• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Theatre, Calvinism, and Civil Society in Eighteenth-Century Edinburgh and Geneva Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/01h927nz Author Leyba, Ashley Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Theatre, Calvinism and Civil Society in Eighteenth­Century Edinburgh and Geneva By Ashley Carroll Leyba A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Thomas Laqueur, Chair Professor Mark Peterson Professor David Landreth Fall 2014 Abstract Theatre, Calvinism and Civil Society in Eighteenth-Century Edinburgh and Geneva By Ashley Carroll Leyba Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Thomas Laqueur, Chair Over the course of eighteen months in 1756 and 1757, theatre crises, large-scale debates about the morality of the stage, erupted in both Edinburgh and Geneva. Traditionally, these debates have been explained away as examples of Calvinist anti-theatricality. This dissertation argues, however, that this understanding is inaccurate. Beyond the fact that there was no consistent tradition of Calvinist anti-theatricality in the early modern period, taking such a narrow view of the theatre crises undermines their importance. The theatre debates of 1756 and 1757 must be understood in the context of the Enlightenment and changing notions about the relationship between the Calvinist church and civil society. The theatre symbolized the birth of civil society and the end of a particular brand of Calvinism. When the eighteenth-century debates about the stage are understood only as examples of “Calvinist anti-theatricality,” though, this importance is lost. This project remedies the current gap in scholarship by demonstrating that these debates were not simply about the theatre; they were about the fate of Calvinism in an increasingly polite, enlightened society. 1 For J and S i Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………1 Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………….i Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………..iii Introduction: Calvinists and the Theatre…………………………………………………………..1 Chapter One: Theatre Amongst the Reformed……………………………………………………6 Chapter Two: Theatre and the Godly, Calvinist City……………………………………………24 Chapter Three: Calvinism Made Polite: Douglas and the End of Civic Calvinism in Eighteenth-Century Edinburgh…………………………………………………………………..40 Chapter Four: Calvin Meets Voltaire: Defending “Enlightened Orthodoxy” in Eighteenth-Century Geneva……………………………………………………………………...70 Referenced Works………………………………………………………………………………..92 Appendix A: Club Membership Amongst Edinburgh’s “Gentlemen Ministers”………………101 Appendix B: Published Works, Gentlemen and Evangelical Ministers………………………..103 Appendix C: Jean le Rond d’Alembert, “Geneva,” Encyclopedia, 1757………………………108 ii Acknowledgments This is a project nearly seven years in the making. As a result, I have accumulated a number of debts, and owe an overwhelming amount of gratitude to those who helped me along the way. Thomas Laqueur, the chair of my dissertation committee, has been a part of this project from the very beginning. What began as a seminar paper written during my first year of graduate school at Berkeley slowly (sometimes very slowly) transformed into a topic and project worthy of a dissertation. His insights, comments, and suggestions throughout the process have been invaluable, and have certainly made this a better dissertation. I would also like to thank both Mark Peterson and Dave Landreth for serving on my committee. They were endlessly supportive and encouraging, and provided important feedback that sharpened my writing and arguments. It has been a pleasure to complete my graduate studies at UC Berkeley. I have received tremendous support--financial, academic, and emotional--from this community. I am particularly indebted to the UC Berkeley Department of History, as well as the Institute of European Studies, for providing generous funding for both the researching and writing of this dissertation. In this last year of writing, I took advantage of the CalWriters program that is supported through Berkeley’s College of Letters and Sciences. I do not exaggerate when I write that I would not have finished this dissertation without the support of my CalWriters group. The virtual journal provided a much-needed system of accountability and, even more importantly, my in-person writing group (big thanks to Adrianne Francisco, Siti Keo, and Rosa Martinez) kept me sane, and made this process a much less solitary endeavour. Other graduate students in the history department read chapters, listened to my griping, and supported me through difficult periods. For this, I am extraordinarily grateful for Hilary Falb, India Mandelkern, Doug O’Reagan, and Elizabeth Terry. You are all amazing. I have also had the great opportunity to work at Berkeley’s Graduate Student Instructor Teaching and Resource Center while writing, revising, and editing this dissertation. The staff at the Center--Linda von Hoene, Kim Starr-Reid, Sarah MacDonald, Linda Miyagawa, and Jenny Cole--have offered mentorship, guidance, and camaraderie. I have been honored to work with all of you. My father, in-laws, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins have contributed to this dissertation in a variety of ways. They’ve read sections, offered well-timed words of encouragement and believed in my ability to finish this, even when I was ready to quit. Special thanks go to my mother-in-law, Gail, who flew out to California on a number of occasions to help with Savannah while I was doing research abroad. It would have been very difficult to complete the research necessary for this project without your help. There are not enough words to adequately acknowledge and thank my husband, Jason. The seven years of this dissertation spanned the early years of our marriage, our first years as parents, and a rather traumatic injury. Through it all, you have supported me, listened to my musings and ramblings as I worked through a thorny section or question, and gone out of your iii way to ensure that I had the time and space needed to finish this project. You’re the best and, without question, my favorite. And, of course, our sweet Savannah. You make every day brighter and more joyful, and I’m so lucky to be your momma. Your infectious love of learning and insatiable curiosity were great sources of inspiration while I finished this up. I love you both, and dedicate this to you. iv Introduction: Calvinists and the Theatre Over the course of eighteen months in 1756 and 1757, theatre crises, large-scale debates about the morality of the stage, erupted in both Edinburgh and Geneva. While the initial impetus for crisis varied between the two cities, the debates that followed took on a familiar form. Those who opposed the theatre argued that it encouraged idle pursuits, wasted money, and, most importantly, destroyed civic morality. Those who supported the theatre, on the other hand, lauded the theatre’s ability to provide moral instruction and act as a civilizing influence on cities too long denied the benefits of the stage. On the surface, very little separated the debates in Edinburgh and Geneva from the many other theatre debates that took place in the post- Reformation period. These were, after all, Calvinist cities and Calvinists had a long history of opposing the stage. Because of this tradition, when the theatre crises of 1756 and 1757 are studied, they are often explained away as examples of Calvinist anti-theatricality. In The Annals of the Edinburgh Stage, James Dibdin blames the “illiberal feeling and bigotry” of the Scottish clergy for the 1756 theatre crisis in Edinburgh.1 Writing nearly one hundred years later, Richard Sher echoes this idea when he notes that it was “zealous Presbyterians” who believed the theatre to be sinful who fought to keep theatres out of Edinburgh.2 Even John McIntosh, who tends to sympathize with those zealous Presbyterians, argued that the clerical reaction against the stage in 1756 was in keeping with Calvinist theology and practice.3 Similar statements and analyses can be found in the literature regarding the 1757 theatre crisis in Geneva. Helena Rosenblatt, though focused primarily on how Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Genevan heritage inspired his political writings, does address the Genevan theatre crisis in Rousseau and Geneva. Rosenblatt contends that Geneva’s theatre crisis was caused by the town’s “traditionalist clergy” who were unyielding in their opposition to the theatre.4 In some ways, these interpretations are accurate. As will be explained in more detail throughout this dissertation, Calvinist ministers did play an important role in restricting and/or banning the theatre in Calvinist cities. What is problematic about these accounts, though, is the underlying assumption that Calvinism was inherently anti-theatrical. Those ministers who opposed the stage in the eighteenth century loudly proclaimed that the stage was incompatible with Calvinism and, more importantly for our purposes, had always been so. Since Calvinists did in fact protest the stage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most scholars have not challenged the 5 assertion that Calvinists had always been opposed

Load more

  124

Copy Link