In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

L ’E s pr it C r éa te u r Mlle de Scudéry, Mme de Villedieu, and Mme de Lafayette. He appropriates the right as a critic to interpret the works of these “ marginal writers” : “ A chacun de croire et d’aimer l’œuvre selon son cœur et sa raison. Le plaisir critique reste, après tout, un privilège de la liberté personnelle” (2). The introduction leads the reader to believe that Venesoen under­ takes the examination of these so-called feminine writings in order to show how they enlarge the psychological profile o f their century. Then, in chapter I, “ Autour d’un féminisme tronqué,” Venesoen protests against the application to the seventeenth century o f a vocable which only appeared in the language in 1837. We should not automatically label as “ feminist” a work, written by a female hand, that complains about the situation of women in general or in particular. The most problematic aspect o f the study surfaces here. The title proposes the study of “ littérature féminine,” while the study itself grapples with “ féminisme,” “ écriture féminine,” “ femme libérée” and “ féminité en ém oi." Although he protests against the anachronistic application of twentieth-century critical terms and rereadings , he is unable to put feminist critical vocabulary aside in order to concentrate upon his objective: to “ retrouver les lignes de forces, la motivation, la spécificité relative [de l’écriture féminine au XVII siècle].” A close reading of Gournay’s Promenoir de M onsieur de Montaigne, L ’Egalité des hommes et desfem m es, and G rief des dames reveals that she depended heavily upon Mon­ taigne’s methods. Unfortunately, she cited authors whose phallocratie texts do not support her argument for the equality of the sexes. Scudéry’s Le Grand Cyrus and Clélie demon­ strate her “ psychologie précieuse” (55). She believed that men were superior beings when she wrote that men enliven a gathering in a way that no woman could ever do. Mme de Villedieu imitated St. Amant, while Mme de Lafayette “ fait des cachotteries derrière la docte stature de Ménage, de Segrais ou de La Rochefoucauld” (125). The analysis reveals a commonality not of feminist purpose, but rather of tonality in the thematic of self which underlies the body of feminine works studied. Writing the feminine “ m oi,” Venesoen concludes, corresponds to “ une pulsion intime du moi qui étouffait depuis trop longtemps sous le poids d’une société patriarcale” (127). Yet, there is no distinctive feminine/feminist voice which makes itself heard. Though a feminine self may exist, none of the women expresses it in clearly feminine terms. Thus none of the women qualifies as feminist critic o f her time, since she is clearly writing under the influence of men. Although one might disagree with Venesoen’s line of reasoning and his conclusions, his book contributes an important voice to the current discourse surrounding the problem of écriture féminine. B a r b a r a L. M e r r y University o f Mississippi Jerry C. Nash. T h e L o v e A e s th e tic s o f M a u r ic e S cèv e. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1991. Pp. xii + 205. $44.50. In this difficult but well-written book, Jerry Nash provides a novel phenomenological reading of the Délie that questions the view o f Maurice Scève as an obscure, dark poet of anguish. Instead, Nash delineates the positive aspects of Scève’s poetic struggles that culminate in a transcendent paradisal perspective. He declares that Scève is not preoccupied with the pain of unrequited love so much as with the quest for portraying the ineffable and for arriving at a higher meaning of his love experience. Nash points out that modern critics have overemphasized Scève hermeticism, his apparent speech paralysis and his often-noted 80 W in t e r 1991 B o o k R ev iew s obscurity; what they have neglected to analyze is the way Scève uses obscurity strategically...

pdf

Share