Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia François Lecercle (Paris) From its very beginning in Greece, the stage has provoked hostile reactions. Between 1550 and 1850, this hostility produced a vast and repetitive body of treatises and polemical tracts. The debates were endlessly rewritten, giving the impression that most polemicists repeated their predecessors. But under the appearance of immobility, the terms of the debate were extremely sensitive to local conditions. We have to understand how the theatrophobic script is adapted to a specific conflict: the same part is performed in a different context, often taking on new meanings. To identify the forces at play and the various stakes, one must look for traces of the unwritten - the oral debates on which the writings drew - in order to reconstruct the economic, social, and political tensions hidden under the mainly religious surface. We have to look for the performance under the text. In practically all cultures, theatre has been a controversial activity and has elicited protests for centuries. The very first hostile reactions were in ancient Athens, in spite of the importance of drama in the life of Greek cities. Although theatre was central to their artistic, political, and religious culture, it was a source of violent dissent and vocal condemnation. One of the earliest tragedies known to us, by Phrynichus, 1 is the first known case of cultural censorship and public outrage in the Western world. Even Plato, who abandoned playwriting to follow the teaching of Socrates, found in the art of the actor the epitome of what must be rejected from his Republic. In early Christianity, a few major Church Fathers expressed even stronger hostility, most notably Tertullian, 2 John Chrysostom, and Augustine. Theatrophobia was prominent in their thinking because the rejection of spectacles became, for Christians, a visible sign of their break with the pagan way of life. The stage was a symbol of what must be avoided at all costs. Throughout the Middle Ages, debates about the theatre were rare, but they flared up again in the second half of the 16 th century in the form of a series of crises, generally with religious bases, from the 1570s to the 1850s. For nearly three centuries, these crises produced a formidable amount of printed matter. It is this massive production that is being explored by the “ Haine du Théâtre ” (HdT) project. 3 After the 1850s, rejection of theatre as such declined sharply. Today, hostility to the stage takes other forms. Theatres are now a constant source of scandals and public outcry. Performances are interrupted, people demonstrate, they demand censorship, but they never ask for theatres to be closed, as they were in London in 1642. For historians of theatre, theatrophobia is primarily text: a massive, repetitive, quasisolidified body of endlessly repeated arguments. These texts are of all kinds and sizes: from polemical tracts to elaborate analyses and from volatile attacks on a specific performance to articulate rejections of any kind of play. My main contention is that, if you consider theatrophobic discourse only as a mass of published texts, you miss the point, for two reasons. The first is that these publications are only the tip of the iceberg. It is not so much that there are unpublished manu- Forum Modernes Theater, 32/ 2 (2021), 215 - 227. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ FMTh-2021-0020 scripts; it is not so much that there are always many more tracts to find; it is that under their massive and repetitive form, these texts hide an ever-changing reality. This is because the conflicts are constantly moving and redefining themselves. To understand these texts, we have to reconstruct the context that gives them their proper meaning. The second reason not to limit our understanding to these texts is that they are the solidified form of a debate which was essentially oral. We have to try to reconstruct the oral performances that lie behind the texts. Many of these texts, as I hope to show, arise from oral clashes. Theatrophobia has an essentially oral basis: it emanates from the pulpit, the stage, or the classroom before it reaches the printing press. But we must not view the printed version of these oral debates as a mere transcription, because the written form does not reflect entirely what was at stake in the oral performance. This produces the paradoxical impression that polemicists are constantly rewriting something that is basically unwritten because, most of the time, the printed text repeats the same story over and over, without revealing what is really at stake in a particular situation. Theatrophobia is a displaced debate, in which one attacks the stage in order to strike at another target. A Big, Pervasive and Repetitive Corpus The corpus of theatrophobic literature has three major characteristics: it is massive, pervasive, and repetitive; it is much bigger than previous explorations had suggested; 4 and it is composed of a great variety of texts. There is, of course, highly specialized literature: specific treatises and polemical tracts whose titles clearly announce a theatrophobic or theatrophile standpoint. These tracts should be easy to identify. Nevertheless, we have found a number of previously unknown texts, despite their titles (such as the first theatrophobic treatise published in France). 5 But these specialized tracts are relatively few, compared to the mass of works whose titles do not even mention the theatre. The vast majority of the corpus consists of publications that are unrelated to the stage and yet include a section on theatre. One finds such sections in medical treatises, travel literature, biblical commentaries, novels, political or legal literature, treatises on demonology, etc. One may wonder what theatrophobia has to do with medicine or demonology. Why medicine, for example? Because doctors, over the centuries, used the theatre in various, and at times contradictory ways. In the 5 th century, Caelius Aurelianus invented a theatrical cure for madness. 6 In contrast, some 18th century doctors stress the dangers of performances: according to them, women ’ s nerves are shattered by the violent emotions a tragedy unleashes. 7 Why demonology? Because the Devil is a powerful actor, who can impersonate anyone. Drama is, therefore, a typically diabolical art: the art of blurring distinctions between reality and illusion. 8 From the variety of topics that are prone to theatrophobic digressions, one can safely say that theatrophobia is pervasive. This is because the subject is not solely the concern of specialists: even if it was first a topic for priests and preachers, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It concerns everybody because it is directly related to everyday life, to the way one leads one ’ s life: theatrophobic debates are about the use of one ’ s free time, about the right to solace and entertainment (eutrapelia). This raises a related question about the power of the authorities to control these rights. It all goes back to the Church Fathers: in early Christianity, attending spectacles - or refusing to attend them - became a way of showing one ’ s rejection of a pagan way of life 9 . The same argument reappears in the 216 François Lecercle 16 th and 17 th centuries: it is especially prominent in the early sermons and tracts. Arguing against theatrical shows - and other forms of entertainment such as dancing, gambling, or games - became, for preachers and priests, a way of controlling the everyday lives of their flock. English puritans did so, at the turn of the 16 th and 17 th centuries, French Calvinists in the early 17 th century, and others afterwards. 10 The question concerns everyone: it is about tolerance of a free space in everyday life. And the debate goes on, with subtle variations. Well into the 18 th century, it took a more explicitly political stance, when debates on the theatre became an indirect means of discussing the relative powers of Church and State. Apologists for the stage claimed individuals ’ right to practice the pleasures of their choice, duly authorized by the State, without interference from the Church or self-appointed authorities. The debate turned to the possibility of a space in which only the law of the land would apply. It went so far as to advocate the separation of Church and State. 11 In other words, theatre invades all kinds of other debates, concerning the salvation of individuals, the way they may - or may not - lead their lives, or the relationship between the private and public spheres. The corpus is not just big and pervasive, it is repetitive. The debates seem static because most authors repeat their predecessors and use all their energy to compile texts and quotations rather than to devise new lines of argument. From volume to volume, the same arguments are made, time and time again; the same authorities are invoked and quoted. For that purpose, compilations were published. 12 This repetition is not specific to theatrophobia: the theological conflicts of the Reformation gave birth to a compiling frenzy. For theatrophobia, it led to massive treatises which inflated over time, as if authors were competing with one another. In 1633, William Prynne published 1200 pages; in the 1650s, Gian Domenico Ottonelli 1700 pages (in five volumes); and in the 1770s, abbé de La Tour 4200 pages (in 20 volumes). 13 There is a direct link between this propensity to compile and a historiographical approach, which allows theatrophobes to write, at the same time, the history of drama and the history of theatrophobia, in order to show that, through the centuries, the stage has always been perverse and the Church unanimous in forbidding and condemning. A Context-Sensitive Script One of the main paradoxes of this corpus is, static and repetitive as it may be, that the debates are always grounded in specific situations. Under this uniform surface, circumstances change, as do the opponents and the interests at stake. The same phenomenon occurs in other debates - over sacred images, for example. But theatrophobia is particularly adaptable. It is not an ongoing war; it is a succession of local skirmishes. Under the appearance of immobility, of ever-recurring arguments, the terms of the debate are extremely sensitive to local conditions. One has to read through the repetitive ‘ text ’ to understand how the theatrophobic script is adapted to a specific conflict: the same part is ‘ performed ’ in a different context, and what is at stake may change radically. The early theatrophobes developed a moral and religious argument which called for purity of manners and concern for one ’ s soul. But it was converted immediately into a question of religious orthodoxy and the need for control. If the theatrophobic debate was so successful for so long, it was because it covered a wide spectrum of problems and fields. 217 Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia First, theatrophobia was a useful instrument for responding to religious tension. This tension might be between rival religious groups; by attacking the stage one might hope to be seen as a righteous spiritual leader. But theatrophobia also catered for tension between religious denominations; at the turn of the 16 th and 17 th centuries, the theatre was a weapon for anti-papist crusades. In England, one might openly accuse Rome of replacing the Christian service with an idolatrous and theatrical spectacle. 14 In France, after the ‘ édit de Nantes ’ , Protestant tracts had to resort to more indirect attacks. 15 Second, theatrophobia is directly related to social tension because the theatre disturbed social hierarchies. Travelling companies were little more than vagabonds, 16 yet they found aristocratic protectors, especially in England where companies had aristocrats as official patrons. In Italy, companies were very clever at finding noble protectors and making connections. All this threatened social hierarchies. Actors were free electrons; they did not fit the established social structure. On the one hand, they were social outcasts: acting was not a real profession; it had no status, it was not attached to a guild - actors were little more than beggars and prostitutes. On the other hand, they had the ability to make connections in the highest spheres, to the envy of impoverished aristocrats. Third, these social and religious tensions were often likely to turn into political tensions, owing to power struggles between religious groups and secular powers. In this trial of strength, the stage became the locus of two conflicting views of drama. A long religious tradition considered the stage as a danger for private and public morals. But in the early 17 th century, a new secular conception viewed the stage not just as an embellishment of city and court life but as an instrument of prestige, capable of giving a nation a cultural supremacy that could become political influence. The most prominent proponent of this conception was in France, Cardinal Richelieu, who actively protected playwrights and theatre companies in the 1630s. The same policy was followed at the same time in Rome by Pope Urban VIII, and, on a much smaller scale, by Prince Frederik-Hendrik of Orange-Nassau in The Hague. The English court had an active theatrical life as well, even if it did not consider the stage as a means of international recognition. 17 Fourth, theatrophobia is a good observatory for economic tensions, because theatrical performances were a new activity that could be very profitable and yet have disturbing effects. In particular, it infringed on the time traditionally devoted to other activities. The early treatises stress not only the depravity of performances, they also emphasize the waste of time. This was not a new argument: it was already prominent among the Church Fathers. The argument was taken up by theatrophobes at the turn of the 16 th and 17 th centuries, but with a different significance. For 16 th and early 17 thcentury tracts, performances did not just waste the time of the audience (meaning: the audience should, instead, be taking care of its soul), they stole it, 18 because actors draw spectators away from more useful devotional pursuits and from those in charge of those pursuits, i. e. priests and preachers. It was in England that these economic tensions were most visible. It is no coincidence that the authors of the first theatrophobic tracts were preachers because their profession felt the danger of the theatre directly. By accusing the stage of unfair competition, 19 they assumed that actors stole from the Church: they take up time which the spectators should spend in Church, and they take money which the spectators should give to the poor (that is, to the Church, which takes care of the poor). 20 Polemicists were 218 François Lecercle trying to kill two birds with one stone: by caring for the souls of their flock, they were caring for their own interests. It is worth dwelling a little on this, because it is a good example of the adaptability of the theatrophobic script, of the way theatrophobes used old phrases to convey new meanings. To express this economic competition between preachers and actors, theatrophobes resorted to the language of the Church Fathers. Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, Salvian of Marseilles, etc. 21 compare the stage and the Church, by way of a recurring metaphor, denouncing the stage as the church or the temple of the Devil: theatrum, ecclesia diaboli. In early Christianity, the phrase ecclesia diaboli serves to condemn spectacles as a pagan - and therefore diabolical - activity. 22 Taken up by reformed preachers, the phrase takes on new values. It still aims at a radical condemnation of theatrical performances, but it implies much more: not just the appalling nature of those diversions, but the fact that they try to overthrow the sovereignty of God on earth. At the very beginning of the Christian era, Christians were fighting pagan beliefs and practices in order to establish the Church of Christ. The Church Fathers likened spectacles to a ‘ Church of Satan ’ in order to prevent new Christians from relapsing into paganism by reverting to old entertainments. Christians were newcomers seeking to overcome an old rival. In the 16 th century, the roles are reversed: the stage is a dangerous new rival to the Church. The metaphor has an economic as well as a religious meaning. The ‘ Church of Satan ’ is not just a danger for individuals, it is a menace to the Church. It diverts the faithful, prevents them from attending services, and reduces priests and preachers to inactivity or even unemployment. In England, it has an explicitly economic value. Preachers repeatedly petitioned the Crown to forbid performances on Sundays, or at least during services, because they saw their parishioners deserting them. Not only were the souls of their flock threatened, their own trade and their living were also at risk. 23 The old phrases assume new values; it is not that the meaning changes completely: ‘ Satan ’ s Church ’ means that theatrical spectacles are dangerous pastimes, in the 16 th century as well as in the 3 rd or 4 th centuries, but the moral and religious censure takes on a decidedly economic dimension. Economic, social, and political tensions are expressed through moral and religious discourse; preachers, who account for the best part of the early tracts, use the language of their trade to formulate their agenda. Their tracts feed off the Church Fathers, on whose arguments they depend heavily. Their texts therefore, are often the result of a negotiation between the patristic script and the concrete situation of the authors, who apply the fulminations of the Church Fathers to their own needs. The Tensions Beneath the Script These tensions are difficult to perceive because the treatises rarely reveal what is really at stake. To discover that, one has to go ‘ behind the scenes ’ , if one can. A good example is the most famous French treatise, Bossuet ’ s Maximes et Réflexions Sur la Comédie (Paris, 1694). It was published in reaction to a short tract by Father Caffaro 24 , an Italian preacher living in Paris. Caffaro gave a very moderate view of the position of the Catholic Church on the theatre. The Church, he argued, has never condemned the stage but only the excesses of some indecent plays. Bossuet ’ s answer is one of the most fully articulated presentations of the intrinsic depravity of theatrical performances. He resorts to all the main arguments: moral 219 Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia arguments, the moral looseness of plays; psychological arguments, the contamination of the passions; social arguments, the promiscuousness of performances; historical arguments, the unanimous condemnation from Plato to the present; and dogmatic arguments, the doctrine of the Church. Bossuet recycles all these arguments but with an added polemical value, because he reinforces them by making them interlock. His treatise became immediately famous. It was quickly translated into English 25 (which was very rare). It was hugely influential and provoked a sudden flourishing of tracts. Surprisingly, Bossuet may have been, in fact, a rather mild opponent of the stage. He is supposed to have expressed, at times, a lenient view of plays. 26 This discrepancy can be explained if one considers the circumstances of the dispute, for which we have an important witness, Abbé Legendre, who places the whole affair in a new light in his Mémoires. 27 According to Legendre, when Caffaro ’ s letter appeared, it went largely unnoticed. No one paid much attention except the Jesuits, who started to call attention to it and to stir outrage among their followers. They were not appalled by the content of the letter, but they had an ongoing war with the Archbishop of Paris and wanted to put him in a difficult position. When the outcry started, the Archbishop faced a dilemma: either he let the letter pass, thereby antagonizing the Catholic traditionalists, or he reacted strongly and became the laughingstock of polite society. In this case, the stage was just a pretext. The real purpose, for those who ignited the public outrage, was a war of influence between rival religious groups. Bossuet joined in, probably with different aims in view. His most conspicuous aim was, of course, the explicit purpose: to establish, beyond doubt, that the stage was harmful and had always been considered as such. A less obvious purpose is a show of force; Bossuet wanted to be the most powerful authority in the French Church, although he was just the Archbishop of a small town (Meaux). Attacking the stage was part of a power game: he ensured his own preeminence at the expense of a preacher, who was forced to eat humble pie. 28 Bossuet forced Caffaro into the humiliating position of disavowing what he had written. A third purpose is even more indirect: Bossuet joined forces with the Archbishop not so much to help him as to counter the Jesuits with whom he was in conflict. This web of implicit purposes does not imply that Bossuet expressed an opinion he did not really share, but it means that he had another agenda in which the stage was far from being central. In such a case, the text is only one factor in a complex situation. It is important because it will remain: people will use it and quote it; it will reach a vast audience through time and space. It is important also because it made the year 1694 the most productive for theatrophobic tracts in France. At least ten volumes appeared in the following weeks, resulting in what historians call ‘ the Caffaro affair ’ , one of the most prominent crises about the stage. 29 These followers also had their own agenda: to benefit from Bossuet ’ s success and to make a name for themselves; to ingratiate themselves with one of the most powerful men in the Church; and to present themselves as paragons of virtue or even spiritual leaders. Raging against the stage was also a means of empowerment; it gave a priest control of the personal lives of his flock. From this case we may safely conclude that what is written on the page is one thing and what is really at stake may be another. The text has a life of its own: it will be repeated, quoted, translated. But this life is quite independent of the original purposes of the text, for both its author and the first readers. Theatre crises, therefore, are twofold. There is a stable and durable element: the writings. The majority repeat what has 220 François Lecercle already been published many times, and remains to be re-used: repeated, quoted, paraphrased, exported, translated, invoked as an authority, etc. Bossuet is a particularly good example of this durability and exportability of the written word. But there is also a much more volatile element, which puts the conflict in a different light. In many cases, approval or rejection of the stage is not the whole of the matter. It is not a question of hypocrisy. Polemicists are certainly convinced of the dangers of the stage; nevertheless, they also use their attack for purposes which are not apparent in the text but which the original readers perceive. The attacks that are implicit in the written text become explicit in the social context, in oral reactions and comments made at the time. The issues were discussed even before these polemicists wrote and published - this is the hidden part of the iceberg. To better understand what is going on, one must try to find traces of these discussions (as in the Memoirs of Abbé Legendre) or, in their absence, one must try to reconstruct the logic of the polemics. By nature, polemics are dialogues, but in most cases, we only have a one-sided version. In the Caffaro case, the problem is not that we don ’ t hear the other side, it is that the dialogue is not just between two sides, it implies an intricate web of protagonists. On the written page, it is all about morals, about the duties of a Christian, about the tradition of the Church. Beyond the page, it is about power (who is the legitimate spokesman for the Church? ), about orthodoxy, and about tensions between competing groups. The whole matter is at the intersection of the religious and the political. In other cases, the debate has little to do with protecting the morals of the people or caring for their spiritual needs because the theatre is merely a scapegoat. A good example is the first extensive debate about the stage in France. The Stage as Scapegoat: Paris, 1541 This debate never reached the press. It took place in 1541, in a trial at the Parliament of Paris, where Parisian merchants who financed the performance of mystery plays were prosecuted for causing public disturbances and being responsible for a fast decrease in alms for the poor. 30 During the trial, practically all the arguments ever used against the stage were brought forth: it is immoral; it makes a travesty of the Holy Scriptures; it mocks religion; it incites citizens to idleness, drunkenness, and lewd behaviour; it disturbs the peace; it perturbs economic activity; it leads to disrespect of the authorities; and it spreads a spirit of insubordination. Already all the arguments that theatrophobes will ever think of are voiced, except one: the dissolute life of theatre companies. It is absent for a very good reason: such companies did not yet exist. 31 One of the main deciding factors in the case was that mystery plays were becoming more and more elaborate and more costly to produce. Consequently, the price of seats rose tremendously. The prosecution argued that these performances were directly responsible for a sharp decrease in alms and endangered the current welfare system, thereby establishing a direct link between the prosperity of the theatre and the increased difficulty of providing for the poor. The archives clearly show that economic factors featured prominently in the prosecution ’ s case: mystery plays were accused of ruining the city of Paris, and even the kingdom. Alms did decrease in the 1530s and 1540s, for reasons that today ’ s historians are unable to explain but, in this case, the stage is a scapegoat: why hold it responsible rather than places that were notoriously unruly, such as taverns? One of the main reasons for putting the blame on the stage is that theatre performances were becoming 221 Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia important economic ventures and were triggering social changes that disturbed some of the elite. The stage was an ideal culprit, responsible for all social problems: the depletion of alms, public drunkenness, brawls, and adultery. The prosecution, at the trial, held mystery plays accountable for practically all social ills. 32 This is significant: when a debate does not reach the printing press, the non-religious stakes are much more evident. The Performance Behind the Script There is an element of role-playing in theatrophobia. Theatrophobes take up a script to adapt it to a new context and to their own needs. In most cases, it is not a free adaptation: theatrophobes follow the steps of their predecessors and quote them as if they were saying the same thing, when, in fact, they are bending the argument. I have, so far, mostly spoken of a script and the ways it can be subtly altered. It is now time to deal with the fundamentally oral basis of many of these texts. It may be risky to generalize, but a good part, at least, of theatrophobic literature is directly linked to oral performance. Among the texts published between 1570 and 1850, notable parts were written versions of oral interventions: sermons, of course, but also orations, exhortations - all kinds of public speaking. At the beginning of the period, many published texts have direct links to preaching. In England, many of the first tracts were written by preachers, such as John Northbrooke, Thomas White, John Field, and Thomas Becon. 33 In France, the conflict had been going on for decades before the first publications. Chronicles and political pamphlets of the 1580s mention preachers raging against the stage, 34 which proves that theatrophobia had an oral life well before it found one in print 35 . Theatrophobia even played a part in the French religious wars. Catholic extremists took up arms against the stage, in order to radicalize the conflict by attacking any kind of profane entertainment. Then Protestants attacked Catholics for turning the mass into theatre, and they continued to do so, in the first published tracts of the early 17 th century. The first three were written by the Protestant parsons Daniel Tilenus (op. cit., 1600), André Rivet (Instruction Chrestienne Touchant les Spectacles Publics des Comoedies et Tragoedies, The Hague, 1639), and Philippe Vincent (Traitté des Theatres, La Rochelle, 1647). They confirm that Calvinist preachers actively tried to prevent their parishioners from indulging in entertainments that would give a bad reputation to the Protestant cause and set a bad example to the community. The 1639 treatise is an adaptation, for the general public, of lessons on the third commandment that André Rivet, professor of theology at the Leyden Academy, had given in Latin for an international audience of future Calvinist preachers. Rivet had already published his lessons as a Latin commentary on the Decalogue. 36 The text which gave him a pretext to lecture about the stage was Exodus XX: 14, “ Thou shall not commit adultery. ” It is rather far-fetched to give a prominent place to theatrical spectacles when commenting on the interdiction of adultery, 37 but preachers had an obligation to warn people against the dangers of the stage. This, therefore, had to be part of the curriculum of the future parsons and preachers who were to watch over the morals of the Calvinist community. In times of religious disputes and tensions, inside and outside the community, it was deemed important to control parishioners by all means, to reinforce a community of views and behaviour, in order to avoid any looseness, whether moral or doctrinal. For Rivet, guiding future preachers was not enough; the 222 François Lecercle topic deserved a wider audience. This is why he converted a learned lecture on the Bible for future preachers to a didactic work for the general public. The French volume is much smaller and much less erudite than the Latin in-folio. The avowed purpose is to police Protestant society because moral standards are slipping. Rivet addressed two audiences at once: those who would be tempted by a less rigorous way of life and those who needed arguments to convince their dissolute neighbours to revert to the upright tradition of their fathers. The volume is, therefore, one link in an oral chain. It emanates from lectures to future preachers, and it aims not just to convince readers but to give them arguments they will use with their neighbours. This is why the small volume concludes with didactic summaries, ready to be memorized and used orally. But there is also another dimension to these admonitions. When a strict Calvinist censures the behaviour of his fellow citizens, it may imply a de facto attack on the Prince. This is what happened with Rivet ’ s treatise. If he wanted to reach a wider public than his Latin lesson on Exodus, it was not just to address the public at large instead of future parsons, he did so under very specific circumstances. For the marriage of his sister-in-law, in The Hague in February 1638, Frederik- Hendrik, prince of Orange-Nassau, organized magnificent festivities with theatrical performances. For this, he invited a French theatre company. He gave them a huge gratification, but the company asked for more: they wanted the Prince to build a proper theatre for them. 38 In this context, publicly lashing out at actors takes on an obvious political flavour; it is an indirect criticism of the Prince and his public policy. It also means that, by openly disapproving of the attitude of the Prince, the Church was trying to infringe on his prerogatives. The volume in French was not just motivated by a pedagogical effort towards a larger public, it was also a reply to the pernicious whims of the Prince. Text and Performance Rivet ’ s treatise is, in part, a prop for future oral use. This is not the only case. I have briefly mentioned the compilations that grew in size from edition to edition. They often provided indexes which offered future polemicists a hoard of ready-made arguments and quotations. In one case, there is a direct link between such compilations and oral polemics. One of the first compilations is a theatrophile collection, Trattato Sopra l ’ Arte Comica Cavato dall ’ Opere di S. Tomaso e da Altri Santi etc. [A Treatise on the Comic Art, Extracted from the Works of S. Thomas and Other Saints], published in Lyon in 1601, under the name of the capocomico P. M. Cecchini. 39 It is a small collection of positive quotes about the stage by Church Fathers and well-known theologians. It was prepared by an erudite monk, at Cecchini ’ s request. 40 In the late 16 th century, capocomici had taken over the defence of their art. The most famous (Andreini, Cecchini, Beltrame) wrote treatises in the early 1600s. They had to fight on two fronts: they had to defend the stage in general and to fight for the social and cultural recognition of their companies. Because they were clever at making connections and finding aristocratic protectors, they were under attack all the more. This collection of quotes is not a proper defence of the stage, because it is not meant to convince a reader of the usefulness of drama. In a sense, one might say that it is meant to be used rather than read. A collection of such excerpts has an obviously practical purpose: to be used as a basis for discussion and debate. It was certainly intended to enable theatre companies to reply 223 Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia to their opponents, to counter Tertullian with Thomas Aquinas or Antoninus of Florence (15 th century), and this is why it was published so many times under the names of various capocomici. In this case, the published text is meant to provide material that will be used in oral polemics. We have at least one example of such use. In 1607, during a theatre festival in Bourges (a university town in the centre of France), a Jesuit delivered a violent sermon against the stage, threatening to excommunicate those who attended the performances rather than his sermons. It is one of those little skirmishes which nourish the day-to-day life of debates about the theatre. We wouldn ’ t know about this anonymous Jesuit if it hadn ’ t been for an actor and company leader called La Porte. He replied, from the stage, with a prologue which received some attention and circulated as a manuscript. It was archived, at the time, by a famous collector of historical documents. 41 This prologue is a direct reply to the Jesuit. It draws largely on the Italian collection of quotes in order to vindicate the theatre. It is also a vicious and clever attack on the Company of Jesus, with accusations and even threats 42 . The Jesuits, La Porte claims, attack the theatre but they practice it in their colleges for mercenary reasons - to get more money from their pupils. Given their allegiance to a foreign power (the Pope), they are always prone to treason. They are known regicides and had been expelled from France for that reason: they might be expelled again. La Porte also claims that theatre companies are instruments of social harmony and, as such, have powerful protectors. If the Jesuits attack, he warns, they will learn at their expense that theatre companies are not to be trifled with. In this oral version of the conflict, the stakes are more visible. The threats and accusations are not explicit, but they are transparent and meant to be understood at once by the audience. Under the thin veil of moral and religious righteousness, it is easy to grasp the economic and political stakes. The Jesuits had recently been readmitted to France; they had come back to Bourges and reopened their college. For them, stopping the theatre festival was a means of recovering their social influence, showing that, once again, they were the main ideological power in the city. For their part, theatre companies had to strike back to preserve a thriving theatre festival which helped them make their living, improve their reputation, and find new customers, since delegates from other cities came to the festival to choose companies to invite back to their cities. Published treatises develop moral and religious arguments through which we can guess the economic and political tensions at play. In oral debates, when we are lucky enough to find one documented, there is less need to decipher because the power struggle is much more obvious and the attacks thinly disguised - just enough to be threats rather than blows and to keep the enemy at bay. The history of theatrophobia is not a chronicle of the successive variations of a repetitive script. To follow the development of the debate, one has to reconstruct the various tensions (religious and moral, but also social, political, and economic) which are expressed through this script. One has to understand the ever-changing agendas and the stakes involved. Even if the arguments vary little, they are taken up in different frameworks which give them new meanings. Theatrophobia, therefore, is not just a vast body of texts, diffused in many disciplines and genres. Insofar as it is highly polemical, theatrophobic discourse always implies some kind of performance. It is often the written form of an oral intervention, whether a sermon or a lesson. Since it aims at convincing a listener/ reader, or silencing an opponent, it implies a hic et nunc confrontation of speakers. 224 François Lecercle To understand how the moral and religious issues are converted into economic and political questions, one has to go beyond the texts, and to use what we know of their context to reconstruct the conflict: its circumstances, the interests at stake, the forces at work. To see what is going on, we can use the documentation of clashes in a specific context, where the underlying tensions are more visible. It does not mean that all clashes follow the same pattern and are based on the same conflicts of interest, but we can learn from them how general arguments cover power relations that, for a long time, historians of theatrophobia have tended to minimize or even ignore. Forty years ago, academia was ‘ textocentric ’ : everything was a text to decipher, from the behavioural patterns of monkeys to fashion trends. I wouldn ’ t go so far as to claim we should be ‘ performo-centric ’ , but as far as theatrophobia is concerned we should definitely watch for traces of performance. One place to look is, of course, in the work of dramatists, because they had to deal with an ever-present enemy. From Shakespeare to Molière or Goldoni, it was a common temptation to strike back at censors, but addressing this would require another paper. Notes 1 Phrynichus, The Capture of Miletus, ca. 490 BC. 2 Who is not strictly speaking a Church Father. 3 See the website of the “ Hatred of the Stage ” project, directed by C. Thouret and myself at Paris-Sorbonne University, http: / / obvil. paris-sorbonne.fr/ projets/ la-haine-du-theatre [accessed 13 May 2021]. 4 There are French, English and Italian bibliographies on the HdT website (http: / / obvil. paris-sorbonne.fr/ corpus/ haine-theatre/ bibliographie_querelle-france/ ), soon to be followed by a German one. 5 Treatise of Comic and Tragic Playing, Sedan 1600, an anonymous work which can be attributed to a Silesian Lutheran, Daniel Tilenus. 6 Caelius Aurelianus proposes an allopathic treatment for manic patients: make them watch a play that is totally opposed to their humour. See On Acute Diseases, I.5. 7 See Edme-Pierre Chauvot de Beauchêne, De l ’ influence des affections de l ’ âme dans les maladies nerveuses des femmes, Amsterdam 1783, p. 33. 8 On the relationship between theatrophobia and demonology, see my article “ Vacillements de l ’ illusion. Dédiabolisation de la magie et rediabolisation du théâtre (1570 - 1650) ” , in: Kirsten Dickhaut (ed.), Kunst der Täuschung - Art of Deseption. Über Status und Bedeutung von ästhetischer und dämonischer Illusion in der Frühen Neuzeit (1400 - 1700) in Italien und Frankreich, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2016, pp. 255 - 271. 9 This is a recurrent topic in early Christian predication. See, for example, the beginning of John Chrysostomus ’ s Homilia contra ludos et theatra, (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 55, 273 ff.). 10 For England, see, among others, Margot Heineman, Puritanism and Theatre, Cambridge 1982. For France, see my article “ An Elusive Controversy: The Beginnings of Polemics Against the Stage in France ” , in: Logan J. Connors (ed.), Writing Against the Stage: Anti-Theatrical Discourse in Early Modern Europe, Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Theatre Research, 2015, 29/ 1, p. 17 - 34. 11 See Huerne de La Mothe, Liberté de la France, Amsterdam 1761. 12 For example, the famous treatise by the Prince de Conti, Traité de la Comédie et des spectacles. Selon la tradition de l ’ Eglise. Tiré des Conciles & des Saints Pères, Paris 1666, compiles quotations from Church Fathers and Councils. The treatise itself is 30 pages long, the various anthologies over 240 pages. Defenders of the stage also had compilations prepared for them; see n. 39. 225 Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia 13 William Prynne, Histrio-Mastix. The Players Scourge or Actors Tragaedie, London 1633; Giovanni-Domenico Ottonelli, Della Christiana Moderatione del Teatro, Firenze 1646 - 1655; Bertrand de La Tour, Réflexions Morales, Politiques, Historiques et Littéraires Sur le Théâtre, Avignon 1763 - 1778. 14 See, for example, John Rainolds, Th'overthrow of stage-playes, [Middelburg] 1599, p. 161. But as early as 1559, in The Displaying of the Popish Mass, Thomas Becon denounced mass as an idolatry, a mockery, a mummery of the priest with “ apish toys ” (see the ed. London, 1637, p. 298). 15 For example, by linking the condemnation of the stage to the purity of life that Protestants embody; see Philippe Vincent, Traitté des theatres, La Rochelle 1647, chap. 4. 16 The Proclamation of January 1572 and the Vagabonds Act of June 1572 included “ common players ” in the undesirable groups which had to be controlled. 17 On Richelieu ’ s theatre policy, see Deborah Blocker, Instituer un ‘ Art ’ . Politiques du Théâtre Dans la France du Premier XVII e Siècle, Paris 2009. On the theatre practice of the papal court, the collection of studies and documents published by Alesssandroo Ademollo (I Teatri di Roma nel Secolo Decimosettimo, Rome 1888) has not yet been replaced. On Frederik-Wilhelm, see Ubalo Floris, Teorici, Teologi e Istrioni. Per e Contro il Teatro Nella Francia del Cinque-Seicento, Roma 2008, p. 213 ff. On the political use of spectacles in Elizabethan England, see Olivier Spina, Une Ville en Scènes. Pouvoirs et Spectacles à Londres Sous les Tudors (1525 - 1603), Paris 2013. 18 The waste of time is the second evil of performances that Philippe Vincent denounces (op. cit., p. 6 - 7, for which theatergoers will be accountable to God. 19 See, for example, Philip Stubbes, The Anatomie of Abuses, London 1583, f. L8. The same argument was already prominent in a famous case against entrepreneurs of mystery plays, judged by the Paris Parliament in 1541. See below “ The stage as scapegoat ” . 20 This is explicit in the 1541 case at the Paris Parliament where mystery plays were held responsible for a sharp decrease of alms, see below. 21 Tertullian (2 nd c.), Cyprian of Carthage (3 rd c.), John Chrysostom (4 th c.), Salvian of Marseilles (5 th c.). 22 The idea that the stage is the church of the devil or the temple of demons is recurrent in Tertullian ’ s De Spectaculis (see XXIV, 5 and XXVII, 3), the most quoted of ancient theatrophobic treatises. 23 See, Heineman, Puritanism and Theatre. 24 Francesco Caffaro, Lettre d'un théologien illustre par sa qualité et son mérite consulté par l'auteur pour savoir si la Comédie peut être permise, ou doit être absolument défendue, p. 1 - 75, in Pièces de théâtre de Boursault, Paris 1694 25 Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Maxims and Reflections upon Plays, London 1699. An Italian translation was also published, slightly later, in 1705. See the bibliographies on the HdT website. 26 See Joseph de La Porte and Jean-Marie-Bernard Clément, Anecdotes Dramatiques, Paris 1775, vol. 2, pp. 433 ff. 27 They were only published in Paris, in 1863. He was the secretary of the Archbishop of Paris. 28 Caffaro was not a social nonentity; he had connections in the aristocracy, and he played a notable role in his order. 29 The main documents have been published by Charles Urbain and Eugène Levesque, L'Eglise et le Théâtre, Paris 1930, pp. 67 - 165. 30 The documents were edited in the 17th c. and there are two modern editions. I have edited them, in an improved and annotated version, on the HdT website and analysed them in “ La Polémique Avant la Polémique: l ’ Affaire du Parlement de Paris, 1541 ” , in François Lecercle and Clotilde Thouret (eds.), La Haine du Théâtre, vol. 1: Controverses et polémiques, Littératures classiques, 98 (2019), pp. 51 - 64. See also Floris, Teorici, Teologi e Istrioni, chap. 5. 31 Medieval historians - Marie Bouhaïk-Gironès and Katell Lavéant in particular - have found contracts for professional performers as early as the last quarter of the 15 th c. but no stable and well-known professional com- 226 François Lecercle pany is attested in France before the end of the 16 th c. 32 It left durable traces: until 1942, spectacles in France had to pay a special “ poverty tax ” ( “ droit des pauvres ” ) as if they contributed to the increase in poverty. See Floris, Teorici, Teologi e Istrioni. 33 John Northbrooke, Treatise Wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Plaies or Enterludes [. . .] are Reproved, London 1577; Thomas White, A Sermo[n] Preached at Pawles Crosse, London 1578; John Field, A Godly Exhortation by Occasion of the Late Judgement of God, London 1583; Becon, The Displaying of the Popish Masse. 34 See, for example, Nicolas Rolland du Plessis Remonstrances tres-humbles au roy de France & de Pologne Henry troisiesme de ce nom [. . .], s. l., 1588, p. 131. 35 The first printed treatise, by Tilenus, dates from 1601 (see above, n. 5), but there are few French tracts before the second half of the 17th century. 36 André Rivet, Praelectiones in Cap. XX. Exodi: in Quibus [. . .] Explicatur Decalogus [. . .], The Hague 1632. 37 The Latin word for ‘ commit adultery ’ is moechari. Moecha means adulteress or courtesan, hence the link with the stage, since actors and especially actresses are considered little more than prostitutes. 38 See Floris, Teorici, Teologi e Istrioni, chap. 7. 39 It had many editions, at least 10, in the early 1600s, published under the names of other famous actors, such as Andreini and Barbieri. On this collection, see Michael Desprez, “ Un Témoignage de la Première Querelle du Théâtre - Le Prologue de La Porte ” , in: Société Japonaise de Langue et Littérature Françaises 95 (2009), pp. 56 ff., https: / / www.jstage.jst.go.jp/ article/ ellf/ 95/ 0/ 95_KJ00007641680/ _article/ -char/ ja/ [accessed 13 May 2021]. 40 Cecchini gives the name of the author of the compilation, a Servite called Hippolito da Pistoia, in his dedication, Trattato Sopra l ’ Arte Comica, Lyon 1601, p. 4. 41 Two manuscripts have been preserved and were edited, but with mistakes. I have edited an improved version on the HdT website. On this case, see Michael Desprez, art. cit. and, by the same author, “ Du texte de ‘ conjointure ’ dans la constitution du comédien professionnel: le cas du Prologue de La Porte, comédien à Bourges, contre les Jésuites ” , in: Sylvie Requemora-Gros (ed.), Voyages, rencontres, échanges au XVIIe siècle, Marseille carrefour, Tübingen 2017, pp. 443 - 452. 42 In my edition of the text, I have stressed La Porte ’ s various explicit or implicit arguments. In support of this very brief analysis, see my online annotation. 227 Rewriting the Unwritten: On the History of Theatrophobia