Page - 376 - in Musiktheater im höfischen Raum des frühneuzeitlichen Europa - Hof – Oper – Architektur

Juan José Carreras 376 “customary fodder” to use the weary words of José de Carvajal y Lancaster, a frequent visitor of the Coliseo as a minister of the government.54 The 1755 Buen Retiro document has a significant gap in the stalls where attendees of lower rank would normally be present at public performances at the Coliseo between the middle of the 17th century and the 1730s. The absence of any information points to an exclusion of all those who were not attached to court and government circles. This interpretation is supported by the absence in the 1755 seating-plan of a box reserved to the city council of Madrid, which, as we have seen, was a long-standing privilege regularly granted in previous years. The same conclusion is sustained by the announce- ments of operas in the press, which invariably appear accompanied by formulas which emphasize the magnificence and exclusivity of the performance like, for instance, “en Palacio  [con] numeroso, y lucido el concurso de Grandes, y Ministros Estrangeros” (“at the palace, with numerous and brilliant presence of grandees and foreign ministers”), or “en presencia de sus Magestades y de toda la Corte” (“in the presence of Their Maj- esties and all the Court”).55 In contrast, in January 1740, the already mentioned opera Farnace was performed not only for courtiers, but also, on separate occasions, for the city and government councils.56 Taking all this into account and being aware that my argument is directly based on a singular source (and many others which indirectly support or at least do not contradict my interpretation), I would argue that the 1755 document sheds new light not only on one particular opera performance, but also on the whole court opera pro- ductions in the reign of Ferdinand  VI. The period of court opera at the Buen Retiro under Farinelli’s management thus appears to be unique, the first radically to restrict the audience.57 In contrast to the Spanish case, other European courts appear far less restrictive in their admission and more flexible in the distribution of theatre audiences than Madrid. In Naples, for instance, the court and civic functions of the San Carlo theatre were si- 54 “ópera es el pasto ordinario” (Letter to Huéscar dated 25  November 1748, cited by Ozanam 1975, p.  411). For this and other similar statements, see Domínguez Rodríguez 2015, p.  30. 55 See Gaceta de Madrid 6  January 1750 and 2  February 1751. 56 “Aquel mismo día  [20  January 1740] por la noche se representó, de orden de SM en el Theatro del Buen-Retiro, la Opera Pharnace, en presencia de todos los Consejos; y el Viernes por la noche se repi- tió en la del Ayuntamiento de esta Villa.” Gaceta de Madrid, 26  January 1740. On the attendance at this production, see Carreras 2002, pp.  224–225. 57 The question of the exact opera audience at the Buen Retiro during the reign of Ferdinand VI has rarely been addressed. Current research seems to assume tacitly a continuity with the traditional mixed ad- mission procedure of the Coliseo. Margarita Torrione’s essay on Farinelli’s opera productions addresses the cuestion freely, and confuses the hybrid system of Philip V with its successor since she argues for open public performances during the court opera period under discussion. “Los estrenos se reservaban a los reyes, casa, consejos, ministros y embajadores, y a la ‘función pública’ de los días siguientes asistía la villa de Madrid.” (Torrione 2002, p.  186).