Théophile Gautier devant la critique 1830–1872 par Aurélia Cervoni (review)

This study of Théophile Gautier’s reception in the nineteenth-century literary press aims to look beyond the clichés that have dominated the critical construction of his legacy, from the gilet rouge of the bataille d’Hernani to the doctrine of l’art pour l’art and the sculptural poetics of Émaux et camées. Gautier, it is claimed, has been unfairly reduced to ‘l’empreinte fossilisée des débats que son œuvre a suscités depuis 1830’ (p. 19), and so Aurélia Cervoni re-examines those debates as they unfolded in order to allow forgotten complexities to emerge. The book proceeds chronologically, illustrating the debates over each phase in Gautier’s career with ample quotation from over 750 critical articles (1830–72), listed in the Appendix. The first polemic demonstrates the power of the conservative press as a moralizing force in the 1830s, with Gautier accused of immorality owing to his article on François Villon and, in particular, the scandal provoked by Mademoiselle de Maupin. As Cervoni demonstrates, the charges laid against Gautier—gratuitous obscenity; a refusal to contribute to the edification of the masses—go on to influence the reception of later novels Fortunio and Une larme du diable as his critical caricature takes shape. Early on, Gautier’s supporters turn in his defence to literary style, that inexpressible quality adopted as a rallying cry by successive generations. To the many accusations of clumsy narration, froideur, slow pace, and absence of dramatic interest, they respond that his genius lies in the poetic use of language, wresting literary value away from a work’s morality. La Comédie de la mort cements this reputation, with critics calling it laborious and overwrought, or lamenting an excess of lieux communs. With Émaux et camées this debate comes into even sharper focus, as praise for his technical virtuosity clashes with complaints of incoherence, abstraction, pretension, and preciosity. It is fascinating to see how accusations of emptiness generate recurrent critical tropes such as ballons or bibelots, and how some of the century’s central anxieties infiltrate the language of literary criticism, with sub-standard art dismissed as a counterfeit, and its author accused of sterility. Indeed, Cervoni offers a persuasive analysis of Baudelaire’s contribution—the famous dedication to Les Fleurs du Mal and articles of 1859 and 1861—with an illuminating reading of terms such as ‘impeccable’ and ‘magicien’. Cervoni’s study gives a real sense of the effervescence, and the virulence, of the nineteenth-century literary arena, revealing a symbiotic relationship between writers and critics, each dependent on the other, be it for the marketing of literary identity or the regular provision of cannon fodder. While this is a welldocumented study that draws together a wealth of useful sources, the sheer amount of quotation does not allow an overall argument to emerge. This is a shame, since the material gathered here could do more than just flesh out our understanding of Gautier’s treatment by critics. Indeed, a substantial conclusion could have reflected on the mechanisms of the emergent literary press and the socio-political context in which literary value in France moved away from narrative towards more formalist concerns.