But Moliere has a weakness, too, for the bourgeois, and he has made M. Jourdain immortally delightful.  There is not a really cruel touch in the whole character; we laugh at him so freely because Moliere lets us laugh with such kindliness.  M. Jourdain has a robust joy in life; he carries off his absurdities by the simple good faith which he puts into them.  When I speak of M. Jourdain I hardly know whether I am speaking of the character of Moliere or of the character of Coquelin.  Probably there is no difference.  We get Moliere’s vast, succulent farce of the intellect rendered with an art like his own.  If this, in every detail, is not what Moliere meant, then so much the worse for Moliere.

Moliere is kind to his bourgeois, envelops him softly in satire as in cotton-wool, dandles him like a great baby; and Coquelin is without bitterness, stoops to make stupidity heroic, a distinguished stupidity.  A study in comedy so profound, so convincing, so full of human nature and of the art-concealing art of the stage, has not been seen in our time.  As Mascarille, in “Les Precieuses Ridicules,” Coquelin becomes delicate and extravagant, a scented whirlwind; his parody is more splendid than the thing itself which he parodies, more full of fine show and nimble bravery.  There is beauty in this broadly comic acting, the beauty of subtle detail.  Words can do little to define a performance which is a constant series of little movements of the face, little intonations of the voice, a way of lolling in the chair, a way of speaking, of singing, of preserving the gravity of burlesque.  In “Tartuffe” we get a form of comedy which is almost tragic, the horribly serious comedy of the hypocrite.  Coquelin, who remakes his face, as by a prolonged effort of the muscles, for every part, makes, for this part, a great fish’s face, heavy, suppressed, with lowered eyelids and a secret mouth, out of which steals at times some stealthy avowal.  He has the movements of a great slug, or of a snail, if you will, putting out its head and drawing it back into its shell.  The face waits and plots, with a sleepy immobility, covering a hard, indomitable will.  It is like a drawing of Daumier, if you can imagine a drawing which renews itself at every instant, in a series of poses to which it is hardly necessary to add words.

I am told that Coquelin, in the creation of a part, makes his way slowly, surely, inwards, for the first few weeks of his performance, and that then the thing is finished, to the least intonation or gesture, and can be laid down and taken up at will, without a shade of difference in the interpretation.  The part of Maitre Jacques in “L’Avare,” for instance, which I have just seen him perform with such gusto and such certainty, had not been acted by him for twenty years, and it was done, without rehearsal, in the midst of a company that required prompting at every moment.  I suppose this method of moulding a part, as if in wet clay, and then allowing it to