Madame de Staël, la femme qui osait penser by Jean Goldzink et Gérard Gengembre (review)

Jean Goldzink and Gérard Gengembre, two scholars whose friendship and collaborative work on Germaine de Staël span nearly four decades, have chosen a title whose unambiguous allusion to Kant's sapere aude echoes 'haut et fort' their view that Staël is both — pace Chateaubriand — the greatest writer of the First Empire and arguably 'la plus grande intellectuelle européenne, toutes époques et tous pays confondus' (p. 10). Though audacious, their claims are not entirely unreasonable, for Staël's standing among the greatest minds of Europe has not yet been thoroughly assessed, even as efforts in recent decades have rightly begun to elevate her status. The dix-huitiémiste (Goldzink) and the dix-neuviémiste (Gengembre) set about their 'défense et illustration d'une grande intellectuelle' by eschewing not only biographical approaches, but also theoretical ones (as they call them), in favour of reading 'ce que disent [les] textes' (p. 166; original emphasis). If the preponderance of paraphrase defines their volume, Goldzink and Gengembre do carefully present Staël's texts, while also offering some insightful commentary along the way. Their volume is organized in two parts, with Goldzink contributing the first half, 'Œ'uvres', and Gengembre prefacing the second half, 'Problèmes', a selection of the duo's previously published articles, papers, and contributions to edited volumes, ranging from 1988 to 2012. Therefore, aside from Gengembre's preface — which constitutes a broad statement of method and vision — the second half offers nothing new. Gengembre's statement does provide a few noteworthy moments, however, such as the following declaration: 'Il serait comiquement absurde d'ériger nos pages communes en on ne sait quelle œuvre critique, ou même, d'esquisser un bilan. Elles se voulaient modestes lectures suivies, rédigées en proscrivant la pompe universitaire, en visant seulement clarté et, autant que possible, légèreté de plume. Elles ne provoquèrent ni controverse ni même débat' (p. 171; original emphasis). These statements, along with the content that it intends to preface, might leave any reviewer — especially a Staël specialist — with little to say in response. Meanwhile, Goldzink's contribution, which ultimately constitutes the volume's new material, provides an effective overview of Staël's major titles and thus appears intended for readers less familiar with her work. By situating such an introductory presentation before a republication of their previous scholarship, Goldzink and Gengembre do offer a fine introduction for such readers. However, for those Staël specialists seeking out fresh material for discussion and debate, they will not find it here. In the end, this contribution of Goldzink and Gengembre is both a homage to Staël and a retrospective of their collaborative scholarship on her work.