CHAPTER ONE
Institutional Frameworks
Britain and Germany, 1800 to 1920
ANSELM HEINRICH
During the long nineteenth century different concepts of managing, organizing and overseeing theatrical entertainments were being discussed across Europe: differences which became manifest in particular in varying ideas about funding the performing arts. Increasingly from the turn of the eighteenth century onwards commentators established a binary between theatre as trade versus theatre as art. The different institutional frameworks established across Europe related to the different concepts of what theatreās function in society was supposed to be. At the two ends of the spectrum were Britain, where theatre was largely seen as a commercial enterprise, and Germany, where theatre was increasingly regarded as an educational tool, which needed financial support from the taxpayer. These differences became more pronounced in the early twentieth century with more and more German theatres being in receipt of regular subsidies from the state as well as local authorities. The development from relatively similar to fundamentally different theatre systems, the seriousness of the debates, and the effect these debates had on their respective societies, make Germany and Britain particularly fascinating case studies in this context.
The foundation of the ComĆ©die FranƧaise in Paris in 1680 established the national theatre as a royal institution as part of a programme of both centralization and control. While issues of governance were put into question after 1789 the principle of setting national standards and artistic principles remained important in French theatrical discourse throughout the nineteenth century ā a basic agreement missing from German and British contexts where discussions around the frameworks of theatrical production appear to have been more fluid, pronounced and existential. Both British and German commentators frequently looked up to the French who already in the seventeenth century seemed to have created a confident, influential and well-equipped national theatre which successfully set national standards of productions and was generously funded by the French state. In many ways, the opposite may be said of the American theatre which throughout the nineteenth century borrowed from continental Europe in search for its identity. The fact that, as Don B. Wilmeth and Tice L. Miller claim, this process ādid not reach its full potential until after WW Iā largely puts the American scene outside of the frame of the investigation here.1
Approaches to funding theatres in Britain only changed during the Second World War when subsidies were first paid linked to the countryās war effort.2 However, monies earmarked for a future national theatre in 1949 were slow in coming forward and a purpose-built playhouse only opened in 1976. Paying subsidies to theatres still seems alien, almost frivolous, to a large segment of the British public today, and they remain heavily scrutinized. Some commentators have claimed that this animosity may be explained by Britainās theatre history. After all, the countryās ānational poetā seemed to operate successfully within a commercial framework. Indeed, Richard Foulkes suggests that Shakespeareās international fame was due to an economic theatre model capable of exporting his plays around the world ā a success story which, according to Foulkes, could not have been accomplished by a subsidized theatre system.3
During the period under consideration theatre expanded significantly in both countries and in part due to legislation which stressed the theatreās economic role in society. By the early 1800s it had become apparent in Britain that the 1737 Licensing Act, which had tightened censorship and restricted theatrical performances to patent playhouses, was impractical and new legislation was needed to deal with the growing number of āillegitimateā but often tolerated theatres. Both the British 1843 Theatres Regulation Act and the German 1869 Gewerbefreiheit Law regulated theatre as a trade and both led to a phenomenal increase of places of entertainment.
In the following I will look at the 1832 and 1866 British Select Committees, the 1843 Theatres Act, and the parliamentary debates around the 1913 National Theatre Bill. For Germany I will look at the 1869 Gewerbefreiheit bill, the 1919 Weimar Constitution, which put theatre and cinema under Reich jurisdiction, and, particularly, municipal frameworks of governing theatres. The focus on these legal frameworks will be embedded in a discussion of the wider socio-political context from which they originated.
DISCOURSES
In Victorian and Edwardian Britain, and in a society focused on the primacy of individual economic success, and the individual in opposition to the collective, discussing theatre in an essay on āinstitutional frameworksā would have seemed an odd undertaking. Theatres were largely seen as private affairs and not as necessarily contributing to the common good. Even worse, for Victorian Britainās Christian majority the theatre was often regarded as morally suspect. Many were intensely suspicious, saw play-going as a distraction from religion and as a promoter of frivolity, vanity and female forwardness. In a typical comment of the time Reverend William Adamson replied to the question whether it was āpossible to reform the theatre, and make it the centre of an elevating influenceā, that this āhas been tried again and again, without success [ā¦] The reason being, the evil is essential, not accidental; and if this is the case, permanent reformation is impossibleā.4 John Bennett entitled his 1838 Dublin sermon ā which was subsequently published ā āThe Evil of Theatrical Amusementsā, and there were numerous similar publications.5 Theatres were ālinked to prostitution, juvenile delinquency, idleness, drunkenness and frivolityā ā in fact they were the āantithesis of the Victorian world view which prized respectability, gentility, decency, education and upliftā, as Jeffrey Richards has argued.6 In many quarters and until at least the later decades of the nineteenth century, theatre was āregarded as the lowliest of the arts, if one at allā.7
At the same time the various forms of theatrical entertainments became immensely popular. Simon Shepherd and Peter Womack have posited that in the Victorian period āthere were probably more performances in more theatres seen by more people than at any other period, including the presentā.8 It also helped that actor-managers like Henry Irving and Herbert Beerbohm Tree strove to make the theatre ārespectableā, and worthy of middle-class patronage.9 Irvingās Lyceum Theatre was referred to as āa national theatre [ā¦] without a subsidyā.10 Theatres underwent substantial renovation programmes creating richly decorated auditoria with comfortable seating, expensive carpets and curtains, and the latest stage technology. Acting professionalized and ticket prices were raised. To many commentators it appeared as if the theatre had attracted the middle class back into its confines, and Matthew Arnold saw āour community turning to the theater with eagernessā again.11 āVirtuousā entertainment with Shakespeare and MoliĆØre as well as educational melodramas, Toga Plays and Pantomime represented a powerful tool to ābetterā the lower middle and working classes. It is worth keeping in mind though that even when the influential actor-managers of late Victorian and Edwardian Britain referred to the theatreās important role in nation building (e.g. Wilson Barrett) they had a commercial model in mind, not a subsidized one. Charles Wyndham and Henry Irving cherished their independence and decidedly turned against the āfostering of a State nurseā.12 They claimed that theatre āmust be carried on as a business or it will fail as an artā.13 The Era concurred and declared that āfree trade is good in the long run whatever people may sayā,14 and John Hollingshead, manager and lessee of the Gaiety Theatre, spoke of āthe English suspicion of institutionalised bureaucracy in state-funded theatresā.15 When Herbert Beerbohm Tree opened the new Her Majestyās in 1897 the undertaking was celebrated as a successful counter-model to subsidized continental theatres.16 Instead of putting up a building which ārivals the parliament house, or the cathedral as a public building [like] in some Continental citiesā Tree had not only kept the costs down but had also built āquite the handsomest theatre in London [which] must go altogether to the credit of Mr Treeās public spirit and artistic conscienceā.17
By that time the German discourse had already internalized Friedrich Schillerās dictum of the theatre as a āmoral institutionā and as contributing to a general cultural education...