Any attempt to deal with the dramaturgy of French grand opéra cannot neglect the work of Eugène Scribe, who made a fundamental contribution to the definition of the genre. And yet, the answers to two basic questions are less obvious: how did Scribe plan the libretti for his grands opéras? are his texts characterized by structural constants - such as those in Italian opera at that time - or do each of them have an original structure? In order to clarify these issues, the essay proposes a re-reading of Scribe's greatest masterpieces from the "golden age" of the tradition (from the late 1820s to the 1840s): La Muette de Portici, Robert le Diable, Gustave III, La Juive, Les Huguenots, Dom Sébastien, Le Prop hète. The essay dissects the core dramatic ingredients (narrative schemes, characters and roles, dramatic objectives, tableaux); structural articulations (macro- and micro-forms); the arrangement of dramatic material; and, last but not least, the techniques used to create suspense - an element which is Scribe's fingerprint. We can approach Scribe's grand opéra style by contrasting it with two different operatic models: on the one hand, the dramaturgy of French serious opera before the tradition of Romantic grand opéra (e.g. Fernand Cortez by Jouy and Spontini), characterized by static conflicts and a low level of dramatic tension further slowed down by the insertion of ample ceremonial tableaux; on the other hand, the structure of Italian opera of the 1820s and 30s, for which the essay reconstructs the original marriage - first achieved by Romani - between the new formal structures crafted by Rossini and the dramatic models borrowed mainly from boulevard theaters. In particular, Scribe's grand opéra represents at the same time the synthesis and the transcendence of neo-classical tragédie and Italian opera. Scribe's objective becomes clear: to bring mélodrame to the Opéra for the new bourgeois public that had replaced the aristocratic one, and simultaneously to "ennoble" it (both the genre and the public), guaranteeing the past grandeur by resuming the five-act structure and choosing universal themes. In order to fill such a gigantic container, Scribe's strategy does not involve an expansion of dramatic material (as Jouy had done) but rather its intensification (as in the Italian approach). In essence, Scribe takes three basic steps: (a) he multiplies the basic elements: he doubles the plot intrigue and increases the number of characters, dramatic objectives, climaxes, scènes à faire and tableaux, also amplifying the functions of the latter; (b) he increases the suspense combining several different procedures and creating tension - especially through the massive use of dramatic irony - between sequences of short, middle, and long span (scene, act, entire opera); (c) he contrasts the centrifugal push of such disparate materials, both through a formal framework that projects the microstructure of the drama onto the macro-scale, and also through a series of unifying elements which give the composition an organic structure. The essay also deals with other aspects of Scribe's grand opéra: from the choice of underlying themes (such as the antagonistic view of history or the omnipresent motive of revenge), to the originality of the texts prepared for Meyerbeer (especially Robert le Diable) and the relationship between Scribe and Romantic culture (Hugo's theatrical works and the historical novel). The essay thus contradicts entrenched stereotypes about grand opéra: its incoherent structure, the slowness of its dramatic rhythm, the subordination of action to spectacle, and its incompatibility with Italian opera. At the same time it frees Scribe from the shadow of a hurried and serialized production.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]