|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:23 pm
My friend found this article about a year ago. This information is from an interview with a archivist who works at the Paris opera house. So seriously, this really happened. crying
This amazing missive was not originally an article but rather a personal letter to me from a Phantom fan in Paris. Because this is an alternative Phantom legend coming straight from the Paris Opera itself, I have translated a it into English and reprinted it here with the author’s permission though she did ask me to use her screen name rather than her real name. After several years of haunting the opera library and fruitlessly searching for evidence that the Phantom was real, the author of the following letter was taken under the wing of Madame Renata de Waele, public relations officer of the Opéra Garnier at the time, and given the following tour and information. As an interesting aside, Brigitta D’Arcy, author of Le Fantôme, received similar information and a similar tour from de Waele. It was upon this information that she based the first half of her novel Le Fantôme. —CH
FROM THE FIRST moment that Renata [de Waele] began my tour of the cellars, I felt like a child, awestruck not just by all that I was seeing but more than anything by the simple fact that I was setting foot where Eric (sic) long ago used to walk and hide. When one traverses such underground passages, one understands that it would not be difficult to hide there. There is such a surprising number of wall supports, adjacent galleries and other such complications that this underground world would be a treasure for any lover of "Hide-and-Go-Seek."
At first I followed Renata a little timidly. I asked her any question that came to mind simply to try to break the ice and to see how she would take my curiosity. But it was with a particular enthusiasm that she answered me and in a tone that was certain and reassuring... a tone that encouraged other questions. She led me to the circular, subterranean rotunda, recognizable by its dome of stones and apprised me of the fact that the rotunda is the virtual acoustic center of the Opéra Garnier. It’s a chamber that catches every sound from overhead with incomparable sonority.
I remarked that the construction of this underground rotunda was almost the same as the one up above, a round symmetrical construction that seemed to cause every sound to converge at its center. It’s the framework of the rotunda that is built above, a sort of skeleton for the other one.
We continued down the same corridor and stopped a bit further on, facing a locked metallic door with a concrete seal. It was here that Renata began her story..
She told me that a certain Monsieur Clark made a donation to the Opéra of phonographically recorded voices that weren’t supposed to be played or exploited in any way until the passage of a certain number of years. During the intervening years it was necessary to securely guard them within a walled storage facility beneath the Opéra... a facility which it had been necessary to build.
Before construction began there had not been a door in that wall. Some workers and the people most involved in the project looked for the best place to dig. The search involved finding a place that was well reinforced. It also had to be a place removed from the everyday comings and goings of workmen while at the same time being close to the underground accessway. At last the spot was chosen.
It was while demolishing the chosen wall that the workers discovered an apartment, a sort of furnished two-room studio with all the comforts of the 19th Century.
The workmen—who had not immediately realized the importance of their discovery—emptied the room. Although it was not something that happened frequently, workers of that period sometimes did take the liberty of setting up a living space for themselves in some private corner of the Opéra. Thus it was not considered extraordinary until, after having completely emptied the room, the workers began to wonder how its tenant had entered his domain... because there weren’t any doors.
Renata said that it was Eric who had walled up the entrance. [The wall he built] was the very same one that the workers had demolished. She also told me that he had allowed himself to die inside, probably of hunger... and that it was someone from the Opéra who had covered the wall [on the other side].
It was in 1907 that the skeleton of Eric was recovered. It was badly decomposed and was said to be quite large and clearly masculine. The skull was asymmetrical. A deformity as severe as Eric’s could not have had any origin but a basic malformation of the bone and cartilage.
I said to Renata that at the time when the skeleton was found, many said that it was the skeleton of a prisoner and she responded simply that the dungeons had not been located on that side of the building. And furthermore, if this were a prisoner’s skeleton, it would not have been found by itself nor [would it have been found] so much later [than the others].
Point made, she spoke to me of that history and of the construction of the Opéra as if it had all happened yesterday. The way she told it, I felt as though she had been there, in Eric’s time, even though some of the tale she could not have been witness to herself. I felt a little silly and I didn’t know what to think. Perhaps she was simply playing along with me. Perhaps she was saying what she thought I’d wanted to hear.
Eric was the principal subject of the conversation but [according to Renata] only his first name is known. His last name remains a mystery. Perhaps he had just wanted to forget it. At that time, those who did not have the chance to be like the rest of humanity were considered monsters; they had no rights and such individuals who were born amongst the nobility often lost both their title and their dignity.
Eric had attended the Opéra’s inauguration in 1875... His tribulations in Persia were not unknown. Renata told me that he had left home at the age of eight and had earned his living in the circuses that used to travel Europe. He learned architecture in Persia and returned to Paris to work on the construction of the Grand Hotel. Then [Charles] Garnier announced his need for workmen to build the new Opéra.
Seriously interested, Eric was engaged as a simple stone mason which allowed him to build his underground apartments while the attention [of the others] was on the problem of the high water table.
On the subject of Christine Dahé (sic), she existed, and with that name. But she was a simple chorus girl and as anonymous as all the others.
Eric fell in love but he knew that if he showed himself to her she would never love him. It was as a result of this that the idea of the Phantom was born. He had started to disguise himself and to develop that whole facet of his personality that no one had known before. Those who knew “Eric the construction worker” didn’t know him to have any outstanding qualities other than his great interest in music. Thus, when the malign and gifted Phantom appeared, no one imagined that it could be Eric, the poor boy who had worked on the Opéra foundations.
Regarding his mystery and his gift of seducing women... Dahé stayed approximately two weeks in Eric’s company and away from the singers’ foyer. Then she left him—God knows why—and the poor Phantom never found another reason to wear his mask or his cape. He became Eric once more but because of the [emotional] pain [he suffered], he allowed himself to starve to death in his apartments after walling up the principal entry.
Someone knew about it... the same someone who buried the corpse. It was that mysterious someone whom Leroux christened, "the Persian." No one really knows who it was.
That is what Renata told me... that Leroux had the outline and the setting for his novel, and then all he had to do was fill in the gaps.
Leroux bestowed a good deal of his own personality upon the character of Erik [in his novel]. He gave him his own parent. Leroux’s father was an entrepreneur... so was Erik’s. Leroux gave Erik his taste for quasi anonymous letters, written in red ink, etc. Leroux had previously written some "accusatory" articles directed at the Opéra. On May 13, 1897, following the Rue Goujon catastrophe, an unsigned article entitled "And the Opéra? The Danger of Catching Fire" appeared. On June 26 another article entitled "The Opera: The Iron Curtain." Leroux also bore a resemblance to his Erik with regard to the name changes: Leroux to Larive, Georges Larive, then Georges-Gaston Larive, etc. It was perhaps the fire that first called Eric to his attention. He published The Phantom of the Opera [as a serial] in Le Galois beginning September 23, 1909 and continuing until January 8, 1910 after which the complete novel was published by Lafitte...
• Writing in red: At the time, writing in red was extremely impolite. It meant that one was making fun of the person to whom he was writing. It was for this reason that Erik wrote in red.
• Dahé... changed to Daaé. Was she Nilsson? No. She was Dahé. But it’s true that Gaston Leroux used Nilsson as the model [for Christine in his book]. The talent of one chorus girl would not have impassioned the public! People always admire those they can never be: an unparalleled singer, a magnificent and magical Phantom... something along the lines of hero worship. Consequently the solid gold ring [found on the skeleton] really did have C.D. on it in large, unmistakable letters... only it was lost in [one of the subsequent] wars.
There it is. Perhaps you might feel a little disappointed by that simple truth... There is no hard evidence, no list or other appearance of the names of the workers, no letters signed F. de l’O and no palace on the lake. This history was transmitted by word of mouth, like a legend... And there is no proof. Or, there is no proof anymore. As a researcher I still have my doubts. I told Renata that there must be some written document but she assured me that if such a document had ever existed, the Opéra would probably have destroyed it.
[I have found] nothing dating from 1879 that recalls any incidents involving a phantom. I’ve found nothing but the most meager allusions in the Opéra library:
• M. Halanzier (1879) was accused of "falsifying theatre receipts" (article 57): "In 1875, [management] exaggerated expenses for that same year and manufactured the sum of 250,600 francs expended for two new works when there were no new works for that year." Leroux explains both the latter and the former: "the Phantom needed a source of income..."
• "M. Vaucorbiel (1879-1886) succeeds Halanzier on November 1, 1879..."
• "Mademoiselle Krauss (a diva): became ill. She couldn’t sing for 10 days. Don Juan was replaced by Faust." (April, 1879) Could Krauss be the real Carlotta?
• The journal The Parisian. Article, May 29, 1879. A short article on a Phantom of the "Avenue de l’Opéra" who played the ocarina. Nothing precise, though.
Presently I’ve given up searching the indexes, not because I’m tired of it but because I am convinced that Renata was right. I was struck dumb after that visit... even though the doubts persisted. I tried to find evidence confirming her story for six months but it turned out to be an impossible task. I believe that with regard to this matter, science and my proud curiosity will have to be content with a simple oral account.
No flaming please. Don't be like- that's all BULL! because we don't need that kind of stuff around here. It's all about the Phantom LOOOVE. And here's hard evidence taken that he really existed.
Seriously though, I almost cried. gonk crying
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:26 pm
All I have to say on the matter is:
crying but hurah... heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:59 pm
*Sigh* I've heard this stuff before.
I don't believe he existed as was stated in the book. But there very possibly could have been some deformed guy living in the cellars about whom rumors were spread. And then Leroux took it upon himself to styilize the rumors and mold them into a story. I mean, that's a common thing that authors do. But it doesn't make the story itself true. Maybe a few incidents. The rest was interpreted and added for story value.
And besises, this source could have been exaggerating to get attention. Think of all the Anastasia impersonators.
Also...what ultimately bugs me is that is name is Erik. E-R-I-K. Not Eric.
And that is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:22 pm
That kind of info has been floating around for years. Personally, I'm with Alexis on it's basis of truth.
There are a lot of coincidences and half-truths just like with any big thing like that. As mentioned, Anastasia.
It is simply a historic mystery that will never be solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:01 am
*nods* Indeed. But it's still fun to hope... emo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:33 pm
But isn't reality based on perception and point of view? I mean, there's no definitive scientific proof that Bigfoot, Nessie, aliens, etc. exist but a lot of people are unshakable in their beliefs. Those things are real in their point of view.
Same with God. To some people He/She/They/It is real but to other's He/She/They/It is not. Does that mean that one or the other is wrong in what they believe?
And who's to say that things we all agree are real like the computer you're sitting at right now, really aren't real and are just illusions in our minds?
And what about things that have been forgotten? If all memories and records of Joe Shmoe were suddenly lost then no one would believe he ever existed. He would become just a myth or legend.
It doesn't matter whether something really "exists" or not; it's whether it is still in the minds of those alive today. Even if Erik only exists in books then technically he still exists. It's all in the way you look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:27 pm
Wow. That was amazing. My suggestion though: Don't make it a wall of text and separate the pargraphs please! It was extremely hard to read and you great finding should be shared in a legable manner.
But I believe Erik did exist, in one form or another, and that's why his myth has become a bit of a religion: You either believe it or don't with the greatest amount of faith. xd
I am very curious as to where the research could have lead to however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:21 pm
wow... I honestly have no clue if I should believe all that or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:42 pm
Yes. I agree. Please seperate the paragraphs. I almost didn't read the thing because it was so clumped. Reading stuff on a monitor is harder than reading it on a page.
But I will admit that I am a constant skeptic. I never believe in the Bigfoot or Nessie stuff, I don't believe in any gods. As much as I'd like to believe in ghosts and supernatural, that stuff is very shaky in my mind. So it's rather typical that I don't really believe these things as "proof".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:59 pm
Think of the possibilities! @_@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:30 am
Well, all I can say is that Erik will always be living in our hearts! heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:30 am
To be fair, hearsay is not hard evidence. People lie about more important things than this for attention or to give hope to the naive.
Or maybe I'm just jaded.
It is very much an issue of faith. Either you believe the book was based on truth or you don't. I'm inclined to believe there's a kernel of fact there simply because Leroux had a very definite tendency to base his books on real people and events. There are living parallels for every other major character in the book, so it's quite likely that there was one for Erik. But the rub is that there's just enough evidence to give hope, and not enough for concrete proof. So while I'll admit it's readily possible that there was a real Erik, but I'm not going to jump up and shout hallelujah on the dubious, triple-hearsay word of an unknown party. Who is this Renata to know so much about the story? If there were evidence of this version of events available for her to find, you would think the phans who had done so much investigation might have seen a bit of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:56 pm
PhantomoftheFox To be fair, hearsay is not hard evidence. People lie about more important things than this for attention or to give hope to the naive. Or maybe I'm just jaded. It is very much an issue of faith. Either you believe the book was based on truth or you don't. I'm inclined to believe there's a kernel of fact there simply because Leroux had a very definite tendency to base his books on real people and events. There are living parallels for every other major character in the book, so it's quite likely that there was one for Erik. But the rub is that there's just enough evidence to give hope, and not enough for concrete proof. So while I'll admit it's readily possible that there was a real Erik, but I'm not going to jump up and shout hallelujah on the dubious, triple-hearsay word of an unknown party. Who is this Renata to know so much about the story? If there were evidence of this version of events available for her to find, you would think the phans who had done so much investigation might have seen a bit of it. I'm inclined to agree. If the law went by hearsay, a lot of criminals would still be roaming free. They need rock hard evidence to prove something. Leroux's books were faction. Fact mixed with fiction. Every theater has their Phantom. Mainly they're just ghost stories or the superstition of the actors and performers manifesting themselves into accidents and coincidences. If you read Leroux's novel, he pretty much proved that when the corps de ballet blamed him for stealing a powder puff. There is plenty of fact in Leroux's novel, which is why he wrote it. He took real events and collaborated them into his book to create this story. It really is hard to believe one person when others who've done progressively more and for longer say something else. However, as Fox has said and I have, it's a matter of faith and it's also a historical mystery. We may never find out if such an event was entire truth or the brilliant story of a retired newspaper journalist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:04 pm
I believe Leroux took some facts and wove them together into a feasbile story... it was like this forensics class activity we did where we were givena crime scene and had to recreate the crime... we all made different stories...but I think that's what Leroux did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:42 pm
Jeebus.
Not another Erik was real thread.
Erik's name was just that.
Not Eric, The Phantom, The ugly ghost guy.
Erik WITH A "K"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
