¹ Ed. Livet (Paris, 1858), p. 86.

² Such readers as may have forgotten the intricacies of the Querelle, or who may not have at hand the references necessary to follow the question, may wish to consult the chronological outline appended at the conclusion of this essay. For a detailed treatment of the question, see A. Gasté, La Querelle du Cid (Paris, 1898).

³ It is generally conceded today by scholars of 17th century French literature that the knotty question of the Querelle du Cid—and the hand that Richelieu had in it—has been most ably summarized by H. C. Lancaster in his comprehensive study, French Dramatic Literature (Baltimore—London—Paris, 1932), Part ii, vol. i, pp. 118 ff. Mr. Lancaster here sums up the scholarship that has been done in the field, and advances not a few interesting theories of his own. It is for these reasons that I have used his work as a point of departure for my own discussion.

⁴ For Richelieu's attitude toward the trial by combat, see his Mémoires for 1626 in Mémoires du Cardinal de Richelieu sur le règne de Louis XIII depuis 1610 jusqu' à 1638 (3 tomes) included in Nouvelle Collection des Mémoires, ed. Michaud & Poujoulat (Paris, 1854), vols. XXI-XXIII.

⁵ For the history of duelling, see the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

⁶ See Mémoires, xxi, 373: “Les duels étaient devenus si communs, si ordinaires en France, que les rues commençoient à servir de champ de combat, et, comme si le jour n'étoit pas assez long pour exercer leur furie, ils se battaient à la faveur des astres, ou à la lumière des flambeaux qui leur servoit d'un funeste soleil. La multitude de ceux qui se battaient était si grande”, etc.

⁷ Mémoires, especially xxi, 81, 165, 373 ff.

⁹ Richelieu (Philadelphia—London, 1929), p. 64.

¹⁰ See Corneille's letter to Boisrobert cited in Gasté, p. 484: “Messieurs de l'Académie peuvent faire ce qu'il leur plaira; puisque vous m'écrivez que Monseigneur seroit bien aise d'en voir le jugement, et que cela doit divertir son Eminence, je n'ay rien à dire.”

¹¹ See supra, p. 725.

¹² Colbert Searles, Les Sentiments de l'Académie Française sur le Cid (Minneapolis, 1916), p. 22, col. E.

¹³ Cited from Belloc, p. 384.

¹⁴ Among these: La Défense des principaux points de la foi catholique contre la lettre des quatre ministres de Charenlon (Poitiers, 1617).

¹⁵ Instruction du chrétien (October, 1618).

¹⁶ The Council of Trent had defined duelling as “the detestable custom which the Devil had originated, in order to bring about at the same time the ruin of the soul and the violent death of the body” and had decreed that this custom should be “entirely uprooted from Christian soil.” It had issued severest penalties against those princes who should permit this vice between Christians in their territory. Duellists and their seconds were automatically excommunicated. In 1615, the Bishop of Montpellier represented the clergy in asking the King to carry out his edicts against duelling. In 1617, the Bishop of Aire appealed to Louis to carry out his edicts more strictly. In the Mémoires for 1626 we read: “Cependant on n'entendoit retentir toutes les églises d'autre chose que des plaintes que les prédicateurs faisoient sur ce sujet, et des justes menaces de la part de Dieu sur ce royaume, si le Roi, qui avoit en main sa puissance, n'y apportoit le remède qui y étoit nécessaire”, etc. Olier (founder of the Congregation of St. Sulpice) with the aid of St. Vincent de Paul formed an association of distinguished noblemen who pledged the following: “The undersigned publicly and solemnly make known by this declaration that they will refuse every form of challenge, will for no cause whatever enter upon a duel, and will in every way be willing to give proof that they detest duelling as contrary to reason, the public good, and the laws of the State, and as incompatible with salvation and the Christian religion, without, however, relinquishing the right to avenge in every legal way any insult offered them as far as position and birth make such action obligatory.” (See Catholic Encyclopedia under duel.)

¹⁷ “… si nous luy paroissions contraires en tout, bien qu'aux choses principales nous l'eussions censuré justement, nous passerions dans l'esprit du commun pour partiaux de ses événemens et pour juges injustes, ce qu'il me semble que surtout nous devions éviter, et pour le but que nous avons dans ce travail, et pour nous descharger de la haine publique, laquelle autrement nous seroit inévitable”—Lettres de Chapelain included in Documents inédits de l'histoire de France, ed. Ph. Tamisey de Larroque, (tome 78), i, 159, col. 1. Italics mine.

¹⁸ Searles, p. 21, col. A. Italics mine.

¹⁹ “Richelieu a-t-il persécuté le Cid”, in Rddm, April 1, 1923, p. 627.

²⁰ Searles, p. 6; also p. 18, note.

²¹ Ibid., p. 18, col. A. Italics mine.

²² Ibid., p. 21, col. E. Italics mine.

²⁵ Ibid., Plate v (MS, p. 9). Italics mine.

²⁴ Pellisson, p. 90.

²⁵ Lancaster writes: “What he [Citois] probably meant to write was: ‘L'applaudissement et le blasme du Cid est entre les doctes et les ignorans; au lieu que les contestations sur les autres deux pièces n'ont été qu'entre les gens d'esprit.’” His explanation is that the Cid was even greater than the other two plays as it had drawn the ignorant as well as the learned into the literary controversy.

²⁶ Colbert Searles, ed. Le Cid par Pierre Corneille (New York, 1912), p. xii.

²⁷ Belloc, p. 376.

²⁸ G. Saintsbury, ed. Horace (Oxford, 1886), pp. xiv, xliii, xlv.

²⁹ See supra, p. 735 and note 17.

³⁰ Italics mine. See supra, p. 740.

³¹ See Belloc, pp. 96-97. Also Richelieu's Mémoires.

³² Corneille will use Spanish themes again only after Richelieu's death, and then not in tragedy. (Le Menteur, 1643; La Suite du Menteur, 1644; and the first act of Don Sanche, 1650.)

³³ See Gasté, pp. 485 and 487.

³⁴ At the reading of a shorter version of this same paper at the MLA meeting last December, the question was raised: Why was it more ethical to kill one's sister (as in Horace which Richelieu approved) than to kill one's intended father-in-law (as in the Cid which Richelieu condemned)? Unfortunately, time did not permit the answer to this question which, in reality, is quite simple. Horace is laid in Alba before the advent of Christianity. When Horace kills his sister (not in a duel, but in cold-blooded murder) even the pagan father is infuriated and shocked by the cruelty of the deed, as is the audience. There was no danger whatsoever of seventeenth century Catholic France being affected by a pagan code of manners and morals diametrically opposed in every way to its own. Richelieu would have had no reason to suppose that this play would have a demoralizing influence on his people. In the case of the Cid, the action was laid in Catholic Spain where a duel should never have been tolerated. Now, this duel of honor had been provoked in much the same trivial manner as were most of the duels in seventeenth century France. Moreover, the characters in the play exalt the action and leave the audience to believe that the duel of honor is a duty. Richelieu had every reason to condemn the play for political and religious reasons, for as Prime Minister and as Cardinal he was bent upon stamping out duelling in France.