¹ Quoted by Dorcy, Jean, The Mime, trans. Speller, Robert and de Fontnouvelle, Pierre (New York, 1961), p. 43Google Scholar.

² Decroux, Etienne, Paroles sur le mime (Paris, 1963), p. 34. From a manuscript translation by Vincent L. Angotti and Judie Herr, to be published by ATA Books of the Theatre Series. The Paroles … is a compilation of lectures, essays, and the like, providing the only extensive primary source of Decroux's theoryGoogle Scholar.

³ Dorcy, p. 44.

⁴ This period of work/study is recounted by Barrault, Jean-Louis in his book, Réflexions sur le théâtre (Paris, 1949), pp. 20–24Google Scholar.

⁵ Decroux, p. 41. See pp. 39–42 for the context and full development of Decroux's assertion.

⁶ Ibid., pp. 42–43.

⁷ Barrault has, in fact, attempted just this in his theory and practice of total theatre—a synthesis of all the arts for the re-enforcement of the written text. Barrault's aesthetics differs little from that of classic, synthetic theatre with one key exception: he emphasizes the actor as the primary instrument. Decroux's influence on him is strong, but Barrault has assimilated rather than imitated his mentor's beliefs.

⁸ Decroux produced one such experiment in the previously mentioned Le Combat antique. Although the piece is a permanent and successful part of his mime repertoire, he has never again tried mixing pure mime with a written play.

⁹ Cited in Dorcy, p. 82.

¹⁰ The recent vogue of mime in the United States, for example, lends credence to Decroux's indictment. Mime is among the new fads in advertising (a sure indicator of popularity), and an increasing number of poorly trained charlatans have been giving the public a rather vapid copy of Marceauish theatrics. They, in turn, train others, resulting in a progressive dissolution of quality. These performers have condemned themselves to mediocrity, either from ignorance or from a preference to rely on the novelty of mime to attract and hold the public.

¹¹ Decroux, p. 75.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid., p. 48.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Etienne Decroux, quoted by Bentley, Eric, “The Pretensions of Pantomime,” Theatre Arts, 35 (February 1951), 28. If the reader is uncomfortable with Bentley's more European translation of “like the trucks of a goods train,” he may substitute “like the cars of a freight train.”Google Scholar

¹⁶ A duality of esprit and corps—of the spirit and the body—has been a source of argument among philosophers for centuries. Decroux does not defend his position nor does he disclaim (or even acknowledge) an alternate view: the duality simply appears throughout his writings as a matter of undisputed fact. His position on the subject is clear and purposeful. To challenge him on this point would be senseless because the question of duality involved here is an ontological, not an aesthetic, problem.—The translation of these terms is somewhat subjective: corps is clearly body—the flesh, the substance, the tangible and finite being of man; esprit has no clear English equivalent. It is not the opposite of body, but more the complement. Esprit is spirit, mind, soul, intellect, character—the breath of life that sustains man, placing him above the animals and just below the angels. Usually esprit translates with little difficulty as mind. Decroux, however, uses the word in a more religious sense and in lieu of a better term we have used spirit in this translation.

¹⁷ Decroux, p. 96.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 97.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 101.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 102.

²¹ While Decroux has had many pupils, among them renowned mimes such as Barrault, Marceau, and LeCoq, there have been few disciples. The latter achieve little fame and popularity because of their very apostleship. Maximillien Decroux, son of Etienne and Eliane Guyon (greatest of the female mimes), is major among them and practical head of the school of mime on the outskirts of Paris. Others include Pierre Very, Roger Marino, Franz Reynders, Willy Spoor, and Alvin Epstein.