Powerful Connections: The Poetics of Patronage in the Age of Louis XIII by Peter W. Shoemaker (review)

passe alors à la question de l’influence de l’humanisme sur les sciences expérimentales : anatomie, botanique, ethnologie, géographie, tératologie, zoologie, sans oublier la magie qui informe à l’époque la conception de la nature et la parent é ontologique entre les signes et les choses. On en conclut que si la théologie n’est pas mise de côté, elle n’occupe plus généralement la première place dans l’explication des phénomènes naturels. Sans doute les ambitions d’un tel ouvrage sont-elles disproportionnées, surtout quand l’auteur se propose de rendre compte des rapports de l’humanisme avec “la littérature” (261) aussi bien qu’avec “les arts” (327). Et pourtant, malgré les raccourcis obligés, l’on acceptera l’hypothèse finale selon laquelle le développement de l’humanisme coïnciderait avec l’émergence d’une nouvelle réalité sociologique qui deviendra aux siècles suivants “le pilier de la culture européenne: la République des Lettres” (360). Princeton University (NJ) François Rigolot SHOEMAKER, PETER W. Powerful Connections: The Poetics of Patronage in the Age of Louis XIII. Newark: UP of Delaware, 2007. ISBN 978-0-87413-993-8. Pp. 291. $60.00. In order to understand the evolving nature of literary discourse, it is, according to Peter Shoemaker, key to realize the centrality of patronage because of the way “it shaped the relationship between writer, text and audience” (23). In Powerful Connections, a study on “the exchanges between patronage and literary practice” (23), Shoemaker relies on literary texts and treatises on conversation and etiquette. In his first chapter, “Theorizing Patronage”, Shoemaker argues that patronage is neither exclusively an affective bond that binds patron and artist nor a relationship based solely on self-interest. Shoemaker emphasizes the precarious and dynamic nature of patronage where “[b]oth the client and the patron are [. . .] free agents who can choose to renegotiate or abandon the relationship” (29). As such, they can both vie for the favors or services of the other group and abandon the relationship if it doesn’t serve their purposes. Both parties benefit from the association : the artist is introduced into “polite society” and makes useful connections while the patron increases his standing among his peers and superiors. Shoemaker discusses at length the contribution of Jean-Louis Guez de Balzac and his complex relationship to rhetorical tradition and political power. In Mecenas, a reflection on patronage, Guez de Balzac praises the personal connection allowed by such a relationship and considers it a more civilized venue for political debate than the public sphere. Shoemaker argues that this ideal society will be partly realized in Versailles. In the liberal use of hyperbole, for which Balzac became known and disparaged, Shoemaker sees “a symptom of hesitation vis-à-vis the dilemma of how to modernize eloquence” (91). The flaws in Balzac’s style thus reflect the problems inherent in patronage and its “ambivalent nature” (55). The third and fourth chapters deal with the position of poets who wrote on behalf of patrons and offer a case in point for the claim of the ambivalent nature of patronage. Who is the real author of some of the texts written for a patron? As Shoemaker reminds us, “authorship is a tricky matter in seventeenth-century France” (94). Whereas Malherbe saw in this close relationship with the patron an opportunity to refine style and expression, Théophile de Viau rejected such 380 FRENCH REVIEW 84.2 experience as “submission to convention” (132). The works of authors deemed ‘irréguliers’ or libertines reflect their uneasy relationship with the patronage model. Shoemaker regards their sometimes bitter reflection on their dependence on patrons as an attempt to find different “models of literature and authorship” (151). The same contrasting strategies and claims permeate the theater world. In chapter 5, “The Public and Private Lives of the Theater,” Shoemaker exposes the conflict between Corneille and Mairet as part of the effort to define the position of the theater. While Corneille placed his emphasis on personal choice and achievement, Mairet argued for the “role of the aristocrats as arbiters of good taste” (190). The increasing use of theater by Richelieu...