French Salons: High Society and Political Sociability From the Old Regime to the Revolution of 1848

This study of the history of the French (Parisian) salon differs from some recent histories of le tout Paris and the social rituals of the French aristocracy by focusing on the forms of sociability particular to the salon and its relation to politics. The work of Dena Goodman, Joan Landes and others on the old regime salon and the rupture in its nature and function in 1789 is challenged here by Kale in important respects, though this is principally a consequence of the benefits of his considering salon sociability in a longer historical perspective rather than ending the story with the French Revolution. When one considers the post-Revolutionary evolution of the salon and the changes in its personnel, partisanship, and functions, the old regime salon is thrown into far clearer relief. In brief, Kale does not contest the notion that the salons contributed to the creation of a quasi-public sphere by cultivating the expression of political opinions and philosophical discussion that were, inevitably before 1789, generally critical of the monarchy and the church, but he argues that the salonnières who presided over them had less power than is often thought and so cannot be regarded as somehow precipitating the regime of separate spheres that was the immediate legal consequence of the Revolution.

For one thing, he argues, court women and salonnières never overlapped. For another, while salon sociability did not exclude political discussion, the old regime salon's intellectual goals were far broader than mere politics, and its primary social function was to promote social integration and advance the reputation of its mistress. In Kale's account, the social agenda of the salon remained intact at least until 1848 if not for some time after; it was the greater intrusion of political discourse into salon sociability after 1789 that introduced the most significant changes to the institution. In this respect salons merely reflected the changes in the new political institutions of the public sphere, the shifts in regime, and the exponential growth of partisanship in representative politics. The viability of salon life was thus threatened less by the regrettable but necessary incorporation of the newly rich into this elite institution than by the distinctly unsociable passions of partisanship that made the salonnière's task of presiding over harmonious and disinterested discussion virtually impossible.

Beginning with the Revolution, therefore, and with a few notable exceptions (the post-Restoration salon of Juliette Recamier in particular), the clientele of Parisian salons reflected the political cleavages of the era: legitimist, Bonapartist, Orleanist, Republican, and all their intermediary variations. Salons became increasingly of one party or another and the mistress of the salon generally shared the sympathies of her guests, which made it even more difficult for her to guide discussion in a lofty direction, as had often been the aim of old regime salonnières. Instead, men of similar political conviction or party increasingly dominated the ebb and flow of discussion, though there were legitimist salons in which the old forms were still respected. Even so, Kale argues, the more frank and open discussion of the political issues of the day did not make the post-Restoration salon's mistress any more influential a political actor than her old regime counterpart. Salonnières continued doing what they did best, integrating worthy men into the elite, smoothing the rough edges from conversations, and perpetuating aristocratic manners and bon ton. Kale provides numerous instances of this or that salon mistress providing introductions, giving discreet advice and the like, but for the most part her political role was to provide a suitable setting for the political lion(s) of her party or class.

The decline of the salon after 1848 was inevitable. A new mass politics meant that the exclusive personnel of the censitaire monarchies no longer dominated parliamentary life, while the growth of literacy and political journalism removed the essentials of political discussion to the press. Elite sociability seemed distinctly old-fashioned and politically tainted after 1830, and even more so after 1848, while new forms of sociability based on all-male memberships, the upper-class cercle and the more egalitarian club, presented challenges to the mixed society of salons. We know from Proust and elsewhere that the descendents of the salon continued on into the belle épogue, but they were fatally corrupted by the growth of a star system based (horrors) on celebrity, a trend begun in the 1830s, and on the waning financial and cultural resources of the old aristocracy. Kale concludes by observing that salons were useful to upper class women without being the least bit feminist but that even their social utility declined precipitously after 1848. But he presents the salon as an argument against the notion that a rigid regime of separate spheres came into being in 1789. At least some aristocratic women resisted both the blandishments of middle class domesticity and the exclusive society of their own sex.

The documentary base for a study of this private institution consists largely of memoirs and letters written by salonnières and their clienteles. There is much more evidence than one might think about who attended what salon and the political and class affiliations of the mistress. Much of Kale's narrative, therefore, reads like a high-brow gossip column with the names of great men and families, their genealogies, titles and worldly accomplishments on full display. Much of this is unavoidable, of course, but it does make for long stretches of weary and repetitive reading. Fortunately, Kale never lets the analytical focus of his study slip from view; his account of political discussion at the highest levels of society is nicely grounded in astute analyses of the myriad political reorientations of the era. The fact that Kale's prose is elegant and precise allows him to present the glories and wit of le monde with its richness altogether preserved. We are allowed to see, beneath the vanities and glitter, the mechanisms that kept the aristocratic salon alive in a modernizing world. Though we know the guests and are privy to the occasional reproduction of dialogue, we do not get much of a sense of the actual atmosphere of salon life. But for that, fortunately, we have Stendhal, Balzac, France, and Proust.