Russian Public Theatre Audiences of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries

Russian Public Theatre Audiences of the 18th and Early 19th CenturiesAuthor(s): Malcolm BurgessSource: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 37, No. 88 (Dec., 1958), pp. 160-183Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205017 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:41:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4205017?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Russian Public Theatre Audiences

of the 18th

and Early 19th

Centuries

MALCOLM BURGESS

'Is it fair', asks Dr Robert Lyall, 'to make a comparison between

the Russians and European nations which have been civilised and

polished for many centuries? All will reply in the negative.'1 In the

same way, it might be thought inconsiderate to try to compare Russian theatre audiences of the 18th and early 19th centuries

with those elsewhere. Yet condescension need not be shown, for at the

end of the 18th century, with the steady progress in stage production and the advancement of the Russian drama, public behaviour had

been so much perfected that travellers to Russia reported on the

demeanour of the audience with genuine admiration, and the

orderliness of the assembly evoked only the highest praise. 'The

silence and decorum of the audience', observed Sir John Carr, 'cannot but impress the mind of anyone, who has witnessed the

boisterous clamours of an English audience.'2

We can read of the brawls at Covent Garden under the manage? ment of Rich, of the ecstasy of a fashionable audience when Mr

Garrick appeared in the character of Lear, or of the roisterous

disorder of London gentlemen at Drury Lane, but what of the

company who packed the pit and galleries when Dmitrevsky played, or the gallants and their ladies who saw La Sacco triumph in the

Locatelli Opera BufFa?3

In the first days of the 18th century, if a man ventured at all to

the theatre, he might feel himself guilty of a flagrant indiscretion, for it was not so long since the patriarch had interdicted all forms of

histrionic pleasure. From early days the godless 'amusement from

abroad', or any diversion which had an origin outside Russia, was

regarded with severe suspicion. But in time, under Peter the Great, a more enlightened attitude prevailed, for the new tsar, as part of

his zealous reformation, was anxious that the play-house should be

1 Robert Lyall, The Character of the Russians and a detailed History of Moscow, London, 1823, P- 1V-

2 John Carr, A Northern Summer or Travels round the Baltic through Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Prussia and part of Germany in the year 1804, London, 1805, p. 297. 3 For an account of English and French audiences of the 18th century see Z. Doran, Annals of the English Stage, II, pp. 127-59, anc* HI, pp. 30-62, and the scholarly treatise by Professor Allardyce Nicoll, A History of Early Eighteenth Century Drama, Cambridge, 1925, pp. 8-25, and A History of Late Eighteenth Century Drama, Cambridge, 1927, pp. 5-22.



RUSSIAN PUBLIC THEATRE AUDIENCES l6l

made to thrive. The theatre which Peter built in the Red Square

helped to arouse interest, and his efforts to enforce attendance at

assemblies broke down the previous reserve. A play-bill which

advertised an exciting play would attract some citizens, a Russian

merchant might be intrigued by what he saw announced and

quietly slip away from home and family to the wooden Khoromina

for comedy in the city square. Inside the theatre, the merchant could meet some friends,- gossip

or laugh at the actions on the stage and then go home cheered,

perhaps, by his impressions. Later, other citizens might decide to

try the new-found pastime so that by-and-by an audience was

assembled. Aleksey Mikhaylovich attended his theatre enclosed in

a special box and the tsaritsa was always veiled from public view

in case popular propriety should have been outraged, but Peter

went openly and unashamedly to the play-house. The court circular

for 18 May 1724 was able to announce that the tsar 'was bled in the

left leg during the morning and expressed a wish to visit the Comedy in the evening'.4

Thus the example of the tsar greatly dispersed the prejudice of

the Russian public, over whom the threat of perdition had long held

sway and people no longer considered the foreign actors to be such

harbingers of vice.

It was some time, however, before the audience in Russia became

enthusiastic. In the early 18th century, the German players acted

to a hostile house. The public who visited the theatre was a motley

crowd, consisting of tanners, dyers, and other sorts, mostly from the

foreign or German district of Moscow. They paid from three to ten

kopeks for seats, a trifling sum, and the repertoire from Germany was, no doubt, unsuited to their tastes. In summer the theatre might be filled twice a week with up to five hundred spectators, but during the spring and autumn months there was always a poor attendance.

Often not more than fifty people were present on each occasion.

Certainly the unhealthy aspect of Moscow accounted for much of

this lack of interest, for travelling was difficult and culture non?

existent. The audience thus remained an uncultivated and untutored

set from the lowest classes of society while behaviour was appalling and contemptible.5

This early public theatre of Moscow was finally closed in 1705

through lack of attendance. Apart from the small public theatre

formed by the Tsarevna Nataliya Alekseyevna at St Petersburg in

about 17io, until her death in 1716 the ordinary public of Russia

4 N. V. Drizen', Materially k istorii russkogo teatra, 2nd ed., Moscow, 1913, p. 4. 6 Upon the behaviour of these early audiences see L. Gurevich, Istoriya russkogo tea- traVnogo byta, Moscow-Leningrad, 1939, I, pp. 23-4.



l62 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

saw little histrionic activity besides occasional performances at the

seminaries such as the Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy at Moscow and the productions of the academic drama in other cities.

For the next thirty years or so, dramatic activity was centred

mainly in the new capital of St Petersburg which was then still under vigorous construction. We are now concerned with a different

type of audience, the audience of the court and palace entertain?

ments. Since Anna Ivanovna considered a court theatre to be a

necessary appendage of palace life after the German model, the

social strata of the Russian audience became far removed from the

abandoned mob which visited the theatre in Peter's time. From

now on the court was a civilising influence over the Russian public, for sovereignty set a standard which all desired to follow. Opera and ballet made an appearance during the rule of Anna, and since she found the theatre indispensable, both stage construction and the tone of the audience better befitted* the spectacular productions staged throughout her reign.6

After the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna, the audience gradually became established and select. At performances in the Winter

Palace or the Opera House the highest society of the capital were accustomed to be present, and the great families of St Petersburg, the Stroganovs, Dolgorukys, Vorontsovs, Sheremetevs, Bruces,

Golitsyns and Odoyevskys could be seen applauding from the

galleries and boxes. The curtain rose at six o'clock and the show

was usually over by ten in the evening. Elizabeth's delight in theatricals extended further than any love

of the stage existing among her subjects. The rebuilding of the

Opera House in the Summer Garden after the fire of 1749 had given fresh impetus to theatre patronage in St Petersburg. Audiences

composed of the nobility and upper class were obliged to appear with unceasing regularity, and the building, centrally situated near the Anichkov and Summer Palaces, was within easy reach. But

although the aristocracy were bound to come to all major pro? ductions at the court theatre, the lesser comedies and intermezzi were often ill attended. The court found it an exacting duty to be present at each performance, and since a concert, play or light burletta took

place almost every day, there was little relief from sitting at the theatre. On one occasion, noticing the lack of spectators in the pit and gallery, the empress herself' requested that the Ladies of Honour be sent to her so as to be asked of the Imperial Personage herself, had they not forgotten there was to be a comedy that day? And with that supreme reproof a swift horse was dispatched to the Ladies

6 See further N. V. Drizen', 'Lyubitel'skiy teatr v tsarstvovani Imperatritsyi Anny Ioannovny' (1730-40) in Mat. k ist. russk. teatra, pp. 15-24.



RUSSIAN PUBLIC THEATRE AUDIENCES 163

of Honour.'7 The empress hardly ever failed to grace the imperial box and expected everyone to follow her example.8

A half-empty house was so distasteful to Elizabeth that she

decided to admit eminent tradesmen to the theatre gratis providing

they were not poorly dressed.9 The empress preferred to see the

auditorium alive and interested. She was also anxious that the

public should look presentable, so it was ordered in 1751 that mer?

chants and their wives should be respectably turned out. Full court

dress was not required, for wives of guards' officers were permitted to sit at the back of the stalls and in the upper circle 'in day-attire without head-dresses, kerchiefs and hoods, but in other varieties of

adornment which might be entirely suitable for wear with day-time dress'.10 The leading bourgeoisie were sometimes admitted to repeat

performances of state opera productions, but on these occasions

only the upper circle was made accessible.11

Even at this courtly period there was some trouble from patrons of the theatre. On 6 January 1751 the empress issued an order that

people of long-established social standing should not put out torches

against the walls of the Opera House or ride with tor hes, 'but if

from henceforth contrary to our expectation that should be perp -

trated by such persons, then these same shall be taken into custody and without fail be heavily punished'.12 Since the illumination of

the streets appeared so feeble at that time, it became necessary for

visitors to the theatre to carry large resin flares, which naturally increased the danger from a conflagration.

In 1752 one contemporary witness wrote: 'Last week was again marked by every kind of diversion, comedies, masquerades and daily assemblies. Everyone, if he does not desire to be out of favour

at court must visit them. Persons at court, whether in civilian or

military service, must attend promptly in obedience to the injunc? tion.'13 As a result of these efforts by Elizabeth to create a regular audience and bring about a habitual theatre-going clientele, the play? house began gradually to assume more and more importance in the

daily lives of the court and aristocracy. No audience, unless coerced

has ever grown all at once, for it takes time to acquire a theatre?

going habit, yet the upper-classes were not slow to be converted.

7 Kammer-fur'yerskiy zhurnal cited without date by I. F. Gorbunov, Tervyye russkiye pridvornyye Komedianty' in Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy, ed. by A. F. Koni, II, St Peters? burg, 1904, p. 408. 8 Elizabeth was said to have ruthlessly extracted a 50-rouble fine from those who thought they need not attend, which was collected by the police. V. N. Vsevolodsky- Gerngross, Istoriya russkogo teatra, Moscow-Leningrad, 1929, I, p. 462. 9 Kammer-fur'yerskiy zhurnal cited without date by Gorbunov, op. cit., p. 408. 10 Cited without reference by L. Gurevich, op. cit., I, p. 46. 11 V. N. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross, op. cit., I, p. 462. 12 V. V. Kallash and N. E. Efros, Istoriya russkogo teatra, Moscow, 1914, I, p. 106.

13 V. N. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross, op. cit., I, p. 462. Cited without name or source.



164 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

The French and Italian productions with the ballet and inter?

mezzi, although still a luxury for many, remained the chief attrac?

tions throughout the next few years. The German theatre was

less frequented, while the Russian stage established in 1756 scarcely succeeded in tempting any of the public. The court and aristocracy

preferred the foreign companies who played in the theatre near the

Summer Garden or at the Winter Palace. We may note the keenness

displayed by provincial audiences at Yaroslavl' during the Volkov

repertory season and the interest aroused by the troupe's arrival

in the capital.14 The excellence of the foreign stage, however, caused

enthusiasm at St Petersburg to be centred round the French and

Italian impresarios, while the straight plays enacted at Sumarokov's

patent theatre failed to capture public taste.

With the fortuitous arrival in St Petersburg during 1757 of Sr

Locatelli and his opera buff a company of famous names, the audience

acquired some marks of fashion. It was Locatelli who inaugurated the scheme of fitting up theatre boxes with striped wall-paper and

silken hangings. The boxes, rented for a year and equipped with

furnishings to the taste of the occupant, made play-going seem a

perfect pleasure, and the elegantly dressed company could better

compare with the more discriminating audiences seen in London at

the Haymarket and in the opera houses on the continent.15 Members

were provided with programmes containing the libretto of the

opera seria or the merry pasticcios performed by the Italian company. These synopses and programme notes were printed in Russian,

Italian, French or German and were on sale beforehand. A perfect

understanding of the piece was thus ensured. For applauding out?

standing ballerinas, such as Mesdames Sacco and Belluzzi of the

Locatelli Opera Buffa ensemble, a special device was issued so as

not to tire or injure delicate palms. 'La Sacco and La Belluzzi', says von Staehlin, 'had divided their audiences into two camps of

opinion. The admirers of these ballerinas were provided with

wooden hand-boards on the end of a ribbon or strap upon which

was inscribed the name of the favourite and which frequently served

to increase the applause so as not to fatigue the hands.'16 If the

empress was present, of course, the audience had no right to express

approval before a sign from the imperial box, and contemporary writers mention several occasions when the sovereign rising from

her seat 'deigned to applaud' or 'shed a tear'. A few years later

14 M. S. Luchansky, Fyodor Volkov, Moscow, 1937, pp. 16-18 et seq. 15 This practice of fitting up boxes with lights and furnishings was an established custom in Rome and was no doubt the source of Locatelli's inspiration. 16 J. von Staehlin, 'Nachrichten von der Tanzkunst und Balleten in Russland' in Muzyka i balet v Rossii XVIII veka, trans, from the German by V. I. Zagursky, Leningrad, 1936, p. 156.




when the future Paul I was only a boy of ten and still learning diction and taking part in ballet classes or amateur performances at the court theatre, a curious instance of juvenile arrogance made

itself felt. The young prince already displayed autocratic habits

and wished to be regarded as supreme arbiter in the approval or

disapproval of the players. Tn the French comedy "L'ficole des

Femmes" and especially at the ballet "Les Chasseurs",5 notes Poro-

shin in his diary for October 1764 when he was tutor to Paul, 'the

pit twice clapped apart from him, which he found very displeasing. 'Tn future, I request that those people who start to clap when I am

present but do not applaud should be sent out," he said.'17

Poroshin relates another incident during a rehearsal for a ballet

on 19 January 1765. Almost the entire pit was filled with spectators', and he adds, 'as a result of the hand-clapping during the dancing His

Highness became somewhat lost and confused. They danced the

finale of the ballet once more. This went better. Regaining his

composure, His Highness grew angry that they were applauding. He deigned to say: "Hardly had I succeeded in leaving than they were already applauding. It is just flattery, oh, the Court, the

Court."'18 This irreverence was always a bone of contention with

Paul and helps to explain his later action concerning public applause in the theatre.19

Performances of early opera buffa in St Petersburg were always occasions of elegance and style among the responsive patrons of

this new form of entertainment. Moreover Staehlin, a man of sound

convictions and possessed of an excellent judgment, affirmed that

the fashions of those in the stalls were in no way inferior to the

fashions of a Paris audience.20 A regular theatre-going clientele was

formed, and the audience as an entity, fervent and receptive to the

sparkling melodies of opera buffa, without coercion, or merely from

a sense of duty, became a part of the life of the Russian capital. Some

understanding of the circumstances under which these operas and

pasticcios were performed will explain the reason for the popularity of the buffo style. We should realise that those things which were the

very life of the performance could never be set down in the score:

the accomplished varied embellishments by the singers, the glamour of famous names, the exotic charm of the lights and decor, above all

the gay, careless society of the 18th century, the social life of the

boxes, the gabble of conversation, hushed only for the favourite

aria and the following rapturous applause.

17 S. A. Poroshin, 'Zapiski' in Russkaya starina, St Petersburg, 1881, XXXII, Prilo- zheniye, p. 43. 18 'Zapiski', op. cit., pp. 243-50. 19 See further 'Rasporyazheniye otnositerno Teatral'noy Distsipliny 1800 g.' in Russkiy arkhiv, 1873, no. 2, [Iz bumag Bulgakova], pp. 02298-9. 20 J. von Staehlin, 'Nachrichten von der Tanzkunst', op. cit., p. 156.




But however glittering the opera buffa audience may have been in

St Petersburg, the same could not be said of the public attending shows elsewhere in Russia. The Moscow audience was to prove

entirely different.

There was as yet, in the 1750s and 1760s, no hint of sophistication or critical ability among the citizens of Moscow. 'A theatre is needed

here more than in St Petersburg, since both the people and folly are commoner', Sumarokov had written in a letter to Kozitsky on

4 June 1769. The Moscow audience was, indeed, a poor lot compared with the audience of St Petersburg. The public was still unaccustomed

to the more graceful pleasures offered by the stage, while at its best

the conduct of the leading citizens could not be called enlightened. The attitude and temper of the public in Russia's second city

greatly differed from the reformed character of St Petersburg society. Moscow still retained many prejudices and conventions of a hide?

bound nature, for the breath of Europe had only faintly stirred the

antiquated centre of Muscovy. While new forms of drama and

production were being presented in St Petersburg, all that Moscow

saw, besides the coronation ceremony and some German players, was the now outmoded neo-classical drama of the commoners and

the stilted religious plays of seminarists. 'The common intelligentsia', declares Zabelin, 'was during the first half of the century the only conserver, producer and initiator of theatrical, if not quite art, then

the theatrical profession.'21 Such common citizens comprised clerks, secretaries, lawyers and other public servants. The audience at these shows was accordingly of the lowest level.

Life in Moscow had changed little from the time of Peter I.

Society was uncultivated, often rude, and half-illiterate. The city was old and filthy; travelling was difficult and no attempt had been made to clean it up since the death of Peter. When Elizabeth came to the throne, Moscow bore the same appearance as it had done in

the early part of the 18th century.22 In front of the new university,

opened on 12 January 1755,23 where the students under M. M.

Kheraskov enacted their club plays, flowed a dirty stream, euphemis?

tically called the Neglinnaya. This rivulet ran along the Neglinnyy

21 I. E. Zabelin, Tz khroniki obshchestvennoy zhizni v Moskve v XVIIIom stoletii' in Sbornik lyubiteley rossiyskoy slovesnosti, Moscow, 1891, p. 557. 22 For a survey of old Moscow see the following: I. E. Zabelin, 'Istoriya i Drevnosti Moskvy' in Opyty izucheniya russkikh drevnostey i istorii, part II, Moscow, 1873, pp. 107-253; 'Khronika obshchestvennoy zhizni v Moskve s poloviny XVIII stoletiya', I and II, Opyty izucheniya russkikh drevnostey, II, pp. 351-84, 411-45; M. I. Pylayev, Staraya Moskva, St Petersburg, 1891; also Staraya Moskva, izd. komissii po izucheniyu staroy Moskvy pri Imperatorskim moskovskom arkheologicheskom obshchestve, Vyp. I, September 1912, Moscow. A history of the streets and various districts is set out in topographical form by P. V. Sytin, Iz istorii moskovskikh ulits, Moscow, 1948. 23 The Moscow University occupied a government building where the Historical Museum now stands in the centre of the city.




Proyezd and after washing the walls of the Kremlin streamed into

the Moscow River. The Neglinnaya also traversed the present Sverdlov Square, turning it into a muddy swamp.24 The log 'paving'

presented nothing but a sodden mass and every species of muck and

mess oozed over the streets. Such an insalubrious position cannot

have beguiled many people to witness the performances of the

students in the hall of the university. In winter, the situation was

worse and very few families ventured forth over the drifting snow

and dangerous roads. Apart from this, there were no carriages or

sedan-chairs on hire anywhere in the city. Only open sleighs and

common carts provided transport in those days.25 Besides the dreary aspect of the streets, the daily life of the aristo?

cracy could hardly be commended. Catherine II has described the

city in the middle of the 18th century: 'Alors encore beaucoup plus

qu'a present,' she writes, 'la noblesse en general avoit mille peines a quitter Moscou, l'endroit cheri par eux tous, ou l'oisivete et la

faineantise est la premiere de leur occupations, ou ils passeroient volontiers toute leur vie a se laisser trainer la journee entiere dans

un carosse a six chevaux, extremement dore et tres fragilement

travaille, embleme du luxe mal entendu, qui y regne, lequel cache

la-bas aux yeux vulgaires la malproprete du maitre, le desordre

de sa maison en tout point et de son economie specialement. Il n'est

pas rare de voir sortir de la cour immense, remplie de bourbe et

d'inmondice de toute sorte, qui tient a une mauvaise baraque de

bois pourri, une dame couverte de bijoux et superbement vetue, dans un char magnifique, traine par six mauvaises haridelles, sale-

ment enharnachees, et les valets mal peignes, portant une tres

jolie livree qu'ils deshonorent par la gaucherie de leur tourn-

ure.'26 Yet again Catherine complained that the nobles saw only sordid things which were obliged to weaken the most outspoken

genius.27

Only the external appearance of Moscow was attractive, for

situated in a large and pleasant plain, the city made a fine show at a

distance, by reason of its great extent and the many hundreds of

steeples which were brightly gilded and sparkled in the sun. The

inside of the city unfortunately fell very short of its outward aspect. There were about three thousand stone buildings, some very

sumptuous, but they were dispersed up and down between thousands

24 In 1791-2 the course of the Neglinnaya was diverted and the sides faced with heavy stones. After 1817 the rivulet was finally put underground. 25 I. E. Zabelin. 'Khronika obshch. zhizni v Moskve s poloviny XVIII st.' I. Opyty izuch. russk. drev., II, p. 358. 26 Catherine II, Sochineniya; na osnovanii podlinnykh rukopisey i s obyasniteVnymi prime- chaniyami A. N. Pypina. Izd: Imperatorskoy Akad. Nauk, St Petersburg, 1901-7. Memoires, III, p. 169. 27 'Reflections sur Petersburg et sur Moscou' in Sochineniya, XII, pp. 641-3.




of wooden houses; they did not face the streets but were hidden in

yards and surrounded with walls to secure them against fire and

thieves, 'Idleness', declared a traveller, 'produces such Numbers of

Beggars and Rogues, and occasions so many excesses and Disorders

that after Sun-set nobody ventures abroad without sufficient com?

pany.'28 At night the streets were sealed off after ten o'clock with

chains and were only opened up an hour before dawn. A wild clang?

ing and drumming informed the inhabitants of conflagrations and

other dangers. Those inhabitants whose houses faced on to the streets

were required to place no fewer than two candles in their windows, which had to burn until midnight. At dusk no one was allowed over

the chains without a lanthorn.29 Not until the latter half of the 18th

century did the number of standard street lamps increase and by 1800 there were some three thousand.30

The aristocracy was willing to brave the discomfort of turning out

at night only to attend a ball, since they were more or less obliged to be seen on such occasions, and as these events were frequent, it

became a customary habit to appear at the grand balls given in the

mansions of local magnates. It was also an opportunity for bringing out a daughter and forming a suitable alliance, an alliance perhaps with a great house, especially if the young lady was the possessor of a handsome dowry.

At this time balls and masquerades were deemed to signify good

breeding, whereas theatrical shows in a public theatre could never

be so regarded. The idea of visiting the theatre for social possibilities had not yet entered the minds of Moscow's wealthy citizens. 'The

continual festivity,' writes E. M. Beskin, 'balls, masquerades, dinners

and private charades bore the stamp of a Homeric, epic carousal

and was not to be ignored, since such fetes both by their nature and

through the participants expressed the latest mode of aristocratic

etiquette as well as the elegant routine and exactions of the Russian

nobility who ruled social life.'31 After 1750 balls became more and

more frequent, sometimes there would be as many as forty or fifty a month, for which serf musicians alone might reach the surprising number of over a thousand available for hire. The ball and masquer? ade enjoyed greater popularity in Moscow than in St Petersburg since Moscow had less to offer in the way of other entertainment.

No opera-house, no theatre existed for the citizens. The wooden

'stage for comedy' erected by the German players was never visited

by any of the Quality. When the court was absent from the city, the

28 F. C. Weber, The Present State of Russia iy14-1720, London, I, pp. 127-8. 29 Polnoye Sobraniye Z^konov Rossiyskoy Imperii, no. 6778, Ukaz of 1735. 30 I. E. Zabelin, 'Khronika obshch. zhizni v Moskve s poloviny XVIII st.' I. Opyty zuch. russk. drev. II, p. 357.

81 E. M. Beskin, Istoriya russkogo teatra, part I, Moscow-Leningrad, 1928,1, p. 46.




private theatre of the Golovin Palace on the Yauza, which had been

constructed for Elizabeth's coronation, remained empty. The palace itself was reduced by fire on 1 November 1753,32 and although the

theatre was spared the flames, it was not used again until after the

death of Elizabeth.33

Throughout the latter half of the 18th century and right up to the

destruction of the city by fire in 1812, Moscow life seemed to become

more brilliant and gayer every year. Diarists like Zhikharev, Bolo-

tov and Vigel' many times describe the scene at these festivities, while foreigners were awed by the magnificence.34 It is significant that by the beginning of the 19th century the bal-masqui assumed

more importance than the Moscow stage. 'Every evening there is a

ball,' wrote Miss Martha Wilmot on 7 March 1804, in a letter from

Moscow, 'and sometimes Jive in the evening. Yesterday we were at

one, to-day we shall grace another, Sunday a masquerade, and

every Tuesday the Assembly. . . ,'35

Very few people complained of masked revels by night, but

protests against the stage were often heard. Even after the accession

of Catherine II the public theatre was still held in abhorrence by

many folk. There were several merchant families in Moscow which

remained old-fashioned and unconvinced that culture could issue

from the play-house. A considerable section of this class adhered to

the ranks of the Old Believers and was in consequence inclined to

be irrational and prejudiced in outlook. Indeed, elements of the

Byzantine tradition survived in all classes of Russian society, for the

orthodox tradition of Byzantium was regarded as the surest bulwark

against the encroaching rationalism and materialism of western

'bourgeois' culture.36 'Outre cela', affirms Catherine, 'jamais peuple n'eut devant les yeux plus d'objets de fanatisme, que d'images miraculeuses a chaque pas, que d'eglises, que de pretraille, que de

couvents, que de devots, que de gueux, que de voleurs, que de

domestiques inutiles dans les maisons.'37

These were the odds that confronted a Moscow impresario. 'Then

not only a great number of the ordinary people were offended by theatrical productions,' remembered Madame E. P. Yankova, 'but

81 'Zapiski V. A. Nashchokina', Russkiy arkhiv., 2nd ed., 1883, II, p. 320. 83 A description of the Golovin Palace, the Palace of Lefort which adjoined it and thc

surrounding gardens will be found in I. E. Zabelin, 'Khronika obshch. zhizni v Moskve', II, Opyty izuch. russk. drev., II, pp. 417-32. 34 For a scholarly description of Moscow life before and immediately after the French invasion, see an interesting article by N. Ashukin, 'Byt "Famusovskoy" Moskvy' in A. S. Griboyedov, Gore ot Uma, Moscow, 1946, pp. 199-220. 36 The Russian journals of Martha and Catherine Wilmot 1803-1808, ed. by the Marchioness of Londonderry and H. M. Hyde, London, 1934, p. 85. 86 See D. Obolensky, 'Russia's Byzantine Heritage' in Oxford Slavonic Papers, Oxford, i95<>> P- 47- 87 Reflexions sur P?tersbourg et sur Moscou', Sochineniya, XII, p. 642.




even in our social sphere there were some who considered all these

impersonations to be sinful.'38 Mikhail Shchepkin, the famous actor, mentions that even in the 1790s parents regarded their offspring as

being beyond redemption should they incline towards the stage. 'The

female parts', he says, describing a theatrical show at school, 'were

given to the girls, but could not be performed by them, as this did

not conform to the views of their parents upon the theatre: How,

they said, could our daughter become an actress! and it seemed a bad out?

look for the teacher.'39 Such was the opinion of society in those days, but more especially in Moscow where the spirit of old Russia lay enshrined. It was into this environment of indigence, bigotry and

self-indulgence that Locatelli transferred his opera buffa company in 1759-

At first a reasonable audience collected out of curiosity, but the

emptiness of Moscow during summer and the seasonable attractions

of the winter made a theatre-going public hard to cultivate. The

Moscow landowners became bored on their country estates and were

glad to get back to their rounds of festivity. 'September and October

are the months when truly well-brought-up people cannot live in

the country', echoes the critic Strakhov in his pocket guide to

Moscow.40 'Leave behind your villages as swiftly as you can and

gallop away on fast post-horses from your country estates!' The

fashionable festivities did not include Locatelli's theatre: the aristo?

cracy created their own amusements and preferred their own

society. Moreover the new Opera House was too far from the select

quarter along the Arbat and Ostozhenka for vehicles to reach it

with convenience. 'Afterwards they began to present even Russian

plays at this theatre,' declared old Madame Yankova many years later, 'and the celebrated poet of the day Sumarokov, who was in

the Empress's favour, used to direct this theatre and send actors to

Moscow and write his own tragedies which they performed. These

plays were interesting,' the old lady comments, 'but the Italian

operas were to my mind absolutely worthless.' When she was obliged to take her family to the opera it made her really miserable. 'I pushed

my daughters to the front of the box and retired into a dark corner where I settled down and dozed off; so boring were these Italians. . . .'41

The following admission by Madame Yankova sums up the general

88 D. Blagovo, 'Rasskazy babushki. Iz vospominaniy pyati pokoleniy. (Yelizaveta Petrovna Yankova, 1768-1861)' in Rasskazy babushki, zapisannyye i sobrannyye eyo vnukom, St Petersburg, 1885, p. 203. 39 Mikhail Semyonovich Shchepkin 1788-1863. Zapiski, pis'ma i materialy, edited by M. A. Shchepkin, St Petersburg, 1914, p. 47. 40 N. I. Strakhov, Karmannaya knizhka dlya priyezzhayushchikh na zimu v Moskvu, Moscow, I79I-5* PP- 5,6. 41 D. Blagovo, op. cit., p. 206.




situation. 'Take it all round, I would not say that I was ever a great

theatre-lover, even in our day they did not go to public theatres as

often as now, since it was considered more refined to go by the

personal invitation of a host, and not where anyone could be present in exchange for money. And who, indeed, amongst our intimate friends did not possess his own private theatre?'42 Thus while Loca-

telli played to an empty house, the winter snow shone in the twink?

ling light from ball-room windows and the cabbies danced outside

to the strains of the a la Grecque and the Polonaise.

Locatelli suffered from his audience if they came. One of the

annoying interruptions liable to happen during the performance and which was a source of irritation to the public was the sound of

whips being cracked outside the theatre. This was a feature that

accompanied the coughing and shuffling of the spectators and was

a result of the following practice: outside the Opera House a guard had been established to watch over the serfs and lackeys who waited for their masters during the show. The guard consisted of

groups of citizens selected from the twelve districts of Moscow, a

hundred and eighty persons in all, under the command of regular officers. At that period an obligation fell on these inhabitants to

preserve law and order in the city, an obligation much disliked by all the citizens who often failed to turn out in their proper numbers.

Meanwhile the lackeys, coachmen, and flunkeys of patrons of the

theatre were forced to wait in the freezing cold until the play was

over. As the hours went by, these wretched servants lost all patience and flouted the guards' authority, thereby incurring a whipping and beating which caused a fearful tumult. To augment their misery, those in charge were further enjoined to permit no fires to be lighted near the theatre since it was of wood and might easily burn down. The guard warmed themselves at braziers of their own which

increased the resentment of all concerned.

Later, on 21 January 1761, members of the guard began hurling mud and pebbles at the windows of the theatre during a perfor? mance, smashing two windows in the process. Three days later they were throwing large stones and logs which broke all the windows.

Tor putting an end to this outrage, a soldier from Mufel's company, which had been assigned to the Opera-House, was dispatched and

ordered to put on a fur-coat in the guise of one of the men in charge and instructed to watch out as to who was throwing things. And no sooner had that soldier, on going out, begun to request that they should cease hurling things, than Muromtsev's coachman slapped the soldier's face and declared that he was not wanted there and

called him a swindler, for this he was put under arrest and taken not 42 Ibid., p. 207,




near his own cab, but some distance from it, but at night he escaped from custody.'43

The citizens who had failed to appear for duty outside the theatre

were then rounded up and severely punished with the 'cat', but

disturbances still continued and a force of police had to be main?

tained nearby. From then on, a detachment of the guard was always to be seen outside a public theatre throughout the century.

Inside the theatre, behaviour was common and vulgar. Riots were

frequent and one such took place on Sunday, 28 May 1760 when

some burly members of the crowd 'smashed the locks of several

boxes already hired and broke in by force'.44 On this occasion there

was dissatisfaction over the price of tickets which almost paralleled the Fitzgiggo riot at Covent Garden three years later.45 Nevertheless, the riff-raff do not seem to have clambered on to the stage in Russia

as was their wont in England. Russian theatres were not provided with iron spikes before the stage to guard against this awkward

conduct, and there are no reports of chaos upon the boards.46 This

offensive atmosphere did not make the merchant families regard the

stage with any greater favour, but rather diminished their wavering

approval. The noise within the theatre coupled with the shouting and

cracking of whips from outside must have disheartened many a

struggling actor, desperately endeavouring to gain a hearing above

the din and general uproar. It seems that this deplorable behaviour

was characteristic of Moscow audiences. Aleksandr Sumarokov had

something to say about it, for as a playwright he was genuinely distressed at the state of the Moscow theatre:

But Moscow no more trusts Monsieur Voltaire and me than it does a common clerk: indeed, is not the taste of Moscow's inhabitants similar to the taste of such a scribbler! Composing panegyrics to a low clerk which are worthy of Moscow's lords and princes is as much out of place as it would be unbefitting to a lackey, although he be in service to the court. They spoil, print and publish poems of my own against my wishes, or else against the will of some author making his way in the

world, they tamper with his dramas, and for such interference they collect

together money for their own selves, or in company with those seeing 'Semira', sit beside the very orchestra chewing nuts and think that,

48 I. E. Zabelin, 'Iz Khron. obshch. zhizni v Moskve', Sbornik lyub. ross, slov., pp. 566-7. 44 I. E. Zabelin, 'Khronika obshch. zhizni v Moskve s poloviny XVIII st.', I, Opyty izuch. russk. drev., II, p. 463. Notice in the 'Moscow News' for 2 June.

46 See Allardyce Nicoll, A History of Late Eighteenth Century Drama, p. 6. 46 According to Gerngross there was no occasion when the Russian public were allowed

on to the stage during a performance save once during the reign of Aleksey Mikhaylovich; the spectators' seats were nowhere else but in the actual auditorium. Ist. russk. teatra, I, p. 461. Nevertheless, the new stone Opera House in St Petersburg definitely had three seats upon the apron set aside for distinguished personages, a fact unnoticed by Gern? gross. Cf. E. M. Beskin, op. cit., I, p. 121.




after paying the entrance money for a spectacle, they may indulge in fisticuffs in the pit, or in a loud voice relate the week's adventures in the boxes while munching pea-nuts: they could sit at home and crack

nuts; and they could issue little wanted news-sheets, perhaps outside the theatre; for such news-vendors would have the time for that. Many spectators in Moscow of either sex do not go to the theatre just to hear

unnecessary tit-bits, and the chewing of pea-nuts brings no pleasure either to sensible spectators or to the players, nor is there any reward to the author slaving for the pleasure of the public, yet he is not worthy of a castigation. You travellers, who have been in London or in Paris, tell me! Do they munch nuts there during the presentation of a play; and when the performance is at its fullest height, do they whip the drunken coachmen who are quarrelling amongst themselves to the consternation of the entire pit, the boxes and the stage?47

Another example of the lack of good taste and discrimination on

the part of the Moscow audience, as well as a further display of

violent temperament by Sumarokov, has been preserved for us in a

humorous anecdote: 'Next day, following the performance of some

tragedy or other composed by Sumarokov, a certain lady arrived at his mother's house and began by extolling the spectacle of the

previous evening. Sumarokov, who had been sitting there, then turned with a contented face towards the lady visitor and enquired: "Pray tell me, Madam, what pleased the public most of all?"?

"Ah, Sir," she answered, "the divertissement!" At this Sumarokov

jumped up and said to his mother loudly, "You seem pleased, Madam, to open your door to such fools. Idiots like these should

only be weeding out peas, not looking at great works of art," and he

immediately rushed from the room.'48

This, then, was the type of audience that actors in Moscow had to

face until the institution of the Petrovsky Theatre towards the latter

part of the century helped to form a slightly more appreciative set of patrons. It was not surprising that Fyodor Volkov's attempt at

47 Preface to Dmitriy Samozvanets (1771) in Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy Sumarokova, ed. by N. I. Novikov. 2nd ed., Moscow, 1787, part IV, pp. 62-3.

Sumarokov would have been much surprised had he gone to some of the playhouses of the West. The pandemonium which reigned in the London theatres at that time would certainly have shocked him, for the audience was one of the most ill-behaved to be found in Europe; the Irish was even worse and the French not much better (for a survey of these audiences from 1750 cf. Doran, op. cit., III, pp. 30-62, and the more thorough investigation by Allardyce Nicoll in A History of Late Eighteenth Century Drama, pp. 5-22). Elsewhere upon the continent little attention was bestowed upon the performance: 'chess is marvellously well adapted to filling in the monotony of the recitatives', wrote Charles De Brosses (Lettres . . .sur V Italie, Paris, 1931, II, pp. 336 et passim) and Dr Burney mentions the faro tables at the Milan opera {Present State of Music in France and Italy, London, 1771, pp. 81-2). In Venice where the pit was usually filled with gondoliers and workmen 'there is a constant noise of people laughing, drinking and joking while sellers of baked goods and fruit cry their wares aloud from box to box' (J. G. Maier, Beschreibung von Venedig, Leipzig, 1795, II, p. 284). Cf. D. J. Grout, A Short History of Opera, London, 1947, I, p. 198. 48 'Iz zapisnoy knigi A. M. Pavlovoy', Russkiy arkhiv, 1874, no? 2> PP* 957~8-




forming a public theatre in 1759 proved abortive. Any large-scale theatrical enterprise stood little chance in Moscow with this truculent

and pugnacious mob, but more often the house was only thinly filled

and presented a doleful aspect. After the collapse of Locatelli's opera buffa company, when leading

musicians like Giuseppe Manfredini went off to teach the harpsi? chord and give singing lessons to the children of noble Moscow

families,49 there was an opportunity for certain future citizens to

acquire a grounding in the elements of music. Some evidence of the

improved manners of the audiences from 1780 is afforded by the

better successes of the Petrovsky Theatre. Insurrections were less

common as time went by and gentlemen no longer drew their swords

or pricked about them in a surging pit. But until a different generation of Moscow play-goers gained a pride in culture, the audience re?

mained uncivil and impatient. The liberties taken by the pit exas?

perated the poor players upon the stage so that a special appeal was

often published by the cast. The following example shows their

plight:

From the actors of the Russian Theatre, an Announcement:

On December 22nd, 'Semira' will be performed for the actors' benefit. The author of this drama50 respectfully craves polite attention, so that he may present his dramas henceforward for the spectators' pleasure. He would indeed be giving his compositions for performance to no purpose, if he anticipated that people came to the theatre, not for the sake of hearing his plays, but solely for talk and conversation; because his scenes, so industriously written for their benefit, would disturb such people gathered there for gossip. The author deems this consideration to be well-founded and his request to be truly just; for this even the actors do humbly beg. Otherwise neither any comedy nor any tragedy by this author will be given in Moscow without the

presence of the court in the lifetime of the author. Moreover the

management of the theatre have promised him in writing that his

compositions will not be presented without his own consent, which

they may not do without acknowledgement. The performance will

begin as usual at six o'clock.51

But such was the heartlessness of the Moscow mob that not much

notice was taken of these pathetic entreaties.

49 Cf. J. von Staehlin, 'Nachrichten von der Musik', op. cit., p. 97. 50 A. Sumarokov. The announcement no doubt refers to the events of the year 1769. Cf. A Survey of the Stage in Russia from 1741 to 1783, dissertation submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. by the author, Cambridge University Library, pp. 386 et seq. 51 This announcement, reproduced in its entirety by L. N. Maykov, was printed on a separate quarto page, without date or place of publication. The only known example was preserved in the library belonging to D. F. Kobeko. 'Teatral'naya publika vo vremya Sumarokova', Ocherki iz istorii russkoy literatury XVII i XVIII stoletiy. Izd. A. S. Suvorina; St Petersburg, 1889, pp. 316-17.




While the citizens of Moscow were spitting in the pit and fighting in the lobbies, the gallants of St Petersburg were proving loyal adherents of the stage. Eager beaux and their ladies thronged the

galleries and boxes. The house, pit and all, was full of great and

illustrious people. But fashion ruled the play. 'Our aristocracy and

a large section of young people', observed the journal Vsyakaya

vsyachina with a twinge of sarcasm, ' usually imagine that they are

great followers after theatrical presentations and consider them?

selves connoisseurs in that particular field. Scarcely have they learnt

of a new drama, than they are already assembled inside the theatre

and are anxiously awaiting to mark the personages playing rather

than the characters they portray. They take more part in the minor

differences and quarrels of the actors than in the fate of those

renowned heroes and heroines in whose guise they are appearing.'52 The Russian theatre in St Petersburg was made an adjunct of

the imperial household in 1759; free seats were distributed by rank

but the theatre was not open to the general public.53 Such it re?

mained for the next twenty years, although later the populace was

once more admitted to certain seats inside the theatre. Derzhavin

asserts in his 'Memoirs' that in 1765 and 1776 'junior Guards Officers

and ordinary ranks of both sexes were allowed in without paying'.54 The same information is supplied by I. I. Dmitriyev for the years

1770-80. 'Seats in the boxes and stalls', he writes, 'were distributed

according to rank. In the upper gallery spectators of any class were

allowed, excepting those wearing livery'.55 But the court servants

in attendance at the doorways did not permit even the junior Guards officers to enter unless they wore French frock-coats, hair?

nets,56 and a sword. The spectators paid nothing for their places.'57 Dr Coxe also corroborates this in a footnote: 'An Italian opera, a set

of Russian and another of French players were, in 1778, maintained

52 Vsyakaya vsyachina, St Petersburg, 1769-70, pp. 120-3. 53 Arkhiv Direktsii Imperatorskikh Teatrov [1746-1801]. Compiled by V. P. Pogozhev, A. E. Molchanov, K. A. Petrov, 4 vols, Vypusk I, St Petersburg, 1892, II, no. 59, p. 57. 54 ' Zapiski Derzhavina' in Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy, ed. by Ya. K. Grot, St Petersburg, 1871, VI, p. 434. 55 Surviving examples of play-bills generally advise that 'liveried servants will not be admitted'. It was not until the end of the century that the servants of the nobility were allowed into the Opera House and then they stood behind their masters in the boxes during the performances, a practice apparently not pleasing to the eye, for these inferior folk presented a curious motley appearance which did not harmonise with the plush and gilt of the decorations nor with the uniform of the nobility. John Carr, op. cit., p. 295. 56 Nets with a bow at the end to enclose the long pig-tails into which the powdered wig was gathered at the back.

57 Ivan Ivanovich Dmitriyev, 'Vzglyad na moyu zhizn", Book II, Sochineniya, ed. by A. A. Floridov, St Petersburg, 1895, II, p. 21.

An interesting comparison may be made with the style of dress imposed at the Hay? market about this time. A Russian traveller to London comments: 'In London there are three main theatres; the Italian Opera, where one is obliged to wear buckle-shoes, white silk stockings and a three-cornered hat, two English theatres, Drury Lane and Covent Garden . . .' (October 1787), ZaPiski Graf a E.F. Komarovskogo, St Petersburg, 1914, p. 20.




at her majesty's expense, at which the spectators were admitted

gratis.' Performances appear to have begun at five o'clock.58

Propriety and seemliness of dress were qualities demanded at the

Opera House and Catherine was strict in observing a custom first

ordered by Elizabeth.

Visitors to the court theatre, who were eager to see a representa? tion and who were unwilling to miss a theatrical event, were some?

times hampered by their children: they could not leave them at home

if they were very young, and they therefore brought them to the

theatre. These offspring, in the manner of small children, were often

wayward and perverse, becoming a trial to their parents and a

menace to the stage. After one performance when infant impudence had surpassed itself, the empress commanded that: 'It should

be brought to the notice of all those who have access to the Court

Opera House for attending spectacles that no one may bring children with them for watching such events: and should anyone introduce children into the Opera House in their company, then

that very same person shall promptly be excluded from atten?

dance.'59 Peace of mind was thereafter graciously restored and the

precocious offenders were left behind. Generally speaking, the

ordinary public did not bring their children to the public theatres

until they were old enough to appreciate the entertainment. Madame

Yankova had never visited a theatre before the age of fourteen, and

she did not consider it right to treat her own daughters to this

form of pleasure before they were fifteen, just two years before

entering society. Tn our day there were also amusements for the

children', she recalls. 'Swings and round-abouts and Balagany; they would put us in a coach and off we would go to watch the grimaces of the Pajazzos. Some Italians came with a puppet-show and this

delighted us more than tragedies or comedies.'60

Certainly the audience of St Petersburg never crashed the harpsi? chords or smashed the mirrors, nor did they lay about them in the

stalls or wage war upon the boxes; yet there were occasions when

fearful confusion broke loose and epithets more unsavoury than any

flung at the dancers were hurled against the wretched author of the

piece being played. Ivan Dmitriyev declares that the spectators seated in the front row of the pit by the orchestra were especially critical and shouted out their reproofs to the actor when they felt

they had cause to censure.61 Sumarokov, distressed as usual, issued

another reprimand although not so strongly worded as his con?

demnation of the Moscow public: 'When an author desires to

68 William Coxe, Travels into Poland, Russia, Sweden and Denmark, 3 vols, London, 1784, I, p. 501. 59 Kammer-fur'yerskiy zhurnal, 29 January 1763.

60 D. Blagovo, op. cit., p. 207 611.1. Dmitriyev, op. cit., II, p. 21.




compose a drama, then there is such a noise and tumult in the pit and boxes that the greater part of the audience becomes quite

agitated, forgetting that the lines are not set down for them.'62

Even when the empress came, says Sumarokov, the onlookers failed

to show respect and continued rampaging and roaring in their boxes

and the galleries as before, unrestrained by the more respectable elements of society.

Not infrequently the audience arrived at the theatre prepared to

show disapprobation, and as the play progressed so did the insur?

rection against it. The hisses and execrations which then prevailed damned the play for evermore and the public exulted in its destruc?

tion. Factious elements in the pit could ruin an author's reputation, but excellence was sometimes able to prevail. In 1765, during a

presentation of a new comedy by V. I. Lukin, a truculent house was

quelled by interest in the piece. The new play which opened on

19 January at the court theatre63 was in the recent style of senti?

mental comedy which soon enjoyed a great vogue among the

Russian public. The piece, entitled 'The Spendthrift by Love

Corrected', was attended with the keenest trepidation. The author

writes in his preface:

There were certain people who noised it abroad that should the

comedy meet with success, then it would thereby prove that it was not

composed by me but by Mr. Yelagin. In this way they hoped more than anything to wreck it and make me into an impostor, writing under the name of another. As a result of this calumny the better half of the

city did not have a very favourable opinion of my comedy; but they had

suddenly heard that it was to be presented on the first day appointed for Russian performances. Several rival claques came along and were desirous of witnessing the failure of my comedy, but the greater part of the audience went with pleasure to see the first effort of one of their

very own countrymen who, for their entertainment, had become involved in universal censure.

On Wednesday at 5 o'clock nearly the entire pit was filled, but the boxes even sooner. The rumour had gone round 'A new Russian comedy is going to be played', they said, 'in five acts.' Curiosity and a partiality towards novelty attracted many play-goers to see it, and a section went

boasting to witness my downfall. I did not hear all the criticisms uttered in the pit, but I learnt how strange some of them were from my friends. Until the start of the comedy the majority of my adversaries cried out that they would not be seeing the fruits of my pen; and if they were

mine, then of course they were the rejects of someone else.

62 Letter to the empress of 1764 reproduced by L. Gurevich, op. cit., I, p. 99. 63 Drammaticheskiy Slovar'?iii pokazaniye po alfavitu vsekh Rossiyskikh teatraVnykh sochineniy i perevodov, s znacheniyem imyon izvestnykh sochiniteley, perevodchikov i slagateley muzyki, kotoryye kogda byli postavleny na teatrakh i gde i v kotoroye vremya napechatany. V pol'zu lyubyash- chikh teatraVnyye predstavleniya, Moscow, 1787, pp. 82, 83.




The comedy began. Right to the end of the first act they barracked,

coughed, blew their noses and took snuff; two eminent antagonists of the Russian tongue, a puffing Jackanapes and a strutting Fanfaron, distributed last year's news sheets among the pit, telling the spectators that it was more amusing to read than hear such trash presented. The second act roused the attention of the audience, and the succeeding acts were played in a silence rarely heard. In short, in the face of all

opponents, my comedy enjoyed a greater success than ever I had

anticipated.64

From Lukin we are able to form a very good impression of the

kind of audience to be expected at the wooden public theatres. A

detailed account of the clothes worn by his neighbours in the next-

door seats at the St Petersburg public festival theatre and of their

bearing during the performance is provided by the same author:

'The first was attired in a long, blue coat, which possessed only three

buttons, a green vest and black chamois breeches; but the ends

flapped out for the good reason that the knee-buckles were lacking. I gathered from their amiable chatter to each other that they were

deposited there in the first tier to sober down during the morning. He had on a shirt with thick, raised linen patterns. His hair was not

merely frizzed but gathered up and tied in a knot behind; his long neck was displayed to view without cravat or kerchief; indeed, as

to where these latter were kept, essential properties to our way of

thinking, I did not succeed in finding out, but I presume that they had shared the same fate as the buckles. The other was dressed in a

kind of long coat and vest, however I could not observe these, because he wore a very tattered cloak, ripped open beneath the

breast-pockets, and, in contrast to his companion, with all the buttons

missing; he had a net-bag over his hair; round his neck, in place of

a cravat, he sported a worn semi-Italian kerchief loosely tied.' These

two gentlemen continued to shuffle about and chatter throughout the entire performance, which Lukin found most distressing, and

besides this discomfort, the two gentlemen reeked very strongly of

wine. Lukin was soon reminded of the proverb: 'He who delights in the carnival is tipsy till morn, but he wakes not all day who

shows it no scorn.'65

A more usual feature of the audience at St Petersburg was tittle-

tattle and society gossip. The beau-monde, unlike in Moscow where

the ball served the purpose of local courtesies and polite exchange,

regarded the theatre as a coffee house or large assembly-room. A

German visitor to St Petersburg in the 1770s remarks: Tn general it may be said that representations have been seen at St Petersburg,

64 Sochineniya i perevody Vladimira Lukina with an article by A. N. Pypin, St Petersburg, 1889, Part I> PP- ?i> xxiii, xxiv. 65 Ibid., part II, pp. 150-1.




but never heard. The young officers and junior Guards officers

who occupy seats in the Pit talk so loud and make so much noise that it often happens that I am unable to hear a word of the piece being played. It is extremely trying, but this should not go on so much when the Empress is present.'66 Nevertheless, there were by now certain members of society who preferred to give the play a

hearing and suffer the performance to reach a quiet conclusion. We

find a lady writing to the editor of the satirical magazine, Vechera:

Sirs! [she exclaims with vehemence] I most earnestly entreat you to

sympathise with our compatriots, among whom lies the aim and insti? tution of our theatres, and who go to such spectacles, comedy as well as tragedy, in order that they may listen, not simply to admire, display themselves or quiz the others, and who conduct themselves properly in whatsoever company may be gathered there to listen, for should one not desire oneself to hear, then let not others be disturbed. I once was at the theatre, when they were presenting 'Beverley' in Russian; indeed I listened with the most extreme indignation; at first they did not cease their chatter; many ladies sent out to the guards after a syrup for their refreshment, others were eating; at length they tittered in the theatre at no other reason than the mere title of the comedy, at which

they thought fit to laugh, since no amusing company was there. Silence and quiet were not restored before they were obliged to give attention, with their own very eyes and not through their ears, that is, to the ballet. Whilst pondering over this, I was struck by the inconsolable

thought that we could not give the excuse in front of foreigners that the gallery, pit or elsewhere was filled with people from every class at free performances since nobody is admitted to the Imperial Theatre other than the nobility, therefore titled personages are the only spec? tators in the house.67

The lady, however, could have calmed her fears, for foreign visitors would not have been dismayed at the manners of the audience since their own were worse at home.

Although many of the Quality came to the opera as a pleasant place to view the latest fashions, retail recent scandals and the

piquant anecdote or indulge in less genteel behaviour, a feeling for the stage was growing up. That criticism could be evoked from one section of the audience against the conduct of the other was an advance along the path of culture. Russian society might be made to feel shame by the complaints of self-respecting folk. Whatever was their reaction to these home truths, audiences tended to settle

66 J. H. C. Meyer, Briefe tiber Russland, Gottingen, 1778-9, I, pp. 343-4. 67 Vechera, part II, St Petersburg, 1770, pp. 67-8. Leading tradesmen were actually admitted apart from the upper middle-classes. Beverley by J. B. Saurin was first produced on 11 May 1772, in a translation by Dmitrevsky (Dram, slov., p. 24). It was published the next year. V. S. Sopikov, Opyt rossiyskoy bibliografii. Redaktsiya, primechaniya i ukazatel' V. N. Pogozhina. St Petersburg, 1821, 2nd ed., 1904-8, Part V, no. 11860.




down towards the end of the 18th century and permit a hearing to

the protagonists upon the stage.

By 1780 Moscow possessed a public theatre of good dimensions, the Petrovsky, constructed by an Englishman.68 Moreover Moscow

play-goers had done something to improve their reputation, for the

music and dancing-lessons at Moscow mansions ensured an appre? ciation for the stage and concert platform. The instruction given by Manfredini and other celebrated masters contributed to the accom?

plishments expected from young people of gentility. Thus the results

of polite refinement infected all society and aided the work of both

manager and actor. The Moscow intelligentsia, composed of noble?

men and commoners, had much increased since the time of Locatelli.

The aristocracy had also multiplied their ranks, and theatre-lovers

now found many followers among the young nobility, who but a

short while since had employed their leisure in hunting, cock-fights, or boxing which they esteemed 'the best of spectacles'.

The anonymous author of the 'Dramatic Dictionary' makes a

comparison with his own times: Tn many Theatres People of

Quality, both for their own Amusement and Public Benefit, are

trying to compose and translate Dramatic Productions; and it is

notable that the Children of the Quality, and even those of other

Classes, delight more in watching Theatrical Productions than in

snaring Pigeons, Feats of Horsemanship or trapping Hares and they enter into a Discussion of the Piece, which I myself have witnessed

in the Provinces.'69

During the season, it was now customary to hire a box for several

months, but the boxes were often empty, for the play had not by any means ousted the ball from the social round; the ball was a part of

life which could never be displaced. Moscow impresarios, indeed, were always troubled by this indifference to the stage, for the

audience never attained the reliable qualities developed in St

Petersburg. F. F. Vigel' mentions that when he was a youth he was

taken to the theatre two or three times in the winter, but the house

was generally empty in the pit and galleries. Even in the early 19th

century many people lamented the sad state of the Moscow stage.70

Nevertheless, were an audience present, it behaved with gallantry and surprisingly warm civility. The public was now much addicted

to tragedy and heavy and long applause echoed through the theatre

at the fall of the final curtain.71 The lengthy speeches and prolonged

passages of declamation were rapturously followed and if a favourite

68 See further upon the audience at the Petrovsky theatre: 'Zriteli Maddoksova Teatra' in Teatr Maddoksa v Moskve by Olga Chayanova, Moscow, 1927, pp. 102-28.

69 Drammaticheskiy slovar', Introduction, pp. A 3 and A 4. 70 F. F. Vigel' (1786-1856), Zajriski, Moscow, 1928, I, p. 115. 71 See Drammaticheskiy slovar', passim.



RUSSIAN PUBLIC THEATRE AUDIENCES l8l

actor excelled himself more than usual, bags of money were hurled

upon the stage accompanied by cries of'Fora' or encore.72 The piece

might be encored over and over again; then, when the play ended, a great rush began to glimpse the famous actor once again. Many times the dressing-room doors were beset by crowds of adorers with

hearts panting beneath waistcoat or corsage.

By the latter part of the 18th century sentimental comedy was

well and truly established with various forms of heroic drama to stir

the heart. This form of drama or comedie larmoyante which was uni?

versal in most European countries had found its way to Russia soon

after 1760, having been introduced first to England by Steele as a

reaction from the comedy of the Restoration and the succeeding

period of classicism. By way of France and Germany it greatly influenced Russian literature and contemporary theatrical compo? sition and enjoyed a widespread popularity among the general

public.73 As early as 1755, for instance, Nartov had made a trans?

lation of Lillo's commercial drama The London Merchant or the

Adventures of George Barnwell'? in 1765 Le Fits naturel and Le Pere de

famille by Diderot had both been translated by Yakovlev and

Glebov,75 while Beaumarchais's Eugenie in a translation by Nikolay Pushnikov was performed in Moscow five years later in 1770.76

Significantly, Sir John Carr notes that 'A Russ play has the same

effect upon fashion in Russia as George Barnwell has upon the same class in England.'77 Hazlitt condemned this style of drama as being too much like the Ordinary's sermon to refine the human mind,78 and if we are to judge from the reports of travellers, there would be

some reason to uphold the opinion of the English critic. Major Masson, speaking of the Russian audience in the time of Catherine, was appalled at the lack of compassion displayed by society ladies:

'These sprightly and amiable Russian ladies', he says, 'have a taste

for the arts. They laugh at the representation of a good comedy,

readily perceive a satiricle stroke, perfectly understand an equivoke, and applaud a brilliant line; but traits of sentiment appear lost on

them, and I never saw one weep at a tragedy.'79 This strange

72 The first occasion on which bags of money were thrown on to the stage is mentioned as having happened during the opening presentation of Fon Vizin's comedy, 'The Minor'. Dram, slov., p. 88. See also the production of Z^m^re et ^zor by Gretry. Dram, slov., p. 61.

73 For the sentimental comedy in Russia see D. D. Blagoy, 1st russk. lit. XVIII veka, Moscow, 1945, pp. 185-8; Ist. russk. lit., Izd. Akad. Nauk, Moscow-Leningrad, 1947, IV, pp. 437-8, and S. S. Danilov, Ocherkipo istorii russkogo drammaticheskogo teatra, Moscow- Leningrad, 1948, pp. 110-21.

74 Sopikov, part V, no. 11920. 75 Ibid., part III, nos. 5553 and 7411. 76 Drammaticheskiy slovar', pp. 50-1. 77 John Carr, op. cit., p. 298. 78 Selected Essays of William Hazlitt, ed. by Geoffrey Keynes, London, 1946, p. 688. 79 Major Charles F. P. Masson, Secret Memoires of the Court of St Petersburg, particularly

towards the end of the reign of Catherine II and the commencement of that of Paul I, London, 1895, p. 326.




indifference to pity has been remarked upon by other voyagers to

the Russian capital, although, in the words of Sir John Carr, 'the

people were very far from being strangers to feelings which would

do honour to the most civilised of the human race'.80

P. Milyukov, emphasising the contribution made by the theatre

to the Russian public at this time, declares: 'It was natural that the

present relationship of the public was completely different from

before. Plays of a new direction acted upon them in the same spirit as the recent translations of foreign novels. But the theatre was far

more accessible than a book and the impression left by spectacle

stronger than the impression made by reading. The stage marked

likewise the growth of that "sensibility" which became more and

more the mark of true education. The "Petits-Maitres" and the

"Dandies" at first visited the theatre out of fashion, later on this

turned into custom and at last became a requirement of a cultured

life.'81 There can, indeed, be no doubt that the stage was a powerful

civilising influence upon the minds of Russian theatre-goers in the

18th century. After 1780 the growth in the size of the play-house was also to

have an effect upon the general conduct of the audience. The expan? sion of the auditorium even affected the interpretation of the parts

played by the actors themselves. The Petrovsky Theatre at Moscow

and the Bolshoy Kamennyy in St. Petersburg, both erected within

a short space of time, in 1780 and 1783 respectively, were con?

structed on a vast scale for those days. Whereas the little theatres of the past had encouraged a more subtle style of acting and an

intimacy with the audience, some of whom were even seated on

the stage, the grand new theatres were formal, less friendly and

more magnificent. The capacity of the auditorium now increased

to take as many as two thousand spectators. This great size often

accounted for the empty aspect of the Moscow Petrovsky Theatre,

especially in the winter months when the heating was erratic, for

it was hard to fill such a sudden number of new seats when only small

theatres had been in vogue. The vastness of the play-house made

delicate performances wellnigh impossible, when the hero and

heroine were compelled to exaggerate their gestures and raise their

voices to reach galleries and boxes far removed from the acting area. Naturally it was more difficult to misbehave in such conditions: the old fun of a riot could not be so easily indulged in, in the formal

atmosphere of a huge auditorium. The audience was condemned

to listen from afar and more than half the people seated there were

unacquainted with each other. In such circumstances correct deport-

80 John Carr, op. cit., p. 299; see also p. 297. 81 P. Milyukov, Ocherki po istorii russkoy kul'tury, Paris, 1930, III, p. 280.




ment and gracious bearing became the onlooker better than loud

and hearty vociferation.

Within twenty years from the opening of Russia's first two great

public theatres, the audience had grown complacent. 'How differ?

ent', exclaims Sir John Carr, 'from a London theatre, which, on a

crowded night, when a Siddons or Lichfield delight their audience, is lined with faces, and the very walls appear to breathe!'82

82 John Carr, op. cit., p. 296.



Russian Public Theatre Audiences of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries

Documents

Transcript of Russian Public Theatre Audiences of the 18th and Early 19th Centuries