DISCRIMINATING DEMOCRACY: THEATER AND REPUBLICAN CULTURAL POLICY IN FRANCE, 1878-1893 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Emmanuelle Sandrine Chapin June 2011 © 2011 by Emmanuelle Sandrine Chapin. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/kw083cw0939 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. James Daughton, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Jessica Riskin I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Aron Rodrigue Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Abstract The dissertation analyzes the projects of popular theater devised by the republican governments and assemblies, 1878 to 1893, in order to understand the conflicted point of view of republicans with regard to the democratization of art. In the 1880s, the four state- subsidized theaters (the Opéra, the Opéra-Comique, the Comédie-Française, and the Odéon) had a very select audience. Yet, republicans were divided on the issue of its diversification. On the one hand, the purportedly inferior moral capacities of the popular public made dramatic performances hazardous without a prior education of its will. Under the sway of illusion, the members of lower classes could misinterpret plays. Also, if they were endowed with the culture of the elite, they might be tempted to misrepresent their position in society. On the other hand, the fact that lower classes attended popular concerts and literary matinees revealed an interest in high-brow repertoire, which suggested that they were kept away from state-subsidized theaters against their wishes. In addition, it seemed fair to make these institutions accessible to people whose taxes paid for their upkeep. The successive projects of popular theater represent the various solutions imagined by republican governments to reconcile two contradictory impulses, democratization and discrimination. They show how a culture of prejudices, inherited from previous regimes, progressively came to terms with a new conception of justice, more respectful of individuals’ autonomy and sovereignty. iv At the end of the 1870s, the minister of public instruction and fine arts Agénor Bardoux denied that the state had any responsibility to democratize art. He variously argued that democratization happened spontaneously or that the artistic mission of the state did not include the dissemination of works. Jules Ferry believed that the state owed a theater to the lower classes, but, convinced that lower classes were inferior in their aptitudes, he imagined a popular lyric theater that would be a pale copy of the Opéra. Finally, Léon Bourgeois accepted the director of the Opéra’s proposition that the institution should organize reduced-price performances. Bourgeois thought it more conducive to social peace to promote a common culture than to cultivate separate class identities. In his mind, the difference between the people and the elite should consist in their respective degrees of exposure to high-brow culture. By making private initiative (that is, the directors of the state-subsidized institutions and the associations of popular education) responsible for theatrical democratization, Bourgeois ensured that the lower classes could never attain the same cultural fluency as that possessed by the elite. By the beginning of the 1890s, French republican leaders had gone from a differentiated to a marginal democratization. The study of theatrical democratization in the 1880s shows that French republicans abided by two principles of government. One, which reflected the republicans’ universalist credo, advocated the equal treatment of individuals by virtue of their equal rights. The other, inspired by utilitarian tenets, defended the differentiated treatment of individuals on the grounds of their unequal aptitudes. Republicans recognized two categories of individuals, the people and the elite, which they associated with fixed qualities. The elite was defined by its economic power, social standing, and v political influence, as well as its superior moral and intellectual capacities. The people, by contrast, were allegedly irrational and showed a tendency to immoral behavior. In the republicans’ mind, the state did not need to conduct a formal assessment of individuals’ aptitudes because its absolute rationality and morality guaranteed the fairness of its decisions. This dissertation argues that the ambiguity of the notion of merit in the republicans’ discourse (did it lie in the essence of a social group or was it the result of individuals’ actions?) informed a tension between the desire to extend liberties and democratize elite practices, on the one hand, and the perceived necessity to control activities and discriminate against the people, on the other. vi Acknowledgments This dissertation is the result of many hours spent in the isolation of a study, but also of many engaging discussions with scholars and friends. I would like to thank them all. Christophe Charle has been a constant source of encouragement and inspiration. His critiques and suggestions have much contributed to refine my argument. I am grateful to Mary Lou Roberts for welcoming me to the history program at Stanford and giving me the chance of studying in such privileged conditions. And of course I want to thank the members of my dissertation committee for all the help they offered: my adviser, J. P. Daughton, and my readers, Jessica Riskin and Aron Rodrigue. My dissertation has immensely benefited from their insightful comments. My conversations with historians have stimulated my thought in all ways and I would like to thank them for sharing their time and ideas with me. I think in particular of Pascal Ory, Olivier Wieviorka, Philippe Gumplowicz, Chantal Meyer-Plantureux, Pascale Goetschel, Antoinette Blum, Greg Shaya, Joe Zizek, Catherine Faivre-Zellner, Odile Krakovitch, Michael Werner, and Patrice Veit. I owe similar thanks to Patrick Fridenson, who was also kind enough to invite me to give a paper at the EHESS. In Stanford, New York, Paris, and Wellington, I have received help from friends that was vital to the completion of this dissertation and to my life beyond it. Bernard Ludwig, Sang Ngo, Ken Reisman, and Mark Pottinger receive my heartfelt thanks for their vii support. Caroline Moine, Guthrun Love, Douglas Mews, Monique Rolland, and Malcolm Moore have kindly provided me with friendship and shelter during my various trips. Finally, I owe much to the diligence of my editors, Darci Gardner and Melissa Cross. This dissertation would not have been possible without the financial support I received from the History Department at Stanford in the form of a generous five-year graduate fellowship. In the later stages of the Ph.D., I also benefited from a Weter dissertation completion fellowship. I wish to thank the kind and efficient members of the staff of the History Department, who have repeatedly gone out of their way to help me: Art Palmon, Linda Huynh, and Lynn Kaiser. Sarah Sussmann, the curator of French and Italian collections at the Stanford University libraries, has given me much bibliographical advice and made numerous books available for my research. Finally, Christine Campbell and Charlotte Labbé were the competent and enthusiastic librarians in charge of interlibrary loans at Fordham University in New York, where I spent one year during my work on this dissertation. I owe a special debt to my parents, Hélène Loubat and Jean-Marie Loubat, and to my in-laws, Mimi and Terry Chapin, They have shown their benevolence in many ways: through interest, advice, and encouragement; through assistance in childcare on many occasions; and, not least, through financial assistance that made it possible for me to continue my studies. My father, in particular, offered help in finding sources in Parisian libraries and archives while I was on the other side of the planet from them. My sister, Valérie Loubat, has also been essential to the success of the enterprise. Finally, it would be difficult to enumerate everything that my companion throughout these years, Keith Chapin, has done for me. He took care of children and household tasks so that I could viii have enough time to work. He discussed my topic with his usual sharpness. He edited my text and taught me English in the process. He has been my confidant in times of doubt. But, most important, his love has illuminated my life. Thank you. Lastly, I thank our two children, Adèle and Émile, for creating a theater that might not have been to the taste of republicans but that is immeasurably stimulating and pleasurable, a theater of joyful chaos. ix Table of Contents Abstract iv Acknowledgments vii Table of Contents x Introduction. Democratization and Discrimination 1 Part I. Official Views on Theater 1. Theater and the Law 34 2. Theater and Popular Education 60 Part II. Chronicle of Popular Theater Projects 3. The Théâtre-Lyrique (1847-1878) 132 4. The Théâtre Lyrique Populaire (1878) 145 5. The Théâtre d’Application (1879) 160 6. The Opéra Populaire and the Théâtre Dramatique Populaire (1879-1880) 173 x 7.