With Guy Spielmann’s chapter, the collection shifts to eighteenth-century theatre, the common vision of which has rested until recently on a limited number of neo-Aristotelian ‘regular’ dramas staged at the Comédie-Française and Théâtre-Italien. Spielmann accounts for the huge theatrical activity taking place in fairgrounds and domestic spaces during this period. Acrobatic entertainments at Parisian fairgrounds grew into fully-fledged dramas, violating the privilège granted to the official troupes who pursued, in vain, every legal avenue to stop them. The Académie Royale de Musique’s monopoly was also compromised when fairground entrepreneurs bought the right to stage musical plays, giving rise to the opéra-comique (fanciful shows influenced by commedia dell’arte). A further illustration of the circumvention of monopolies was afforded by amateur théâtre de société, already mentioned in this Introduction. Spielmann presents a vast field, characterized by extreme diversity, although he argues that its allegedly subversive quality was more aesthetic, than political.

It should not surprise us if voters are as much persuaded by the charisma of a politician’s personal performance as by their policies. Neither should it surprise us that actors have sometimes successfully made the move from showbiz to the business of government. President Reagan and Governor Schwarzenegger are well-known examples. Sometimes the substance exceeds the show, as it does in the case of the actor Volodymyr Zelensky who went on to become the celebrated wartime president of Ukraine. With other performers, a spectacular show might make up for lesser substance. Donald Trump has been a major beneficiary of voters’ susceptibility to persuasive political performance. What Donald Trump lacks in political education he has made up for through practical experience in the entertainment industry, and especially through his role as host of the popular programme The Apprentice. This chapter examines the arts of political performance including, but not exclusively, in relation to the ways in which the speech, gesture, and costume of Donald Trump, exploit the Making Sense.

In his Négligent (1692), Charles Dufresny has an aspiring playwright exclaim: ‘Molière has spoiled the theatre all right. Follow his example and immediately critics cry out that you pilfered his work; deviate from it in the slightest, and they complain that you are not staying close enough to Molière!’ – an ironic but fitting encapsulation of the ‘post-moliéresque’ era, when authors, facing increasingly challenging conditions, still somehow managed to reinvent comedy. The growing aura of commedia dell’arte and opera influenced productions of the newly formed Théâtre-Français, which for almost twenty years struggled in the shadow of the hugely successful Théâtre-Italien, then allowed to stage plays partly in French. When the latter was shut down by royal decree in 1697, the taste for ‘irregular’ comedy remained dominant, ultimately leading to the emergence of a new venue – the fairgrounds – and a new genre: the opéra-comique. Contrary to a long-standing negative vision, the Fin de Règne (1680–1715), with dramatists like Dancourt, Dufresny, Regnard and Lesage, was an apex of comedic innovation that never forgot or betrayed what Molière had accomplished.

Molière’s life and works offer numerous parallels with the commedia dell’artie, which goes some way towards explaining the profound singularity of his plays and scenic practices in the context of seventeenth-century French theatre. For roughly fifteen years, Molière rubbed shoulders with the Italians and undertook various adaptations of original works derived from the commedia dell’arte, as is demonstrated by several of his plays that are based on famous soggetti. Molière also borrowed a number of his characters from the commédia dell’arte, reproducing both their names and their behaviour. The similarities are not only textual but also in his acting style: physical and verbal virtuosity, and above all the use of facial expressions to demonstrate his characters’ emotions. Molière’s plays were constructed around such lazzi, which gave him a certain flexibility in the elaboration of his shows. Finally, it is in his qualities as an author, actor and company leader, and also in his way of practising theatrical activity as a true entrepreneur that Molière can be seen to have been influenced by the commedia dell’arte more generally.