No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“French Europe,” A Form of Cultural Domination?
Kaunitz and French Theater in Eighteenth-Century Vienna
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
Through the study of chancellor Kaunitz’s efforts to bring French theater to Vienna, which was briefly successful first between 1752 and 1765 and later between 1768 and 1772, this article reconsiders the notion of a “French Europe,” whereby French culture dominated eighteenth-century Europe. In traditional diffusionist historiography, the arrow points outward from the center (France) toward the periphery (Europe). Focusing on Vienna, however, offers a different perspective, displacing France as the central hub of action. French theater in Vienna underwent a thorough process of selection and adaptation according to the various purposes it served. Analysis of the situation in Vienna reveals the complex patterns of circulation traced by French actors as they traveled both domestically and across the continent. Instead of analyzing “transnational” literary circulation quantitavely as a mere flow of merchandise, this article advocates an alternative approach, at once pragmatic and contextual, that emphasizes the political decisions that presided over it.
- Type
- Literary Circulation
- Information
- Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales - English Edition , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 541 - 573
- Copyright
- Copyright © Les Éditions de l’EHESS 2012
References
1. Dixmerie, Nicolas Bricaire de La, Lettres sur l’état présent de nos spectacles (Paris: Duchesne, 1765), 6–8 Google Scholar.
2. On French actors in Warsaw in 1765, see Klimowicz, Mieczyslaw, “Les relations théâ-trales franco-polonaises,” Dix-huitième siècle 13 (1981): 389–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two distinct troupes are mentioned. The first, led by Villiers, was replaced in autumn by Rousselois’s troupe from Vienna, which it had to leave following Emperor Francis I’s death in August. The simultaneous presence of French actors in the two capitals, mentioned by La Dixmerie, was in fact quite transitory.
3. Markovits, Rahul, “Un ‘empire culturel’ ? Le théâtre français en Europe au XVIIIe siècle (années 1730-1814)” (PhD diss., University of Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2010)Google Scholar, publication by the Éditions Armand Colin forthcoming. If the cities through which the French actors were just passing are included, the total amounts to over fifty.
4. La Dixmerie, Lettres sur l’état présent de nos spectacles. Indeed, Voltaire viewed the de facto universality of the French theater, which could be found in the four corners of Europe, as proof of its superiority over its English and Spanish counterparts, which remained confined within their borders: “When you see the beautiful scenes from Cinna and Athalie applauded in every theater in Europe, from Petersburg to Parma, you conclude that these tragedies are wonderful with their flaws; but if yours are never played except in your own country, what can you conclude about that?” Voltaire, , Commen-taires sur Corneille, in Les œuvres complètes de Voltaire, eds. Besterman, Theodore et al. (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1975), 55:632 Google Scholar.
5. On making France the new Rome, which represented the heart of civilization at the time of the Seven Years War, see Bell, David A., The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680-1800 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), especially 95ff Google Scholar.
6. La Dixmerie, Lettres sur l’état présent de nos spectacles.
7. Brunot, Ferdinand, Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1905-1954)Google Scholar; Réau, Louis, L’Europe française au siècle des Lumières (Paris: Albin Michel, 1938)Google Scholar; and Fumaroli, Marc, Quand l’Europe parlait français (Paris: Fallois, 2001)Google Scholar. Traces of this concept are continually found, even in recent international historiography. Timothy C. W. Blanning draws upon Réau’s work when mentioning the “hegemony” or the “supremacy” of the French language in The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe, 1660-1789 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 49-52.
8. Caraccioli, Louis-Antoine de, L’Europe françoise, par l’auteur de La Gaieté (Paris: Duchesne, 1776)Google Scholar.
9. “French Europe! Such a title may seem presumptuous or misleading coming from a Frenchman. But it is not. The author responsible for this expression is actually an eighteenth-century Italian diplomat, the Marquis Caraccioli, the Neapolitan Ambassa dor to the Court of Louis XIV [sic] ... Will this great Francophile lord be accused of blind complacency? That would be inaccurate. ... In reality the expression he uses and which I borrow from him only expresses a historical fact of striking simplicity that would be childish or even absurd to challenge.” Réau, L’Europe française, 1. On Réau, see Medvedkova, Olga, “‘Scientifique’ ou ‘intellectuel’ ? Louis Réau et la création de l’Institut français de Saint-Pétersbourg,” Cahiers du Monde russe 43-2/3 (2002): 411–21 Google Scholar.
10. Réau, L’Europe française, 313.
11. Casanova, Pascale, The World Republic of Letters, trans. DeBevoise, M.B. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 68 Google Scholar.
12. See Pierre-Yves Beaurepaire’s somewhat similar criticisms concerning the “outdated problem of ‘French influences’” in Le mythe de l’Europe française au XVIIIe siècle. Diplo-matie, culture et sociabilités au temps des Lumières (Paris: Éd. Autrement, 2007), 7.
13. On novels, see Ferrand, Nathalie, “Les circulations européennes du roman français, leurs modalités et leurs enjeux,” in Les circulations internationales en Europe, années 1680-années 1780, eds. Beaurepaire, Pierre-Yves and Pourchasse, Pierrick (Rennes: PUR, 2010), 399–410 Google Scholar. On periodicals, see Bots, Hans, ed., La diffusion et la lecture des journaux de langue française sous l’Ancien Régime (Amsterdam: APA Holland University Press, 1988)Google Scholar. On freemasonry, see Beaurepaire, Pierre-Yves, L’Europe des francs-maçons, XVIIIe-XXIe siècles (Paris: Belin, 2002)Google Scholar. On salons, see Lilti, Antoine, Le monde des salons. Sociabilité et monda-nité à Paris au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Fayard, 2005)Google Scholar. Lilti notes that, apart from some ad hoc examples, the “French model adapted with difficulty” (414).
14. On Kaunitz, who for a long time represented a nearly impossible biographical subject, see: Arneth, Alfred von, “Biographie des Fürsten Kaunitz: Ein Fragment,” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 88 (1900): 1–201 Google Scholar; Klingenstein, Grete, Der Aufstieg des Hauses Kaunitz: Studien zur Herkunft und Bildung des Staatskanzlers Wenzel Anton (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975)Google Scholar; Szabo, Franz A. J., Kaunitz and Enlightened Absolutism, 1753-1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Klingenstein, Grete and Szabo, Franz A. J., eds., Staatskanzler Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rietberg, 1711-1794. Neue Perspektiven zu Politik und Kultur der europäischen Aufklärung (Graz: A. Schnider, 1996)Google Scholar.
15. On the French theater in Vienna, see: Teuber, Oscar et al., Die Theater Wiens, vol. 2, Das K. K. Hofburgtheater seit seiner Begründung (Vienna: Gesellschaft für vervielfältigende Kunst, 1896-1906)Google Scholar; Witzenetz, Julia, Le théâtre français de Vienne, 1752-1772 (Szeged: Városi nyomda, 1932)Google Scholar; Zechmeister, Gustav, Die Wiener Theater nächst der Burg und nächst dem Kärntnerthor von 1747 bis 1776 (Vienna: H. Böhlaus, 1971)Google Scholar; and Brown, Bruce Alan, Gluck and the French Theater in Vienna (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991)Google Scholar. On French culture in Vienna, see Wagner, Hans, “Der Höhepunkt des französischen Kultureinflusses in Österreich in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Österreich in Geschichte und Litera-tur 5 (1961): 507–17 Google Scholar.
16. Klingenstein, Der Aufstieg des Hauses Kaunitz, 15.
17. Szabo, Kaunitz, 28-29.
18. On this issue, see Passeron, Jean-Claude and Revel, Jacques, eds., Penser par cas (Paris: Éd. de l’EHESS, 2005)Google Scholar.
19. On this particular comparison with Parma in and, to a lesser extent, with German and Scandinavian courts, see Markovits, “Un ‘empire culturel’ ?”
20. And yet the term “transnational” poorly applies to the eighteenth century in that it takes for granted the existence of national entities about whom the interest lies precisely in learning how they formed against this process or better yet via this process. For example, this is the proposal that presides over the Franco-German ANR-DFG “Transnat” project coordinated by Christophe Charle and Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink, which studies the “transculturality of national spaces.”
21. See Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann’s criticisms of cultural transfers in “Penser l’histoire croisée : entre empirie et réflexivité,” Annales HSS 58-1 (2003): 7-36. Their remarks highlight the linear and rigid nature of cultural transfers and primarily advocate the interplay of scales. On the same subject, see Beaurepaire, Pierre-Yves, L’espace des francs-maçons. Une sociabilité européenne au XVIIIe siècle (Rennes: PUR, 2003), 181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Recognizing the risk, Michel Espagne has sought to render the initial model more complex. See: Dmitrieva, Katia and Espagne, Michel, eds., Transferts culturels triangu-laires : France-Allemagne-Russie (Paris: Éd. de la MSH, 1996)Google Scholar; Espagne, Michel, ed., Russie, France, Allemagne, Italie. Transferts quadrangulaires du néoclassicisme aux avant-gardes (Tusson: Du Lérot, 2005)Google Scholar.
22. See: Moretti, Franco, Atlas du roman européen, 1800-1900 (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 2000)Google Scholar, especially 183ff.; Wilfert-Portal, Blaise, “La place de la littérature étrangère dans le champ littéraire français autour de 1900,” Histoire &Mesure 23-2 (2008): http://histoiremesure.revues.org/3613; Google Scholar and Sapiro, Gisèle, “L’Europe, centre du marché mondial de la traduction,” in L’espace intellectuel en Europe. De la formation des États-nations à la mondialisation, XIXe-XXIe siècle, ed. Sapiro, Gisèle (Paris: La Découverte, 2009), 249–97 Google Scholar. On this approach to theater, see Charle, Christophe, Théâtres en capitales. Naissance de la société du spectacle à Paris, Berlin, Londres et Vienne, 1860-1914 (Paris: Albin Michel, 2008)Google Scholar. Charle provides an overview of Parisian “domination” in the nineteenth century via an analysis of the “flow system in which the French capital was the central point of diffusion” (317), while also noting the insufficiency of exclusive recourse “to an economic-type scheme combined with a literary scheme of symbolic domination” for analyzing it (339).
23. Interiora 86 (formerly 108), Staatskanzlei, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (hereafter referred to as “HHStA”), Vienna. The State Chancellery, which was created in 1742 to handle foreign affairs, intervened a great deal in domestic affairs under Kaunitz. See Szabo, Kaunitz, 36ff.
24. G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4056 to 4476 for correspondence and Inv. 4492 (Divadlo I) and 4493 (Divadlo II) for the theater, Moravsky´ Zemsky´ Archiv v Brne˘ (hereafter referred to as “MZA”), Brno.
25. The “literary correspondence” between Count Durazzo and Favart, preserved in the Favart collection of the Bibliothèque-Musée de l’Opéra, constitutes the most important source for this point of view: see Box I, AII and C14, Favart Collection, Bibliothèque-Musée de l’Opéra (hereafter referred to as “BMO”), Paris. It was published in a truncated, unilateral format in 1808, excluding most of Durazzo’s seventy-three letters: see Favart, Charles-Simon, Mémoires et correspondance littéraires, dramatiques et anecdotiques (Paris: L. Collin, 1808), 3 volsGoogle Scholar. On the context of this publication in the Imperial era and its effects, see Karro-Pélisson, Françoise, “De la Querelle des Bouffons à la réforme de Gluck: les lettres du comte Giacomo Durazzo à Charles-Simon Favart, conservées à la bibliothèque de l’Opéra,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 3 (1985): 163–96 Google Scholar. The article provides the text for some deleted passages. Such editorial actions, which give the impression that the expansion was unilateral from Paris to Vienna, contributed to the elaboration of “French Europe” historiography. Restoring the letters of Durazzo, who initiated this correspondence, within this exchange can reverse the perspective. As Durazzo reported, Favart’s letters—or at least some of them—were read to Kaunitz: see Durazzo to Favart, 29 March 1760.
26. Kaunitz to Mercy-Argenteau, 21 October 1770, in Florimond de Mercy-Argenteau, Correspondance secrète du comte de Mercy-Argenteau avec l’empereur Joseph II et le prince de Kaunitz, vol. II, 1889-1891, eds. Alfred von Arneth and Jules Flammermont (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1889-1891).
27. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th ed. (Paris: Veuve de Bernard Brunet, 1762), 620.
28. “Their Majesties not only want to avoid dropping the Theaters, but They are even willing to lend a hand to ensure that in the future the City of Their Residence may always have a suitable Italian Opera and a French Comedy.” “Mémoire sur l’Entreprise des Spectacles dans la Ville de Vienne, dressé par le C. de Kaunitz-Rittberg, par ordre de Sa Majesté et présenté le 1er Mars 1750,” Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
29. Durazzo to Kaunitz, 13 January 1752, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4174, MZA, Brno.
30. “S.M.’s resolution having come out very late, and all that is good for the opera being engaged, we accepted the offer made by the entrepreneur from the Hague for his French Troupe. There is the actor Ribou, who played for several years in Paris, and that you can still see there. They say that the others are fairly good. There is a certain Rosimond who is currently in Paris, not in the Theater, but perhaps you will be lucky enough that he will come your way and you can help to find other good individuals encouraging him not to bring us rabblerousers.” Ibid., 26 February 1752, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4174, MZA, Brno.
31. “I would not like you to be at the head of the theaters. I would like to have an honest man from here who could reassure me about this bad mob, but never so that this goes under your name or that of Staremberg; your names are too respected and precious to be confused with what is most vile in the Monarchy.” Marie-Theresa to Kaunitz, n. d., in Teuber, Die Theater Wiens, III.
32. “I warn you that I am quite resolved from now on to be directly involved in all that concerns our theaters, especially the French Theater, upon which everything that is being done and will be done thereafter is not and will not be done without my order.” Kaunitz to Aufresne, 14 July 1770, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
33. “Mémoire par lequel la Partie distinguée du Public de Vienne fait à l’Entreprise des Spectacles deux Propositions tendantes au retablissement de la Comédie françoise,” 10 February 1775, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna. In the autumn, a French opéra-comique troupe was invited by some of the aristocracy to give a few performances, but Joseph II refused to attend. See Zechmeister, Die Wiener Theater 73-77. On Joseph II’s attitude, see Derek Beales, Joseph II, vol. I, In the Shadow of Maria Theresa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 230-36 and 334. On the foundation of the national theater of Vienna, see Krebs, Roland, L’idée de “Théâtre national” dans l’Allemagne des Lumières. Théorie et réalisations (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1985)Google Scholar.
34. Grossegger, Elisabeth, ed., Theater, Feste und Feiern zur Zeit Maria Theresias 1742-1776. Nach den Tagebucheintragungen des Fürsten Johann Joseph Khevenhüller, Obersthofmeister der Kaiserin (Vienna: Verl. der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1987), 31 May 1747, pp. 60–61 Google Scholar. This work is a compilation of passages dedicated to the theatrical life of the court in the diary kept from 1742 to 1776 by the prince Johann Joseph Khevenhüller-Metsch, successively grand marshal (Obersthofmarschall), grand chamberlain (Oberstkämmerer), and grand master of the court (Obersthofmeister). Khevenhüller gives two lists of participants for the May 31 performance: one for the spectators, who were carefully selected with regard to the actors’ status (“aus besonderer Distinction für die hohe Acteurs”), and one for the actors themselves. For the full edition of the diary, see Khevenhüller-Metsch, Johann Joseph, Aus der Zeit Maria Theresias. Tagebuch des Fürsten Johann Josef Khevenhüller-Metsch, kaiserlichen Obersthofmeisters, 1742-1776, 8 vols. (Vienna: A. Holzhausen, 1907-1972)Google Scholar.
35. Klingenstein, Der Aufstieg des Hauses Kaunitz, 266.
36. Ibid., 259. Kaunitz, whose family originally came from Bohemia before settling in Austerlitz (Slavkov) in Moravia, referred to himself as a “Bohemian ... [with] estates in Moravia.” Cited by Szabo, Franz A. J., “Perspective from the Pinnacle: State Chancellor Kaunitz on Nobility in the Habsburg Monarchy,” in Adel im “langen” 18. Jahrhundert, eds. Haug-Moritz, G. et al. (Vienna: Verl. der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009), 239–60 Google Scholar.
37. On the Zinzendorfs, Kaunitz’s close friends who participated in the same transformation, see Lebeau, Christine, Aristocrates et grands commis à la Cour de Vienne, 1748-1791. Le modèle français (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1996), 75 Google Scholar. On ennoblement, see Dickson, Peter George Muir, Finance and Government Under Maria Theresia, 1740-1780, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)Google Scholar. For a synthesis, see Melton, James Van Horn, “The Nobility in the Bohemian and Austrian Lands, 1620-1780,” in The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, vol. II, Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Scott, H. M. (New York: Longman, 1995), 110–43 Google Scholar.
38. It nonetheless appears that the father and the tutor considered this dimension secondary to learning abstract knowledge, as, according to them, the young Kaunitz had already had the opportunity to mingle with the “grand monde” during his youth (but Kaunitz’s father used this expression to designate the great families of the Moravian nobility). See Klingenstein, Der Aufstieg des Hauses Kaunitz, 174-75.
39. Ibid., 229-30 (on his stay in Hanover from July 27 to August 5, 1732) and 249 (on his attendance at Parisian theaters). On George II’s stays in Hanover, see Richter-Uhlig, Uta, Hof und Politik unter den Bedingungen der Personalunion zwischen Hannover und England. Die Aufenthalte Georgs II in Hannover zwischen 1729 und 1741 (Hanover: Hahn, 1992)Google Scholar. On theatrical life in Hanover, see Wallbrecht, Rosenmarie Elisabeth, Das Theater des Barockzeitalters an den welfischen Höfen Hannover und Celle (Hildesheim: Lax, 1974)Google Scholar.
40. Graffigny, Françoise de, Correspondance de madame de Graffigny, vol. VII, 11 septembre 1745-17 juillet 1746 : lettres 897-1025, eds. Dainard, J. A. et al. (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2002)Google Scholar, Madame de Graffigny to Devaux, 20 February 1746, letter 962, p. 262. Subsequently, Madame de Graffigny specifically composed plays intended for the archdukes and archduchesses: Ziman et Zenise and Les Saturnales.
41. Grossegger, Theater, Feste und Feiern, 27 January 1744, p. 25. The theatrical life of the court was also enlivened by performances of plays from the French repertoire given by the Lorraine servants: see ibid., 22 August 1746, p. 50.
42. In his 1750 memorandum, Kaunitz had envisioned entrusting baron Charles Ogara, Francis I’s Chamberlain, with the management of the Comédie-Française: see “Mémoire sur l’Entreprise des Spectacles,” Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna. This is proof of the continuity between the Lorraine network and the network subsequently put into place by Kaunitz.
43. On the théâtre de société, see Plagnol-Diéval, Marie-Emmanuelle and Quéro, Dominique, eds., Les théâtres de société au XVIIIe siècle (Brussels: Éd. de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2005)Google Scholar. For examples of this trend outside of France, see the following essays published in this work: Marie Cornaz, “Spectacles privés chez les ducs d’Arenberg,” 87-98; Laurence Macé, “Les représentations d’auteurs français sur les scènes privées italiennes,” 169-78.
44. Grossegger, Theater, Feste und Feiern, 17, 21, 26 February and 3 March 1753, pp. 126-28.
45. Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process, vol. 1, The History of Manners (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978), 16 Google Scholar.
46. Grossegger, Theater, Feste und Feiern, 14 May 1752, pp. 114-15.
47. Due to gaps in the sources, it does not seem possible to reconstitute the entire repertoire performed by the French troupe between 1752 and 1772. However, sufficient data for the 1753-1754 season is available. Out of 160 performances, 84% were comedies and 13% were tragedies. This is calculated from data collected by Hadamowsky, Franz, “Das Spieljahr 1753/54 des Theaters nächst dem Kärntnerthor und des Theaters nächst der k. k. Burg,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Wiener Theaterforschung (1959): 3-21 (for the Nächst der Burg theater performances)Google Scholar; supplemented by Kunz, Harald, “Der Wiener Theaterspielplan 1741 bis 1765,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Wiener Theaterforschung (1953-1954): 72–113 (for performances in residences)Google Scholar. The ballet and the opéra-comique subsequently became more popular, drawing audiences away from comedy without benefitting tragedy. Information provided by the deputy director of ballet Philipp Gumpenhuber in his “Repertoire” covering the years between 1758 and 1763 has yet to be integrated: on this document, whose publication was announced as “forthcoming” years ago, see Croll, Gerhard, “Neue Quellen zu Musik und Theater in Wien 1758-1763: ein erster Bericht,” in Festschrift Walter Senn zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Egg, Erich (Munich: E. Katzbichler, 1975), 8–12 Google Scholar. An interim account of the 749 performances that took place between 1752 and 1772 gives the following percentages: 60% comedies, 19% ballet, 11% opéra-comiques, and 9% tragedies. This is calculated from: Grossegger Theater, Feste und Feiern; Kunz, “Der Wiener Theaterspielplan”; Witzenetz, Le théâtre français de Vienne; and Zechmeister, Die Wiener Theater. For a comparison with the repertoire of other French troupes in Europe, see Markovits, “Un ‘empire culturel’ ?” chap. 2. The small percentage of tragedies remains a constant throughout, even if there were some significant variations depending on the city: for example, between Berlin (3% tragedies between 1743 and 1757) and Parma (16% between 1755 and 1757).
48. Durazzo to Favart, 30 June 1762, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. I.
49. Kaunitz to Bréa, 7 July 1770, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna. In the same letter, Kaunitz asked Bréa to precisely describe the actors about whom Bréa spoke by referring to a list of significant criteria. Talent was last on this list. “I ask you,” wrote Kaunitz, “to please inform me as soon as possible of: 1. his age, 2. his size, 3. his face, 4. his body, 5. if he knows a lot or little, 6. his morals, 7. his talent, etc., in a word, paint me his portrait, and do the same in the future with respect to any actor.”
50. For the 1753-1754 season, out of a total of 152 plays that can be attributed to a single author, twenty-two (14%) were written by Molière, seventeen (11%) were by La Chaussée, fifteen (10%) were by Destouches and Regnard, and twelve (8%) were by Boissy and Voltaire. Voltaire figures in the repertoire as much for his comedies (L’Enfant prodigue, Nanine) as for his tragedies. In subsequent years, Favart or Marivaux also appeared in the ranking of most performed authors. However, out of 599 performances attributed to a single author over the entire period, Corneille only appears ten times (three times for his comedy Le Menteur) and Racine six.
51. Durazzo to Favart, 20 December 1759 (actually early 1760), in Favart, Mémoires, vol. I; Durazzo to Favart, 19 November 1763, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. II.
52. Kaunitz to the prince of Liechtenstein, 11 August 1768, Interiora 86, Kaunitz to the prince of Liechtenstein, 11 August 1768, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
53. “Réflexions sur les spectacles de Vienne” cited by Teuber, Die Theater Wiens, 105.
54. In any case, there were fewer spectators if one relies on the accounts kept from February 7 to March 6, 1764, which show that revenues at the door were more than two times lower on average for the French show (210 guilders) compared to its German counterpart (460 guilders): see RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4492 (Divadlo I), G 436, MZA, Brno.
55. Beales, Joseph II, 230ff.
56. Cited in Grossegger, Elisabeth, Gluck und d’Afflisio: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Verpachtung des Burgtheaters (1765/67-1770) (Vienna: Verl. der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1995), 40 Google Scholar. The trajectory of this note, written by Joseph in response to Maria Theresa and passed on by her to Kaunitz (who recopied it), was symptomatic of the complex workings of the co-regency, which was actually a kind of triumvirate with Kaunitz acting as a buffer between mother and son. In this case, Kaunitz was using this intermediary position to his advantage in a case that was personally close to his heart.
57. “Rapport à S.M. l’Impératrice Reine,” 4 April 1767, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
58. Ibid.
59. The idea of aristocratic contibutions had already been advanced in 1750: as an example, Kaunitz cited the Italian model of theatrical management, which was based on establishing shareholding companies. For a short while, Kaunitz believed Giuseppe Afflisio—a (supposedly) rich Italian adventurer who was entrusted with the theatrical enterprise in spring 1767—to be the providential man, the “sorcerer,” capable of assuring the sustainability of the French theater. However, as he eventually realized, Kaunitz had been fooled by Afflisio’s “arch-Italian manœuvres”: Afflisio had in fact committed to the performance of a French show in order to benefit from Kaunitz’s support in allocating business. Once this was given, he changed his tactics, addressing a series of petitions to Joseph II in which he asked to be excused from this commitment given the “immense expense that the French theater incurs upon him.” On this event, see Grossegger, Gluck und d’Afflisio. The young Mozart was a collateral victim of this conflict: his father said Mozart’s La Finta Semplice, which he tried to have performed in Vienna, was sacrificed on the altar of French theater: see Leopold Mozart to Johann Lorenz Hagenauer, 30 July 1768, Vienna, in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Correspondance, vol. I, 1756-1776, trans. Geneviève Geffray (Paris: Flammarion, 1990), no. 67.
60. Kaunitz to Prince Joseph Wenceslas of Liechtenstein, 11 August 1768, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
61. Lilti, Le monde des salons, 159-63.
62. Zinzendorf, Karl Graf von, Aus den Jugendtagebüchern 1747, 1752 bis 1763, eds. Breunlich, Maria and Mader, Marieluise (Vienna: Böhlau, 1997), 21 December 1761, p. 251 Google Scholar.
63. Teuber, who has seen this list, only gives a partial transcription of it in Die Theater Wiens, 142. On page 106, however, he notes the complete contents of a list dating probably from 1766, which includes the names of seventy-two (sixty-nine, by his account) potential subscribers for the first subscription campaign launched by Kaunitz.
64. Répertoire des théâtres de la ville de Vienne depuis l’année 1752 jusqu’à l’année 1757 (Vienna: J. P. Van Ghelen, 1757), n. p.
65. This was the same Johann Peter Van Ghelen who, in 1752, began publishing numerous re-editions of French plays, meant to accompany the performances given by the French actors. For a list of Van Ghelen’s French publications, in which the theater clearly dominated, see Oravetz, Vera, Les impressions françaises de Vienne (1567-1850), (Szeged: Impr. des presses universitaires, 1930)Google Scholar. Orvaretz counted eighty-one French plays published in 1752 alone and 250-300 in total. This phenomenon occurred elsewhere in Europe: the printer Philibert, for example, published re-editions of French plays in Denmark.
66. Jouhaud, Christian and Viala, Alain, eds., De la publication : Entre Renaissance et Lumières (Paris: Fayard, 2002)Google Scholar.
67. Mouhy, Charles de Fieux, Le répertoire de toutes les pièces restées au Théâtre François, avec la date, le nombre des représentations, et les noms des auteurs et des acteurs vivans (Paris: Pissot, 1753)Google Scholar. This was practical and inexpensive version of his Tablettes Dramatiques (Paris: S. Jorry, 1752).
68. Riccoboni, Luigi, Réflexions historiques et critiques sur les différents théâtres de l’Europe (Paris: Guérin, 1738)Google Scholar.
69. Halde, Jean-Baptiste Du, Description géographique, historique, chronologique, politique et physique de l’empire de la Chine et de la Tartarie chinoise, vol. III, Tchao chi cou ell, or Le petit orphelin de la maison de Tchao. Tragédie chinoise (The Hague: Henri Scheurleer, 1736), 417–460 Google Scholar.
70. The Dramatic Works of Mr. de Voltaire, trans. Rev. Mr. Franklin (London: J. Newberry, 1763), vii: 232.
71. “Nothing indeed renders men more sociable, polishes their manners, or improves their reason more than the assembling them together for the mutual enjoyment of intellectual pleasure.” Répertoire des théâtres de la ville de Vienne, n. p.
72. “Naturally curious of what is unknown to us, we should educate ourselves about the customs of peoples who are foreign to us; foreigners, in turn, do not have any less pleasure in knowing their neighbors; in this way, all the world assumes a new face, the advances in the sciences & the arts are heading rapidly toward perfection, taste is refined & so many different routes that follow learned men in different countries where they find themselves little by little, we overcome the greatest difficulties.” Ibid. On the subsequent hybridization promoted between the French theater and Italian opera, see Brown, Gluck and the French Theatre.
73. On the relationship between universality and localism in the construction of “capital-ity,” see Damme, Stéphane Van, Paris, capitale philosophique. De la Fronde à la Révolution (Paris: O. Jacob, 2005)Google Scholar. On cultural capital, see: Charle, Christophe and Roche, Daniel, eds., Capitales culturelles, capitales symboliques. Paris et les expériences européennes, XVIIIe-XXe siècles (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charle, Christophe, ed., Le temps des capitales culturelles, XVIIIe-XXe siècles (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2009)Google Scholar.
74. “État présent des théâtres,” in Répertoire des théâtres de la ville de Vienne, n. p.
75. Hédelin, François, abbé d’Aubignac, La pratique du théâtre, ed. Baby, Hélène (Paris: H. Champion, 1657; repr. 2001), 38–39 Google Scholar.
76. Kaunitz to Mercy-Argenteau, 19 November 1767, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
77. “Mémoire des directeurs du spectacle de Vienne,” n. d., attached to a letter from Mercy-Argenteau to Saint-Florentin, 14 December 1767, Varia 34, Frankreich, HHStA, Vienna.
78. See William J. McGill’s analysis of this subject in “The Roots of Policy: Kaunitz in Italy and the Netherlands, 1742-1746,” Central European History 1 (1968): 131-49.
79. On Kaunitz’s role in the reversal of alliances, see Schilling, Lothar, Kaunitz und das Renversement des alliances. Studien zur aussenpolitischen Konzeption Wenzel Antons von Kaunitz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994)Google Scholar.
80. Trimbur, Dominique et al., “Introduction,” in Entre rayonnement et réciprocité. Contributions à l’histoire de la diplomatie culturelle, eds. Dubosclard, Alain et al. (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002), 17 Google Scholar.
81. St Florentin to Mercy-Argenteau, letters dated 18 and 31 January 1768, O1 *464 (1768), Archives nationales (hereafter referred to as “AN”), Paris.
82. Bernis to L’Hôpital, 25 June 1758, AE, CP Russie, Archives des Affaires étrangères (hereafter referred to as “AAE”), cited by Vandal, Albert, Louis XV et Élisabeth de Russie. Étude sur les relations de la France et de la Russie au XVIIIe siècle, d’après les archives du ministère des affaires étrangères (Paris: Plon, 1896), 333–34 Google Scholar.
83. Clay, Lauren, “Theater and the Commercialization of Culture in Eighteenth-Century France,” (Ph.D diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2003)Google Scholar. Clay renews Max Fuchs’s data from La vie théâtrale en province au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Droz, 1933).
84. Markovits, “Un ‘empire culturel’ ?” chap. 1.
85. Favart to Durazzo, 3 August 1761, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. I; Favart to Durazzo, 28 December 1762, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. II.
86. Favart to Durazzo, 28 December 1762, in ibid., vol. II.
87. Mooser, Robert-Aloys, Contribution à l’histoire de la musique russe. L’Opéra-comique français en Russie au XVIIIe siècle (Geneva: Kister, 1954), 28 Google Scholar.
88. Favart to Durazzo, 18 September 1763, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. II.
89. “Règlements divers,” Letter from the count of St Florentin to the Duke of Duras to prevent actors from going abroad, 27 September 1763, O1 844, AN, Paris. Also found in: O1 *405 (1763), no. 1034, AN, Paris; 2 AG 1763/5, Bibliothèque-musée de la Comédie-Française, Paris.
90. “Règlements divers,” Letter from the Duke of Praslin regarding actors who want to go abroad, 16 December 1763, O1 844, AN, Paris.
91. Denis, Vincent, Une histoire de l’identité. France, 1715-1815 (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2008), 20–21 Google Scholar.
92. Favart to Durazzo, 13 October 1763, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. II.
93. Durazzo to Favart, 13 July 1763, Box I, AII, Favart collection, BMO, Paris.
94. “Règlements divers,” Letter from the Duke of Praslin regarding actors who want to go abroad, 16 December 1763, O1 844, AN, Paris.
95. This explains why they were not subject to a new law, as opposed to what Favart and Durazzo had initially believed: see Durazzo to Favart, 27 November 1763, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. II.
96. Isambert, François-André et al., eds., Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises, depuis l’an 420 jusqu’à la Révolution de 1789 (Paris: Belin-Leprieur/Plon, 1821-1833)Google Scholar, no. 585 (Edict of August 1669) and no. 1010 (Order of May 18, 1682). According to Peter Sahlins, who discusses the edict of 1669 regarding the clause in the naturalization letters requiring naturalized foreigners to obtain royal permission if they wished to leave the kingdom, its consequences should not be overestimated. In the 1730s, it was implicitly assumed that the king’s subjects (as opposed to those who were naturalized) could leave France without asking for permission. See Sahlins, Peter, Unnaturally French: Foreign Citizens in the Old Regime and After (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004), 94–95 Google Scholar.
97. Lemaigre-Gaffier, Pauline, “Du cœur de la maison du Roi à l’esprit des institutions : l’administration des Menus Plaisirs de 1682 à 1792” (thesis supervised by Dominique Margairaz, University of Paris-1 Panthéon Sorbonne, 2011)Google Scholar.
98. Saint Florentin’s circular had taken this “desire to return” into account, insofar as the sanctions planned against actors who left the kingdom without permission were precisely designed to prohibit them from coming back.
99. Mercy-Argenteau to Kaunitz, 16 April 1770, in Mercy-Argenteau, Correspondance secrète.
100. Choiseul to Mercy-Argenteau, 16 April 1770, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4320, MZA, Brno.
101. Mercy-Argenteau to Kaunitz, 26 April 1770, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4320, MZA, Brno. This letter is not included in the Correspondance secrète published by Von Arneth and Flammermont.
102. Mercy-Argenteau to Kaunitz, 15 June 1770, in Mercy-Argenteau, Correspondance secrète.
103. Mercy-Argenteau to Kaunitz, 15 June 1770 and 15 November 1770, in ibid.
104. Kaunitz to Mercy-Argenteau, 27 May 1770, in ibid.
105. Kaunitz to Aufresne, 7 July 1770, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
106. Kaunitz to Marshal of Contades, 7 July 1770, cited by Teuber, Die Theater Wiens, x.
107. Dmitrieva and Espagne, Transferts culturels triangulaires.
108. Desormes to Kaunitz, 19 November 1748, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4492 (Divadlo I), MZA, Brno. On Kaunitz’s journey during the War of the Austrian Succession, see: McGill, “The Roots of Policy”; McGill, William J., “Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rittberg and the Conference of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748,” Duquesne Review 14 (1969): 154–67 Google Scholar.
109. For the facts concerning this event, see Haine, Malou, “Charles-Simon Favart à la tête du Théâtre des armées du maréchal de Saxe à Bruxelles (Jan. 1746-Déc. 1748),” in Grétry et l’Europe de l’opéra-comique, ed. Vendrix, Philippe (Liège: P. Mardaga, 1992), 269–335 Google Scholar.
110. Favart, Mémoires, I:xxii.
111. Markovits, “Un ‘empire culturel’ ?” chap. 4.
112. Favart to his mother, 15 July 1746, in Favart, Mémoires, vol. I.
113. On this aspect of the eighteenth-century wars, see Bell, David A., The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare As We Know It (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007)Google Scholar.
114. See Mark Ledbury’s suggestive remarks in “Boucher and Theater,” in Rethinking Boucher, eds. Hyde, Melissa and Ledbury, Mark (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2006), 148–49 Google Scholar.
115. Karro-Pélisson, “De la Querelle des Bouffons.”
116. On their presence in London, see Fuchs, Max, “Comédiens français à Londres (1738-1755),” Revue de littérature comparée 13 (1933): 43–72 Google Scholar. Fuchs was wrongly suspicious of the chronology of Jean Monnet’s stay: Monnet was indeed present in London beginning in late 1748.
117. In this respect, it is significant that the troupe hired in Vienna three years later in late 1751 had been the troupe-in-residence at The Hague that was released from its engagement following the prince of Orange’s death.
118. On the idea of a galant model, see Viala, Alain, La France galante. Essai historique sur une catégorie culturelle, de ses origines jusqu’à la Révolution (Paris: PUF, 2008)Google Scholar. After having investigated it as a vector of French “hegemony,” Viala preferred to remain “prudently in historical order” in his assessment of the “spread of French influence” (390).
119. On Sonnenfels’s conception of the theater, see Haider-Pregler, Hilde, “Die Schau-bühne als Sittenschule der Nation: Joseph von Sonnenfels und das Theater,” in Joseph von Sonnenfels, ed. Reinalter, Helmut (Vienna: Verl. der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988)Google Scholar.
120. Grossegger, Theater, Feste und Feiern, 2 March 1772, p. 295.
121. Kaunitz to the counts Durazzo in Venice, Khevenhüller in Turin, Wildzeck in Florence and to Monsieur de Greppi in Milan, 1 August 1771, Interiora 86, Staatskanzlei, HHStA, Vienna.
122. Wilczek to Kaunitz, 17 August 1771, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4493 (Divadlo II), MZA, Brno.
123. Aufresne to Kaunitz, 20 October 1772, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4076, MZA, Brno; Deville to Kaunitz, 4 May and 3 and 29 October 1772, Inv. 4164 and 4460, MZA, Brno.
124. On the Florentine stage, see Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni’s testimonial, June 26 (I/29, p. 107) and June 28, 1772 (I/29, p. 110), http://www.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/pelli/ .
125. Durazzo to Kaunitz, 12 December 1772, G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4174, Durazzo to Kaunitz, 12 December 1772, MZA, Brno. See also Zuckmantel to the Minister, 27 December 1772, CP Venice.233, AAE.
126. Ferdinando Galiani and Louise d’Épinay, Correspondance, vol. III, mars 1772-mai 1773, eds. Georges Dulac and Daniel Maggetti (Paris: Desjonquères, 1994).
127. The Marquis of Breteuil to the Duke of Aiguillon, 23 January 1773, CP Naples 95, AAE.
128. Deville to Kaunitz, 4May 1772,G 436, RA Kounicu˚ Slavkov, Inv. 4164, MZA, Brno.
129. Kaunitz to Voltaire, 28 September 1761, in Voltaire, Correspondance, 50 vols., ed. Theodore Besterman (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1968-1977), D10181.
130. See the definition proposed by McDonald, Christie and Suleiman, Susan Rubin, eds., French Global: A New Approach to Literary History (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), x Google Scholar.
131. Espagne, Russie, France, Allemagne, Italie, 7.
Linked content
This is a translation of: L’« Europe française », une domination culturelle ?: Kaunitz et le théâtre français à Vienne au XVIIIe siècle