František Adolf Šubert (sometimes spelled Schubert; 27 March 1849 – 8 September 1915) was a Czech writer, playwright, journalist and theatre director. He was the first director of the National Theatre in Prague.
Childhood and youth
Šubert was born on 27 March 1849 in Dobruška in eastern Bohemia. He was born as the ninth (and youngest) child in a poor family of a saddler and upholsterer, later inn-keeper and head of a tobacco warehouse. According to his parents' wishes, he was to become a priest.
Since childhood, he was keen on reading. "He didn't need to frolic either indoors or outdoors. Even less so at school. He wouldn't roam around, climb trees, or look for and pick birds' nests." Otokar Fischer, Činohra Národního divadla do r. 1900. p. 55. He studied at the college in Hradec Králové, where he wrote his first literary works, historical short stories, epic poems, and dramas. He later studied classical philology, philosophy, literature and art history at the University of Prague.
Soon after, he joined the Old Czech Party under the leadership of František Ladislav Rieger. Šubert and Rieger became lifelong friends, sharing mutual respect and support. He started working as a journalist. From 1875 he became a secretary of Český klub (Czech Club – a parliamentary association in the Austrian Imperial Council, which united Czech political representation).
In this period, he wrote two historical plays: Probuzenci (The Awoken) taking place in the 18th century and a biographical drama about the Czech Renaissance knight Petr Vok from Rožmberk.
Becoming the director of the National Theatre In March 1883 after the abdication of director Jan Nepomuk Maýr, the board of trustees of the National Theatre elected Šubert as his successor.
Other candidates were opera academy director Jan Ludvík Lukes, and theatre director and former head of drama section in the Provisional Theatre Pavel Švanda ze Semčic. Šubert was a protege of F. L. Rieger,Václav Štech, Džungle literární a divadelní. p. 70. and Rieger used his influence to lobby for Šubert. Rieger hoped that, via Šubert, he could to retain a certain influence on the decision-making process of the National Theatre. At least in the first years of Šubert's office, Rieger's influence on the management, repertoire and engagement of artists of the National Theatre, where he had been present from its very beginnings, was very strong, even decisive. Wiener Presse 4 January 1885. Mr. 5.
He became the first director of the National Theatre and held this position for seventeen years, until 1900. He was responsible for the financial management and artistic direction of both drama and opera (he was the only manager of the National Theatre who simultaneously held all three positions). However, his authority was limited by the board of trustees, which basically had the same power as the director.
Leading the first Czech stage
The politically selected and elected manager fulfilled his function mainly organizationally, rather than artistically. Šubert was handsome and looked majestic. He lacked theater experience, perspective and the ability to navigate in an environment full of such strong artistic individuals, for which he had neither patience nor understanding. But he understood the representative, external role of the theater in a revived nation, as well as the prestige he gained as a director.
Šubert tried to establish a prominent position for the theater in Europe. He invited a number of world opera and drama stars. Thanks to his diplomatic talent, he promoted the first performance of Verdi's opera Otello north of the Alps. In 1888, Otello recorded a great response among the Prague audience and the opera reached 26 reprises. Philipp Ther Narodni divadlo v kontextu evropských operních dějin. p. 191.
Šubert became famous for his extraordinary initiative, hard work and organizational skills, with which, as the first Czech theatre director of a permanent theatre building, he was able to manage the theatre in relative stability. He was a workaholic and very conscientious and capable of diplomatic negotiation.Eva Šormová a.i., Česká činohra 19. a začátku 20. století: Osobnosti; , II. Part: N-Ž. p. 875. In that day, there was no precedent, nor a Czech person with adequate experience, because such an institution did not exist in Czech society until then, and Czech national pride did not allow to outsource know-how from abroad, which would mean primarily German-speaking theatres. He handled all operational issues himself, which shows his inability to delegate tasks. Hana Konečná, Čtení o Národním divadle. p. 90. Jaroslav Kvapil, the man who replaced him in the drama department of the National Theater after seventeen years, wrote about him in his memoirs: “Šubert's situation was disadvantageous due to the great responsibility and then new tasks, for which he sometimes lacked the experience and abilities, but on the other hand it was advantageous due to the unique position he had in our entire theatrical life without a rival or competition and, moreover, in the shadow of the mighty figure of Rieger. What a wonder that Šubert became complacent, if not conceited.”Jaroslav Kvapil, O čem vím. P. 119. However, Kvapil also recognized Šubert's ability to maintain a difficult cultural and economic situation: "There was a lack of everything, especially a lack of audience and original productions, the excess was only in expectations and demands." Given that the National Theatre functioned as the only theatre venue in Czech Bohemia, there was no competition or comparison, but at the same time there was a strong expectation that the Czech theatre would occupy a strong position in Europe. This expectation soon receded and the new goal was to find a direction for the Czech theatre that would be artistically and practically productive (i.e. creation of original dramas and interest of Czech audience).
For almost the entire time of his leadership, Šubert struggled with financial collapse of the theatre. The National Theatre was largely dependent on ticket revenue, and interest in their productions was not as great as Czech patriots had originally expected. Compared to the Provisional Theatre, it had almost twice the capacity and the most modern stage and lighting technology. The National Theatre until 1920 must be understood as a business project whose viability depended on an auditorium filled with paying spectators. And until 1920, the theatre purely a Czech patriotic business project whose viability depended on an auditorium filled with paying spectators. Otto Drexler, Divadelní ředitel František Adolf Šubert – vizionář, nebo zpátečník. In. Divadelní revue 2020/2. p. 51.
Šubert demonstrated organizational talent and out-of-the-box thinking. He was the author of the concept of the so-called "theatre trains" – a completely organized trip to the National Theatre, which often included an overnight stay. This concept became extremely popular. In 1884, even 184 patriots from the United States arrived on the "theatre ship". Philipp Ther, Národní divadlo v kontextu evropských operních dějin. p. 174. Theatre trains brought in more profit than the income from theatre boxes.
However, the theatre trains stopped making a profit over time and Šubert had to solve the crisis by introducing popular entertainment. The drama failed to attract attention of the audience. For example, most of William Shakespeare's major works have been performed a maximum of four times (Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice). Only A Midsummer Night's Dream, which stood out for its large romantic stage design and many scantily clad actresses and ballerinas in the roles of fairies, had twenty eight reruns within the first year. This show was also a theatre train hit, because it was a well made mainstream comedy production and most of the National Theatre stars were cast in it. Otokar Fischer, Činohra Národního divadla do r. 1900. p. 83.
The financial crisis forced Šubert to take probably the most controversial step of his career. In 1891, Šubert, in cooperation with Angelo Neumann, the director of the Prague German Theatre, asked Emperor Francis Joseph I to transform both national theatres in Prague into court theatres. If the emperor had agreed (he refused because he did not want to invest more money in other theatres), the largest patriotic project of the Czech nation would have come under the patronage of the House of Habsburg. Philipp Ther, Národní divadlo v kontextu evropských operních dějin. p. 200.
Šubert's sympathies for workers and workers' associations were provocative. While some of the theater's shareholders wanted to keep the first Czech stage for the economic elite, Šubert sought to make the theater affordable for the poorer classes as well.
Power conflicts
Šubert was not a team player. He held all the power himself. The board of trustees had the same powers as him, but did not interfere much in the management of the theatre. His only artistic collaborator was playwright and dramaturg Ladislav Stroupežnický, an important person of the first years of Šubert's management, who became his right-hand man till his death in 1892.
Although the director's position was solid mainly thanks to the political lobby of Rieger, theater insiders tried twice to limit his power. Each time they were defeated and Šubert used them as a warning example for others who would try to confront his authority.
In 1894, in the second year of the National Theatre's existence, stage director Antonín Pulda, tutor and lover of the actress Maria Pospischil, tried to take more power over the theater's dramaturgical and artistic direction. Both were dismissed and left to pursue careers in German theaters.
In 1895, the board of trustees, headed by the chairman of the board, attorney Jan Růžička, tried to limit Šubert's influence. Mutual intolerance culminated in Růžička's attempt to return Maria Pospischil in 1895. Again, unsuccessfully. Šubert provoked a national backlash against Pospischil in the press and in society, and the disgusted actress, who would want to return to her homeland, left for Germany again.
Artistic visions
Šubert was convinced that the National Theatre must contribute to the development of Czech culture and art, deepen its national character and care for the culture of the Czech language. This idea was received positively, but also as outdated. He was arguing about the repertoire with the Board of trustees, that focused on an economic point of view and promoted popular genres such as French melodramas, comedy plays and operettas.Pavla Buzková, Přítelkyně. Hana Kvapilová a Růžena Svobodová ve svých dopisech. p. 33.
For the first year and a half after the opening of the theater, until the performance of Goethe's Faust, German titles were not performed, as a demonstration of Czech artistic self-sufficiency. Votech Kristián Blahník Umění divadelní. p. 14. Šubert tended towards eclecticism and superficiality. His repertoire choices satisfied no one. František Černý, Ljuba Klosová and others Dějiny českého divadla III. p. 207. In terms of European trends, the National Theater staggered behind touring companies that proved to be more progressive and in equally hard economic conditions. Pavel Švanda ze Semčic staged Ibsen's An Enemy of the People with Eduard Vojan and A Doll's House with Hana Kvapilová (these two actors of the National Theatre performed with touring companies in Czech regions to fulfill their artistic ambitions). František Černý, Ljuba Klosová and others Dějiny českého divadla III. p. 205. Émile Zola, Maurice Maeterlinck, August Strindberg, Oscar Wilde did not appear in Šubert's program.