Sentimental Narrative and the Social Order in France, 1760-1820 (review)

REVIEWS 301 better, or differently, than he knew, when she argues that "By endowing a character with contradictions ... Richardson undermines his own intentions and thus risks the collapse of his projections" (p. 38). I believe that Richardson knew exactly what he was doing, and was much more informed and self-aware than was once thought. His "contradictions" may well be the complexities of a master craftsman. And in any case, can we talk about "intentions" when Clarissa is as much process as product, a text in continual flux from the first sheets of manuscript to the last corrected edition and beyond? If alterations and late-come thoughts pour on through the correspondence and into the margins of Lady Bradshaigh's own copy, at what point exactly can we say that the book finds its final form? And what if Richardson's so-called "intentions" were to some extent imposed on the book after publication, by means of private correspondence, revisions, the expanded Prefaces and Postscripts, the Index, and the Collection ofSentiments! Finally, I feel uneasy about Glaser's comment that "through the creation of Lovelace, the author could, if only for once and for a short time, live in his imagination the exciting but also depraved life of a rake" (p. 105), for it recalls all the old Freudian chat about the perverted character being a projection, even a wish-fulfilment, of the neurotic author. Richardson identified with each of his characters in tum, to be sure, but when Glaser writes disapprovingly that on occasion Richardson "lost himself in his fictional world, merged with the characters he had created, and thus neglected the didactic aims he had set for himself (p. 197), she raises the question that Keats answered once and for all, when he wrote that the true genius understands an Iago as well as an Othello. Why should we not respect Richardson's imaginative art as much as anyone else's? Perhaps it is assumed that Richardson, being tainted with "womanish" sensibility, can only write about himself, confessionally, as women are traditionally supposed to do. So when Glaser suggests that Clarissa and Lovelace "may be seen as two sides of the author himself (p. 105), I would argue, rather, that this author contains multitudes. Jocelyn Harris University of Otago, New Zealand David J. Denby. Sentimental Narrative and the Social Order in France, 17601820 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. xi + 281pp. US$59.95. ISBN 0-521-43086-0. Analyser les diverses manifestations du sentimentalisme en France à partir de la seconde moitié du dix-huitième siècle constitue un double défi. Le premier, par la problématique que pose le fait de cerner le domaine du sentiment face à toute une tradition littéraire française et les modalités qu'il prend à partir de 1760; le second, par le corpus choisi par l'auteur de ce travail qui fait appel à une pluralité de domaines—une interdisciplinarité— pour comprendre l'insertion sociale et historique des catégories sentimentales. Le sentimentalisme, selon David J. Denby, se situe au cœur même du projet des Lumières: un projet de sympathie et de solidarité sociales. À partir du milieu du siècle, de nouveaux rapports s'établissent entre le texte littéraire et la société: le récit sentimental peut être compris dès lors comme une image des nouvelles relations sociales conduisant à la Révolution. Toutefois, de par le corpus analysé, il semble se dégager une continuité 302 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION 8:2 dans le devenir de ce genre romanesque, dont la Révolution n'est ni un aboutissement ni un point de départ, mais un simple tournant. Dans le but de sa démonstration, l'auteur base sa réflexion, dans un premier temps, sur l'analyse de ce qu'il nomme «sous-littérature»: Baculard d'Arnaud (1718-1805), JeanClaude Gorjy (1753-95), et François Vernes (1765-1834), d'où se dérivent certaines constantes thématiques et stratégiques. C'est à partir de l'œuvre de ces trois écrivains sentimentaux (chap. 1) que Denby essaie d'élaborer un modèle de texte sentimental capable d'être appliqué par la suite à d'autres...