The eighteenth century witnessed a sea change in the French economy. In the century prior, Louis XIV had overseen a tightly regulated feudal economy, explicitly engineered to augment the wealth and power of the reigning monarch. His finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, pioneered a decidedly Gallic form of mercantilism, marked by a system of privileged monopolies whose operations were subject to exacting state control. However, in the decades following the Sun King’s death, the Colbertist paradigm came under threat – eroded by a series of liberalizing initiatives that edged the French economy towards a capitalist modernity. As Enlightenment philosophers touted the freedom and meritocracy of laissez-faire economics, segments of the Third Estate pushed back against the regulations which circumscribed their social autonomy. This tension between capitalist aspiration and mercantilist malaise reached a tipping point in the French Revolution, where a wave of liberalizing reforms wiped away the last vestiges of the Colbertist system. The Ancien Régime’s crumbling network of privileges, monopolies, and feudal hierarchies was replaced by a system of property rights designed to promote entrepreneurialism, free enterprise, and upward mobility. Opera became a key site of deregulation under the Revolution’s capitalist reforms. During the grand siècle, opera functioned as an extension of the absolutist state, with the Académie Royale de Musique – ostensibly a court institution – claiming a total monopoly over operatic performance. However, over the course of the eighteenth century, this primacy was undermined as new competitors challenged its share of the market. The introduction of a state subsidy for the Comédie-Italienne, the growing market for regional and colonial opera (in Marseille, Bordeaux, Saint-Domingue, etc.), and the popularity of commercial entertainments (like the fairground and boulevard theaters) threatened the Académie Royale de Musique’s stranglehold over operatic production, paving the way for the free-market reforms of the Revolution. Finally, in 1791, Isaac René Guy Le Chapelier introduced legislation to liberalize the French theater industry, abolishing theatrical monopolies and ending state subsidies. Theater was now a capitalist enterprise. This dissertation interrogates the relationship between opera and capitalism in eighteenth-century France and its colonies. Taking the Le Chapelier law as its endpoint, it seeks to demonstrate why opera became a central focus of the Revolution’s deregulatory zeal. I position opera at the vanguard of eighteenth-century liberalization efforts, showing how it embraced new commercial techniques and adapted to emerging economic freedoms. A series of institutional histories chart opera’s gradual induction into the capitalist marketplace during the Enlightenment, highlighting institutions that played a pivotal role in challenging Colbertist economic policy. Ultimately, I argue that opera houses, increasingly entangled in nascent forms of French capitalism, became cheerleaders for the burgeoning free market, profiting from affectionate, glamorous, or downright utopian portrayals of commercial life. Opera and capitalism became locked in a self-replicating feedback loop: the more that operatic institutions became enmeshed in the rise of capitalism, the more they promoted capitalist ideals. Seven chapters, proceeding chronologically from the Regency to the Terror, examine vital flashpoints in the intersection of opera and capitalism in eighteenth-century France – culminating in a reappraisal of the Le Chapelier law and its effects on the opera industry. Traversing a range of operatic institutions – in the metropole and in the colonies – these case studies not only show how opera companies embraced capitalist business practices, but also how they reconfigured operatic aesthetics to champion laissez-faire ideologies. The first chapter triangulates the symbiotic relationship between the Théâtres de la Foire, the finance industry, and urban capitalism through an analysis of financier characters in vaudeville comedy. The second chapter situates the vocalizing body of Madame de Pompadour at the intersection of pastoral opera, Italianate musical aesthetics, and physiocratic economic thought, offering a close reading of the operas she commissioned for Théâtre des Petits Cabinets. Chapter 3 explores the forced merger of the Théâtres de la Foire and the Comédie-Italienne in 1762, suggesting that the new hybrid troupe weathered this institutional shift by staging opéras-comiques that depicted the commercial sector. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 turn to the colonial theaters of Saint-Domingue. First, I dissect the business practices of these commercial enterprises, highlighting their reliance on planter capital. Then, I outline the effects of this colonial capitalism on local operatic aesthetics, arguing that Caribbean troupes used promises of celebrity and spectacle to boost ticket sales. I demonstrate that theaters in Saint-Domingue used these unique aesthetic practices to promote a deregulated plantation economy in which planters exercised unmitigated control over enslaved workers. Finally, in Chapter 7, I return to the Comédie-Italienne (now rebranded the Opéra-Comique National) to examine the effects of the Le Chapelier law on theatrical policy during the Terror. Here, I challenge the assumption that the Montagnard regime reversed the economic freedoms wrought by the Le Chapelier law and reposition the revolutionary pièce de circonstance as a decidedly commercial operatic genre. Ultimately, I argue that opera played a vital role in bringing aspects of early capitalism into French public discourse during the eighteenth century. Over the course of this dissertation, I show that lyric theater, in representing a nascent free market onstage, inducted liberal fiscal dogma into the cultural psyche, entrenching it as a central facet of cultural modernity.

La rencontre du théâtre et du carnaval est aussi ancienne que le carnaval lui-même. D’une part, les cérémonies et les comportements collectifs possèdent, en propre, une dimension spectaculaire ; d’autre part, les jeux dramatiques font partie intégrante du rituel. Dans la France d’Ancien Régime, les réjouissances du carnaval sont un temps fort du calendrier, qui occupe toute la société pendant plusieurs semaines, des Rois au Carême. Les comédies créées pendant cette période, au Théâtre-Italien, à la Comédie-Française, à la Foire Saint-Germain, se rattachent explicitement à la coutume et s’insèrent dans son cycle cérémoniel. Plus largement, tirant parti de cette proximité calendaire, les dramaturges recourent au langage symbolique du carnaval, à celui du charivari, pour inventer un système de représentation du réel qui en offre un mode d’intelligibilité spécifique. Une langue pleine d’équivoques scabreuses et de saillies ordurières, des lazzis outrés et obscènes, un univers fantaisiste et bouffon, des personnages extravagants et burlesques : les modèles comiques qui se développent, de 1680 à 1720, sont à rattacher à la culture carnavalesque et à son imaginaire mythico-rituel. Les croyances et les pratiques symboliques innervent la création dramatique et participent à la construction de son sens, en lien étroit avec le contexte historique dans lequel s’inscrivent les œuvres. Il convient de restituer à ce théâtre la dimension anthropologique qui est la sienne, si l’on veut accéder à sa raison esthétique. La comédie de mœurs offre alors un nouveau visage : représentant la société contemporaine comme un monde à l’envers sur lequel règnent des souverains parodiques, elle revêt des enjeux idéologiques et possède une portée politique. Parallèlement, c’est aussi le concept critique de « carnavalesque » qui apparaît sous un jour inédit. / The meeting of theatre and carnival is as old as carnival itself. On the one hand, ceremonies and collective behaviour have a spectacular dimension in themselves; on the other hand, dramatic performance is an integral part of the ritual. In the early modern France, celebrating carnival was a key moment of the year, and kept the whole society busy for several weeks from Epiphany (or Twelfth Night) to Lent. The comedies created during that period at the Théâtre-Italien, at the Comédie-Française or at the Saint-Germain Fair, are explicitly related to the custom and fit into its ceremonial cycle. More generally, playwrights took advantage of the calendar proximity and used the symbolic language of carnival, that of charivari, to invent a system of representation of reality that offers a specific mode of intelligibility. A language full of lewd ambiguities and bawdy sallies, offensive, obscene lazzi, a fanciful, farcical universe, extravagant and burlesque characters: the comic models that developed, from 1680 to 1720, are to be related to the carnivalesque culture and to its mythical and ritual imaginary world. Symbolic beliefs and practices pervade the dramatic creation of that time and partake in the construction of its meaning, in close connection with the historical context within which the works are framed. It is necessary to restore their anthropological dimension to these plays to grasp their aesthetic purpose. The comedy of morals after Molière then offers a new face: as the plays represent the contemporary society as a world that has been turned upside down and that is ruled by parodic monarchs, they tackle ideological issues and have a political significance. It is also the critical concept of "carnivalesque" that appears in a new light.