Archaeology of Decadence Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou's Theodora

102Boeck Chapter 4 Archaeology of Decadence: Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora Elena Boeck Born in the hovel, bred in the hippodrome, Theodora graced the throne.1 ⸪ Victorien Sardou’s Theodora (first staged in 1884) introduced mass audiences to Byzantium and literally created Byzantine realities for its spectators. In the process of selling scandal, murder, intrigue, grand spectacle, opulent costumes, and dangerous liaisons, the seductive performance of Byzantine decadence actively shaped indexical, iconic, and ontological frameworks for the Byzantine empire within Euro-American visual and cultural discourse. Acclaimed as the greatest spectacle of the nineteenth century, the play also became a major bane for scholars of Byzantine studies. Contemporary experts defended their discipline by disputing the authenticity of Sardou’s recreated Byzantium. Theodora actively participated in both academic and popular discourses at the time of Byzantium’s modern rediscovery—it introduced Byzantium and its 1 I would like to thank the conference organizers Roland Betancourt and Maria Taroutina for their invitation to participate in the excellent conference “Byzantium/Modernism: Art, Cultural Heritage, and the Avant-Gardes” (Yale University, April 2012) and for organizing this edited volume. My sincere gratitude to the staff of the Harvard Theatre Collection, Houghton Library, and the Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas, Austin, for granting access to their archival materials. I would also like to thank Robert S. Nelson for his role in building the impressive collection of nineteenth-century French publications devoted to the rediscovery of Byzantium for the Regenstein library of the University of Chicago. Bob Ousterhout joyfully brought Sardou’s play back to life at the Byzantine Studies Conference in 2011 by performing a scene as Justinian to Carol Symes’s Theodora. Last, but not least, I am as always grateful to Brian Boeck for his unswerving support, critical feedback, and patient proofreading. Unless otherwise noted, translations from French are mine. Souvenir program, “Lilian Olcott in Sardou’s Theodora,” 8. Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas, Austin, Bernhardt Collection, Box 4.8. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/9789004300019_006 Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 103 most famous empress to numerous nineteenth-century audiences, while its author claimed absolute archaeological verity and authenticity for his re-­ created empire. The following discussion will analyze Sardou’s contribution to the epistemological categorization of the Byzantine empire. The play actively participated in positioning Byzantium within an established system of knowledge. Was it Greek or Roman, familiar or hybrid, barbaric or civilized, Oriental or another Other? The acclaimed ‘authenticity’ of the imperial spectacle directly contributed to discourse about Byzantium’s place in the system of established knowledge, as well as to its moral and cultural categorization within historical narratives. The play also played a prominent role in securing Byzantium an enduring place in modernity’s cabinet of historical curiosities. Theodora of the Nineteenth-Century: Collaboration on Iconic Decadence between Victorien Sardou and Sarah Bernhardt Numerous discursive dichotomies converge in the person of the courtesan empress, whose life, as maliciously constructed by Procopius in the Secret History, was introduced to French readers in 1856.2 Instead of reconciling these dichotomies, Sardou reveled in them. At once classical and oriental, civilized and savage, tender and cruel, sophisticated and primitive, Theodora’s pedagogical body revealed all.3 Theodora was the most successful collaboration between Victorien Sardou and the tremendously celebrated actress Sarah Bernhardt.4 Bernhardt’s sensational turn as the empress Theodora opened in Paris December 26, 1884, and had an unprecedented run of 257 consecutive performances.5 (Fig. 4.1) This success was followed by a world tour, a revival of the play by Bernhardt in 1902, and multiple imitations on stage, and later, on film. (Fig. 4.2) Theodora has also 2 Fr. A. Isambert, Anekdota, ou Histoire secrète de Justinien, traduite de Procope (Paris, 1856). For more on the translation of Procopius in nineteenth-century Europe, see Silvia Ronchey, “La ‘femme fatale,’ source d’une byzantinologie austère,” in Byzance en Europe, ed. Marie-France Auzépy (Paris, 2003), 169, n. 2. For an excellent discussion of the revival of interest in Byzantium in nineteenth-century French print and intellectual culture, see Charles Diehl, “Les études Byzantines en France au XIXe siècle,” in his Études Byzantines (Paris, 1905), 21–37. 3 The term ‘pedagogical bodies’ is used by Mark B. Sandberg, Living Pictures, Missing Persons: Mannequins, Museums, and Modernity (Princeton, 2003), 21. In a discussion of wax museums he states: “these pedagogical bodies achieved their impression of solidity in part through elaborate theatrical staging effects that helped them to pass as living bodies of real substance.” 4 Bernhardt had an astounding knack for publicity and conspicuous consumption. By the time of Theodora, Bernhardt was recovering from various flops and financial miscalculations, and needed to revive her career and coffers. 5 Ticket sales amounted to over 1,654,000 francs. Jerome A. Hart, Sardou and the Sardou Plays (Philadelphia; London, 1913), 95. 104 Figure 4.1 Publicity poster for the 1884 staging of Théodora. Boeck 2 Cover illustration of Le Théatre for the 1902 revival of Théodora. 105 .Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora Figure 4. The following sample list will illustrate the point: Patrie! (1869—set in sixteenthcentury Holland). Le roi Carotte (1872—set in various locations. and Jean Léon Gérôme’s Chariot Race typifies Salon historicism. sensation. 81. This piquant detail titillated audiences and lent the performance a biographical and authoritative air. For a complete list of his body of work. 99. For instance.” Richard R. costumes. 1892).7 Before analyzing the ontological and epistemological discourses of Byzantium that Victorien Sardou engaged in. Eunuchs. Scholars of the Emperor’s Body Guard. Servants.” Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas. French Salon Artists. Victorien Sardou had a distinct nose for fashion. Bernhardt Collection. Box 8. 9 Blanche Roosevelt. New York.”9 6 According to Richard Bretell. Bretell. it concludes with the list of characters in mass scenes: “Officers. “Bibliographie de Victorien Sardou. and Member of the Academy of France: A Personal Study (London. La Tosca (1887—set in Italy). L’Affaire des poisons (1907—set in France. adapted … from “Sardou’s masterpiece. Bernhardt shared scandalous biographical elements with the former courtesan Theodora. Lords-in-Waiting. Ladies-in-Waiting. Guy Ducrey (Strasbourg. Fédora (1882—set in Russia). Gismonda (1894—set in fifteenth-century Athens). Ostiaries. By the time he turned his gaze to Byzantium. Austin. Cléopâtre (1890—set in Egypt). Thermidor (1891—set in France during the French Revolution). he had been wowing Parisian audiences with numerous historicizing productions for decades.6 The unprecedented complexity of the spectacle. “a crucial strand of Salon aesthetics during the first decades of the Third Republic (1871–1940): Jules Joseph Lefebvre’s Odalisque exemplifies Salon eroticism. Slaves.106 Boeck been acclaimed as Bernhardt’s best performance. .18. Goths. 1800–1900 (Chicago. and Incense Bearers. 1987). a clipping from a London newspaper of 1890 advertises Theodora as a “Play in six acts.” in Victorien Sardou. during the reign of Louis XIV). Fan Bearers. Aside from her artistic allurements. La Sorcière (1903—set in sixteenth-century Spain). 7 Publicity materials for the play consistently enumerate the types of characters who appear in mass scenes.” After naming 32 characters and listing the names of the actors. and marketing.8 He was acclaimed as “the greatest dramatic artisan of the epoch. 405–12. Author. L’Oncle Sam (1873—set in the United States. The grand spectacle tapped directly into the broader fashionable interests of the time: eroticism and historicism. un siècle plus tard. Nubian Dancing Girls. Victorien Sardou: Poet. 2007). see Aline Marchadier. ed. to the evocative sets and exotic costumes. celebrated recreations of Byzantium—from the loves and lives of its protagonists. Theodora’s prodigious success was primarily propelled by its spectacular. and massive stage presence of hundreds of supporting characters was a daring innovation that transformed the presentation of mass spectacle to popular audiences. Maids of Honour. including Pompeii before and during the eruption of Vesuvius). on a steamboat). 8 The range of historical periods and geographical spaces evoked in his plays is astoundingly extensive. sets. let us first briefly discuss Sardou and the plot of his decadent play. 9. and demonstrates. almost every thought that the player is to reproduce. Richard Howard (Evanston. This is the most wonderful book I have ever seen. Jerome Hart. is designated in full—the furniture. all have their role clearly marked out. Theodora. and the Byzantine Court afforded an unique opportunity for spectacular effects. 94.’ which ‘achieved pandemonium of costume.. Sardou. even more than the completed drama. similar to the manner in which a cartoonist would have worked in the twentieth century: The amazing mise en scène book. Sarah Bernhardt. Every movement. and movement of the performers on stage by articulating the movement and development of each scene in sketchbooks. every gesture. September 7. 35–36. Pharand.” L’Illustration Théatrale: Journal d’actualités dramatiques. et vous en aurez même de trop. which contains scarcely a word of dialogue. I complained of not finding some words I wanted. trouvez le geste. as he calls it. 1907. sets. coordinating and overseeing the staging. i. and shows the trouble the maitre takes over his plays. the Sardou spectacle would be associated with the bourgeois spectacle: “Theodora obviously presaged the bourgeois theatre so much derided by Brecht. 701. the perfection of the completed dramatic scenario. But he did not escape severe criticism on this very score…” Hart. 42. Shaw called Theodora “a vile degradation of the actress. This scenario.11 What is particularly pertinent for this discussion is that Sardou cultivated an image of a scholar and intellectual. and also enabled Sardou to indulge his taste for historical and archaeological research. Sardou and the Sardou Plays. engaging in thorough historical research for the writing and staging of his plays. the walls. The Oxford Companion to the Theatre (London. a huge volume in itself. ed. of the stage.’” The Diseases of Costume. and once. and said: “Le geste fait naitre la parole.” Shaw 18 (1998): 34.”13 He was also a man in complete control of his stage productions. He smiled grimly. Shaw termed Sardou’s spectacles “Sardoodledom. is an absolutely speaking score. and scorned by the intellectuals such as Bernard Shaw. “Théodora. Later. is like a general’s plan of campaign. and of the playgoing public. when submitting a scene to M.. the windows.10 He became a very rich man. Victorien Sardou. what Roland Barthes called the ‘debauch of imitation. 1972).” Quoted in Michel W. . It is an inductive sort of study.”14 10 11 12 13 14 Victorien Sardou. writing just a few years after Sardou’s death. trans. of the drama. was loved by the masses. frame by frame. Ill. “The Siren on the Rock: Bernard Shaw vs.” See Phyllis Hartnoll. Ibid. Roosevelt. the doors.. noted: “The selection of such a subject as Justinian.12 He was called “a man of deep historical research and a certain literary attainment. 1951).Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 107 and “Napoleon of the dramatic arts” (qualified as the young and victorious Napoleon). 2004). Victorien Sardou. he literally constructed the material world of the empire and shaped the subsequent discourse: In 1884. they also actively constructed discourse of a novel empire to the public at large. J. the star. Hagia Sophia. Spieser. Said (Leiden. ed. 93. S. and the breathtaking success of the grand. 1850–1950: Holy Wisdom Modern Monument (Chicago and London. having restored a residence of the French kings and decorated it with statues of sphinxes. 46–50. and exhaustive research. thorough knowledge of scholarship. while during the year he resided in Marly. When Duquesnel [the manager of the production] read the names of the personages of the play he was quite taken back. “Justinian! Byzantium!” It made one rather think of the institutes than of an historical drama. his reputation as a savant. it is not coincidental that following decades of Haussmann’s brutal modernization of Paris. Rome was not 15 16 17 Brander Matthews. 1919). and the author contributed to the construction of modernity’s image of Byzantium. Nelson. (New York.” in ′ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ: Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité grecque. Sardou embraced the recreation of rich historical contexts and cultivated an image of a savant and restorer of the past heritage. Sardou’s Theodora participated in and contributed to the discovery of Byzantium. they concocted from some known facts and layers of fiction.”15 He built his own legend with successful exaggerations and appropriations: he was in the company of Baron Haussmann when his old flat was destroyed by the wrecking ball of Haussmann’s modernity.17 The play. 5th ed. They were simultaneously reactive and proactive— they built on the established foundations of knowledge.-M. Roosevelt. revisionist spectacle caused a great deal of consternation to scholars. In the process. French Dramatists of the 19th century. In the more academic French circles Byzantium had been generating interest by the 1840s. as it changes or is about to change. 337–62. rising and falling with the weather. 201. Sardou was at that time almost the only author in Paris who had studied the period in detail. 1991). “Hellénisme et connaissance de l’art byzantin au XIXe siècle. Therefore. See Robert S. . “What a singular epoch!” he exclaimed with a not unnatural distrust. Because Sardou was credited with introducing Byzantium to wide audiences for the first time. 60–64. As we will see below.108 Boeck Sardou also had a keen nose for changes in fashion and in the public’s taste: “Sardou is a barometer dramatist. For Theodora Sardou insistently claimed complete archaeological verity. Sardou and the Sardou Plays. Hart. few but professional scholars knew much about Byzantium.16 for his summer residence he built a house in Nice that looked like a medieval castle. these declarations. passions. who thinks she is just a young local widow named Myrta and falls in love with her stupendous beauty. Sardou’s play was directly indebted to A. all the while yearning for her freedom and her beloved Andreas. Andreas (as a good Athenian) believes in good and just government and together with his friend Marcellus (head of the palace guards) he plots to murder the tyrannical Justinian. Although Theodora is an empress. Egypt was no longer fresh. and Byzantium offered an opportunity for a new type of spectacle and a bit of Parisian introspection.19 The play is set around 532 (before the Nika riot). For further discussion. “La ‘femme fatale. Theodora stabs him through the heart with her golden hair-pin.”18 The narrative of the play reveals tensions. she rushes to warn Justinian of the impending attempt (Justinian has grown suspicious of her absences). to Justinian. Theodora returns to the palace. with an Athenian sculptor by the name of Andreas. “Hellénisme et connaissance de l’art byzantin au XIXe siècle. Following evenings of passion with Andreas. 1975). in order to see the animals and to relive her days as a circus entertainer. Marrast.” 158–59. When Theodora learns of the plot. and the ‘depravity’ of Theodora’s character. Byzantium gave the play its fashionable decadence. La Vie byzantine au VIe siècle (Paris. “[d]ecadent Rome became pertinent to them as Frenchmen found in it analogies with their own world. Incidentally. and she tries to prevent the conspirators from carrying out their plan (because she loves one of them). in order to establish just government.” 350. for the decade of the 1880s was a “veritable cult of late classical antiquity. but Marcellus gets in and is captured by Justinian’s guards. Meanwhile. 19. both so that he cannot divulge her secret and to spare him from torture. The body of Marcellus is later interred in Andreas’s garden (which overlooks the Bosphorus). she despises Justinian (who is also not terribly bright).” Philip Stephan. would only partially recognize the narrative as told by Victorien Sardou. Theodora asks for a moment with him (worried that he would reveal her identity). Those who think they know the story of Theodora from the Byzantine sources. Andreas 18 19 According to Philip Stephan. where she successfully carries out the role of the empress. Every night she leaves the palace in disguise to roam the city and look for adventure. including the Secret History of Procopius.-M. As he is about to be tortured in the imperial chambers. she has not forgotten her adventurous and colorful roots. see Silvia Ronchey.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 109 new. As the conspirators burst into the palace. she manages to stash her beloved behind a secret door. Paul Verlaine and the Decadence 1882–90 (Manchester.’ source d’une byzantinologie austère. See also J. 1881). One night she goes to the bowels of the Hippodrome. . Another night she finds true love. When Marcellus recognizes her as Andreas’s girlfriend. which was then au courant. Spieser. fictional. for he still does not know the identity of his lover. Theodora. It also included extensive explications of Byzantium.” L’Illustration Théatrale. for the gypsy accidentally gave Theodora the wrong potion. who no longer has any reason to live. and the curtain falls as Constantinople is engulfed in flames. Once Andreas learns who she actually is. In the interim. and by means of his diplomatic mission (which includes a gift of superlative blond tresses for Theodora) positions France as a notable medieval kingdom ruled by Childebert. imperial titulature. speaks the second line of the play. mus­ tachioed. the cord winds around her neck. . Justinian now knows her secret and has summoned a eunuch to strangle her. After Andreas dies. court structure. the empress whom he detests.110 Boeck swears vengeance upon Theodora. She proclaims her love to no avail. who receives a crash-course introduction to the Byzantine capital and its inhabitants throughout the play (Theodora’s colorful past. when he beholds her in the imperial box of the Hippodrome (the kathisma). So what is the empress in love to do now that her lover hates her? Theodora goes to the resident Constantinopolitan gypsy woman to obtain a love potion to win Andreas back. The final meeting between the star-crossed lovers takes place in the palace. The gypsy brews the potion and gives it to Theodora. customs. She is able to pour the potion into his mouth. Theodora manages to have Andreas smuggled out of the palace. a newly arrived blond. its rituals. etc. Paris). where he rebukes her and rejects her love.20 Using this character. and practices. The text of the entire play was published in “Théodora. he believes that she has betrayed the rebellion. son of Clovis (the purported founder of the Merovingian dynasty and the unifier of French territories under one rule). Andreas dies in terrible agony. Sardou was able to simultaneously educate and validate his French audiences. does not resist the execution. “Théodora. Meanwhile. Since by now he has been wounded. This noble character is immediately foregrounded—he appears at the beginning of the first act. he cannot physically resist her. of course. Andreas has been arrested (through no fault of Theodora’s). and announces that she is ready to die.). and he curses her. for he does not listen.” 2. 20 Sardou. and sympathetic Franc from Lutèce (i. This was achieved by means of Caribert. The gypsy had brewed two potions—a love potion for Theodora and poison for Justinian (whom the gypsy planned to assassinate for the murder of her son).e.. Andreas soon learns Theodora’s true identity. This narrative of Theodora’s love and death was. and hands them over to Justinian’s servants. She takes off her pearls. Theodora is vanquished. She bravely bares her neck for the red silk cord. She also stated: “The actor … served the dual function of dramatic character and painterly figure. Sarah Bernhardt enjoyed success in nine other roles as a fallen/redeemed woman. 1971). and his costumed attitudes contribute to his transformation into a figure. 1887. 208.23 The melodramatic fiction was highly persuasive. Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend.” Ibid. 197. un siècle plus tard. every fold. but simultaneously pure Theodora here). Sunday April 17. E. She made sketches of every robe. The necessary ingredients included the dramatic central role of a vulnerable. the death scene concludes five of the seven plays which Victorien Sardou wrote for Sarah Bernhardt. the actor becomes a scenic element. “Bernhardt.G. not least because of the Sarah/Theodora nexus. When she returned to Paris she had com- . Taranow noted: “When a tableau vivant is struck. 226. Potter (New York. she journeyed to Ravenna and stood long hours in the Church of San Vitale studying the magnificent mosaics with their startling portraits of Theodora and Justinian staring menacingly forth from barbaric gold.”27 (Fig.3) She evidently did further research in order to get into the 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 According to Gerda Taranow. 114. Sarah Bernhardt: Ma grand’mère (Paris.G. transgressive. 205. reports the following: “Weeks before ordering her costumes. every detail or ornamentation.S.” Gerda Taranow. Taranow observed: “An important aspect of pantomime.” folder “Clippings 1880s.” Taranow. 1972).. Geller. 1945). Harvard Theatre Collection. 203.” Lysiane Bernhardt. trans.22 and the spectacular death of the heroine at the end (as a nod to Bernhardt’s fascination with death scenes). “Les Costumes: Accessoires ou actionnaires du théâtre historique de Victorien Sardou?” in Victorien Sardou. 357–67. Bernhardt made a pilgrimage to the church of San Vitale in Ravenna. Houghton Library. Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend. 91. Cordelia Otis Skinner. Box 2. Taranow.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 111 Theodora closely followed the recipe of successful dramatic plays that Sardou wrote for Sarah Bernhardt. Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend (Princeton. and triumphant rise to thespian power. and a kept woman herself earlier in life).26 and even “made sketches for costumes based on frescoes and mosaics.25 In order to connect with the subject. 262–63. The character of the courtesan-empress was quite close to Sarah Bernhardt’s own humble origins (as a daughter of a prostitute. spectacular success in La Dame aux camélias. 147. Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend. Taranow. In addition to the role of Theodora. Her predilection for such roles can be credited to her early.24 Bernhardt’s granddaughter wrote that her famous grandmother loved the role of Theodora—it was purportedly her favorite.” Sunday Herald.21 centrality of spectacle in the form of elaborate sets and costumes (creation of the tableau vivant). 1967). “Sardou’s texts … were constructed to illustrate the actress’s talents by providing her with situations in which she could reveal the maximum degree of femininity. Sarah Bernhardt Divine Eccentric. Madame Sarah (Boston. 4. contradictory heroine (the fallen. “A Glimpse of Bernhardt Off the Stage.” Ibid. Sarah. See also Céline Lormier.. G. 146. Portrait(s) de Sarah Bernhardt (Paris. Incidentally. San Vitale. It is certain. who was one of her.3 Mosaic panel of Theodora with attendants. and their grand spectacle in enticing the public with forgotten historical personages. see Ronchey.’” Noëlle Guibert. Bernhardt’s charisma. . “La ‘femme fatale’.112 Boeck Figure 4. To 28 pleted in detail a dressmaker’s design for each outfit. An observant contemporary consumer testified to the enormous power of Sardou’s play. Ravenna (6th century). Schlumberger was very impressed with the play and with Sardou’s knowledge of Byzantium.” I will not pretend to decide. ed. 55. role by reading the works of the renowned Byzantinist Gustave Schlumberger.. deserves his name of “the maker. by the manner in which he makes or establishes reputation. that the historian has but a poor chance of reversing the decision of a dramatist concerning any great character of history. the author. however. For Schlumberger’s recollection of the play. friends.” 155–56. 2000). as well as those for her stage jeweler. even to that death-dealing hairpin.28 This small cluster of facts heralded in publicity and accounts for posterity illuminate its claims of authority in direct encounters with authentic relics of the historical past. decisively proclaiming their vices. and affixing their places in grand narratives of history: How far the poet. and the star. and Sardou’s. the eminent emperor and legist. for the sake of such an impersonation. The estimate therein formed of Theodora places the empress in infamy below Messalina. have finally disposed of these characters—the latter especially.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 113 the list of those whom a writer has condemned to infamy may now be added Justinian the Great. Debidour to vindicate the reputation of the empress Theodora has opened up again the stubborn controversy of which Procopius’ ‘Secret History’ is the theme. A new discursive reality was created by Bernhardt’s charismatic impersonation of the fallen empress and Sardou’s opulent evocation of the unfamiliar and exotic Byzantium. Those who have seen the magnificent rendering of Theodora by Madame Bernhardt—the ripest. and his spouse. The talent of M. it would seem. and the exceptional vivacity assigned the heroine in the interpretation of Madame Bernhardt. art. M. Sardou’s drama in Paris. There is this to be said. and place it within the body of historical knowledge. the character of Theodora might have remained in doubt. Procopius. they not only superseded the academic rediscovery of Byzantine history. These theatrical pioneers of Byzantium were able to fix the empire’s visual form. and the genius of Madame Sarah Bernhardt. This is nicely confirmed by the opening sentences of an academic article from 1887: “The courageous attempt recently made by M. Debidour has revised and republished his earlier essay. her place in popular estimation is fixed on the lowest rung of the moral ladder. Sardou. the worst accusations against Justinian and Theodora rest upon the secret history which. however. articulate its moral character. is supposed to have written. The “Anecdota” may accordingly be by Procopius. Henceforward. and greatest piece of acting ever set before the present generation—will be content that. It is a natural result of tyranny that men who are compulsorily servile will betray the vices associated with the slave. As a fact. most sustained. the “creator” of the Theodora of the future is at least a member of the same profession as was originally the woman she presents. Sardou. but were also able to affect the subsequent discourse. in direct contradiction of his avowed works. Theodora. and culture. and has boldly . and so thrown into closest association with the emperor and his consort.” The Gentleman’s Magazine (1885): 310–11. In doing so. by the appearance of M. Stimulated.29 The Theodora of ‘history’ was thus assassinated by the Sardou-Bernhardt duo well before the curtain finally fell on the performance.30 29 30 “Madame Bernhardt and Theodora. the character of a woman who has been twelve hundred years dead shall suffer. who was secretary to Belisarius. however. Without the play of M. establish its cultural identity. The archaeological authenticity of the spectacle.” The North American Review 159. The promotion of the spectacle’s authenticity had a three-pronged strategy: Sardou-the-savant. costumes. Thus. see Diehl. was eagerly embraced by the producers and consumers of the 31 32 33 challenged a comparison between the Theodora of history and the Theodora of the stage. costly fabrics. a professional archaeologist. no. Sardou had insistently cultivated an image of a savant. and all Paris remembers how Mr. as well as he was acquainted with the subterranean passages of Byzantium. Sardou.33 This victory over Darcel was no small matter.E. Darcel. especially of Byzantium).” The English Historical Review 5 (1887): 1. “The Empress Theodora. and Sarah Bernhardt’s immersion into the character and re-creation of Theodora. for the authenticity of the spectacle. Schlumberger even compared Sardou to Charles Dufresne Ducange (the great seventeenth-century philologist and historian of the medieval period. Victorien Sardou. sets. “La ‘femme fatale’. and highly publicized debates with scholars. for instance. “Les études Byzantines en France au XIXe siècle. Jules Claretie: “[Sardou] knows the smallest turns. opulent gems.32 Following the opening of Theodora. “My Contemporaries: Souvenirs of Some Cele­brated People of the Times. See. long since been given to the other side…” C. his argument with Alfred Darcel (discussed below) was quite sensational. in turn. 65–66. at the time when he wrote Theodora. offered his audiences the immersive totality of a complete civilization. Mallet. the complete authority of sets and costumes created by Theophile Thomas from Sardou’s precise instructions. and public opinion acclaimed Sardou as the winner. vainly contested the historic correctness of the fork used by Theodora … [losing] the battle with this terrible and infallible authority. He has a knowledge of every century and its customs since the flood at his fingerends. elaborate fantasy. gardens.” Jules Claretie.” 156. while providing the author with the marketing edge of connoisseurship and novelty. the stones of Acro­ polis. This was demonstrated in a famous controversy … with Theodora. in his memoirs. This. The verdict of public opinion has. further burnished his credentials as the encyclopedic purveyor of authentic Byzantium. houses.114 Boeck The visual world of Byzantine decadence was concocted from archaeological knowledge. as brought to life in costumes.31 who controlled and authenticated every aspect of production with his encyclopedic knowledge: Sardou designs pictures. . Ronchey. and selective use of Byzantine cultural terms. it is true. For a succinct introduction to the scholarly contribu��tions of Du Cange.” 21–22. the notion that the true and unfamiliar world of Byzantium was revealed for the first time to mass audiences. Roosevelt. stage scenes. 453 (1894): 173. Bernhardt Collection.’ Signed Victorien Sardou. Manager of the Theatre Porte de la St. Martin in these words (in French of course): ‘I have looked into the present inventory. From various publicity materials.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 115 Figure 4.8. the kathisma ( from the 1902 revival). in securing the rights also purchased in Paris exact duplicates of the costumes.” 7–8. such as a souvenir program for an American production of the play.4 Set of tableau 6. “Lilian Olcott in Sardou’s Theodora. spectacle.34 The perceived authority and authenticity of Sardou’s Byzantium is demonstrated by such acts of faithful duplication. Duquesnel. The Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas. I would not ask of M. Austin. Miss Olcott [who played the title role]. Box 4. as used in the original production. properties and all other material. and if I were going to produce Theodora at this moment at the Porte St. Martin. Sardou’s “historical reconstitution” had now become iconic. . we learn about the central importance of the costumes and the sets: America has demanded this play since its first presentation. as the French express it. and I declare it satisfactory in every point. As to the correctness of these M. Sardou himself testifies on the inventory of the articles supplied by J. Duquesnel any other material than that which is here set forth in detail. 34 Souvenir Program. The sets and costumes occasionally superseded the plot and acting in the reviews.4). and the latter lap up milk porridge from a ladle. 4. which often offer descriptions of the play’s nine scenes (Fig. Houghton Library. splendidly decorated with rich Byzantine mosaics on a golden groundwork.” “Miss Lillian Olcott at the Globe in ‘Theodora’. with large folding doors wide open.” article clipping. where the keepers of wild beasts are lodged. and costumes as sensational (and the strongest aspects of the production) is attested by numerous newspaper accounts. The picture is especially fascinating. “Theodora”.”36 Sardou shaped the discourse on Byzantium and was shaped by the burgeoning archaeology of knowledge. disclosing the conflagration of the city of Byzantium. The decoration is according to the most accurate Greek frescoes. In the second act there is shown a reception room in the house of Andreas.116 Boeck The celebration of the sets.” . There are two scenes in the first act. and it is an agreeable sight to see the former yawn and stretch. The rooms open upon a series of gardens. Houghton Library. The interior of the Hippodrome is disclosed just as the games are about to begin. clippings folder “Theodora (2) Sardou. In the fourth act the first scene shows gardens and terraces of rose bushes on the Bosphorus under a dazzling midday sun.35 The authenticity of the circus experience and Theodora’s past life was enlivened by the inclusion of live animals: “A fine lion and lioness are displayed in a cage in the second scene of the first act. with a view of the gardens and golden dome of St. The second scene represents the vaults under the Hippodrome. The first scene in the fifth act is a hall in the imperial palace. Here is a perfect example from a British preview of the play: The scenic accessories of Sardou’s latest work. spectacle. owing to the admirable effect of moonlight. He professed familiarity with the work of 35 36 Article clipping dated December 23. 1884. The second scene is the Emperor Justinian’s grand state loge (called the “Cathisma”) at the Hippodrome. The model from which this was designed is the famous Galla-Paludia [sic] Chapel at Ravenna. In the third act is seen the cabinet of the Emperor Justinian. clippings folder “Theodora (2) Sardou. Sophia. Harvard Theatre Collection. are thus described. The second is the Imperial Hippodrome at sunset. Thousands of spectators are seen descending a splendid staircase. The first is a magnificent audience chamber in the imperial palace at Byzantium. Harvard Theatre Collection. and costumes of Justinian. which included travels to Mt.45 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Alfred Darcel. Contemporary archaeological publications directly inspired the set designs.” in Les papiers de Victorien Sardou. ed. Athos. perhaps not coincidentally.44 (Fig. and 46 (the saints from a drawing of a miniature from the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus [Paris. and the publication of Byzantine objects in French collections (also as engravings) which had begun in the preceding couple of decades. 104. Georges Mouly (Paris. see Darcel. See Charles Bayet. in fact.” ii. and others. intensified after the staging of “Theodora” in 1884/5. For instance. 2000). “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. See Bayet.42 Bayet’s L’art Byzantin served as inspiration for the church in the background of the first scene in act one (where Theodora luxuriated on her modernist peacock throne/bed). “Théodora.43 A number of background figures represented on the walls of the palace were also inspired by illustrations from Bayet. Claudette Joannis.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 6 (February 7.” 44. 1881). engravings of select Byzantine mosaics. Fig. 1883). See Edouard Gerspach. 4. For Darcel’s general comments on Sardou’s inspiration from Gerspach’s and Bayet’s images.41 Charles Bayet.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 117 Melchior de Vogué. quite abreast with the latest scholarship by selectively incorporating the newest publications and illustrations of Byzantine art. “Théodora. Victorien Sardou. 119. while the important Palais impérial de Constantinople appeared in 1861. 40 (the church of Theotokos in Constantinople). newly discovered Coptic textiles were an inspiration for one of Theodora’s costumes in the 1902 revival.” ii. 381. Darcel. His claims of connoisseurship can be corroborated by some elements in the sets and costumes. “portrait of Justinian” on page 55. “Théodora. 1885): 10. Some of the costumes and sets of Sardou’s Byzantium were.40 Jules Labarte.38 Edward Gibbon. Rambaud’s important article “Le Sport et l’Hippodrome à Constantinople” appeared in Revue des Deux Mondes 94 (1871). L’Art Byzantin. Some of the major works of de Vogué include Les églises de la Terre Sainte (1860) and Syrie centrale: Architecture civile et religieuse du ler au VIIe siècle (1865). jewelry. La Mosaique (Paris.5. He had tapped into the academic discourse in France and incorporated newly discovered Eastern Orthodox culture through a myriad of publications. L’Art Byzantin (Paris. Preface to the 1907 publication of “Théodora. and. 510]).37 Edouard Gerspach.39 Alfred Rambaud. Gerspach’s illustrations in La Mosaique display parallels to the facial expression. Preface to the 1907 publication of “Théodora.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 2 (January 10. 1934). especially figures 46. Sarah Bernhardt: “Reine de l’attitude et princesse des gestes” (Paris. 59. Gr. Labarte’s richly illustrated Histoire des arts industriels was first published between 1864 and 1866. 4. especially figures 20 (drawing of a page from the Rabbula gospels). .6) Furthermore. 1885): 44. 6 Figure 4.5 Set of tableau 4. Figure 59. Figure 4. L’Art Byzantin. Justinian’s study ( from the 1884 staging).118 Boeck Figure 4.6 Charles Bayet. . By Victorien Sardou.47 Although the 1902 revival of the play incorporated stage sets and costumes from the 1884/5 production. Austin. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. they were unanimous in the opinion that it was the most remarkable scenic achievement of the nineteenth century. The costumes worn by the palace guards (observed a dazzled journalist) cost over 300 francs apiece.. Sardou. on occasion. At the very beginning of his recollection about the play. Taranow.”49 Sardou consistently sidestepped the inconvenient fact that his star had a predilection for a particular type of costume. Recently Revived by Sarah Bernhardt at Her Own Theatre in Paris (not dated. Sarah wore a dress of sky-blue satin with a train four yards long. the expenditure on the costumes and accessories was incredibly lavish and included work by famous artists. In the scene set in the Imperial box at the Hippodrome. acknowledged the imbalance: “Though the critics were at variance concerning the merits of the play from a dramatic and historical point of view. Sarah Bernhardt and Her World (London. 105–6.8). Sarah Bernhardt. 114. Joannis. presumably 1902). The success was prodigious. hip-hugging belt50 (Fig. This evocation of Byzantium was a revelation to the spectators. several new costumes and accessories were made for the revival. Simmons & Co. Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas. he noted: “[Theophile] Thomas designed the costumes according to the best documents. Joanna Richardson. Even the play’s publicity material. Never a histori­cal reconstitution has been offered to the public under such sumptuous and artistic conditions. including an Art Nouveau–style crown for Theodora. 46 47 48 49 50 Souvenir of Theodora.J.” 362. The effect of her body movements and this costume design created the impression for one contemporary critic that . even those of the eunuchs cost 125 francs.48 Sardou actively promoted the authenticity and historicity of the costumes.”46 The costumes for Theodora and the supporting cast captured the public imagination for decades: Theodora was renowned as much for its Byzantine splendour as for its action. 4. who created the empress’s bracelet. B. 123. Sarah Bernhardt: The Art Within the Legend. regardless of the epoch that she inhabited—an outfit with strong vertical lines that enhanced her serpentine form by means of a prominent. covered with embroidered peacocks with ruby eyes and feathers of emeralds and sapphires. 117. Portfolio 203. including Alphonse Fouquet. 1977). the sets and the costumes were also star attractions. Just as in 1884.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 119 Although the sensationalism of Theodora’s amorality drove the plot. 7 Figure 4. 4. and more dangerous for any object or crockery within reach.5. 265.10). 4.” folder “Clippings Plays P–Z. 106. Although Bernhardt’s costumes in Theodora were historically problematic. Bernhardt had five different costumes in the play (Figs. Box 2. bejeweled fabric constituted for audiences representational layers of authenticity: “The courtesan appears beneath the golden robes of the Empress. Houghton Library. Cold. I get into such a nervous state that I go to my dressing-room sobbing. “Letter from Madame Sarah Bernhardt. tableau 2.” Quoted in Taranow. Hart. Sarah. set. The layered costumes of embroidered. And if I don’t cry I have a nervous attack much more disagreeable for those near me. “Bernhardt. The costumes also served to emphasize the polarity of her character—the depraved cruel empress and love-struck girl: [Theodora] sustained in the palace all the dignity of her position.” .8.” Harvard Theatre Collection. Theodora and the gypsy Tamyris in the bowels of the Hippodrome (1902 revival).” Article clipping. haughty and unfeeling. she ruled with an iron hand.7 Théodora. they became absolutely sensational. Sardou and the Sardou Plays. 4.120 Boeck Figure 4. The authenticity of the experience was also propagated by Bernhardt’s own discussion of her emotional acting: “after the scene in Theodora where I kill Marcellus.”51 In all. 4.7. not only her people 51 Bernhardt in Theodora “twisted and turned like a serpent upon the cushions of her throne. … She hates and loves with equal fierceness. On either side of the centre ornament. which she wore in the kathisma scene: …gold and silver and set with gems. were two jeweled medallions of most exquisite Persian design and setting with choice pearls and countless small rubies.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 121 Figure 4. that contained some magnificent precious stones of real and rare Persian workmanship. and then a splendid jeweled head-dress. in front of the head-dress. But in secret she abandoned herself to the life to which she was born.8 Sarah Bernhardt in the most sumptuous costume of the play (tableau 6) ( from the 1884 staging). Bernhardt literally morphed into a jeweled idol.” 8–9. Box 4. A Boston newspaper thus described the most sumptuous costume. sapphires and emeralds. Bernhardt Collection.52 Thus. and were hanging ropes of pearls and rich jewels about Theodora’s neck.8 Figure 4. . Austin.8. and then a band and pendants about her waist and on her arms. They 52 Souvenir Program. Necklace after necklace was hung upon her shoulders. Harry Ransom Center of the University of Texas. but her consort. Her costumes quickly became legendary for the way she carried them off. “Lilian Olcott in Sardou’s Theodora. in her imperial role. j’avais cru qu’il avait eu également l’intention d’opposer interieur d’une maison grecque d’ancien style. were reflected in the sets of his house—a sculpture of Athena. very rare and very valuable. “Bernhardt. Harvard Theatre Collection. the preponderance of white in its architecture. à une sale de palais construite et décorée dans le style nouveau. Houghton Library. 268.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 6 (February 7.” It is not surprising that the noble Andreas is given the lines that definitively consign Byzantium to the Orient: “Nos matrons grecques et romaines allaient jadis par les rues.” folder “Clippings Plays P–Z. it is impure. “Théodora. Harvard Theatre Collection. Sunday April 17. Contemporary audiences embraced the contrasting styles as power53 54 55 56 “A Glimpse of Bernhardt Off the Stage. only in the character of the pure Athenian Andreas was there stability of representation and ideology. polychromy. Box 2. mais. They are very old. simplicity and ostentation. which reflected the long-established place of ancient Athens in the European cultural discourse. “Théodora. “Bernhardt. and … a perfect mosaic [emphasis mine] of precious stones.” Darcel. 4.” . This opposition was noted by Darcel: “M. a bust of a bearded man (perhaps Socrates? Pericles? Homer?).122 Boeck were about as large as an American silver dollar.54 The Byzantine protagonists are as ignoble as their taste: Byzantine decadence is conveyed by an overabundance of ornament. depuis que nos satrapes byzantins ont adopté les moeurs de l’Orient.” folder “Clippings 1880s. just like Theodora.” Sardou. appartenant à la Byzance de Septime-Sévère. The viewers are treated to opulent excess.53 Theodora’s body shares profound commonalities with the scenographic materialization of the Byzantine body politic. Ultimately.9).” Article clipping. Sarah. leurs femmes vivent cloîtrées et ne sortent plus qu’en litière. so is the reconstituted Byzantium made up of ideological and moral oppo­ sitions. love and hate. Sarah. 1885): 44. which was driven not only by publicity. Just as the lead protagonist vacillates between goodness and corruption. Houghton Library. Sardou and the Sardou Plays. Victorien Sardou opposant le caractère d’un Grec de vieille roche à celui des Byzantins. The aesthetic and ontological tension pivots between overwrought palatial aesthetics and the simplicity of the Greek nobility. his purity of thought and occupation. and were presented to the famous actress during her last engagement in London by the Prince of Wales. The hero’s admirably tyrannocidal (though ultimately homicidal) predilection.55 In Sardou’s reconsti­tution. 1887.” Sunday Herald. It is discursively ambivalent and visually divided. A contemporary commentator commented that in Andrea’s home “the furniture is the purest Pompeian. tête haute et front découvert. but also by a discursive association with moral corruption and the Orient. Box 2. and barbaric aesthetics. though. as well as the noble simplicity of a friendly meal56 (Fig. notably characterized the long train worn by Bernhardt in this scene as “the work of the most cunning embroiderers in Paris.” Hart.” 13. Although from a scholarly perspective his claims of authenticity are highly problematic. However. The opposition between the good Athenian style and the pervasive Byzantine degeneracy was occasionally articulated very directly: “in the atrium of Andreas. the simple lines of its pure Greek architecture contrast[ed] strongly with the bastard Byzantine of the other scenes. le talent d’une grande actrice [Bernhardt] auront plus fait que beaucoup de savants livres pour .10 Set of tableau 3. the house of Andreas ( from the 1884 staging).58 Their criticism of the play 57 58 Hart. Sardou and the Sardou Plays.”57 Much Ado About the Fork: The Authenticity Debates and the Burgeoning Archaeology of Knowledge Sardou staked his reputation on the complete authenticity of his spectacle. selective knowledge of the primary sources. whenever necessary. ful moral signifiers. Charles Diehl noted: “la curiosité d’un ingénieux écrivain [Sardou]. seemingly without extensive recourse to the specialized knowledge of academics. 266. a close analysis of his spirited defense of his connoisseurship reveals his extensive familiarity with ancient material culture. Many scholars perceived that Sardou’s “historical reconstitution” was hijacking the nascent field. and engagement with contemporary scholarship. scholarship was subordinated to the requirements of his artistic vision and the sartorial preferences of his star.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 123 Figure 4. For instance. Theodora’s Byzantium was troubling enough to some scholars that they challenged the veracity of the production in public debates over the verbal and visual aspects of the play. “Études Byzantines: Introduction a l’histoire de Byzance.124 Boeck crystallized around the central issue of archaeological veracity and historical authority—of Theodora’s character and of the re-imagined Byzantium. Charles Diehl. accused Sardou of violating historical truth: he was displeased that the Theodora of Sardou was not the Theodora of history.). Sardou’s recollection of the debate with Diehl was published as the preface to the 1907 publication of Sardou. who snuck her lover in through a window to murder her husband.62 Sardou also challenged Diehl’s assumption that Theodora behaved properly in her marriage and that therefore her nocturnal adventures would have been unfathomable.61 He further claimed that his Theodora did not exceed the liberties of a dramatic author. Ibid. Pétros Botzarès. Marie Antoinette of poison. Diehl particularly objected to two pivotal aspects of Sardou’s Theodora: the protagonist’s continued licentiousness after her elevation to imperial dignity and her violent death. But an end so obscure as that of Theodora authorizes me. but also Paul the Silentary. In the defense of his Theodora. This is a verbatim translation from the preface to “Théodora. He responded to Diehl’s charges by asking the scholar what he meant by the “Theodora of history.” iv. Sardou and the Sardou Plays.. 18. Sardou’s reply was astute. Armed with strategic knowledge of Byzantine imperial scandals.63 59 60 61 62 63 réhabiliter parmi nous l’empire grec d’Orient. n. Sardou responded to his eminent critic by pointing out that not all Byzantine empresses cared about etiquette. Sardou noted. A few years after Theodora’s premier. Sardou referenced not only the Secret History of Procopius. and John of Ephesus.”59 For. Sardou here invoked established discursive characterizations of Byzantium as a justification for providing his Theodora with a proper Byzantine end: It would evidently be absurd to make Mary Stuart die of consumption. which was based on the play. Théodora. Baronius. Quoted in Hart. Letter-preface. roman tiré du drame de Victorien Sardou (Paris. he claimed that there were only three historical certainties about Theodora—her marriage.60 Then. v. her behavior in the Nika rebellion. and her death. . “Théodora. the historical sources contradict each other (especially Procopius). Gibbon. a great Byzantinist. “Théodora. I suppose.” iv. in imagining for her a death more Byzantine than the real one. Ibid. citing the empress Theophano as an example. iii–iv.d. Jeanne d’Arc in her bed.” iv. going on the rhetorical offensive. despite the different end that he gave her.” Diehl. It was also published as a letter-preface to the novel Theodora by Pétros Botzarès. 95. ii.” in his Études Byzantines. ” And Sardou’s spectacle was the grandest that had been witnessed up to that point. He defended the plot by stating that he only gave his Theodora a single lover. Sardou and the Sardou Plays. 64 65 66 67 68 “Théodora. wrote a critique of the sets. contemporary.” only surpassed on its revival by Sarah Bernhardt in 1902. Hart stated: “[Theodora] has been described as the “greatest effort of mise-en-scene of the century. It also helps to explain the play’s enduring popularity—although the play invoked a different temporal framework.” Hart. Sardou. some seventeen years after its original production. Victorien Sardou re-imagined the exchange as a play-like dialogue. In his memoirs. what Sardou termed “historical reconstitution. 372.” iv.65 By the 1880s European audiences had been actively engaging for some time with different temporal frameworks—from art museums to wax museums. in the sixth century as in our [century]. It highlights the process of Byzantium’s discovery and positioning vis-à-vis the established body of knowledge. The debate revolved around Byzantine cultural realia. an established archaeologist and the director of the Gobelins. including materials. speaking about late-nineteenth-century mobility. 95. .Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 125 Sardou’s final defense. Missing Persons.. It merits serious attention because the debate presents a snapshot of the epistemological discourse: from the evolving understanding of the physical spaces of the imperial palace to the positioning of the empire as both part of and apart from the European cultural legacy. which was carried out with Alfred Darcel in print immediately after Théodora’s premier. Ibid. 6. Alfred Darcel. Theodora’s prodigious success was built on the audiences’ preparation for and interest in engaging with a spectacle of the past.”64 Therefore. there was no cause to argue about Theodora’s virtue. Letter-preface. and demagogical. styles. noted: “The impression of simultaneous presence in multiple places or durable presence through time sparked a collective. He concluded: “Under those circumstances.67 and vanquishing his opponent with statements like.” 362–83. on the subject of Theodora’s lover. this almost [makes for] an honest woman.66 Sardou’s other public exchange. concerned the authenticity of his spectacle. and relations to other cultures. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. public imagination of access and visual availability…” Sandberg. was witty. influences. “If you had also studied Labarte as seriously as I have…”68 Only a few days after the play opened. This witticism reveals Theodora as enactment of modernity. the boundary between past and present was blurred sufficiently for the audience to simultaneously feel comfortable and feast upon the exotic spectacle. Mark Sandberg. x. Living Pictures. giving himself the best lines. Sardou always spoke of this piece with special affection. furniture. Although contemporary academic views on the subject of the fork in Byzantium are somewhat 69 70 Alfred Darcel. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. the Byzantines who introduced the fork to the rest of Europe (with a story of the son of Doge Pierre Orseolo who married the daughter of the emperor Argyle [sic] and who brought the fork to Venice). Sardou positioned Byzantium as part of Europe not only as it related to this utensil. are dry academic prose. “Théodora. The debate was the talk of the town and raged particularly intensely over the following issues: Theodora’s use of a fork. civility. Scholars had to concede that the legacy of the Theodora of the stage was impervious to learned assaults from academic quarters. Sardou claimed to have proclaimed: “The fork is as old as the world!” He made references to specific museum objects. He also demonstrated his wit when quoting his critics on his manner of arguing: “For whose good is it to argue with Sardou? He will only respond thus: Why should Theodora be served with a fork. Darcel had objected to Theodora’s use of a fork. Sardou responded to this charge with a genealogy of the utensil. Darcel’s essays. therefore. “Théodora. and the exact location of the crypt beneath the palace. He contested their authenticity and disputed Sardou’s knowledge. 1885): 43–46. While current scholarly consensus would contradict Sardou on most of these questions. . the proper placement of the San Marco horses vis-à-vis the kathisma. 1885): 10–12. Sardou.126 Boeck and accessories. public opinion of the time sided with him. arguing that the fork had been completely unknown in Byzantium in her time. in Constantinople. the Turks eat with their fingers?”70 In his discussion of the fork and his selection of supporting evidence. when today again. Later recollections of the authenticity debate particularly celebrated the discussion of the fork. the presence of stained glass in its dome. and a great deal of humor.” 368.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 1 (January 3. Alfred Darcel. but also as part of the shared cultural space in regard to manners. Sardou further displayed his erudition by claiming that it was. such as a prehistoric fork that had been recently discovered in the cave of Fontarnaud and a bronze fork belonging to Helena (the mother of Constantine I) in the museum of Treves.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 6 (February 7. but it also engaged with the substance of the charges leveled against him.69 Sardou’s vigorous response brushed off the criticism as the envy of experts. and. Victorien Sardou. “Théodora: Réponse à M. Alfred Darcel. references to particular objects in specific museums. but they advance a forceful argument about the archaeological errors committed in the staging of Théodora. He then traced the history of the fork to France and to Renaissance Spain. the inclusion of pendentives in the re-created architecture of the imperial palace. originally published in Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité. in fact.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 2 (January 10. 1885): 4–5. they say.77 This was a reenactment of the fork strategy.71 Several features of Byzantine architecture. Buffalo. the history of the utensil continues to fascinate the reading public. and cultural sources. Phoenician. Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat (New York. 853–54.” 368.73 Sardou’s defense of stained-glass windows in sixth-century Constantinople rested on Roman. esp. London. 85–86. as well as archaeological evidence from Pompeii. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453: Sources and Documents (Toronto. The stained-glass windows. A small bottle of Tutmosis III in the British Museum and a vase of Sargon from Khorsabad were marshaled as evidence for the widespread production of ancient colored glass. In his version of the subject Giovanni Rebora took the same position as Sardou. see Bee Wilson. 2001). changes.” to use Robert Nelson’s turn of phrase). Hagia Sophia. his appreciation is conveyed for the varied and multicolored splendor of marbles on the walls and floors of the church. Culture of the Fork: A Brief History of Food in Europe. Herculaneum.76 The evidence and the argumentative arc in this instance aligned Byzantium not only with the old Roman Empire. Paul the Silentary. Paulus Silentarius indeed rhapsodizes about rich colors in his poem on the Hagia Sophia. to the royalty born. See Gary Vikan. Rome. His re-creation of Justinian’s study was considered particularly problematic for its dome with pendentives and stained-glass windows. trans. picked up her food with a fork. but also positioned it as an integral part of the ancient world as conceived by the contemporary European imagination (or “the European historicism of Western Europe. Sardou. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. The text is translated in Cyril Mango. Robert Nelson. Egyptian. Albert Sonnenfeld (New York. “Glass.” 371. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. claiming that the fork entered western Europe by means of Byzantium: “The [western] prelates roundly chastised a Byzantine princess who. Oxford.”72 The current academic consensus on this question continues to uphold the position of Sardou’s critics. 33. 17. . and Assyrian examples. However.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 127 ambivalent. 1991). “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. and a museum in Naples. it was simply a question of good Byzantine manners not to touch food with her hands. Sardou.75 The Roman evidence included windows of Caligula’s palace and Pliny’s house. Stained. while a guest in France. 2000).” 368. 2012). 1850–1950.74 as well as on a paraphrase of the sixth-century Byzantine author. Stained glass is attested with certainty in the decoration of Byzantine churches between the tenth and twelfth centuries. were also a major source of discord.” Giovanni Rebora. as well as academic narratives about its attributes.” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York. Sardou. For her. Sardou declared: “Darcel and Henry Harvard would not allow stained-glass windows in the study of Justinian. 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 For a recent publication. 371. were unknown in Byzantium in the sixth century. The final proof that he cited in defense of his stained-glass windows was Paul the Silentary. For this comparison. Sardou. which is didactically contrasted with the red-figure clay Greek drinking vessels in Andreas’s house. 371. the visual relationship to the Near East is strategically evoked in the ostentatious metal palace tableware. was borrowed by them from Persian art. Sardou was clearly insulted when Henry Harvard recommended that Sardou henceforth consult “professional scholars” for the historical pieces. which was employed by Antheimus of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus. Laos. “Pendentive. a close look at the surviving images of the sets reveals some notable problems. For both positions. Darcel found the presence of pendentives highly objectionable: “With regard to the dome. . even down to the clasps. 1623–24. “the scene is in contradiction with facts. the date of the rebellion which is the object of this play.”80 Sardou retorted to his critic thus: “But the dome on pendentives. The final problem with Justinian’s study was the dome with pendentives.83 Even though in this self-fashioned victorious dialogue. see William Loerke and Nora E.”81 The question of pendentives remains unsettled in the academic discourse.. see the cover image of Theodora in Le Theatre from 1902. 371. particularly with the Hagia Sophia.82 Although Sardou’s argumentation is intellectually sophisticated. Sardou appeared to have vanquished his critic. it also reveals another cultural dimension that suffuses the sets. For instance. thus pitting tyrannical opulence against democratic modesty. Ibid. Already Dar78 79 80 81 82 83 Sardou. Both positions are still variously endorsed. who (according to Sardou’s paraphrase) was enraptured with “the marvelous effect produced by the rays of sun streaming through the windows of Saint Sophia—colors of all hues!”79 Sardou’s deduction from this sentence was as follows—what other substance but stainedglass windows could have produced such an effect? In this exchange Sardou once again foregrounded his knowledge of physical evidence as well as his familiarity with the primary sources.” 371. But the dome on pendentives was not ushered in by 522. This hall is vaulted with a dome on pendentives. in the first scene.128 Boeck The windows stirred significant passion in both the accusing academics and the defending savant. and the costumes—Orientalism. The debate on this issue proceeded in a similar vein. Ibid. the plot.” wrote Darcel. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’.78 Sardou insisted that even the shape of the windows was authentic and was copied exactly from a bronze window found in Bordeaux..” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.” 368. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. Ibid. and that he only saw them at the dress rehearsal.85 The second distancing effect was to simultaneously deny the presence of any minarets and claim that they existed only in Darcel’s imagination.86 The final strategy was to blame the set designer. for it clearly reveals the great significance (and anxiety) that Sardou ascribed to recording and preserving memory by means of this new medium. and that he had confused the columns of Constantine and Justinian in the Augousteion with minarets. The first defense was to claim absence of historical knowledge about the appearance of the earlier basilica and of Justinian’s church. Missing Persons. Sandberg in Living Pictures. 4.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 129 Figure 4. noted: “The association between the wax effigy and other forms of recording was a discursive relationship.”87 Sardou claimed that the minarets only appeared in the 1902 revival. Ibid. … Photographs and phonograph recordings could themselves elicit .. and therefore archiving of memory. 373. is very important here.” 372–73.9 Set of tableau 1. room in the imperial palace (two slender minarets visible in the distance) ( from the 1902 revival). Ibid. Ibid. who “was more zealous then erudite. It was too late to change anything. “Polémiques a propos de ‘Théodora’. This attitude was part of the zeitgeist.10). cel had noted that the Hagia Sophia looked like its current Ottoman incarnation. Sardou used a threepronged strategy to defend himself against this very damaging charge.88 The finality of the photographic recording.89 84 85 86 87 88 89 Sardou. including two prominently visible minarets84 (Fig. since the sets had already been photographed. for Justinian’s original had been destroyed in an earthquake. 39. ” Gesta 35/1 (1996): 3–11. brute. Nelson. and nineteenth-century Paris. masculine.” Hart. 265. Sardou claimed that these mosaics (which he called frescoes)91 had been familiar to him for a long time.” Diehl. the Orient.130 Boeck Although in his self-presentation of triumph over his critics Sardou clearly demonstrated his learning and familiarity with scholarship. a large. foul. 1885): 70. Rome. daintiness. and that historical evidence could be easily sacrificed in order to please the star.92 While his other critics argued about the placement of the San Marco horses in the kathisma. “Études Byzantines: introduction a l’histoire de Byzance. but became discursively iconic.” 13. as well as the Parthenon frieze from Athens. Alfred Darcel. He would not admit that Sarah Bernhardt’s fashion was the ultimate measure for the authenticity of his own Theodora. continued to insist on the authenticity of Theodora’s costume. In a letter to Darcel. “Living on the Byzantine Borders of Western Art. It simultaneously incorporated the Arch of Constantine in Rome. Sardou’s supporter and admirer. and delicacy were entirely of his own imagination.90 Even though he referenced the Ravenna mosaics for Justinian’s costume.93 90 91 92 93 effects of both unusual presence and absence because of their privileged reputation as indexical traces. . Sardou and the Sardou Plays. See Robert S.” Jerome Hart. while she actually was frail. he did not employ this evidence for the garments of his star. not to mention prototypical Art Nouveau thrones and nude winged sculptures surmounting the structure. The character of Byzantium in a single scene vacillated between Greece. I would draw attention to the ahistorical bricolage of its interior space. He found that the representation of Theodora in the mosaics was problematic: “The artist created a Theodora of imagination. and to be feared. dainty. An influential article by a modern Byzantinist suggests that even today these complexities have not been fully resolved in the academic discourse. “Messalina. Charles Diehl quoted a contemporary characterization of Constantinople as “le Paris du moyen âge. The contradictions encapsulated in this (and other sets) also reveal the ontological complexities of Byzantium’s discursive journey among its possible ancestries and genealogies. even after Sardou’s death: “[In the first act Theodora’s] costume is a replica of the celebrated mosaic of the Byzantine Virgin [sic!] in the Church of Ravenna. Images like these truly expose the extent to which the past is a foreign country. his Constantinople was amusingly inaccurate. delicate…” This alleged frailty.” La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 9 (February 28. Despite Sardou’s vigorous defense of his authentic reconstitution of Byzantium. he glided over one particularly important problem with the play’s archaeological authenticity— the celebrated costumes of Theodora. but he believed them to be too Italian. Winston Churchill’s mother. “Teodora e i Visionari. made a spectacular appearance as Theodora for the fancy-dress ball at the Devonshire house on July 2. Throned the last scion of Slavonian groom. A rather bad poem by Douglas Ainslie. Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill. 1897. quoted in Martin. Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill. What further incense can my trembling plume Waft with those clouds that are your heraldry?— The Orient lightens in your pearls. Here is a stanza from the poem. and Other Poems (London. Letter dated to December 11. “Byzantine Decadence.Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora 131 Conclusion The image of Theodora perpetuated by Sardou would become firmly ensconced in the popular imagination.98 94 95 96 97 98 I am preparing a study. 2002). New York. Sardou and the Sardou Plays. Escarlamonde. apparently copied from the mosaic portrait in the apse of the church in Ravenna.” also exemplifies this point.” in “Humana sapit”: Études d’ antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini.J. 2007). Benjamin Constant. 265. see Elena N. “Sarah Bernhardt as Theodora Enthroned. 1897. Hart. with bleary eye. which appeared in Douglas Ainslie. 1893).96 Winston Churchill found that invocation of his mother particularly endearing and wrote to her asking for “some photos of you in Theodora costume—for my table. .94 Performing Theodora at society fancy-dress balls would become a piquant fashion for sophisticated aristocrats for decades to come. 74. 112. Silvia Ronchey. despite the best efforts of his critics. The discourse of authenticity was also applied to this costume: “It was a heavily embroidered Byzantine robe. print culture. N. Jean-Michel Carrié and Rita Lizzi Testa (Turnhout. high society. and by The tiger couchant ‘neath the lily’s bloom You sceptre love and symbolize the doom That blinded him who dared. submitted to the Salon images of Theodora and Justinian to the great acclaim of the press. vol. a popular artist of his day. and French Orientalism: Benjamin Constant Constructs Byzantium. a direct reference to the staged Theodora of Sarah Bernhardt. University of Toronto. 112. In the meantime.” Ralph G. Sardou’s dazzling and decadent Byzantium was evoked by artists.” Abstracts of the Thirty-Third Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. which will analyze this topic in greater depth. Gaze where above. 111. in height of empery. Lady Randolph Churchill. 1969). 450..”97 Celebrities enraptured by Bernhardt’s Theodora would also include Sigmund Freud. 130. who kept a photo of the actress in this role in his office. 2: The Dramatic Years 1895–1921 (Englewood Cliffs. Martin. Boeck. October 11–14. Ottoman Triumph. Jennie: The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill. 2007 (Toronto. ed. and film.95 She even carried a white lily. Martin. 99 For a brief discussion of this film. The play and its visual world. though shaped by the emerging knowledge of Byzantium. decadent pastiche that included such features as ethnographic nudity. Rather than scorn Sardou’s play for its warped vision of Byzantium.” 160. Byzantinists should embrace it as a didactic example for probing how we. scholarly preoccupations. The Sardou paradigm for Byzantium would remain powerful. Roman. frame. ultimately. “La ‘femme fatale’.132 Boeck Sardou. Sardou serves as a useful reminder that. decoration of the shields of imperial soldiers with the ChiRho (a nod to the Ravenna mosaics). and shifting paradigms. as testified. see Ronchey. . and rich textures profoundly affected numerous artists from Benjamin Constant to Gustave Moreau to Alphonse Mucha. gleaming surfaces. claim. and re-frame Byzantium based on our own fashions. By exposing the gaps in historical knowledge and proposing creative ways of filling them. and their sumptuous Byzantine spectacle created a long-lasting impression upon the popular and academic imagination. by the reconstitution of Sardou’s Theodora on the silver screen in 1922. Scholars have yet to unravel the extent to which Sardou’s perversely enticing Théodora directly contributed to emerging visions of modernity. Greek and Roman reliefs in the Hippodrome. Oriental. perpetuated the old dichotomies of Byzantium’s split character between Greek purity (and honesty) and Oriental opulence (and decadence). and a belly-dancing outfit for the imperial seductress. Sarah Bernhardt. we all create our own vision of Byzantium and we all get the Theodora we deserve. But Sardou’s aesthetics of decadence. Sardou created a space for constructing multiple Theodoras from the fragmentary sources and skewed contemporary representations of her. for instance. ornament. too.99 The new vision of Byzantium worthily celebrated Sardou’s memory with a Greek. Modernist Strategies in Architectural Discourse ∵ 133 .Uncovering Byzantium in Victorien Sardou’s Theodora Section 3 Byzantine Tactics. 134 Boeck .