L’Âge des cénacles: Confraternités littéraires et artistiques au XIXe siècle by Anthony Glinoer, and Vincent Laisney (review)

In this extensive tome, Anthony Glinoer and Vincent Laisney present an overview of the rich phenomenon of the cénacle as it emerged, developed, flourished, and faded during the French nineteenth century. Introducing the basic material through a chronological layout, the authors provide a good deal of historical information surrounding the literary and artistic circles associated with French Romanticism, Parnasse, Symbolism, and beyond.

In a general sense, the analysis is grounded in a methodological foundation which borrows from Pierre Bourdieu’s musings on the sociology of literature, and the reader encounters discussion of a number of interesting questions, such as perceived differences between cénacles on the one hand, and on the other, related forms of cultural expression such as salons, banquets, cabarets, and general literary café culture. Working from a basic definition of the cénacle as a literary and artistic circle which meets in a private residence (described by the authors as decidedly bourgeois in status) and which lacks the hierarchical statutes that characterize groups like associations or academies, the authors argue that the success of a cénacle relies in large part on a dynamic central figure. Glinoer and Laisney detail a variety of examples, such as those hosted by Victor Hugo, Stendhal, Gustave Flaubert, Charles Baudelaire, Émile Zola, Edmond de Goncourt, Paul Verlaine, and Stéphane Mallarmé. Yet of course a charismatic leader does not alone make for a healthy circle, and the dynamics of a collective, shared spirit represent the glue of a successful group. In such a way, the central argument of the book turns on the figure of sociabilité, conceived both as a general sense of the pleasure of being around other people with whom one sympathizes, and as a social mechanism which plays an important role in the institutionalization of a movement such as Romanticism.

Much of the information included in the volume originates in primary sources, texts by those individuals who frequented a given cénacle; thus firsthand testimonies are gleaned from a diversity of textual sources, such as personal journals, correspondence, critical articles, memoirs, and, interestingly, the romans à clef inspired by, and often contemporary with, the cénacles themselves (as in the novels of Balzac, Goncourt, Zola, and Camille Mauclair, to name a few). Describing their work as a kind of historical archaeology, the authors identify the elements they see as key to the success of a cénacle: how long it is in existence, how often it is frequented (and by how many people), and how well-known it becomes in the general cultural atmosphere of the day. One of the most significant functions the cénacle was seen to play for nineteenth-century writers and artists is what we might best describe as spiritual escape: ensconced in a place of empathy, understanding, and camaraderie, far from the pressures of financial success, the objections of critics and the fickle nature of the public, the members of a cénacle find solace in a club of like-minded initiates.

This is not to say, however, that the cénacle is not without its dangers, the most evident being a tendency for members to become indolent, too easily assured of their own aesthetic talent, victims of a mirage caused by spending too much time surrounding oneself with admirers. One might also question the true raison d’être of these groups: To advance a common cause? To support the work of others? Or perhaps also to learn how to compete with these others, to seek out their Achilles’ heel? As the authors write, “Le combat est collectif, mais la gloire est individuelle” (555), suggesting that the demise of these unique groupings of often extremely gifted artists and writers can be due simply to the banal human impulses of envy and spite. In the end, through historical analysis...