramatique,’ L’Événement, 15 July 1873; Paul Foucher, ‘Théâtres,’ L’Opinion nationale, 21 July 1873.

  41. 41.

    Camille Pelletan, ‘Thérèse Raquin,’ La Renaissance littéraire et artistique 2, no. 24 (20 July 1873): 186–87.

  42. 42.

    See, e.g., Théodore de Banville, ‘Revue dramatique et littéraire,’ Le National, 9 November 1874; E. D. de Bieville, ‘Revue des théâtres,’ Le Siècle, 9 November 1874.

  43. 43.

    Sarcey, ‘Chronique théâtrale,’ Le Temps, 13 May 1878.

  44. 44.

    Massiac, ‘Critique dramatique,’ 153–54.

  45. 45.

    Alphonse Daudet, ‘Revue dramatique: Palais Royal, Bouton de rose,’ Le Journal officiel, 13 May 1878.

  46. 46.

    Spiridion [Frantz Jourdain], ‘Lettre parisienne,’ Le Phare de la Loire, 7 February 1879; Rod, À propos de “L’Assommoir”, 79–82.

  47. 47.

    A. X., ‘Les Grandes Premières’; Massiac, ‘Le Théâtre moderne,’ 604; Francisque Sarcey, ‘Chronique théâtrale,’ Le Temps, 1 September 1879; Auguste Vitu, ‘Premières représentations,’ Le Figaro, 20 January 1879.

  48. 48.

    Massiac, ‘Le Théâtre moderne,’ 602; Rod, À propos de “L’Assommoir”, 79; G. Dancourt, ‘M. É. Zola et son école: L’Assommoir au théâtre,’ Revue générale 29, no. 2 (1879): 285; Pene, ‘Ambigu-Comique’; Sarcey, Quarante ans de théâtre, 7:16–17.

  49. 49.

    Dancourt, ‘M. É. Zola et son école,’ 286.

  50. 50.

    Rod, À propos de “L’Assommoir”, 79–82.

  51. 51.

    Henri Fouquier, ‘Causerie dramatique,’ Le XIX e siècle, 21 January 1879.

  52. 52.

    Gaucher, ‘Causerie littéraire,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 2e série, 23, no. 30 (25 January 1879): 708–09.

  53. 53.

    Claretie, ‘Revue théâtrale’.

  54. 54.

    Sarcey, Quarante ans de théâtre, 7:13.

  55. 55.

    Anonymous, ‘Nana,’ L’Art moderne, 1re année, no. 11 (15 May 1881): 82.

  56. 56.

    Auguste Vitu, ‘Premières représentations,’ Le Figaro, 30 January 1881; anonymous, ‘La Quinzaine,’ Gazette anecdotique, 5e année, 1, no. 3 (15 February 1881): 66; Fourcaud, ‘Le Théâtre,’ La Vie moderne, 3e année, no. 6 (5 February 1881): 90.

  57. 57.

    Francisque Sarcey, ‘Chronique théâtrale,’ Le Temps, 31 January 1881.

  58. 58.

    Gustave Frederix, ‘Nana,’ L’Indépendance belge, 6 May 1881.

  59. 59.

    For the numerous changes in the structure of the play both before and after the premiere, see Best, Expérimentation et adaptation, 99–101.

  60. 60.

    See Maxime Gaucher, ‘Causerie littéraire,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 3e série, 1, no. 6 (5 February 1881): 186.

  61. 61.

    H. Pene, ‘Les Premières,’ Le Gaulois, 14 December 1883.

  62. 62.

    Maxime Gaucher, ‘Causerie littéraire,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 3e série, 32, no. 25 (22 December 1883): 793.

  63. 63.

    Ganderax, ‘Revue dramatique,’ 459–64; Un monsieur de l’orchestre, ‘La Soirée théâtrale: Le Ventre de Paris,’ Le Figaro, 19 February 1887.

  64. 64.

    Lapommeraye, ‘Critique dramatique,’ Paris, 21 February 1887; Sarcey, Quarante ans de théâtre, 7:51; Émile Marsy, ‘Les Théâtres,’ Le Rappel, 20 February 1887.

  65. 65.

    Gramont, ‘Dramaturges et romanciers,’ 202–03.

  66. 66.

    Paul Alexis, ‘Les Premières,’ Le Cri du peuple, 24 April 1888.

  67. 67.

    Wolff, ‘Courrier de Paris’. See also Kahn, ‘Chronique de la littérature et de l’art,’ 365; Auguste Vitu, ‘Premières représentations,’ Le Figaro, 22 April 1888.

  68. 68.

    Dorsel, ‘Causerie dramatique’. On the reception of the adaptations, see also Agnès Sandras-Fraysse, ‘L’Opinion devant les adaptations théâtrales de Zola: Busnach, cornac ou prête-nom,’ CN 80 (2006): 195–213.

  69. 69.

    See his similar statements on the occasion of the stage adaptation of Au bonheur des dames by Raoul de Saint-Arroman and Charles Hugot in 1896 (OC, 16:929).

  70. 70.

    Zola categorically denied his involvement in the first three adaptations (L’Assommoir, Nana, Pot-Bouille). It seems that the first initially indirect admissions of his participation in the creation of the adaptations were made when Germinal was censored. While the first draft of the play had been written by Zola, it was meant to be staged as a play by Busnach. In detailing their dealings with the censors, on 29 October 1885, he refers to the play as ‘le drame tiré de mon roman par M. William Busnach’ [the play M. William Busnach has based on my novel] (OC, 12:841) but uses ‘nous’ throughout the article without suppressing his involvement in the process. When, on 29 January 1887, he returns to the issue of censorship, he refers casually to Busnach as his ‘collaborateur’ (OC, 21:589), while, on 19 February 1887, one of the tableaux from the adaptation of Le Ventre de Paris is published in Le Figaro and signed by Zola, who speaks openly in his interview about his collaboration with Busnach. In an interview later in the same year (31 October 1887), as soon as the ban on Germinal was lifted, Zola proclaims Busnach ‘le véritable auteur de la pièce’ [the true author of the play] but uses ‘nous’ when talking about censorship, the changes made to the play, and its staging (OC, 13:810–12). It is only after Albert Wolff’s scathing review of Germinal, in which he accuses Zola of denying his involvement in the plays while receiving his share of the rights (see Wolff, ‘Courier de Paris’), that Zola declares that ‘le drame est entièrement de moi, […] Busnach n’en a pas écrit une seule ligne’ [the play is all mine, […] Busnach has not written a single line of it] (Émile Zola, ‘Germinal,’ Le Figaro, 25 April 1888).

  71. 71.

    ZC, 3:139 (letter to Flaubert, 12 October 1877). Zola’s correspondence offers ample evidence of his active collaboration : for his comments to Busnach’s script and the changes he asks for, see, e.g., 3:93–98 and 106–107 (19 and 23 August 1877 to Busnach). In his letters to friends he admits that he has actively collaborated and does not want anyone to know: see, e.g., 3:113–14 (2 September 1877 to Hennique); 133 (17 September 1877 to Flaubert). For another instance of Zola exaggerating his role in private, according to Edmond de Goncourt, see Journal, 2:812–13 (18 January 1879).

  72. 72.

    Zola also reviews L’Hôtel Godelot as a play written by H. Crisafulli and Victorien Sardou, even though it was only signed by the former: see OC, 7:636.

  73. 73.

    See F. Lefranc, ‘La Nouvelle Phèdre,’ Revue d’art dramatique 6 (1 May 1887): 159–61; Émile Morlot, ‘Critique dramatique,’ Revue d’art dramatique 6 (1 May 1887): 174–75.

  74. 74.

    The novel was adapted by Busnach but was never staged nor published, even though Zola announced it in an interview in 1891 and declared that it would be published with Germinal and Le Ventre de Paris (OC, 14:603); see also Carter, Zola and the Theater, 101, 148–49; Martin Kanes, Zola’s “La Bête humaine”: A Study in Literary Creation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 131–32.

  75. 75.

    Un monsieur de l’orchestre, ‘Pot-Bouille’.

  76. 76.

    Maxime Gaucher, ‘Causerie littéraire,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 2e série, 23, no. 15 (12 October 1878): 357.

  77. 77.

    Colette Becker, ‘Zola et le mélodrame,’ in Zola and the Craft of Fiction (Essays in Honour of F. W. J. Hemmings), ed. Robert Lethbridge and Terry Keefe (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1990), 53–66; according to Sanders, Zola seems to have always had a tendency towards melodrama which his collaboration with Busnach reinforced: James B. Sanders, ‘Germinal mis en pièce(s),’ CN 54 (1980): 69.

  78. 78.

    See Chantal Pierre-Gnassounou, ‘Zola and the Art of Fiction,’ in The Cambridge Companion to Zola, ed. Brian Nelson (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), 86.

  79. 79.

    Martin Kanes, ‘Germinal, Drama and Dramatic Structure,’ Modern Philology 61, no. 1 (1963): 13.

  80. 80.

    On the adaptation of L’Assommoir, see Sanders, ‘Busnach, Zola et le drame de L’Assommoir’. On the changes to Nana and Pot-Bouille and on Zola unwillingly agreeing with Busnach’s suggestion to centre the plays around Nana and the Josserand family, respectively, see Best, Expérimentation et adaptation, 99–101, 113–14. Le Ventre de Paris seems to have differed considerably from the novel, as one can gather from the reviews of the play.

  81. 81.

    NAF 10271, fo 158.

  82. 82.

    NAF 10271, fo 159.

  83. 83.

    Ibid.

  84. 84.

    NAF 10271, fo 164.

  85. 85.

    NAF 10271, fo 160.

  86. 86.

    NAF 10271, fo 165.

  87. 87.

    NAF 10271, fo 167.

  88. 88.

    NAF 10271, fo 160.

  89. 89.

    NAF 10271, fo 167.

  90. 90.

    NAF 10271, fos 168–69.

  91. 91.

    NAF 10271, fo 86.

  92. 92.

    NAF 10271, fo 170.

  93. 93.

    NAF 10271, fo 135.

  94. 94.

    NAF 10271, fo 162.

  95. 95.

    It was Zola who insisted on modifying Virginie’s character and turning her into a melodramatic ‘traitor’: see his letters to Busnach, ZC, 3:93–95 (19 August 1877), 106 (23 August 1877). See also Best, Expérimentation et adaptation, 7; Kelly Basilio, ‘Les Mystères de Virginie,’ CN 71 (1997): 151–56.

  96. 96.

    William Busnach, Trois pièces (Paris: G. Charpentier et Cie, 1884), 64.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., 120.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., 142, 147.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., 156, 178–79.

  100. 100.

    NAF 10307, fo 405.

  101. 101.

    NAF 10307, fos 413–14.

  102. 102.

    NAF 10307, fo 415.

  103. 103.

    NAF 10307, fos 417–18.

  104. 104.

    NAF 10307, fo 468.

  105. 105.

    NAF 10307, fo 417.

  106. 106.

    NAF 10307, fos 428–32.

  107. 107.

    NAF 10307, fos 451–52.

  108. 108.

    NAF 10307, fo 489. For a comparison of the endings of the novel and the play, see also James B. Sanders, ‘Le Dénouement de Germinal, roman et drame,’ Cahiers de l’U.E.R. Froissart, no. 5 (1980): 81–89.

  109. 109.

    See Busnach, Trois pièces, 78–80, 323, 480–82.

  110. 110.

    OC, 21:513, 515.

  111. 111.

    The first version of the scenario I have cited above occurs in 1865 and one of the last iterations occurs in an interview in 1893 (OC, 15:687–89), which coincides with Zola’s turn towards lyrical drama.

  112. 112.

    See, e.g., OC, 7:593–98, 631, 680–81, 691; 9:371–93; 10:23–33.

  113. 113.

    See OC, 7:596 and 6:616, respectively. See also 6:314; 9:392; 10:42, 46–47.

  114. 114.

    Zola continued to insist on the theory of the gradual introduction of truth to the stage even after the end of his collaboration with Busnach: ‘Rien ne se fait du jour au lendemain. On arrive à mettre peu à peu sur la scène des œuvres de vérité de plus en plus grande. Attendons. Le théâtre est toujours en retard sur le reste de la littérature’ [Nothing is done overnight. We manage little by little to put on stage works of more and more truth. Let’s wait. The theatre is always slow to follow the rest of literature]. See ‘Enquête sur l’évolution littéraire: Les Naturalistes,’ [1891] in OC, 14:593.

  115. 115.

    Sarcey, Quarante ans de théâtre, 7:44.

  116. 116.

    Gaucher, ‘Causerie littéraire,’ La Revue politique et littéraire, 2e série, 23, no. 30 (25 January 1879): 708.

  117. 117.

    Rod, À propos de “L’Assommoir”, 52.

  118. 118.

    Caraguel, ‘La Semaine dramatique’.

  119. 119.

    Pene, ‘Ambigu-Comique’.

  120. 120.

    Albert Millaud, ‘Les Concessions de Zola ou les métamorphoses de Germinal,’ Le Figaro, 9 May 1888.

  121. 121.

    See OC, 21:473 (Étienne), 469 (Souvarine).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, London, UK

    Sotirios Paraschas

Authors
  1. Sotirios Paraschas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paraschas, S. (2018). ‘Le collaborateur fantomatique’: Zola, William Busnach, and the Stage Adaptations of Les Rougon-Macquart. In: Reappearing Characters in Nineteenth-Century French Literature. Palgrave Studies in Modern European Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69290-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation