Sedaine, Greuze and the Boundaries of Genre by Mark Ledbury (review)

Abstract

MLR,96.3,200 I 827 signify we maybe oXered waffle ('la laceration stridente qui separel'attente confiante desbrumes dureel')orinsouciant self-contradiction (Julie hasa 'ferme volonte denepasregarder aufond d'elle-meme', but'l'interiorite estlaseule realite vecuepleinement parJulie'(pp.IOI, I03)). Thereis a sprinkling ofmisprints. Rigorous editing wouldhaveeliminated someofthemoreobviously defective elements inthis book, though itscritical worth would still fall far short ofits topic. BIRKBECK COLLEGE, LONDON ROBIN HOWELLS Sedaine, Greuze andthe Bo?lndaries ofGenre. ByMARK LEDBURY. (Studies onVoltaire andtheEighteenth Century, 380)Oxford: TheVoltaire Foundation. 2000. xi+ 355PP £69 Thisisa very welcome addition tomodern studies ongeneric experimentation in Francein thelatter halfoftheeighteenth century. One ofitsmostrewarding features isthecombination ina single volume oftwo distinct artforms, theatre and painting, ina waythat gives equalimportance toeach.Indeed, incertain respects this isalmost twostudies for theprice ofone:Mark Ledbury tends for much ofthe text toconcentrate on oneofhistwosubjects ata time, andanyspecialist who chooses toreadonly thechapters onSedaine oronly those onGreuze will find that eachknits together intoa coherent whole, that contains muchtointerest andto stimulate discussion. Thisisan impressive feat: very fewscholars couldwrite so impressively inthetwodistinct areasofarthistory andtheatre history asLedbury, whose footnotes reveal a wealth oferudition inboth areas.Thework is,however, worth much more than thesumofits parts, with considerable interest arising from theparallels drawn between thecareers ofitstwosubjects. Perhaps there isa little toomuch sleight ofhandinthewaythat a satisfying conclusion tothenarrative is produced bya changeofartist, substituting DavidforGreuze, something that would havecomeaslessofa surprise haditbeensignalled inthetitle. Perhaps too theevidence given for someoftheconclusions drawn aboutoutside influencesthe influence ofDiderot andGrimm onboth Sedaine andGreuze, orofSedaine on David-is a little lesscompelling than issometimes suggested, although itistrue that Ledbury never presents these conclusions as anything other than speculative. Theseare,however, smallpoints in a work which is bothwell-researched and . . convlnclng. Another challenging aspect ofthestudy isitsattitude toDiderot andGrimm. Ledbury doesnotneglect the importance ofDiderot asa central figure inthe whole movement for the breaking down ofgeneric boundaries, both through hisdramatic theory andhisartcriticism, buthedoesquestion thetraditional image ofhimas high priest ofa cultinwhich SedaineandGreuze weremereacolytes. Forhim, Diderot's theory, forall itsinsistence on genres moyens, remains traditional by respecting thedistinctions between theestablished genres, whilst Sedaineand Greuzeincurred thewrath oftheestablishment andcreated twooftheir biggest flops, Maillard, ou,Paris sauve and Septime Severe, byindulging inwholeheartedly mixing them.Whilst their careers neverfully recovered from thesedisasters, Ledbury makes a goodcasefor looking afresh atthese andother lateworks, aswell as finding, intheperson ofDavid,an artist whomanaged a successful fusion of genres across thebarriers that SedaineandGreuze hadworked sohardtobreak down.The volume is generously illustrated with fifty plates, andincludes as an Reviews 828 appendix DuSort de Cheverny's 'Notice surla viede Sedaine'. Thisstudy, which will appealtotheatre specialists andart historians alike, deserves tobewidely read. UNIVERSITY OF WALES, SWANSEA DEREK F.CONNON LesInterpretations deCondorcet: tymboles etconcepts (I794-I894). ByJEAN-PIERRE SCHANDELER. (Studies on Voltaire andtheEighteenth Century 2000: o3) Oxford: TheVoltaire Foundation 2000- 334Pp-£45 Jean-Pierre Schandeler's text constitutes a critical re-evaluation ofthereception of boththework andthefigure ofCondorcet inthelateeighteenth andnineteenth centuries inFrance. Itshows howconceptual andsymbolic readings ofCondorcet combine invarious ways throughout the nineteenth century toproduce an'eidolon' oftheir subject, atonceanimage anda meaning of'Condorcet' that later research hasonly recently begun torevise. Schandeler's critique isorganized inthree main sections: the short-term usemadeofCondorcet, especially bythe Ideologues (I 794I8I5 ); a longer-term analysis ofthecompeting claims madeonthemanandhis works bypositivist thinkers andbyhistorians oftheRevolution from I 794toI 870; andtheaccession ofCondorcet totherepublican andbourgeois pantheon ofthe Third Republic, culminating intheinauguration ofhisstatue inParison I4 July I 894. Where Schandeler's study isparticularly strong isinitsdetailed exposition of theprofoundly political manipulation ofCondorcet andhiswork bysuccessive readers. ThustheIdeologues initially subsume Condorcet intheir rehabilitation of theGironde during Thermidor, casting himasthe philosopher-martyr, asSocrates toRobespierre's Vandal, andsoreforge theRevolution's links with theLumieres aboveandbeyond theaberration oftheTerror. Thesocialscientists, Saint-Simon andComte, prove equally selective intheir readings ofCondorcet, adopting the panoramic historical overview oftheEsquisse whilerejecting itsclaimsto the indefinite perfectibility ofmankind in favour of a physiological modelwhich (re)introduced decadence anddeath, aswell asa certain spirituality, into their views on humanprogress. In turn, nineteenth-century historians oftheRevolution subordinated the conceptual tothe symbolic intheir elaboration ofthe bourgeoning field ofpolitical biography, interpreting Condorcet's life, andespecially hisdeath, inthelight oftheupheavals ofI848 andI870. Itisonly with theconsolidation of theThird Republic intheI880S that theconflicting interpretations ofCondorcet find a degree ofsynthesis. Replicating the'double mouvement derefus etdegloire' consistently applied toCondorcet from the moment ofhisdeath, pedagogues ofthe Third Republic, suchasFerry, appropriate nota liberating butanintegrating, not a utopian...