Not by accident did theatrical performances in the French language—in particular the presentation of tragedies and comedies—become increasingly prolific at the Russian court and in its capital city during the eighteenth century, especially during the reign of Catherine the Great. French after all was the language par excellence of European culture, and becoming a part of cultured Europe bulked large in the Russian imperial project. One might say that for Catherine, Francophone theater represented not “un–” but “le projet théâtral” (172). Where else but from French classical theater—Corneille, Racine, Molière, Voltaire, and others—could the Russian elite learn manners and values, ways of thinking and modes of behavior appropriate to a civilized country? The theater would play a major role in creating—inventing, in the author's terminology—society in a Russia theretofore lacking one.

In a highly detailed and thoroughly researched study, Alexeï Evstratov traces the preparation and presentation of Francophone theatrical works on the stages of St. Petersburg during two major reigns of the eighteenth century, those of Elizabeth I and Catherine II. The book draws from archives in Avignon, Berlin, Moscow, Paris, St. Petersburg, and Vienna. The rich assortment of published contemporary sources includes accounts by assorted Russians as well as visitors to and diplomats in the city from an array of European countries. Evstratov's analysis is informed by recent theoretical works in anthropology, ethnography, semiotics, sociology, and theater arts, among other disciplines.

In eight tightly argued chapters, Evstratov explains why French actors were first invited in the 1740s and why it was deemed useful to continue bringing them to Russia. With regard to the task of inventing society, he relates Catherine II's “theatrical project” to that of Louis XIV in the previous century. Quantifying his subject, Evstratov assesses the frequency and impact of Francophone productions at court versus those in other languages, especially Russian. He then analyzes the number of different productions of various types (comedies, tragedies, and operas), their authors, and the frequency with which each and all were produced. Turning to the morphology of the theatrical setting, Evstratov assesses the significance of the arrangement of seating for what it intended to say about power and hierarchy; the imperial box was of course the locus of attention almost as much as the stage itself, with all other places deriving their significance in relation to it. The “public” that was invited to the theater, rather broad for its time in its social composition, nevertheless comprised the “société des sociétés” (240) in the city.

The first space in the Winter Palace dedicated wholly to spectacles was the Opera, located in the northwest corner of the second floor, the first performance held there in December 1763. As Evstratov reminds us, the theatrical calendar was subject to the dictates of the Church's fasting calendar, which concentrated performances into certain periods of the year. The Opera enjoyed only a short-lived existence. It was closed in the early 1780s in anticipation of the new Hermitage Theater designed by Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli that opened nearly a decade later. This space, although perhaps larger than the earlier Opera, was designed for more intimate groups, an inner social circle, since it had fewer than three hundred seats.

The upbringing of St. Petersburg society, intended to foster appreciation for the theatrical arts, could be termed successful in Catherine's reign because of the number of formal theatrical settings that began to appear in the city. There were private stages as well as theaters for a paying public, and many of the works presented were in French, although not exclusively by French authors. At Catherine's instigation certain members of the Russian elite tried their hand at composing for the stage in French, most of the works taking the form of comedies, but comedies more often than not pressing a moral point.

The book is well-served by the latter two of three appendices. (The first provides a brief political chronology of eighteenth-century Russia for those few readers who might not be familiar with it.) The second appendix, an alphabetical compilation of all French-language theatrical productions performed in St. Petersburg and at other imperial residences from 1762–1796 (year of composition, author, genre, prose or verse, number of acts, dates of presentation, total number of times played), holds great value for those who study the theatrical arts in Russia. Even more noteworthy, Appendix 3 lists all French actors in the imperial troupe (dates, roles, criticism where it exists, other career information, private life), likewise a compendium of great value.

This is a superb book deserving of a wide readership.