• Aucun résultat trouvé

Dramatic Battles in Eighteenth-Century France: Philosophes, Anti-philosophes, and Polemical Theatre

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Dramatic Battles in Eighteenth-Century France: Philosophes, Anti-philosophes, and Polemical Theatre"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Dramatic Battles in Eighteenth-Century France:

Philosophes, Anti-philosophes, and Polemical Theatre

The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share

how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

Citation Ravel, Jeffrey S. [review of] “Dramatic Battles in Eighteenth-Century France: Philosophes, Anti-philosophes, and Polemical Theatre.” By Logan J. Connors. (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2012. xii + 276 pp.) French Studies 67, no. 4 (September 27, 2013): 557-558.

As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fs/knt205

Publisher Oxford University Press on behalf of Society for French Studies Version Author's final manuscript

Citable link http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/83090

Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

(2)

ravel@mit.edu

CONNORS, LOGAN J. Dramatic battles in eighteenth-century France: philosophes,

anti-philosophes, and polemical theatre. (SVEC 2012:07). Oxford, Voltaire Foundation.

2012. Pp.xii+276. Pb £65 $110 110€

Eighteenth-century specialists are well acquainted with the controversies surrounding the premieres of Les Philosophes (by Charles Palissot) and Le Caffé, ou L’Écossaise (by Voltaire) at the Comédie-Française in 1760. The affair is usually understood as a skirmish in the larger battle between the philosophes and their opponents waged during the 1750s and early 1760s around the multi-volume, multi-year publication of Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie. Logan J. Connors, while aware of the political and intellectual issues that animated these debates, has a different goal in mind in this study of the three-month stage struggle that amused and irritated Parisian theatergoers. In sympathy with the work of recent theater studies scholars and cultural historians,

Connors argues that the tactics used by participants in this affair offered a new model for evaluating public theatre performances, and in so doing contributed to the broadening of French political debate. The author begins with nuanced readings of both plays, which, as he demonstrates, did not entirely align themselves with either philosophes or

anti-philosophes. Palissot, while critical of some encyclopédiste claims, never truly broke

with Voltaire and his supporters; Voltaire, while concerned with the fate of the ambitious

Encyclopédie, could not resist implicitly criticising Diderot’s theory of the drame when

writing L’Écossaise. Beyond these readings, Connors offers new perspectives on the conflict by delving deeply into the pamphlet literature and periodical reviews of the

(3)

affair. For example, there is an insightful analysis of the short pamphlet Les Philosophes

manqués by André-Charles Cailleau, written in the form of a play but never intended for

the stage, which demonstrates how participants in the controversy appealed to both readers and spectators. The most important claim of the book, however, is that this moment in 1760 marks a turning point in French theater criticism. Until then, written reviews of plays evaluated the literary merit of the text, with little regard for the fate of the work in front of a live audience. In the first half of 1760, though, critics such as Elie-Cathérine Fréron, Voltaire’s inveterate opponent, claimed that playwrights and their followers manipulated audience response within the playhouse to ensure successful reception of their work. It is Connors’ belief that from this moment forward audience response, or at least the retrospective reconstruction of audience response in print, began to rival “learned” opinion as the arbiter of theatrical affairs. The importance of criticism that acknowledged playhouse reception as well as literary analysis was on display, he argues, in subsequent controversies surrounding Pierre-Laurent Buirette de Belloy’s 1765

Siège de Calais, Pierre Caron de Beaumarchais’ 1784 Mariage de Figaro, and

Marie-Joseph Chénier’s 1789 Charles IX. One might take issue with some of the causal factors identified by Connors (did the elimination of onstage seating at the Comédie-Française in 1759 change the playhouse dynamic?), or with the exacting precision of his chronology, but this book is a welcome addition to recent interdisciplinary approaches to the interplay of public theater and political culture in Old Regime and Revolutionary France.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jeffrey S. Ravel Word count: 494

Références

Documents relatifs

[r]

 Ses  idées  ont  considérablement   influencé  la  révolution

Fort d'une vie de recherches sur le comportement des primates, de Waal attaque la « théorie du vernis » qui considère la moralité comme une fine écorce recouvrant une nature

Today we know that the theory was false in the case of pin making as we have others arguments that Adam Smith could not have know: the pin makers were not specialized, many

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des

De surcroît, malgré quelques comparaisons ingénieuses, l’auteur fait largement l’impasse sur tout ce que la rhétorique patriotique française doit à l’importation de la

Et c’est pourquoi les opérations qui s’effectuent dans notre pierre ont pour but d’améliorer sa teinture à un degré plus élevé que sa propre nature ; et aussi que l’élixir

Si c'était vrai qu'il n'y a rien à comprendre dans Descartes, même pour un entendement de première valeur, il faudrait n'en plus parler ; mais ce n'est pas vrai ; pendant que