n-ordinary
to M. Offenbach, for whom he wrote _Ba-ta-clan_ in 1855, and later the
_Chanson de Fortunio_, the _Pont des Soupirs_ and _Orphee aux Enfers_.
The first very successful play which MM. Meilhac and Halevy wrote
together was a book for M. Offenbach; and it was possibly the good
fortune of this operetta which finally affirmed the partnership. Before
the triumph of the _Belle Helene_ in 1864 the collaboration had been
tentative, as it were: after that it was as though the articles had been
definitely ratified--not that either of the parties has not now and then
indulged in outside speculations, trying a play alone or with an
outsider, but this was without prejudice to the permanent partnership.

This kind of literary union, the long-continued conjunction of two
kindred spirits, is better understood amongst us than the indiscriminate
collaboration which marks the dramatic career of M. Eugene Labiche, for
instance. Both kinds were usual enough on the English stage in the days
of Elizabeth, but we can recall the ever-memorable example of Beaumont
and Fletcher, while we forget the chance associations of Marston,
Dekker, Chapman and Ben Jonson. And in contemporary literature we have
before us the French tales of MM. Erckmann-Chatrian and the English
novels of Messrs. Besant and Rice. The fact that such a union endures is
proof that it is advantageous. A long-lasting collaboration like this of
MM. Meilhac and Halevy must needs be the result of a strong sympathy and
a sharp contrast of character, as well as of the possession by one of
literary qualities which supplement those of the other.

One of the first things noticed by an American student of French
dramatic literature is that the chief Parisian critics generally refer
to the joint work of these two writers as the plays of M. Meilhac,
leaving M. Halevy altogether in the shade. At first this seems a curious
injustice, but the reason is not far to seek. It is not that M. Halevy
is some two years the junior of M. Meilhac: it lies in the quality of
their respective abilities. M. Meilhac has the more masculine style, and
so the literary progeny of the couple bear rather his name than his
associate's. M. Meilhac has the strength of marked individuality, he has
a style of his own, one can tell his touch; while M. Halevy is merely a
clever French dramatist of the more conventional pattern. This we detect
by considering the plays which each has put forth alone and unaided by