gives the following account of her connection with the Comédie:—
On the 1st April 1842 Rachel consented to become an Associate; but in 1849 she made a pretext of her delicate health, and, bringing her case into court, caused the contract that bound her to the Comédie to be legally broken. The fact is, that as an Associate she found she was not free enough to prosecute her provincial and foreign tours. She preferred, therefore, the position of pensionnaire, and the theatre was obliged to accede to her request. She was then re-engaged simply as a pensionnaire, with a salary of 42,000 francs, and six months' holiday. Two tears later a new caprice! She took it into her head to become a member again; the company consented, and Rachel became once more, in 1851, a sociétaire. The fact is, Rachel reigned a despotic sovereign in the Rue Richelieu, the actors blindly submitting to her slightest wish, even when against their own interests.
Védel then shows that her comrades' arguments were justified by the event. Large as were the proceeds when she acted, the annual profits of the theatre were not considerably increased. Everyone crowded to see her, and no other representation had the least attraction, so that what was gained one day was lost the next. She had become, as it were, the pivot on which the Comédie Française revolved; during her congés, her regular and irregular absences, her sulks and caprices when she would not act, it was impossible to keep up the receipts. From this point of view, Rachel's reign was rather unlucky than prosperous, so far as the theatre was concerned. The profits of the first year she appeared were relatively enormous. In 1838 she only gave six weeks of representations (exactly forty-eight evenings), which produced 170,822 francs, whilst the total profits of the year were 715,000 francs, showing that, over and above Rachel's performances, the Comédie had only realised, during ten months and a half, 544,178 francs. These large proceeds, too, only lasted for the first few years; as soon
