What is the book about?
What are the different angles covered ?
Circus History - Horse and Equestrian History - Theatre History - Leisure History - France - England
History of the Circus
Many books recount the history of the modern circus. However, few authors have worked closely with primary sources, like Tristan Rémy and Christian Oger in France or George Speaight and Arthur Saxon in England, who conducted "true" research by genuinely consulting 19th-century archives and documents.
As a result, apart from the work of these authors, many "historical" books are merely reiterations, sometimes even copies, that circulate the same information and errors, contributing to a history that is often mystified, misleading, or even caricatured. Others have attempted to capture key moments in circus history and its artists, but their approach remains a linear, monographic narrative in which the circus is treated as either context-free or as a cultural exception, even marginal.
Some authors do acknowledge the international dimension, the breadth of the phenomenon, and the spread of this multifaceted expression around the world, yet their studies focus on the late 19th and 20th centuries. The preceding century, from 1768 to the 1860s, is usually summarized by "Astley’s idea" (establishing a fixed venue for his shows) and how the Franconis and other artists adopted the "format" for their own use.
The ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of certain individuals spurred initiatives that would experience significant growth. However, "all of this" did not emerge out of thin air, nor did it succeed solely because the "idea" was a "good one." My initial aim was to understand why the circus gained such public success, which required me to grasp the context and conditions surrounding the emergence and development of the modern circus. Thus, the book is not "only" about circus history; it also delves into the history of equestrianism, theater, the commercialization of leisure, and the history of representation. Researching the circus called for studying other historiographies, while "the circus" itself offered a counterpoint, providing fresh insights into these fields, as neither the history of equestrianism nor that of theater had traditionally allocated space to the circus within their historical or historiographical perspectives.
Anglo-American historiography on the "commercialization of leisure" provided analytical tools and frames of reference that allowed for a deeper contextualization of the journeys and entrepreneurial ventures of individuals. These frameworks illustrate how the horse and the circus played a notably active role in the growth of entertainment, edutainment, sport, the construction of a shared historical memory, and representations of the exotic—elements that are central to modern culture.
Thus, "From Equestrian Theater to Circus" aims less to narrate the history of the circus per se than to offer an understanding of the commercialization of leisure activities in late 18th- and 19th-century Europe through the lens of the circus, exploring "why and how the rise of this form of entertainment occurred".
By situating the shows, their producers and their productions within the social, economic, and cultural context in France and England where this new form of entertainment emerged and developed, we gain insight into the strategies of entertainment entrepreneurs and their approach to cultural innovations. These include the definition of new spaces, practices, and representations of leisure time.
This perspective reveals how these entrepreneurs created the largest entertainment venues of their time to accommodate a growing audience for "grand spectacles" that continuously pushed the boundaries of sensational, creative worlds. Delving into the commercialization of leisure allows us to grasp the process and techniques behind cultural innovation: their entry into the leisure market and the factors determining whether they could scale up, achieve economic viability, and gain public success.
The question of the audience, which was the foundation of my research and dissertation, indeed required an understanding of the performances, their components, venues, rhythms, repertoires, as well as the references and imaginaries (narratives) evoked by circuses. Here, too, the commercialization of leisure and the history of equestrianism are crucial to understanding why and how the creativity of the circus—its spectacular offerings as well as its instructional elements and this leisure time itself—took up space within the cultural exchanges and social networks in Paris and London between 1760 and 1860.
Horse Riding History
The body of equestrian literature is immense. Primarily technical and academic, it also encompasses a wealth of contemporary research exploring the horse's role in society, including its military, economic, cultural, and symbolic significance. While royal jousts, horse races, and rodeos have attracted the attention of numerous researchers, no one has truly examined the role of horses in entertainment shows, such as in circuses and theatre.
The circus, during the 19th century, existed "by", "for" and "with" the horse. He is the actor and the vector of new stagings, with a narrative creativity specific to his "character". The horse is therefore essential to the existence of the circus.
On the other hand, the circus plays a crucial role in both the dissemination of equestrian knowledge and the demonstration, discussion, and debates surrounding equestrian methods. Telling the story of the circus in its first century offers a unique opportunity to uncover an important aspect of equestrian culture, as it unfolds and is represented in the ring. It specifically raises questions about certain subfields of equestrianism, such as horseback vaulting, and how these practices challenge methods of learning, professional expertise, and peer recognition.
History of the Theater
TThe history of theater and theatrical studies encompass an immeasurable body of work, even more so when considering what has been written in both France and England. This includes everything from the construction of theaters to performances, theatrical arts, costumes, and sets, as well as scenography, the lives of actors, authors, and censors, alongside topics like registers, morality, politics, and more. So much has already been studied. However, as highlighted during a study day at Rennes 2 University in 2013, entire areas remain underexplored, including the minor genres.
In France, in particular, a bias has distorted the theatrical field: the study of the past has long been made in the light of 20th century categories and contemporary classifications, especially linked to cultural policies and the organization of the Ministry of Culture from 1959. The circus has been called 'circus' (without the word 'theatre' in its name) since the late 19th century, and in the 20th century, it became known as a performance without text or author. As a result, this genre was largely overlooked, disregarded, and excluded from theatrical studies—except for a few rare instances—until the late 1990s
Another important aspect of theater history had long been overlooked until the recent works of Christophe Charle (2009) and Jean-Claude Yon (2012): private theaters. While they may focus on minor genres, these theaters are primarily driven by their own economic model, where profitability plays a key role. This generates not only a distinct approach to management but also influences the renewal of their repertoires and, by extension, fosters innovation to ensure the public returns to purchase tickets.
The example of the theater-circus, as discussed in the book, also illustrates how cultural entrepreneurship and cultural innovation are performative processes, which generate in France, as in England, the emergence of activities, diversification, experimentation, novelties, variety and creativity within shows and theaters themselves, aside of what is usually considered as the mainstream of creativity: author's genius. Well before recent considerations about what is perceived in France as emerging cultural entrepreneurship , since the years... 2000 (see for example the synthesis of contemporary questions about the recent evolution of the sector, very well summarized here ), there has been cultural entrepreneurship among the private branches of theatricals and spectaculars.
In recalling that circus was originally developped as a theatre, and by recounting how and why the circus had obtain this status, the history of theater is dealt through an unusual aspect. The history of the circus is not told through theatrical institutions but through the strategies and means deployed by those who created it. In other words circus doesn't just tell us about the history of theatres, it tells us about theatricality and theatrical economics.
History of Leisure
One of the greatest challenges of comparing France and Great Britain in this book lies in the history of leisure. While the evolution of circus history is similar on both sides of the Channel, the cultural references and contexts differ significantly, as the historiography of leisure commercialization varies greatly between the two countries.
To put it very simply, the concept of 'making culture' is viewed differently in France and in England. In France, culture is primarily approached through the lens of literature, focusing on the Author (creation) and what defines literacy (dominant culture). In contrast, in Great Britain and the United States, culture is seen more as an expression or a performance. Additionally, what 'is' and what 'creates' culture is not the same depending on the region or the space of expression.
These very distinct meanings, until the 1990s, have, by force of circumstance, structured thought patterns and very different analysis depending on the country, with the damage, in France, of concealing subjects from the historical field and social sciences, or of dividing them in a binary way (dominant /dominated culture, high/popular culture) whereas these subjects are no less derived from the processes of production and practices.
IIn a similar vein of shifting meanings, but from a temporal perspective, the distinction between sport(s) and leisure is a relatively recent development, dating back to the second half of the 20th century. Even in English, earlier periods treated sports, theater, music, and other activities as part of the broader concept of "leisure." Therefore, it is somewhat anachronistic to refer to "sports and leisure" in the 18th and 19th centuries, in both France and England, since sports were then considered a part of, or synonymous with, leisure—unless they were practiced for educational purposes. This distinction is precisely one of the aspects explored in the book, particularly through the role of horse riding.
I’ll rephrase it: These distinctions are highly simplified, but these shortcuts are essential to highlight the significant conceptual differences between France and England and to understand the role that works on the commercialization of leisure in the 18th and 19th centuries play in Anglo-American historiography. In France, the history of leisure is still in its early stages, despite Alain Corbin's groundbreaking work (1998), which identifies the leisure phenomenon as occurring between 1850 and 1960, while in England, historians place it a century earlier. The commercialization of leisure is treated by many English and American historians as a key process in economic history, urbanization, gentrification, and sociability (for further details, see C. Hodak, 2000, here ). The fact that this perspective has been largely overlooked in France has led, and likely still leads, to a lack of understanding of the commercialization of culture and the spread of common references to an increasing portion of the population.
Above all, this completely overlooks the context surrounding the emergence of a new profession: that of entrepreneurs, at the very moment when the English are reclaiming this term, which is originally a French word. Entrepreneurs, particularly in the leisure sector, are becoming an increasingly identifiable group, as their field remains largely untapped, with much still to be invented. This places greater pressure on governments and legal systems to rethink the laws that regulate the authorization to practice certain professions. In the world of performance arts, theater, and sports, these processes of innovation and legitimization are crucial in defining areas of practice, as well as in fostering creativity and inventing new forms of production.
However, Du Théâtre équestre au Cirque does not address this issue from a theoretical standpoint. Instead, the book uses the history of the circus to illustrate the commercialization of leisure activities as they emerge. In doing so, it highlights a process at work through the journey of individuals who have embarked on a theatrical venture—on horseback
* One can notice a very recent development as evidenced by the issue entitled "Les Commerces du Théâtre" of the Revue d'Histoire du Théâtre , Trimester 2, 2017 which we can regret, however, that apart from the article by Stéphanie Loncle (“ The theatre, a commercial enterprise? Theatre and commerce in Paris under the July Monarchy) devoted to the liberal period of the July Monarchy (1830-1848), the articles mainly deal with the period after 1860 after the major turning point of the law of 1864 which consecrates the liberalization of theaters. It should be noted that the process of commercialization of leisure is absent from the articles and that the term chosen is indeed that of "commerce" in connection with political liberalism and the related laws (in particular the passage des théâtres , for a short time, under the supervision of the Ministry of the Interior au Ministry of Commerce). Which is not without interest, of course, but restricts the notion of trade to liberal ideology and to the political system even though the process of commercialization is part of a long time, multiple experiences which themselves nourish the arguments of supporters and opponents of liberalisation, well ahead of it. The century preceding the turning point of 1864 unfortunately remains too little considered in terms of its economic reality on the ground.