Jan Clarke’s chapter examines the period of Molière and his contemporaries from the perspective of theatrical establishments. Focusing on three companies – Molière’s troupe (1658–73), the Hôtel Guénégaud company (1673–80) and the Comédie-Française (from 1680 onwards) – Clarke highlights a number of interrelated factors: the prime importance of a theatre’s location within the capital; financial structures ranging from royal patronage and ticket sales to concessions, for example, for the refreshment booth, as well as theatres’ multiple expenditures, including for rent, heating, transport and above all company members’ pensions. Across the analysis, Clarke illustrates how a theatre not only provided a living for company members and their employees but also contributed to the livelihoods of myriad other associates, from the most skilled to the most humble, the majority of whom remain anonymous, while others have left only fleeting traces in contemporary documents.

Molière played a significant role in the birth of Arab theatre and has continued to influence it right down to the present day. Every pioneer, from the Machrek to the Maghreb and not forgetting the Gulf, has been inspired by the Molière repertoire, and experts have often queried the reasons for his success. Presenting works by authors from all over the Arab world, this chapter defines Molière’s role in the development of a national Arab theatre, considering some of the adjustments and adaptations that proved necessary.

Molière is generally viewed as a comic author who mocks all aspects of society – aristocratic, bourgeois and peasant. However, he was himself part of this tripartite society and adopted points of view that, when we examine them, we see to be those of his caste – one of the people who dined at the King’s table. He was, in fact, at the intersection of two worlds, the court and the town (Paris), and in his works we meet individuals from different milieus, in the plays themselves but also making up the audiences that came to see them. He makes his characters ridiculous through exaggeration, thereby rendering less credible whatever they represent. When presenting different comic situations, Molière never comes down on one side or another. Instead, he offers suggestions, and leaves their appreciation up to the members of the public. They, according to their status or the circumstances in which they see the plays, receive them in one way or another, but always refuse to recognise themselves in any particular character. The focus of this article is, therefore, to determine whether Molière, whose criticism was so acerbic, really was this transgressive and subversive bourgeois author.

This chapter considers the supposedly ‘democratic’ way in which seventeenth-century theatre companies managed their affairs. Each troupe consisted of a number of share-holding actor members, and decisions relating to all aspects of the company’s activity were taken at meetings convened for particular purposes, whether general administration, play selection or to settle the end of year accounts. Women generally played an equal administrative role alongside men, and this is recognised as one of the few areas where such gender equality was the norm. Following Molière’s death, theatre companies came under the control of the First Gentlemen of the King’s Bedchamber, and (male) officers were appointed from among the actors to ensure liaison with them. The acting troupe was supported by a team of front-of-house and backstage staff, who were paid per performance, and where women were also well represented, particularly in the box office and other ‘front facing’ roles. Many of these women were former actresses, and this was one career that was open to them when they had to leave the stage. The company was also careful to look after its own, awarding pensions to former actors and employees and supporting other individuals by means of charitable donations.