In France the State intervenes directly in theatrical matters in Paris
only, subsidising the four chief theatres of the capital--to wit, the
Opera, the Opera Comique, the Comedie Francaise and the Odeon.
In the provinces theatres are subsidised by municipal councils, who vote
each year a certain sum for the purpose. The manager is appointed for
one year only, subject to his acceptance of the _cahier des charges_, a
contract embodying a scheme of stipulations devised by the council, and
imposed in return for the subsidy granted. The least infraction of the
conditions laid therein brings its penalty either in the way of a fine
or the forfeit of the contract. The subsidies vary according to the
importance of the town, the theatres of Lyons, Bordeaux and Marseilles
being the three best endowed. Less favoured are places like Rouen,
Lille, Nantes, Dijon, Nancy, Angers, Reims, Toulouse, etc., and, though
the Chamber of Deputies votes every year in the Budget of Fine Arts a
considerable sum for the provinces, the subsidy is not allotted to
theatres, but to conservatoires, symphonic concerts and orpheonic
societies. Two years ago a Deputy, M. Goujon, obtained in the Chamber
the vote of a special grant for such provincial theatres as had
distinguished themselves by producing novelties. But the Senate threw
out the proposal.
It is not, however, as if the Government of the Republic were
indifferent to the fate of the provincial theatres or their progress in
the field of operatic art. But worship of Paris on one side, and a
dislike to decentralisation on the other, are responsible for the fact
that all efforts are directed towards one channel, namely, the four
before-named Parisian theatres. Of these, naturally enough only the
opera house will engage my attention, or more precisely one alone, the
Grand Opera House, _La Theatre National de l'Opera_, there being little
practical difference between the working of that and of the younger
house, the _Theatre de l'Opera Comique_.
A few words, following chronologically the various stages through which
the Paris Opera House has passed since its origin, may prove of
interest, and serve to indicate how untiring has been the care of
successive Governments over the fortunes and the evolution of the
operatic problem in France.
It will be remembered that Pierre Perrin was the possessor of the first
operatic privilege granted by Louis XIV. in 1669. Hardly had he been
installed when Lulli began to intrigue against his management, and
having learnt that the profits of the first year amounted to over
120,000 livres, he had no rest until he obtained, through the influence
of Mme. de Montespan, the dismissal of Perrin and obtained the post for
himself. In fifteen years his net profits amounted to 800,000 livres!
He was succeeded by his son-in-law, Francine, who held the privilege
with various fortunes until 1714, the King intervening more than once in
the administration. In 1715 the Duc d'Antin was appointed _Regisseur
Royal de l'Academie_ by letters-patent of the King, who up till then
considered himself supreme chief of his Academy.
In 1728 the management passed into the hands of Guyenet, the composer,
who in turn made over the enterprise, for a sum of 300,000 livres, to a
syndicate of three--Comte de Saint-Gilles, President Lebeuf and one
Gruer. Though their privilege had been renewed for thirty years, the
King, Louis XV., was obliged to cancel it owing to the scandal of a
_fete galante_ the syndicate had organised at the Academie Royale, and
Prince de Carignan was appointed in 1731 _inspecteur-general_. A captain
of the Picardy regiment, Eugene de Thuret, followed in 1733, was
succeeded in 1744 by Berger, and then came Trefontaine, whose management
lasted sixteen months--until the 27th of August 1794. All this was a
period of mismanagement and deficits, and the King, tired of constant
mishaps and calls upon his exchequer, ordered the city of Paris to take
over the administration of his Academy. At the end of twenty-seven years
the city had had enough of it, and the King devised a fresh scheme by
appointing six "Commissaires du Roi pres la Academie" (Papillon de la
Ferte, Mareschel des Entelles, De la Touche, Bourboulon, Hebert and
Buffault), who had under their orders a director, two inspectors, an
agent and a cashier. But the combination was short-lived, lasting barely
a year. In 1778 the city of Paris made one more try by granting a
subvention of 80,000 livres by a Sieur de Vismos.
In 1780 the King took back from the city the operatic concession--we
must bear in mind it was a monopoly all this time--appointing a
"Commissaire de sa Majeste" (La Ferte) and a director (Berton).
In 1790 the opera came once more under the administration of the city,
and during the troublous times of the Revolution changed its name of
Academie Royale to that of _Theatre de la Republique et des Arts_.
By an Imperial decree of the 29th of July 1807 the opera came under the
jurisdiction of the first Chamberlain of the Emperor, whilst under the
Restoration the Minister of the King's Household took the
responsibilities of general supervision. One Picard was appointed
director under both _regimes_, and was succeeded by Papillon de la Ferte
and Persius. Then followed the short management of Viotti, and in 1821
F. Habeneck was called to the managerial chair.
The Comte de Blacas, Minister of the King's Household, became
superintendent of Royal theatres, and after him the post was occupied by
the Marquis de Lauriston, the Duc de Doudeauville and the Vicomte
Sosthenes de la Rochefoucauld. Habeneck was replaced by Duplantis, who
took the title of Administrator of the Opera. The administration of M.
de la Rochefoucauld cost King Louis Philippe 966,000 francs in addition
to the State subvention, and an extra subsidy of 300,000 francs derived
from a toll levied in favour of the opera on side shows and fancy
spectacles. This was in 1828, and in 1830 the King, finding the
patronage of the opera too onerous for his Civil List, resolved to
abandon the theatre to private enterprise. Dr Veron offered to take the
direction of the opera house, at his own risk, for a period of six years
with a subsidy of 800,000 francs, and, with the exception of a period of
twelve years (1854-1866), the administration of the opera was included
in the duties of the Master of the Emperor's Household. Both the subsidy
and the principle of private enterprise have remained to this day as
settled in 1830. Before then, for 151 years, French opera had enjoyed
the patronage and effective help of the Sovereign, or the chief of the
State, very much on the same system as obtains at the present day in
Germany.[B]
Dr Veron had as successors, MM. Duponchel, Leon Pillet, Nestor
Roqueplan, Perrin, Halanzier, Vaucorbeil, Ritt and Gailhard, Bertrand
and Gailhard, and finally Pierre Gailhard, the present director of the
Theatre National de l'Opera.
The present relations in France between the State and the director of
the opera are as follows:--
The Paris Opera House, like all other theatres in France, and for the
matter of that all institutions in the domain of Art in that country, is
under the direct control and dependence of the Minister of Fine Arts,
who has absolute power in appointing a director, in drawing up the
_cahier des charges_, in imposing certain conditions and even in
interfering with the administration of the theatre. The appointment,
called also the granting of the _privilege_, is for a number of years,
generally seven, and can be renewed or not at the wish or whim of the
Minister. The _cahier des charges_, as already stated, is a contract
embodying the conditions under which the _privilege_ is granted. Some of
these are at times very casuistic. As regards interference, one can
easily understand how a chief can lord it over his subordinate if so
minded. It is sufficient to point out the anomaly of the director's
position who is considered at the same time a Government official and a
tradesman--a dualism that compels him to conciliate the attitude of a
disinterested standard-bearer of national art with the natural desire of
an administrator to run his enterprise for profit. Let me cite a typical
instance. Of all the works in the repertory of the opera, Gounod's
_Faust_ still holds the first place in the favour of the public, and is
invariably played to full or, at least, very excellent houses, so that
whenever business is getting slack _Faust_ is trotted out as a trump
card.[C] Another sure attraction is Wagner's _Walkuere_. On the other
hand, a good many operas by native composers have failed to take the
public fancy, and have had to be abandoned before they reached a minimum
of, say, twenty performances in one year. Now, when the director sees
that his novelty is played to empty houses he hastens to put on _Faust_
or the _Walkuere_, but the moment he does it up goes a cry of complaint,
and a reproof follows--"You are not subsidised to play _Faust_ or operas
by foreign composers, but to produce and uphold the works of native
musicians; you are not a tradesman, but a high dignitary in the Ministry
of Fine Arts," and so on.
At other times, when in a case of litigation, the director wishes to
avail himself of the prerogatives of this dignity, he is simply referred
to the Tribunal de Commerce, as any tradesman. Ministerial interference
is exercised, however, only in cases of flagrant maladministration, and
then there are, of course, directors and directors, just the same as
there are Ministers and Ministers.
It is needless to go over the whole ground of the _cahier des charges_,
the various paragraphs of which would form a good-sized pamphlet. The
cardinal points of the stipulations between the contracting parties are,
that the director of the Paris Opera House receives on his appointment
possession of the theatre rent free, with all the stock of scenery,
costumes and properties, with all the administrative and artistic
_personnel_, the repertory, and a yearly subsidy of 800,000 francs
(L32,000).
In return for this he binds himself to produce every year a number of
works by native composers, and to mount these in a manner capable of
upholding the highest standard of art, and worthy of the great
traditions of the house. This implies, among others, that every new work
must be mounted with newly-invented scenery and freshly-devised
costumes, and that in general, no one set of scenery, or equipment of
wardrobe, can serve for two different operas, even were there an
identity of situations or historical period or any other points of
similarity. Thus, if there are in the opera repertory fifty works,
necessitating, say, a cathedral, a public square, a landscape or an
interior, the direction must provide fifty different cathedrals, fifty
different public squares, fifty varying landscapes, etc. The same
principle applies to costumes, not only, of the principal artists, but
of the chorus and the ballet. Only the clothes and costumes of
definitely abandoned works can be used again by special permission of
the Minister of Fine Arts.
As regards the new works that a director is bound to produce every year,
not only is their number stipulated, but the number of acts they are to
contain, and their character is specified as well. This is in order to
avoid the possible occurrence of a production, say, of two works each in
one act, after which exertion a director might consider himself quit of
the obligation. It is plainly set out that the director must produce in
the course of the year _un grand ouvrage_, _un petit ouvrage_, and a
ballet of so many acts each--total, eight, nine or ten acts, according
to the stipulations. Moreover, he is bound to produce the work of a
_prix de Rome_--that is to say, of a pupil of the Conservatoire, who has
received a first prize for composition, and has been sent at the expense
of the Government to spend three years at the Villa Medicis of the
Academie de France in Rome. Owing to circumstances, the Minister himself
designates the candidates for this _ex-officio_ distinction, guided by
priority of prizes. The director had recourse to this measure through
the fault of the _prix de Rome_ themselves, who, over and over again,
either had nothing ready for him or else submitted works entirely
unsuitable for the house. The Minister's nomination relieves the
director of responsibility in such cases.
Works of foreign composers produced at the opera, do not count in the
number of acts stipulated by the _cahier de charges_, the respective
paragraphs being drawn up in favour of native composers; nor can any
excess in the number of acts produced in one year be carried over to the
next year.
Amongst the prerogatives of the Paris opera director, is the absolute
monopoly of his repertory in the capital--works in the public domain
excepted--and the right to claim for his theatre the services of those
who gain the first prizes at the final examinations of the operatic
classes at the Conservatoire.
Towards the working expenses of his theatre the director has, firstly,
the subvention and the subscription, and, secondly, the _alea_ of the
box-office sales. The subvention of 800,000 francs divided by the number
of obligatory performances gives close upon L170 towards each, and the
subscription averages L400 a night, or L570 as a minimum with which the
curtain is raised, and it is the manager's business to see that his
expenses do not exceed the sum. The "house full" receipts being very
little over L800 at usual prices, the margin is not very suggestive of
huge profits. Indeed, with the constantly rising pretensions of star
artists, spoilt by the English, and American markets, and the fastidious
tastes of his patrons, the Paris opera director has some difficulty in
making both ends meet. Within the last fifteen years the two Exhibition
seasons have saved the management from financial disaster, and this only
by performing every day, Sundays sometimes included. Some fifty new
works by native composers have been produced at the opera since the
opening of the new house in 1876, and six by foreign composers--_Aida_,
_Otello_, _Lohengrin_, _Tannhaeuser_, _Walkuere_, and _Meistersinger_. The
maximum of performances falls to _Romeo et Juliette_, this opera heading
also the figure of average receipts with 17,674 francs (about L507).
Eleven works have had the misfortune to figure only between three and
nine times on the bill.
Independently of the supervision exercised by the Minister of Fine Arts,
the strictest watch is kept over managerial doings by the Societe des
Auteurs, a legally constituted body which represents the authors'
rights, and is alone empowered to treat in their names with theatrical
managers, to collect the fees, to guard the execution of contracts and
even to impose fines.
Thus is national art in France not only subsidised and patronised, but
safeguarded and protected.