School for Citizens: Theatre and Civil Society in Imperial Russia by Murray Frame (review)

Abstract

Il6 SEER, 87, I, JANUARY 200g Frame, Murray. Schoolfor Citizens: Theatre and Civil Society in ImperialRussia. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT and London, 2006. x + 262 pp. Illustrations. Appendix. Bibliography. Notes. Index. ?30.00: $50.00. Murray Frame's School for Citizens is the latestmonograph to appear in a series ofworks thathave given serious attention to the role of theatre in transform ing late Imperial Russian society. Frame's work adds to this scholarship by situating theatre within a broader discourse of civil society and professiona lization. Schoolfor Citizens succeeds in bringing Russian theatre to life in a multi-dimensional, compelling and pithymonograph. Frame argues thatby cultivating a sense of citizenship among itsemployees and playing an intermediary role between the state and society at large, theatre contributed to a blossoming of civil society that an increasing number of scholars are recognizing took place in late Imperial Russia. One of the overarching themes of Frame's work is the tension between conceptions of theatre as a public space outside of the state, and the close relationship between state and stage that characterizes the history of Russian theatre. Frame begins his discussion, for instance, by looking at how eighteenth century government officialswho were close to the ruling elite used the dra matic form as a 'vehicle for the expression of certain political and moral principles' (p. 13) that theywanted to air inpublic, but could not do so through conventional forums of public debate. Audiences, however, continued to see theatre more as a place of sociability and entertainment than of political education. The loftygoals of playwrights were further undermined by the majority of serf theatres, itinerant troupes and commercial theatres that used the stage to perform popular French operettas rather than theRussian politi cal commentary of the enlightenment, and that exploited actors and theatre personnel in the process. As theatre developed over the course of the nineteenth century with the construction of public theatre buildings inMoscow and St Petersburg, it began to develop 'into a locus of respectability' as well as 'an affront to the authori ties' (p. 32). It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the censorship regime soon turned itsattention to theatre.Under the reign ofNicholas I, the state began to consolidate the Imperial Theatre monopoly and to co-opt the stage as a tool for the promotion of conformity and the portrayal ofRussian lifeand national identity.This new repertoire, epitomized by Griboedov's Woe from Wit and Gogol"s The Government Inspector, balanced itspromotion ofRussian national ideals with critical comments on society. By the end of Nicholas's reign 'the stage had emerged as a significant factor in public life' (p. 73). By mid-century, the Imperial Theatres were beginning to see competition from the pleasure gardens, cabarets, fairgrounds and masquerades that could be found not only in the provinces, where themonopoly was not in effect,but in themetropoles as well. With the 1882 abolition of the Imperial Theatre monopoly, the gates were opened for thewidespread proliferation of private theatrical ventures in Moscow and St Petersburg. Frame argues convincingly that the initial motivation for the establishment of the monopoly was economic, and only in themid nineteenth century did itbegin to be justified with moral arguments. Alexander Ill's abolition of the monopoly, Frame reviews 117 points out, is actually consistent with his disdain of the type ofWesternized culture the Imperial Theatres were promoting. The opening up of theatre to private ventures, therefore, can be seen as part of Alexander's conservative agenda rather than as a liberalization of the art form. The net result, over time, though,was that control of theatre in the capitals was wrested from the state and handed toRussia's 'fledgling civil society' (p. 106). With the abolition of the monopoly, Moscow and St Petersburg were filledwith entrepreneurs, impresarios and theatrical innovators, all ofwhom 'contributed to thewider social trend thatwas gradually challenging the state as the curator of artistic culture and the arbiter of identity' (p. 108). By the last decade of the century, though, intellectuals were becoming disappointed with commercial theatre, which they believed had failed in itsmission of developing citizenship. Although it is difficult to judge the role that theatre played in transforming social...