Sujet, verbe, complément: le moment grammatical de la littérature française 1890–1940 by Gilles Philippe (review)

Abstract

MLRy 99.2, 2004 505 reminiscences and show the cultural importance of radio at the time, not just in Paris, but in the provinces as well. They and the university academies here?Pierre-Marie Heron on Paul Gilson, Lai'la Ben Ezedine on Francois Billetdoux, and Hatem El Hicheri on Jean Amrouche?also explore differences between writing forthe printed page and for the microphone. As well as containing two CD-ROMs with archive recordings of work by Tardieu, Gilson, Clancier, Billetdoux, and Temple, a very thorough 'phonographie' of Gilson, Clancier, Billetdoux, and Temple, largely based on the database of the Institut na? tional de l'audiovisuel, almost half the volume is made up of documents carefully chosen and well presented by Heron, including notably the transcription of a lecture given by Temple on his activities as director of radio for the Languedoc-Roussillon area from 1954 to 1986. In presenting the papers, Heron is extremely modest about his own part and that of his colleagues in this and other publications in rectifyingthe previous neglect of the literary history of French radio. As the former home of the only provincial version ofthe Club d'Essai, it is only fittingthat Montpellier and its university should play a major role in this endeavour, and in this close collaboration between academies and professionals whose work they describe, much is done to show just how interesting and inspiring radio can be. University of Leeds Christopher Todd Sujet, verbe, complement: le momentgrammatical de la litteraturefrancaise i8go-ig40. By Gilles Philippe. (Bibliotheque des Idees) Paris: Gallimard. 2002. 258 pp. ?15. ISBN 2-07-076408-7. The late nineteenth century witnessed a renewal of interest in grammatical issues surrounding literature, in particular questions of syntax and morpho-syntax. Gram? mar was no longer seen as a set of constraints, but rather as a range of choices. At this time we see the praise of syntax over vocabulary, and the conception of a true writer as a grammarian as well as an artist. Literary criticism becomes grammatical analysis; writers invoke the influence of grammarians. The First World War is preceded by nationalistic praise of French language and literature. Between the wars, there is a new era of linguistic purism. The most notable linguistic 'quarrel' of the time concerns Flaubert's style. Over the space of a year, the quarrel evolved from a simple controversy over grammatical norms and the classic literary canon to an en? tire rethinking of the status of literature, which reshaped the intellectual climate. In 1919 Louis de Robert published his polemical article 'Flaubert ecrivait mal', which launched the debate. Ofthe many views expressed, Proust claimed that Flaubert was a genius as his use of grammar was so original. A second crucial debate was that on the status of 'style indirect libre', as a grammatical process to be explained linguistically , or a simple literary effect. This was also linked to discussion of the use of 'imparfait de narration'. An examination of grammar books of the period shows a similar range of concerns, in particular the question of the status of literary ex? amples in grammatical description. In the field of education, pedagogic grammars of the period promote inductive methods for studying grammar in context, and the famous 'explication francaise' dominates as an exercise in grammatical description and literary evaluation. The influence of this methodology is shown in the literary criticism of Sartre, particularly his discussion of Flaubert's style. Sartre has an idealistic conception of 'good style', and Flaubert does not fitin with this. However, as Philippe points out, the two writers have very similar styles, so there is an element of self-criticism here. Over time, Sartre moves froma stylistic conception of literature to 506 Reviews a political one. And indeed, the second half ofthe twentieth century marks the passing ofthe 'moment grammatical'. This is clear in the work of Barthes, where grammatical criticism is replaced by semiotic analysis. For Philippe, Barthes's paradox is that he tries to produce a non-grammatical description of literature, knowing all the while he cannot fully succeed as literature has a grammatical base. Overall, this volume shows a wonderful depth and breadth of knowledge, and is written in...