This dissertation has been 61— 5071 microfilmed exactly as received BONNEVILLE, Douglas Alan, 1931- LA HARPE AS JUDGE OF HIS CONTEMPOR­ ARIES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1961 Language and Literature, m o d e r n University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan LA HARPE AS JUDGE OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Douglas Alan Bonneville, B. Jt», i'i• A. The Ohio State University 1961 Approved by Department of Romance Languages I should like to call the attention of the reader to certain orthographical peculiarities in the edition of La Harpe's Iarcee used in this study. This edition consistently uses the spelling parceque, written as one word, in place of the cur­ rently accepted parce que, and omits the circonflex accent over the letter a in grace. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE INTRODUCTION........................................... 1 I. BIOGRAPHY OF U H A R F E ............................. 7 H . LA HARPE'S CREATIVE WRITINGS ...................... 18 HI. THE CRITICAL THEORY .............................. 27 IV. THE PRECURSORS.................................... 36 V. MONTESQUIEU...................................... 55 VI. DIDEROT.......................................... 63 VII. VOLTAIHEAN TRAGEDY................................ 83 VIII. VOLTAIRE'S NON-TRAGIC WORKS ....................... 105 IX. ROUSSEAU.......................................... 118 X. NON-TRAGIC THEATER ................ 137 CONCLUSION............................................. 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 159 ill INTRODUCTION There have been to date three general approaches to the critical work of Jean-Franyois de La Harpe. The first and most authoritative, because it is supported by Faguet and Brunetifcre, establishes La Harpe as the founder of historical criticism. In Faguet's analysis La Harpe, arriving on the critical scene at the time Voltaire's criti­ cism was turning to polemic, and immediately preceding the great crit­ ics of the nineteenth century, was destined to a brief success.3" He was, according to Faguet, a frustrated poet, who, like Sainte-Beuve, turned to criticism; and because he was jealous of more successful writers, was often unjust in his judgments. But, "au fond, il 6tait critique, et mieux que personne."2 Faguet declares, too, that La Harpe was the first literary historian to present more than an erudite compilation of facts and the first to have a concept of literary his­ tory "soutenue par des principes directeurs et des idees g^n^rales et une methode sensiblement uniforme,"3 Brunetiere adds to this argument the strength of his prestige when he states that La Harpe was the crit­ ic "qui r'est avis6 le premier de r&iuxre en in corps toute l'histoire de la litterature et de faire marcher du meme pas l'histoire et 1 'appreciation des oeuvres."^ To be sure, La Harpe*s critical history ^Emile Faguet, "La Harpe," Revue des cours et conferences, 190U- 1905 (Premi&re sferie), 196. 2 Ibid., 1914. 3 Ibid., 195. ^BrunetiSre, L 1Evolution des genres, Vol. I, L'Evolution de la critique, Paris, lU^B, 16U. has serious lacunae; the Lycfee, on cours de litterature ancienne et moderne, his most important work, skims antiquity and omits the Middle Ages, scarcely acknowledging the sixteenth century. There seems to be little doubt, however, that whatever omissions exist, the Lyc6e is significant in its priority, in its scope and in its ap­ proach. A second handling of La Harpe the critic sets forth in some de­ tail the principles of his critical doctrine and traces the applica­ tion of these tenets to his discussions in the Cours de litterature. Two doctoral dissertations, one by Bruno Eldich at Leipzig^ and an­ other by Grace Sproull at the University of Chicago,^ follow this line of attack. Eldich’s work emphasizes the critic’s judgments on the seventeenth century and is largely a careful listing of the ele­ ments of La Harpe’s critical apparatus as they are applied to the French classics. Miss Sproull’s study is much more comprehensive, synthesizing the critical doctrine from La Harpe’s various works and determining the extent to which the critic follows his theory in the whole body of his work. In general the latter dissertation is much more interpretive than is Eldich’s. These two treatments of La Harpe1s doctrine are the longest studies of the critic thus far, but both of them slight La Harpe's opinions of the eighteenth-century writers, '‘Bruno Eldich, Jean-Francois de La Harpe als Kritiker der franzosischen Literatur im Zeitalter Ludwigs XtV nach seinem ’’Cours de llttferature ancienne et moderne,” InaugT diss..• Borna-Leipzig, Buchdruckerei R. Noske, 1910. ^Grace Mildred Sproull, Jean-Frangois de La Harpe, Controversial­ ist and Critic, (unpub. diss.), Univ. of Chicago, 1937* Eldich1s because it is interested primarily in French classicism, and Miss Sproull's because its scope permits only brief discussion of La Harpe as judge of his contemporaries. The third and by far the largest body of criticism of La Harpe is that of the polemicists, both for and against the critic, who use random judgments from his writings as points of departure for politi­ cal, philosophical or literary diatribes. These invectives usually are centered around the latter part of the eighteenth century and have successfully obscured the real importance of La Harpe's critical role in those hectic times. The curious aspect of the articles taking this approach is their bitterness, which continues to the present day. No doubt a good share of their characteristic acidity is explained by the fact that La Harpe was a renegade philosophe, once called by Voltaire "un des piliers de notre Eglise."? During the Revolution he was a wearer of the "bonnet rouge,and, after a period of imprisonment by the revolutionaries, a fervent Catholic and enemy of la philosophie. ’whatever the case, no general study has yet been made of La Harpe's criticism of his contemporaries. Inasmuch as half the work for which he is remembered deals with eighteenth-century authors, it would seem only logical to examine impartially what the critic says of them, to determine the worth not of his personal beliefs but of his critical observations. ^Moland, XLV, 356. Voltaire means the "Egli.se philosopnique." O Louis de Preaudeau, "La Harpe et son bonnet rouge," Revue hebdomodaire, IX, September, 1?11, 532-56. Such an investigation encounters immediate difficulties* After his conversion La Harpe revised much of the material in his Lycfee; so we find frequent contradictions in the text regarding his contem­ poraries. It has been the sometimes malicious role of innumerable critics to indicate these contradictions. Acknowledging as irrefut­ able the inconsistencies in the Lyc6e, the present study will attempt to reveal general principles which have been previously ignored. A second difficulty in evaluating La Harpe's remarks on the authors of the Enlightenment lies in the exaggerated place given to many minor figures. Such writers, whose importance is now considered negligi­ ble, will be treated briefly in a separate chapter. Perhaps the greatest pitfall in studying La Harpe*s contemporary criticism, how­ ever, is the fact that the critic, who was in no way a philosopher, tried repeatedly to evaluate philosophically the ideas of the great men of his age, thus weakening the literary aspects of his approach. Despite the foregoing weaknesses, which, indeed, occupy a con­ siderable part of the last eight volumes of the Cours de litterature, there are indications that La Harpe as a critic was ahead of his times. Jean-Franfois de La Harpe represents not so much a doctrine or theory of literature as he does an approach to it. In his commen­ tary, particularly that concerned with the authors of the Enlighten­ ment, he has recourse to almost every technique of criticism. In his willingness to relate the life of an author to a work, he anticipates Sainte-Beuve and the flood of criticism dealing with "l'homme et 1*oeuvre." When he attempts to explain the reception of a literary work in terms of intellectual, political or social climate, he seems to be foreshadowing the positivistic approach of Taine, By his fre­ quent citation of, and commentary on, individual texts he hints at the intensive textual analyses characteristic of modern criticism. It becomes obvious, moreover, that La Harpe, perhaps more than any writer of his time, had his hand on the public pulse. His reaction to popular opinion was almost instinctive. In view of these facts, the present study will examine the critic in the following way: First, we shall give a brief summary of La Harpe's life. Next his literary output will be considered, with special emphasis on his response to the success or failure of his individual works. Af­ ter a short chapter outlining the nature and principal points of his "doctrine," his judgments of the major figures of the eighteenth cen­ tury will be presented and an attempt made to establish La Harpe's approach to authors then unmarked by posterity. Brief attention will be paid to his analyses of the minor writers to determine the con­ sistency of his criteria. Finally, La Harpe will be compared to oth­ er critics of the same orientation to bring out his importance relative to the subsequent development of criticism. It seems in fact to be more than coincidence that the Lycee was followed almost immediately by a series of Cours de litterature of varied orientation which cul­ minated in the great era of nineteenth-century criticism. Though his works are rarely consulted today, both his lectures at the Lyc6e and the work which is based on them enjoyed a brief period of 6 great popularity. It also becomes apparent that La Harpe himself was largely responsible for the lack of esteem in which he is held in mod­ ern times.