Libertinism and Gender in Five Late-Enlightenment Novels by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse

INFORM ATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
U niversity M icrofilm s In tern atio n al

A Bell & Howell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N o rth Z e e b R o a d . A nn Arbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0
O rder N u m b e r 9 5 1 8 7 5 0
L ib ertin ism an d gender in five la te-en ligh ten m en t novels by

M orency, C o ttin and C hoiseu l-M eu se
Glessner, Beth Ann, Ph.D.

The Pennsylvania State University, 1994
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Departm ent of French
LIBERTINISM AND GENDER IN FIVE LATE-ENLIGHTENMENT NOVELS

BY MORENCY, COTTIN AND CHOISEUL-MEUSE
A Thesis in
French
by
Beth Ann Glessner
Subm itted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
December 1994
We approve the thesis of Beth Ann Glessner.
Date of Signature
Richard L. Frautschi
Professor of French
Thesis Advisor
Chair of Committee
Christine Clark-Evans
Associate Professor of French and
W omen’s Studies
Alan Knight
Professor of French
\ ^ c»>-gc--wv^Vac^ W
Benedicte Monicat
Assistant Professor of French and
W omen’s Studies
SX>>[y(y{ 2~/ 2 u rv > n

Allan Stoekl
Associate Professor of French and
Com parative Literature
3 -1 N J o 1/ I 'm
Jeannette D. Bragger
Professor of French
Head of the Departm ent of French
A bstract
From 1799 to 1809, three women authors, Suzanne G. de

Morency, Sophie Cottin and Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse, produced
libertine-erotic texts. The publication of M orency’s lllyrine_o_u
TecueiLde Tinexperience, Cottin’s Claire d ’Albe, and Choiseul-Meuse’s
Ju lie o u E a L sa u v e m a rose, Entre Chien et Loup and Amelie^de Saint-
Ear signifies a transgression of societal and textual norm s because,
previously, the novelistic practice of overtly expressing sexuality was
entirely a male enterprise. Their challenge to m ale-defined notions
of acceptable discourse for women au th o rs is ev ident in th e ir
n a rra tiv e practices, an d is fu rth e r su b sta n tia ted by p ro m in en t
n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry b ib lio p h ile s who c h ro n ic le d th e scandal
surrounding the publication of their works as well as the censorship
of the three stories by Choiseul-Meuse.
The first p a rt of the dissertatio n provides biographic and
bibliographic information, elucidates the historic reception of the five
works, and then underscores the philosophical currents and socio-
historical realities that influenced textual production. Informed by
theories of narratology and feminism, the second p art examines the
principle topoi of libertine texts: philosophic assum ptions, libertine
initiation, and erotic representation.
The three authors both respect and reject a typology of male
discourse. T hey a p p ro p ria te th e principles of erotic w riting
presented in LaMettrie’s La Volupte, which perm its representations
of sexuality while avoiding obscenity. The aesthetic of erotic
iv
rep re se n ta tio n re in te rp re ts the m ale paradigm by focusing the

narrative on expressions of fem inine desire and pleasure. Yet, the
stru ctu res of libertine initiation in the five texts reveal varying
stances on the m oral value of m arriage, divorce, m otherhood and
even lesbianism. The denouem ents of Claire d ’Albe, Entre Chien et
Loup and Amelie de Saint-Far uphold Rousseauist ideals of domestic
bliss. On the other hand, Illyrine ou l’ecueil de.T’inexperience and
Julie ou jai_s au v e m a j m e valorize the pursuit of heterosexual and
lesbian libertine pleasures w ithin a phallocratic society. Thus,
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse are the first women authors of
erotic prose fiction who, while conform ing to male models, dared to
rein terp ret them as well.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF WOMEN-AUTHORED

LIBERTINE FICTION IN THE LATE-
ENLIGHTENMENT........................................................... 1
Notes.......................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2. THE FORGOTTEN AND THE SCORNED: AN INTRODUCTION

TO THE LIVES AND WORKS OF SUZANNE DE
MORENCY, FELICITE DE CHOISEUL-MEUSE, AND
SOPHIE COTTIN .............................................................. 17
Suzanne Giroux de Morency: 1771-18?? .............................................. 17

Summary of lllyrine ou llecueil de l’inexperienee ....................23
Sophie Ristaud Cottin: 1770-1807 ......................................................... 25
Summary of Claire d’Alb e ...............................................................32
Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse....................................................................... 33
Summaries of Julie ou j!aLsauye m a ra se , Amelie.de. Saint-
Ear, and Entxe_ChieaetLoup .............................................. 42
Notes ......................................................................................................... 47
Chapter 3. RECEPTION OF WOMEN’S LIBERTINE FICTION:

1799-1994 ..................................................................... 54
The Evolution of French Censorship ...................................................... 55

The Role of Bibliophiles as Guides to Public O pinion........................... 59
The Exceptional Claire d ’Albe ................................................................. 73
Notes ........................................................................................................ 80
Chapter 4. GENDER, PHILOSOPHY AND THE ORIGINS OF

LIBERTINISM ................................................................... 84
Libertinism and Philosophy .................................................................... 84

Origins: The Epicureans and the Hedonists .............................. 84
Enlightenment Modifications ....................................................... 91
Libertinism, Sexuality and G e n d er........................................................ 98
Libertinism, Law and Society ................................................................. 123
Notes ......................................................................................................... 130
vi
Chapter 5. HEROINE INITIATION AND ETHICAL STANCES IN WOMEN’S

LIBERTINE FICTION ........................................................ 135
Receiver Gender and Intended Message ............................................... 135

Character Gender and the Moral Message ............................................ 144
Initiation Narratives in Libertine Texts: The Male Model ............... 145
Stages of Libertine Initiation in lllyrine ................................................ 151
Suzanne’s Moral Struggle: Freedom or Fidelity .................................. 157
Illusion and Disillusion: The Heroine’s Initiation in Clairejd’Albe .. 165
Expiating the Sins of the Heroine: Claire’s Death in Claire_d!Albe .. 170
Mixed Messages in Choiseul-Meuse’s Libertine Texts ........................ 177
Initiate Mastery and Moral Ambivalence in Entre Chien et Loup ..1 7 8
The Fatal Error of Amelie de Saint-Far .................................................. 182
Mastering the Power of Virginity in Julie ou jlaLsauv_e_ma roê .... 188
Conclusion: Female Initiates and the Ethics of Libertinism ............ 196
Notes ......................................................................................................... 200
Chapter 6. GENDERED EROTIC AESTHETICS.............................................. 203
The Erotic, the Pornographic: An Overview ......................................... 203

Morency’s Erotic Memoirs: Language of a Libertine .......................... 214
Cottin’s Unspeakable Passage: Eroticism in Claire d ’Albe ................ 224
Unveiled Desire in Choiseul-Meuse’s Three Censored W orks 234
Comparisons: Does a Women’s Erotic Aesthetic Exist? ...................... 250
Notes ......................................................................................................... 253
Chapter 7. CONCLUSION: TRANSGRESSION AND CONFORMITY IN

WOMEN’S LIBERTINE FICTION...................................... 259
Notes ........................................................................................................ 269
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................ 270
Primary Sources ...................................................................................... 270

Secondaiy Sources .................................................................................. 270
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF WOMEN-AUTHORED LIBERTINE FICTION

IN THE LATE-ENLIGHTENMENT
In France one finds several dictionaries, catalogues and anthologies

dating as early as the nineteenth century that are devoted to plotting the
history of erotic or libertine literature.1 With few exceptions, anthologies
published before the 1970s considered erotic texts primarily written by
and for men. Among the most recent anthologies, notably Pascal Pia's
Dictionnaire des oeuvres em tiques dom aine fraiicais (1971)2 and Jean-
82)3, one finds a new consideration of such texts not only by male, but
also by female authors. Following Pauvert's impetus, Claudine Brecourt-
Villars offered h e r im p o rtan t anthology published in 1985, Ecrire
d 'am o u r:A n th Q lQ g led etex tesero tiq u esJ?em inins(1799-1984),4 which
widens the field of investigation concerning women who expressed
themselves in this genre of literature.
Inspired by the recent interest in wom en-authored erotic-libertine
fiction, the prim ary target of the present investigation will be five of the
novels, whose female authorship is certain, that m ark the beginnings of
the literary phenomenon in France: Illyrine, ou l'ecueil de Tinexpirience
(1799) by Suzanne G... de Morency, Claire d'Albe (1799) by Sophie Cottin,
and three censured stories by the countess Felicite Choiseul-Meuse:
Julie, ou j'ai sauve ma ro se (1807), Amelie de S a in t:T a r,Q u la fa ta le
erreur (1808), and Entre Chien el Loup (1808).
2
Aside from citations in anthologies of erotic literature, critical

inquiries regarding Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse are lacking. A
lim ited am ount of criticism appeared in the n ineteenth an d early
twentieth centuries, and contem porary investigations of their works are
still rare. The lack of criticism on the subject of these three women
au th o rs, and the subject o f late-E nlightenm ent fem ale eroticism -
libertinism may be attributed to several factors. First of all, the post
revolutionary period in which Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse wrote
is often labeled by literary historians, especially those of the nineteenth
century, as being devoid of great talent. Chateaubriand and Mme de
Stael rem ain exceptions to such generalizations, because they are highly
regarded as precursors of Romanticism. The m ajority of the novels
produced at th at time have been described generally as being badly
written and offensive in m atters of taste and morality.5 For example, in
1811, Mme de Genlis pities Sophie Cottin for having the m isfortune of
writing her first novel Claire d'Albe “vers la fin du regne de Robespierre,
c'est a dire dans un temps ou les tyrans avoient proscrit le bon gout ainsi
que les bonnes moeurs.”6 In recent literary criticism, on the contraiy, the
offensive nature of a work is no longer a deterrent to its study or praise.
Critics such as Barthes, Bataille, Simone de Beauvoir--to name just these
few--uphold one figure in particular, the Marquis de Sade, as the literary
giant of the post-revolutionary period. Interpretations of Sade's works,
however, has overshadowed the contributions of other writers of the
period.
N evertheless, Lacroix in his D irectoire. C onsulat et -Empire
published in 1884, tried to reverse the disdain for many novels written
during the Directory and the Consulate by lauding their uniqueness in
3
the scheme of literary history. Lacroix writes: “Les romans du Directoire

et du Consulat, fut-ce les plus dedaignes et les plus oublies, ont une
qualite speciale, qui les distingue de tous les autres. Ils reproduisent
naivement la physionomie si capricieuse et si changeante de ces epoques,
ou to u t est nouveau et singulier.”7 Interestingly, Lacroix does not
m ention the Marquis de Sade, and only briefly refers to Chateaubriand
am ong the novelists who contributed significantly to the literature of
th at time. Rather, he comments on the works of male authors such as
Pigault-LeBrun, Choudard-Desforges, Restif de la Bretonne, Ducray-
Duminil and their imitators. In addition to the female authors who will
be the focus of the present study, he underscores the special quality of
oth er writers such as Stael, Genlis, Flahaut, Guenard, and Montalembert,
among others. Lacroix elucidates the uniqueness and im portance of the
works of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse within th eir historical
context.
In addition, the tendency of categorization by century has
accounted for the inattention paid to m any texts written at “transition”
periods. The predilection of literary historians to categorize works into
centuries is currently being re-evaluated, especially in regard to the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. An example of the change is the
Collection litterature frangaise, directed by Claude Pichois, which re
examines the “eighteenth century” by dividing it into two volumes: De
Fenelon a Voltaire: 1680-1750 and Ded’Encyclopedieûx MeditatLons:
17 5 0 -1820. The restructuring of French literary history allows for
modifications in the discussion of forms and genres in theater, poetry
and especially the novel. In D eJ’E ncyclopedie auxM editations by Michel
Delon, Robert Mauzi and Sylvain Menant, chapter two analyzes different
4
genres including the “roman libertin, roman sadien”. They have plotted a
brief history of libertine literature which extends beyond the confines of
the dates of the French Revolution. The accent is placed on male authors
including not only Sade, but also Nerciat, Laclos, Mirabeau and Pigault-
LeBrun. Any contribution of female authors writing libertine novels has
been overlooked. The lacuna m ay be due to the brief sum m ational
nature of the discussion. Since recent criticism of libertine texts tends
n o t to include women w riters, the sum m ary of the genre in De
I’Encyclopedieaux Meditations reflects that tre n d s
Several scholarly works have a p p ea re d recen tly th a t deal
exclusively with the history of libertinism in the eighteenth century,
such as Wald Lasowski’s Libertines (1980), Reichler’s lZage_Tibertin
(1987) and Cazenobe’s Le system e du.hbertinage de Crebillon A i.aclos
(1991). Each work approaches libertinism in literary texts slightly
differently by concentrating on specific authors, emphasizing recurring
motifs or treating general textual representations. The largest portion of
criticism targets the works of Crebillon fils, Laclos and Sade. In any case,
the texts chosen to illustrate recurring motifs and representations of
libertinism are all m ale-authored. In light of the recent publication of
anthologies namely by Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars, the omission of
w om en-authored texts regarding the history of libertinism m erits
reconsideration.
Brecourt-Villars’ 1985 anthology, E crired’amour, has sparked some
debate concerning the role of women w riters of erotic literature in
“canon” formation. Frappier-M azur discusses the dynamics of women’s
erotic writing in two articles, “Convention et subversion dans le rom an
erotique fem inin (1799-1901), and a m odified, expanded version in
5
English, “Marginal Canons: Rewriting the Erotic.” Frappier-M azur’s

articles are the first, to my knowledge, that explore a broad range of
fem ale-authored erotic texts in relation to how they differ from the male
model illustrated by authors such as Sade or Nerciat. Her inquiry begins
in the late eighteenth century with Morency’s lllyrine ou 1’ecueiLde
Tinexperience, but concentrates on texts written in the late nineteenth
century, such as Le Roman de Violette (1883) and Rachilde’s Monsieur
Venus (1884). She bases her comparisons of male and female erotica on
the use of motifs including incest, lesbianism and masochism as well as
distinguishing historical narrative preferences such as the use of the first
o r third person. The conclusions are general, and only briefly account for
the context in which the works were written. The possible influence of
eighteenth century licentiousness or libertinism is proposed as a cause
for the appearance of M orency’s Hlyrine, b u t the argum ent is not
ex p o u nded u p o n .9 N evertheless, F rappier-M azur’s discussion is
invaluable because it serves to underscore the marginal status of female
erotic texts, and, at the same time, has rekindled interest in them as
such. Thus, the door has been opened for a more detailed analysis of the
first French erotic novels by women.
The study of erotic-libertine fiction by women authors has been
facilitated by recent re-editions. The publishing houses of Jean-Jacques
Pauvert and Regine Deforges have both recently brought to press many
previously forgotten works of erotic fiction and masterpieces by women
authors. Among the texts they have newly discovered are Morency’s
Hlyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience (1983) and Cottin’s Claire_d’Albe
(1976). Choiseul-Meuse’s libertine novels are available in the Enfer of
the Bibliotheque Nationale or on microfilm. Although the latest editions
6
in French date from the late nineteenth century, the English translation
of Ju lie o u j! ai sauvejna rose (1970) by Albertyn is easily obtained in the
United States.
Before entering into the organizational details of the present study
of the erotic-libertine texts by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse, it is
im p o rtant to specify certain assum ptions relating to the genre. The
concept of libertinism as a philosophic mode underw ent trem endous
modifications from the late sixteenth century to the beginning of the
nineteenth century. It carried not only philosophical, but also religious,
legal and cultural implications. It follows th at the genre of libertine
literature also evolved within the approximately 200-year span to such a
point that a unilateral classification of the genre is not possible. Scholars
agree on the tem poral boundaries of texts one can appropriately call
libertine, and divide the libertine age into various categories according to
literary tendencies. Barry Ivker recognized several periods of the
libertine tale. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, a
libertine text was essentially a dialogue tale based loosely on Aretino’s
Ragionam enti; yet by the 1740s, narrative tales were most typical of the
genre.10 From the mid through the late eighteenth century, libertine
texts were m ore num erous and were written using a variety of styles
and techniques.11 Ivker marks the peak of production as being in the
1780s and 1790s, with the end of the revolutionary period marking the
wane of the libertine text as a genre.
The present state of research reflects the classification of libertine
texts into distinct periods. Several critics and literary historians, such as
Lachevre, Pintard, Adam and Dejean, have examined the characteristics
of seventeenth-century liberine texts.12 Others, such as M archand,11
7
N agy,14 S tru m ,15 C azenobe16 and R u stin 17 have fo cused th e ir

investigations on the libertine literature of the eighteenth century. Both
Strum and Cazenobe are quick to conclude th at Laclos’ L es.liaisons
dangereuses was the culm ination of the genre, and no oth er author,
including Sade, added anything new. It is true that the genre of libertine
literature wanes in the years after the Revolution, but it certainly did not
stagnate. An in te rp retatio n th a t prom otes the idea th a t nothing
innovative happened to libertine literature after 1782 would ignore the
contributions of the women writers to libertine fiction and deny the
powers of imagination of any writer who followed Laclos, including Sade.
Rustin comments on the difficulty in defining a libertine text by
reason of its fluidity and variety, even within the eighteenth century. By
extending a previous discussion of Henri C oulet,18 Rustin defines a
libertine text as an amalgam ation of possibly several different literary
practices which encompass several classes of novels. He broadens the
problem atic by proposing th at for the first half of the eighteenth
century, a libertine text could be identified solely by its content. A
libertine text m ust include a portrait of the universe of libertinage and
may include the libertinage of the “bonne compagnie”, that of debauched
ecclesiastical or noblemen, that of “aventuriers”, or that of courtesans.19
The hero, the libertine, then, serves to define the genre of the text. The
heroes of libertine texts according to Rustin are: “des personnages
in co n sistants d o n t la «secrete infirm ite» reside m oins dans une
m etaphorique impuissance que dans le rapport de connivence qui les lie
a une societe degradee et conform iste.”20 Thus, if libertinage is
represented in the text, regardless of author objective, textual structure,
or moral intention, it is p art of the genre of libertine literature. The
8
essential elem ent of the definition lies in the textual representation of

the hero and his relation to the world. As we shall see, Rustin’s
definition is useful to our discussion as it does not rely on distinctions
based on moral stances th at the erotic-libertine texts by Morency, Cottin
and Choiseul-Meuse do not necessarily share. Implications in Rustin’s
definition regarding gender and the libertines’ relation to each other and
to th eir world are insightful. Rustin identifies the libertine universe as
androcentric, thus implicitly suggesting grounds for further inquiry into
the place of the woman, as both heroine and author, in this fictional
construction.
Among the studies of seventeenth and eighteenth century libertine
texts, Ivker’s definition, encom passing a broad range of works, is the
most useful as a general guideline for our purposes. Ivker, basing his
definition on comments that Sade had made in both L’Histoire d e ju liette
and La Nouvelle Justine, ou les m alheurs d e J a verlu, presents the
following characteristics of the genre of a libertine text:
All of the novels are erotic, even pornographic, though the style is
m ore often satiric, playful or elegant than heavy or gross. The
relatively simple plots involve either the education of a young hero
or heroine or the activities of a secret elitist society. The novels
are loosely stru c tu re d to allow the inclusion o f num erous
episodically treated incidents. The action and dialogue center
almost totally on erotic and philosophic concerns. Basically what is
involved is a philosophic justification of activities deem ed
irreligious or immoral by Church or State authorities and by the
unenlightened masses, who are blinded by the prejudices of their
upbringing and education.21
Ivker’s definition of the elem ents of a libertine text will guide the
organization of the present study. He brings to light three principle topoi
th at relate to the ethics and aesthetics of libertine texts: philosophic
9
tendencies, education of the hero or heroine (i. e., libertine initiation),

and expressions of eroticism. After providing sufficient biographical and
critical context, the rem aining chapters will investigate the significance
of each topos in the five libertine novels by Morency, Cottin and
Choiseul-Meuse.
Since Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse are assum ed to be
unknow n to m ost readers, C hapter Two will provide biographical
information on the authors as well as a complete listing of their literary
production. It will also contain brief summaries of the target texts which
are considered as part of the genre of erotic-libertine literature.
Chapter Three will explore the limited am ount of nineteenth and
twentieth century criticism of lllyrineôuTecueil de l’inexperience, Claire
d!Alb_e, Amelie de Saint-Far, E n treC h ien et Loup and J_ulie_oujlaLsauv_e
m a rose th a t underscores the perception th a t the au th o rs were
transgressing societal and textual norms. Since the m ajority of input
related to the above works is contained in critical bibliographies and
anthologies of erotic literature, the special role played by bibliophiles
will be investigated. French censorship laws and societal attitudes
tow ard women w riters and erotic-libertine literatu re have also had
considerable im pact on the reception of the texts. The circum stances
surrounding the placement of Choiseul-Meuse’s three novels in the Enfer
of the Bibliotheque Rationale during the Restoration, and the subsequent
official order to destroy Julie_o_u_j !ai. sauve m a rose will be discussed in
detail. Among the target texts, Cottin’s Claire d ’Albe stands out as an
exception in regards to the critical attention paid to both the author and
the novel. The last p a rt of the chapter will account for the various
reactions to the text, and the reasons why it can fruitfully be re
10
exam ined in relation to the libertine texts by Morency and Choiseul-

Meuse.
Because Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse were writing within
the philosophic and cultural context of the late Enlightenment, Chapter
Four will trace the revival of ancient value systems, Epicureanism and
Cyrenaic Hedonism, which developed into the eighteenth century concept
of libertinism . The same chapter will explore how various philosophic
discourses on sexuality and gender as well as libertinism as a behavioral
reality in French society influenced the ethical stances in women-
authored libertine texts.
In the context of the Epicurean and Hedonistic ethic in which
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse wrote, Chapter Five will bring to
light the ethical stances presented in their libertine texts. The fact
rem ains th at the definition of the libertine ethic and aesthetic was
established from a male perspective. The model of the libertine text was
established by male authors, and for the most part, with the exception of
Sade, the stories revolve around male libertines. The gender of the
libertine is im portant because it colors the textual representation of
male-female relationships, roles and sexuality. Author gender, however,
does not necessarily preclude a preference for and emulation of the male
prototype. Cixous rem arks with regret that m any women writers never
broke from the classic representation of femininity: “Savoir inutile et
le u rra n t si de cette espece d ’ecrivantes on ne d eduit pas d ’abord
l’immense majorite dont la facture ne se distingue en rien de l’ecriture
masculine, et qui soit occulte la femme, soit reproduit les representations
classiques de la femme (sensible-intuitive-reveuse, etc.).22
The focus of attention will be on w hether, or more precisely, to
11
w hat extent Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse participate in the

mimetization of male discourse in the genre of libertine literature. They
each were responding to the theories of libertinism, gender and sexuality
established by leading male authors or philosophers. A comparison of
the structural com ponents of their texts in relation to a male model of
libertine initiation, represented by Crebillon fils’ LesEgarem entsducoeur
et_de_l!e&prit, will perm it interpretations of the degree of mimetization.
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse established new paradigm s for
libertine literature that are particular to women authors. Through the
figure of the female heroine, each author projects her own perspective
on the n atu re of female existence, a n d a w om an’s relationship to
m orality. T heir stances show a conform ity to Rousseauism which
prom otes the moral pleasures of domestic bliss, or to a counter value of
the traditional Christian ethic, libertinism which valorizes the pursuit of
sexual pleasure. The conclusions reached regarding moral content will
elucidate the grounds for censorship and condem nation of JulieLOiLj’ai
sauve ma rose, Amelie de Saint-Far and Entre C h ien et Loup, and offer a
partial explanation of why Hlyrine ou l’ecueil de Tinexperience and Claire
dÂlfae were not judged as harshly by the censors.
Chapter Six will explore how the ethical stance taken in each text is
projected in the aesthetic dynam ic. In fact, Morency, Cottin and
Choiseul-M euse are m ost audacious in reg ard to th e ir n arrativ e
techniques of representing female desire and physical love regardless of
the ethical tradition to which they adhere. Their erotic language both
shocked and intrigued readers in the 1800s, yet the transgressive nature
of the writing is the principle reason for the revival of the texts today.
Nevertheless, it m ay not be possible to speak in term s of an erotic
12
aesthetic that is shared by all three women writers of the era, since the
texts were not criticized in the same way for th eir representational
perspectives, nor were they treated equally by the censors. Therefore,
the p ractice o f erotic re p re se n ta tio n in C hoiseul-M euse’s th ree
condem ned novels will be used as a measure to determ ine the degree of
transgression and the param eters of censurable language as applied to
women authors.
Theories of erotic w riting a d o p t a new significance when
appropriated by women authors. Of course, women who have expressed
them selves in both poetry and prose have w ritten about love for
centuries. From the Countess of Dia, Christine de Pisan, Louise Labe, to
Madame de LaFayette and Madame de Tencin, to name just these few,
women authors have described love relationships by concentrating more
on the psychological than the physical. They had not, however, ventured
to place the accent on the physical body in their representations of
rom antic encounters. As we shall see, the techniques of representing
sexuality and eroticism identify the texts by Morency, Cottin and
Choiseul-Meuse as libertine, and distinguish them from the previous
works of other women writers.
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse hold a paradoxical position in
the history of French literature, as their texts can be considered both as
conform ist and non-conform ist in relation to the body of work that
precedes them. As women writers who entered the dom ain of erotic
literature, they are transgressing not only societal but also literary
boundaries. Although each conforms to the model established by male
authors of the eighteenth century in regards to narrative strategies used
in libertine texts, one m ust keep in mind that the genre to which they
13
conform was considered in the eighteenth century and later as being not
only in poor taste, bu t m ore seriously as subversive to traditional
C hristian m orality. O ur th ree women w riters com m it a double
transgression not only by w riting erotic literature, bu t by taking a
position on the ethics of libertinism.
14
Notes
ISee: Alexandre Pigoreau, PetLte Bibliographie biographico-romanciere

ouD ictionnairedesrom anciers (1821; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968).
Includes summaries of French authors, publications from 1821-24, and
recommended readings. Although not the prim ary focus, Pigoreau’s
bibliography includes many erotic works; see also Jules Gay, ed.,
Bibliographie des ouvrages relatifs a i ’amour, aux femmes, au m ariage
vol. 1 (Turin, Londres, 1871). Includes author background, some text
summaries and analysis of primarily erotic works from the Renaissance
to 1870; and Fernand Drujon, Catalogue des.ouvrages, ecrits et dessins de
toute nature poursuivis, supprimes ou condamnes depuis le 21 octobre
1814 ju squ’au 31 juillet 1877 (Paris, 1879). Includes editions and
reasons for condemnation of erotic works; and Louis Perceau,
Bibliograpliie du roman_erotique a u .l9 e sLecle, (Paris: Georges
Fourdrinier, 1930). Includes editions, brief analysis and reasons for
condem nation of erotic works from 1800-1899; and see also two
bibliographies that catalogue the books in the Enfer of the Bibliotheque
Nationale: Guillaume Apollinaire, Fernand Fleuret and Louis Perceau,
L’Enfer de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris: Bibliotheque des curieux,
1919), and Pascal Pia, Les Livres de l’Enfer du XVIe siecle a nos jours
(Paris: C. Coulet et A. Faure, 1978).
2Pascal Pia, Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques domaine frangais (Paris:

Mercure de France, 1971). Includes summaries and brief analysis of
French erotic prose fiction from its origins to 1970.
1 (Paris: Simoen, 1979), vol. 2 (Paris: Ramsay, 1980), vol. 3 (Paris:

Gamier, 1982). Each volume plots the history of erotic French literature
from Sade to Fallieres, from Apollinaire to Petain, and from Gouin to
Emmanuelle. Includes author and textual background with a
representative erotic passage from each work.
4ciaudine Brecourt-Villars, Ecrire d ’amour: anthologie de textes

erotiques feminins (1799-1984) (Paris: Ramsay, 1985). Includes author
and textual background and representative passages from only women-
authored erotic texts beginning with Morency’s Illyrine Qu l ’ecueil de
liinexperience.
Sjean-jacques Pauvert, Anthologie des lectures erotiques de Sade a

Eallieres (Paris: Garnier, 1982) xiv-xviii.
15
6Mme de Genlis, De I’influencedesTem m es su r la litterature franqaise

comme protectrices des lettres et comme auteurs (Paris, 1811) 345.
7 Paul Lacroix, Directoire, Consulat etEm pire (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1884)

304.
^For another recent work on the genre of erotic-libertine literature that

does not account for the contributions of women writers, see: Jean-Marie
Goulemot, C eslL vresqulonnelitque d ’une main: lecture et lecteurs de
livres pomographiques_au dixJLuitieme_siecle (Paris: Alinea, 1990).
^Lucienne Frappier-Mazur, “Marginal Canons: Rewriting the Erotic,” YaLe

French Studies 75 (1988): 119.
lOAretino’s Ragionamenti (1534-36) was republished and translated

recently, see: P. Aretino, The Ragionamenti (Hollywood, California:
Brandon House, 1966). The Marquis d ’Argens’ first-person narrative
memoir novel, IM reseJPhilosophe is an example of the mid-Eighteenth
Century French libertine tale. See: J. B. de Boyer d ’Argens, Therese
Philosophe ou memoirs pour servire a l’histoire du P. Dirraq et de
Mademoiselle Eradice (The Hague, n.d.).
11 Barry Ivker, An Anthology and Analysis of 17th and 18th Century

French Libertine Fiction (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms
International, 1977) 6.
12see: Frederic Lachevre, Le Libertinage au dix-septieme siecle (Paris:

Honore Champion, 1925), Rene Pintard, Le Libertinage erudit dans la
premiere m oitie du dix-septieme siecle (Paris: Boivin, 1943), Antoine
Adam, Les Libertins au dix-septieme siecle (Paris: Buchet-Chastel,
1964), and Joan Dejean, Libertine Strategies: Freedom and the Novel in
Seventeenth-Century France (Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1981).
Expanding the previous studies by Lachevre, Pintard and Adam, Dejean
notes that the most striking distinction between the libertine literature
of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is the element of eroticism.
1^Jacqueline Marchand, Les Romanciers libertins du dix-huitieme siecle

(Paris: Editions rationalistes, 1972) xiii. For Marchand, the element of
eroticism is less im portant than the notion of rationalism in the
16
definition of libertine literature which results in the denial that Les

Liaisansjdangereuses or M anam lescaut are libertine texts. She includes,
however, Mme de Charriere’s Le noble among authors and texts she
identifies as libertine such as Retif de la Bretonne and Sade, but also
Voltaire, Montesquieu and Diderot. Her approach to the problem is very
broad, and leads to an ambiguity between the philosophic and the
libertine.
14peter Nagy, Libertinageetj'evolutiori, trans. Christiane Gremillon

(Paris: Gallimard, 1975) 47. Nagy reiterates the importance of erotic
representation as a defining factor of the genre, and demands
interpretations of the philosophical or artistic importance of a work.
15Ernest Strum, Crebillon fils et le libertinage au dix-huitieme siecle

(Paris: Nizet, 1970) 84. Strum marks the apogee of the genre at 1782
with the publication of Les Liaisons dangereuses. Other works of the
latter half of the Eighteenth Century, then, either overstep the limits of
the genre, like those of Sade, or combine sentimentalism and sauciness
(“grivoiserie”) to the expression of libertinage.
16coIette Cazenobe, LeSystem edulibertinagedeX rebilkm iLLaclos

(Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation, 1991)6.
ITjacques Rustin, “Definition et explicitation du roman libertin des

Lumieres,” Travaux^deJinguistiqueêLde litterature 16 (1978).
ISHenri Coulet, “Monde et libertinage dans le roman frangais du XVIIIe

siecle,” Sitzungsberichte derA kadem ie derlVisienschafteii 5 (1978):
177-84.
l^Rustin, 31.
20Rustin, 32.
21lvker, 4.
22Helene Cixous, “Le Rire de la Meduse”, L’A rc 61 (1975): 42.

Chapter 2
THE FORGOTTEN AND THE SCORNED

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LIVES AND WORKS OF SUZANNE DE MORENCY,
SOPHIE COTTIN, AND FELICITE DE CHOISEUL-MEUSE
SuzanneG iroux de M orency:1771-18??

Referred to as a “courtisane lettre e ” in Q uerard’s LaJFrance
litteraire, Suzanne Giroux de Morency published six novels from 1799 to
1 8 0 6 .1 A lthough only h er first w ork, Illy rin e ou l'e cueil d e
Tinexperiencje, belongs to the genre of libertine-erotic literature,
Q uerard’s assessment of Morency as a literate courtesan announces her
irreducible dual reputation as a w riter an d woman of questionable
morals.
Morency’s fictional works include:
1799: Illyrine ou l'ecueil de l'inexperience, A Paris, chez l’auteur,
Rainville, Mile Durand, Favre, tous les m archands de nouveautes,
an VII (tomes I-II), an VIII (tome III). 3 volumes in-8.
Other editions:
-Paris, an VII-VIII, 3 volumes in-8.2
-Claudine Brecourt-Villars, preface. Paris: Jean-Jacques Pauvert
andG arnier, 1983. 1 volume.
1801: Rosalina, ou les me p risesd el'am o u r et d e la nature, par Mme
G*** de Morency, auteur d ’«Illyrine», Paris, Bertrandet, an IX. 1
volume in two parts, in-12.3
1801: Lise. ou les Hermites du Mont-Blanc, rom an nouveau faisant suite
18
a «Illyrine» et «Rosalina» par Mme G*** de Morency, Paris, E.

Charles, an IX. 1 volume in-12.
1802: Euphemie, ou les.suites, du_siege_.de Lyon, roman historique, par
l’auteur d ’«Illyrine», Paris, Bertrandet, an X. 4 volumes in-12.
1802: Qrphana,_ou-l'enfant.du.liameau, par l’auteur d ’«Illyrine», etc.
Paris, Ouvrier, an X. 2 volumes in-12.4
1806: Zephira et f idgella, ou les debutants dans lejtnonde, par Mme
Illyrine de Morenci, Paris, chez l’auteur, 1806. 3 volumes in-12.
All of Morency’s fictional works are located in the Bibliotheque Nationaie.
With the noted exceptions of the first volume of lllyrine ou llecueil de
Tinexperience and R o sa lin a .o u le sm e p ris e s d e T a m o u re L d e Ja n a tu re ,
her other texts are not available in the United States.
Not all of Morency’s novels are erotic. Although reference to the
authorship of Illyrine pervades each title page of her other novels, she
did write in other literary genres, such as the historical novel. Detailed
descriptions of Morency’s other texts are rare, and do not appear to have
incited much critical interest. It appears that Morency conceived of her
two novels, R osalina,ouJesjneprisesdeilam ouret.de_lanature and Lise,
ou les Herm ites du Mont-Blanc, in the same year and considered the
la tte r as a continuation. Nevertheless, only Illyrine ou l'ecueil de
lTnexperience is consistently mentioned in anthologies of erotic-libertine
literature.5
There are a few variations among bibliographers regarding the
spelling of the author’s name, and in the choice of name under which she
is cited. In m ost bibliographies, the citation for her is listed under
“Morency.” Conforming to the choice of citation in the CatalQgue_generale
d es livres im prim es de la Bibliotheque Nationaie, Martin, Mylne and
19
Frautschi list the editions of Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience under

“Quinquet, Suzanne Gireux, m adam e B ertrand”, which was h e r legal
m arried nam e.6 The variations arise from the fact th at Suzanne, who
was divorced before the publication of h er first work, invented other
nam es for herself. Both “M orency” an d “Illyrine” are ado p ted
pseudonym s th a t were used am ong h e r friends, and as literary
signatures.
In the historical notes to his Le d ern ier banquet des Girondins,
Nodier refers to a certain “Illyrine l’evaporee,” who is most likely Mme
de Morency, and another woman, “La brune Gabrielle” commenting that:
“J ’ai vu ces dames, un peu plus m ures d ’age et non pas de raison,
revenues des passions et non pas de l’intrigue; femmes politiques, et qui
pis est, peut-etre, femmes auteurs. Leurs rom ans, assez mal ecrits, et
fort suspects pour l’histoire, ne m anquent pas d ’un certain in teret
anecdotique, et plusieurs des lettres qui y sont rapportees ont ete en
autographe dans mes mains.”7 The identity of the author “Gabrielle la
b ru n e” is unknown, but it is possible th at the letters to which Nodier
refers are contained in the second and th ird volumes of Illyrine ou
l’ecueil de 1’inexperience. Confusing the heroine with the author, Nodier
relegates literary interest in Morency’s novels to the anecdotal and the
autobiographical.
The fictional or factual basis of the m em oirs is difficult, if not
im possible, to determ ine. M onselet treats Illyrine as an authentic
m em oir th at gives an accurate account of the gallantry behind the
violence of the Revolution and the Terror. He comments that: “Nous ne
connaissons pas assez l’histoire secrete de la Revolution; on ne nous a pas
assez fait voir les dem ocrates dans leur deshabille. Rendons grace a la
20
Morency pour les confidences qui nous sont arrivees par elle.”8 Querard
was convinced of the purely autobiographical nature of the text, denying
that it is a novel at all. Granted, the heroine’s life in the text does appear
to m irro r w hat we know of Suzanne’s real life. Martin, Mylne and
Frautschi, however, confirm the status of the work as prose Fiction. They
state: “...quelle que soit l’authenticite des incidents rapportes, 1’ouvrage,
par sa forme et par les techniques de narration employees, se rapproche
tout a fait du genre rom anesque.”9 I treat it as a novel regardless of its
autobiographical content because it does contain the structural and
aesthetic elements of a fictional libertine-erotic text to be discussed in
subsequent chapters.
Details of Suzanne’s life are known to us through M onselet’s
chapter entitled “La Morency” in Les oublies et les dedaignes which is
based in p art on the inform ation contained in lllyrhie. Suzanne Giroux
was born around 1771 into a large bourgeois family in Paris (rue Saint
Denis), and spent her youth in a convent. She was m arried by age 18.
Q uerard and contem porary bibliographers identify h e r husband as
Bertrand Quinquet, a printer-book m erchant in Compiegne.10
As regards Suzanne’s husband, Bertrand Quinquet printed a gazette
against the aristocracy from 1785-1787. During the Terror, Quinquet
wielded much influence as a “syndic du district”. He later came to Paris,
and was em ployed by the police.11 Details of Suzanne’s possible
involvem ent in h e r h u sb an d ’s politics are unknown. We have only
Nodier’s cryptic m ention of “Illyrine l’evaporee” as a “femme politique”
to confirm h er interest in the political realm aside from the political
affiliations of her lovers.12
Suzanne gave birth to her daughter Clarisse during her marriage.
21
She also had a love affair with a lawyer, Nicolas Quinette. When he was
elected to the Assemblee Nationaie, he invited h er to accompany him to
Paris. She agreed even though she was still m arried and just 19 years
old. While living in Paris with h er lover Quinette, Suzanne m et the
deputy Herault de Sechelles who stole h er p o rtrait in em ulation of
Madame de LaFayette’s hero, the due de Nemours.
Suzanne, realizing th at her m arriage to Quinquet was no longer
viable, petitioned the Assembly to grant a divorce in 1791, signing her
letter “Une amie zelee de la liberte”. She included the following post
scriptum : “Mille femmes ont la meme sollicitation a vous faire, la
timidite les arrete; moi, je la brave par l’incognito que je garde dans ce
moment. Mais lorsque p ar vous je serai heureuse, j ’irai vous faire mes
remerciements; la reconnaissance est toujours l’apanage d ’un jeune coeur
sensible.”13 Suzanne was one of the first women to profit from the new
law, and was granted a divorce in 1792.
After her divorce, Suzanne began calling herself Mme de Morency
as she would later sign her novels, the source of which is unknown. She
had liaisons w ith several well-known men: generals Biron and
Dumouriez, Fabre d ’Eglantine and Herault de Sechelles. While traveling
to Belgium in 1792, she m et General Biron, who was head of French
forces against Austria. In a strange turn of events, Suzanne was arrested
while still in the cam p, and falsely accused of espionage by the
Austrians, but was soon set free. Later th at same year, she met General
D um ourier who saw her stolen portrait, and heard about her through
General Biron. After a short liaison that lasted only a few days because
she realized she was not his only mistress, Suzanne decided to return to
Paris. With little m oney an d m ounting debts, she worked as a
22
seam stress. In a surprise letter, Count Zimmerman proposed setting

him self up as Suzanne’s p rotector ju st before his a rre st during the
massacres of August 10, 1792. Shortly after this event, she met Fabre
d ’Eglantine, the infam ous “depute de la Montagne” at Saint-Fargeau’s
funeral. The liaison with d ’Eglantine lasted two months, but, as chance
would have it, Suzanne encountered Herault de Sechelles and renewed
th eir love affair. He m ade living arrangem ents for her in Chaillot, and
helped h er find a new job as a “buraliste de lotterie” which provided
some economic self-sufficiency.
By April of 1794, Sechelles, his friend D’Espagnac and Fabre
d ’Eglantine were a rre ste d an d guillotined. Suzanne, accused of
conspiring with the revolutionaries, was arrested and placed in the
“Anglaises” prison. She was released from prison by convincing a
“secretaire du comite de salut public”, refered to as «Saint-J» possibly
Saint-Just, that the list that was found in her possession was not a list of
conspirators, but a list of her lovers. Little is known of Suzanne after
1794, but she m entions an «M...B...» in her correspondance, and it is
assum ed th at she secluded herself with him to write her memoirs and
novels.
M onselet notes that: “la vie de la Morency est cent fois plus
curieuse et plus interessante que sa litterature; c’est la son m eilleur
rom an.”14 However adventurous Suzanne’s life may have been, a
libertine perspective is certainly reflected in her literature. Her novel,
Illyrine ou l’ecueil de 1’inexperience, which belongs to the tradition of the
libertine-erotic novel an d is the first whose fem ale au th o rsh ip is
confirmed, created a scandal when it first appeared in 1799, but failed to
excite m uch lasting critical in te re st.15 M onselet’s ch ap ter on "La
23
Morency" in Les__o.ublies_e.tJes_dedaignes was the last to be written on

Suzanne Giroux de Morency, however, as she fell once again into oblivion
until the 1983 edition of Illyrineoui'ecueildeT inexperience.
Summary of IllyrineouT ecueiL dei’mexperience

The ep ig rap h on th e title page of Illyrine,_ 0JU--liecueiJLde
înexperience announces both the subject and tone of the work. It is a
quatrain taken from Mirabeau’s Epitre a Sophie:
Ce monde est une comedie,

Ou chaque acteur vient a son tour
Amuser les hommes du jour
Des aventures de sa vie.
The narrator, Suzanne (Illyrine), recounts her past and present romantic
ad v en tu res to her friends and any in terested readers. The term
“aventures” used in the sense of romantic exploits announces the erotic
content of the work. Her adventures will be re-presented as in a play,
“une comedie” that will amuse men, her intended audience.
The first volume of Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience is in the
form of memoirs narrated in the first-person.16 The narrator, Suzanne,
traces her experiences with marriage, childbirth, divorce, and her many
lovers. At certain points in the narrative, however, the work resembles
an epistolary novel as the n arrato r often directly addresses h er friend
Lise as well as her other friends who may be the subject of a passage.
The narrator is both introspective and retrospective as she recounts both
her past and present exploits with the eye of a m ature libertine woman.
On one level, the narration follows a chronological order. The story
begins with the details of Suzanne’s bourgeois upbringing, and concludes
with h e r first extram arital affair. Still, the narration is repeatedly
24
interrupted by interjections about the narrator’s romantic exploits at the

time of the composition of the memoirs.
Concerning only the sections which relate to the n a rra to r’s past
situation, the beginning of the work contains the story of her childhood
which includes rivalries with her sisters, her bout with small pox th at
left her without scars, and her first encounters with M. Q,... The majority
of the work retells the story of Suzanne’s clandestine meetings with the
libertine M. Q..., and then their life together as husband and wife. She
tells of both the positive and negative aspects of their m arriage. Her
pregnancies, a m iscarriage and the birth of th eir child Clarisse are
presented as im portant elements in her life. Her “adoption” of Eugenie, a
young girl who is seduced by a young lieutenant-colonel, also serves as a
secondary story line in the memoirs. The narrator, Suzanne, also relates
the tem ptations that she overcame once she realized her husband was a
libertine who had been unfaithful to her on m any occasions. She was
first tem pted by her close friend abbe R..., but they did not consummate
their love. The final chapters of the novel relate Suzanne’s encounter
with M. Q...te, and acceptance of him as her lover. The novel concludes
w ithout concluding, and is, as are many novels of th at era, “inacheve.”
As Stewart points out in specific reference to Isabelle de C harriere’s
I ettres de Mistriss Henley, an “unfinished” work “indirectly expresses
the way all fictional endings are driven by the needs of patriarchy and
tend to entail the obliteration of female perspectives.” 17 Thus, by
refusing to conclude, Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience inscribes a
narrative gesture that denies the closure of feminine fate.
Parallels may be drawn between the a u th o r and the heroine of
Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience. Each shows a willingness to accept
25
progressive attitu d es regarding rom antic adventures, adultery and

divorce. Certainly, an author who chooses to portray libertinism in his or
h er prose fiction is not necessarily a libertine. In M orency’s case,
however, she exemplifies a libertine au th o r writing libertine texts. It
appears, then, that free sexual expression in her real life provided the
foundation for the textual representation of eroticism in her first novel.
Sophie Ristaud Cottin; 1770-1807

From 1799 to h er death in 1807, Dame Sophie Ristaud Cottin
composed five sentim ental novels only one of which can be accurately
term ed erotic. In her time, Cottin was well-known and successful. Mme
de Genlis, her most im passioned critic, both praised and condem ned
Cottin in De l ’influence_des femmes_sur_la litteratu reJran caise (1811).
She piqued the in terest of o th er literary critics who wrote on the
relationship between her life and works, for example: Jules Gay in Le&
femmes de lettres (1878), Edmond Pilon in Muses et Bourgeoises de jadis
(1907), Arnelle in
(1914), and Alfred M arquiset in
(1914).18 Gay presented Cottin as a dedicated wife and m other of three
adopted children and a reluctant but talented writer. Pilon described
h er as a virtuous, sensitive woman whose fictional female characters
resem bled the “coeur sensible” of th eir creator. Calling Genlis a
“pedante,” Pilon favors Cottin’s literary style that he likens to Les^Lettres
d ’u n cultivateur am ericain and Gessner’s Idylles.19 With the noted
exception of Genlis, Cottin’s biographers had the highest regard for the
author and her works.
C ottin’s life history had been established on some points of
26
m isinform ation. There were discrepancies among h er biographers

concerning date of birth, birthplace, the spelling of her name, age at the
time of her death, and m inor details of h er childhood. In Les Bas-Rleus
d.u.JPremier_Empine, Marquiset clarified and corrected several points of
disagreem ent by using official docum ents and correspondences to
support his claims. Arnelle’s work consisting of Cottin’s correspondence
was published in the same year. The biographical information on Cottin
established by Marquiset and Arnelle is therefore the most reliable, and
has been used as the basis for subsequent biographical research. More
recently, L. C. Sykes, G. Castel-Cagarriga, Colette Cazenobe and Sarnia I.
Spencer have contributed to the present version of Cottin’s biography.20
Marie Sophie Risteau was born March 22, 1770 in Paris to her
mother, nee Anne-Suzanne-Marie Lecourt, and father Jacques-Frangois
Risteau. The Risteau were heavily involved in the shipping trade in
Bordeaux, and Jacques was a “directeur” of the Compagnie des lndes.
Although baptized in the Catholic church, Sophie was raised in the
Protestant faith. During Marie-Sophie’s childhood, her father was often
ab sen t on business. Her m other, aided by a Protestant m inister,
m anaged her education while she lived at times in Bordeaux, and at
others in a family house bordering the Garonne in Tonneins. Her
adolescence was fairly uneventful until the death of her older sister,
Anne-Marie-Henriette, in 1785. This death tightened the bonds she had
with her father, and may explain, as Spencer points out, “the privileged
father-daughter relationships th at are often described in her fiction.”21
At the age of 18 she met her future husband Paul Cottin, a 26-year
old Parisian banker. Sophie and Paul were m arried in a Protestant
cerem ony on May 16, 1789 at the Swedish Embassy. Their life during
27
the Revolution was difficult and full of hardships. As bankers, Paul

Cottin and his associates Jauge and G irardot were under suspicion.
Sophie and Paul em igrated from France, but returned once in October
1792 for the funeral of Sophie’s father, and again in the Summer of 1793
in fear of a law authorizing the seizure of emigrant wealth. By the Fall of
1793, Paul Cottin’s brother and both banking partners had been arrested.
Paul had been denounced as an aristocrat, and was to be arrested.
Before his arrest, however, he died of an alleged heart attack in his home
on O ctober 5, 1793. Although no evidence exists to su p p o rt h er
conjectures, Cazenobe proposes that his death may not have been from
n atu ral causes: “Echapper si soudainem ent aux gardes nationaux
pourrait bien etre du a l’intervention de l’interesse et non a celle de la
Providence.”22 W hatever the circumstances behind her husband’s death,
it is certain th at this period of Sophie’s life was one of sorrow and
mourning. The sudden loss of the two most im portant men in her life,
her father and her husband, left her ill and wishing death.
To fu rth er her tragedy she was placed on the Convention list of
em igrants, and h er and her husband’s wealth was confiscated.23 She
sought refuge in a country house in Champlan, accom panied by her
mother, and visited often by two of her cousins, Julie Verdier and Felicite
Lafargue. To add to the series of deaths th at Sophie was to witness, her
m o th er passed away at Cham plan on 13 January 1794. Personal
tragedies and the feelings of fear and isolation inspired by the Terror
augm ented Sophie’s melancoly. She writes of her sadness and her
feelings of detachm ent to h er friend Gramagnac in April 1795: “Le
monde dans sa vaste etendue ne me parait q u ’une solitude sterile, il me
semble que je suis sur une terre etrangere ou rien ne me convient. Je
28
voudrais bien finir d ’exister; non, il n ’est point d ’instants dans la journee
ou je ne regusse la m ort avec volupte.”24 The m elancholic attitude
tow ards life, death an d surroundings th a t we witness in Sophie’s
personal letters also plays a significant role in her writings.
In fact, because of her letters, Sophie’s literary talents became
apparent to her friends and family. Her cousin, Julie Verdier, is credited
with sharing Sophie’s flair for prose with a small circle of friends who
suggested th at she create longer works.25 The m ajority of Sophie’s
correspondence is between her cousins and some of h er male friends
such as the author Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, the poet and historian of
the Crusades, Joseph Michaud, and the businessman and former associate
of Sophie’s husband, Etienne Gramagnac.26 Sophie, who avoided scandal,
preferred friendship to passionate relationships with these men. Her
refusal of one would-be lover turned to tragedy. After being turned
down, the son of her cousin, Jacques Lafargue, comm itted suicide by
shooting himself in the head on her property in 1796. It was not until
1803 that Sophie entered into a more passionate affair with a man. She
fell in love with a controversial philosopher, Pierre-Hyacinthe Azai's, with
whom she would have liked to have been m arried.27 The engagement
was broken off as he insisted on beginning a family as a condition of
their marriage, and Sophie was unable to have children.28
The circumstances surrounding Sophie’s death have been a m atter
of lore. Sainte-Beuve in Causeries du lundi admires the heroic masculine
m anner in which he believes that she died: “Mme Cottin s’est tuee a
Palaiseau d ’un coup de pistolet dans un jardin—comme un homme.”29 In
actuality, after a long period of illness, Sophie Cottin died in bed at her
home in Paris at 124, rue Saint-Lazare on August 25, 1807 at the age of
29
37.
The works of Sophie Cottin had an immediate impact on both the
French and English reading public of the early nineteenth century. She
began h er literary career reluctantly in 1799 with the anonym ous
publication of Claire d ’Albe. She composed the work in two weeks to
raise m oney for an im poverished friend, possibly the editor Joseph
Michaud, who, already faced threats of legal pursuits.30 The praise and
criticism which the work generated inspired her to continue writing.
Below is a listing of Cottin’s fictional works including re-editions
until 1820, and translations into English:
1799: Claire d ’Albe, p ar la C***, Paris, Maradan, an VII. 1 volume in-
12.3 i
English translation:32
-Dangerous Erlendshipi ojLThe Letters of Clara d ’Albe, Baltimore,
Joseph Robinson, 1807.
Other editions:
-Claireji’Alhe, par Mme Cottin, nouvelle edition, Paris, Giguet et
Michaud, an XIII. 1 volume in-12.
-Paris, 1808. 1 volume in-12.
-Paris, reimprime a Londres, H. Coburn, 1808. 2 volumes in-12.
-Paris, Michaud, 1817. 1 volume.
-Claire d ’Albe, Paris, Lebegue, 1820. 1 volume in-12.
Recent edition:
-Claire d ’Albe, preface de Jean Gaulmier, Paris, Regine Deforges,
1976.
1800: Malvina, par madame ***, auteur de Claire d ’Albe, Paris, Maradan,
an IX. 4 volumes in -12.33
30
English translation:
-Malvina, London, C. Chappie, 1810.
Other editions:
-Paris, Maradan, 1801, 4 volumes in-12.
-2eme edition, revue et corrigee, Paris, Giguet et Michaud, an
XIII. 3 volumes in-12.
-Paris, L. G. Michaud, 1809. 3 volumes in-12.
-Londres, Colburn, 1809. 3 volumes.
-Paris, Michaud, 1811. 3 volumes in-12.
-Paris, L. G. Michaud, 1818. 2 volumes.
-Paris, Lebegue, 1820. 3 volumes in-12.
-Paris, J. B. Garnery, 1820. 3 volumes.
1802: Amelie Mansfield, Paris, Giguet et Michaud. 3 volumes in-12.
-Amelia Mansfield, London, Cox and Baylis, 1803.
Other editions:34
-Paris, Giguet et Michaud, 1805. 3 volumes in-12.
-Paris, Michaud freres, 1811-12. 3 volumes in-12.
1805: Mathilde, ou Memoires tires de l’histoire des croisades, (Precede
du Tableau historique des trois premieres croisades, par Michaud)
Paris, Giguet et Michaud, an XIII. 6 volumes in-12.
-M atildaandM alelLA dhel,the_Saracen:A XrusadeJlom ance,
London, R. Dutton, 1809.
Other editions:35
-Paris, Giguet et Michaud, 1810. 4 volumes in-12.
31
-Paris, Michaud, 1817. 4 volumes in -12.

1806: Elisabeth, __o.u_les . exiles de Siberie; suivi de la Prise de Jericho,
poeme, par Mme Cottin, Paris, Giguet et Michaud, 1806. 2 volumes in-12.
-Elizabeth _on_the_£xiLesjof Siberia, London, Lane, Newman and Co.,
1807.
Other editions:36
-Elisabeth..,, avec des notes instructives (Precedee d ’une notice
historique sur Pauteur) Suivie du poeme de la Prise de Jericho,
Paris, L. G. Michaud, 1816. 1 volume in-12.
The prose poem La prise de Je rich o o u Ja p ec h e re ssejrep e n tie , published
in 1806, was Cottin’s first completed work that departed from the genre
of the novel. At the time of her death in 1807 she had begun two works:
one on education, and the other on Christianity.37
The num erous editions of C ottin’s works are a testim ony to her
imm ense popularity during the nineteenth century. Although Claire
d ’Albe is the only one of Cottin’s works to be republished in France
recently, critical interest in all of her novels has been relatively constant.
Both Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars cite Claire d ’Albe as being an
im portant contribution to fem ale-authored erotic fiction of the early
nineteenth century. Moreover, the recent articles by Gaulmier,38 Pratt,39
Cazenobe,40 C usset41 Spencer,42 and Stewart43 have contributed to the
revival of interest in Cottin’s novels as forgotten treasures of the pre-
Romantic era.
32
Summary of Claire d ’Albe

Sophie Cottin’s Claire d ’Albe is an epistolary novel comprised of 45
letters. The majority (32) of the letters are written by the heroine Claire
to her friend Elise to whom she confides her most private thoughts. The
novel also includes correspondence between Elise and Claire’s husband,
M. d ’Albe, and between Claire and Frederic, Claire’s friend and lover.
The final pages of the novel, which tell of Claire’s final days and funeral,
are narrated in the third-person as reported discourse by Elise.
Claire keeps Elise apprised of the events in her life concerning her
u n h ap py m arriage to h e r m uch older husband, the raising of h er
children, Adolphe and Laure, and her encounter with the young Frederic.
Frederic is Claire’s husband’s nephew, who comes to live with them while
he is an apprentice in the family-owned factory in Touraine. Claire has a
p art of the factory which she uses as a hospice to care for sick factory
workers and the poor of the surrounding area. Claire, dedicated to
benevolence, becomes Frederic’s counselor and moral m entor. At first,
Claire does not see the danger of her strong friendship with Frederic, but
soon realizes that their relationship may jeopardize her marriage. When
Claire’s love for Frederic does indeed appear to threaten her marriage, M.
d ’Albe intervenes to “save” Claire from her passions. M. d ’Albe and Elise,
as an unwilling co-conspirator, lead Claire to believe Frederic has
forgotten her. This betrayal of the truth to protect Claire ironically leads
her to commit adultery. When her marriage vows of fidelity are broken,
Claire sees death as her only recourse to expiate her sins. Claire dies
knowing her death was inevitable because she was not able to overcome
h er passions. As a final request Claire asks her husband to forgive
Frederic. Frederic’s fate is unknown, but he is overheard at her funeral
33
vowing to join Claire.

As an erotic text, Cottin’s Claire_d!Alb_e distinguishes itself by the
moral qualities of motherhood, fidelity and benevolence that are extolled
in the novel. Cottin’s life, based on Protestantism and the pleasures of
virtuous living, finds its reflection in her writings. As its principle topos,
the novel examines the consequences of a libertine act which signifies a
betrayal of a woman’s appropriate role as wife and mother. Although its
ethical stance shares very little with Morency’s Illyrine ou l’ecueil de
1’inexperience, the two novels are bound by a common aesthetic of the
erotic. Cottin was certainly not a libertine, yet the representation of
eroticism in h e r first novel is undeniably linked to the tradition of
libertine-erotic literature of the late Enlightenment. Although Cottin’s
other novels, such as Amelie Mansfield, portray passion and sensuality,
the critical reaction to Claire_d!Aibfi and the particularities of the final
passage in the novel serve to distinguish it. The parity Claire__d!Albe
shares with libertine representational conventions will be discussed in
detail in subsequent chapters.
Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse
Extremely little is known of the life of Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse.
She was perhaps the wife of the Marquis Jean-Baptiste-Arm and de
Choiseul-Meuse, an army field marchal, who translated Tasso’s Aminta in
1784 with the signature “par M. le comte de C.-M.”44 The filiation is
entirely conjecture based on dates and the similarity of names, and not
substantiated in any article on Choiseul-Meuse. The best source of
biographical information on Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse is the preface to
the 1882 Gay and Douce edition of Julie_ouJ!aLsauve_maxose by P-L
34
Jacob, a pseudonym.45 The true identity of the author of the preface is

the bibliophile Paul Lacroix who also w rote the im p o rtan t work,
Directoire, Consulat et £m pire in 1884.46 The Lacroix preface provides
criticism of the style and content of the novel, inform ation on the
au th o rship debate, as well as some, albeit unreliable, biographical
information.
In keeping with nineteenth-century trends in literary criticism,
Lacroix sought the links between Choiseul-Meuse’s text and h e r life.
Lacroix extrapolates th a t Choiseul-M euse was quite old when she
published her last known work in 1824, Memoires de Mme Adaure. He
bases his opinion on a reference made to age in Julie_o.u_j_’ai_sau_Y_e_ ma
rose published in 1807. The narrator, Julie, explains her situation at the
time of the composition of her memoirs: “A trente ans, je me suis retiree
de ce m onde plein de charm es, ou j ’etais encore desiree, fetee; j ’ai
renonce aux plaisirs enchanteurs qui ju sq u ’alors, avaient ete mes
compagnons fideles; je vis m aintenant dans la solitude, mais j ’ai l’art de
l’embellir.”47 Lacroix assumed Felicite’s age to be the same as Julie’s, but
a reference to the n arrato r’s age in a fictional narrative is an unreliable
m easurement of the author’s age.
In addition, Lacroix identifies Felicite’s lover as Armand Gouffe
noting that Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose is dedicated “A mon A rm and”.
Gouffe was the friend of Balisson de Rougemont who is rum ored to have
collaborated in the writing of Amelie de Saint-Far and edited Julie ou j’ai
sauve_ma rose. Nevertheless, a close exam ination of the novel Julie_ou
j ’ai sauve ma rose reveals that what Lacroix identifies as the preface is
clearly not exordial, but rather is intended to be the voice of the narrator
Julie, and not the author herself. The novel begins: “Qu’exigez-vous, mon
35
cher Armand? Quoi! vous voulez que j ’ecrive ma vie!”48 Armand is the
intended narrataire of the memoirs as his name is evoked several times
throughout the text. For example, after telling a story of her resistence
to seduction, Julie interjects: “c’est un miracle, me direz-vous; mais, mon
cher Armand, avoir su vous resister est-il moins extraordinaire” (vol. 2,
46). The passages found in the opening pages are not distinguishable
from the rem ainder of the text, and cannot be accepted as indicative of
the au th o r’s situation when she penned her novel. There is no evidence
whatsoever that supports an autobiographical interpretation of Ju lieo u
j ’ai sauve ma rose. This criticism serves to deconstruct Lacroix’s
interpretation of the biographical significance of the “preface de Julie,”
and underscores that we know nothing conclusive about the relationship
between the life of Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse and her novels.
Choiseul-Meuse wrote approximately 27 novels from 1797 to 1824.
A definitive listing is difficult to establish, as the exact composition of the
list varies from bibliographer to bibliographer. The Catalogue general
of Choiseul-Meuse with the exception of h er first two novels which are

docum ented in Martin, Mylne and Frautschi’s BibJiQgmpMe_du_g£nre
romanesque,175_l-18QQ:49
1797: Coralie, ou le danger de se fier a soi-meme, par madame de CH...,

Paris, imprimerie de Chaigneau aine, an V. 2 volumes in-24.
Other editions:
-Paris, Devaux, an VI. 2 volumes in-18.
-Paris, an VII. 2 volumes in-12.
-Paris, an VIII. 1 volume in-12.
36
-1816. 2 volumes in-8.

1799: Alberti, ou l’E rreurde la nature, par madame de C***, auteur de
Coralie ou le danger de se fier a soi-meme, suivi de Melusine,
Paris, Marchand, an VII. 2 volumes in-12.
1803: Le Gascon de la rue Saint-denis. ou liistoire de m onpere, par
Mme L. F. D. L. C., Paris, Mme Masson, an XI. 4 volumes in-12.
1807: Julie ou j ’ai sauve m axose, Hambourg et Paris, chez les marchands
de nouveautes, 1807. 1 volume in-12.
Other editions:
-Hambourg et Paris, Leop. Collin, 1807. 2 volumes in-12
-Bruxelles, Gay et Douce, 1882. 2 volumes in-16.
-Julie by the Comtesse Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse, translated by
Dorothy Albertyn, London, Odyssey Press, 1970.
1808: Entre chien et loup, par Pauteur de Ju h eQ u j’aijsauve_majcQse,
Paris, L. Collin, 1808. 2 volumes in-12.50
Other editions:
-par Madame ***, Hambourg et Paris, 1809.
-par Mme de Choiseul-Meuse, reimprime sur l’edition originale de
1802, Bruxelles, Edouard Maheu, editeur, 1894.51
1808: Amelie de Saint-Far, ou la fatale erreur, par Mme de C***,
Hambourg et Paris, les marchands de nouveautes, (n. d.). 1
volume in-12.
Other editions:
-Hambourg et Paris, Collin, 1808. 2 volumes in-12.
-par Madame de C***, auteur de J ulie ou j ’ai sauve jn a mse,
Bruxelles, Gay et Douce, libraires-editeurs, 1882. 1 volume
37
in-8.
-par Madame de c***, auteur de Julie ou j ’ai sauve _ma. rose, en
vente chez tous les libraires frangais, 1882. 2 volumes in-
8 .5 2
1809: Elvire,_ou_la_femme_innocente_.et_ perdue, Paris, Barba, 1809. 2

volumes in-12.
1810: Recreations morales et amusantes aTusage des jeunes
demoiselles qui entrent dans le monde, Paris, P. Blanchard, 1810.
1 volume in-12.
Other editions:
-Paris, A. Eymery, 1816. 1 volume in-12.
1811: Aline et d ’Ermance, Paris, J. N. Barba, 1811. 3 volumes in-12.
1813: Paola, Paris, J. Chaumerot, 1813. 4 volumes in-12.
1813: Eugenie, Qu n ’est,pas femme.de^bien_quLv_eut, par Mme de C***,
auteur de Coralie, Paris, Pigoreau, 1813. 4 volumes in-12.
1815: Eamille_alLemande_auJa_Des.tinee, par l’auteur de Paola, d ’EMre,
etc., Paris, Maradan, 1815. 2 volumes in-12.53
1816: Cecile, ou l’Eleve de la pitie, Paris, Dabo, 1816. 2 volumes in-12.
1817: Amour et GlQire. Qu Aventures galantes et niilitaires de cheyalier
de C***, par l’auteur de: Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose, d ’Amelie_de_
SainfcEar, etc. Paris, Pigoreau, 1817. 4 volumes in-12.
1818: Les Amants de Charenton, Paris, Th. Dabo. 4 volumes in-12.
1818: Nouvelles contem poraines, Paris, A. Eymery, 1818. 6 volumes in-
12 .
1818: RetoundesJees, Paris, Blanchard. 2 volumes in-12.
1821: Orena, ou 1’Assassin du Nord, Paris, A. Marc, 1821. 4 volumes in-
12.
38
1821: Marianne, ou la Fermiere de qualite, Paris, Lecointe et Durey,

1821. 3 volumes in-12.
1821: Paris, ouJe.Paradis^desJfemmes, par Mme Emilie de P***, Paris,
Lecointe et Durey, 1821. 3 volumes in-12.
1822: Camille, ou la Tete^de mort, Paris, Lecointe et Durey, 1822. 4
volumes in-12.
1822: L’Ecole desjeunes filles, Paris, A. Eymery, 1822. 2 volumes in-12.
1822: Remords, Paris, A. Marc, 1822. 3 volumes in-12.
1823: Heritage de mon o n clel’abbe. ou la Revue de mon secretaire,
Paris, Masson fils aine, 1823. 2 volumes in-12.
1824: Chapelain de Chambord, ou la dame_etrangere, Paris, Castel de
Courval, 1824. 4 volumes in-12.
1824: Georges le Terrible, ou le Souterrain de laPoret, Paris, Lecointe et
Durey, 1824. 3 volumes in-12.
1824: Memoires de Mme Adaure, Paris, Castel de Courval, 1824. 4
volumes in-12.
According to Lacroix and su b stan tiated by Q uerard and the
Catalogue of the Bibliotheque Nationaie, the last known work to be
published in Choiseul-M euse’s nam e was the 1824 edition of the
M emoires de Mme Ada u re. The listings in P igoreau’s P etite
Bibliographic,54 or in Prud’hom m e’s Repertoire universel, liistorique,
biographique desTem mes celebres, m ortes ouJvivarLtes stop in 1822.55
M oreover, discrepancies exist concerning th e publication d ate of
Choiseul-Meuse’s first work, Coralie, ou le danger de se fier a soi-meme.
Q uerard gives a date of 1799; Pigoreau cites 1816. Martin, Mylne and
Frautschi, however, provide the earlier date of 1797 for the first edition
of this work, and note references to the edition in the JournaLde_Paris
39
and the 1798 Jo u m a L ty p o g rap h iq u e etb ib lio g rap h iq u e.56 They also
confirm the date of Alberti, _ou l’E r r e u r d e la n a tu r e as 1799 which is
signed “par I’auteur de Coralie”. Thus, 1797 marks the beginning of
Choiseul-Meuse’s prolific writing career which appears to have ended in
1824.
Two of Choiseul-Meuse’s works have been deliberately om itted
from Q uerard’s listing in La fran ce Litteraire: Amelie de Saint-Far and
Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose. The authorship of these two novels, as well
as occasionally E n tr e c h ie n e tlo u p , has been a long standing debate
among several bibliographers, such as Querard, Pigoreau, Drujon and
Eusebe de Saint-Fargeau. Q uerard argues th at although the work he
attributes to Choiseul-Meuse, Am ounet Gloire, is signed “par l’auteur de
Julie ou j ’aLsauve m a ro se, Amelie de_SaintrEar, etc., etc.,” these novels
are by a Madame Guyot claiming:
Julie_ ou j ’aL sauvejna_rose et A m eliede Saint-Far, deux romans

tres licencieux ont ete longtemps attribues par le monde litteraire a
Madame de Choiseul-Meuse: elle-meme n ’a point cherche de suite
a se justifier de ce crime de leze-pudeur: on sait aujourd’hui d ’une
m aniere bien positive, que ces deux rom ans sont de Madame
Guyot.57
Girault de Saint-Fargeau in the Revue des romans, and Fernand Drujon in

the Catalogue of censored texts accepted Q uerard’s interpretation, and
presented Mme Guyot as the author of the licentious novels.58 Pigoreau
puts into question w hether Mme de Choiseul-Meuse was the au th o r of
Amelie and Julie simply stating “on a certainem ent tort.”59 In addition,
Drujon attrib u ted Entre Chien et Loup, whose au thorship was not
previously questioned, to Mme Guyot.
40
Evidence supporting the existence of Mme Guyot is lacking. It is

likely that she was invented perhaps to protect the reputation of Mme
de Choiseul-Meuse as Lacroix contends. In his preface to Julie, Lacroix
presents his argum ent that Guyot never existed. He bases his claim on
the fact th a t several of Choiseul-M euse’s novels which she never
disavowed, namely Elvire, ou J a Jfemme. innocente .et. perdue and Entre
.chien_e.tlQ.up, were published at the same publishing house, chez Leopold
Collin. In addition, the work Amour etJGloire, .ou aventures. galantes.et
m ilitaires du _che_valieri.de ...C***, which was published by Pigoreau in
1817, is signed “par l’auteur de Ju lieo u . j ’ai sauve ma ro se , d ’Amelie_.d.e
S aintE ar, etc, etc.” In reference to Pigoreau’s cryptic denial th at
Choiseul-Meuse was the au th o r of the two libertine novels, Lacroix
argues that: “l’affirm ation de Pigoreau ne reposait que sur un desir
exprime par la comtesse de Choiseul-Meuse, qui s’adonnait alors a la
litterature d ’education et qui ne voulait pas trouver un dem enti a ses
o uvrages rnoraux, dans ses d e b u ts de ro m an ciere galan te ou
egrillarde.”60
W hatever the reasons behind the invention of Mme Guyot, it is
accepted by bibliographers today th at she was just that~ an invention.
Perceau, Pia, Pauvert, Brecourt-Villars all accept Mme de Choiseul-Meuse
as the author of the three licentious novels that were censored by police
o rd er in 1825 and 1827 and placed in the Enfer of the Bibliotheque
Nationaie: Julie ou .j’ai. sauve in n rose, Amelie_de_SainfcEar and Entre
chien etloup.
Once again, the exact publication dates of these works are difficult
to determine. There are slight discrepancies on the date of publication of
the first edition of Entre Chien et Loup. Querard quotes 1808 although
41
Pigoreau an d the C atalogue g e n e r a ld e s liv r e s i m p r i m e s d e . la

bibliotheque nationale quote 1809. Curiously, the editor of the 1894
edition of Entre_ChLen__e_t_l.Qup, Edouard Maheu, claims the novel is
“Reimprime sur l'edition originale de 1802” (see listing of editions). A
definitive publication date, then, cannot be confirmed. For the two other
works, the dates given by Lacroix are the most reasonable. He affirms
th at Julie ou j ’aL sauvejna rose first appeared in 1807, and was quickly
followed by the publication of AmeUe_dfLJS_ain_fcEar in 1808. Both
Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars have proposed th at Amelie de Saint-Far
appeared in 1802, five years before Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose. This is
an anachronism since in AmelLe there is a direct reference to the novel
Julie and its characters. Alexandrine, the libertine in Amelie de Saint-
Ear suggests suitable reading for Ernest, the young man she wishes to
seduce: “-prenez ce livre, et lisez-m’en quelques pages. -Tres volontiers,
dit Ernest, en exam inant le titre: c’est JuliejaujâLsauviLm arase! Cette
lecture est tres edifiante!”61 Thus, w hatever the exact y e ar of
publication, it is clear that Mme de Choiseul-Meuse’s Julie ou j ’ai sauve
m a ro se was written before Amelie de Saint-Far.
Works by Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse were re-edited up until the
late nineteenth century. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, no chapter on
Felicite Choiseul-Meuse exists in a work of literary history or criticism.
The only recen t edition of a novel by Choiseul-M euse is Dorothy
Albertyn’s translation into English of Julie xtujlaLsauyAma^rose in 1970.
Unfortunately, the translation includes no preface or introduction to the
works of Choiseul-Meuse. Although the m ajority of Choiseul-Meuse’s
literature has fallen into oblivion in France, knowledge of her literary
contribution and interest in her censored works has been m aintained by
42
citations in bibliographies of erotic literature.
Summaries of Julie ou j ’ai sauv_e_ma.rose, Amelie deSainLEar, and

Entre C hienetL oup
Each of the censored novels by Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse has a
distinct narrative approach. W hatever variations may exist in narration,
th e Choiseul-M euse’s th ree censored works are linked by way of
common thematic and contextual concerns: the worth of female virginity
as a com m odity in the m arket economy. The intrigue focuses on the
moment of loss or retention of the precious “rose,” and the consequences
of a w om an’s seduction in phallocratic society. The erotic passages in
each work are com m entaries of the historic treatm en t of wom en’s
sexuality.
Julie ou j ’ai sa u v e jn a rose is written, as the title indicates, in the
first-person in the form of memoirs. The narrator, Julie, composes her
memoirs to her friend and platonic lover, Armand. Unlike the narrative
strategy in Morency’s semi-fictitious memoirs Illyrine, the n a rrato r in
Ju lie o u j!a isa u v e m a ro se rarely intervenes to relate events taking place
at the tim e of the w riting of the m emoirs, b u t ra th e r follows the
chronology of events beginning with her childhood. Julie, at the age of
30, recounts her life from her infancy to the present time of the writing.
Motherless and neglected by her father, Julie was raised by her aunt
Rosa who took her at the age of 10 from Italy to France. She was well
educated by Rosa, except for her “education sentim entale” which was
tended to instead by her friend Adolphe. Adolphe taught her the rule by
which Julie was to live her life; she should keep her virginity at all costs
43
because a wom an’s reputation is her most valuable asset. Julie knows
very well the value of her virginity, and never does relinquish h er “rose”
during her lifetime of libertinage. She takes on many lovers throughout
the years, yet h er determ ined adherence to a strict moral philosophy
distinguishes her from the female characters of the o th er censored
novels by Choiseul-Meuse. Julie’s lovers are both male and female. Julie
discovered lesbian love through her encounters with her friend Caroline,
whom she first tried to betray because she considered h e r a rival to
other m en’s affections. Julie announces at the end of her memoirs that
she has en tered a secret society of lesbians created by Caroline.
Lesbianism is the penultim ate application of Julie’s moral philosophy
th at perm its the pursuit of individual pleasures w ithout the danger of
losing h e r v irtu e which is solely eq u ated w ith virginity. The
denouem ent of the m em oirs takes the reader up to the time of the
writing where she has renounced society to live as a recluse. She wrote
h er m em oirs to instruct oth er women about the em pow erm ent she
experienced while living her life according to her philosophy. The power
she realizes perm its h er to function w ithin the context of early
n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry m ale d o m in ated society w ith o u t losing h er
subjectivity and ability to pursue individual pleasures. Unlike Laclos’
Mme de Merteuil who attem pted to maintain an untainted reputation in
public while behaving as a libertine in private, Choiseul-Meuse’s Julie is
able to live according to her ethic without punishment.
Amelie de Saint-Fa r is a third-person narrative with a single
narrator. The narrator remains an unidentified observer of the libertine
exploits in the household. The novel concerns the pitfalls of neglected
education and the conspiracies of libertines, and is centered around the
44
lives of M. de Saint-Far, his lover Alexandrine Durancy, his daughter

Amelie de Saint-Far, and Amelie’s young lover, Ernest. Amelie, whose
education was neglected by an overzealous m other, was innocent and
ignorant of the world until h er fath e r’s libertine lover, Alexandrine,
becomes her tu to r and proceeds to initiate her into a life of libertinism.
Amelie is attracted first to Ernest, a family friend, who is as young and
as innocent as she is. Alexandrine conspires against the young lovers
with the aid of her accomplice and form er lover the Colonel, Charles.
When M. de Saint-Far dies, A lexandrine officially takes charge of
Amelie’s education. Amelie and Ernest become engaged to be married,
but th eir plans are delayed when Ernest is sent to Santo Domingo to
conduct business for Amelie’s late father for a period of two years.
During his absence, Amelie is raped by another family friend, the Due de
Nemours, who was encouraged to do so by Alexandrine. This is the
“fatale erreu r” that announces the fatal demise of Amelie. Amelie feels
she can no longer m arry Ernest because she is no longer a virgin, and
dies of a precipitous illness, not being able to tell Ernest the truth.
Amelie was unaware th at he had been unfaithful to h er with a young
native women, Zizi, in Santo Domingo. After Amelie’s death, Ernest
returns to the Americas, falls in love with Laure Duclusel, his business
associate’s daughter, and m arries her. On the other hand, the Due de
Nemours, who truly loved Amelie, dies faithful to her. The libertine
coconspirators, Alexandrine and the Colonel, are punished for their
actions. The Colonel dies in a duel, and Alexandrine, socially shunned
and financially ruined, enters a convent in what is described as a “chute
eclatante.” The parallel with the denouem ent of Laclos’ Les.iiais.ons
dangereuses is clear, yet in Amelie de Saint-Far the destinies of the male
45
characters are given less emphasis in the narrative, while the fates of
Alexandrine and Amelie are brought to the forefront. The consequences
of libertinism for the female characters is described in much more detail,
and the narration brings to light the precarious position of women
libertines in late-Enlightenment French society.
The stories in E ntreC hien etE oup are told by multiple narrators.
Using a narrative strategy rem iniscent of the D ecam eron and the
Heptameron, women gathered at a chateau are telling stories while their
husbands are away on a hunting trip. The novel consists of nine
separate tales each told in an evening, and are rem em brances of each
woman’s first encounters with love before her marriage. The expression
“entre chien et loup” refers to the hours around dusk each day which is
favorable to the exchange of confidences and love-stories. Each tale for a
“soiree” has common threads with the o th er tales: the explanation of
family origins and of neglected education which led to the moment of the
loss of virginity before m arriage. The seducers come from various
stations: a relative, a brother of the betrothed, a traveling Harlequin, an
opera performer, an ecclesiastic, a military man, a Parisian m arried man,
or even the husband-to-be. The tales may be light-hearted or even sad,
but although innocence is lost, the wom an’s experience was not tainted
with violence or pain. The final tale is told by the young girl, Mile
Herminie, whom the older women thought was too innocent to hear their
stories. All the while she had been having h er own first rom antic
adventure. Mile Herminie tells her story, and the women promise to
keep h er exploits a secret, and offer to plan her wedding. The novel
concludes with the husbands’ return from hunting.
Each of Choiseul-Meuse’s three censored works revolve around the
46
context of aristocratic life, and share tendencies th at identify them as

erotic-libertine narratives. In each text, a young girl’s libertine initiation
is the predom inant topos. The representation of erotic experiences may
be either light-hearted or serious, yet it underscores the techniques of
seduction and both the physical and psychological m anifestations of
desire. The eroticism of J u lie o u j’aL sauvem arose, Amelie de Saint-Tar
and Entre Chien e t Loup led several nineteenth-century bibliographers to
attribute the works to another author, but it appears that from 1807 to
1808 Choiseul-Meuse joined Morency and Cottin in experimenting with
the genre of erotic literature.
Despite their differing socio-economic backgrounds and life-style
choices, Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse each com posed erotic-
libertine texts during their writing careers. The num ber of re-editions of
their works indicates th at they enjoyed varying degrees of popularity.
Cottin’s novels were, and remain, in much higher dem and than those of
Morency and Choiseul-Meuse. A study of the impact of censorship and
the role of bibliographers and literary critics, to be undertaken in the
next chapter, will enlighten us as to the possible reasons behind the
continued appeal of Cottin’s works, and the apparent marginalization, yet
su b seq u en t resurgence of in terest in the works by Morency and
Choiseul-Meuse in recent years.
47
Notes
lj. M. Querard, LaTrancelitteraire, vol. 6 (Paris, 1834) 313.
2cited in Angus Martin, Vivienne Mylne and Richard L. Frautschi,

Bibliographie du genre romanesque, 1751-1800 (London, Paris: Mansell,
1977) 436. The first edition of Illyrine is available at the Bibliotheque
Nationale. The second edition of the first volume is in the British
Museum, but the second and third volumes are from the first edition.
3The only copy of Rosalina, ou les meprises de l'am our et de la nature in

the United States is part of the Special Collections of the University of
California, Los Angeles. At the time this thesis was written, the edition
was unavailable for consultation.
is listed among Morency’s works in the

1983 edition , but is not part of
the listing in the Catalogue
Bibliotheque Nationale. See also Alexandre Cioranescu, Eibliographie_de
la litterature frangaise d u Dix-Huitieme siecle (Paris: CNRS, 1969) 1315.
The Catalogue does include the Joum al d ’une enfant vicieuse, published
in 1903, falsely attributed to Morency. The significance of the
attribution will be discussed in Chapter 6.
^Dominique Grandmont, the author of the article on Morency in Pascal

Pia’s Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques domaine frangais, does quote
from Rosalina as the continuation of the principles of love established in
Illyrine.
^Martin, Mylne and Frautschi, 436.
^Charles Nodier, CEuvres completes de Charles Nodier, vol. 7 (Geneva:

Slatkine Reprints, 1968) 182.
^Charles Monselet, Les oublies et les dedaignes: figures litteraires_deia

fm_du_L8eme_siecle (Alengon, 1857) 119.
^Martin, Mylne and Frautschi, 436.
l O M o n s e l e t claims that Suzanne m arried a Monsieur Quillet, a lawyer

from Soissons (Monselet, 117). His information, however, is
48
unsubstantiated.
1 lj. M. Querard, Les supercheries litteraires devoilees, vol. 2 (Paris,

1834) 1203. Querard does not provide the title of the gazette Quinquet
published.
1^The political role of women during the Revolution was no doubt

precarious, and was often influenced by the affiliations of their spouses.
The most noted examples are: Mme Roland, Mme de Stael and Olympe
de Gouges. For a recent discussion of women’s political writings during
the revolutionary period see Marie-France Silver, “Le rom an feminin des
annees revolutionaires,” Eighteenth-Century. Fiction 6.4 (July 1994): 309-
26.
1^Monselet, 122.
14Monselet, 116.
l^M artin, Mylne and Frautschi note three references to Illyrine ou

T ecu eild el’inexperience in Parisian literary journals of 1799: Xoumal
g e n e ra ld e Jitte ratu red e Jh a n ce Q u rep e rto ire h isto riq u e d esliv res
nouyeaux, Journal de Paris, and JournaLtypographiqueet
bibliogr aphique. Cioranescu refers to an 1799 article in the Journal
d ’oppositionlitteraire.
1^The other two volumes of Illyrine ou l’ecueil de Tinexperience are in

epistolary form. This study will focus exclusively on the first narrated
volume.
1Tjoan Hinde Stewart and Philip Stewart, introduction, Lettres de

Mistriss_Henley_publees par_son_amie, by Isabelle de Charriere (New
York: Modern Language Association of America, 1993) xxii.
' 18jules Gay, Les femmes deTettres (Paris, 1878) 232-240; Edmond Pilon,
Muses etBourgeoises d e ja d is (Paris, 1907) 287-319; Arnelle, line
oubliee: JMadame Cottin (Paris, Plon, 1914); Alfred Marquiset, Les Bas-
Bleus du Premier Empire (Paris: Champion, 1914) 15-61.
19piion, 290-91.
49
20 l. C. Sykes, MadameXo.ttin (Oxford: Blackwell, 1949); G. Castel-

Cagarriga, “Le Roman de Sophie Cottin,” Revue des deux_mondes (May-
June 1960) 120-37; Colette Cazenobe, “Une preromantique meconnue,
Madame Cottin,” Travaux-de-Litterature 1 (1988)175-202; Sarnia I.
Spencer, “Sophie Cottin (1770-1807),” French Women Writers: A Bio-
BiographicaLSource Book, ed. Eva Martin Sartori and Dorothy Wynne
Zimmerman (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991) 90-98.
21spencer, “Sophie Cottin (1770-1807),” 91.
22cazenobe, “Une preromantique meconnue, Madame Cottin,” 177.
23castel-Cagarriga, 125.
24Arnelle, 94.
25spencer, “Sophie Cottin (1770-1807),” 91.
26For more information on Joseph Michaud, see Gustave Merlett, Tableau

d e Ja litterature fra n c a ise :1 8 0 0 -l815 (Paris, 1883) 515; For background
on Etienne Gramagnac, see Castel-Cagarriga,125.
27For more information on Pierre-Hyacinthe Azais see Merlett, Tableau

de la litterature francaise:1800-1815, 482.
28The details of the broken engagement between Cottin and Azais are in
Castel-Cagarriga, 132-33.
29saint-Beuve, Causeries_duJundi Vol. XI. Cited in Marquiset, 57 and

Pauvert, 175.
30piion, 297. Pilon retells the legend that Michaud was saved from the
guillotine and banishment by Cottin’s gift of the royalties from Claire
d!Albe. The article on Joseph Michaud in Merlett’s Tableau_de_la
litterature frangaise: 1800-1815 (p. 515) makes no mention of Cottin’s
support, but rather credits one of his compatriots, Giguet, for aiding his
escape to the Jura Mountains.
31 Editions of Claire d ’Albe are listed in Martin, Mylne and Frautschi, 428.
They also include a listing of the eleven editions of Cottin’s QEuvres
50
completes dating from 1811 to 1820. Seven other editions of Claire

d ’Albe after 1820 until 1889 are listed in CataLogue (vol. 12) of the
Bibliotheque Nationale.
32xhe English translations of Cottin’s five novels are indicated in

Spencer, “Sophie Cottin (1770-1807),” 98.
^ E d itio n s of Malvina are listed in Martin, Mylne and Frautschi, 448.
^ re fe re n c e s to re-editions of Amelie Mansfield, Mathilde, and Elisabeth

are noted in the Catalogue of the Bibliotheque Nationale. Three
additional French editions of Amelie Mansfield are listed for 1831, 1839,
and 1858.
35xhe Catalogue of the Bibliotheque Nationale lists an additional nine

editions of Mathilde from 1831 to 1873.
36xhe Catalogue of the Bibliotheque Nationale lists an additional 13

editions of Elisabeth from 1824 to 1894, not including numerous copies
of the first and second editions of the work that are part of the Parisian
collection.
37jviarquiset, 56.
38jean Gaulmier, “Sophie et ses malheurs,” Romantisme 3 (1972): 3-16;

and “Roman et connotations sociales: «Mathilde» de Madame Cottin,”
Roman_eLSnciete, ed. Michel Raimond (Paris: Colin, 1973) 7-17.
Gaulmier finds consistency in Cottin’s five novels concerning the strength
of the female characters and the fatality of love and passion.
39 t . M. Pratt, “The Widow and the Crown: Madame Cottin and the Limits
of Neoclassical Epic,” British JoumalXor EighteeiithrCentury Studies 9. 2
(Automn 1986): 197-203. Pratt considers the ways Cottin assimilated
the prose epic to the sentimental novel in La_prise_de_Jericho, ou la
pecheresse- convertie.
40colette Cazenobe, “Une preromantique meconnue, Madame Cottin,”

Travaux-de=Litterature 1 (1988) 175-202. Cazenobe gives an overview
of Cottin’s five novels, studies Cottin as an author of her time, then
analyses the heroines and the representation of passions in the works.
51
41 Catherine Cusset, “Sophie Cottin ou l’ecriture du deni,” Romantisme

3.77 (1992): 25-31. This article explores the contradictions in Cottin’s
writing and the symbolism of the price of desire in Elisabeth, ou les
exiles_de.Siherie.
42sam ia I. Spencer, “The French Revolution and the Early Nineteenth-

Century French Novel: The Case of Sophie Cottin,” Proceedings of the
annual meeting of the Western Society for French History, vol. 18 (Santa
Barbara, Western Society for French History, 1991) 498-504. Spencer
underscores the significance of the male and female characters in Cottin’s
five novels in relation to the Revolutionary spirit.
Late Eighteenth Century (Lincoln and London: U of Nebraska P, 1993)

171-98. See Chapter Nine, “Brazen Desire: Sophie Cottin,” which
examines the erotic component of Claire d’Albe, and Chapter Ten,
“Morals: Sophie Cottin and Felicite de Genlis” which explores the
relationship between the two women authors.
44see Alexandre Cioranescu, B iblio g rap h ied elalitteratu refran eaised u

Dix=Huitieme siecle, vol. 2 (Paris: CNRS, 1969) 553. The Marquis de
Choiseul-Meuse was born in Paris in 1735 and died December 10 1815.
He was “Marechal de camp” by 1780. Cioranescu gives no listing of
Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse.
45yhe majority of the 1882 Lacroix preface is reprinted in: Guillaume

Apollinaire, Fernand Fleuret and Louis Perceau Enfer de la Bibliotheque
Nationale (Paris: Bibliotheque des curieux, 1919) 50-54, and in part in
Pascal Pia, Les livres de l’Enfer du XVle siecle a nos jours, vol. 1 (Paris:
C. C ouletet A. Faure, 1978) 355-56.
46pia, Les Livres de l ’Tnfer, vol. 1, 355.
47p-L Jacob, preface, Julie ou j ’aLsauve m a rose, by Madame de C***

(Bruxelles, 1882) x and 7.
48Madame de C***, Julie ou j’ai sauve ma rose, vol. 1 (Bruxelles, 1882) 5.

Subsequent references will be included in the text.
52
49|viartin, Mylne and Frautschi, 398 and 428; Catalogue general des
livres imprimes de labibliothequenationale, 762-764.
50xhe 1808 edition of Entre Chien et Loup is noted in Fernand Drujon,

Catalogue des ouvrages, ecrits et dessins de toute nature poursuivis,
su p p rin ieso u co n d am n esd ep u isle^ lo cto b rel8 L 4 ju sq u !au ^3 1 ju illet
1877 (Paris, 1879) 145, and in Querard, LaFranceTitteraire, vol. 2, 193.
SlThe 1894 edition of Entre Chien et Loup is available on microfilm in

the Pennsylvania State Unversity Pattee Library.
5 2 jh e 1882 edition of Amelie de Saint-Far is available on microfilm in

Pattee Library, The Pennsylvania State University. Pia notes th at this
edition in a counterfeit copy of the 1882 Gay edition. See Les livres de
EEnfer, vol.l, 31.
5 3 jh e reference to Famille allemande ou la Destinee is found in

Alexandre Pigoreau, Petite Bibliographie Biographico-Romanciere (1821;
Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968) 168, and Querard, La France litteraire,
vol. 2, 193.
54pigoreau, 168.
55Louis Marie Prud’homme, Repertoire.universel,jhistQrique,

biographique des femmes celebres, mortes ou vivantes, vol. 2 (Paris,
1826) 146.
56Martin, Mylne and Frautschi, 398.
57Querard, La France litteraire, vol. 2, 192.
58pigoreau, 168; Eusebe Girault de Saint-Fargeau, Rev„ue_desj:Qmans,

vol.l (1839; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968) 139; Drujon, 145.
59pigoreau, 168.
60p-L Jacob, preface, Julie ou j ’ai sauve m arose, viii.
61 Madame de C***, Amelie d e ^ a ia tF a r ou lafataleêrreur, vol. 1 (n.p.,

1882) 114. The editors’ (Gay and Douce) note states: “Joli roman, du
meme auteur.
Chapter 3
RECEPTION OF WOMEN’S LIBERTINE FICTION: 1799-1994
French wom en w riters of the late E nlightenm ent such as

Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse have held a precarious position
in literary history because of the fact th at they were writing erotic-
libertine literature. Morency’s Illyrine _o.u i ’e c u e iL d e J ’Inexperience
and C ottin’s Claire_d!Albe created considerable scandal in the early
n in eteenth century. Choiseul-M euse’s Julie ou j ’a i sauve m a rose,
Amelie de ^Saiat-Far and Entre Chien et Loup were condem ned as
offensive to public morals.
Condem nation does not necessarily imply th at the books were
no longer read. On the contrary, p ro hibited books had a large
circulation and readership was often enhanced because of a book’s
prohibition. D iderot com m ents on the societal phenom enon th at
actually encourages the reading of condem ned libertine texts: “Mais
je vois que la proscription, plus elle est severe, plus elle hausse le
prix du livre, plus elle excite la curiosite de le lire, plus il est achete,
plus il est lu... Quand on crie la sentence d ’un livre, les ouvriers de
Timprimerie disent: «Bon, encore une edition!»” 1 The phenom enon
th a t D iderot d escribes is reflected in M orency’s and C o ttin ’s
publishing history, yet is even m ore striking as regards Choiseul-
Meuse. Choiseul-Meuse was a prolific w riter, bu t of all of her 27
works, h er three condem ned stories were the most often re-edited.
55
The transgressions of literary propriety in the erotic-libertine

works by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-M euse were often noted.
Much of the criticism of these works was double-edged, because
th eir au thors were not only women w riters, but also women who
expressed them selves using erotic language in prose. Regardless of
any intrinsic value or moralistic intentions in their works, the latter
were generally review ed in a negative m an n er an d considered
dangerous during m ost of the nineteenth and even into the twentieth
century. Since the recent re-evaluations of wom en’s writing and the
q u estioning of th e notio n th a t w riting ab o u t sex was no t an
appropriate dom ain for women to enter, they have been appreciated
in a different light.
The E volutionofFrenchC ensorship

Censorship of offensive texts is nothing new in French history.
Since the Middle Ages, religious or political authorities have enacted
an d rescinded various laws w hich have served to regulate the
content of literature. In the seventeenth century, prosecutions on
the grounds of lite ra ry im p ro p riety had a g rea ter im pact on
publishing practices than ever before. A well-known censorship trial
took place in 1623 when Jesuit leaders charged Theophile de Viau
with impiety and libertinism. Theophile’s trial was looked upon as a
w arning to both a u th o rs and p ublishers in France. A fear of
prosecution resulted in a prodigious clandestine book trade during
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In Editionêt sedition:
56
L’un iv ers d e l a litte ra tu re . clandestine au XVIlIe siecle, Robert

D arnton shows th at the types of books th at were published outside
the borders of France and circulated clandestinely, were considered
to be libertine for reasons of either religious, political, philosophic,
erotic or pornographic co n ten t.2 The wide range of reasons for
condem nation p erp etu ated the existence of specialized publishing
houses inside and outside France, and books circulating sous le
manteau.
Concerning the governing of censorship policies in France, very
little changed until the mid eighteenth century. Up until 1740, the
censure of the Church was in place. In 1741, Louis XV replaced the
religious censure with his own board of 79 censors who authorized or
condem ned books according to th eir m oral, religious or political
content. The board ren d e red judgm ents until the dawn of the
Revolution.3
During and after the Revolution, the censorship laws of France
w ere su b ject to m any changes. The A ssem blee constituante
abolished the royal board of censors in 1789, and the prohibition of
censorship was m ade p a rt of the Constitution of 1791. In 1797, the
censure was reestablished after the Coup d ’e ta t du 18 fructidor.
C ensorship d uring N apoleon’s reign was m ostly concerned with
offenses against his own decisions or acts, ra th e r th an against
offenses to public m orals.4 Many examples of licentious writing were
overlooked during the Directoire, Consulat and Empire. For example,
the libertine novels of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse created
57
scandals w hen they ap p ea re d , b u t did not suffer im m ediate

prosecution under Napoleon’s reign.
The validity of censorship was put into question with each shift
in the governm ent during the nineteenth century. The period of the
Restoration from 1815 to 1830 had the m ost systematic response to
d ate of condem ning any work th at was found to be dangerous to
public m orality. Although governm ental powers of censorship were
periodically denied during the Restoration period, the changes that
occurred in 1820 and in 1827 are the m ost im portant in regard to
th e p re s e n t stu d y . In 1820, a tw elve-m em ber com m ittee,
commission de censure, was established to control the production of
offensive literature. In 1827, the com m ittee was reduced to six
m em bers, b u t was so u n popular th a t the censors chose to rem ain
anonym ous.5
One of the rulings announced in 1825, entitled “Les ouvrages a
su p p rim e r d an s les cab in ets de lec tu re , redigee d ’a p re s les
re tra n c h e m e n ts faits, su r les catalo g u es, p a r M essieurs les
Inspecteurs de la lib rairie,” directly affected the status of m any
novels including Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose, Entre Chien et_Lo_up and
Amelie de Saint-Fa r by Choiseul-Meuse.6 Drujon makes the point
about the strictness of the policy in relation to the offensive works
th at were produced in the preceding century:
Un d es o b je ts d o n t l’a u to r ite se p re o c c u p a p lu s
particulierem ent, des le com m encem ent de la Restauration, ce
fut de faire disparaitre aussi exactem ent que possible de la
librairie, toutes les productions contraires a la religion, a la
morale publique, aux bonnes moeurs, a l’ordre social, et dont la
58
publication avait ete si singulierem ent facilitee par l’esprit de

libertinage de la fin du XVIII siecle, la licence inoui'e de la
p eriode rev o lu tio n n aire, e t la to lerance fo rt relachee de
Pepoque im periale.7
C ensorship laws, then, were enacted in response to a perceived
d anger posed by the spirit of tolerance and free thought th at had
developed in the previous century. The policy of censorship in the
Restoration was also a reactionary attem pt to rectify the problem of
im m orality in lite ra tu re th a t the censors saw as sym ptom atic of
moral decay in society.
Of the three works by Choiseul-Meuse th a t were banned in
1825 from French public reading room s, cabinets de lecture, only
Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose was condem ned to destruction in 1827.
Perceau includes the following succinct explanation for the police
o rd er to have the work destroyed:
La destruction de Julie a ete ordonnee, en raison des obscenites

q u ’il contient, su rto u t a la fin, p ar jugem ent du T ribunal
correctionnel de la Seine, du 12 juillet 1827, confirme par arret
du 5 aout suivant. (Pas d ’insertion au M onitenr).8
The laws dealing with the obscene content of a work were m uch
more strictly enforced than they had been previously. For reasons
th at we may never know for certain, the destruction of Entre Chien
e t l o u p and Amelie de Saint-Far was not ordered. We may pose as
conjecture that Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma r ose was censored and ordered
to be destroyed because of the lesbian scenes th at occur toward the
end of the novel, a reason to which Perceau alludes. It is probable
th at representations of same-sex lovemaking were judged to be not
59
simply abnorm al, but also intolerably obscene in nineteenth-century

thought. Thus, the novel deserved a m uch sterner punishm ent for a
m ore serious literary transgression th an th e heterosexual erotic
representations in the oth er works.
T JheJtaleofB ibliophilesasG uidestoP ublicO pinion

Reception of the works by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse
has, for the m ost part, been relian t upon the in terp retatio n s and
o p in io n s of b ib lio g ra p h e rs and c o m p ile rs o f a n th o lo g ie s.
Bibliophiles, such as Pigoreau, G irault de Saint-Fargeau an d Gay,
among others, have recognized and used th eir ability to guide and
influence readers. A look at th e ir views will shed light on the
attitudes toward literature that has been condem ned or considered
to be erotic or libertine. Furtherm ore, the time in which Pigoreau,
G irault de Saint-Fargeau and Gay com posed th eir bibliographies is
im portant in relationship to French censorship laws, and their views
are often a reflection of or a reaction to them.
Pigoreau presented his initial Petite Bibliographie hiograpM co-
r o m an ciere in 1821, a n d th e n p ro d u c e d m any sem i-an n u al
supplements. The notification of condem ned books which included a
m ention of the three works by Choiseul-Meuse was inserted in the
eleventh supplem ent of October 1825. Opposing censorship in favor
of m oderation, Pigoreau assum ed the role of literary guide for the
public. In the 1821 preface to his bibliography, he recognizes the
power that literature may have over youths, but also the power that
60
bibliographers have in guiding readers’ choices. He notes the futility

of censorship: “Puisqu’on ne peut soustraire a ses yeux, des livres
qui sont dans toutes les mains, tachons au moins de la diriger dans
son choix.”9 Freedom of choice, together with the guidance of a
knowledgeable bibliophile, were, for Pigoreau, all th at was needed to
cause immoral or useless books to fall naturally into oblivion.
Eusebe Girault de Saint-Fargeau who compiled his two-volume
Rey_ue__de.s_Ro_maiis in 1839 in a sim ilarly stric t p u b lish in g
atm osphere, also recognized the power of the bibliographer as guide
to public opinion. The repetition of the phrase “tout depend du
choix” in the preface announces th at his work was intended to serve
as a m eans to m easure the w orth of a novel for the re a d e r.10 The
subject of a novel’s w orth in relation to a u th o r gender was also
a p p ro a c h e d . Both Pigoreau and G irau lt de S aint-F argeau
acknowledge the contributions of women writers to the genre of the
novel, and claim th at choices about their novels m ust be made on the
basis of moral principles, not gender.
Pigoreau highly praises wom en w riters, an d am ong the
innum erable women he adm ires, he cites Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse
in a special p reface to th e th ird su p p le m e n t to his Petite
Bibliographic. He does include Morency in the catalogue of his
collection, but neglects to mention her in the preface dedicated to the
role of women w riters in the developm ent of the novel. He simply
begins his article entry in his bibliography with “Suzanne...n’est pas
la chaste Suzanne”, then tells of her m arriage, divorce and many
61
lovers.11 Pigoreau has high praise for Choiseul-Meuse’s Paola (1813),

although he dismisses the attrib u tio n of Amelie de Saint-Fa r and
Julie, ou f a is a u v e m a r o s e to her. His adm iration of Cottin is even
greater as he comm ents in the article about her: “On ne stereotype
que les ouvrages d ’un m erite ou d ’une utilite reconnus; les oeuvres
de m adam e Cottin ont ete stereotypes.” 12 W ithout reservation, he
implicity applauds Cottin’s literary talent and accomplishment.
G irault de Saint-Fargeau, on the o th e r hand, is m uch m ore
critical of the writings of women, although he does not explicitly
establish a preference. He does, however, grant th at women have
had success in w riting delicately and with grace “les sentim ents, la
sensibilite, meme le vague de l’expression,” while listing a much
w ider range of possibilities for male w riters.13 He states: “en un
mot, le monde est le dom aine du rom ancier,” a specific reference to
m en.14 Thus, he establishes two sets of criteria, one for male and
an o th er for female authors. His criticism of women authors who
transgress the boundaries specific to them (i.e., the dom ain of the
emotional) is thus more harsh. His reaction to Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma
rose, which he attributes to the ephem eral Madame Guyot and not to
Choiseul-Meuse, epitomizes the situation of women writers of erotic-
libertine novels regarding the reception of their texts. He concludes
the article on Guyot with:
Mais que dire d ’un ouvrage dont on ne peut citer aucune partie
sans o utrager la pudeur, ou sans m anquer aux convenances
sociales et a l’honnetete publique? Si un homme l’avait ecrit on
p o u rra it lui re p ro c h e r d ’a v o ir tra h i p ar ses ecrits les
dereglem ents des moeurs; mais lorsque de tels tableaux ont ete
62
ecrits p a r une fem m e, la pitie et le degout a rre te n t la

censure.15
The issue is not only th at the work is offensive to public m orality,
bu t th a t it was so audaciously w ritten by a woman. His only
response is to treat it with pity and disgust, not as a serious subject
for reproach. The transgression of literary pro p riety is such a
serious offense that Girault de Saint-Fargeau refuses to look upon her
as an a u th o r w orthy of critical consideration. The woman who
expresses herself in the dom ain of eroticism, or creates a work th at
challenges the traditional role of a woman w riter, sacrifices her
status as au th o r in his eyes.
Girault de Saint-Fargeau’s criticism of Cottin’s Claire d ’Albe also
supports the point of view th at he has established a gender-biased
double standard regarding the im m orality of a work. He has high
praise for the elem ents of C ottin’s works th at reflect a rare and
profound sensitivity, and are expressed by a language of the heart.
He cautions, however, th at diverging from the purest of em otional
qualities, even with moralistic intentions, is not at all appropriate for
a woman writer. He criticizes, yet forgives Cottin’s digressions: “Ce
qui excuse Mme Cottin, c’est q u ’elle etait fo rt jeune quand elle
composa cet ouvrage; elle ne sentit pas, et peut-etre ne pouvait-elle
pas sentir alors, q u ’un a u teu r de son sexe se n u it a son insu, en
peignant, meme dans un but moral, un sentim ent coupable avec trop
de vivacite.”16 He then notes with great satisfaction th at Cottin
expressed herself in a more virtuous m anner in her later novels.
A nother well-known bibliographer of erotic literature, Jules
63
Gay, first published the B ibliographiedesouvragesrelatifs a l’amour,

auxTemmes,_aujmariage in 1861, then a revised edition in 1871. The
governm ent of the Second Empire was m ost zealous concerning the
publication of offensive materials, and it was during this time th at it
brought legal proceedings against MadameJBovary and Les.Fleurs _du
m al because of alleged obscenities. Censorship policies did have an
effect on Gay and his son who often edited questionable or daring
works in France. They found it more profitable to cross the borders
of France to produce works m ost often in Brussels, bu t also in
Geneva, San Remo or T urin.17
In the preface to the third edition of the Petite Bihliographie,
p ublished in T urin in 1871, Gay m ore vehem ently defends his
position against censorship than Pigoreau and G irault de Saint-
Fargeau. Gay upholds the attitude th at free expression is im portant
in any dom ain, and th at the best response to the imm oral is frank
discussion ra th e r th an silence. Gay takes issue with w hat he
observes as excessive prudishness (“pudibonderie”) or false m odesty
(“fausse pudeur”) which uses language to mask moral turpitude. He
attacks the practice as hypocritical: “L’hypocrisie, qui n ’est au fond
que la corruption elle-meme, ne perm et pas q u ’on la devoile, et elle
nom m e les ecrits qui la font reconnaitre: gravelures, obscenites,
litterature malsaine, orduriere, scandaleuse, etc.; en realite, c’est elle
seule qui fait le scandale.” 18
Despite the apparently progressive attitudes Gay adopts in the
preface to his bibliography, the review of the authors and th eir
64
works in the articles do not always adhere to the ideas proposed

above. Gay’s articles are not always clearly distinguishable from
those of Pigoreau and Girault de Saint-Fargeau. For example, in the
article for Amelie__de_ S a in tfa r, Gay, after simply stating th at the
work is a “rom an licencieux et peu commun,” refers the reader to the
article in the Revue, des. rom ans.19 The phrase cited above is also
alm ost identical to D rujon’s appraisal of Am.elLe_.de_Sainfcfar who
describes the w ork as a: “Roman licencieux, cynique et peu
com m un.”20 In fact, Gay’s reviews of all of Choiseul-M euse’s
condem ned works mimic Drujon. Furtherm ore, Gay’s description of
M orency’s Illyrine is q uite sim ilar to y et a n o th e r well-known
bibliophile, Querard, in La France litteraire.21 Although the preface
to Gay’s B ihliagraphie prom ises a m ore open a ttitu d e tow ard
e ro ticism and free e x p re ssio n , it a p p e a rs th a t few new
interpretations were m ade th at look favorably on women w riters of
erotic-libertine literature.
In fact, Gay uses the type of language in his articles th at he
criticized in the preface as a scandalous masking of the hypocritical.
He describes Morency’s Illyrine. ou r e c u e i l d e L ’inexperienee as an
“Histoire un peu scabreuse d 'u n e femme de 28 ans.”22 He then
proceeds to bring out the scandalous aspects of Morency’s life by
citing a portion of M onselet’s ch ap ter on “La Morency” from Les
Qublies_eties_dedaign.es (1857), and identifying what he believes to
be the real nam es of the lovers m entioned in the work. When
quoting from Monselet’s biography, Gay does not include the m ost
65
critical references to Morency’s style as a woman writer. The initial

paragraphs of the chapter clearly establish Morency as a m ediocre
writer, as Monselet chides:
...la M orency a p p a ra it com m e l ’expression fidele de la

galan terie sous la T e rre u r et du m auvais style sous le
Directoire. (...) La depravation litteraire qui etait entree chez les
hommes ne pouvait m anquer de se glisser chez les femmes. (...)
Ainsi que cela arrive pour beaucoup d ’auteurs mediocres, la vie
de la Morency est cent fois plus curieuse et plus interessante
que sa litterature; c’est la son m eilleur rom an.23
M onselet’s rem arks are significant because they set the tone for the
rem ainder of the chapter. Even w ithout citing the exact portions of
M onselet’s c h ap ter, Gay refe rs th e re a d e r to th a t source for
consultation an d fu rth e r inform ation on Morency. Once again,
literary analysis is neglected in favor of the biographical stories that
have generated a scandal.
Gay’s appreciation of C ottin’s work also concentrated on the
scandalous aspects of her literary production. He criticized both the
expressions of sentim entality (“sensiblerie”) and erotic realism in her
works. In reference to .Claire._dZAlb.e., Gay writes: “Bien que
sen tim ental com m e les au tre s rom ans de Mme Cottin, celui-ci
presente cependant, au m om ent ou l’heroine succombe, quelques
traits de verite assez francs pour avoir attire bien des reproches a
l’au teur.”24 Gay’s article shares a striking resem blance to Girault de
Saint-Fargeau’s criticism of Cottin in the Revue d es rom ans which
indicates little tolerance for erotic expression in women’s writing.
On the o th er hand, Gay appears to have a m ore favorable
66
a ttitu d e tow ard the writings of Choiseul-Meuse as he characterizes

them as “d ’une lecture assez agreable.”25 He does not, however,
believe th at she is the au th o r of Amelie_deJ>aint-Ear and Julie ou j ’ai
sau.ve_ina_mse, although he does propose Choiseul-M euse as the
a u th o r of Entre Chien et^Loup. Once again, Gay underscores the
perceived scandalous content of the p articu lar work. The article
concerning Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a ro se, em phasizes the novel’s
representations of lesbianism, then prom ptly notes the date of its
form al condem nation (August 5, 1828). No fu rth e r details were
presented as reasons for the work’s condem nation except th at it was
a lib e rtin e novel th a t c o n ta in e d “scenes d ’a m o u r lesbien
extrem em ent vives.”26
In the preface to the Bibliograp h ie, Gay shows him self to be in
agreem ent with the view th at erotic literature is useful reading. He
states: “Les ouvrages erotiques peuvent comme tous autres genres
d ’ouvrages avoir, non-seulem ent leu r ag rem en t p o u r quelques
personnes, mais aussi leur utilite generale.”27 He appears to be
am ong those whom Foucault would call “m odern,” because of his
ap p arent belief in the usefulness of sexology to the individual and to
society on the whole. He is a fo re ru n n e r am ong bibliographers
because he does, at least in theory, recognize the value of the
rep resen tatio n of eroticism in literature. Nevertheless, it appears
th at to Gay the erotic passages in the works by Morency, Cottin and
Choiseul-Meuse are not regarded as useful, but are still considered as
shocking and reproachable.
67
Paul Lacroix, an o th er nineteenth-century bibliophile, offers a

contrasting opinion to those of Pigoreau, Girault de Saint-Fargeau or
Gay concerning the value of wom en’s erotic literature. In his preface
to the 1882 edition of Julie o u j ’a is a u v e m a rose, Lacroix expresses
regret, but not indignation, a t the licentious passages of the novel,
yet praises its extraordinary composition.
II est vraim ent a reg retter que ce rom an de femme, si fin, si

delicat, si ingenieux, si instructif pour les hommes, soit gate par
quelques traits d ’indecence et de libertinage, su rto u t vers la
fin, qui n ’aboutit pou rtan t pas a un denouem ent prevu, espere
et decisif: il m eriterait alors d ’etre classe parmi les oeuvres les
plus rem arquables de la litterature feminine. C’est, en effet, un
ouvrage charm ant, ecrit du m eilleur style, a p a rt quelques
exagerations de langage qui se ressentent de l’epoque ou il a
ete compose.28
Lacroix’s appraisal of the work confirm s its im portance for the
literary history of w om en’s w riting. He specifically praises the
novel’s denouem ent as “prevu, espere et decisif’ in which Julie claims
the erotic power she held over her lovers and urges other women to
follow h e r lead. In fact, Lacroix stands ou t am ong th e o th e r
n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry lite ra ry h isto ria n s an d b ib lio g rap h e rs as
rendering the m ost positive reading of Choiseul-Meuse’s clandestine
condem ned novels. He also expressed a favorable reaction to Entre
Ghien et Loup, and characterized it as “une charm ante et spirituelle
composition.”29
Lacroix’s judgm ents take into consideration the context in
which Choiseul-Meuse wrote. He cautions th at a critic m ust not judge
the “rom ans galants” of the Directory and Empire according to the set
68
of moral criteria for works produced in the late nineteenth century.
Ces rom ans-la etaien t faits dans le gout du tem ps, qui se
p e rm e tta it beaucoup de choses q u ’on a blam ees, q u ’on a
condam nees depuis. Ce n ’etait plus le Directoire, l’ere de la
liberte des moeurs, cette liberte qui ne connaissait ni bornes ni
obstacles et qui ne rougissait pas de devenir la licence: c’etait
la belle epoque de l’Empire, pen d an t laquelle les passions les
plus folles et les plus hardies ne craignaient ni censure, ni
critique, ni gene, ni tyrannie.30
He argues th at Choiseul-Meuse’s works were products of an era that
p erm itted a freer literary expression th an his own tim e. His
statem ent implicitly urges the public to avoid reactionary judgm ents
of moral outrage when reading any erotic-libertine text, by a male or
female author, composed during the Directory, Consulate and Empire
because they are a reflection of the literary taste of the period.
Lacroix announces the tren d in contem porary criticism in
which new appreciations of texts are no longer bound to reactions of
shock or scandal at the licentious. Contem porary bibliographers such
as Pia, Pauvert a n d B recourt-V illars, do not have to defen d
them selves against th eir critics in the same way as Pigoreau, Girault
de Saint-Fargeau or Gay. As Pia correctly observes, changes were
brought about because eroticism ceased to be a subject of scandal,
and sexuality became a subject of study among others.31 A ttitudes
toward censorship were no longer as strict, and the bibliographer no
longer had to assum e the role of guide to virtuous reading. New
readings and new critical evaluations of the libertine-erotic novels
by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-M euse have helped to prom ote
interest th at was not before possible. A sampling of the reviews of
69
th e w orks of M orency, C ottin an d C hoiseul-M euse in th e

bibliographies of erotic lite ra tu re by Pia, Pauvert and Brecourt-
' Villars will illustrate the m odifications in perception of the women
and the genre in which they wrote.
In the Dictionnaire de oeuvreserotiques, edited by Pia in 1971,
th e articles are w ritte n by v arious c o n trib u to rs. D om inique
G ran d m ont, who review ed M orency’s Illyrine ou l ’ecueil de
rinexperience, received the work quite favorably. The writing style
and uniqueness of Morency's work are brought to the forefront:
Cette chronique scabreuse d'une seductrice professionnelle a la

Casanova toucherait par ses seules qualites de style, sinon par
la rarete meme du cas, tout au moins en litterature, s'il ne se
trouvait pas que la plupart des personnages du sexe masculin
qui figurent dans Illyrine sont aussi fort connus pour le role
qu'ils tinrent dans la Revolution.32
G randm ont uses the term “scabreuse” to describe the story ju st as
Gay did, but situates the im portance of the work as a rare find in
literary history. The entry m entions not only Illyrine, but also the
c o n tin u atio n Rosalina as a w ork th a t also m erits th e rea d e r's
atten tion. In one final note of praise, the a u th o r lauds Illyrine-
Suzanne as “la m aitresse incontestee de la chronique m ondaine de
son epoque.”33
Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars also have very sim ilar views of
the women au th o rs an d th e ir im portance as contributors to the
literary history of eroticism and libertinism . Pauvert, in the 1982
Anthologie historique d es lectu res em tiques, credits Morency with
having w ritten Illy rin e , an im portant “rom an d ’epoque” and “les
70
p rem ieres confessions fem in in es.”34 He also p o in ts o u t its

significance as one of the first “livres legers” w ritten by a woman
since the sixteenth century, and as having the unusual distinction of
being published u nder h er own nam e.35 His belief in the historical
significance of M orency’s work is accentuated by the fact th at he
published the 1983 edition of Illyrin e which includes a preface
w ritten by Brecourt-Villars.
In Ecrire d 'am our, Brecourt-Villars also lauds the uniqueness of
Morency, and rem arks on the revolutionary aspects of her writings.
She em phasizes th a t M orency's life was no t so extraordinary, but
ra th e r h er desire to w rite about it was. Morency is considered
equally rem arkable because of her willingness to em brace ideologies
th at were looked upon as transgressive and threatening to the social
order. Accepting the inevitability of adultery, and believing in the
virtues of divorce are the prim ary notions th a t m ade the w riting
stan d ou t as astoundingly m odern. The character, Suzanne, is
described as one who directs her own life, and confronts m en on
th eir own territory of rom antic conquest. Thus, Brecourt-Villars sees
Illyrin e as having a fem inist bias, an d th erefo re em phasizes its
im portance in the h isto ry of late e ig h teen th -cen tu ry fem inism .
Certainly, the articles in the anthologies of Pia, Pauvert and Brecourt-
Villars give the reader an im pression th at Morency’s Illyrine was a
pioneering work, an idea th a t is not reflected in the articles in
Pigoreau, Girault de Saint-Fargeau, Gay, or even Monselet’s chapter in
Les Oublies et les dedaignes.
71
Furtherm ore, noticeable changes in the reception of the works

by Choiseul-M euse are also illu stra te d in th e c o n te m p o ra ry
anthologies of erotic literature by Pia, Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars.
All three editors are in agreem ent that Choiseul-Meuse composed all
th ree condem ned works: Ju lie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose, Amelie de
SaintrFar and Entre X hien_et_Loup. Although they may cite the
controversy over the existence of Madame Guyot, authorship is no
longer in dispute.
The main source of inform ation for Pia, Pauvert and Brecourt-
Villars is Lacroix’s notew orthy preface to Julie_ou L’a isa u v e m ajcose.
In Pia’s Dictionnaire, Michel Rostain provides a sum m ary of the work
and notes that: “Le bon sens~«plus une femme resiste plus elle
excite les desirs»~est devenu un art. Et le tabou de la virginite est
to u rn e en d erision.”36 Pauvert quotes insightful passages from
Lacroix’s preface, b u t adds no fu rth e r em bellishm ent. Brecourt-
Villars only m entions the work in passing as one Choiseul-M euse’s
three condenm ed works.
T w entieth-century criticism of Entre Chien et Loup is m ore
limited. Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars sum m arily treat the text, and
cite the various publication dates. Rostain, who also wrote the article
on E ntre .ChieiLet Loup for Pia’s D ictionnaire, characterizes it as a
compilation of “agreables recits” which m irrors Lacroix’s appraisal of
the work.37 Evaluations of the work previous to the present study
appear to be limited to similar phrases.
Judgm ents of Amelie d e S a in t-F a r are m ore num erous in the
72
recen t anthologies, an d are generally ra th e r favorable, though

innocuous. For example, Pauvert characterizes it as a “petit rom an
leger, assez innocent.”38 In Pia’s Dictionnaire., Xaviere G authier
com m ents that: “Ce rom an est un echantillon rem arquable du
pro d u it dont la comtesse avait le secret: une liqueur aphrodisiaque
coupee d ’eau-de-rose.”3l) The talk of scandal or of dangers th at
might arise from reading such a novel is absent. The novel is almost
underestim ated as a libertine-erotic production, and is likened as
well to the genre of the sentim ental love story. Pauvert does adm it
th a t Amelie de Saint-Fa r is a classic of its genre. Brecourt-Villars
extends Pauvert’s opinion by stating in Ecrire_jTam our th a t she
considers all of the clandestine novels by Choiseul-M euse to be
among the “classiques de l’erotism e.”40
Regarding the censored works by Choiseul-Meuse, the main
difference between the articles in the n ineteenth century and the
contem porary bibliographies is the attitude toward erotic expression.
Pia, Pauvert and Brecourt-Villars tend to note the positive aspects of
eroticism , ra th e r th an condem ning the works as scandalous and
unreadable. The gender of the a u th o r, ra th e r than m aking the
w riting more blam eworthy, currently heightens the literary interest
th at the work generates. Both Pia and Pauvert m ade it a point to
include women w riters of eroticism in th e ir anthologies, and,
Brecourt-Villars lim ited h er anthology to only women writers. The
fact th at they chose to do so indicates a current literary interest.
Moreover, Sophie Cottin’s C laire.d’A lbe, whose criticism has not
73
always been lim ited to its classification as an erotic text, has been
approached in that regard recently. Pauvert, as if to make an excuse
for the inclusion of Clah:e_d!Albe in his historical anthology of erotic
readings, begins the article on Cottin with: “II y a bien des raisons de
citer ici Sophie Cottin.”41 He then cites her well-known readers who
have been scandalized by the daring love scene at the end of the
novel. He does reiterate, as have so m any other critics that Cottin’s
novels “ne m eritent pas l’oubli dans lequel ils sont tombes.”42
TJhe Exceptional Claire d ’Albe

Because of the greater attention paid to the works of Sophie
Cottin in relation to those of Morency and Choiseul-Meuse, a brief
sam pling of articles in anthologies of erotic literatu re will not
adequately address the question of the reception of Claire d ’Albe.
Strong reactions to the work, both positive and negative, have come
from a wide range of readers, not simply bibliographers, bu t also
literary historians and well-known personalities. Furtherm ore, the
rift th at has been observed between the nineteenth- and tw entieth-
century critics of Morency and Choiseul-Meuse is not so discernible
in the case of Cottin. Not all early readers of Cottin perceived Claire
d ’Albe, or her o th er works, as scandalous. Napoleon, for example,
was a great adm irer of Cottin. Several others such as Genlis and
Girault de Saint-Fargeau, however, did take issue with certain scenes
of the novel.
The most vehem ent criticism to be directed at Cottin, and
74
especially at C laim ed’Alb.e, came from her contem porary Mme de

Genlis. The differences of opinion between the two writers are well-
known, and it is m ost often within the context of th eir intriguing
personal and professional rivalry that Genlis’ comments are viewed.
N evertheless, h e r rem arks in De l’influence d es fem m es su r la
lLttexature_frani?aise have served to guide the in te rp retatio n s of
m any other critics as to the moral w orth of C ottin’s Claire d ’Albe.
Genlis considered the novel to be, on the one hand, innovative, but,
on the other, immoral and reprehensible. Genlis writes:
Claire d ’Albe eut beaucoup de succes, et servit de modele a tous

ceux d o n t on enrichit depuis la litteratu re republicaine. Ce
rom an est a tous egards un mauvais ouvrage, sans interet, sans
im a g in atio n , sa n s v ra ise m b la n c e e t d ’un e im m o ralite
revoltante; mais comme il a eu le triste honneur de form er une
nouvelle ecole de rom anciers, q u ’il est le prem ier ou l’on ait
represente l’am our delirant, furieux et feroce, et une heroine
vertueuse, religieuse, angelique, et se livrant sans m esure et
sans p u d eu r a tous les em portem ents d ’un am our effrene et
criminel, il est impossible de le passer sous silence et de ne pas
entrer dans quelques details a cet egard.43
Genlis was compelled to react to Cottin’s work. Any praise for Cottin
is delivered begrudgingly, w hereas the faultfinding is sharp and
unyielding. The strong criticism of the work is due to w hat Genlis
considers the m oral tu rp itu d e of the characters, as well as the
obscene language of the novel. She found the following eight lines
from Claire dALbe to be too morally offensive to reprint:
et saisissant Claire, il [Frederic] la serre dans ses bras, il la

couvre de baisers, il lui prodigue ses b ru lan tes caresses.
L’in fo rtu n ee, a b a ttu e p a r ta n t de sensations, p a lp itan te,
oppressee, a demi vaincue p ar son coeur et p a r sa faiblesse,
75
resiste encore, le repousse et s’ecrie: m alheureux! quand

l’etern ite va com m encer p o u r moi, veux-tu que je paraisse
deshonoree devant le tribunal de Dieu? Frederic! c’est pour toi
que je l’implore.44
Genlis objected to the language and the impiety represented in the
above passage.
The vehemence of Genlis’ criticism was due in p a rt to her view
of the role of women writers. Genlis held in high esteem a wom an’s
duty to write m odest and m orally sound works. In the dedicatory
preface to her 1798 novel L esV o eu x tem eraires, Genlis claims that
she has written: “le rom an le plus moral que nous ayons dans notre
langue, et le seul peut etre d ont on puisse perm ettre la lecture a
toutes les jeunes personnes et meme a celles dont Teducation n ’est
pas finie.”45 According to Genlis, then, Cottin was violating her
societal duty by including erotic passages in Claire d ’Alhe th at
ren d ered it inappropriate for younger readers. Stewart has shown
recently, however, th at Genlis herself also violated the theories she
claimed to uphold. A sim ilar contradiction of the representation of
virtuous passion th at she criticized so strongly in Claire d ’Albe is
ap p arent as well in Genlis’ Histoire interessante.46
W hatever the reasons behind the criticism, it is evident th at
Genlis’ review of Claire d ’Albe did have an impact on the subsequent
reception of the novel. As we have seen earlier, G irault de Saint-
Fargeau reiterates the negative perception th at Genlis has of Claire
d ’Albe. In addition, similar opinions have been voiced by others of
her contem poraries such as Joubert, and Madame Talma concerning
the daring representations of physical love in Cottin’s works. Joubert
76
writes to Mme de la Briche: “Mme Cottin a Tart de peindre l’am our

sans doute, m ais elle en p e in t les m ouvem ents plus que les
sentim ents.” In a sim ilar expression of disapproval, Julie Talma tells
Benjamin Constant of her feelings that in the novels of Sophie Cottin,
she sees “une passion forcenee sans aucune mesure. On ne veut plus
peindre l’amour: c’est la rage q u ’on exprime.”47
Instead of successfully serving as a reproach to Cottin and a
w arning to readers, Genlis did much to secure the place of Claire
dlAlb.e in literary history. Her refusal, for example, to rep rin t the
eight lines from the work that she found too offensive, enhanced the
p ercep tion th a t C ottin tran sg ressed lite ra ry conventions while
expressing the erotic. Genlis’ interpretation of Claire__d!Albe as an
imm oral text has been used as a justification for identifying the
novel as part of the genre of erotic-libertine literature.
Subsequent criticism of C ottin’s works appears to rev ert to
G enlis’ com m entary, w hether it is to em brace it o r to refute it.
Among the most well-known figures who have praised the literary
accom plishm ents of Cottin w ithout reservation are Hugo, Stendhal
and Saint-Beuve. Hugo affirm ed in 1817 th at Cottin was the prem ier
w riter of the era, and th at her Claire (Claire d ’Albe) and Malek Adel
(M athilde) were m asterpieces of ch aracter p ortrayal.48 Stendhal,
who was also a great adm irer of Cottin’s novels, wrote in the Courier
anglais (1825) th at “Claire. d ’Albe, Mathilde (...) sont difficiles a lire
p o u r des hommes ages de plus de 25 ans. Ils se trouvent sur le
clavier moral a l’extrem ite opposee a celle ou se trouvent les rom ans
77
de Sir Walter Scott.”49 Although he refers indirectly to the eroticism

in C ottin’s works, it is not to adm onish, bu t to praise her. Quite
recently, Cazenobe takes the in te rp retatio n one step fa rth e r by
denying th at the eroticism in the text indicates any irregularity in
literary convention at all. She proposes th at “...la sensualite ne doit
plus s’exprim er dans le rom an que par des voies obliques. C’est ce
qui se produit chez Mme Cottin: il est visible q u ’elle est soucieuse de
se c o n fo rm e r a to u te s les c o n v en a n ce s—celles-ci, au re ste
s’accordaient parfaitem ent a celles que lui avaient transm ises son
m ilieu et son education; elle les a toujours observees sans effort,
semble-t-il.”50 Cazenobe’s interpretation is surprising, especially in
the context of previous criticism of im proprieties, even by h e r most
laudatory readers.
Some critics, then, have explored the virtuous elem ents of the
novel, a n d lost sight o f the eroticism ag ain st which C o ttin ’s
contem poraries were so quick to react. It appears th a t we have
come full circle and th at criticism of Cottin’s novels is all the richer
for it. Today, critics recognize the expressions of female sexuality,
b u t ra th e r than reacting in disgust as did those of the nineteenth
century, they em brace the observation as an im portant insight into
h er literature. Stewart sums up the new appreciation for Claire
d ’Albe which accounts for past reactions to the novel, yet puts it into
the perspective o f p re se n t c u rre n ts of lite ra ry criticism . She
remarks: “Claire d ’Albe is rich in symbolic detail, dram atizing the
tensions and the revolt th at characterize a tradition of novels by
78
women and proposing a nuanced vision of fem ale sexuality as

integral to personality, diam etrically opposed to the notion advanced
by Restif an d others of female sexuality as justifiable m ainly in
term s of social utility.”51 Her appraisal once again gives credence to
the analysis of Claire__d’Albe as an erotic-libertine text. It opens the
door for fu rth er analysis of the ethical and aesthetic significance of
expressions of the erotic in the context of the late Enlightenment.
In conclusion, attitudes of literary critics have contributed to
the m arginalization and the neglect of the works of Morency, Cottin
and Choiseul-Meuse. Some earlier cursory judgm ents stifled interest,
an d p rev e n ted fu rth e r investigations because the works were
deem ed at the time to be dangerous and offensive to public morality.
On the other hand, criticism has also led to the renewal of interest in
these works th at are so im portant to the literary history of not only
wom en’s, but also libertine and erotic literature.
The details of the critical review of the five novels by Morency,
C ottin and Choiseul-M euse a n d th e ir u n eq u al tre a tm e n t by
R esto ration cen so rs have p ro v id e d a b a ck d ro p for f u rth e r
exploration. We have brought to light the circumstances behind the
relegation into the Enfer of Julie ou jâi sauve m a rose, AmeUe_de
SainfcEar and En tre Chien et Loup, bu t have not yet been able to
make distinctions in m atters of form and content th at may explain
why they were placed there. We m ust also make fu rth er inquiries
into possible explanations for Julie JXU_j’aLsauvA_ma_rose being the
only one of Choiseul-M euse’s novels to be ordered for destruction,
79
and account for the fact that Illyrine. o u r e c u e iL d e l’inexperience and

Claire__d,Albe were harshly criticized, yet exem pt from official
censorship. Thus, in subsequent chapters, we will elucidate the
ethical stances and aesthetic qualities th at have produced a textual
cohesiveness th a t identifies them as p a rt of the erotic-libertine
genre, yet have resulted in differences in critical reception.
80
Notes
1Denis Diderot, “Lettre adressee a un m agistrat sur le commerce de la

librairie,” CEuvres_completes _de Diderot, ed. J. Assezat and Maurice
Tourneux, vol. 18 (Paris, 1876) 66. Also cited in Robert Darnton,
Edition et sedition: L’univers d e J a J itle ra tu re clandestine au XVIlie
siecle (Paris: Gallimard, 1991) 13.
^Darnton, 10.
3 Dominique and Michele Fremy, eds., Qqid (Paris: Editions Robert

Laffont, 1987) 336.
4pascal Pia, ed., Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques domaine frangais

(Paris: Mercure de France, 1971) viii-ix.
5Qqid, 336.
^The 1825 ruling effected the collections in any public library or

“cabinet de lecture.”
^Fernand Drujon, Catalogue des ouvrages, ecrits et dessins de_toute

n atu re poursuivis, supprim es ou condam nes depuis le 2 1 o c to b re
1 8 1 4 Ju sq u ’au 3 1 ju ille t l877 (Paris, 1879) 277.
8Louis Perceau, Bibliographie d u rom an erotique au J^ le^ iec le , vol. 1

(Paris: Georges Fourdrinier, 1930) 43.
Dictionnaire des rom anciers (1821; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968)

i.
Girault de Saint-Fargeau, Re.vue_deS-romans, vol. 1 (1839;

lO E u seb e
Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968) v.
H pigoreau, 267.
l^Pigoreau, 172.
81
l^G irault de Saint-Fargeau, vol. 1, vi.
14Girault de Saint-Fargeau, vol. 1, vi.
l^G irault de Saint-Fargeau, vol. 1, 321.
l^G irault de Saint-Fargeau, vol. 1, 149.
17 Pia, Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques, ix.
ISjules Gay, ed., Bibliographic des ouvrages relatifs a l’amour. aux

fem m es,_aujnariage vol. 1 (Turin, Londres, 1871) xii.
l^Gay, vol. 1, 110.
20orujon, 19.
21J.-M. Querard, La_France litteraire, vol.6 (Paris, 1834) 313.
22cay, vol. 4, 116.
23charles Monselet, Les Oublies et les dedaignes; figures litteraires

de la.jin_ du_18e_siecle (Alengon, 1857) 115-16.
24Gay, vol. 2, 237.
25Gay, vol. 2, 220.
26Gay, vol. 4, 197.
27Gay, vol, 1, xiii-xiv.
28Paul Lacroix, preface, Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose by Madame de

C*** (Bruxelles, 1882) i.
29Lacroix, preface, v.
82
30Lacroix, preface, iii-iv.
3 1 Pia, Dietion n aired es ceuvres em tiqlies, xi. For contemporary

accounts of the history of eroticism, see Lo Duca, Histoire de
Demtisme (Paris, La Jeune Parque, 1969) or Frangois des Aulnoyes,
Histoire et philosophie de l’erotisme (Paris: La Pensee moderne,
1958).
32pia, Dictionnaire des.oeuvres.erotiques, 236.
33pia, Dictionnaire^des.oeuvres.erotiques, 236.
34jean-jacques Pauvert, Anthologie h isto riq u e des lectures erotiques

de_Sade__a Eallieres .(1789-1914) (Paris: Garnier, 1982) xvii.
35pauvert, 1982, 129. Although the author’s real name was Suzanne
Gireux Quinquet, she was known to her friends as Madame de
Morency or Illyrine, her pseudonyms.
36pja, Dictionnaire des oeuvres^rotiqiies, 260.
37pia, Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques, 163.
38pauvert, 1982,184.
39pia, Dictionnaire.des.oeuvres em tiques, 16.
40ciaudine Brecourt-Villars, Ecrire d ’amour (Paris: Ramsay, 1985)

69.
41 Pauvert, 1982, 175.
42pauvert, 1982, 175.
43Mme de Genlis, De l’influence des femmes sur la litterature

frangaise (Paris, 1811) 346.
83
44sophie Cottin, Claire_.d!Albe (Paris: Regine Deforges, 1976) 134.
45Madame de Genlis, Les. Voe ux_temeraire s (Hambourg and Paris,

1798).
46joan Hinde Stewart, Gynographs (Lincoln and London: U of

Nebraska P, 1993) 193.
47cited in: Jean Gaulmier, “Sophie et ses malheurs ou le Romantisme

du pathetique,” Romantisme 3 (1972): 6.
48jean Gaulmier, “Roman et connotations sociales: «Mathilde» de

Madame Cottin,” Roman_e.tLSo.cie.te, ed. Michel Raimond (Paris: Colin,
1973) 9.
49Gaulmier, 1973, 9.
50colette Cazenobe, “Une preromantique meconnue, Madame Cottin,”

Travaux-de-iitterature 1 (1988): 190.
51 Stewart, 183.
Chapter 4
GENDER, PHILOSOPHY AND THE ORIGINS OF LIBERTINISM
The French Enlightenm ent is characterized as “Page classique

de Ferotisme frangais” or “Page libertin par excellence”. 1 The concept
of libertinism has its origins in ancient thought, yet underw ent
significant changes th ro u g h o u t the seventeenth an d eighteenth
centuries. We will first account for the basis of the concept of
libertinism in Epicurean and Cyrenaic thought, and then trace the
evolution of the term into the eighteenth century. As the concept of
libertinism evolved, so did philosophic discourse on ap p ro p riate
sexual conduct and gender roles. Many philosophers im plicated
women in their discussions of w hat constitutes moral as opposed to
libertine behaviors. After a discussion of selected philosophical
views, we will explore the politics of g en d er in French laws
concerning adultery and divorce, which reflect real changes in the
status of libertinism and gender roles in eighteenth-century France.
The conclusions draw n here should serve as sufficient preparation
for the subsequent exploration of ethical constructs in the libertine
texts of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse.
Libertinism and Philosophy

Origins: The Epicureans and the liedonists
The concept of libertinism has its philosophical origins in
85
Antiquity, as it is a revival of Epicurean or Hedonistic thought of the

third and fourth centuries B. C. The discussion will be limited to the
theory of pleasure, as it is the aspect of Epicurean philosophy that
has direct bearing on the concept of libertinism in the eighteenth
century. The ethical content of Epicurus’ thought, ra th e r than the
details of his atomic theory and cosmology, most influenced libertine
literatu re.2
A theory of pleasure is at the foundation of Epicurean ethics.
Albeit all-encom passing, it is one of the m ost m isunderstood and
m isrepresented aspects of Epicurus’ ethical teaching. Even in his own
time, a form er student successfully spread rum ors accusing Epicurus
of gluttony and sexual im propriety with his students, although this
a c c u sa tio n is now d is c o u n te d by m ost s c h o la rs .3 T he
m isrep resen tatio n of E picurean ethics is m ost often due to a
confusion with the teachings of the Cyrenaic hedonists led by
Aristippus.
The Cyrenaics and Epicureans do have a common philosophical
base. H istorically, E picureanism developed o u t of Cyrenaic
hedonism .4 They both consider aw areness of hum an existence as
conditioned by feelings of pleasure and pain. They both believe that
one necessarily seeks out pleasure and avoids pain. Their theories of
pleasure are based upon observation and experience of the world
through the senses which are believed to be the best m easures of
truth. An emotional response to the universe is the key to securing
happiness, and a feeling of pleasure was considered the highest good.
86
Epicurus proclaimed as a guiding principle of his ethical theory that

“pleasure is the beginning and end of the happy life,” a principle with
which the Cyrenaics were in total agreem ent.5
The main differences between these two related philosophies
lie in the ways in which they define and classify the types of
pleasures to be sought. Epicurus classified pleasures as either: 1)
natural and necessary, 2) natural bu t unnecessary, or 3) unnatural
and unnecessary. The first category of pleasures refers to basic
hum an needs such as food and shelter. The second category refers to
m om entary desires, rath er than basic needs, th at do not cause harm
in them selves but should be enjoyed in m oderation. Examples of
th ese ty p es of p lea su re are sexual re la tio n s, rich food or
entertainm ent. The third category of pleasures m ust be avoided as
they are desires that may cause a loss of equilibrium when fulfilled,
such as power, status or money. Equilibrium, which is synonym ous
with serenity (ataraxia), m ust be m aintained to assure happiness.
Briefly stated, in Epicurean thought, “eudaem onia (happiness) via
ataraxia (serenity)”.6
The Cyrenaics, on the o th er hand, perceived happiness and
pleasure in a differen t m anner. They refused classification of
pleasures, and upheld the satisfaction of physical appetites as the
prim e source of good. There can exist no unnecessary o r unnatural
pleasures. In fact, they believed that pleasures can never be evil in
them selves, b u t ra th e r it is society’s laws and custom s which
designate them as morally superior or inferior.7 The satisfaction of
87
any desire which enhances the em otion of pleasure is therefore the

m eans of a ttain in g v irtu e. The fu llest an d m ost im m ediate
gratification of these desires is a prim ary goal.
Diogenes L aertius, who has c o n trib u te d g reatly to o u r
u n d erstan d in g of Cyrenaic and Epicurean thought, underscored
Aristippus’ view th at pleasures m ust also be controlled. According to
Aristippus, the goal of the wise and virtuous person is to strive to
control pleasure ra th e r than be controlled by it.8 In o th er words,
wisdom and virtue result from the m astery of sensory experiences.
Like A ristippus, Epicurus believed th at a person should not
allow oneself to be overtaken by desires. He developed Cyrenaic
thought one step further, however, by proposing a lim itation or an
avoidance of c e rtain pleasures. Lim iting o r p ro h ib itin g the
gratification of certain desires is related to Epicurus’ categorization of
pleasures with which the Cyrenaics did n o t agree. A ristippus
proposed that the accentuation of any pleasure was the most noble
goal, and th at the body should be in constant m ovem ent to achieve
th at goal. Epicurus, however, was more concerned with avoidance of
pain than with indulgence in m om entary enjoym ent. Epicurean
theory is based upon calculations of the possible consequences of
certain actions th a t m ay cause physical o r m ental pain to an
individual. Ultimate pleasure m ust coincide with a total absence of
pain. Therefore, unlike the Cyrenaics who disliked inactivity or
em otional neutrality, Epicurus saw the value in sleep or rest as an
enjoyable state free from pain. The term voluptas as used by
88
Epicureans m eans p leasure as defined by an absence of pain.

Diogenes Laertius explains this aspect of the Epicurean theory:
“When we say th a t pleasure is the goal, we do not m ean the
p leasu res of pro flig ates and those w hich co n sist in sensual
delights...but absence of bodily and m ental disturbance.”9 Epicurus
placed a higher value on m ental or spiritual, ra th e r than physical
pleasures, which is in d irect co n trast to the Cyrenaic th eo ry of
pleasure.
Because Epicureans placed m ore value on the sp iritual as
opposed to the physical pleasures in life, the cultivation of intim ate
frien d sh ip s (philia) was extrem ely im p o rtan t. Friendship was
viewed as an absolute necessity for those who seek happiness and
fulfillm ent in life. Some extracts from Epicurus’ extant w ritings
indicate the im portance he placed on friendship. For exam ple,
Principle Doctrine #27 states: “Of all the things that wisdom provides
for living one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the
possession of friendship.”; and in the Vatican Sayings, Epicurus wrote:
“Friendship dances around the world proclaim ing to us all to rouse
ourselves to give th an k s” (#52) a n d “The noble m an is m ost
concerned with wisdom and friendship. Of these one is a m ortal
good, the o th er im m ortal.” (#78)10 Epicurean friendship is what
bound the students of the Garden School, and provided the group
unity and order through fidelity to one another.
It is well known th at Epicurus openly perm itted a n d even
encouraged women to participate in the Garden School. The inclusion
89
of women adds a new dim ension to the status of friendship among

the students of Epicurus. Any rum ors of sexual im propriety among
the men and women in the school, however, should be discounted. It
a p p e a rs th a t sexual re la tio n s were d isco u rag ed in favor of
relationships based on equality and friendship among the students,
regardless of gender. To encourage sexual expression would be
inconsistent with Epicurus’ teaching about the possible dangers of
purely physical relations, as they belong to the category of natural
b u t unnecessary pleasures. There is no evidence to indicate th at
Epicurus believed th a t women should be treated differently than
th e ir male co u n terp arts, o r be denied access to learning in the
Garden School. In fact, several women held leadership positions in
the school. One woman of renown, Leontion, renounced her form er
profession as a courtesan or hetaira to take an active part in teaching
Epicurean philosophy.11 Thus, the Garden School proved to be an
empowering force for women who chose to find personal happiness
and co ntribute to society by using th e ir m inds ra th e r than th eir
bodies.
In contrast, according to hedonistic thought as established by
Aristippus, friendship does not carry a higher m oral value. The
Cyrenaics believed th at gratifying bodily pleasures was the ultim ate
purpose in life. Since the pleasures of the soul were considered
inferior because they were not as intense as the pleasures of the
body, frien d sh ip am ong th e C yrenaics w ould no t have been
encouraged. Since the best way to maximize pleasure was through
90
sexual relations, male and female sexuality played a much larger role
in Cyrenaic philosophy.
The Cyrenaics were encouraged to act on any physical desire
th a t could m axim ize p leasu re, w hereas the E picureans w ere
forbidden certain acts th at could result in greater pain than pleasure.
Both philosophies, however, taught the dangers of being overtaken
by powerful desires that may lead to a loss of self-control. According
to Cyrenaic thought, the individual had the responsibility to rem ain
in control of his or her desires. In Epicurean thought, on the oth er
hand, a friend acted as a m ediator or guardian th at w ould help
e n su re pru d en ce in the gratification of desires. Epicurus was
ad am an t about the need for prudence in the sexual realm . The
“pleasures of Aphrodite”, as Epicurus would refer to them, were to be
enjoyed only in m oderation. Passion and debauchery were not
lib e ra tin g , b u t c re a te d chains th a t im p riso n ed one seeking
h ap p in ess.12 A friend functioned as a m irror which reflected only
the best of the person. Therefore, a friend’s role was to tem per any
stro n g d esire, in clu d in g sexual d esire, th a t was co n sid ere d
unnecessary. Cyrenaic hedonists had no need for such measures.
In the sev en teen th and eighteenth centuries, th e a n cien t
E picurean an d C yrenaic th eo ries of p lea su re w ere revived.
Philosophers and authors of fictional prose reverted to them as a
means to subvert the traditional Christian value system. The concept
of libertinism which grew ou t of the philosophic revival was to
undergo many modifications.
91
Enlightenm ent Modifications

Libertinism as a philosophic m ode has d istin ct historical
boundaries. The “libertine age”, as Reichler defines it, came into
being in the late sixteenth century and ended shortly after the
French Revolution: “Apres Sade, apres la Revolution, il n'y a plus de
lib e rtin s.” 1^ It is im possible to speak about only one type of
lib ertin ism w ithin this tim e period. Rather, th ere are m any
distinguishable types th at evolved out of each other. The definition
o f w hat c o n stitu tes a lib ertin e d ep en d s on historical context.
Therefore, it is im portant to distinguish between the earlier and later
types of libertinism to show how and why the concept of libertinism
evolved as it did in late Enlightenment French fiction.
A brief history of the evolution of the word “libertine” sheds
light on the trem en d o u s n u m b er of m utations the concept of
libertinism u n d erw en t.14 Much sem antic am biguity surrounds the
term “libertine,” as it was given several m eanings or nuances of
m eaning in m any dictionaries. A common point concerning the
d efin itio n of th e word is th a t it comes from the Latin word
“lib e rtin u s,” m eaning em ancipated. The earlie r references to
libertines were most often related to theological debates. Calvin used
the term to criticize a religious sect in northern France and Holland in
the mid sixteenth century. From the beginning to the second half of
the seventeenth century, the m ost com m on usage of the term
libertine was to designate an atheist or someone who departed from
92
Christian doctrine.
Already in 1611, libertinism was connected with debauchery,
as is ev id en t in the definition in the Cotgrave French-English
d ictio n ary , w here libertinism is synonym ous w ith “epicurism ,
sensualitie, licentiousnesse, dissolutenesse.” The term was in no way
used in a consistent m anner in the seventeenth century. The Jesuit
pere Bouhours, in his R e m a rq u e s n o u v e lle s s u rla la n g u e fra n c a is e
(1692), defines libertinism in a positive m anner: “on d ira d ’un
homme de bien qui ne saurait se gener et qui est ennem i de tout ce
qui s’appelle servitude; il est libertin... Une honnete femme dira
meme d ’elle ju sq u ’a s’en faire honneur: je suis nee lib ertin e”. 15
B ouhours’ definition, w hich bases itself p rim arily on the Latin
m eaning “libertinus”, or freedom from slavery extended to both
sexes, yet never became a generally accepted m eaning for the term .
Also in the late seventeenth century, in his DictiQnnaiEe_his„torique_jei
critique (1697), Pierre Bayle attem pted to counteract the confusion
o f the philosophers of high m oral standing such as Gassendi, La
Mothe le Vayer or Gabriel Naude and the m orally licentious by
distinguishing the term s “libertins d ’esprit” and “libertins”. Bayle’s
distinction did not become common usage either. According to Spink,
it was not until the eighteenth century th at the word “libertinage”
fully took on the connotation of moral depravation. Libertines in the
philosophic sense were designated by the term “libre penseurs” or
“philosophies.”16
Licentious libertinism does share m any characteristics with the
93
free-thinking or purely philosophical type of libertinism . As a

m ovem ent of the Enlightenm ent, libertinism encouraged not only a
questioning of, but a liberation from traditional values and doctrines.
By claim ing to renounce traditional (i.e., Christian) values, both
freethinkers and licentious libertines reverted to Antiquity for their
new m orality. In fact, the ethical basis for the eighteenth century
b ran d of libertinism is closely related to the Epicurean revival
initiated by Pierre Gassendi in the seventeenth century.
Gassendi opened the discussion as a proponent of free-thought
and a faithful stu d en t of Epicurus. His views sparked much debate
concerning the value of liberty and the im portance of happiness in
reg ard s to the individual and society. As a priest, Gassendi is
cre d ite d as the m ajor figure of th e sev en teen th c en tu ry who
christianized Epicureanism. He looked to Epicurus from a Christian
perspective as an exem plary model of virtuous conduct. Gassendi
m ost clearly represents a libertin in the sense of “free-thinker” who
was im m une to the licentious connotation of the word. As Kroll
points out: “The intim ate debauches with Gabriel Naude and others
provide the aren a not for indulgence, bu t for a distinctively neo-
E picurean libertarianism , defined by the virtu es of friendship,
freedom of discussion, and m oderation.” 17 Gassendi was convinced
th at Epicurus was one of the most virtuous philosophers of Antiquity,
and sought to dispel all rum ors to the contrary.
Gassendi’s proposals for virtuous living were substantiated by
his scientific theories based on the teachings of Epicurus. The aspect
94
of G assendi’s atom ism th a t has had the m ost repercussions for

concepts of libertinism in any state of th e ir evolution is his
interpretation of liberty and free-will. Briefly stated, Gassendi, like
Epicurus, believed n ature to be composed of atom s and th at a void
p e rm its th e ir c o n sta n t m ovem ent. G assendi ad m its c e rtain
irregularities in the system th at foil a strict determ inism . Thus, the
cognitive functions of the hum an mind, as part of the natural system,
are not pre-determ ined. Each person has the liberty to choose
between right and wrong, and has the responsibility to use it to
avoid vice. For Gassendi, free will is the capacity to suspend action
so th at the proper decision may be m ad e.18 At every turn, Gassendi
attem p ted to reconcile Epicureanism with C hristian doctrine, and
rejected any aspect th at denied the existence of a suprem e m otivator
of the universe. Free will or liberty as perm itted by the m ovem ent
of atom s is simply a p art of the system that God created.
With regard to the theory of pleasure, the ethical significance
of the Epicurean term voluptas was threefold for Gassendi.19 First of
all, he em phasized the im portance of m editation as a desired state
free from pain. M editation on the n atu re of God and death would
allow a Christian to focus on God’s perfection and dispel any fears of
the afterlife. Secondly, he advised profiting as much as possible from
the present, since an unfounded fear of the future could imprison the
spirit. Thirdly, by dispelling fears and superstitions, one would
acquire wisdom in the face of adversity. Gassendi’s reinterpretation
o f Epicurean eth ical th eo ry from a C hristian p o in t of view
95
u n d ersco red th e necessity of lib eratin g oneself from the pain

associated with a fear of the unknown. He proposed, as Epicurus did
in Ancient times, an art de vivre for his followers based on nature
and reason.
Gassendi was both widely criticized and applauded for his
efforts to reestablish Epicurus as a respectable scientist and moralist.
Critics of Gassendi and his followers were most often theologians who
regarded any divergence from Christian doctrine as dangerous to the
Church’s authority. The religious content of Gassendi’s interpretation
of Epicurus was overlooked, and Epicureanism became synonym ous
with anti-clericalism . Shame was attached to any w riting th at was
considered anti-conform ist, and consequently subversive to the
power of the church. Critics of the free-thinkers often used acerbic
attack s w hich e q u a te d a n ti-co n fo rm ist th o u g h t w ith im m oral
behavior. Hence, exacerbated by the ad d ed confusion of free-
thought with licentiousness, the m ajority of literature th at proposed
any so rt of liberation from the established o rd er was circulated
clandestinely and the author of the text rem ained anonymous.
Among those who were sym pathetic to Epicureanism as an
ethical construct, such as La Rochefoucauld, Desbarreaux, Madame
Deshoulieres and La Fontaine, interpretations varied significantly.20
The main difference lies in the interpretation of the term voluptas
and w hether it refered simply to a state of non-pain or one of total
sensual p lea su re .21 From the previous discussion ab o u t th e
differences between Cyrenaic and Epicurean theories of pleasure, it is
96
evident th at the differences between the two rem ained am biguous

despite Gassendi’s writings. Defining voluptas as a desired state
where all desires are gratified is a Cyrenaic hedonist definition of the
term. By interpreting the term according to h is/h er will, each author
b lu rre d once again th e d istin c tio n betw een hed o n ism an d
Epicureanism . Likewise, the concept of liberty evolved through
various interpretations. Gassendi’s proposal that one should liberate
oneself from superstitions surrounding death th at are contrary to
reason was gradually extended to all aspects of social life.
By the beginning of the eighteenth century, Epicurean thought
was separated into two domains: one ethical and the other scientific.
Each dom ain progressed in d ependently.22 Those who were called
libertines because of their ethical stances in the late seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries proposed a liberation from the established
m oral order. Liberation was often proposed within the realm of
hum an sexuality. Nagy com m ents that: “Que cette volonte de
liberation se m anifeste le plus tot et avec le plus de vigueur dans le
dom aine des moeurs sexuelles est, pour ainsi dire, naturel: c’est le
terrain des tabous sociaux les plus forts, le fardeau et l’aspiration de
tous, qui peut facilem ent faire figure de synecdoque, dans une prise
de conscience liberatrice.”23 W hatever the underlying reasons th at
led to a collective questioning of sexual m orality, there is no doubt
th at in eighteenth-century France a sexual revolution took place that
m anifested itself in print.
One poin t m ust be m ade clear concerning the role the
97
“philosophes” and “libertins” played in the sexual revolution of the

eighteenth century. The term “libertin”, as Spink noted, gradually
came to mean a person engaged in debauched or licentious behavior,
whereas the term “philosophe” referred to those who theorized on
the value and consequences of non-traditional (non-Christian) ethics.
Philosophers used libertines to aid in th eir inquiries about hum an
sexuality. They sought freedom by questioning all trad itio n a l
doctrines, but did not necessarily propose unlim ited freedom in the
sexual realm. Libertines were those who practiced adultery, gluttony
or homosexuality, and were interested in breaking all social taboos.
The libertines were seeking a new o rd e r based upon m oral and
sexual freedom which led to the espousing of the eighteenth-century
brand of hedonism known as libertinism (le libertinage de moeurs).
The difference, in essence, lies in the perception of the w riter’s life
style. The distinction is d ep endent upon w hether the behavior in
question rem ained solely a m atter of discursive inquiry, o r w hether
it extended to real life practice as well.
Diderot and d ’Alembert’s Encyclopedie gives clear definitions of
the term s “libertin” and “libertinage” as they were understood in the
latter half of the eighteenth century. “Libertin” had the historical
sense of either the religious fanatics of sixteenth-century Holland, or
liberated slaves or the children of liberated slaves. The en try for
term “libertinage” in the Encyjdopjedie gives an additional m eaning of
the term “libertin,” which is th at of one who practices “libertinage”.
“Libertinage” is:
98
Phabitude de ceder a Pinstinct qui nous porte aux plaisirs des

sens; il ne respecte pas les moeurs, mais il n ’affecte pas de les
braver; il est sans delicatesse, et n ’est justifie de ses choix que
p a r son inconstance; il tient le m ilieu en tre la volupte et la
debauche; quand il est Peffet de Page ou du tem peram ent, il
n ’exclud ni les talens ni un beau caractere. Cesar et le marechal
de Saxe ont ete libertins. Quand le libertinage tient a Pesprit,
quand on cherche plus des besoins que des plaisirs, Pame est
necessairem ent sans gout pour le beau, le grand et Phonnete.
La table, ainsi que Pamour, a son libertinage; Horace, Chaulieu,
Anacreon etaient libertins de toutes les m anieres de Petre; mais
ils ont mis tan t de philosphie, de bon gout et d ’esprit dans leur
libertinage, q u ’ils ne Pont que trop fait pardonner; ils ont meme
eu des im itateurs que la nature destinait a etre sages.24
The specific parts of the Encyclopedic definition of the m eaning of

“libertinage” are im portant in relation to the types of libertines who
are represented in the novels of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse.
They are those who have a penchant for tasting the pleasures of the
senses, and those whose behavior treads a fine line between sensual
delights (“volupte”) and debauchery (“debauche”).
Discourses on sex changed during the eighteenth century. The

influence of sensationalism , utilitarianism , m aterialism , and the new
concept of n ature which redefined ethics all contributed to a re-
evaluation of th e role of sexuality in society. Libertines and
philosophers challenged the authority of the Bible and traditional
Christian views of women. Representations of women or of female
sexuality based on the images of Eve or the Virgin Mary were no
longer accepted as valid.
99
Before the E nlightenm ent era, the prim e vehicle for the
diffusion of inform ation about sexual conduct was pornographic
literature, such as Aretino’s Ragionamenti (1600) o r Bran tom e’s Vie
des_dam es_galantes (1666). O ther discourses on sexuality, which
were not pornographic in intention, such as V enette’s La„gen.eration
de T hom m e, ou tableau de l’am our conjugal, published in 1686,
discussed ap p ro p riate conduct within the confines of m arriage.25
V enette’s proposals were in keeping with Catholic doctrine th at
considered sexual contact outside m arriage or w ithout procreative
intent to be sinful and criminal.
Enlightenm ent philosophers were concerned with the function
of sex as a cultural construct, and also with the related issue of
gender and m en’s and women’s roles in society. They broadened the
field of investigation into hum an, and especially female sexuality.
Their discourses were “not so much in the form of a general theory of
sexuality as in the form of analysis, stocktaking, classification, and
specification, of q u antitative o r causal studies.”26 W hat m ay be
term ed today as “m edical” and “literary ” discourses on sexology
overlapped in the eighteenth century. Many strides were m ade in
science regarding gen d er difference which in tu rn influenced
philosophic discourse.
In fact, we may say th at gender difference was discovered in
th e eig h teen th cen tu ry from a scientific view point. Medical
researchers m ade a breakthrough th a t changed the perception of
gender from a “one-sex” model to a “two-sex” model. Previously, as
10 0
evidenced in anatom ical drawings, it was believed th at the female

sex was an inversion of the male sex. This m eant th at women were
represented as internalized, and, consequently, inferior men. Over
the course of the eighteenth century, attitudes and representations of
sex and gender changed. Comparisons of anatomical structures of the
genitals b ro u g h t a b o u t th e discovery th a t th e re existed two
incom m ensurable sexes.27 One could no longer think of the female
sex sim ply as the inverse of the male sex. Rather, wom en’s and
m en’s sex organs were represented as unique, having distinguishable
characteristics th at did no t signify an inversion of the other. The
most serious implication of this finding was the realization th at there
was a true perceived difference between the sexes. The “two-sex”
model established “a biology of incom m ensurability in which the
relationship between m en an d women was not inherently one of
e q u ality o r in eq u a lity b u t ra th e r of difference th a t re q u ire d
in te rp re ta tio n .”28 If wom en were no lo n g er re p re se n te d as
internalized, im perfect m en, but as having a gender distinct from
m en, then all previous conclusions m ust be p u t into question.
Scientific discovery was a cataly st fo r discussions a b o u t the
ram ifications of gender and sexual difference. They were played out
in philosophic treatises as well as in fictional writings.
D uring the E nlightenm ent, several philosophers, such as
Voltaire, La Mettrie, d ’Holbach, Diderot, Rousseau and Sade, to name
only these well-known few, studied the question of hum an sexuality
and appropriate gender roles. Each of these philosophers has written
101
treatises th at deal with sexuality as well as the consequences of

debauchery or sexual license. Their views will prove germ ane to the
subsequent discussion of libertinism in the works of Morency, Cottin,
and Choiseul-Meuse.
Voltaire is one of the best known advocates of a positive view
of hum an sexuality. His philosophic discourse represents early to
m id -century neo-Epicureanism . Even in his early w ritings, he
defends passion (including sexual desire) as a positive m otivating
force for society; love and family are the foundations of societies and
the arts which distinguish hum ans from anim als.29 In the last
chapters of T raitejdejnetaphysique, w ritten in 1734, Voltaire posits:
“II suffit p o u r que l’univers soit ce q u ’il est au jo u rd ’hui, q u ’un
hom me ait ete am oureux d ’une femme. Le soin mutuel q u ’ils auront
eu l’un de l’autre, et leur am our naturel p o u r leurs enfans, aura
bientot eveille leur industrie, et donne naissance au comm encem ent
grossier des arts.”30 Sex has a utilitarian function that is not limited
to procreation.
As typical of his contem poraries such as La Mothe le Vayer,
Locke or Montesquieu, Voltaire underscores the relativity of the laws
th a t govern fam ilies an d societies. Laws concerning polygam y,
ad u ltery or incest are relative to the society for which they are
form ed. Voltaire neither condem ns not praises social practices, but
rath e r reduces social moral law to a utilitarian principle: “La vertu et
le vice, le bien et le mal moral, est done en tout pays ce qui est utile
ou nuisible a la societe; et dans tous les lieux et dans tous les tem ps
102
celui qui sacrifie le plus au public est celui q u ’on appellera le plus
v ertu eu x ” (Tr.ai.te, 57). V oltaire’s principle, which is based on
utilitarianism , extends to all facets of hum an behavior and forces the
exclusion of certain actions. According to V oltaire’s interpretation,
hom osexuality a n d a d u lte ry m ay n o t be harm ful in c ertain
circum stances, but deceit is always a crim e against society: “...la
societe peut bien subsister entre les adulteres et des garôns qui
s’aim ent, mais non pas entre des gens qui se feraient gloire de se
trom per les uns les autres” (Traite, 59).
It ap p ears, th en , th a t V oltaire was to le ra n t of lib ertin e
behavior such as homosexuality and marital infidelity. He interprets
the utilitarian law which distinguishes vice from virtue in a logical
m anner. A question may be raised, however, concerning the reasons
behind Voltaire’s positive view of adultery as posited in the Iraile_de
m etaphysique. It should be noted th at the Traite was intended for
the edification of Mme Emilie du Chatelet, who was his lover at Cirey
at the time. Nevertheless, Voltaire defends the m oral integrity of
philosophers, nam ing several of his contem poraries th at he prefers to
call “philosophes”, but are those “q u ’on baptise du nom d ’incredules
et de libertins” (Traite, 64). He places him self squarely among the
neo-Epicureans of his time, and links him self to the virtuous pagans
of A ntiquity as well as the free-thinkers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
LaM ettrie is m ost re p re se n ta tiv e of th e m aterialist neo
h e d o n ist view th a t sh a p ed sexual eth ics an d disco u rses on
103
libertinism (libertinage de moeurs) in the mid eighteenth century.

The most significant of LaMettrie’s writings on the subject of gender
and sexuality are La. Volupte (1747) and L’art de jouir (1751). His
philosophic discourses serve as excellent exam ples of the new
a ttitu d e toward sexuality in the Enlightenm ent which rehabilitates
the notion of moral eroticism w ithout recourse to conjugality or
procreation.31 In fact, LaMettrie devotes m ore time to the question
in his writings than Voltaire.
As a m aterialist and sensualist, LaMettrie believes in the
im portance of the body and its functions in defining the individual.
Thanks to a strong medical background, LaMettrie brings scientific
theory to his discussion of women's sexuality. He offers advice which
reflects his views of fem ale sexuality as well as his opinion on
w om en’s social conditioning. He com bines the practical with the
m oral as he is w riting a guide to love m aking, but upholds the
positive moral and utilitarian purpose of “bienfaisance.” In L'a rt d e
jouir, LaMettrie exposes his theory of pleasure and proposes a moral
based solely on Nature. In his writings, he is trying to circum vent
the attitudes toward sex th at have been ingrained in women th at
e q u ate sexual pleasu re w ith sham e. A ccording to LaM ettrie,
following sexual instincts is a positive aspect of a good lover. He
distinguishes, however, between a good and bad male lover for a
woman: the “debauche” and the “voluptueux.” The “debauche”
ignores the needs of his p artn er, and is willingly ignorant of a
w om an’s needs. The “voluptueux,” on the other hand, is the perfect
104
lover, and the ideal m an in intim ate as well as in broader social

contexts. It has been noted that LaMettrie’s distinctions between the
“d eb au c h e ” an d the “v o lu p tu e u x ” in dicate a n o n -m aterialistic
dimension of his thought because of the apparent advocacy of control
of m ind over body.32 In all situations regarding love, im agination
plays an im portant role, thus establishing an equivalency between
im agination and eroticism. In any case, LaMettrie posits as the ideal,
as exem plum for the m ale reader, a m an who is understanding,
imaginative and tender. For the female reader, he supports the idea
of women losing the destructive inhibitions dictated to them by
society. He targ e ts th e n egative views of fem ale sexuality
p erp etu ated in traditional m orality which have kept women from
expressing th eir true sexuality. LaMettrie is encouraging women to
rediscover an eroticism th a t is close to n atu re and free from any
imposed shame. The process of self discovery will not proceed on its
own, bu t m ust be encouraged by the w om an’s p artn er. Thus,
LaMettrie does no t condem n a libertinism th a t is “v o lu p tu o u s”,
m eaning one th at encourages m utual pleasure. He does condem n
only a libertinism th at is debauched or selfish.
D’Holbach p re se n ts a c o n tra stin g view of sexuality an d
libertinism , which differs from the th eo ries of LaM ettrie and
Voltaire. Although his nam e is less fam iliar today, d ’Holbach had
quite a broad influence in his time. Robert D arnton’s survey of
eighteenth-century clandestine literature indicates th at d ’Holbach’s
Systeme de la n a tu re was the m ost sought out religious treatise, and
105
ranks very high among pop u lar books of provincial booksellers.33

According to book orders, LaMettrie never rose to the popularity of
either d ’Holbach or Voltaire.
D’Holbach often repeats in his works that: “11 est de 1’essence
de l’homme de s’aimer, de chercher sa conservation, et de rendre son
existence heureuse.”34 Virtue and morality, having as their basis the
n atu ral system , are the m eans to happiness. In Systeme„deJLa
n atu re, m orality is defined as “la science des rapports subsistant
entre les etres vivant en societe” (487-88), and virtue as: “l’a rt de se
rendre heureux soi-meme de la felicite des autres” (450). D’Holbach
believed strongly in the subordination of individual desires to the
h appiness of the collective. For LaMettrie, on the o th e r hand,
m orality could only be based on individual happiness as achieved
through volupte, and happiness relies on an individual’s instinct.35
The preoccupation with the collective, or the tendency to subordinate
the wishes of the individual to those of society is most common in
philosophic texts w ritten on the dawn of the Revolution and shortly
afterwards.
Being an atheist disavowing the existence of God and criticizing
the corrupting power of organized religion, d ’Holbach establishes
nature as the new organizing force of physical and m oral m an. A
hum an being is subject to the laws of nature which are based on
necessity and usefulness. As p a rt of the n atu ral system , m an ’s
liberty is limited: “Les actions des hom mes ne sont jam ais libres.
Elies sont les suites necessaires de leur tem peram ent, de leurs idees
106
regues, fortifies p ar l’exemple, 1’education et 1’experience. Le m otif

qui d eterm ine l’hom m e est toujours au-dessus de son pouvoir”
(Sys.teme_de_la_nat.ure, 439). Thus, a person is bound to natural laws,
and o n e’s behavior should conform closely to them . In essence,
d ’Holbach is reinforcing a sensationalist point of view; a person is a
purely physical being determ ined by experience and observation of
the outside world.
D’Holbach’s th eo ry of the subject is m ost representative of
libertine thought in principle in the latter half of the eighteenth
century. Libertine ethics are based upon the postulate th at the body
and soul of the hum an subject are inextricably linked and wholly
determ ined by nature. Thus, libertines criticize all conventions that
co n tribute to ethical constructs for society th a t con trad ict th eir
conception of the nature of (and in) the hum an subject.
Despite his sensationalist views on the general topic of the
interaction of body and soul, d ’Holbach is in agreem ent with Christian
views of licentious behavior. He condem ns libertinism as immoral,
and argues for m odesty and decency as a m eans to avoid social
d eterio ration. In La__mQral£_uniy_exselle, d ’Holbach posits th a t a
wom an, driven by passion, is no longer fit to fulfill h e r m oral
obligations to society.
A girl who has violated the rules of modesty, dom inated by her
sexual a rd o r, h a te s work, d e te sts all reflectio n , m ocks
prudence, is unfit to become an attentive and hard-w orking
m other, thinks only of pleasure; or, when by her dissoluteness
it has become less attractive for her, she thinks only of the
profit she can get from the traffic of her charm s.36
107
Thus, if the wom an’s passions dom inate her, then she will lose access
to the im portant and respectable role of m other, and be relegated to
the rank of a prostitute solely motivated by money. D’Holbach holds
m otherhood in high regard and defines the ideal woman as a m other
because she is fulfilling a necessary function in society. Sexuality
provides a utilitarian function in the form of motherhood.
D’Holbach sets himself ap art from other philosophers in th at he
considers licentious libertinism to be destructive. M aternity, it
appears, has replaced the voluptuous pleasure-seeking libertine
woman as the ideal expression of female sexuality. He believes that
hum an sexuality and the free libertine p u rsu it of pleasure is not a
vehicle for glory or an institution of utilitarianism , bu t ra th e r a
means to destroy societal order. Thus, for d ’Holbach, sexuality can be
d an g erous a n d m ust be controlled so as not to th re a te n the
structures of society and especially the family unit.
Likewise, Diderot offers some im p o rtan t observations on the
role of m otherhood and w om en’s sexuality. Diderot was an avid
stu d en t of women, and both his philosophic treatises and novelistic
writing reflect his interest in female sexuality. Diderot has examined
m any facets of sexuality and libertinism in his writings. W hether he
takes a cloistered nun, an abandoned older woman, young harem
girls, o r Tahitians for his subjects, Diderot presents his observations
as a key to understanding both the physiological and psychological
reasons for certain behaviors.
108
D iderot’s narrative, Le.Supplem ent au voyage de_ Bougainville,

provides a definition of libertinism and presents a perspective on
hum an sexuality th at m irrors to a certain extent th at of d ’Holbach.
W ritten probably a ro u n d 1772 as a response to Bougainville’s
Voyage au tour du niande the previous year, Le Supplem ent was
published for the first tim e in 1796. In the narrative, Diderot
rep resen ts Tahiti as a utopia where men and women live ideally
close to nature. Dialogues between the Tahitian wise man Orou and
western chaplain make clear the contrasts th at exist between Tahiti,
the ideal, and the west. In contrast to Diderot’s problem atic essay
“Sur les femmes,” the Supplem ent does not approach sexuality as a
pathology. Rather, it is approached as a m atter of social and cultural
concern.
Tahitian society is governed by rules regarding sexual conduct
th a t are in opposition to those of the West or of France, mainly
because of th eir closer ties to natural functions. The concept of
libertinism does exist an d should be avoided in Tahiti, b u t its
definition is much different from how it is defined in France. Diderot
is reverting to the earlier theories of relative m orality as articulated
by Voltaire, M ontesquieu and th eir contem poraries. Showing the
relativ ity of m oral constructs is, in an d of itself, an affront to
Christian doctrine since it suggests other possible valid truths.
In a conversation with the chaplain who has observed the
Tahitian women wearing veils, Orou explains the significance of the
veils as well as the m eaning of th e term lib ertin e in Tahiti.
109
Concerning the black veils, Orou explains that they are “le signe de la
sterilite, vice de naissance, ou suite de l'age avance. Celle qui quitte
ce voile et se mele avec les homines est une libertine. Celui qui
releve ce voile et s'approche de la femme sterile est un libertin.”37
The grey veils are “le signe de la maladie periodique. Celle qui quitte
ce voile et se mele avec les hommes est une libertine. Celui qui
releve ce voile et s'approche de la femme m alade est un libertin”
(293). Thus, relations between men and women which will not lead
to reproduction are considered immoral or libertine. The rule that is
the basis for all law in Tahiti is, as Orou explains, “le bien general et
Tutilite particuliere” (293). This ideal society, then, is based on the
principles of “bienfaisance” and utilitarianism.
In D iderot’s Tahiti, libertinism does not encom pass in its
definition adultery or incest. A dultery and incest are punishable
crim es in the West, but do not violate Tahitian ethics of utility and
“bienfaisance”. T heir usefulness being the prospect of children th at
may result from these actions. Moreover, if a T ahitian is found
violating the rules prohibiting libertine behavior, the punishm ent for
such acts is minimal and to which little im portance is placed. Thus,
not only is the concept of libertinism redefined, but also the notions
of crime and punishm ent are re-examined by Diderot as he brings to
light contrasting non-western attitudes.
In the optic of traditional philosophic and religious currents
concerning the m odest, frigid (“p u d iq u e ” ) n a tu re of wom en in
relation to men, Diderot proposes a new explanation o f it in the
110
Supplement. He challenges Christian doctrine which treats frigidity,

modesty as a moral virtue signifying the expiation of original sin. He
also puts into question Rousseau’s idea, cited in the article “Pudeur”
in the Encyclopedic, which explains female frigidity in biological
term s as a natural aversion to pregnancy.38 In contrast, Diderot
proposes th at frigidity has its origins not in nature, but in societal
attitu d e s tow ard children. Frigidity is unhealthy, according to
Diderot, since it is not natural. Negative western attitudes toward
children deny th a t m aternity is a natu ral, and therefore m oral,
function. Frigidity, however, is only im proper for a fertile woman,
who by reasons of age should be able to bear children.
In response to th e exclusion o f certain women from the
benefits of sexual liberty, Steinbriigge rem arks that, “Die natiirliche
Selbstregulation des utopischen Gemeinwesens ist in letzter Instanz
die moralische Regulierung. Und diese besteht zu einem groRen Tiel
in d er Kontrolle iiber weibliche Sinnlichkeit.”39 It is true th at the
non-fertile Tahitian woman m ust take responsibility for her behavior
to avoid libertinism . Moreover, the Tahitian man is also subject to
controls th a t are in direct relation to the im portance not only of
m aternity, but also of paternity in this model society. For Tahitians,
both male and female, a virtuous eroticism is possible if it rem ains
close to n atu re and the n atu ral reproductive function, and thus
fulfills a utilitarian ethic.
Brewer criticizes the consequences of this ideological system on
the woman. He writes, “Tahiti tu rn s out to be a police state of
111
happiness, and the text of the Supplement is organized in such a way

th at the natural code that seems to apply equally to men and women
in T ahiti is in fact an ideologically m otivated expression of an
e ig h te e n th -c e n tu ry European socio-sexual code th a t inscribes
biological reproduction within a system of economic production, the
d ise n fra n ch ised in stru m e n t of w hich is w om an.”40 A lthough
reproduction is being incorporated into the economic system, w hat
Brewer is not taking into consideration in his criticism s is th a t
Diderot is placing a higher value on m aternity than it ever had
before. Diderot is responding to the degradation of the traditional
social role of women th at he w itnessed in w estern society. His
attitu d e is preferable to the one he presented in his essay “Sur les
fem m es” w here m atern ity was p o rtra y e d in a bad light as a
regrettable aspect of a wom an’s life: "C'est par le malaise que Nature
les a disposees a d evenir m eres...Q u'est-ce alors q u 'u n e femme?
Negligee de son epoux, delaissee de ses enfants, nulle dans la societe,
la devotion est son unique et derniere ressource.”41 It appears that
in the Supplem ent, which was probably w ritten the same year as
“Sur les femmes,” Diderot proposes a way for the western woman to
avoid the lack of worth in society via the model of Tahitian society.
The sad circumstances that befall western m others would not happen
in Tahiti where the family is strictly protected. M aternity becomes
thus, not ju st a biological function, but also an im portant socio
economic function. It assures the m oral status of the woman, by
subscribing into law her utilitarian, reproductive function.
112
The status of autonom y and value of the sterile woman, or the

woman past child-bearing years is ambiguous. It appears th at these
women are discrim inated against by not being included in the plan.
They would be branded “libertines” if they wished to pursue lovers
o r consum m ate any sexual desires. In the Tahitian model, however,
the ram ifications of the libertine behavior of older women is much
less severe.
Through his “porte-parole” in the Supplem ent au voyage de
Bougainville, Diderot sum m arizes the problem s of w estern society
which he conceives of as linked to a badly conceived morality:
-B.: "C'est p a r la tyrannie de l'hom m e, qui a converti la

possession de la femme en une propriete.
Par les moeurs e t les usages qui o n t su rch arg e de
conditions l'union conjugale.
Par les lois civiles, qui on assujetti le m ariage a une
infinite de formalites.
Par la nature de notre societe, ou la diversite des fortunes
et des rangs a institue des convenances et des disconvenances.
Par une contradiction bizarre et com m une a toutes les
societes subsistantes ou la naissance d 'u n en fan t toujours
regardee comme un accroissem ent de richesse pour la nation,
est plus souvent et plus surem ent encore un accroissem ent
d'indigence dans la famille.
Par les vues politiques des souverains, qui o n t to u t
rapporte a leur interet et a leur securite.
Par les institutions religieuses qui ont attache les noms de
vices et de vertu s a des actions qui n 'e ta ie n t susceptibles
d'aucune moralite. Combien nous sommes loin de la nature et
du bonheur! (306)
Thus, Diderot presents to the reader a sketch of his principle ideas

and attitudes toward m arriage, pregnancy, libertinism , politics and
113
religion. Fontenay observes that: “Diderot helps us to recall the

senses and sensitivity, to propose a notion of jouissance that sunders
the juridical from the erotic, to disassociate possession and pleasure,
to hate the sexual sacred and sacrifice in all its forms, to glorify
desire in its total positivity, in its innocent polym orphism , its
m ultiple curiosities.”42 In the Supplem ent, fem ale sexuality is
liberated to a certain degree, but is regulated a t the same tim e by
the stric t notion of n a tu ra l and societal u tility, the w om an’s
reproductive function. For Diderot, the woman can be sexual and
moral at the same time if she rem ains close to h e r natural function
while fulfilling the principle of social utility an d “bienfaisance”.
T herefore, D iderot re ite ra te s d ’H olbach’s positive a p p raisal of
m otherhood as the most virtuous expression of female sexuality.
Rousseau also c o n trib u te d g reatly to th e discu ssio n of
lib ertinism , gen d er roles an d the m oral expression of fem ale
sexuality. His influence was widespread, an d m any women writers,
including Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse, used the theories in
LaJMouvelle Helots e and Emile as building blocks for their own prose
fiction. Rousseau’s proposals concerning the appropriate societal role
for women are linked to perceptions of female desire. In the ideal
m oral society the wom an functions in the capacity of wife and
m other. She should serve as a helper to her husband, and moral
guide to her children. For Rousseau, the family unit is w hat cements
social relationships and assures good morals. In Emile, the ideal
wom an’s role is clearly defined and elevated as a noble aspiration.
114
Children are an essential aspect of family cohesion: “L’attrait de la

vie dom estique est le m eilleur contre-poison des mauvaises moeurs.
Le tracas des enfants, q u ’on croit im portun, devient agreable; il rend
le pere et la m ere plus necessaires, plus chers l’un a l’autre; il
resserre e n tre eux le lien conjugal.”43 Rousseau, D iderot and
d ’Holbach are in agreem ent concerning the value of m otherhood. The
m other is virtuous because she is useful and fulfills a utilitarian
ethic. The role of wife, however, was an aspect of female destiny
th at neither Diderot nor d ’Holbach felt compelled to address in detail.
On the oth er hand, Rousseau elevated the worth of wom an’s social
function as wife. In fact, m otherhood has little im portance as a
m easure of virtue unless the woman is also a wife.
Julie in La Nouvelle Heloise represents the flawed heroine who
has diverged from h e r v irtu o u s role of wife and m other. By
examining the heroine’s character and destiny, we discover m any of
R ousseau’s th eo ries ab o u t fem ininity. The novel explores the
implications of actual and suggested libertine behavior. Julie’s fault
lies, in p art, in her sexual license before h er m arriage. Sexual
rela tio n s betw een Julie an d Saint-Preux outside the bonds of
m arriage were a sin th at was symbolically punished through Julie’s
m iscarriage. Julie’s m arriage to Wolmar helped purify Julie of her
crim inal, libertine love for Saint-Preux. Children in LaJSkmveUe
Heloise function as the indicators of virtue. They symbolize the
rew ard for v irtu o u s behavior. The loss of a child den o tes
p unishm ent for licentiousness as Rousseau defines it. Julie and
115
Saint-Preux were behaving in a licentious m anner because they

loved each other out of the bonds of marriage, and Julie’s miscarriage
was a sign of th at sin. The birth of Ju lie’s children to W olmar
symbolizes a redem ption for previous sins, and the acceptance of her
role as a subservient wife. Thus, for Rousseau, m aternity assures
virtue, but only within the bonds of phallocentric marriage.
For Rousseau, pre-m arital relations and the hint of adultery
may be considered equally as libertine acts because they violate the
sanctity of m arriage and family. Expressions of sexuality th a t are
co n sid ered lib e rtin e are in h ere n tly im m oral. The wom an is
especially at fau lt since, for Rousseau, respecting h er fam ilial
obligations has the power to am eliorate the moral order (Emile, 37).
As opposed to o th er philosophers who accepted the relativity of
certain m oral precepts, Rousseau’s theories are based on the strict
adherence to the sanctity of the patriarchal family unit. All libertine
behavior is condem ned because it leads to the deterioration of social
cohesion.
C onsequently, th e only expressions of sexuality th a t are
considered m oral m ust take place w ithin m arriage. Rousseau’s
theories of hum an sexuality often m irror those of LaMettrie, as he
prom otes the achievem ent of m utual ra th e r than selfish pleasures.
Male-female relations are established on a delicate balance of desire
and m odesty (“p udeur”). Modesty, which may also be considered a
veiled sexuality, is a psychological m eans of influencing the
physiological. The interaction of desire and m odesty is related to
116
gender difference. In Emile, m odesty is represented as a weapon for

the woman which enables h er to control the m an’s desires for her.
Although women are less physically strong, the ability to control
th eir stronger sexual desires with a veil of m odesty gives them a
com pensatory power over m en.44 Feminine modesty is represented
as natural and therefore moral. Nevertheless, the moral value of any
act is forfeited if perform ed outside of a m onogam ous m arital
relationship.
The th eo ries of sexuality, g e n d er an d libertinism o f the
Marquis de Sade stand in contrast to those of Rousseau as well as the
o th er philosophers. In the well-known chapter entitled “Frangais,
encore un effort si vous voulez etre Republicains” of La. Philosophic
d ans le boudoir, Sade specifies prostitution, adultery, incest, rape and
sodom y as acts o f libertinage. Sade’s in te rp re ta tio n of th eir
significance is altogether atypical. In the Republican state which
Sade rep resen ts as an ideal construct, libertine acts are n eith er
im p o rtan t n o r crim inal. Libertine acts, or in oth er words, moral
crimes are necessary for the “chosen few” in the Sadean ideal.
Looking m ore closely at w hat Sade describes, it is clear that
libertinism , defined as total sexual freedom , is at the h eart of his
system. Sade stands up against the convention of female “p udeur”
claim ing th a t it is u n natural. According to Sade, since nudity is
natural, so is sexual expression. He characterizes “p udeur” as being
far from a virtue, but ra th e r a first sign of corruption and female
coquetry.45
117
Sadean sexual license, however, is a m yth. C arter seems to

p erp etuate this m yth by claim ing th at Sade, “was unusual in his
period for claim ing rights of free sexuality for wom en, an d in
installing women as beings of power in his im aginary worlds. This
sets him ap art from all oth er pornographers at all times and m ost
o th er w riters of his period.”46 The term freedom in this case is
problem atic as Sadean sexual license is based upon the enslavem ent
of the Other. When the “other” is woman, Sade articulates h er place
in his erotic system: “S’il devient done incontestable que nous avons
regu de la n ature le dro it d ’exprim er nos voeux indifferem m ent a
toutes les femmes, il le devient de meme que nous avons celui de
Pobliger de se soum ettre a nos yeux, non pas exclusivement, je me
contrarierais, mais m om entanem ent” (La PhilosQphie dans le boudoir,
236). Although Sade claims th at a woman or any person is free and
cannot be possessed, he dim inishes to nothing the im portance of
individual integrity and personal choice. By claiming a natural right,
the woman is forced into submission. Only a certain type of woman,
one who refuses herself to no man, is really free according to Sade.
He posits in LaJTLilosophie dans_le boudoir:
Je dis done que les femmes, ayant regu des penchants bien plus
violents que nous aux plaisirs de la luxure, pou rro n t s’y livrer
tant q u ’elles le voudront, absolum ent degagees de tous les liens
de l’hymen, de tous les faux prejuges de la pudeur, absolum ent
rendues a l’etat de nature; je veux que les lois leur perm ettent
de se livrer a au tan t d ’hommes que bon leur semblera; je veux
que la jouissance de tous les sexes et de toutes les parties de
leur corps leur soit perm ise comme aux hommes; et, sous la
clause speciale de se livrer de meme a tous ceux qui le
desireront, il faut q u ’elles aient la liberte de jouir egalem ent de
118
tous ceux q u ’elles croiront dignes de les satisfaire. (240)

A woman, then, is not “free” herself, but only “free” to the men who
would w ant her. As Dworkin rem arks, “For Sade, libertinage was the
cruel use of others for one’s own sexual pleasure. Sade’s libertinage
dem anded slavery; sexual despotism m isnam ed ‘freedom ’ is Sade’s
most enduring legacy.”47 This is a much m ore accurate appraisal of
Sadean lib ertin ism th a n to c h arac terize it as lib e ratin g and
empowering for women. Sexual license does not mean total sexual
freedom, then, for the woman since she is only free to serve the men
to whom she m ust submit.
In comparison to oth er philosophers of the eighteenth century,
Sade is less progressive. La Mettrie, for example, showed insight in
his writings where he praised women, and sought to heighten both
male and female sexual pleasure through b etter understanding of
both the physical and psychological effects. Sade, on the other hand
denied the possibility of equality in sexual pleasure. Inequality is, in
fact, the basis of his eroticism.
In the Sadean system, the libertines are the powerful ones.
They are m ostly m en, bu t include Sade’s m ost fam ous fem ale
libertine, Juliette, and the young initiate Eugenie in L aJM losophie
dans_le._boudoir. They appear to be free and to be em pow ered by
th eir libertinism . This m ay be tru e, bu t they are not free and
powerful as women. Both Juliette and Eugenie, as exam ples of
Sadean female libertines, are not represented as women, but embody
m asculine values and mimic th e m ale libertines who are th e ir
119
models. Dworkin has observed the play of gender representation in

Sade’s work:
The so-called libertine re-creates herself in the image of the

cruelest (most powerful) m an she can find and in her alliance
with him takes on some of his power over others. The female
libertines in Sade’s work are always subordinate to their male
c o u n te rp arts, always d e p e n d e n t on them fo r w ealth and
continued good health. They have female anatom ies by fiat;
th a t is, Sade says so. In every o th e r re sp e c t—values,
behaviors, tastes, even in such a sym ptom atic d etail as
ejaculating sperm , which they all do~Sade’s libertine women
are men. They are, in fact, literary transvestites.48
The fem ale libertines use or are tau g h t to use sex as selfish,
aggressive terrorists. They learn the aggression th a t is always
associated with the male in pornography. Juliette accepts sexuality
as a terrorism th a t results in destruction, violence or near-death.49
Juliette, once a m other, kills h er daughter in her role as a libertine.
Embracing violence and death in the Sadean system signifies men
and women’s inhum anity. Birth in Sade’s fiction is seen as contrary
to the functioning of the erotic system.
The women who are valorized in Sade’s w ritings are sterile,
self-serving, non-m others. Aside from claiming that the naturalness
of nu d ity authorizes sexual license, Sade rejects th e influence of
n atu re and natural function by developing an eroticism of sterility.
Female sex organs and m aternal functions, if not destroyed, are
threatening to jouissance. The destruction of m others, of fetus, are
arousing for the libertines. Female genitalia are better if negated, or
hidden to resemble more closely male anatomy. Carter relates Sade’s
negative concept of m otherhood as a denial of Christian veneration
12 0
for the most sacred m other, the Virgin Mary. “The m other herself is
taken from her shrine, the holy family, and turned over to the world,
the public brothel, communalised, secularised, restored to a state of
natural or original im purity from which her wifehood and m othering
was falling a p a rt.”50 Sade refuses to accept fem ale sexuality in
relation to its reproductive function as do Diderot, d ’HoIbach and
Rousseau. Sade, in fact, reverts to an earlier concept that denies the
value of m aternity.
By far, the m ost famous despicable wife and m other of Sadean
fiction is Madame de Mistival in L a P h ilo so p h ie d a n s le boudoir.
Mme de Mistival is tortured, infected, raped and m utilated because
she in te rru p te d an orgy and objected to h er daughter, Eugenie’s
acceptance of a libertine lifestyle. Any woman, especially a m other,
is not perm itted to object to the pornographer’s new redefinition of
wom an’s sexuality as only valorized by licentious libertine behavior.
Mothers are despised, but they are also simply unnecessary in
Sade’s ideal republican state. The result of Sade’s proposed sexual
license for both men and women is m ore children. These children,
however, have no need for eith er m others or fathers. In Sade’s
Republic, the devaluation of individual m otherhood and fatherhood is
of little consequence: “q u ’im porte dans une republique ou tous les
individus ne doivent avoir d ’autre m ere que la patrie, ou tous ceux
qui naissent sont tous enfants de la patrie?” (La_Philasophie_dans.._le
boudoir, 240-41). The new parent-m other is the state, and men and
women have only to seek out their brand of Sadean sexual pleasure.
121
“La patrie” which, by definition, devalues the role of m otherhood and

n u rtu rin g is a dangerous form of patriarchy. The Republic as
portrayed in La Philosophie dans le boudoir is a m etaphor for Sade’s
pornographic patriarchal ideal. Regardless of the discourse th a t
prom otes sexual freedom, “la liberte de jouir egalem ent de tous,” the
woman is allowed freedom only in so far as she rem ains w ithin the
p atriarchal or pornographic system th a t lim its h er to giving and
seeking pleasure. Thus, Sade reverts to a pure yet destructive form
of hedonism. By limiting the wom an’s function, and punishing any
woman, such as Justine or Mme de Mistival, th at represent another
choice of female value or identity, the Sadean system reveals its
repressive constructs. Sade established a repressive patriarch al
system that denied personal choice in sexual m atters. He prom oted
libertinism as a behavior that would challenge Christian tradition and
free men and women from prejudices, but, in turn, the libertines
became enslaved within the system by being denied the possibility
to act otherwise.
In conclusion, the men of the eighteenth century who chose to
express their views on libertinism and female sexuality often came
to different or even com pletely opposing viewpoints. Philosophers
such as Voltaire an d LaMettrie, who were w riting earlier in the
e ig h teen th century, did estab lish th eo ries of m oral eroticism
regarding female sexuality th a t was no t bound to conjugality or
procreation. LaMettrie, in particular, proposed a liberation of female
sexual expression th at was based on im agination and instinct. He
122
reverted to a hedonism rooted in the pursuit of mutual, ra th e r than

selfish pleasures which would remove any of the shame traditionally
attached to sexuality. The necessity of m arriage or child bearing was
not an issue in the rehabilitation of morality in sexual relations.
On the oth er hand, philosophers writing later in the century,
such as d ’Holbach, Diderot and Rousseau, were more concerned with
a wom an’s utilitarian and natural function. M otherhood was exalted
as never before as the most moral and natural expression of female
sexuality. In addition, Rousseau contributed to the rehabilitation of
the role of wife as p a rt of a woman’s natural and moral obligation in
society. He also resto red the necessity of female m odesty to the
p ro p er functioning of sexual relations. His views clash with previous
p ro p o sitio n s th a t p ro m o ted a lib eratio n from the tra d itio n a l
exigencies of strict propriety in the pursuit of pleasure. The realm of
w hat constitutes m oral expressions of female sexuality was once
again limited to conjugality and procreation. Committing adultery or
any sexual act w ithout a com m itm ent of m arriage was criminal, and
destined to upset the moral integrity of society. Libertinism, for
Rousseau, therefore, was a violation of not only moral law, but also
social order.
In contrast to any of the aforem entioned eighteenth-century
philosophers, the Marquis de Sade is an aberration. The society he
envisioned was based on a totally different sense of order and moral
law. Libertinism m eant prostitu tio n , adultery, incest, rap e and
sodom y, b u t these “crim es m oraux” were the very basis for the
123
d escription of his society and Sadean eroticism . R ather th an

condem ning the libertines, Sade valorized them . Sadean libertinism
was the new o rd er in w hat Sade term ed a Republican state. By
praising libertinism , Sade also gave worth to the non-m aternal. The
women who would be considered v irtu o u s outside the Sadean
epistem ological system , chaste young girls, faithful wives, and
mothers, are all ridiculed as being repressed.
In the above exam ples of views o f women in the eighteenth
century, the discourses are m ale-authored from a male perspective.
Women are defined by function and valorized as m others, as wives
o r as sterile pleasure-seekers. Although there were tendencies in
the ways in which libertinism and female sexuality were regarded,
th ere was c ertain ly n o t a consensus of opinion. The m oral
philosophers who took an interest in the representation and social
role of women were all to puzzle over the “m ystery sex” w ithout
having a perspective as a woman who would be directly im plicated
in the discourse.
Libertinism,JLaw„and_S_o.ciety
The French eighteenth century may be called the libertine age
because of the abundant literature glorifying licentious behavior, but
the actual status of libertinism in French culture is m ore difficult to
d e term in e. C ertainly, we w itness an epistem ological sexual
re v o lu tio n in th e E nlightenm ent th a t is ev id en ced by new
perspectives on sex and sexuality in medical and philosophic circles.
124
Sex became an object of study as it had never been before. The

question rem ains, however, w hether post-Revolutionary French laws
in regard to the sexual revolution reflected the motto of the Republic
«Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite». To be sure, law, in a purely democratic
system, is an indicator of society’s reactions or responses to certain
perceived problems. As Diderot implies in Le.SupplemenLaiLvoyage
de.„ Bougainville, all T ahitians are in ag reem ent with the laws
governing the use of veils and w hat constituted a punishable act of
libertinism. If no law is created to forbid the action, then the action
is not perceived as a crime, and therefore no crime exists.
In France, however, the situation regarding the “readability” of
universal social acceptance through laws is not analogous. In pre-
Revolutionary France, the laws which governed French society were
established by the m onarchy by virtue of the divine right of kings.
Laws, especially those concerning morality, were thus closely tied to
the doctrine of the Catholic church. No king had officially challenged
the a u th o rity of the church regarding its position on m arriage,
adultery, divorce, pre-m arital sex, or lesbianism and homosexuality.
W ith th e R evolution, cam e th e d ism an tlin g o f France’s
m onarchy and its power to create laws. Over the course of the
rev o lu tionary period, m any governing bodies ruled France, and
established or abolished its laws. Thus, the period from 1789 to the
first Empire before the creation of the Napoleonic code, was, from a
legal standpoint, an uncertain period which allowed for some changes
to be initiated not only concerning economic or political issues, but
125
also moral ones.

In 1792, the most im portant law to be m odified was the one
which legalized divorce. The permission to divorce in France lasted
only a few years, but allowed m any women to escape unhealthy
relationships. Assuredly, Suzanne Giroux-Quinquet was among those
women who petitio n ed the Assembly th a t year. Legislation on
divorce coincided with changes in attitu d e tow ard m arriage. The
co n stitution of S eptem ber 1791 recognized m arriage as a civil
contract, and thus perm itted as a logical progression from this, a legal
right to break th at contract. In addition, discourses on the right to
divorce reflected the com m on p reo ccu p atio n s w ith individual
freedom s and the right to happiness. In fact, Albert Hennet argues
in Dai divorce, th at appeared in 1789, th at divorce would fulfill the
dem ands of n atu re by perm itting sterile o r unhappy couples the
freedom to escape. Divorce, according to Hennet, would stim ulate
reproduction, and prom ote happiness if a couple could rem arry for
love. Hennet rem arks: “Donner le b o n h eu r a q u atre epoux, et
l’existence a plusieurs enfants, ce n ’est pas offenser, c’est servir la
n a tu re .”51 The legislation a p p eared to be p artially instigated
following the reasoning of Hennet.
Legislation, which is often called “legislation interm ediaire”,
was passed in Septem ber 1792 that perm itted three types of divorce.
Couples could break the contract of m arriage by 1) m utual consent,
o r fo r reason s of 2) in co m p atib ility of tem p era m en t, o r 3)
d eterm ined causes. The latter, which was decided by a family
126
tribunal, dem anded that fault or injury must have taken place during
the m arriage. Legitimate reasons for divorce u n d er this case were
specified as the following: “la dem ence, la folie ou la fureur; la
condam nation a des peines afflictives ou infam antes; les crimes,
sevices ou injures graves; le dereglem ent des moeurs; l’abandon;
l’absence sans nouvelles pendant au moins cinq ans; l’em igration.”52
Thus, the principle perm issible reasons for divorce were insanity,
crim inal b ehavior and ab andonm ent. Moral dissoluteness (“le
dereglem ent des moeurs”) is the m ost ambiguous term of the above.
In o th er words, we can infer th at licentious acts, including adultery,
were legal grounds to petition for divorce. In the revised law of
March 1803, perm issible grounds for divorce were limited to claims
o f cruelty, injury, im prisonm ent or adultery.53
In the Ancien Regime, laws concerning ad u ltery had been
w eighted in favor of men. Both m en and women who com m itted
ad u ltery were sinning in the eyes of the church, but in the eyes of
the law, only the wom an’s crime was punishable. It was legal for a
husband to punish his unfaithful wife by having h er sent away for
two years or even sometimes perm anently. The wife, on the other
hand, had no recourse to legal action.
During the course of the eighteenth century, France’s adultery
laws were criticized. Mme de Graffigny, for exam ple, strongly
criticized the inequities in m arriage and especially the double
stan d ard allowed to excuse m en of infidelity. The main character,
Zilia, observes in Lettres d ’une Pem vienne, th a t a husband “est
127
autorise a p u n ir rigoureusem ent l’apparence d ’une legere infidelite

en se livrant sans honte a toutes celles que le libertinage lui suggere.
Enfin, (...) il sem ble q u ’en France les liens du m ariage ne soient
reciproques q u ’au m om ent de la celebration, et que dans la suite les
femmes seules y doivent etre assujetties.”54 Regardless of the harsh
criticism s, inequities rem ained still in 1791 as “Article XIII” of the
new police code let stand the hu sb an d ’s right to im prison his wife,
an d the denial of a w om an’s rig h t to bring action against an
unfaithful husband. In 1792, the new divorce law rendered adultery
law reform slightly less im perative, as both men and women were
now able to seek divorce for several reasons, as noted above.
In May 1816, however, all claims for divorce were m ade illegal,
a n d French law rev e rted to the Ancien Regime convention of
sep aratio n . W hile defending th e rig h t to divorce d u rin g the
Revolution, H ennet noted in p a rticu la r the unjust convention of
separation in lieu of divorce, and its unnatural effect of restraint on
women. Concerning separation, Hennet claims th at “les lois en tren t
ouvertem ent en opposition avec les m oeurs(...) elles d o n n en t a la
femme une liberte d ont il lui est difficile d ’user sans en abuser; elles
lui donnent toutes les facilites de gouter les plaisirs de l’am our, sans
lui laisser un seul m oyen de les gouter honnetem ent.”55 H ennet’s
rem arks reflect an acknow ledgem ent of society’s (or even of the
a u th o r’s own) a ttitu d e tow ard a w om an’s free expression of her
sexuality. W hat is im plicit in H ennet’s discourse is a belief th at
sensuality and the pleasures of love are natural and moral; it is the
128
laws (i.e., society) th at prohibit the free expression of love w ithout

associating it with guilt or crime.
Divorce legislation and adultery laws reflect the attitu d es of
French society tow ards libertinism defined as extra-m arital sexual
license. The laws indicate, as well, underlying assum ptions about
w om en’s sexuality and gender equity. The divorce legislation in
effect from 1792 to 1816 adds the complicated status of the behavior
of a divorced man or woman to the equation. As a man who commits
adultery is treated m ore leniently than a woman, so is a divorced
m an who behaves licentiously. The main difference in regard to
m en’s and women’s divorce relates to the theoretical foundations for
the law. The proponents of divorce argued th at being able to break
an unprofitable bond of marriage, one th at yielded neither happiness
n o r children would encourage the woman to seek a more suitable
partner. Thus, a divorced woman was expected to rem arry and have
m ore children if possible. If she chose not to rem arry, she was in a
m ore tenuous position regarding public opinion. The most serious
problem facing n o n -m arried women at the tim e was a lack of
financial independence. Monetary instability often lead to suspicions
o f libertine behavior since becom ing “kept-w om en” or courtesans
may be the only recourse. The man, economically secure, does not
face the sam e problem s as the non-m arried woman. A m an ’s
divorced status, because it does not have the same implications as a
w om an’s, is not considered as scandalous. In other words, a woman
is m ore harshly judged as a libertine if she participates at any time
129
in sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. Through m arriage

or re-m arriage and by rem aining faithful to her husband, the woman
can escape the negative label of libertine.
Suzanne de Morency, Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse and Sophie
Cottin each reacted in some way to the status of women in society
during the turbulent time of the Revolution. They entered into the
discussion regarding the value of marriage, m otherhood, divorce, and
even lesbianism . They did so not in pam phlets o r philosophical
treatises, but in fictional or semi-fictional discourse in which they
approached libertinism as a behavioral reality th at can have serious
im plications. Each of these women acknowledge the inequity in
a ttitu d e s regarding libertine behavior of m en and wom en, and
explore the effects and consequences of it especially in relation to
and through the eyes of the heroine of th eir novels. Although each
narrative reflects reactions to the realities of law and public opinion,
the perceived implications or possible solutions to the consequences
of libertine behavior differ greatly among their works. We shall now
examine the specific ethical stances regarding libertinism reflected in
each of their erotic-libertine texts.
130
Notes
ISee, for example, Jean-Jacques Pauvert, Anthologie historique des

lectures _ero_tiques de Sade _a Eallieres (Paris: Garnier, 1982) xxv, or
Claude Reichler, L’ageJibertin (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1987).
^For details on Epicurus’ atomic theory, see Howard Jones, The

Epicurean_Tradilion, A.A.. Long and D. N. Sedley, TheHellenistic
PhiLosophers, or Genevieve Rodis-Lewis, Epicure__et_sorL_ecoLe.
^Richard W. Hibler, Happiness Through Tranquillity: The School of

Epicurus (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984) 8-9.
“Âristippus lived from 435 to 355 B. C., and Epicurus lived from 341
to 270 B. C.
^Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (London and New York:

Routledge, 1989) 49.
^Hibler, 37.
7William S. Sahakian, Hislory_oLPliiLQSQphy (New York: Barnes and

Noble Books, 1968) 42.
^Sahakian, 43.
9jones, 50.
lOEugene O’Connor, trans., Th e Essential Epicurus: Letters .Principal

Doctrines, Vatican Sayings, and Fragments (Buffalo: Prometheus
Books, 1993) 73, 82, 85.
11 Hibler, 14-15.
l^Genevieve Rodis-Lewis, Epicurejet_son_ecole (Paris: Gallimard,

1975) 191.
13Reichler, 8.
131
1 4 jh e history of the word “libertine” is in J.S. Spink, La_Libre_p.ens.ee

fran g a ised e G a ssen d iaV o lta ire (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1966) 13-
14 and in Rosy Pinhas-Delpuech, “De l’affranchi au libertin, les
avatars d ’un mot,” Eros Philosophe, ed. Francois Moureau and Alain-
Marc Rieu (Geneva and Paris: Slatkine, 1984) 11-20.
Incited in Pinhas-Delpuech, 14.
!6Spink, 14.
l^Richard W. F. Kroll, The Material World: Literate Culture in the

Restoration and Early Eighteenth. Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1991) 135.
18Spink, 124.
l^Spink, 123.
20see Spink, 159-199 for specifics on the Epicurean aspects of these

w riters works.
21Spink, 159.
22Spink, 199.
23peter Nagy, Libertinage et Revolution trans. Christiane Gremillon

(Paris: Gallimard, 1975) 25.
24Denis Diderot and Jean d ’Alembert, eds., Encyclopedic, ou

Dictionnaire.raisonne des_sciences, des .arts__et_des metiers, 3rd ed.,
vol. 9 (Livourne, 1772) 431.
25Aram Vartanian, “La Mettrie, Diderot, and Sexology in the

Enlightenment,” Essays on the Age.of Enlightenment in Honor of lra
0._Wade, ed. Jean Macary (Geneva: Droz, 1977) 348-50.
26Foucault, 23-4.
132
27Thomas W. Laqueur, Making Sex, Body and Gender From the

Greeks to. Freud (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990) 157.
28Laqueur, 154.
29sPink, 374.
50Frangois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, Traite_de_ m etaphysique, ed. H.

Temple Patterson (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1937) 52.
Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
31vartanian, “LaMettrie, Diderot, and Sexology,” 354.
32john Falvey, “Women and Sexuality in the Thought of LaMettrie,”

Woman and_Society in. Eighteenth-Century Eranee, eds. Eva Jacobs, W.
H. Barber, Jean H. Bloch, F. W. Leakey and Eileen Le Breton (London:
Athlone Press, 1979) 66.
clandestine aux XVIIIe siecle (Paris: Gallimard, 1991) 219-233.

(Annexe I and II)
34paul Henri Thiry baron d ’Holbach, Svsteme de la nature, ou des

lois du monde physique et du monde m oral (“Reprografischer
Nachdruck des Ausgabe Paris 1821” Hildesheim, G. Olms, 1966)
449-50. Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
35Nagy, 38.
36paul Henri Thiry baron d ’Holbach, La m orale universelle (N. p.,

1820) 250-51, cited in Lester G. Crocker, Nature_and__CultureL _Ethical
Thought in the French Enlightenment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1963) 362.
37Denis Diderot, Supplem enLau voyage de Bougainville in Le Neveu

de Eameau, Satires, Contes et En tretiens Ed. Jacques and Anne-Marie
Chouillet (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1984) 293. Subsequent references
will be noted in the text.
133
^ C a th e rin e Fouquet and Yvonne Knibiehler, La.Jfemme_el.les

m ededns:_.analyseJiistorique (Paris: Hachette, 1983) 104.
39yeselotte Steinbriigge, Das moralische Geschlecht: Theorien und

lite ra ris c h e E n tw u rfe u b e rd ie N a tu rd e rF ra u in d e rfra n z o s is c h e n
Aufklarung (Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag, 1987) 65.
40oavid Brewer, “Diderot and the Image of the Other (Woman),”

L’E spritJireateur 24.1 (Spring 1984): 61-2.
41 Denis Diderot, “Sur les femmes”, Oeuvres completes de Diderot, ed.

Jules Assezat (Paris, 1875) 258.
42Elisabeth de Fontenay, Diderot: Reason and Resonance, trans.

Jeffrey Mehlman (New York: George Braziller, 1982) 81.
43jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, ed. Y. M. Allioux (Paris: Larousse,

1972) 37. Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
44joel Schwartz, The Sexual Politics of Jean-Jacques Rousseau

(Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1984) 37.
45 d . A. F. de Sade, LaPhilQSophie.dans.le.boudair (Paris: Jean-

Jacques Pauvert, 1968) 230. Subsequent references will be noted in
the text.
46Angela Carter, T h eS ad ean W o m aiL an d th eld eQ lo g y o f

Pornography. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978) 36.
47Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women (New

York: Perigree, 1981) 92.
4 8 Dworkin, 95.
4 9 carter, 105.
SOCarter, 76.
134
51 Michele Dayras, ed., Liberte,. egalite...et les femmes?, vol. 1 (Paris:

Editions du Libre Arbitre, 1990) 54.
52Dayras, 58.
53Antony Copley, SexualMoraliti£sJn_Erance,„.L780JL98_0 (London,

New York: Routledge, 1989) 23.
54Fran?oise de Graffigny, Lettres d ’une Peruvienne (New York:

Modern Language Association of America, 1993) 144.
55Dayras, 52.
Chapter 5
HEROINE INITIATION AND ETHICAL STANCES IN WOMEN’S

LIBERTINE FICTION
As a genre, the novel has played an im p o rtan t role in the

diffusion of moral values. It functions as a means to correct or to
co rru p t the behavior of targeted readers. Three well-known figures
of the late eighteenth century, Rousseau, Laclos and Sade, have
attested to the positive o r negative role of the novel in relation to
re a d e r age and gender. T heir observations ab o u t the ethical
im portance of the novel, and specifically the libertine novel, will help
to contextualize the ethical stances in the fiction of Morency, Cottin
and Choiseul-Meuse.
R e c e iv e rG e n d era n d ln ten d e d M e ssag e

Since the works by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse do not
include prefaces in which the a u th o rs express a t length th e ir
particular views on the function of the novel and the appropriate age
o r g en d er of readers, we m ust decode th e ir in te n d ed message
encrypted in the narratives. An exam ination of their texts, including
title pages, will show how they perceive the genre of the novel as an
epistemological vehicle, the function of the female characters therein,
and the characteristics of their prototypical audience. The libertine-
erotic texts by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse reflect paradigms
136
established in the essays by Rousseau, Laclos and Sade concerning

the function and nature of the novel as well as its possible effects on
female youth.
It is clear that the n a rra to r of Morency’s Illyrine ou i’erueil de
in e x p e rie n c e , Suzanne, writes the passages describing her initiation
into a life of libertinism with pedagogical intent. As is commonplace
in fictional autobiography, libertine texts as well as m ost wom en’s
literature, the m otivation for her writing is to plaire and instruire.
As announced in the title “l’ecueil de 1’inexperience,” the fictional
heroine wants to show the pitfalls of inexperience which occurred
while she was a young innocent girl before she em braced h er
libertine lifestyle. While writing as an older experienced woman in
h er thirties, Suzanne praises the benefits of libertinism which may
be considered p a rt of the propaganda comm on to m any libertine
texts. Illyrine appears to favor the notion th at a novel should be a
vehicle for the education of its readers, and specifically young girls.
In a letter to h er friend Lise th at serves as a preface to her memoirs
w ithin the narrative, Suzanne announces her principle reason for
writing: “Je vais vous tracer les evenem ents agreables et cruels de
mon existence; je desire q u ’un jour, s’il est possible, ma fille unique
profite de l’experience que j ’ai payee si cher. Puisse-t-elle lui etre
utile, et je ne me plaindrai plus du sort!”1 She thus identifies herself
from the beginning as a m other concerned for her daughter, Clarisse.
C onsidering the im portance placed on m otherhood by the late
eighteenth century, Suzanne is projecting a positive self image while
137
articulating her utilitarian goal.

The principle interlocutor of the memoirs is her friend Lise, but
she also addresses others with whom she would like to resum e
contact. Her reasons for writing are in fact threefold: 1) to instruct
h er estranged daughter, 2) to regain contact with those who knew
her in the past, and 3) to communicate with her friend Lise about her
p resen t activities and lovers. Thus, in Illyrine, we observe the
cu rre n t of thought about the function of the novel as utilitarian.
From the announcem ent th at the m em oirs are w ritten to in stru ct
Suzanne’s d a u g h te r Clarisse, we may infer th a t the n a rra to r is
accepting the role of m other-educator for her daughter as well as for
all young girls.
We note a sim ilar opinion expressed in the preface to Les
iiaisons_dangereus.es that through the representation of a young girl’s
initiation into libertinism , the innocent one who comes to read the
text will be duly forew arned and educated. The novel m ust be
edifying. In the “Preface du Redacteur” of Les Liaisons d a n gereuses,
a sim ilar defense of the usefulness of novels is prescribed, but is less
harsh regarding their dangerous nature. The au th o r of the preface
writes: “II me sem ble au moins que c’est ren d re un service aux
moeurs, que de devoiler les moyens q u ’em ploient ceux qui en ont de
mauvaises pour corrom pre ceux qui en ont de bonnes, et je crois que
ces lettres pourront concourir efficacement a ce but.”2 The prem ise
is th a t by presenting the reality of corruption, m orality may be
restored. R epresentations of vice, then, serve as warnings to the
138
reader. The target audience for the work are women and m others of
girls in particular, bu t also young people. Two “tru th s” are brought
to light in the preface th at relate to the lessons th at the female
characters of the novel present, and what the female reader should
gain from the text. The intended moral of the story is divided among
gender lines, and targets women to warn them about the evils of
certain men whose goal it is to victimize them. The overt purpose of
the novel, then, is to p ro tect and to edify specifically women.
Regardless of pedagogical intent, the a u th o r of the preface still
refrains from suggesting th at the work be read by young people.
According to the author, a very fine line still exists between the
useful and the dangerous, which explains his cautionary tone. In
addition, the strength of the argum ent in the “Preface du Redacteur”
is problem atized by claims in the “Avertissem ent de l’Editeur” that
l£ ^ ia iso n s_ _ d a n g .e re itse s is no t u tilita ria n because the vices
p o rtray ed in the w ork are foreign to eig h teenth-century French
society.3 Libertinism, however, was certainly a behavioral reality
and did pose a th reat to a wom an’s loss of reputation during the era.
Despite the doubts th at may be raised concerning the sincerity of
both Morency’s and Laclos’ instructional aims, the fact rem ains that
both authors underscore the im portance of gender and the need to
protect innocent women from potentially seductive men.
In C ottin’s Claire_d!Albe, the target audience of the novel’s
moral is also the daughter of the principle character. As in Illyrine,
the joys and pains of life and libertine initiation are presented so as
1 39
to educate the young female re a d e r who should learn from the

experiences of her counterpart in the novel. The education of Claire’s
daughter, Laure, is singled out as the reason for which Claire’s friend
Elise retells the final events of the novel. Since Claire’s initiation into
a libertine act, her downfall and subsequent death are the crux of the
novel’s moral, it is significant th a t the events are retold for the
d a u g h te r’s benefit. Elise’s discourse an d the reasons for it are
announced following the last of Claire’s letters. The textual note
reads:
Ici finissent les lettres de Claire; le reste est un recit ecrit de la

main d ’Elise. Sans doute elle en aura recueilli les principaux
traits de la bouche de son amie, et elle les au ra confies au
papier, pour que la jeune Laure, en les lisant un jour, put se
preserver des passions d o n t sa deplorable m ere avait ete la
victim e.4
Claire’s demise is retold to instruct and to w arn Laure. Laure, who
represents all young girls or all readers, m ust come to u nderstand
the pow er of the passions by first knowing th e effects of the
passions. As Laure’s m other, Claire is fulfilling h e r obligations
regarding her daughter’s social and sentim ental education.
In the three censored novels by Choiseul-Meuse, on the oth er
h an d , young girls do n o t a p p e a r to be overtly ta rg e te d as
in ap p ro p riate readers. Choiseul-M euse adopts, however, certain
presentational practices th at Rousseau recom mends in the preface to
Julie ou la nouvelle Heloi'se to warn the young read er of a novel’s
contents. Rousseau’s p refatory rem arks to Julie_jQU_Ja_n.Quy.elIe
Heloise place the accent on the m oral value of the work, and its
140
possible effects on readers, both male and female. The purpose of

reflecting and correcting contem porary morals is clear from the first
lines of the preface: “II faut des spectacles dans les grandes villes, et
des rom ans aux peuples corrom pus. J’ai vu les moeurs de mon temps,
et j ’ai publie ces lettres.”5 Rousseau’s reader is corrupt and m ust be
redeem ed. Novels, then, should correct ab erran t moral values, but
should not be read by everyone. A novel can be useful to help a
woman regain v irtu o u s ways. Yet Rousseau m akes a distinction
reg ard ing th e a p p ro p ria te n ess of novels for m ature wom en as
opposed to young girls. For young girls who have not yet been
corrupted by society, however, reading novels has deleterious effects
and leads to moral turpitude. Because of the in h eren t danger for
young girls, Rousseau supports the practice of choosing titles that
sufficiently warn the reader of the content: “Jamais fille chaste n’a lu
de rom ans, et j ’ai mis a celui-ci un titre assez decide p o u r q u ’en
Touvrant on sut a quoi s’en ten ir” (Julie ou la nouvelle Heloise, 4).
Only young girls who have already been co rru p ted read novels:
“Celle qui, m algre ce titre, en osera lire une seule page est une fille
perdue; mais q u ’elle n ’im pute point sa perte a ce livre, le mal etait
fait d ’avance” (4). Thus, the novel can only function as a m eans of
redem ption for older women. Rousseau does not make a sim ilar
distinction concerning the effects for men and boys reading novels,
only that one should not read the work cover to cover if it is found at
the beginning to be offensive.
The influence of the Rousseauist paradigm is evident in the
141
title pages of Choiseul-Meuse’s Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose and Amelie

de Saint-Far. Both texts advise th e re a d e r of th e ir m orally
questionable content. Jnlie_ou_jIaL_s.au.Ye__ma._ms_e., contains the
prefatory warning that: “La m ere en defendra la lecture a sa fille”
which indicates a belief th a t a young girl’s education should be
conducted by h er m other and free of corrupting influences such as
erotic-libertine novels. Thus, m ature women are the intended target
of the moral message of Choiseul-Meuse’s Julie. The advisory on the
title page of editions of Amelie de Saint-Far, “Pour me lire, cachez-
vous bien,” also reflects Rousseau’s idea th at readers should be made
aware of a novel’s contents. The epigraph indicates th at the novel is
licentious, one that should be read in private, but makes no reference
to read er gender. It acknowledges the potential danger of reading
erotic works w hether they may effect im pressionable young girls or
any reader.
Nevertheless, the attitude th at forbids a young girl from being
exposed to libertine fiction is criticized in Entre Chien et Loup. The
young girl in the castle, Mile Herminie, is banned from listening to
the rem iniscences of the older women, yet she is the one who is
creating her own rom antic adventure during the narratives. Each
story exchanged by th e acquaintances a t the castle is a discrete
libertine narrative. If we consider each tale told during a soiree as a
short story or abbreviated novel, then Mile Herm inie’s isolation in
her room corresponds to the denial of novel reading. In relation to
the novel’s function as exemplar, the practice of isolating young girls
142
from the knowledge of vice (i.e. prohibiting novels) is erroneous, or

even contributes to the corruption of morals out of ignorance. Thus,
despite the warning on the title page of Julie ou f’ai sauve ma rose, it
appears th at according to the meaning gleaned from the denouem ent
of Emre_CMen_ei_Lojup, young girls can be exposed to libertine novels.
Ignorance and corruption result from bad education which denies
young girls access to understanding the workings of both virtue and
vice.
Even the Marquis de Sade takes a sim ilar stance on the ethical
value of novels in his essay “L’idee su r les rom ans.” Although the
sincerity of the essay rem ains suspect because of the concluding
rem arks in which Sade denies authorship of Justine, the com m entary
on the history of the didactic function of the novel is an im portant
p a rt of the dialogue on the subject. Sade credits the influence of the
works of Richardson and Fielding that paint the many facets of vice
for the am elioration of the late eighteenth-century French novel.
The novel, according to Sade, has the power to edify its readers only
if the a u th o r has presen ted vice in its m ost realistic form. He
com m ents th at the a u th o r should study the depths of the hum an
heart, and show man, “non pas seulem ent ce q u ’il est, ou ce q u ’il se
m ontre, c’est le devoir de l’historien, mais tel q u ’il peut etre, tel que
doivent le ren d re les m odifications du vice, et toutes les secousses
des passions; il faut done les connaitre toutes, il faut done les
em ployer toutes, si Ton veut travailler ce genre.”6
Although Sade here is calling for representational realism in
143
the expression of the d ark e r sides of the hum an character, his

comments do have significance in relation to the libertine novel. The
realistic portrayal of eroticism is an identifying characteristic of the
genre. Sade has m ade the case th at explicit representations of vice
or powerful em otions are in them selves ethical, because they are
edifying. Thus, the response to the question posed in the essay “A
quoi servent les rom ans?” is th at they serve a utilitarian function.
Sade prom otes the idea th a t novels are useful as vivid portraits of
secular morals, yet does not, as did Rousseau and Laclos, establish
age and gender criteria for appropriate readers.
Thus, in th eir theoretical writings, Rousseau, Laclos and Sade
observe the function of the novel as a vehicle for the correction of or
com m entary on contem porary m orals. Regarding the appropriate
target audience for novels, authors espouse one of two currents of
thought at the time. An au th o r such as Rousseau warns against
perm itting young girls to read such fictional accounts th a t may
corrupt their innocence. According to Rousseau, a novel can only be
useful to those, particularly m ature women, who have already been
corrupted. Laclos and Sade, on the o th e r hand, approve of the
novel’s ability to po rtray a fairly accurate account of the state of
m orality in society, and thus instruct or warn readers. Sade makes
no distinction as to the age or gender of the readers for which novels
may be m ore useful. Despite differing views of the n a tu re and
function of the novel, Laclos and Rousseau both express reservations
about the novel’s value for young girls.
144
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse oppose isolation of the

young girl as a way to preserve virtue. Exposure to the ways of the
world, and specifically the ways of libertinism, is viewed as a means
to strengthen girls through knowledge. Representations of vice are
useful for future choices th at the young rea d er m ay encounter.
Writing specifically for the edification of girls signifies an acceptance
of the wom an’s role as a m other who should be responsible for her
dau g h ter’s education. Remaining within the conventions of women’s
writing, Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse accept the prem ise that
novels should contain a moral message, and that women writers have
an obligation to propose moral guidelines.
Character.G ender_andthe.M oraLMessage

In libertine novels, the illustration of a hero or h e ro in e’s
in itiation into a libertine life-style is undeniably linked to the
diffusion of “Enlightened thinking”.7 Each text proposes a m oral
intended to “enlighten” its readers. The figure of the young girl is
often the key to the moral significance of a work. The im portance of
the young girl in a libertine text is due to the fact th at she is the
central character who goes through the process of initiation. The
experiences of the young girl, and the attitudes that are revealed by
the woman reflecting on her own past experiences are the key. The
moral stance of the text may be discovered by looking at the process
and outcome of the initiation.
Claude Reichler in his work L!ageJihertin has expanded upon
145
the notion of education within a libertine text, and has developed a

working model th a t delineates the textual stru ctu res of libertine
initiation.8 Reichler’s model provides a m eans to com pare male and
female libertine texts regarding the rules of represented libertinage,
and a point of departure for the analysis of ethical stances.
In itia tio n ^ a rra tiv e sJn L ib e rtin e T e x ts:.T h e M a le M o d e l

The structural param eters governing the identification of a
libertine narrative that have been established by Reichler perm it us
to d ifferentiate a libertine n arrative from an erotic n arrative by
judging if a text meets the formal, them atic and historic criteria that
have been presented. Reichler notes three key m om ents th at occur
as a narrative topos in a libertine text, and specifically a “recit
d ’initiation”. The hero or heroine experiences: 1. idealization, 2.
m astery and disillusionm ent, an d 3. p u rsu it of an inaccessible
object.9 The n arrative p resents an initiation into the w orld of
pleasure which is the world of libertinism . Reichler explains the
defining factor com m on to any libertine n arrativ e of initiation:
“Mobile et diversifie a l’in terieu r d ’un scenario im m uable, le recit
libertin d ’initiation m et en scene, dans le role du m aitre comme dans
celui de l’eleve, des personnages m ultiples, mais toujours lies p ar la
transm ission d ’une connaissance et l’apprentissage d ’un plaisir.”10
The libertine text represents a character or several characters
being initiated into the world of libertinism in the three step process
th at Reichler likens to a kind of rebirth, or secular genesis th at places
146
before the initiate a new “Arbre de la Connaissance”. Initiation is

associated with m astery of the newly experienced world wherein the
initiate will become m aster of the sexes, of usage and of discourse.11
Mastery is perhaps the single m ost im portant notion in regards to
the ethical significance of libertine texts. The nature of the codes
relating to the sexes, usage and discourse th at the initiate m asters
indicate a particular libertine world view th at m ust be explored.
Gender difference is an im portant factor th at comes into play in
the in terpretation of libertine narratives of initiation. Considering
the traditional status of women th at places them at the m argins or
hinders the possibility of m astery of sexual, societal or discursive
codes, a text which allows for a fem ale c h aracter to gain such
m astery would be significant. If this were the case, it would signify
a subversion of the phallocratic economy, as Irigaray defines it, that
would normally not perm it or facilitate mastery. Obtaining a level of
m astery for a male ch aracter would not be as extraordinary, and
w ould confirm th a t the libertine econom y is a function of the
phallocratic economy although one system of knowledge (“Arbre de
la Connaissance”) is exchanged for another.
Reichler’s analysis of Crebillon fils’ Les Egarements du coeur et
de_T_esprLt (1736), the archetypal m ale-authored libertine text, will
be a point of d ep artu re th at will be used as a basis of com parison
w ith the works of Morency, C ottin and Choiseul-M euse. L ei
Egarem ents is p resented as a m em oir novel n a rra ted by a male
protagonist, M. de Meilcour. It follows the scenario of initiation
147
including the three moments that define the text as a libertine novel.
M eilcour a t first idealizes the o ld er m ore experienced Mme de
Lursay, then tries to pursue the inaccessible object who is the young
H ortense de Theville, and also suffers disillusionm ent when he
begins to suspect the purity of the woman he idolized.
The women who are the objects of the hero’s idealization and
th en d isillu sio n m en t rem ain as stereo ty p ical, one-dim ensional
images. They are represented as either the extreme of goodness or
the extreme of evil. During the m om ent of idealization for the hero,
the wom an becom es the ideal th a t rev erts to the m edieval or
p asto ral tra d itio n of the re p re se n ta tio n of women as d istan t,
untouchable and as virtuous as the Virgin Mary. Women at this
stage are associated with innocence and the forbidden.12
The philosophic m om ent of initiation occurs at the point when
the illusion of the innocence of the idolized woman is broken. The
initiate is no longer a p a rt of the world of prejudice, b u t th at of
nature: “Le m om ent de la disillusion...fait passer le d e b u ta n t du
prejuge a la n a tu re .” 13 In o th er words, the virtue of women is
simply an illusion in the m ale-defined world of the libertine text.
Once the illusion of a common goodness among women is broken, the
hero is properly initiated and arrives at the understanding th at any
ideal does not exist. The realization of a lack of illusion and ideals is
also the m om ent of m astery for the initiate. Initiation is m astery,
and the image of woman appears to be key to th at m om ent for the
hero. In fact, the object (woman) is exactly the opposite of her ideal
148
image. The initiate can no longer believe in the ideal woman,

“Peternel fem inin”, the innocent virgin, but m ust accept in her place
w hat is seen as the natural woman, symbolized by vanity and moral
co rru p tio n . In e ith e r case, the rep resen tatio n of the woman is
negative because it objectifies and relegates h er to a different
stereotype.
Rustin notes th a t despite the appearances th a t women are
often given positions of power in libertine texts, their real function
rem ains limited to the giving of pleasure.
Si la courtisane des rom ans est parfois evoquee, comme la

petite-m aitresse, dans le cadre de la fantasm agorie du plaisir, il
arrive bien plus souvent q u ’elle soit recuperee, de toutes les
fagons, au profit d ’un ordre qui assure a peu de frais la bonne
conscience des «libertins»: c’est a dire, en fait, de toute une
societe androcentrique, obsedee par sa dom ination precaire sur
l’insaisissable «femme-objet», et qui la convertit aux m oindres
risques, sous les especes dociles de la fille du peuple, en
fem m e-m archandise.14
In lib ertine texts th a t com prise the “m asculine” or androcentric
model, the woman does not break free of the designation of woman-
object-m erchandise.
The experience is negative as well for the initiate who, by
gaining social m astery, has suffered a loss on an individual level.
The initiate loses the aspect of his imaginary and the essence of the
ideal (“idealite”). Reichler explains the process:
il perd le contact avec l’idealite qui figurait l’origine de son

desir et le vivifiait en le prohibant: le m ythe de la vierge-
m ere, la cro y an ce au c a ra c te re inaccessib le, et done
perpetuellem ent inconnu, de la feminite. II est rem arquable
149
que la fonction paternelle (...) n ’in terv ien t nullem ent pour
interdire, mais au contraire pour encourager la transgression:
la loi est tout entiere du cote de la mere, et Pinitiation consiste
a bafouer une fois pour toutes, puis a en singer les preceptes.15
The idealization of women, then, appears to be an essential catalyst
to masculine desire in the text. The image of woman in the libertine
narrative of initiation, however, is always com plicated by a third
factor, th at of the quest for the unattainable object-woman. The
quest is unending, but as its object cannot be grasped, the need for
the eternal evasive woman has been recuperated within the defining
structure of a libertine novel of initiation such as LesJEgarements^du
coeunet de l’esprit.
Considering Crebillon’s L esJE g arem en tsd u co eu retd eP esp rit as
the “m asculine” model of a libertine narrative of initiation, it follows,
then, to seek out the possibility of the existence of a “fem inine”
model. The women authors, Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse, are
rew riting the rules of libertinage, but it is unclear in w hat m anner
they are practicing a m im etization of male discourse (acting as
mimics) or revising the genre from a specifically fem inine point of
view. Comparison with the selected female authors will bring to light
several im portant points concerning gender differences.
Not only do au th o r genders differ, but so do the genders of the
protagonists in the respective texts. In Les_Egarements_dii x o e u n e t
deJ!esprit, it is the hero, M. de Meilcour who is the initiate, and the
one who becomes the m aster libertine. The w om en-authored texts,
including M orency’s lllyrine„ou. PecueiL de înexperience, C ottin’s
Claire .d’A lbe, and Choiseul-Meuse’s Entre Chien et Loup, Amelie de
150
Saint-Far and Julie ou _j’aL_sauve._ma. rose, all present women as

initiates. The in itiate’s gender is im portant, because it allows for
individual and cultural aspects to come into play in the narrative,
and differences between men and women are most salient in m atters
of love or libertinism.
We will look closely at the moments of initiation broken down
into the three steps in each of the texts (idealization, disillusion and
m astery, an d p u rsu it of the inaccessible) with an eye to the
rep re se n ta tio n o f gen d er th a t reveals an ethical stance. Our
investigation should reveal tendencies th at favor either gynocentric
or phallocentric ethical economies. The denouem ents of the texts are
the richest territory for such an exploration as they contain the crux
of the in terp retatio n s th at the principle characters may give the
events of the story. T hrough an analysis of the stru c tu re s of
libertine initiation, we may glean the discursive stance taken on a
wom an’s place in society, wom an’s sexuality and theories of pleasure
in relatio n to libertinism . We will first underscore the textual
structures th at reveal the ethics of libertinism in Morency’s illy rin e
ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience and Cottin’s Claire d ’Albe, and then bring
to light those qualities in Choiseul-M euse’s En.tm_jChien_eLLQup,
Amelie de Saint-Fa r and finally J u lie o u jJ a is a u v e _ma rose. This
approach will enable us to show not only the commonalities shared
by the five novels, but also to explore the possibility of a progression
tow ard m ore d arin g transgressions in co n ten t th a t led to the
selective censorship and condem nation of Choiseul-Meuse’s libertine-
151
erotic texts.
Stages.ofJLibertine Initiation in lllyrine

M orency’s Illyrine ou l’ecueil de T inexperience presents the
n a rra to r, Suzanne, as a young girl who becom es a consum m ate
libertine as she grows older. On one level of tem porality in the
memoirs, Suzanne is tracing the steps of h er initiation as a libertine,
and we can identify the processes of idealization, disillusion, m astery
and p u rsu it of the inaccessible. The first step in the process of
lib ertin e in itiatio n , idealization, occurs early in the m em oirs.
Suzanne idealizes her first lover who will also be her first husband,
M. Q..., and he becomes, for her, the ideal man who is strong, brave, a
“dem i-dieu” in h er eyes (35). M. Q,... is the ideal masculine figure in
relatio n to o th e r m en, especially S uzanne’s fa th e r whom she
describes as a weak m an who is cowardly and unreasonably scared
of thunder. The role of a strong father figure which is indicative of a
favorable portrayal of bourgeois values is not present in lllyrine.
The lover-fiance, to whom the fath er vehem ently objects, in fact,
usurps the role of the masculine ideal as Suzanne regards him in the
beginning of their relationship. Later, in scenes that indicate the first
stages of Suzanne’s disillusionm ent, Suzanne considers all men,
including h e r husband as weak, indecisive creatures th at women
often better: “car qui ne sait pas que les fem m es, dans les
circonstances m alheureuses, ont plus de force et de courage que les
hommes; elles cherchent un rem ede, tandis qu’ils s’abandonnent a la
152
douleur” (157).
The process of disillusion for Suzanne occurs in stages as she
becomes more and m ore aware of the true nature of her husband as
an adulterous libertine. The awareness of her husband’s behavior as
well as the tem ptations from oth er m en for her to commit adultery
m ark the continuation of h er disillusionm ent, and the progression
toward libertine mastery. She becomes disillusioned with men (both
h e r father and now her husband), and she also questions the ideal of
m arriage as well. Following Reichler’s logic as he in terp reted M.
M eilcour’s in itiatio n in Les Egarem ents du coeur e t d e l ’esprit,
Suzanne’s “m astery” consists in h er new u n derstanding th a t her
husband is not the ideal “dem i-dieu” or faithful husband she had
envisioned. It also consists in her decision to act on the realization.
She knows that he is an “homme libertin”, and that he will eventually
co rru pt her:
Les charm es de cette adolescente, son esprit naturel q u ’il va

cultiver, orne des agrem ents du grand m onde, la philosophie
q u ’il veut Iui inculquer, toutes les perfections q u ’il se plait a lui
donner, sont a u tan t d ’arm es contre lui... Deja son innocente
epouse a regu de la n ature une ame aussi fiere q u ’un coeur
tendre enveloppe dans un physique qui ne pretera que trop a
la licencieuse morale de l’insinuant corrupteur. (109)
Suzanne thus recognizes th at her husband will be her teacher, and
she will be the student of the ways of libertinism.
Her behavior at the time she composes her memoirs is due not
only to the influence of her husband (her environm ent) but also to a
physical and psychological predisposition. The perception of the
153
heroine as a child ruled by the im pulses of n ature is confirm ed as

well by the quatrain th at appears in w hat has been described as a
“mediocre” portrait of Suzanne de Morency. The quatrain reads:
Docile enfant de la nature

L’Amour dirigea ses desirs.
De ce Dieu la douce imposture
Fit ses m alheurs et ses plaisirs.
The poem signifies Suzanne’s self-definition as a child close to her
natural impulses being lead by Eros. It confirms th at h er sexuality is
p a rt of her natural being, and the expression of desire has been a
m ajor com ponent of h er life. In lllyrine, im portance is placed on
m otherhood as it is reflected as well in the philosophic discourses of
Rousseau, Diderot and d ’Holbach. At the same time, a non-m aternal
view of female sexuality is valorized th at is sim ilar to the previously
discussed theories of LaMettrie. Female sexuality is represented as
n atu ral and good. Her views of the m isfortunes and pleasures of
love, and the natural expression of fem inine desire are p a rt of the
message to be com m unicated to her readers.
In lllyrine, Suzanne’s disillusion and m astery do not occur
sim ultaneously. A turning point in the novel occurs when Suzanne
m eets M. Q...te and begins to justify h e r actions concerning his
advances. Suzanne’s rhetorical question: “Les procedes de mon mari
ne m ’autorisaient-ils pas a prendre un ami?” (182) signifies th at she
has been sufficiently influenced by h er husband to commit adultery
and adopt a life of libertinism . She justifies taking on a lover by
m easuring the pleasure th at it will bring her. Debating with herself,
1 54
she relates that: “je raisonnai avec mes hauts principes de vertu. Eh
bien! le grand m alheur de rendre heureux celui que j ’adore! de me
ren d re heureuse moi-meme. Si je ne le fais pas, j ’en m ourrai de
douleur; ne vaut-il pas mieux m ourir apres?” (193). Thus, the fear of
no t achieving h ap p in ess is stro n g e r th an the fea r of d eath .
Hedonistic pleasure will becom e for h er the highest goal. The
Epicurean ideal of a m oderation in the gratification of desires does
not come into play in Suzanne’s discourses on the theory of pleasure.
Suzanne will soon progress to the stage of m astery which
occurs w hen she first com m its adultery with h er lover M. Q,..te.
Suzanne acknowledges the m om ent of m astery by evoking the image
of the precipice in her narrative when she speaks of her experiences
with libertine love. W alking tow ard the precipice signifies the
process of initiation into a different way of looking at love, m arriage
and libertinism. She evokes the following image as she looks back on
her years with M. Q...te and their subsequent separation:
Je dem eurai suspendue sur les bords du precipice immense ou

il m ’avait conduite p ar des routes si agreables! quelques fleurs
p endant quelque tem ps m ’en cacherent encore la profondeur.
Enfin, j ’y glissai. A force d ’efforts, je rattrapai les bords; puis,
j ’y retom bai de nouveau. (208-09)
The image of her being on the edge of the precipice alone after being
led there by her lover signifies the process of m astering of libertine
love. Each “fall” relates to the trials she endured as she fought to
reconcile her libertine actions with her expectations of virtue and
fidelity. Returning to the edge signifies, in turn, the life she was
leading as a fully initiated libertine collecting lovers, and moving in
155
and out of relationships. With each effort to regain her foothold, she
is able to avoid a fatal demise.
Suzanne speaks frankly of her lifestyle in her narrative, as she
portrays herself:
au m oment ou je sortis du neant, destinee pour 1’existence que

j’ai; par consequent je regus un coeur, une ame expres pour cela.
Oui, mon amie, j ’ai tan t de propension a l’am our, que je puis
aim er plusieurs individus a la fois, sans que l’un puisse se
ressentir du sentim ent que je porte a l’autre. (73)
The above passage shows th a t Suzanne accepts h e r existence as a
libertine, and considers it h er destiny. The reference to coming out
of the darkness destined to be a libertine m ay refer to eith er the
m om ent of her birth, or the m om ent of the m eeting with her first
lover and husband M. Q. who initiated her. Regardless, it is clear that
the older Suzanne has m astered her com portm ent as a libertine to
the point that she is able to please all of her lovers. She has come to
a realization of her libertine nature and has found an acceptance of
herself.
Suzanne uses to h e r advantage th e m oral and philosophic
teachings of Epicurus and Aristippus concerning the “pleasures of
A phrodite,” and fully accepts the hedonistic view of pleasure. She
states: “Vous savez que ma devise est de jo u ir du b o n h eu r de
l’instant; celui qui fuit n ’est plus en notre pouvoir, et m anquer a
jouir, c’est abuser de la vie” (71). The constant pursuit of the sexual
pleasure of the m oment has become the basis for her philosophy, and
the means of justifying her type of existence. Although she offers a
significant alternative title to h e r memoirs, “Que le plaisir coute de
156
peines” (202), the pain that she may have suffered in the pursuit of
pleasure is never a source of regret, but rath e r accepted as p art of
the initiation process.
The final stage of Suzanne’s libertine initiation is the pursuit of
an inaccessible object. In L e s E g a r e m e n ts d u c o e u r e L d e T e s p rit,
M eilcour seeks ou t the woman who is inaccessible to him, thus
reinforcing the m yth of the eternal fem inine in libertine texts. In
m ale-authored libertine texts, the final stage in libertine evolution
signifies a possible retu rn to the first stage of illusion since, in both
instances, it is based on an image of the ideal woman. In female-
authored libertine texts, the circularity of libertine initiation does not
necessarily follow the male paradigm . In Ulyrine, Suzanne also
searches for the unattainable, but the gender roles are not, however,
interchangeable. Suzanne’s “object” is not a man whom she cannot
have, bu t ra th e r the object she seeks is her form er self. Suzanne
seeks the ideal, innocent and faithful woman that the male libertines
of the “m asculine” model seek. The two selves signify the “good,
faithful woman” and the “bad, libertine woman.” After having been
unfaithful to h er husband, Suzanne claims th at she cannot repent,
but can only hope to reconcile her act of adultery with her social and
m arital obligations. She writes: “Cependant, non, je ne pouvais me
rep en tir... Seulement, je cherchais a le concilier avec mes devoirs;
mais je sentais bien que je ne pouvais plus renoncer a mon am ant”
(213). Suzanne’s struggle with the divergent ideals, and the ways in
which she reconciles her two selves will be discussed in the next
157
section that further addresses the ethical stance of IUyjrinejouJ’ecneil

de l’inexperienee.
The analysis of the stages of libertine initiation has shown that
lllyrine is an exam ple of a “fem inine” model of a libertine text in
which both sexes are subject to idealization. The ideal man, such as
M. Q. in the beginning of his relationship with Suzanne, gave the
appearances of a brave m an and faithful husband. Although the
illusion of such an ideal man was soon to be broken, the heroine,
Suzanne, did not later seek to pursue this ideal once again, but rather
to recapture the ideal of woman. The idealization of women and the
search for the eternal feminine th at appear as necessary elem ents in
the m asculine model are also presen t in the fem inine model, but
signify instead a search for self within the image of the ideal. Thus,
many elem ents regarding the function of gender are subverted in
lllyrine ou l’ecueil de rin e xperienee, but some others still do rem ain
intact as reinterpretations of the male model.
Suzanne’s M oralStruggle: ..Freedom or Fidelity

The story of Suzanne’s initiation into a libertine life-style traces
her struggle with the Christian ideals of the wom an’s role regarding
marriage and fidelity. Much of the pain th at she suffered was due to
not being able, in h er circum stances, to live up to th a t ideal.
Interestingly, at the time she composes her memoirs, Suzanne looks
back and regrets th at she had not adopted a libertine outlook earlier.
In one passage, she regrets th at she had not accepted to live as a
158
foursome with her husband’s mistress and her friend the abbot. She
refused the idea at the time. Looking back as an “en lightened”
woman, she sees the value in the form ation of, as she term s it, a
small republic where they would have raised their children and been
happy together. She believes that had she been more flexible toward
h e r conception of m arriage an d less jealous, she w ould have
rem ained m arried and been close to her daughter.
O! si a cette epoque j ’avais eu quelque parcelle de cette

philosophic que je possede a u jo u rd ’hui, nous eussions ete
heureux tous les quatre: nous eussions forme entre nous une
p etite republique, et nous eussions eleve nos e n fan ts en
commun: je serais encore m adam e Q... Je possederais mon
aimable Clarisse (c’est le nom de ma fille): je serais encore avec
son pere a S... dans notre charm ante petite maison. Sans doute
l’abbe vivrait aussi, Mile P... n ’aurait pas fait un sot mariage: ce
que c ’est de ne pas s’e n te n d re (voila les d a n g ers de
l’inexperience): un seul qui n ’est point d ’accord fait le m alheur
de tous. (127)
Their arrangem ent would have been similar to the society of friends
in the Garden of Epicurus: an ideal union of friends sharing a similar
philosophy whose goal was to assure each o th e r’s happiness. The
“Garden” (“Republic”), however, although based on an Epicurean and
a Platonic ideal, would have been united mostly for the p u rsu it of
hedonistic pleasures.
Suzanne explains th at the m issed o p p o rtu n ity to form the
“Republic” is w hat is m eant by the “dangers of inexperience”. The
passage also signifies the basic differences in LaM ettrie’s and
d ’H olbach’s p h ilo so p h ies reg a rd in g in d iv id u al an d collective
pleasures. D’Holbach’s main concern was th at for the happiness and
159
pleasure of the comm unity, one m ust subordinate individual desires.

Suzanne acted in accordance w ith LaM ettrie’s function of the
individual as determ iner of her own pleasure. Yet, Suzanne blames
herself for causing unhappiness by not being in agreem ent with the
group. She regrets not being able to subordinate her individual
desires for the happiness of the collective.
Suzanne’s statem ent has obvious im plications in light of the
Revolution. She equates h er family with the state, and calls for the
creation of a small unified state (a republic) based on the refusal of
trad itional values in favor of an Epicurean com m une th a t is also
implicit in d ’Holbach’s theory of collective happiness. It would seem
th at h er proposals here regarding the dangers of inexperience are
intended for a m uch larger audience than her daughter. We find,
rather, a political agenda intermixed with libertine propaganda.
When speaking of h er p resen t life w ithout reference to a
political agenda, it a p p ea rs th a t Suzanne has entirely rejected
Christianity in favor of Cyrenaic philosophy. In the beginning of her
memoirs, she proclaim s th at “Si j ’ai acquis quelque m erite, je ne le
dois q u ’a l’am itie; si j ’ai eu quelques vertus, je ne les dois q u ’a
l’am our: voila mes dieux; a eux seuls j ’ai sacrifie et ren d u des
hom m ages” (28). Love and friendship have then, for her, replaced
the Christian God.
Nevertheless, in what seems to be a paradox, Suzanne has not
totally relinquished her belief in the sanctity of marriage. In order
to reconcile her two selves, the libertine an d the faithful, Suzanne
160
creates alter-egos by calling herself a different name with each new

lover. She is Elise, or Arsene, or, for her English lover, Hortense. She
explains h e r practice as a way to rem ain faithful and constant:
“Lorsque je fais un nouvel am ant, je me regenere sous un nouveau
nom: de cette m aniere, je ne suis jam ais infidele, et je me rapproche
le plus possible de mon veritable caractere, qui est la Constance.
Helas! je l’eusse toujours ete, si mon epoux n ’eut pas ete le prem ier
parjure” (50). Her “name game” is her way of adapting, if only as an
illusion, the Christian ideal of fidelity in m arriage to her libertine-
hedonistic lifestyle. She feels justified because h er husband was
unfaithful on m any occasions, thus proposing a certain equality
betw een the sexes, if only in the rig h t to com m it ad u ltery .
Nevertheless, she does adm it that she sees herself when she commits
ad u ltery as being m ore guilty th an h er husb an d ever was. Her
attitu d e is a reflection of the belief th at infidelity on the p a rt of the
wife is a much m ore serious crime in society.16 She m ust m aintain
the illusion, therefore, to rem ain guiltless. On the one hand, illusion
is Suzanne’s way of masking the shame associated with libertinism ,
and may indicate a residue of the belief in gender inequality. On the
o th er hand, accepting th at illusion is necessary to her existence is
also a way of unm asking the sham e of libertinism by exposing the
impossibility of the ideal. Her naming practice can be interpreted as
an elem ent of social com m entary that points to the imposed image of
the ideal woman as impracticable.
We know that the author, Suzanne de Morency, highly valued
161
liberty. Signing her divorce appeal to the assembly “une amie zelee
de la liberte” indicates not only her political inclinations, but also her
view of m arriage. She equates liberty with a release from the bonds
of m arriage and the traditional woman’s role of subordinate wife. In
lllyrine, she represents herself as having found liberation through
libertinism and the hedonistic pursuit of m om entary pleasures. Even
Suzanne’s nam e change is liberating if only as a necessary illusion.
By this illusory justification of h er actions, she does not accept the
fatal role of the woman adulteress by entering a convent o r by
com m itting suicide. Both of these courses of action are rejected as
unnecessary. The name game is h er way of according the ideal of
fidelity with her libertine behavior.
One significant detail regarding Suzanne’s name game rem ains
to be discussed. The nam e she adopts when she first com m its
adultery is Julie. The use of the nam e is a deliberate reference to
Julie ou la nouvelle Heloi'se, as Suzanne’s lover, M. Q,..te, adopts the
nam e Saint-Preux. Suzanne-Julie’s actions, however, underm ine the
moral proposed in Rousseau’s work. For Rousseau’s Julie, succumbing
to Saint-Preux before h er m arriage is equated with d an g er and
im pending death. Once m arried, she m ust repress all desire for
Saint-Preux as sexuality is associated with guilt, crime and disease of
which she m ust be cured. As de Rougemont observed, Rousseau’s
conception of love and sexuality is p a rt of a bourgeois Christian
m orality that upholds the ideal of love only within marriage. Julie
sacrifices passionate love for her obligations to husband and children.
162
A dultery, for Rousseau, leads to d isorder since it breaks the most

im portant familial and societal bond of fidelity.
Not so in lllyrine. Although a t first Suzanne refuses the
advances of M. Q,..te, her resistance was a reaction to the m anner in
which he approached her as he surprised her in a “weakened state”
in h er salon. She writes th at she was insulted by his audacity, and
no longer wishes to see him. In his letter of response, calling himself
Saint-Preux, he promises his friendship, but informs h er th at he will
seek to “cure himself of his passion” with another woman. His letter
incites her jealousy and her physical interest in him, so she proposes
th at they meet in the grotto at her grandm other’s estate. The stage
is now set for their encounter in the idyllic setting th at had inspired
passion with her husband before their marriage.
By establishing the meeting place and time, she exercises her
will in fulfilling w hat she sees as her destiny. An underlying reason
for Suzanne-Julie’s first reaction of resistance was that she was not in
control of the situation in her salon which indicates that she chose to
reflect on the consequences of her future actions. She refuses to
become a victim of a male seducer, but rath e r she makes a conscious
decision to commit adultery, thus entering a life of libertinism.
Furtherm ore, in the seduction scene between Suzanne and M.
Q...te, we note a triple play of m eaning on the name Julie. Her lover
continues to call Suzanne “Julie”, bu t as she progresses tow ard her
first act of libertinism , the name referent m utates. Suzanne evolves
out o f h er identity as the new “Nouvelle Heloi'se” who refused her
163
lover’s passion into Ovid’s Julie who practices the ArtLofJLove, As a

prelude, Suzanne-Julie’s lover reads Ovid’s love letters to Augustus’
g ran d -daughter Ju lie.17 He rem arks how m uch m ore ten d e r this
Julie is than his own: “Que cette Julie est plus tendre que la m ienne”
(212). Ovid’s libertine Julie is preferable to Rousseau’s virtuous Julie.
The passage marks Suzanne’s progression toward libertinism while
refuting the Rousseauean ethic.
Significantly in relation to Rousseau, the chapter in Ulyrine
which contains the seduction scene is entitled “Ici l’am our triom phe
du devoir et de toutes considerations”. As the alternative title to her
Memoirs indicates, pleasure causes pain, but it is neither criminal nor
a disease to be cured as in La Nouvelle Heloi'se. In the narrating
present, Suzanne reflects on her decision with few regrets: “Mais ne
suis-je pas injuste? Pendant trois ans, il m ’a rendue la plus heureuse
des femmes. Le bonheur peut-il etre toujours perm anent? Peut-on
se p lain d re apres trois ans de Constance? Non, certes.” (209).
Nonetheless, she is disappointed th at h er happiness with M. Q,..te
only lasted th ree years afte r which he abandoned h e r w ith no
fortune. Her love for M. Q...te trium phs over her obligations as wife
and m other, and her duty to uphold the bourgeois, Christian ideal.
For Suzanne-Julie, however, her decision of infidelity does not bring
disorder or chaos, nor does her passion dem and that her innocence
be restored through death as in La_Nouy_elie_JielQise. For Suzanne-
Julie pleasure is cherished in the present, ra th e r than in the afte r
life.
164
The scandal surrounding the publication of lllyrine in 1799

was due in part to the defense of the libertine life-style in a wom an’s
autobiography. The moral philosophy is surprising if in fact lllyrine
is autobiographical. Morency is from the bourgeoisie and p ro
revolutionary, yet seeks to prom ote a libertinism associated with the
aristocracy. Morency was one of the first French women writers to
subvert Rousseau’s ethic in La_NouYelle._Heloise while em bracing
C yrenaic-Epicurean libertinism , and LaM ettrie’s views of a freer
female sexual expression. In lllyrine, happiness and fulfillm ent are
found not through an ad h eren ce to assigned gender roles, but
th rough a liberation from strict m oral constraints. Libertinism -
hedonism replaces bourgeois-Christian m orality. The text’s deeper
structures th at reveal the process of the heroine’s initiation reflect
the acceptance of a new moral order.
Given the specifics of the ethics of libertinism espoused in
Morency’s writing, it is surprising th at the work was not selected by
the Restoration censors for placem ent in the Enfer given its potential
at the time for being offensive to public morals. Pauvert also notes
his astonishm ent th at lllyrine was ignored by the censors: “llly rin e
connut le succes; on n ’appelait plus T auteur q u ’Illyrine. Malgre le
scandale, il n ’y eu t pas de poursuites. Protections?” 18 Pauvert’s
suggestion th a t M orency was som ehow p ro te c te d c a n n o t be
substantiated. Yet, it is plausible considering that it will be shown
th at the ethical stance in lllyrine does not differ greatly from those
in Choiseul-M euse’s censored texts. Nevertheless, not all female
165
models of libertine texts em brace libertinism as an acceptable moral

system. Claire_d_’Alfoe. is an example of such a text whose ethical
content may not provide sufficient grounds to incite censorship.
IllusioiLand. Disillusion: The Heroine’s. Initiation in Claire d ’Albe

The libertine narrative structures of Cottin’s Claire_d!AIbe have
not been studied, although critics such as Gaulmier and Stewart have
com m ented on the erotic elem ents of the novel.19 Claire_d!Albe is
rem arkably com parable to certain narrative tendencies in libertine
texts such as Les Egarements du coeur et de re s p rit and lllyrine ou
fecu eild eT in ex p erien ce. The three elem ents in Reichler’s structural
equation are present, albeit som ew hat re in te rp re te d for C ottin’s
purposes. In Claire_d!Albe, Claire is the initiate who is led to an act of
libertinism not by a corrupted libertine, bu t by the unintentional
actions of Claire’s husband and the innocent young Frederic.
The stages toward Claire’s initiation, idealization and disillusion,
are em phasized in th e n arrativ e. We find a double form of
idealization, however, since both Claire and Frederic raise each other
to the status of the ideal. For Claire, her husband and her father are
very im portant men in her life. She portrays M. d ’Albe as a good
hu sb an d and fath e r to h e r two children, and she respects the
memory of her father by referring often to “le tom beau du m eilleur
des peres” (25). Thus, as opposed to lllyrine, bourgeois values are
positively reinforced w ithin the image of a strong fath e r figure.
Claire’s friend, Frederic, however, is not simply im portant, b u t is
166
presented in laudatory fashion as the ideal man having even divine

qualities: “On y retrouve ces touches larges et vigoureuses dont
rhom m e d u t etre forme en sortant des m ains de la divinite; on y
p ressent ces nobles et grandes passions qui peuvent egarer sans
doute, m ais qui, seules, elevent a la gloire et a la v e rtu ” (33).
Frederic also idealizes Claire.20 Claire represents for Frederic the
perfect virtuous woman to which no other woman can compare: “je
la douais de toutes les vertus; je reunissais sur un seul etre toutes les
qualites, tous les agrem ents d ont la societe et les livres m ’avaient
offert l’idee. Enfin, epuisant sur lui tout ce que la nature a d ’aimable,
et tout ce que mon coeur pouvait aimer, j ’imaginai Claire!” (72). It
will soon be seen th at neither character can live up to the image that
has been created for them.
In creating the ideal, Claire, like m any other initiates, does not
realize the danger of her feelings, and the preparation for the process
of disillusionm ent is set in motion. Claire’s disillusionm ent is key to
the novel, and is shown when she first realizes th at her friendship
with Frederic may pose a danger to her marriage. She comes to see
Frederic as a seducer and is no longer considered as the ideal. In a
letter of response to Frederic’s declaration of sexual desire, Claire
chastises him: “Et jam ais am our chaste fut-il devore de desirs, et
deroba-t-il de coupables faveurs... Malheureux! rentrez en vous-
meme, votre coeur vous a p p re n d ra q u ’il n ’est point d ’am our sans
espoir, et que vous nourrissez le crim inel desir de seduire la femme
de votre bienfaiteur” (78).
167
As in M orency’s I lly r in e o u T e c u e ild e T m e x p e r ie n c e , the

m etaphoric image of the precipice is used to symbolize im pending
transgressions and the stages toward initiation. Claire expresses the
feeling to Elise:
Une effrayante fatalite me poursuit; je vois le precipice ou je

me plonge, et il me semble q u ’une main invisible m ’y pousse
malgre moi; c’etait peu q u ’un crim inel am our eut corrom pu
mon coeur, il me m anquait d ’en faire l’aveu. Entrainee par une
puissance contre laquelle je n ’ai point de force, Frederic connait
enfin l’exces d ’une passion qui fait de ton am ie la plus
m eprisable des creatures. (85)
The significance of the heroine’s approach to the precipice in Claire
d!Alb_e, however, is different than in Illyrine, For Claire, an invisible
h an d pushes h er over the edge. Unlike Suzanne who im agines
herself as slipping down the edge yet soon pulling herself back up
again repeatedly, Claire sees th at she wields no power, but is dragged
down uncontrollably by fatal forces. Claire’s recognition th at she is
standing on the edge of the precipice signifies th at she has entered
the stage of d isillusionm en t m oving tow ard th e possibility of
m astery.
The play between illusion and reality is in fact w hat causes
Claire to commit the act of libertinism in which she betrays herself
and the virtuous ideal that was attributed to her. Claire’s perception
of herself and of Frederic was all im portant, and relied upon a
certain necessary elem ent of illusion. The state of disillusion was
m arked first by the realization of the dangerous friendship with
Frederic, but then by the betrayal of the tru th th a t m ade Claire
168
believe Frederic was a frivolous seducer likened to a libertine. Claire

explains her reaction as such: “Quand je voyais dans Frederic la plus
parfaite des creatures, je pouvais estim er encore une ame qui n ’avait
failli que pour lui; mais quand je considere pour qui je fus coupable,
p o u r qui j ’offensais mon epoux je me sens a un tel degree de
bassesse, que j ’ai cesse d ’esperer de pouvoir rem onter a la v ertu ”
(115). Gaulmier also com m ents th at the m om ent coincides with a
loss of illusion, and explains the reason for Claire’s action: “Elle lui
cede justem ent parce q u ’elle 1’a cru oublieux et q u ’elle ne peut plus
l’estim er; toutes ses illusions ont disparu, et avec elles le souci des
bienseances de convention.”21 Claire’s image of Frederic, however, is
not the only im portant factor of the scenario. Her disillusion with
Frederic is inextricably linked to a disillusion with herself which then
leads to the m oment of adultery.
Claire’s m om ent of m astery occurs when she com m itted the act
of adultery. She understands then the full m eaning of her actions,
and w hat they m eant in relation to society an d h er self-image.
Describing herself as nothing but an “infam e a d u ltere,” she also
realizes that her “crim e” destroyed love (135). The new value of a
libertine, adulterous love is then rejected. The absence of virtuous
love is intolerable, and Claire cannot bear the fact th a t she was
unfaithful to her husband. Since, for Claire, a woman m ust live up to
th e ideal of being a faithful wife and m other, a lib ertin e act
irreparably destroys the ideal. Mastery of libertine usage, then, is
refused. As Meilcour suffered a loss of “idealite” and a questioning of
169
the myth of the eternal feminine after the m om ent of m astery in Les
Lgarements du coeur et de l’esprit, so does Claire.
In Illyrine ou l ’ecu eiL d eJ’i nexperience, with the use of illusion,
Suzanne could com pensate for the loss of the ideal by recreating the
faithful woman she was in the past, but Claire cannot easily recover
from the ordeal th at has m ore serious consequences for her. Claire
can no longer fool herself with illusions to justify h er actions. The
pursuit of the inaccessible object, then, can only be accomplished in
death. Claire’s death expiates her sins thus reestablishing the myth
of the ideal virtuous woman.
Cottin has rein terp reted the structural tendencies of libertine
texts. By centering the novel on the elem ents of idealization and
disillusionm ent rath e r than on the moments of m astery and pursuit,
the h eroine’s initiation into an act of libertinism is not given the
sam e value as in o th e r lib ertin e narratives. The function of
stereotypical notions of gender is revised. In the novel, not only
does the myth of the eternal fem inine figure play an integral role,
but so does the m yth of a m asculine ideal. The shattering of the
image of the perfect male figure, Frederic, is the catalyst leading to
the heroine’s demise. Furtherm ore, m astery of the libertine system
of knowledge is flatly refused. Refusing any lengthy period in which
the h ero o r h eroine m ay m aster lib ertin e usage devalues the
libertine world. Traditional gender roles which extol the virtues of a
man serving as husband an d father, and a woman as wife and
m other are upheld as the ideal. Cottin’s revision of the structure of a
170
libertine narrative of initiation, then, serves to underm ine it. The

consequences of the heroine’s disillusionm ent are underscored in the
edifying ending of the novel. A further analysis of the significance of
C laire’s d eath a t the denouem ent will reveal how Rousseauist,
bourgeois-Christian ethics are reflected in Claire_d’Albe,
ExpiatingThe_Sins of the Heroine; Claire’s Death in Claire d ’Albe

Not all libertine texts end in the same m anner as Illyrine ou
llecueiL_de_J!inexperience. Although, by definition, the libertine
challenges the trad itio n al m oral o rd er, it is com m on th a t the
concluding pages of a libertine text take a stance th a t does not
challenge the bourgeois-C hristian ethic. According to Nagy, the
libertine “reste toujours plus pres de ses origines d ’heterodoxe
conscient et tem eraire. T out en re sta n t dans les lim ites de la
bienseance, non sans poursuivre avec adresse et audace ses plaisirs
et prendre conscience de leur raffinem ent, il fait un travail de sape
sourd mais vigoureux contre l’ordre m oral existant.”22 The new
m o rality as e stab lish ed by the lib e rtin e , how ever, does n o t
necessarily trium ph as the prevailing m oral system. Reichler has
pointed out, using Duclos’ Les confessions du com te de ..**.* as an
example, th at a text may develop as libertine, yet conclude with an
edifying ending. He rem arks th at it is even p a rt of the libertine
game: “Mais le soin meme de faire une fin edifiante, on le sait,
caracterise le jeu de m asque subtil du libertinage, et, si le rom an
echappe au canevas de l’initiatio n , ce n ’est q u ’ap res s’y e tre
171
abondam m ent livre.”23 Both Nagy’s and Reichler’s conclusions were

drawn from the exploration of libertine texts by male authors. Since
the libertine novels by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse all take a
distinguishable moral stance on the issues as we shall see, it has
become clear th at edifying endings are characteristic of the female
model as well.
In contrast to Illyrine ou l’<kueil deJ!inexperience, Claire d ’Albe
is n o t a text which challenges the m oral philosophy asserted by
Rousseau. The belief th at the sole purpose of women in the social
o rder is to serve man as a helpm ate is upheld. In fact, the role of the
wom an as a wife and m o th e r is rein fo rced no t only in the
denouem ent of the novel, but in direct speeches by the characters
themselves. Claire reiterates her pride in her accom plishm ents that
allow her to serve others as a model of virtue, yet relegate h er to the
private dom estic sphere. When explaining to Frederic why she is
disinterested in political events and happenings in the public sphere,
Claire inform s him that: “le bien q u ’une femme peut faire a son
pays n ’est pas de s’occuper de ce qui s’y passe, ni de donner son avis
sur ce q u ’on y fait, mais d ’y exercer le plus de vertus q u ’elle p eu t”
(39). C laire’s husband, also a faithful follow er of R ousseau’s
teachings as expressed in Emile and La Nouvelle Heloise, completes
C laire’s thoughts on the m atter. He affirm s the areas in which
women should enter, and those that are appropriate only for men:
...une femme, en se consacrant a 1’education de ses enfans et

aux soins dom estiques, en d o n n an t a to u t ce qui l’entoure
l’exemple des bonnes moeurs et du travail, rem plit la tache que
172
la patrie lui impose; que chacune se contente de faire ainsi le

bien en detail, et de cette m ultitude de bonnes choses naitra un
bel ensemble. C’est aux hommes q u ’appartiennent les grandes
et vastes conceptions; c’est a eux a creer le gouvernem ent et les
lois; c’est aux femmes a leur en faciliter Texecution, en se
bornant strictem ent aux soins qui sont de leur ressort. (39-40)
The above passage is an excellent sum m ary of Rousseau’s ideas and
the bourgeois patriarchal o rd e r from which it stems. M. d ’Albe’s
discourse on the p ro p e r roles of m en and women ends on the
significant phrase “II faut que chaque partie reste a sa place” (40).
When indulging in a libertine act of adultery, Claire transgressed the
boundaries of her place in the social order. She did not properly
honor her obligations.
The d e n o u em en t of Claire^ d ’A lb e serves to defen d an d
reinforce the validity of a bourgeois-Christian ethic th at establishes
what constitutes appropriate behavior of men and women in society.
According to a m oral o rd e r which strictly p ro h ib its a d u lte ry
especially on the p art of the wife, Claire’s action was culpable. The
conclusion of Claire_d!Alb_e treats the issue of w hat occurs or m ust
occur when the codes of social propriety are broken, especially by
women previously considered virtuous.
C laire’s best friend and confidante, Elise, has consistently
known of impeding danger and the consequences of the behavior of
all of the characters in the novel including herself. It is fitting that
Elise p resent the events in the context of the m oral significance of
each action. The only way to expiate Claire’s sinful act of adultery is
through death. Elise’s last letter to M. d ’Albe also confirm s her
173
understanding th at death is the appropriate response for a woman

who has lost h er rep u tatio n through an adulterous affair. Elise
resigns herself to the fact th at Claire’s fate after her fall is inevitable:
“Quant a son existence terrestre, elle est finie; du m om ent que Claire
fut coupable, elle a du renoncer au jour; je l’aime trop pour vouloir
q u ’elle vive, et je la connais trop p o u r l’esperer (139). Elise’s
com prehension of the im plications of danger in all passionate
situations and her intim ate knowledge of Claire’s character make her
the fitting candidate to underscore the significance of events for
Claire’s daughter, Laure.
The love-making scene is tem pered by a recognition of the
consequences of the erotic action. In fact, much more im portance is
placed on the consequences than on the representation of the event.
Claire’s death is im m anent because of her adulterous act. In Claire
d.!Albe, violations of social and m oral dictates m ust be punished.
Both Claire and Elise realize that, having violated the m arital oath,
Claire is guilty of a crime against God and society and m ust die. Her
“jouissance” occurring moments earlier announces the inevitability of
h er death.
Eros and Thanatos are thus irrevocably linked in Claire d ’Albe.
G aulm ier notes the powerful connection of love and d eath in the
novel. He cautions, however, th at it is not simply p art of rom antic
m elancholia, but fitting for the particular character of the heroine.24
Elise recounts C laire’s words on h er death bed th a t offer some
explanation for h er actions and appropriate punishm ent. Claire’s
1 74
most significant words are directed to Elise when she requests that
she tell Laure about her m other’s sins. She explains th at secrecy and
betrayal were her w orst enem ies in the affair. Claire directs Elise
th at when the time comes to explain to Laure about her m o th er’s
death:
...qu’elle sache que ce qui m ’a perdue est d ’avoir colore le vice

des charm es de la vertu: dis-lui bien que celui qui la deguise
est plus coupable encore que celui qui la m econnait; car, en la
faisant servir de voile a son hideux ennemi, on nous trompe, on
nous egare, et on nous approche de lui quand nous croyons
n ’aim er q u ’elle... Enfin, Elise, repete souvent a ma Laure que, si
une main courageuse et severe avait depouille le prestige dont
j ’entourais mon am our, et q u ’on n ’eut pas craint de me dire que
celle qui compose avec l’honneur l’a deja perdu, et que jamais il
n ’y eut de nobles effets d ’une cause vicieuse; alors, sans doute,
j ’eusse foule aux pieds le sentim ent dont j ’expire aujourd’hui....
(140-41)
W anting to com plete h er thoughts, weakness prevents Claire from
finishing her speech. Her death soon follows.
The directive that is to guide Elise’s handling of the explanation
to Laure is also the source for the reader to understand the m eaning
of the tragic events. Both Claire and M. d ’Albe are to blame for the
affair, bu t her husband’s guilt is not on a p ar with Claire’s. Although
Elise also took p art in the deception, she did so unwillingly. Elise is
not im plicated, as is indicated in the use of the expression in the
singular: “celui qui la deguise est plus coupable.” Thus, M. d ’Albe is
the most blamable of all of the characters. Claire considers herself a
victim of circum stances th at led her to be inadvertently tricked by
false appearances of virtue. She does not consider herself a victim of
175
seduction, however, since she does not blame Frederic for her fall.
Rather, she takes resp o n sib ility for h e r own im m oral act, but
believes herself to be less guilty than her husband, M. d ’Albe, who
deceived her. Although Claire did not intentionally mask vice for
virtue, she is guilty of believing in deception.
The status of Frederic’s guilt is less clear. Significantly, the last
line of the novel is spoken by the m ysterious man at Claire’s funeral
who is assum ed to be Frederic. The man cries out while fleeing from
the sight of Claire’s grave: “A present je suis libre, tu n ’y seras pas
longtem ps seule!” (142). Although Frederic’s w hereabouts rem ain
unknow n and his d eath is n o t p re se n te d to th e rea d er, the
announcem ent th at Frederic intends to die signifies that his guilt is at
least on a p ar with Claire’s. In Claire’s final letter to her husband,
she adm its her own guilt, while excusing Frederic’s actions: “mais
pourra-t-il oublier que cet infortune [Frederic] voulait fuir cet asile,
et que mon ordre seul l’y a retenu; que, dans notre situation, ses
devoirs etant m oindres, ses torts le sont aussi, et que mon am our fut
un crime quand le sien n ’etait q u ’une faiblesse?” (141). Implicitly,
Frederic’s transgression is less serious than Claire’s since he was not
bound to the same obligations of represented death on which the
social order depended.
Claire’s libertine act m erited the punishm ent of death, yet her
previous virtuous behavior perm itted th at h er sin be expiated in the
afterlife. Moments before her death, Claire is at peace: “A present je
m eurs en paix, dit-elle, je peux p a ra itre d ev an t Dieu... Je vous
176
offensai plus que lui, il ne sera pas plus severe que vous” (141).
Claire’s death is rem iniscent of Julie’s in Julie ou lan o u v e lle lielo ise ,
as she dies calling out the name of h er lover: “jetan t sur lui [M.
d ’Albe] un d ern ier regard, elle serra la main de son amie [Elise],
prononga le nom de Frederic, soupira et m o u ru t” (141). The
correlation between Claire _d_’Alb.e and courtly romance is also evident
as the lovers, like Tristan and Yseult, are reunited in death.
Unlike Suzanne in lllyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience, Claire
cannot reconcile her adulterous passion and her familial obligations
while living. No comprom ise is possible, and creating any illusions
w ould be seen as hypocritical. Libertinism , rep re se n te d as a
sham eful indulgence of sexual desires, is not upheld as a viable
alternative m orality to Christianity in Claire d ’Albe. Cottin’s libertine
novel thus conforms to the paradigm of the creation of an edifying
ending th at Nagy observed in certain male models of libertine texts.
It is reasonable to conclude th at the edificatory content of Claire
d ’Albe appeased the censors, and thus o u r suspicions of possible
protection from censorship are not raised as they were in the case of
M orency’s Illy rine. Furtherm ore, Claire d ’Albe was m ost often
criticized, notably by Genlis and Girault de Saint-Fargeau, for the
language used to represent the passion between Claire and Frederic,
rath er than for its implicit position on the deleterious consequences
of adultery and libertinism. It rem ains to be seen if the structures of
initiation and the resulting ethical stance in each of the three
libertine-erotic novels by Choiseul-M euse confirm or subvert the
177
p arad ig m in w hich lib ertin ism is re p re se n te d if only to be

condem ned. A com parison of these textual elem ents in Choiseul-
Meuse’s texts will lead to a b etter understanding of w hat may have
contributed to their placem ent in the Enfer.
Mixed_Messagesin.Choise.ul-Meuse!s__Libertine_Xexts
Choiseul-M euse’s three works, Entre_Chien.etLLoup, Amelie_.de
Saint-Far and J u l i e o u j ! a i s a u v e m a ro se , present female initiates
who can be traced through th e three-stage process of libertine
initiation. Examining the initiation narrative of one representative
tale in Entre Chien et Loup, then in Amelie de Saint-Far and Julie ou
j ’ai sauve ma rose, will show to what extent the rules of represented
libertinism, according to the “masculine” model, have been confirmed
or subverted. Moreover, each denouem ent purports a significantly
d iffe re n t a ttitu d e . A lthough the them e of the im portance of
education for young women is comm on to all three works, each
illustrates in different m anners what may happen when their moral
education is eith er neglected or influenced by libertine examples.
Thus, the process and consequences of the heroine's initiation as well
as the ethical stance taken on the question of libertinism vary in
each of the three libertine texts by Choiseul-Meuse. The conclusions
draw n here will serve to explain fu rth e r the reasons that, of the
three texts relegated to the Enfer, only J u l i e o u j ’a is a u v e m a ^ ro s e
was ordered for destruction.
178
Initiate Mastery and Moral Ambivalence in E n tre C h ie n e tL o u p

The narrative of the “Huitieme Soiree,” a representative tale in
Entre_Chien_e.t JLoup, conform s to the established stru c tu re of
libertine initiation. The tale is told by Madame Elmire de Viri who,
as a young, poorly-educated girl, wished to escape provincial life to
go to Paris. M. de Monceni, a fam ily acquaintance, soon m ade
arrangem ents for Elmire to come to the city. The initial stage of
idealization is set. Elmire, in her naivete, reveres M. de Monceni, and
suspects no unscrupulous behavior since he is a m arried man. The
simple fact th at he is from Paris was enough to elevate his status in
Elmire’s eyes. Once in Paris, though, Elmire’s education is completed
by her “teacher,” M. de Monceni.
Elmire is soon disillusioned, an d realizes M. de M onceni’s
intentions as well as the price she paid for escaping the province.
The stages of disillusionm ent and m astery will be com pleted once
she accepts the tru th of libertine wisdom. He explains:
la sagesse, Elmire, c’est de profiter de tout ce qui peut accroitre

ou assurer notre bonheur, c’est de se com porter avec discretion
ou prudence, de ne confier sa reputation q u ’a un etre incapable
de la com prom ettre par la vanite ou la maladresse, c’est d ’obeir
a la nature qui vous a creee pour l’am our.25
The m eaning of wisdom, as M. de Monceni explains it, is also a
composite view of the proper role of a libertine woman. The rules of
nature become the new “arbre de la connaissance” for the libertine,
an d th e wom an u n d e rsta n d s th a t n a tu re m ade h e r for love.
M onceni’s definition of libertine wisdom also brings to light the
necessity of women conform ing to the dictates of patriachal society.
179
Protecting a w om an’s rep u tatio n is a social reality, bu t is also

indicative of the economy th at dem ands th at a woman conform to a
certain image of virtue. Elmire later accepts her new life of pleasure,
an d also realizes th a t she m ust u p h o ld the illusion o f an
unenlightened girl. She has then m astered usage and discourse of a
libertinism which is not apparently different from the type in the
“masculine” model of libertine narratives.
The woman initiate, after having passed through the stage of
disillusionm ent, tends to pursue the image of the idealized woman in
the wom an’s libertine literature studied thus far. Suzanne in illyrine
an d Claire in Claire d ’Albe both seek to recapture, although in
differen t ways, the ideal of the constant, v irtuous and faithful
woman. In Entre Chien et. Loup, on the other hand, no such attem pt
by the libertine initiate is made. Elmire is presented as pursuing the
inaccessible object who is to be h er future husband. The process of
idealization appears to be starting again at the conclusion of the tale.
The narratives in Entre Chien et Loup, then, are inverse images of the
“m asculine” m odel. The re p re se n ta tio n of lib ertin e in itiatio n
conform s itself to the structures in Crebillon’s Les„_Egareinents„du
coeur e t d e l ’esprit, but with an exchange of initiate gender. The
female initiates act in much the same way as the male initiates. We
m ust recognize a conform ity to the “masculine” model of the libertine
text.
Although the narrative structure adapts Crebillon’s paradigm
for a fem ale initiate, the im plications of the h ero in e’s libertine
180
initiation are pu t into the context of gender difference. The various

female n arrato rs of EntreJ3hien__etJjoup im plicate the inadequate
level of wom en’s moral and sexual education at the time as the
reason for the decline in virtuous behavior. Elmire prefaces her
narrative with the argument:
Que les hommes sont injustes, Mesdames, quand ils jugent de

nos faiblesses avec severite; quelle education peut etre assez
puissante contre des etres adroits, qui, nous a tta q u a n t avec
tout l’avantage de l’experience, de la seduction, sont encore
secondes p ar le penchant de la nature, et les conseils de la
vanite. Si on eloigne de nous tout ce qui peut eclairer notre
im agination et nos sens, l’ignorance mem e nous livre a un
danger que nous ne connaissons pas. (139)
The message for the rea d er is th at she, as well as any poorly
educated woman, is not solely to blame for h er actions, and should
not be judged harshly. The notion that bad morals are not the result
of w om an’s nature, but the fault of her education gives rise to the
am bivalent judgm ents in the text.
The ending of Entre Chien et Loup confirms the irresoluteness
of the moral position in the texts. Within the com m unity of women
who are telling th e ir rom antic, lib ertin e ad v en tu res, none is
condem ned or reprim anded for h e r behavior. Even Mile Herminie,
who was believed to be too young to h ear libertine tales, is not
judged for her transgressions that took place during the “Entre Chien
et Loup” hours. The wom en of th e castle accept th e ir own
weaknesses and those of others w ithout adopting either a laudatory
o r a condem ning stance. Their advice to Mile Herminie and her lover
is simply to be m ore careful in the future so as not to tarnish her
181
reputation (188). Yet, as a sort of atonem ent for what they call their
“petites faiblesses,” the women establish a dowry for her since “une
bonne action est la meilleure reparation” (196). Thus, the women at
the castle do not condem n Mile Herminie for her actions, yet make it
possible for her to marry.
C oncerning the role of m arriage, a p a tte rn w ithin each
narrative does develop. In each tale of the “Soiree,” the n a rra to r
concludes with an explanation of h e r m arital status. In m ost
instances, the women were able to m arry w ithout suffering any ill
consequences from their libertine adventures. It appears, then, that
m arriage is rep resen ted in Entre Chien et Loup as a m eans to
conciliate the divergent m oral standards. Since the libertine act
occurs before m arriage, the female participants do not deserve the
label of adulteress, and cannot be condem ned for breaking the sacred
vow. The w om en’s libertinism is m ore closely linked to sexual
experim entation that transgresses the phallocratic law of male sexual
freedom. As is true in the other libertine texts by Choiseul-Meuse,
the integrity of a w om an’s virginity is rep resen ted as the m ost
im portant law within phallocracy. The crime of adultery is regarded
with m ore gravity as it transgresses a direct biblical dictate within
the ten comm andm ents. The lesser degree of seriousness of the sins
com m itted in En tre Chien et Loup explains, and to some extent,
justifies the moral point of view of the text. We shall see, however,
th at am bivalent moral judgm ents do not characterize eith er Amelie
deSaint-Far or Julie ou. j ’aLsauve rna rose.
182
T h eT 'ataL E rro ro fA m elied eS ain t-F ar

The n a rra tiv e of Amelie_d.e__S.ain.tzEar is slig h tly m ore
com plicated than the o th er works treated so far, sim ply because
m ore libertines ap p ear in the text. The only true female initiate,
however, is Amelie. Thus, the interpretation will be lim ited to only
the representation and function of gender in the progress of her
initiation into the world of libertinism . The oth er libertines, such as
Alexandrine, the Colonel and the Due de Nemours, th eir education
accomplished, are her teachers.
The neglect of Amelie’s education by her zealous m other made
her an easy target for libertines wishing to initiate her. Although her
father was a libertine, Amelie rem ained unaw are of the significance
of libertinism until she was living as p art of the “petite societe” in the
castle. The read er of Amelie_ de S aint-far understands as early as
the first few pages of the novel the consequences of being initiated
as a libertine, and the power relations that result between the sexes.
While speaking to Amelie’s father, Alexandrine underscores the rules
of dom ination and possession th at a woman is subjected to:
...tous les hom mes (...) ils ne peuvent aim er une femme sans
desirer avec fureur la posseder tout entiere; son ame, son coeur,
ses sentim ents les plus tendres, ses pensees les plus secretes,
tout est a vous, tout est pour vous, et ce tout ne vous suffit pas;
c’est moins encore T attrait du plaisir qui vous guide que la
gloire du triom phe.26
The men, and even a woman like A lexandrine, will be working to
induct Amelie into such a circle of libertine male dom ination. The
183
reader, however, is aware of the danger facing Amelie.

The stage of idealization for Amelie occurs when she m eets
Ernest who is equally uninitiated into the world of libertinism . Her
impression of Ernest’s character as pure and innocent is as much a
reflection of her own character as the truth. The image of Ernest as a
virtuous ideal future p artn er pervades the novel even when he is no
longer present. Despite having rom antic ad v en tu res in Santo
Domingo for which he does not feel remorse, Ernest does not become
a target of disillusion in Amelie’s eyes because she never discovers
the truth.
It is the Due de Nemours, not Ernest, who serves as Amelie’s
initiator. Amelie has great confidence in the Duke, but does not
idealize him as she does Ernest. Encouraged by A lexandrine,
Nemours sets to the task of seducing Amelie w ithout arousing any of
h er suspicions. As o th er libertine initiates have done, Amelie does
not understand the position she is in, and mistakes subtle seduction
for friendship. Once the Duke rapes her, she becomes in essence his
property. The Duke’s actions sh atter any positive image she may
have had, and her disillusionm ent signifies her understanding of the
relationship of dom inance and power that men have over women in
libertine society. Amelie passes through the stage of m astery when
she understands the full significance of libertinism and of “la fatale
e rre u r” of which she is a victim. The term “m astery,” however, in
this case, is ironic because her initiation signifies an enslavem ent of
her will to m en as Alexandrine had described it earlier. Amelie’s
184
connection to the Due de Nemours is likened to a m aster-slave

relationship:
Ernest, toujours present elevait entre elle et le due une barriere

insurm ontable, mais si l’image de son am ant la rendait rebelle
aux desirs de Nem ours, les d ro its q u ’il avait conquis lui
donnaient une espece d ’ascendant auquel il lui etait difficile de
se soustraire: avant de ceder, elle aurait repousse le due avec
energie et colere; depuis sa defaite, ce n ’etait plus q u ’en esclave
tim ide q u ’elle osait se dero b er aux caresses d ’un m aitre qui
pouvait tout exiger. (vol. 2, 79)
Amelie, once initiated, recognizes h er enslavem ent yet is powerless.
She continues to idealize Ernest despite h er situation, because she
believes he has rem ained unchanged since the night of his departure.
Ernest is the inaccessible object th a t Amelie desires. Most
im portantly, what is lost for her is not only Ernest, but the possibility
of a virtuous m arriage with him. Amelie is involved in a futile
pursuit of her own lost virtue. Like Claire in Claire_d!Alhe who was
subjected to the sam e im possible recuperation, Amelie seeks the
answ er in death. Once again, we see the p attern em erging th at
underscores gender difference in libertine texts as they present the
im portance of the search for the virtuous woman or the eternal
feminine, while the m asculine equivalent is neglected.
A lim ited com parison may be draw n between Entre Chien et
Loup and A m elied eS ain t-E ar concerning the status of m arriage and
the atonem ent of sexual sins. The eponym ous heroine of Amelie_.de
Saint-Fa r is quite sim ilar to the women of the castle and especially
Mile Herminie because she too experiences a loss of virginity before
marriage. The consequences of the libertine act for Amelie, however,
185
are quite different than for the women of tntre. Chien et Loup.
Amelie de Saint-far exemplifies the type of libertine text that
represents m any facets of libertinism, yet concludes with an edifying
ending. The crimes against Christian morality are condemned. Those
com m itting vices are chastised, but the punishm ents are eked out
according to a m oral code which vacillates according to subject
g ender, experience and motive. The final pages of the novel
sum m arize the fates of each character. They will enable us to
com prehend a system of justice and m orality functioning within the
text.
An unidentified n a rra to r makes the differences between the
characters of Alexandrine and Amelie quite clear: “Les femmes telles
q u ’A lexandrine m eriten t sans doute la haine du genre hum ain:
Amelie et celles qui lui ressem blent ne m eritent qu’une tendre pitie;
m alheur a ceux qui la leur refuserait!” (vol. 2, 142). Alexandrine’s
crimes were more serious in contrast to Amelie’s transgressions. As
in Claire_d!Alhe, the one who deceives is considered more guilty than
the victim of the deception. Alexandrine was a m anipulator who
b ro u g h t ab o u t th e dow nfalls of Amelie an d o th e r characters.
A lexandrine’s punishm ent, which m irrors that of Mme de Merteuil in
the Liaisons dangereuses, is financial and social ruin. She loses her
fortune, h er looks and h er husband, the Colonel, who dies in a duel.
No longer able to face h er defeat and degradation in society, she
isolates herself in an austere convent. The final lines of the novel
reiterate the m oral to be gleaned from A lexandrine’s fate: “Ainsi
186
finit cette femme orgueilleuse et libertine, que la nature ne sem blait

avoir paree des dons les plus precieux, que pour mieux contraster
avec ses vices et rendre sa chute plus eclatante” (vol. 2, 144). Her
pride, abuse of power through m anipulation and deceit, and repeated
acts of libertinism resulted in her final punishm ent. Although she
does not physically die, her retreat from the world to live in severe
isolation is a symbolic death.
For Amelie, on the o th er hand, real death is her only viable
solution. She finds herself in the position of being loved by two men,
her fiance Ernest and the Due de Nemours. Although her relationship
with the Due de Nemours resu lted from A lexandrine’s trickery,
Amelie feels responsible for losing her virginity to him. When she
finally reveals the tru th to Ernest about the affair, she realizes her
only recourse is to die. She defines her guilt in this manner: “Je suis
bien coupable, mon ami [Ernest]; l’am our dont je n ’ai cesse de bruler
p o u r toi, n ’a pu me g aran tir du plus grand des crimes; j ’ai ete
infidele, sans etre inconstante; j ’ai trom pe deux hom mes a la fois,
deux hommes egalem ent dignes de l’attachem ent le plus sincere et
de la possession la plus exclusive” (vol. 2, 135). Her fault lies, then,
in not being able to uphold the ethic of sexual monogamy. Death,
Amelie explains, is h er only viable option because she will be
scorned by both of h er lovers if she rem ains living: “Je ne pourrais
vivre sans me rendre coupable d ’ingratitude: si j ’epousais le due, je
ferais ton m alheur; si je t ’epousais, je ferais le sien. Morte, on me
plaindra; vivante, on me m epriserait: n ’est-ce pas ma sentence que
187
je viens de prononcer?” (vol. 2, 136). The use of the pronoun “on”

adds nuance to Amelie’s explanation. Who will pity or scorn her is
ambiguous, and may indicate society’s judgm ent. Although it is clear
th at Amelie’s death is brought about by a fear of displeasing her
lovers, it may also have been precipitated by the threat of the loss of
rep u tation. Although Amelie’s situation is sim ilar to th at of the
women in Entne._CMen_et_Lc»up, she is no t able to expunge her
libertine act through marriage.
A g e n d ered d ouble sta n d a rd is e stab lish ed in th e text
regarding the possibility of reconciling libertinism and the Christian
dictates of m arriage. Ernest, Amelie’s fiance, does m arry upon
retu rn in g to Santo Domingo. He com m itted the same “crim e” as
Amelie, yet, because of his gender, he suffered no sort of punishm ent
for his infidelities. In fact, Ernest’s future is perhaps the m ost
optimistic. He falls in love with Monsieur Declusel’s daughter, Laure,
and finds happiness. Laure soon is able to replace Amelie: “sans
pouvoir effacer Amelie du coeur d ’Ernest, elle parvient a le consoler
de sa perte.” Ernest is the only principle character who does not
ap p ear to suffer greatly or be condem ned to a disastrous fate after
Amelie’s death.
Contrary to the oth er characters, Amelie’s punishm ent for her
“crim e” is foreshadow ed and self-realized. She dies a victim of the
schemes of Alexandrine and the Colonel, yet accepts the inevitability
of h er death. While Ernest, who is represented as Amelie’s innocent
c o u n terp art in the novel, finds happiness in m arriage, the Due de
188
Nemours, Amelie’s lover, never m arries and rem ains faithful to her.
N em ours’ crim e of rape does not result in his punishm ent, and
E rnest’s in fidelity a p p ea rs to be rew arded. A hig h er pow er
condem ns the schemers, the Colonel and Alexandrine, as criminals.
The Colonel dies in a duel, and Alexandrine suffers financial and
social ruin. True v irtue does not ap p ea r to exist, yet, with the
exceptions of Nemours’ and Ernest’s behavior, vice is punished. The
crim es of libertinism lead to punishm ent in the universal m oral
scheme. The novel shows the disastrous consequences of libertine
acts, and punishm ent of such crimes reinforces a Christian m orality
th at was in jeopardy during the course of the novel. Thus, the ethos
of Amelie de Saint-Far is m ore akin to th a t of Claire d ’Albe than to
th at of E ntreC hien et Loup. It appears, then, th at the placem ent of
Amelie de Saint-Far in the Enfer m ust have been based on reactions
to o th er representational practices, which will be explored in the
next chapter, and not on the text’s explicit moral position. The last
text by Choiseul-Meuse to be discussed, Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma ro se,
will reveal yet other m oral assertions and variations on a heroine’s
initiation that will explain, in part, its condem nation.
M a ste rin g th e P o w e ro fV irg in ity in Ju lie ou j’ai sauve m a m se

Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a ro se, which appeared before Choiseul-
Meuse’s two o th e r censored works, p o rtray s a singular heroine
whose libertine behavior is distinguishable from that of the heroines
in Amelie„de_ Saint-Far and Entre Chien et Loup. The initiation of the
189
heroine, Julie, is accomplished without her losing her virginity.27 The

guideline according to which she chooses to live her life affords her
the luxury of acquiring as m any lovers, and enjoy as much pleasure
as she would like. In the n arration, Julie p ortrays herself as a
virtuous woman because virtue is equated with virginity. Therefore,
the quest to regain the ideal of virtue th at is so im portant to the
o th er heroines like Suzanne, Claire and Amelie, is not an issue for
Julie. Nevertheless, Julie is no less a libertine, and the text is no less
a libertine novel. Julie’s initiation does entail the three-step process
th a t has been o u r guideline th ro u g h o u t the discussion. The
conclusions that may be drawn from the heroine’s initiation will be,
however, strikingly different from any of the works discussed thus
far.
In the o th er libertine works by Choiseul-Meuse and the ones
by Cottin and Morency, relatively little im portance is placed on the
stage of m astery in the narratives. M astery is very im portant in
relatio n to the function of gender in libertine texts. The stage
signifies th a t th e in itia te has overcom e any false illusions,
acknowledges and understands the rules of libertinism . In Illyrine,
Suzanne’s stage of m astery is related in the narrative prim arily in
references to her life as a consum m ate libertine at the time of the
com position of h er memoirs. The tales in Entre Chien e t Loup are
perhaps too short and composed for such a limited purpose to dwell
at length on any stage afte r th e h e ro in e ’s disillusionm ent and
deflowering. In Amelie de Saint-Tar and Claire d ’Albe, the process of
190
libertine m astery is so shameful for both initiates, Amelie and Claire,

th at the stage precipitates their deaths as a means to foil the rules of
libertinism. On the other hand, the m ajority of the narrative in Julie
D_u_j’aL_sa.uY.e_.ma_xo.sje deals with Ju lie’s m astery of the type of
libertinism into which she has been initiated.
Julie first learns the libertine code through discussions with her
friend Adolphe. The relationship between Julie and Adolphe is built
aro u n d h er idealization of him. A dolphe’s lesson, p resented as
friendly advice, about the great im portance of h er reputation and the
facts o f social inequities is im m ediately taken to heart. He advises
her:
De toutes les passions, Tamour est, sans aucun doute, celle qui
nous procure les jouissances les plus reelles et les plus vives;
mais, p ar un prejuge bizarre, les hommes seuls ont le privilege
de s’y livrer sans perdre leur reputation. Et lorsqu’une femme
nous aim e assez p o u r nous sacrifier ce q u ’elle a de plus
precieux, p o u r nous com bler de faveurs et nous enivrer de
volupte, au lieu de la regarder comme un etre divin, digne de
1’adoration la plus pure, apres en avoir to u t obtenu, nous la
traitons avec m epris, et nous la livrons a la honte en publiant
sa defaite.28
The initial stages of Julie’s initiation are prim arily carried out on a
discursive level. A dolphe’s word functions as gospel, and from that
m om ent on, Julie is disillusioned concerning the ways of men who
are often insincere and abuse their power.
The lesson Julie learned from Adolphe is m astered, and later
p u t into action. The rem ainder of the narrative is an exploration of
Julie’s m astery of libertine rules of pleasure as set forth by Adolphe.
C oncerning the final stage of in itiatio n , Ju lie ’s p u rsu it of an
191
inaccessible object cannot be related to female virtue. The wom an’s

virtue is not a source of a regrettable loss, and is not comprom ised
according to the accepted notions of libertinism in the novel. Rather,
the inaccessible object of desire th a t Julie rep eated ly seeks is
rep re se n te d by each lover. By definition, Ju lie’s libertine code
prohibits access to heterosexual intercourse. The p u rsu it of the
impossible act heightens the desire in the text, and assures th at the
structure will repeat itself.
The m ost im p o rtan t rule, never to relinquish h er virginity,
takes into consideration the im portance of gender difference, it is
significant because it is tailored to the successful functioning of a
wom an in society. The rules of libertinism for women are not
p resented as indistinguishable from those for men, but allow the
woman, p erhaps to the dism ay of th e ir lovers, to preserve her
virginity, her virtue and her reputation.
Julie’s relation to Christian morality in the context of her rule is
not clear. Julie expresses no regrets o r need for repentance in
regards to the life she has led. She prefaces her story with the
proclam ation that: “m algre mes nom breuses folies, je me suis
toujours conduite de m aniere a m ’eviter le repentir; et m aintenant
que je suis arrivee a 1’heure ou Ton pleure ses fautes, ma sage
politique me sauve les peines cuisantes du rem ords” (vol. 1, 24). To
her mind, she has upheld the mechanics of Christian virtue for which
she has no reason to repent. Her claim is not w ithout a sense of
irony since h er literal interpretation of moral integrity has led to
192
behavior that is in fact contrary to the spirit of Christianity.

The moral which she espouses, however, does not find its basis
in C h ristian ity b u t in Epicureanism and Cyrenaic Hedonism .
Adolphe’s advice to Julie that she seek pleasure w ithout losing her
virginity is characterized in the text as “les legons d ’un veritable
epicurien” (vol. 1, 43). Reflecting a confusion of term s th at often
o ccu rred in the eighteenth century, w hat A dolphe identifies as
Epicurean would be m ore accurately described as Cyrenaic. Giving
every sexual “favor” but the last is the way Adolphe proposes to
m eet the Epicurean goal of prolonging pleasure. Although setting
boundaries in the pursuit of one’s pleasures is an Epicurean notion,
the exclusive focus on the sexual realm is m ore closely associated
with Hedonism.
The moral is in fact the result of a reconciliation of two systems
of thought. The phallocratic economy dem ands that a girl rem ain a
virgin until h er wedding. Hedonism, as well as libertinism , is
established upon the p u rsu it of pleasure and sexual gratification.
Ju lie’s m oral, as learn ed from A dolphe, successfully ad ap ts the
libertine m oral to function for women w ithin phallocracy. W hat
results is the possibility of power for a woman w ithin the system.
Julie recognizes the power of her own resistance to seduction: “Mais
lorsque je reflechis que le prem ier me donnerait un pouvoir absolu
sur un sexe qui se p reten d ait le m aitre du mien, je n ’hesitai plus;
encore plus im perieuse que tendre, je sacrifiai la volupte meme au
plaisir de regner, et je fis bien” (vol. 1, 114). The loss of virginity,
193
then, is likened to a defeat by an adversary who is the male seducer.

The theories of desire in J u l i e o u j ’a is a u v e m a r o s e are sim ilar
to those in Rousseau’s Emile. In Emile, a masking of the fem ale’s
desire is presented as a way to enhance pleasure for both partners.
The wom an’s “p u d e u r” is a weapon with which she wields power
over the man. The libertine moral in Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose is an
em bodim ent of Rousseau’s theory of sexuality based on the balance
of desire and “pudeur.” Choiseul-Meuse’s Julie subverts Rousseau’s
theory as she profits from it w ithout the benefit of a m onogam ous
marital relationship. She refuses to subscribe to the ideal of conjugal
bliss and procreation. Ju lie’s conduct is im m oral according to
Rousseau’s prescription for virtuous living since she has transgressed
the exigencies of expressing desire only w ithin the confines of
marriage. Nevertheless, in Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose, the heroine’s
ethic is presented as proper, virtuous and intelligent.
Although Julie rem ains trium phant in the novel, the defeat or
condem nation of other women is represented. Julie’s form er friend,
Celine, m eets with punishm ent for the type of life she led. Julie
describes her as an abom inable libertine. The principle difference
between the two women is that Celine did not believe in the sanctity
of virginity. Celine’s moral was fallible as it allowed for no limits to
her pleasure. She eventually lost her reputation in society, and lived
the rem ainder of h e r life as a disgraced courtesan. Although the
d e ta ils of C eline’s d e ath are unknow n, Julie in te rp re ts the
significance of her fate:
194
Celine...vient de trouver dans les suites de son libertinage une

m ort digne de sa vie. (...) voila pourtant, me dis-je, ou conduit
le desordre des passions; si je m ’etais livree a la violence des
m iennes, p eut-etre aussi coupable que Celine, aurais-je ete
punie d ’une maniere non moins terrible! (vol. 2, 162)
Celine’s crime, then, was not being able to control the forces of her
passions. She sought pleasure w ithout rem aining virtuous, which for
Julie, means virginal.
At the conclusion of h er memoirs, Julie affirms the value and
trium ph of her moral. She proudly announces that:
J ’ai regne sur les hommes, je les ai fait servir a mes plaisirs, et
je puis les d efier tous. D’ou me v ien n en t ces avantages
inappreciables? Du talism an precieux que toutes les femmes
regoivent, en naissant, des m ains de la nature; c’est de sa
conservation que dependent la reputation, la tranquillite et le
bonheur. (vol. 2, 187)
Virginity is thus the potent secret to happiness. Pleasure for Julie is
derived from both sexual contact and dominance. Her “rose” is her
talisman with which she wields power over men. The representation
of the female sexual organ as a precious talism an is also a topos of
Diderot’s LesJ3ijoux_indiscrets. In Diderot’s libertine text, however,
the Sultan Mangogul controls the “bijoux” of the women of his court.
Dominated by Mangogul’s ring, the women are unwilling participants
in his experimental quest for knowledge. On the other hand, in Julie
ou j!aiâuvA jna^xose, the control over the w om an’s body (i.e., her
talisman, her rose) is not subject to male domination.
Julie has achieved a powerful position while m aintaining the
appearances of adapting to the dictates of phallocracy. In a system
in which women are denied power, Julie applauds her efforts to gain
195
suprem acy over men, and urges other women to exploit the value of
virginity. According to her moral, and as represented in the passages
with Julie and her friend Caroline, lesbianism is the most fitting type
of pleasure to seek because it preserves virginity while avoiding
male penetration. Thus, a particu lar kind of libertine m orality is
proposed which claims to be com m ensurate with the Christian virtue
of chastity, yet is a subversion of it.
In the three condem ned texts by Choiseul-M euse, we have
found an ambivalence toward, a rebellion against, and an approval of
libertine morality. On the one hand, we have shown that libertinism
was neither truly em braced nor condem ned in Entre Chien et Loup.
Yet, Amelie de Saint-Far does make an obvious stance on the failings
of libertinism at the denouem ent. It is a perfect example of the
libertine text th at develops within the exigencies of the genre, yet
upholds trad itio n al m oral values in an edifying ending. The
im portance of gender in the novel is particularly acute as it is only
the punishm ent of the female libertines th at m erits representation.
Punishments for wom en’s crimes are much more cruel and elaborate
than for crim es com m itted by men. The m oral thus confirm s the
double-standard th at exists for m easuring the seriousness of sins
com m itted by males and females. On the other hand, the heroine of
J ulie ou j ’ai sauve m a ro se advocates lib ertin e m orality while
challenging Rousseauism. In fact, Julie prom otes h er Epicurean-
Hedonist lifestyle as the best means to subvert traditional patriarchal
notions of the value of a wom an’s body to render it a source of newly
196
found power for women. Given the strong stance taken on the right
of women to pursue pleasure while underm ining the male economy,
it is not surprising th at Choiseul-M euse’s Julie was found to be so
offensive to public m orals th at it was not only placed in the Enfer,
but also slated for destruction during the Restoration.
Conclusion: Female lnitiates and the Ethics of Libertinism

W ith th e goal of p ro tectin g an d edifying th e ir read ers,
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse each represent the im portance
of a girl’s moral and sexual education in their novels. They each are
in agreem ent as to the futility of censorship, and believe th at not
representing both the positive and negative aspects of a question
leads to ignorance and corruption. The represented experiences in
the libertine texts of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse, however,
cannot be easily reduced to only one m eaning th at is specific to
women writers. As for m en’s libertine fiction, the condem nation or
acceptance of libertinism on moral grounds varies from work to work
and au thor to author.
One ten d e n cy in w om en’s lib e rtin e fiction of th e late
E nlightenm ent is th a t the young girl plays a central role as the
in itiate whose experiences provide the rich est ground for the
in terp retation of the work’s stance on libertinism . The three stage
process of initiation th at identifies the structure of libertine texts by
m ale au th o rs is presen ted d ifferently by women authors. The
mim etization of male discourse as it manifests itself in the structures
197
of the texts by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse is accomplished

to varying degrees, and the differences are ap p aren t in each text
within the stages of disillusionm ent, m astery and the pursuit of an
inaccessible object.
Libertinism in w om en’s texts is not system atically condem ned
in favor of Rousseauism or bourgeois Christian ethics, nor is it fully
em braced as a w orkable alternative. The libertine woman often
scoffs at the lim ited role of faithful wife and dedicated m other
assigned to her, and opts for a life built upon sexual freedom s and
the pursuit of m om entary pleasures. O ther women may be initiated
into a life of libertinism by com m itting libertine acts, but do not
approve of the life they are leading. Condemning the libertine moral
in favor of Christian values signifies an acceptance of the traditional
role o f women as su b o rd in a te helpm ates, wives and m others.
Providing for a com prom ise betw een the tra d itio n a l an d the
Epicurean-hedonist libertine ethical systems signifies a desire for the
expansion of wom en’s roles and perm issible expressions of female
sexuality not limited to familial obligations.
In Amelie de Saint-Far and Claire d ’Albe, the heroines regret
being initiated into libertinism and thus reject the libertine world
view. No com prom ise between the two divergent value systems of
lib ertin ism and Rousseauism is possible. Yet, for the fem ale
characters of Entre Chien et Loup, m arriage serves to erase any ill
consequences of pre-m arital sexual experiences. Suzanne, in Illyrine
ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience, accepts the stage of m astery as well as
198
h er new libertine perspectives. The compromise between libertinism

a n d Rousseauism is achieved through illusions of fidelity and
constancy. Nevertheless, three heroines, Claire, Amelie and Suzanne,
realize th at neither an ideal man nor an ideal woman exists in the
lib ertin e world. They are com pelled to seek to recap tu re the
virtuous woman th at was lost in the process of initiation. In the
analogous situation involving a male initiate in the male paradigm ,
the m an is not compelled to seek his form er virtuous self. Thus, the
female authors do not com pletely invert the gender roles in their
texts with a female protagonist. The quest for the eternal feminine
has different implications in wom en’s texts as it entails a questioning
of and a quest for self.
On the o th er hand, Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a xose signifies a
subversion of the libertine text as established by male authors. By
taking into consideration the social reality of women of the time, and
w ithout presenting a utopian view of libertinism , the novel presents
th e only way in w hich a fem ale libertine can survive w ithout
rem orse, guilt or having to resort to suicide. Although it appears to
be a counter-value to libertinism , virginity is the new m astery as it
is the only way to dom inate in phallocracy. Rather than trying to
p ursue the eternal fem inine or to recapture lost essences of virtue,
Ju lia _auj-ai_sauvA_ma_ro£e rein terp rets the “m asculine” model to
p ortray the pursuit of an equally inaccessible masculine ideal that is
subject to female dom ination and control. Julie’s image of the “ideal”
m an is rarely ever portrayed in libertine literature.
199
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-M euse have a p p ro p riated a

certain type of w riting and a specific genre of literature th at was
originally m asculine. We have explored the significance o f a
h e ro in e ’s lib ertin e education as a stru c tu ra l co n stru ct an d an
indicator of ethical assum ptions in libertine texts. An examination of
the in itiation n arrativ es in fem ale-authored libertine texts with
female protagonists has rendered a different view of the structure of
the libertine text as well as the role of gender and m orality in the
narratives. Our discussion has been able only partially to explain the
reasons that Restoration censors did not treat the five erotic-libertine
novels uniform ly. We have found th a t a w ork’s stance on the
question of libertinism , as it is m ade explicit in the denouem ent, is
not the sole m easure used to judge its potential for offending public
morals. Granted, the case for the condem nation of Julie ou j ’ai sauve
ma ro se , based in p a rt on the novel’s appraisal of the m erits of
libertine behavior, has been m ade m ore palpable. It is unclear,
how ever, w hy Illyrine ou l’e cu eil de 1’in ex p erien ce, w hose
denouem ent cannot be accurately described as “edifying”, was not
chosen among the texts to be placed in the Enfer. We m ust look,
then, at the aesthetic dynamic in order to show what types of erotic
representations were deem ed so offensive as to prom pt censorship.
In the next chapter, we will investigate how the ethics of libertinism
are translated into discursive practices. We will see to what extent
o u r women au th o rs participate in a m im etization of male erotic
discourse by examining closely the nature of their writing.
200
Notes
ISuzanne G. de Morency, Illyrine_Qu_r_ecueiLdeJ!inexperience (Paris:

Garnier, 1983) 24. Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
2Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, Les_Liaisons._dangereuses (Paris:

Garnier-Flammarion, 1981) 17.
^Laclos, 14.
4sophie Cottin, Claire_d!Albe, (Paris: Regine Deforges, 1976) 132.

Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
Sjean-jacques Rousseau, Julie ou la nouvelle Helo'ise (Paris: Garnier-

Flammarion, 1967) 3. Subsequent references will be noted in the
text.
6D.A.Fde Sade, CEuvres com pletes, vol. 4 (Paris: Jean-Jacques

Pauvert, 1961) 26-27.
7Peter Nagy, Libertinage_et revolution, trans. Christiane Gremillon

(Paris: Gallimard, 1975) 75-76.
^Claude Reichler, F’age libertin (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1987).
^Reichler, 46.
lOReichler, 47 .
11 Reichler, 49.
12Reichler, 51.
l^Reichler, 51.
14jacques Rustin, “Definition et explication du rom an libertin des

Lumieres,” Travaux de linguistique et de litterature 16 (1978): 33.
201
l^Reichler, 52.
16see the discussion about a wom an’s perceived guilt in adulterous

situations in Chapter 4 under the heading “Libertinism, Law and
Society.”
lÔ vid refers to his licentious involvem ent with Julie in Tristia IV,
10, and it is considered as a possible reason for his banishm ent.
1Sjean-Jacques Pauvert, Anthologie historique des lectures erotiques

de Sade a Fallieres (1789-1914) (Paris: Garnier, 1982) 130.
19jean Gaulmier, preface, C laired’Albe by Sophie Cottin (Paris:

Regine Deforges, 1976), and Joan Hinde Stewart, GynograplisL, French
Novels by Women of the Late Eighteenth Century (Lincoln & London:
U of Nebraska P, 1993).
20The im portance of Frederic’s idealization of Claire in relation to the

discursive elements of an erotic of the unattainable and the
adm irable will be expounded upon in the next chapter.
21 Gaulmier, preface, Claire d ’Albe, 12.
22Nagy, 26.
23Reichler, 47.
24caulm ier, preface, Claire d ’Albe, 13.
25Mme de Choiseul-Meuse, Entre Chien et Loup (Bruxelles, 1894)

156. Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
26Madame de C**‘\ Amelie de Saint-Far o u la J a ta leerreu r, vol. 1

(N.p., 1882) 36. Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
27The them e of the libertine virgin appeared in a m ale-authored

work five years earlier. See: Robert-Martin Lesuire, L acourtisane
amoure„use_et vierge, ou memoires de Lucrece, ecrit par elle-meme
202
pour servir de nouvelles suites a L’A venturier Frangais (Paris, 1802).

One edition, in two volumes, is housed at the Gotha library in
Germany, but was not available for consultation.
28tyladame de c***, Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose, vol. 1 (Bruxelles,

1882) 40. Subsequent references will be noted in the text.
Chapter 6
GENDERED EROTIC AESTHETICS
Eroticism is an essential elem ent of eighteenth-century libertine

texts by both male and female authors. Ivker’s definition of m ale-
authored libertine literature, adapted for our purposes, affirms that “all
of the novels are erotic, even pornographic,” but does not account for
nuances in discursive practice or the dynamic of gender .1 It rem ains to
be shown the m anner in which Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse
appropriated erotic-libertine writing which heretofore was the mode of
expression used exclusively by male authors. Identifying and exploring
the aesthetic criteria of the erotic content in the texts of Morency, Cottin
and Choiseul-Meuse with an eye to representational tendencies will be
the principle objective of the present chapter.
The Erotic , The Pornographic ; An Overview

The often am biguous definitions of the term s “ero tic ” and
“pornographic” fluctuate depending on culture or time period. In
eighteenth-century France, the nature of the difference in “erotic” as
opposed to “porn o g rap h ic” w riting was not at issue. The term
“pornographe” was used only in reference to writings on prostitution,
such as Restif de la Bretonne's L eJ’crnographe (1769). The term
“erotique”, on the other hand, was norm ally used to designate any text
th at was inspired by eros (love). The significance of the term was
204
certainly not so simply defined. The Encyclopedic includes two articles

on “Erotique”, one relating to literature, and the other dealing with its
medical usage to designate the disease of eroto-mania. The short article
dealing with the literary meaning of the erotic reads as follows:
EROTIQUE, chanson, (Poesie) espece d ’ode anacreontique, dont

l’am our et la galanterie fournissent la m atiere. Rien n ’est plus
commun dans notre langue que ces sortes de chansons et Ton peut
assurer que nous en avons de parfaites. Nous voulons que les
pensees en soient fines, les sentim ents delicats, les images douces,
le style leger, et les vers faciles. La subtilite des reflexions, la
p ro fondeur des idees, et les tours trop recherches y sont des
defauts; l’esprit et l’art n ’y doivent point paraitre, le coeur seul y
doit parler. La chanson erotique tire encore un grand agrem ent
des images, et des faits mythologiques que l’auteur y fait repandre
avec gout. C’est meme dans la delicatesse de leurs rapports et des
allusions, que consiste principalement la finesse de son art. (...)2
The definition of “erotique” in the Encyclopedic does not take into
consideration erotic prose, but limits itself to artistically refined amorous
poetry. The au th o r thus defines it narrowly to m ean lyric poems or
“chansons” that imitate the ancient Greek poet Anakreon having love and
gallantry as their subject. Furthermore, the author remains vague on the
details of erotic expression in the language, and does not define it in
sexual terms. Thus, only erotic poetry m erited discussion. Erotic prose
was therefore considered either dangerous or unim portant, and did not
m erit mention of its possible influence on literature or society.
Despite the privileged status of erotic poetry th at is evidenced in
the Encyclopedic, LaMettrie discusses the value of erotic prose, and
establishes some im portant distinctions within the category of w hat he
called “ecrivains voluptueux.” He splits writers of eroticism into two
classes: “les uns sont obscenes et dissolus, et les autres sont des maitres
de v o lu p te plus e p u re e .”3 A lthough LaM ettrie does n o t use
205
contem porary terms, he makes a distinction between what is now called

pornographic and erotic w riting. W hat he identifies as obscene
voluptuous writing is what may also be called pornographic today; what
he calls refined voluptuous writing is synonymous with the m eaning of
erotic.
LaMettrie makes quite clear the differences in the two types of
erotic expression in writing:
Chez ceux que nous avons appelles obscenes et im pudiques, la

nature violant toutes les lois de la p udeur et de la retenue, et ne
sem blant connaitre que celle de l’indecence et de la lubricite,
n ’offre a nos sens agites, que l’ecum ante lascivete de ses
mouvements et de ses postures. (La Volupte, 214)
Thus, obscene or pornographic writing, devoid of a rt or finesse, serves

only to excite the reader, and is characterized by an explicit and
unabashed representation of sexual acts. According to LaMettrie, the
writer of the obscene wants to expose everything and imagine nothing.
Subtleties make no impression on the pornographer or his readership,
the “esprits libertins”, who dem and and consum e obscene writing (La
Volupte, 208-09). LaMettrie refrains from identifying, and thus refuses
to give credence to the authors of obscenity or pornography.
LaM ettrie’s preference for the second category of voluptuous
writers is clear. He points out that the more refined voluptuous or erotic
writing differs in its m anner of expressing and representing love, and
therefore, has a different effect on the reader:
Le meme poison se trouve chez les autres; il y est seulem ent plus
adouci, apprete avec plus d ’art: ils aim ent a le cacher sous des
fleurs, qui loin de le faire craindre, invitent a l’y chercher. Eh! que
leurs succes m ’ont bien appris, que le sentim ent du plaisir, epure
par la delicatesse et la vertu, loin d ’exclure la volupte, ne sert qu’a
206
l’augmenter! Oui, Part avec lequel ils m enagent la pudeur, est Part
de la faire disparaitre: sous le voile seducteur, dont leurs objets
sont ingenieusem ent couverts, ils font plus de conquetes, que ceux
qui m ontrant tout a decouvert, ne laissent plus rien a desirer. (La
Volupte, 214)
LaMettrie shows his preference for a veiled, more discrete m anner of

representation while underscoring that it is a more erotically charged
and arousing because it relies on the imagination. LaMettrie’s prim ary
example of truly sensuous writing w ithout debauchery is Petronius, the
supposed author of the ancient Latin prose work Satyr icon. He councils
o th er writers who would like to “faire sentir la volupte” to im itate the
refined style of voluptuous writing (LaJVolupte, 215). Although the
same goal of arousal exists in both categories of the refined o r the
obscene, presen tin g the re a d e r with m ore pleasant images th at
encourage the use of the imagination inspires the most positive feelings
of voluptuousness, pleasure and happiness. He rem arks that writers of
eroticism, “fuyant toute idee d ’obscenite grossiere, ont apprivoise les
coeurs les plus farouches, et sont venus a bout de vaincre la pudeur, sans
la revolter” (LaJVolupte, 218-19). Erotic writing thus strikes a balance
between its goal and textual representation. The goal of arousal of the
senses and overcoming “pudeur” is accomplished without what may be
considered overt or offensive representations.
LaMettrie’s views on obscene as opposed to refined voluptuous
w riting is surprisingly m odern, as we shall see th at contem porary
definitions of eroticism and pornography m irror his point of view. To be
sure, LaMettrie was liberal in his ideas as he was, after all, one of the
eighteenth-century “libre penseurs” having a healthy attitude toward
sexuality and voluptuousness. The distinctions that LaMettrie discusses
207
in La_VolupJt.e are rare for the eighteenth and even the nineteenth
centuries. His ideas did not find w idespread perm anence, and the
difference in the expression and reception of erotic and pornographic
writing is still often contested today.
The specificity of both erotic and pornographic texts was
acknowledged when the Enfer of the Bibliotheque Nationale was founded
during the Consulate. The term pornographic was still not widely used,
but in the nineteenth century the term s erotic or libertine came to
designate all licentious or forbidden books such as those tucked away in
the Enfer. The Bibliophiles a t th at time did not make any clear
distinction between erotic and pornographic texts, but were instrumental
in the developm ent of the m odern concept of pornography by collecting
and cataloging them .4 The “second rayon” category of books was
established to m arginalize the texts which were in terpreted as being
“irreguliers”, such as the libertine texts or clandestine works .5 Primary
sources of reference to erotic or pornographic texts in France use the
term “erotique” in their titles with the exception of Jules Gay who chose
to circum vent the problem by entitling his work, BiblmgmpMe_des.
ouvrages relatifs a Tamour, aux femmes et au m ariage. O ther m ajor
references including Pascal Pia’s D ictio n n aired es_ o eu v resero tiq u es
dom aine.Jfan.eais, Jean-Jacques P auvert’s three volum e Anthoiogie
historique des lectures erotiques, and Claudine Brecourt-Villar’s Ecrire
d ’amour: anthologie d e textes erotiques_feminins (1799-1984) to name
just these three, have the term “erotique” in their titles as opposed to
“pornographique” even though the works cited include w hat may be
considered pornographic texts.
Recently, the debate over the status of pornography in society,
208
which has been brewing in both the United States and France, has incited
many to react to and define eroticism and pornography. The words are
often defined in relation to gender differences. Gloria Steinem, for
exam ple, relies upon the linguistic roots of the term s to solidify
distinctions. According to her, pornography (with its root “porno”
m eaning prostitution) deals with dom ination and violence against a
female figure. Erotica, on the other hand, (with its root “Eros” meaning
passionate love) expresses a “positive choice, free will, the yearning for a
particular person .”6 For her, pornography is an exclusively male domain,
whereas erotica is not gender specific. Although helpful, her distinctions
are reductive in th at they do not allow room for the possibility of
pornography being written by women.
In a recent article on female erotic writers, Lucienne Frappier-
Mazur adds an im portant element to the definition of an erotic text by
taking into consideration narrative tendencies as well as the reception of
the texts. In co n trast to Steinhem who sees the two concepts as
diam etrically opposed, Frappier-Mazur states that she sees a blending of
eroticism and pornography in all erotic stories by women. Pornography,
she states, “a pour unique fonction d ’exciter le lecteur (ou la lectrice ).”7
W hereas pornography is always associated with crude language and
obscenity, eroticism, on the other hand, denotes a quality. She uses the
term erotic to refer to: “un recit qui represente une succession d ’actes
sexuels que relie un fil narratif, et qui est lu, au moins a une certaine
epoque, comme transgressif parce que violant a la fois les norm es du
discours et celles du com portem ent sexuel .”8 The notion of a
transgression of both sexual and textual norm s is grounded in George
Bataille’s particu lar usage of eroticism th at necessarily privileges a
209
textuality of the avant-garde. Albeit problematic, the m easurem ent of

sexual-textual transgression is a useful aid to interpretation. Using the
above definition, Frappier-M azur identifies Suzanne de M orency’s
Illyrine as “le prem ier rom an erotique frangais a etre signe p ar une
femme,” and then cites Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse’s Amelie de Saint-Far
ou la fatale erreu r and Julie _ou j ’ai sauve ma rose as the next French
erotic novels penned by a woman.
Furtherm ore, the definitions of eroticism in the m ost recent
anthologies on erotic literature by Pauvert, Pia and Brecourt-Villars will
help us greatly in our com prehension of the specificity of the works by
Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse. The definitions, looked upon as a
unity, approach the problem from different angles. Pia approaches the
question of defining eroticism from them atic trends, Brecourt-Villars
from linguistic indicators, and Pauvert from readers’ reactions.
Pauvert reiterates in his Anthologie that “la France est le seul pays
a posseder une litterature erotique” while skirting a precise definition of
the param eters of what he calls erotic literature .9 First of all, he makes
no distinction between the term s “erotique” and “pornographique”, but
renders them synonymous. He explains that for his purposes: “le terme
EROTIQUE (et ses synonym es et derives, polisson, pornographique,
licencieux, etc.) est defini p ar sa valeur d ’usage a l’epoque du texte
considere .”10 Several signposts that signal an erotic text as defined by its
“valeur d ’usage” include: scandals, trials, declarations, reputations of
certain bookstores, ad m itted intentions of the a u th o r or editor,
circumstances of publication, critics’ reactions, mouth to mouth notoriety,
placement on police indexes, or placement into the “Enfers” of libraries . 11
What is erotic is wholly determ ined by public opinion or the societal
210
context of a work’s publication. Certainly, the notoriety surrounding the

publication of the works of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse justify
th eir inclusion in Pauvert’s Anthologie. Pauvert’s definition is broad
enough to encompass erotic texts of many eras and literary traditions. It
shares a common ground with the notion of transgression, and gives a
means to measure that transgression in empiric contexts.
Pia’s definition of the erotic takes themes into consideration rather
than author intention or reader reaction. He defines the “erotique” as:
Toute oeuvre rem arquable, ayant pour theme, apparent ou sous-

jacent, 1’am our physique—l’instinct sexuel et ses m anifestations
(deviations comprises). 11 fallait aussi discerner, pour l’exclure, ce
qui est seulem ent sensuel ou derive d ’un naturalism e indifferencie.
En revanche, si elabore ou masque q u ’il soit chez des auteurs aussi
differents que Racine, Rousseau, Mallarme et quelques autres,
l’erotisme y atteint une telle violence, y joue un role si determ inant
que l’ignorer eut ete desequilibrer gravement cet ouvrage .12
Pia defines the erotic by its function within the text, by its pervasive
them atic presence, yet excludes what he calls the “sensuel” from his
definition. According to Pia, the texts by Morency and Choiseul-Meuse
do fulfill the defining criteria since the representation of physical love
does in fact give the works unity and meaning. He did not judge the
representation of physical love in Cottin’s Claire d ’Albe to be pervasive
enough to be term ed erotic. Pia’s definition allows for judgm ents as to
the importance of the representation of sexual love to the integrity of the
work.
B recourt-V illars does not define e ith e r the erotic o r the
pornographic as gender-specific, nor does she concede, as Frappier-
Mazur, that they may blend in the same text. She considers the absence
of violence and the m anner of expressing desire as the distinguishing
211
factor between the two terms.
Pourtant la litterature pornographique ne revet a l’evidence q u ’un

sens tres precis—celui de la rep resen tatio n crue, im m uable,
caricaturale, sinon inflationniste, de la sexualite a l’oeuvre~qui n ’a
rien a voir avec la litterature erotique qui se situe dans une autre
hierarchie de valeurs. La litterature erotique, en effet, ne se borne
pas exclusivement aux recits de relations strictem ent sexuelles ou a
leu r violence possible; elle degage aussi les form es du desir
individuel, m ontrant que le desir qui est aussi celui du corps dans
sa totalite, peut naitre encore de ce qui n'est pas designe comme
directem ent sexuel.13
Brecourt-Villar’s concept of the erotic, then, is rather close to LaMettrie’s
ideas on “l’ecriture voluptueuse”. Erotic litterature may be sexual, and
may also be an expression of “volupte” or desire and pleasure relating to
the body. In addition, her definition more easily permits the inclusion of
libidinous feminine writing of which Luce Irigaray, for example, speaks.
Of the m any well-known French fem inist literary critics, Luce
Irigaray has been the m ost outspoken on the question of eroticism,
pornography and women’s erotic writing. In her essay “« F ra n g a ise s» , ne
faites plus un effort” in Ce sexe qui n ’en est pas un, Irigaray adopts an
ironic, yet challenging tone. Although she speaks of a certain “m aitre
lib ertin ” w ithout nam ing him, it is clear from her title and in w hat
follows that she is refering to Sade and Sadian criticism. She defines
pornography by making reference to elements in Sade's works such as
violence, blood and rape, as well as the recent interpretations of his work
including the notions of transgression, economy, structural repetition and
monotony. She subverts the acceptance of pornographic discourse by
proceeding with a series of questions directed at the pornographers who
may be identified, by extension, as philosophers who share identities
with the masters of phallocratic discourse. Irigaray reacts as a woman in
212
relationship to male dom inated discourse, an d refers to the Sadian

concept of the victim who is denied access to speech. “II faut d'abord,
que je perde connaissance-et existence?-par le pouvoir, theorique et
pratique, de sa langue .”14 For Irigaray the subject (m aster) does not
loose his power or his subjectivity in pornography; it is only the object
(slave) who looses her consciousness/existence.
Irigaray attacks phallologocentrism and the giving of value to the
subjection (I'assujettissem ent) of fem inine sexuality in pornography.
Women in pornographic texts act as “femmes-alibis”; they are witnesses
and are trained to participate in phallocratic sexual economy. Women,
then, are mimics (hysterics) who are denied their own kind of pleasure
because of the male desire for the self-same: Hom (m )osexualite . 15
Woman is subject to the male gaze which objectifies her, and she is thus
dom inated through scopophilia. The sovereign m aster governs all that is
woman and decides w hat is transgressed. Sexuality in pornographic
texts is defined by pain and the forcing open of “une cloiture” or “une
propriete ”.16
Irigaray intends to expose the male econom y and phallocratic
practice in order that a new economy may be possible. She points out in
speaking directly to women that: “votre n ature etait, curieusem ent,
toujours definie par les seuls hommes, vos etem els pedagogues...C'est eux
qui vous ont instruites de vos besoins ou desirs, sans que vous ayez
commence a en dire quelque chose .”17 She wants each woman to put
phallocratic statures into question into order to find her “nature”, and to
overturn the notion that it is tied to pain as the pornographers would
have it. She ends her essay with a call to women writers to re-discover
th eir own sexuality and textual economy: “Ne vous obligez pas a la
213
repetition, ne figez pas vos reves ou desirs en representations uniques et

definitives. Vous avez tant de continents a explorer que vous donner des
frontieres reviendrait a ne pas « j o u i i » de toute votre « n a tu re » . ”18 She
is not advocating that women create a new language for themselves, but
rath e r to break free from dom inant representations. Irigaray urges
women to examine phallocracy and transgress limits th at have been
assigned to them. To be sure, her call to write negates the sense of her
title: “«Frangaises», ne faites plus un effort”.
In a subsequent interview, Irigaray explores the consequences of a
real subversion o f the phallocratic. By denouncing th e Sadian
pornographic model, she urges women to define their own sexuality. The
phallocratic economy allows for male, but not female “jouissance”. A
female “jouissance is possible, according to Irigaray, but not w ithout a
d isruption of the standing order. It w ould th reaten the ideas of
property, identity, non-contradiction, and d isru p t the sexual, logical,
social and economic economies . 19 The “jouissance” or female desire of
which Irigaray speaks is a proposition for the future, but certainly did
not exist on a practical level in the writing of the late Eighteenth Centuiy,
and is identifiable only in a limited num ber of contem porary texts as
examples of “feminine writing” or “writing the body”.
The problem s th at are raised, however, point to the difficulties
faced by women writers who may attem pt to break from the norm even
in the slightest m anner. The censorship or m arginalization of female
desires has been revealed as a long-term historical problem. It is most
acute on the textual level w here women have traditionally had a
complicated relationship with language. The theory is that: “Les femmes
seraient done dans une securite sexuelle beaucoup plus grande (...) si le
214
langage, l’imaginaire, les representations du desir leur perm ettaient de

s’imaginer, de se dire, de se souvenir de leur desir ou de leur jouissance.
Or ceux-ci sem blent barres, censures, oublies dans les modeles sexuels
consideres comme norm aux .”20 The problem s relating to a woman
w riter’s subversion of the phallocratic are valid certainly in the cases of
Morency, Choiseul-Meuse and Cottin judging from reader reactions to the
expressions of fem inine desire in their texts. We will look first at the
two novels, Morency’s lllyrine and Cottin’s Claire d ’Alhe, whose practices
of erotic representation were eith er overlooked or were not deem ed
dangerously offensive by the censors, and then compare their narrative
tendencies with Choiseul-Meuse’s three novels that prom pted censorship.
Morency’s„EroticJyiemoirs;JLanguageQfaLibertine
In lllyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience, Morency broke from the
norm of self-censorship regarding erotic content. The work created a
scandal, on the one hand, because of the heroine’s cavalier attitude
toward love and men, and, on the o th er hand, because of the overt
sexuality rep resen ted in the text. M onselet describes the style of
Morency’s works as: “ecrits dans un style sans nom, petulant, obscur,
sentimental, effronte .”21 Although h er style cannot be traditionally
identified, according to Monselet, the adjectives he used to describe it are
significant. The use of “petulant” and “effronte” are the most im portant
as they are rarely used to qualify the works of female authors.
Morency’s works are distinguished by a type of writing that is exuberant
(p etu lant”), and sham eless or im pudent (“effronte”) which may be
synonymous with erotic. Together with Cottin’s first novel and Choiseul-
M euse’s th re e censored works, M orency’s lllyrine explores the
215
boundaries of the representation of physical love not only in its themes,

but also in its language. For example, the following passage from
M orency’s second work, Rosalina, treats the sexual practices of the
heroine with her lover and with her husband:
Mon orgueil ne fera pas le prem ier pas; il est aussi indestructible
que mes sentim ents pour lui, qui reprirent toujours une espece de
consistance dans les lacunes que j ’ai eues d ’une passion a une
autre. Sans doute le gage de notre hymen a beaucoup contribue a
ces petites reminiscences, et ma Clarisse (cette charm ante enfant
prom et et donne les plus douces esperances) est l’objet des
adorations de son pere, qui a reporte sur elle la tendresse q u ’il
avait eue pour sa Suzanne .”22
After having cited the passage, Monselet exclaims: “Quel langage! quelles
idees! Est-il possible de m ontrer plus de naivete dans la corruption ?”23
Subsequent examples from lllyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience will
show that both the content and form of Morency’s work are surprising or
even shocking because the author does not condem n or suppress either
represented sexual actions or language that may be deemed corrupt.
It is not surprising th at the n ature of the erotic in Morency’s
lllyrine shares elements with the works of h er contem poraries. In his
discussion of narrative techniques in works by Crebillon, Nerciat and
Sade, Peter Cryle likened Ulyrine to Nerciat’s Le Diable au corps (1803)
since both works present an “eroticism of the obstacle” that takes its cue
from the elem ents of novels of ad v en tu re .24 In essence, it is the
“overcoming of these difficulties which constitutes the story of pleasure,
and doubtless the pleasures of the story .”25 In other words, conquest
defines both the nature of intrigue and of pleasure.
Cryle notes the appearance and disappearance of smallpox in
lllyrine as an example of an obstacle .26 As a child, Suzanne was afflicted
216
with smallpox, but was not disfigured as were her sisters. Suzanne’s
trium ph over the disease guaranteed her superiority over her sisters,
and m ade her secure in her ability to attrac t men. Of course, any
obstacles that affected appearance m ust be overcome in order to assure
attractiveness to the opposite sex, as Suzanne remarks, “pour plaire a ton
sexe (masculin), l’enveloppe fait tout...” (159). Any defect in appearance
caused by disease, fatigue or even a swollen tooth serves to delay an
erotic encounter, and therefore heightens anticipation and enjoyment.
The notion of the “eroticism of the obstacle” may be extended
beyond sicknesses. In lllyriae, the family acts as barrier to Suzanne’s
romantic encounters. For example, Suzanne relates a romantic adventure
that took place at the approximate time of the narration of her memoirs.
She accompanies her lover to his p aren ts’ home undetected. Fear of
discovery heightens the lovers’ enjoym ent because they are aware that
they are transgressing the norms of acceptable social behavior. Suzanne
notes wryly: “Que ces petits obstacles a vaincre sont piquants!” (76).
Possible discovery rem ains an elem ent of suspense not only as she is
entering and leaving her lover’s house, but also during the night. Her
lover’s father unexpectedly rises in the middle of the night passing by
the room in which Suzanne is hiding which forces her lover to hide her
by laying on top of her. Suzanne relates the event to her friend Elise.
Enfin, figurez-vous, mon amie, moi presque m orte de peur, mon

am ant etendu sur moi, la tete hors du lit, p ret a faire bonne
contenance, et son vieux pere une lampe de nuit a la main, en robe
de cham bre, m arch an t courbe e t tra v e rsa n t a p etits pas
silencieusement la piece ou etait son fils (qu’il craignait d ’eveiller),
pour se rendre dans l’anticham bre ou etaient des lieux a l’anglaise.
Apres une dem i-heure de seance, il rentre aussi m ysterieusem ent
dans sa chambre, et nous en fumes quittes pour la peur. (77)
217
The scene is narrated in an amusing and light-hearted m anner, but also

has implications for the nature of the erotic in Illyrine based on the
interplay of transgression and the forbidden.
Many of Suzanne’s adventures behind closed doors are threatened
by interruption. Avoiding discovery by family is often thus the m ajor
obstacle to be overcome, but it also serves as a sexual catalyst since it is
associated with the forbidden. Certainly, the notion of transgression is
essential to eroticism. As Bataille explains, the essential relationship
betw een the notions of tran sg ressio n an d the forbidden: “La
connaissance de l’erotisme... dem ande une experience personnelle, egale
et contradictoire, de l’interdit et de la transgression. (...) la transgression
leve l’interdit sans le supprimer.”27 Granted, Bataille does not make any
direct reference to Morency’s work, and the theoretical connection with
the erotic passages in Illyrine is perhaps overstated. Bataille’s theories
do, however, serve to underscore the necessity for a perception of
transgression, and a recognition of the forbidden.
If studied exclusively without regard to the rem ainder of the text,
excerpts from Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience can lead to different
conclusions regarding the nature of the eroticism. Jean-Jacques Pauvert
and Claudine Brecourt-Villars cite Illyrine in their anthologies as an
im portant erotic text, and offer two different examples of representative
am atory passages. They show that the concept of the erotic varies in the
work, and cannot be sufficiently represented by only one passage.
The passage Pauvert choses recounts the events that took place at
a ball in which Suzanne and her protegee Eugenie were in attendance.
Eugenie disappears from Suzanne’s sight, and at four o’clock in the
morning Suzanne is drawn into her bedroom by an amorous Colonel. The
218
scene tells of the Colonel’s attem pts to seduce and then to rape Suzanne
who was m arried and pregnant at the time. The Colonel reinterpreted
any flirtations that may have occured in the public sphere (“le bal”) as
the scene moves to the private sphere (“l’appartem ent a coucher”). The
erotic impact of the scene lies in Suzanne’s resistance, and the unsatisfied
desires of the Colonel. The erotic obstacle which is Suzanne’s pregnancy
and lack of desire for the Colonel is not to be overcome in this situation.
In the scene which is cited below, an obvious analogy is drawn between
romantic and military manoeuvres.
apres une resistance a laquelle il ne s’attendait pas de ma part (...)

il avait dresse ses manoeuvres; enfin, fatigue de la resistance
q u ’opposait une forteresse aussi faible, en apparence, ayant
em porte de vive force les faubourgs q u ’il pillait en vainqueur, la
demence succeda a l’emportement: il proposa pour capitulation de
donner tous les honneurs de la guerre au vaincu; mais ce dernier,
aussi fier apres la defaite q u ’avant, ne voulut entendre a aucun
moyen de paix; et tout ce q u ’il put faire le reste de la nuit et la
matinee suivante, ne put lui rien faire obtenir de bon gre. (104)
The language of the scene is th at of a m ilitary assault. Suzanne,

symbolized by the fortified city to be conquered in their war, m ust
defend herself. Despite a lack of explicit language to paint the scene, the
reader understands enough to visualize what may have been the nature
of the Colonel’s attack.
The scene is typical of certain libertine texts in which the conquest
of women is represented in military terms. The most well-documented
case is Laclos’ Les_liaisons__dangereuses in which the M arquise de
Merteuil eventually declares w ar on h er rival-lover Valmont. The
military analogy has become, in fact, part of the distinguishing narrative
features of libertine texts sim ilar to Les Jiatsons^dangereuses .28 In
219
Illyrine, however, the analogy “military strategy-romance” occurs only in

the scene cited above, and appears to be due to the status of the would-
be-lover as a Colonel in the arm y. It is not a pervasive narrative
strategy th at is repeated in subsequent scenes depicting rom antic
encounters.
Moreover, the military ethic is attacked in the paragraph previous
to the scene cited above. The n arrato r, in a parenthetical rem ark,
berates men who treat women as rapable objects, and use violence to
attain their goals: “car les hommes, les militaires surtout, sont persuades
que bientot on est le bien-aime d ’une femme lorsqu’on l’a violee, et
q u ’elle finit par rem ercier son ravisseur de lui avoir arrache ce q u ’elle
n ’au rait ose lui donner, malgre la meilleure volonte” (103-04). She is
mocking the ridiculous m anner of thinking which is, in essence, an attack
of the military ethic when applied to love. Furthermore, it is a challenge
to the aesthetic of pornographic texts and of phallocentrism as defined
by theorists such as Irigaray. Irigaray has observed th at women have
been conditioned to be seduced by violence, and have been defined
within the param eters of a sexuality of rape term ed “la jouissance de
l’hom m e .”29 The condem nation of rape and violence th at is found
concurrently with an allegorical account of rom antic adventures in
Illyrine mocks, at the same time, the p o rnographer who presents a
“sexuality of rape”, and the w riter who represents it in m ilitary terms.
In the scene which depicts avid resistance to an unwanted encounter, the
“jouissance de Phomme” is subverted and negated.
In her anthology, Brecourt-Villars cites a contrasting passage which
shows the diversity of erotic representation in Illyrine. W hereas the
extract cited by Pauvert is dom inated by an eroticism o f rape and
220
resistance, the one reprinted in Ecrire_d!amour. reflects an eroticism of

seduction and m utual pleasure. Nevertheless, rem nants of the war-
seduction analogy remain. The scene relates the first time Suzanne made
love with M. Q...te in her bedroom at her grandm other’s house. The bed
plays a central role in Suzanne’s rom antic adventures, yet has been a
place of both pleasure and pain. It is the same bed in which she first
made love with her husband before their marriage. It is also where she
drank poison given to her by Mile P..., the jealous rival for her husband’s
affections. Suzanne relates the feelings she had at the moment her lover
entered her bedroom: “Je voyais ma defaite; je la desirais, mais je la
craignais encore d av an tag e” (212). Despite mixed feelings of
apprehension and desire, Suzanne does attem pt to resist by asking him
to leave the apartm ent. Giving into the man in this scene is represented
as a “defeat”, but not as a serious loss.
The exact nature of Suzanne’s fear is not articulated. It is difficult
to conclude w hether the apprehension she expresses is founded in a
simple fear of the unknown, a fear of recreating unpleasant memories, or
if it has broader socio-historical implications such as the fear of a loss of
reputation or social standing. Nonetheless, fear is subsumed by desire
for her lover. The coupling of desire with fear affects the strategies of
seduction and resistance. Suzanne’s strategy of self-defense remains on
the level of the spoken word and is not overtly acted out. M. Q ...te’s
strategy of seduction relies on language rath er than physical strength in
direct contrast to the colonel’s strategy of physical threats. Desire was
conspicuously ab sen t in the relatio n sh ip with the colonel, an d
strengthened her resolve to resist. The woman in Illyrine is able to fend
off men for whom she has no desire, who attem pt to seduce or rape her.
221
The existence of desire on her p art for the man, however, effects the
outcome of the seduction attempt.
M. Q,..te’s seduction of Suzanne was accomplished by reading Ovid.
The strategy of seduction through literature is typical of other libertine-
erotic texts of the same era, such as Crebillon’s Le^Sopha, Nerciat’s Felicia
ou mes fredaines, or the dedication “to Zima” in Diderot’s Les_Bijoux
indiscrets among others .30 In these works as well as in Illyrine, reading
com plem ents sexual pleasure: “relation de continuite! Le livre et le
plaisir tissent ainsi une volupte conforme. Le livre suscite et entretient
la reverie du plaisir ...”31 Reading leads to the subsequent scene in
which Suzanne and M. Q,--te’s love is consum m ated. The action
progresses from the psychological preparation for love which is realized
through reading, to the physical expression of love.
11 trouva le moyen de glisser sa main jusqu’au temple du bonheur!

Peut-on toujours resister? Bientot il apergut dans mes yeux le
signal du plaisir! Voulant p o rter sa bouche ou sa main s’etait
in tro d u ite : A rrete, lui dis-je avec T accent de la v ertu
expirante...Arrete...la pudeur est a l’am our ce que les graces sont a
la beaute: il me comprit: eteignant a l’instant la lumiere, il ne
resta plus dans l’appartem ent q u ’un jour mysterieux que donnaient
les rayons de la lune qui filtraient au travers des jalousies. -Ce clair
obscur, o ma Julie! sert l’am our sans offenser la pudeur; puis, il osa
tout...et bientot je partageai ses transports... (212-13)
Suzanne’s desire for her lover in this instance overrides any concerns for
modesty or “pudeur”. Any remaining fear she may have had is assuaged
by the intentional obscurity of the room. The moonlight which shrouds
the scene in mystery accomplishes the erotic atm osphere of Suzanne’s
encounter with her lover. Her lover was attentive to arrange both the
reading of Ovid’s letters and the room darkening in order to fulfill his
222
plans of seduction.
The language used to represent the affair is particularly daring. It
is an audacious defiance of the norms of discourse in a woman-authored
work. Mme de Morency is the first woman au th o r to express through
the voice of her n a rra to r the physical details of love-making as she
herself experienced them. Solidified by the tradition of the Precieuses,
women writers were expected to use a language that masks the explicit
representation of both physical desire and strong passionate emotions.
In Illyrine, the principle of self-censorship is transgressed. Granted, she
does not use explicit pornographic detail, the narrator underscores both
strong emotion and body placement in the scene cited above. Morency’s
representation is bold since it calls attention to the body, especially the
hands and mouth. The intimacy and explicitness of the language in this
passage from Illyrine signifies a milestone in women’s writing. Morency
crossed a threshold in erotic representation that few other women had
wanted or were able to traverse.
Morency’s reputation as a w riter of eroticism was reestablished at
the turn of the twentieth century by Hughes Rebell in the preface to his
Journal d ’une enfant vicieuse. The work was at first believed to have
been first published by Morency in 1800, but the attribution was only an
authorial and editorial game on the p a rt of Hugues Rebell. Perceau
discovered proof th at the work was not by Morency, but rath er first
ap p eared around 1901-02, and was at least partially w ritten and
corrected by Rebell.32 Although Morency was not the actual writer of
the work, Rebell presents her as such, and establishes the Journal as an
im provem ent on her previous writings. Rebell’s preface is pure fiction,
but it serves to confirm that in certain circles Morency’s works had not
223
fallen totally into oblivion, but were regarded as forerunners of erotic

literature by women. Rebell’s preface begins:
Ces pages, retrouvees par hasard a Soissons, viennent enrichir

l’oeuvre deja si abondante de cette gracieuse Suzanne Giroux qui,
sous le nom de Madame de Morency, a com pose d u ra n t le
Directoire, ta n t de livres passionnes, sans rien perdre de son
charm e de fem m e et sans jam ais ch au sser le bas-bleu des
pedantes.33
Both the “passionate” (erotic) writing style of Morency and her gender
are underscored by Rebell in his laudatory comments. He concludes that
she did not fall into the trap of pedantry, but surpassed her previous
works in the apocryphal Journal. In the preface, Rebell also notes that
the language in her other novels which tended towards a “langage aux
p eriphrases molles et fades qui m asque beaucoup trop ces objets
agreables” is modified in favor of more explicit representation.34 When
comparing Illyrine_ou_L,ecueiLde l!inexperienee to Journal d ’une enfant
yicieuse, it becomes obvious to the reader that these works are based on
two divergent concepts of eroticism. The Journal, as Rebell admits,
presents savage and violent “pleasures” that are much more closely tied
to sado-masochism, and are represented by an explicit language that
borders on the obscene. Rebell has thus conserved Morency’s reputation
as an erotic writer, but changed the n ature of the eroticism in her
language to fit his own needs. We find that, for her own time, Morency
was daring in h er choice of textual expression, but she did not ever
imitate the explicit, obscene language that one finds in works by Hugues
Rebell, or by better-know n authors such as the Marquis de Sade and
Georges Bataille. Morency’s tasteful language exempted her fiction from
the Enfer of the Bibliotheque Nationale.
2 24
Cojttin’s Unspeakable_Eassage:_ Eroticism, in_Claire_d’Albe

The most cited passage from Claire_d’Alhe in anthologies of erotic
literature was the one that Mme de Genlis could not bear to repeat in her
work of literary criticism, De Tinfluence des femmes. For Pauvert and
Brecourt-Villars, the would-be offensive passage typifies the eroticism in
the novel. Yet, they fail to note that it is the only episode in which love-
making is represented. Because of a serious m isunderstanding prom pted
by the interference of Claire’s husband, M. d ’Albe, Claire is more
susceptible to her feelings for Frederic that she had previously been able
to control. Claire and Frederic are unexpectedly reunited, and the event
is retold as follows:
L’am our a double les forces de Frederic, l’am our et la maladie ont
epuise celles de Claire... Elle n ’est plus a elle, elle n ’est plus a la
vertu; Frederic est tout, Frederic l’em porte... Elle l’a goute dans
toute sa plenitude, cet eclair de delice q u ’il n ’a p p artie n t q u ’a
l’am our de sentir; elle l’a connue, cette jouissance delicieuse et
unique, rare et divine comme le sentim ent qui l’a creee: son ame,
confondue dans celle de son am ant, nage dans un to rren t de
volupte; il fallait m ourir alors; mais Claire etait coupable, et la
punition l’attendait au reveil. Qu’il fut terrible! (135)
The words in the above passage have proven to be powerful as

they have m ade this short section of Claire d ’Albe the target o f both
praise and criticism. Mme de Genlis reproached Cottin for having written
this “page infame et degoutante (...) dont l’extravagance et l’impiete font
toute l’energie”, and refused to reprint it in her review out of respect for
public m orality.35 Although Cottin represents the sensuality of her
heroines in her o th er novels, only this page of Claire-d’Albe seems to
have drawn such vehem ent criticism for its immorality. The language in
225
itself is not terribly daring, especially if it is m easured against the ruler

of Sade’s explicit sexually-oriented language. The words, however, are
exceptionally bold and im p ru d en t for a woman. Although, not as
centered on the physical as passages in de M orency’s Illyrine, the
passage is scandalous because it violates in p art the unwritten aesthetic
principle th at limits the range of suitable subjects of discourse for
women writers. Girault de Saint-Fargeau makes this point in 1839 in his
criticism of Cottin when he states: “Cependant on ne peut se dissimuler
q u ’il ne lui soit echappe quelques traits d ’une verite trop franche qui
alarm ent la morale, et que la critique voudrait effacer. Le m om ent ou
Claire devient coupable, offre le tab leau su r lequel tom be plus
particulierem ent ce reproche.”36 Terms such as “delice”, “delicieuse”,
“jouissance” or expressions such as “l’am our de sentir” or “nager dans un
to rren t de volupte” can prove to be shocking when written not just by a
fictional female narrator, but by a woman w riter as well. The language,
far from being explicit, has the power to express the erotic, although it
may not shock the tw entieth century reader as it may have one of the
n in eteen th century. C ottin’s w riting is a veiled eroticism th at is
characterized by a lack of explicit terminology to represent the physical
aspects of love, but ra th e r favors expressions of strong em otion th at
leave no doubt as to the significance of the event. Furtherm ore, it is
more erotically charged having been written by a woman because she is
violating the norm s of discourse. Cottin, like Morency, is crossing the
boundaries of appropriate language with which a woman w riter should
express herself.
The erotic episode cited above occurs near the end of the novel as
p art of a third-person account th at recounts the events leading up to
226
Claire’s death (133-41). Although the novel has an epistolary form, the
last several pages after Letter XLV are supposedly narrated by Claire’s
friend, Elise. An editor’s note informs the reader that: “Ici fm issent les
lettres de Claire; le reste est un recit ecrit de la main d ’Elise. Sans doute
elle en au ra recueilli les principaux traits de la bouche de son amie”
(132). The fact that Elise and not Claire wrote the final passages of the
novel is significant in regards to the additional erotic im pact of the
denouem ent. Despite the explicit m oralistic intention of representing
Claire’s dangerous passion in order to save her daughter Laure from a
sim ilar fate, the intim acy with which Elise retells Claire’s adventure
heightens the erotic overtones of the writing. Elise functions as a
voyeuse, a tertiary witness to Claire and Frederic’s love-making who
describes the seduction scene with the passion of a lover. The familiarity
with which she describes the scene and the erotic term s she uses to
interpret Claire’s feelings underscore the close passionate friendship that
existed all along between Claire and Elise. The scene makes the reader
aware not only that Claire is a sensuous individual, but also th at her
friend Elise can conceive of her friend in intim ate term s by revealing
that Claire “a goute dans toute sa plenitude (...) cette jouissance delicieuse
et unique, rare et divine” (135).
The erotic power of words is witnessed in the passage that directly
precedes the love-making episode. W hat prom pts Claire’s decision to
violate her marriage vows is revealed. The key is in the im portance of
language and the voice. Ever since Claire’s husband was aware of the
precarious position of Claire and Frederic’s friendship, he convinced Elise
to poison her m ind against Frederic. The letters in which Frederic was
portrayed as forgetful of h er were used to “cure” Claire of her passion.
227
Claire eventually believed the portraits of Frederic to be truthful. When

they are reunited, Frederic tries to dispel the falsehoods th at were
created. He pleads with her, “livre-toi a ton am ant, partage ses
transports, et, sur les bornes de la vie ou nous touchons Tun et l’autre,
goutons, avant de la quitter, cette felicitee supreme qui nous attend dans
l’eternite” (134). Claire’s resolve is still strong, and she continues to
resist. In turn, Claire implores Frederic to assume the responsibility for
her crime. Frederic accepts in what is described as “une voix terrible”
which underscores the importance of his vow. Only after the acceptance
of responsibility for the “crime”, or, in oth er words, the adm ittance of
guilt, will Claire give in to him. Implicitly, Claire is dem anding that if a
sharing of pleasure is to occur, so m ust there be a sharing of guilt and
responsibility. It appears th a t the consequence of the action is
u nderstood even at this point, but Frederic’s verbal prom ise in an
impassioned voice is more powerful.
The eroticism is not limited to the words used, but is also manifest
in the feelings expressed. What is erotic is her enjoym ent of love and
the pleasure she feels and expresses. Claire experiences a loss of self,
“Elle n ’est plus a elle”, and an acceptance of the other, “Frederic est tout”
that leads to a confusion of herself with the other, “son ame, confondue
dans celle de son am ant”. These are the effects of love-making as told by
Elise from Claire’s perspective. Claire gives into Frederic, but as a willing
participant not as a helpless victim of seduction. According to Gaulmier,
Claire d ’Albe and Histoire d ’Q share a common conception of the heroine:
“L’heroine, nee des fantasm es de Sophie Cottin, annonce ainsi celle de
Pauline Reage; puisque son am ant [Frederic] est indigne de la trop grande
idee q u ’elle a congue de lui, il est vain d ’opposer a ses desirs les lois
228
d ’une morale desormais sans signification, il est vain de renoncer a la

jouissance de se perdre avec lui. C’est a elle-meme que cede Claire, a son
desespoir, autant qu’a Frederic.” 37 Because of her husband’s scheme that
made her believe that Frederic had forgotten her and was no longer the
ideal friend, Claire put aside all convention and relied on her passionate
instincts. The words used in the passage transgress the norm s of
discourse; Claire’s actions transgress the norms of society.
In addition to the eroticism that typifies the love-making episode,
we witness w hat may be called an erotic of the unattainable and an
erotic of the admirable. Frederic’s desire for Claire generates the erotic
of the admirable. Claire’s husband presents her to Frederic as a model of
virtue to be imitated. Claire is a healer and nurse who devotes much of
her time to the running of a hospice within her hu sb an d ’s factory.
Frederic has observed her caring for the sick on several occasions, and
Claire relates his reactions in her letters to Elise. Strong emotion to her
good works is alluded to when, as he first observes her caring for a sick
woman, Frangoise, he calls her an angel. Claire wonders, however, if he
was im pressed by her care giving or her disheveled, scantily-dressed
appearance.
il contem plait, non plus sa cousine, m ’a-t-il dit, non plus une
femme belle autant qu’aimable, mais un ange! J’ai rougi et de ce
q u’il m ’a dit, et du ton qu’il y a mis, et peut-etre aussi du desordre
de ma toilette; car, dans mon em pressem ent a me ren d re chez
Frangoise, je n’avais eu que le temps de passer un jupon et de jeter
un schall sur mes epaules; mes cheveux etaient epars, mon cou et
mes bras nus. J’ai prie Frederic de se retirer; il a obei, et je ne l’ai
pas revu de toute la matinee. (41-2)
It becomes clear, however, in later scenes th at Claire’s self-sacrificing
goodness and not her body catalyses Frederic’s desire. In an effort to
229
distract Frederic, Claire invites a young virtuous girl, Adele, to join then
at their home. Adele physically resembles Claire, but does not share her
benevolent nature. Frederic’s comments about the girl, Adele, reveal the
true nature of his attraction for Claire. For instance, Claire relates an
event to Elise in which she, h er husband, her son, Frederic and Adele
were threatened by a bull. Claire protected her son from the charging
bull with her own body, while Frederic, influenced by her benevolent
spirit, saved her husband from harm . Refusing to leave the scene until
all was well, Claire also aided an old man by comforting him until the
surgeon arrived. Adele, who refuses to help because of h er fear of blood,
shows how different she is from Claire. Adele is not adm irable in
Frederic’s view as she is not a m other, not a care-giver or a selfless
heroine. Claire’s benevolence to the old m an and both Claire and
Frederic’s acts of self-sacrifice serve to heighten the desire of both
parties. The scene th a t follows is both em otionally and erotically
charged. When Claire sees him crying after the event, she approaches
and is swept into his arm s where he declares his love for her. Claire is
almost carried in the moment, as she relates to Elise: “J’etais si pres de
lui... J ’ai senti l’impression de ses levres qui recueillaient mes larmes. A
cette sensation si nouvelle, j’ai fremi” (64). At this moment, Claire is able
to resist the desire, b u t has been severely tested. Claire rem ains
virtuous and the object of desire, and thus perpetuates the erotic of the
admirable. Desire is m aintained in the text by Claire’s conformity to her
obligations as a caring wife and mother.
The erotic of the unattainable, a more complicated notion, is based
on the theory th at erotic tension bases itself on the gulf between
physical desire and moral obligation which prohibits it. The characters
2 30
in C laireji’Albe all struggle with the nature and limits of friendship, and
what role passion may play. The importance of the struggle is evident in
the title of the 1807 English translation which was published as
Dangerous Friendship, or the Letters _of Clara d ’Albe. The m ost
dangerous friendship for Claire, of course, is the one with Frederic which
becomes a threat to her marriage. The friendship becomes progressively
more dangerous because of the ease in which emotions may be confused.
Claire conceives of friendship as being a naturally passionate emotion.
In one of her letters to Elise, she writes: “Qui sait mieux que toi combien
Pamitie est loin d'etre un sentim ent froid! N'a-t-elle pas ses elans, ses
transports? mais ils conservent leur physionom ie, et, quand on les
confond avec une sensation plus passionnee, ce n ’est pas la faute de celui
qui les sent, mais de celui qui les juge. Frederic eprouve de Pamitie pour
la prem iere fois de sa vie, et doit l’exprim er avec vivacite” (48). The
sentiments are so difficult to distinguish for Claire that she does not heed
Elise’s warnings. She continues to deny th a t Frederic’s feelings of
friendship for her have crossed the line to become signals of a passion
blossoming. She only com prehends the situation after he has declared
his love to her. She then realizes they had created “ce dangereux voile
d ’amitie” (90). The veil of friendship created the illusion that Frederic’s
vivacious emotions toward Claire were socially appropriate. Their love
threatens Claire’s marriage and interferes with their obligations.
The final tragic events in Claire d ’Albe originate from the
incom m ensurability of passion and friendship, or, in other words, of
desire and fidelity. For Frederic, Claire is a dichotomous blend of virtue
and sensuality. Frederic expresses his feelings to Claire which also serve
to define the notion of the erotic of the unattainable:
231
...alors, ce n’est plus seulem ent mon coeur qui palpite, c’est tout
mon etre, c’est tout mon sang, qui fremissent de desir et de plaisir;
un torrent de volupte sort de tes yeux et vient inonder mon ame.
(...) Mais, o ma Claire! seule tu reunis ce melange inconcevable de
decence et de volupte qui eloigne et attire sans cesse, et qui
eternise l’amour. Seule tu reunis ce qui commande le respect et ce
qui allume les desirs. (93)
In their friendship, Claire and Frederic attem pted to blend successfully
“decence” and “volupte” which are conceived of as polar opposites, but it
proved to be an impossibility. The boundary was crossed when they
adm itted and consum mated their adulterous love which precipitated the
final events of the novel. The erotic of the unattainable obliges that the
desire not be consummated. The erotic is nurtu red and m aintained by
an “am our chaste” that does not violate any moral obligation such as
marriage. One facet of the erotic of Claire d ’Albe, then is dependent upon
virtuous actions. Thus, as in the tradition of courtly love, Claire’s status
as an unattainable yet adm irable woman created and sustained the
erotic tension that is predom inant in the novel.
Furtherm ore, the friendship between Claire and Elise is highly
eroticized by discussions of passion in friendship. The surface discourse
on the passionate nature of friendship refers to Frederic, but as a subtext
can relate to Elise as well. Reflections on the im portance of their
relationship often take on lesbian or at least sexually am biguous
overtones. At the beginning of the novel Claire rem inds Elise of her
husband’s jealousy of their intimacy. The rivalry between M. d ’Albe and
Elise was partly a reason for Claire’s departure after her marriage. Claire
admits that the separation was necessary in order that she convince her
husband that she did not prefer Elise to him. Claire and Elise do share an
232
unrivaled intim acy th a t does not tolerate intervention by eith er M.

d ’Albe or Frederic. No m an’s love can break the bonds shared by the two
women. In fact, Elise knows Claire better than Claire knows herself.
Elise, like her counterparts Miss Howe in Richardson’s Clarissa or Claire in
R ousseau’s La Nouvelle Heloi'se, functions as the “in te rm e d ia te
bienveillante” between Claire d ’Albe and the world.38 She functions as
the m oderator in the novel, and is the only c h aracter who fully
understands Claire and the gravity of her situation.
Claire and Elise’s intim ate relationship, guided by the principles of
the erotic of the unattainable, is not subject to condem nation. Their
friendship, however close and passionate, does not cross the boundaries
th at threaten social obligations or m oral propriety. In fact, female
friendships before marriage were encouraged in society both in England
and in France in the eighteenth century. Since pre-m arital relations
were prohibited, it was looked upon as beneficial if young girls first
practiced sensibility, faithfulness and devotion with each other.39 After
marriage, female friendships provided comfort to a wife, but would not
threaten her reputation as would male friendships.40 Claire’s friendship
with Frederic, then, was considered more dangerous than the one with
Elise. Any threat that Elise may have posed to Claire’s husband has been
elim inated by the beginning of the novel. Elise rem ains the privileged
one who holds the secret to Claire’s character and can com prehend the
full impact of Claire’s relations with Frederic to be able to relate them at
the denouem ent of the novel. It was believed th at despite the openness
of em otional expression, “good” virtuous women would repress any
sexual inclinations for each other.41 Therefore, in female friendships
desire and chastity can be blended, or at least it is viewed as “safe” and
233
acceptable in society’s eyes.

In conclusion, it has been shown that in addition to the most well-
cited erotic passage, eroticism is prevalent throughout Clairejd!Alhe. The
eroticism was veiled and never expressed in explicit language, and can
be defined as th at of desires unfulfilled ra th e r than th at of love
consum m ated. The passage narrated by Elise that was added to the
collection of Claire’s letters differs in narration and tone from the rest of
the epistolary text, and adds nuances to the notion of the erotic. In the
letters, the strong passionate em otions associated with physical love
were not represented, but bolder and more daring expressions were
included in the last section. Although eroticism is not entirely absent in
the novels that bore her name, critics such as Genlis and Girault de Saint-
Fargeau considered only the content of Claire_d’_Alb.e to be im prudent or
scandalous in relation to the body of Cottin’s work. Perhaps Mme de
Genlis’ observations are true that the writing at the end of Robespierre’s
reign reflected neither good taste nor good morals, but the conditions
u n d er which this particular novel was written m ust also be taken into
account.42 According to the legend surrounding the genesis of the novel,
Sophie Cottin wrote it in only two weeks in order to procure money for
her friend, assum ed to be the editor Michaud. Granted, the rapidity of
the composition of the work may account for some of the stylistic faults,
but money appears to have been a catalyst in the novel’s composition.
Furtherm ore, Sophie perm itted herself the luxury of free novelistic
expression by keeping anonymity which may indicate an intent to shock
or make a feminist statem ent regarding the right of women writers to
express erotic content. Yet, despite criticisms, the veiled m anner in
which desire was portrayed in Claire d ’Albe was evidently within the
234
realm of acceptable expression in the opinion of Restoration censors who

made no mention of the novel as being offensive to public morality.
Unveiled. Desire_ in. Choiseul-Meuse’s Three Censored .Works

Knowing that Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose, A m eliede Saint-Far, and
E n tre C h ie n e t Loup were put on a police index in 1825 for offensive
language, whereas lllyrine ou l’ecueil de rinexperience and Claire.d’Albe
were never targeted for censorship, it is reasonable to infer th at erotic
representations in the three works of Felicite de Choiseul-Meuse will be
discernibly different. We do note differences in the sum m ational
descriptions of the three novels. Drujon describes Ju lieo u jlaisa u v em ia
rose as “extrem em ent licencieux et imm oral”, Amelie de Saint-Far as a
“roman licencieux, cynique et peu commun”, and E ntreC hieneL L oup as
“beaucoup trop guilleret, libre meme.”43 Girault de Saint-Fargeau also
strongly criticized the form and the content of the works: “L’auteur (...)
semble s’etre pique de d isp u ter de cynisme et de licence avec les
ecrivains qui sont distingues par ce cote honteux. Le fond de son roman,
assez froidem ent imagine, est rechauffe p a r les tableaux les plus
obscenes.”44 He places Choiseul-Meuse’s works in the tradition of the
immoral novel, and underscores the obscene, im poverished language.
Clearly then, among those critics who judged a novel’s value according to
an expected moral impact, the language used to describe Choiseul-
Meuse’s three novels is harsher than that used in reaction to the works
of Morency and Cottin.
The texts by Choiseul-Meuse do differentiate themselves from the
works of Morency and Cottin. First of all, the title pages of both Amelie
de Saint-Ear and Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose announce the scandalous
235
content of the novels. Before opening Amelie de Saint-Ear, the reader is

warned by the words “Pour me lire, cachez-vous bien”, and the reader of
Ju lie .ou_j’ai sauve ma rose is advised “La mere en defendra la lecture a
sa fille.” The precautionary epigraphs lead the reader to expect a certain
kind of writing. W hether to warn a n d /o r intrigue the reader, they do
indicate a level of erotic content not achieved in either Illyrine or Claire
d ’Albe.
In Julie ou j!aiâuve m a rose, the narrator, Julie, defines the type
of narration th at she espouses and that the reader or her interlocutor,
Armand, should expect:
Peindrai-je, d ’une plume hardie, des plaisirs que desire la femme la

plus delicate, mais dont le tableau fait rougir celle qui se pique le
moins de vertu? Non sans doute; on doit toujours respecter la
decence; la volupte meme, en se p arant de son voile, en devient
plus enivrante. Quoique d ’une morale peu severe, je n ’ai jamais
cesse de rendre hommage a cette vertu; et, lorsque je m ’oubliais
moi-meme, je n ’oubliais pas la pudeur. (10)
The above passage is the key to understanding the theory behind the
representation of physical love in the works of Choiseul-Meuse. The
concept of w riting the erotic th at is affirm ed here is also th at of
LaMettrie. Choiseul-Meuse, like LaMettrie, makes a distinction between
obscene writing and voluptuous writing. She confirms her preference for
respecting “decence” and “p u d eu r” ra th e r than writing obscenely or
explicitly with a “plume hardie”. Saint-Fargeau’s labeling of the scenes in
Choiseul-Meuse’s works as obscene, therefore, is contrary to the theory
of narration expressed. Moreover, there is no denial of the work’s erotic
content th at m ight contradict the title page’s precautionary epigraph.
Rather, the n arrato r confirms the erotic content, and then justifies an
appropriate m anner of represention.
236
The veil is the key to the theory of erotic representation. As

LaMettrie pointed out in La_YoLupte, sensual pleasure (“la volupte”) is
both protected and enhanced by the m etaphoric veil. The protective
function of a veiled eroticism is two-fold. It assures th at a certain
degree of m odesty is observed which may serve to protect the writer
from those who may be offended by the use of explicit language.
Although this was not achieved in Choiseul-M euse’s case, the above
passage may be considered as an attem p t to thw art the censors by
establishing the im portance of a respect for “p u d e u r” in writing.
Secondly, veiled representation preserves the impact of the scene that is
dependent upon illusion to affect the reader. According to LaMettrie’s
theory of voluptuous writing, what has the power to destroy the essence
o f a rom antic scene is overt or obscene representation th at is too
revealing.45 Thus, by encouraging the reader to rely on the imagination,
sensual pleasure is preserved and even enhanced by veiled writing.
Furtherm ore, the a u th o r justifies her theory of an appropriate
m anner of representing desire as a general concept, and also affirms a
point of view specific to wom en’s desire. In the above passage, her
example of suitable material to portray revolves around the question of
representing the desires of a virtuous (“delicate”) woman that may make
her less virtuous counterpart blush. Two extremes of perceived morality
are used as points of example. Every woman, even the most outwardly
refined, inwardly desires. The portrait or representation of feminine
desires, however, should be “veiled” to avoid offending any other woman
regardless of her moral standing.
Choiseul-Meuse’s theory of self-censorship specifically directed to
women is rem iniscent of w hat m any contem porary feminists such as
237
Cixous or Irigaray criticize as “phallologocentric sublation (la releve)”

th at denies the representability of wom an.46 Cixous, in her essay “Le
rire de la Meduse,” posits that women m ust avoid what is in essence self
censorship, and claims that: “Ecrire, acte, qui non seulem ent «realisera»
le rap p ort de-censure de la femme a sa sexualite, a son etre-femme, lui
rendant acces a ses propres forces; qui lui rendra ses biens, ses plaisirs,
ses organes, ses immenses territoires corporels tenus sous scelles.”47 Of
course, Cixous is advocating a certain kind of writing th at inscribes a
radical difference between masculine and feminine writing.48 Although
Cixous is envisioning a “writing through the body” that is the basis for
her concept of “ecriture feminine”, her comments are also significant in
the context of women writers of erotic literature who are writing “about
the body.” Choiseul-Meuse and her contem poraries are among the vast
num ber of women writers whose workm anship “ne se distingue en rien
de l’ecriture masculine, et qui soit occulte la femme, soit reproduit les
representations classiques de la femme.”49 Although they have not
created a textuality that is identifiable as “ecriture fem inine,” women
w riters of erotic lite ra tu re have m ade the first steps tow ard de-
censoring their sexuality by representing the body. Despite w hatever
type of m im etization of male discourse they may undertake, women
writers of erotic literature have progressed outside the confines of the
norm for authors of their gender by expressing the physical aspects of
love. Yet according to Choiseul-Meuse’s theory, writers should operate
within the confines of the veil which would allow them to express the
physical all the while respecting the im p o rtan t notion of m odesty
(“pudeur”).
We shall now see if the theory m anifests itself in practice in
238
Choiseul-Meuse’s novels. A veiled eroticism , by definition, does not

represent in a verbally explicit m anner bodies engaged in a sexual act.
Rather, it appeals to the reader’s imagination. We will examine the erotic
aesthetics in Choiseul-Meuse’s Entre_ChieiLet_Lo_up, Amelie de Saint-Far
and Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma ro se to determ ine if the narration engages in
both a veiled and unveiled eroticism, and to identify w hat narrative
practices may have prom pted their censorship.
The introductory passages of Entr e _Chien_e t_Loup announce that
the women’s narratives for each “soiree” will be told in a free and frank
tone.
Cela s’appelait Entre Chien e t Loup. Et qui ne sait pas combien

cette heure est favorable a la confiance et aux amours; les mamans
les plus severes, s’oubliant un peu, racontaient sans rougir de petits
evenem ents de leur jeunesse, q u ’elles n ’eussent point avoues en
plein midi.... (5-6)
The temporal setting for the telling of the adventures permits a woman’s
liberty of expression, and even encourages it.
The narrator of the “Septieme Soiree” Mme Lucette de Camouville,
confesses her past adventure as the “petit Hussard de l’am our” which
occured while she disguised herself as a m ilitary man, and traveled to
Lyon to see one of her suitors, Chevalier Deloc.50 Lucette was discovered,
protected and later deflowered by a m ajor in the camp. The narrative
tendencies in the scene, cited below, in which she loses her virginity, is
representative of other analogous scenes throughout the novel.
Sans nul egard pour l’am ant aime [Chevalier Deloc], il [le major]
baisait avec ivresse ce que l’am ant aime n ’avait jamais touche; en
homme delicat et connaisseur du plaisir, il voulait me devoir a moi-
meme, et ce fut p ar toutes les gradations de la volupte, q u ’il
m ’am ena a partager ses desirs, et a ne lui laisser d ’autres obstacles
que celui, sans doute, sur lequel il com ptait le moins!... Mon
239
inexperience doubla ma valeur a ses yeux; mais apres m ’avoir ote

pour jamais ce merite-la, il me quitta pour prevenir la curiosite et
les soupgons des voyageurs. (133-34)
The ellipsis in the above extract marks an absence in the text, a lacuna
that indicates self-censorship on the part of the narrator and a refusal to
describe the physical details of the act. We note a veiled eroticism that
relies on a re a d e r’s im agination for erotic impact. In addition, the
n a rra to r makes stylistic oppositions in the represen tatio n of love-
making. She presents com parisons betw een the platonic lover who
never touched her and the passionate lover’s rom antic gestures. She
then contrasts the sharing of desire and the obstacle of h er virginity.
Verbal contrasts become p a rt of a veiling mechanism . The lack of
explicit term inology indicates th at the theory of erotic representation
proposed in Ju lie ou j ’ai sauve m a jo s e is pu t into practice by the
narrators of Entre Chien et Loup.
M oreover, the value of a w om an’s virginity is once again
underscored. The obstacle, which is apparently easily overcome, raises
the value of the narrator, Lucette, in her lover’s, and therefore any
m an ’s, eyes. The relative cost to the woman, if m easured as pain
suffered appears to be minimal. Frappier-M azur has rem arked th at
relatively painless defloration is one of the general characteristics that
one may attribute to women’s erotic fiction. She notes: “Women authors
respect the canon of motifs even when they treat it differently (than
men): Defloration appears with com parable frequency, but it is much
less painful, an d th e [w om an’s] pleasu re th a t follows is m ore
m oderate.”51 Thus, the characteristics of the defloration topos in Entre
Chien et Loup is distinguishable from the tendencies in male erotic
240
literature.
N arrator gender is a critical factor in relation to representations of
the erotic. We shall see that the differences found in Eiitr.e__CliienjeJt.LQup
and Amelie _de„.S_aintEar are related to the n arrative voice which
necessarily m ediates the representation. Susan Lanser presents the
ways in which narrative voice effects representation in relation to author
and n arrator gender. The distinctions th at she has generated, based on
Genette’s narratological assumptions and feminist theory, are useful here
to point out the ways in which narration can effect erotic representation
even among works by the same author. According to Lanser, the
“au th o rial voice,” which refers to “n a rra tiv e situ atio n s th a t are
heterodiegetic, public and potentially self-referential,”52 is differentiated
from the homodiegetic “personal voice,” which is used by “narrators who
are self-consciously telling th eir own stories.”53 Assuming th at the
gender of the narrator is identifiable as feminine, the use of the authorial
voice has enabled women w riters to have access to male discursive
authority, and provides them with a gender-neutral mask. On the other
hand, a woman using the personal voice puts herself m ore a t risk,
because the read er may resist h er writing if she is telling a story, or
constructing a self within the story, th at transgresses the conventional
limits of the acceptably fem inine.54 The reader, therefore, w hether
implied or empiric, mediates the personal voice of the narrator if female,
but does not influence a gender-neutral or masculine authorial voice in
the same m anner because the m easure of “acceptability” is m uch
broader.
Entre_Chien__et_Loup is an example of the narrative usage of the
homodiegetic personal voice. Here, the speaking subject is a woman who
241
is telling her most intim ate secrets. The tales are unblushingly told, and
are woven while within the intim ate circle of discrete women friends
who act as interlocutors mediating each woman’s discourse.
A third-person narrative such as Amelie de Saint-JEar does not
im plicitly contain such representational m ediating elem ents. The
n a rra to r, with no personal investm ent in the events, has only the
constraints of narrative convention to m ediate the representation.
Because of the distancing effect th at it creates between the writing
subject and the subject of discourse, third-person (heterodiegetic)
narrative tends to be favored by female authors of erotic fiction who are
expressing the most transgressive experiences.55 Therefore, many of the
representational differences in Choiseul-Meuse’s works are due to the
fact th at Entre Chien et Loup is a collection of narrations using a female
first-person personal voice, while the n a rrato r in Amelie de. Saint-Far
employs a third-person authorial voice that is not readily identifiable by
gender.
The passage in Amelie de Saint-Far in which Amelie and Ernest
have th e ir first sexual en co u n ter illustrates tendencies in erotic
representation.56
Ivre d ’am our et de desirs, Ernest oublie la retenue q u ’il s’est

imposee jusqu’alors; il saisit la main d ’Amelie et lui fait sentir pour
la prem iere fois une colonne enflammee qui bondit sous ses jolis
doigts. Amelie, surprise a l’exces, mais trop emue pour reflechir,
presse doucem ent ce bijou precieux dont elle ignore encore 1’usage;
cette douce pression augmente son ardeur, il brule, il s’agite. (vol.
1, 138)
The episode takes place in the salon on a sofa the eve of Ernest’s
d ep arture for Santo Domingo. The sofa has a special significance in
eighteenth-century erotic-libertine fiction. It appears prom inently in
242
the well-known libertine texts by, for exam ple, Laclos’ Les_Liaisons
dangene.uies and Crebillon fils’ Le_Sopha whose title indicates its
importance. The motif, especially in male-authored texts, functions as “le
lieu saint du libertinage,” a type of stage w here experienced and
inexperienced seducers seek success.57 The sofa m otif in Amelie de
SainfcFar functions in an analogous fashion.
Ernest, and not Amelie, is the dom inant character in the scene. His
m ovem ents and his pleasure are em phasized while Amelie is passive,
and “tous ses charmes sont devenus la proie de son am ant” (vol. 1, 137).
In contrast to the narrative tendencies in Entre Chien et Loup, the
discourse is centered on the lovers’ movements, the two bodies and the
m ale orgasm . C onsequently, very little a tten tio n is paid to the
psychological or emotional effects of the love-making, and even less so
than in any of the other women-authored novels studied so far. Still, the
language used to describe the body is euphem istic and scattered with
m etaphors, such as “le bijou precieux,” “la proie,” “une colonne
enflammee” or “le serpent ecum er de rage.” Expressions such as these
are, no doubt, part of a tradition of erotic representation in France, and
have been and are used by both male and female authors of erotic
fiction.58
The accent in the scene on the sofa, perhaps surprisingly, is on the
male rath er than the female body. The preoccupation with the male
body, however, also indicates an emphasis on male pleasure, and has the
characteristics of w hat Irigaray notes as the m ale p o rn o g rap h e r’s
“obsession de l’erection et de la decharge.”59 Amelie, who rem ains
virginal and uncom prehending, observes Ernest’s pleasure; she is
“surprise a l’exces”, “em ue”, “effrayee”. Similar tendencies are found as
243
well in other scenes in A m eliedeSaint-F ar that represent, for example,

one (even two) menage a trois, a rape, or other seductions.
The passage in which the Due de Nemours rapes Amelie will
further illustrate representational tendencies. Defloration in Amelie on
la_fatale_._erre.ur is accomplished with m ore violence than in any of the
narratives in Entre Chien et. Loup. In contrast to the stories told by the
older women who portray their first experiences with love as intriguing
if not enjoyable, Amelie’s experience is narrated in a m uch different
tone. The rape by the Due de Nemours is savage, and is accomplished not
without a fair am ount of blood amidst his victim’s tears.
II d echirait sans pitie sa victim e, d o n t les pleurs et les cris

paraissaient l’exciter encore. Enfin, le succes couronna ses efforts,
il en tra victorieux dans la place a travers les flots de sang q u ’il
avait fait couler. (...) Pour guerir plus surem ent ce mal, il voulut le
prendre a sa source; il s’enivra avec fureur du sang precieux q u ’il
n ’avait pas craint de repandre; sa bouche amoureuse parvint enfin
a calm er les souffrances q u ’avait produites cette dangereuse
blessure. (vol. 2, 51-2)
The narration focuses on the m an’s actions and the pleasure he enjoys in
co n trast to Amelie’s pain. In these term s, it may be considered a
phallocratic representation.
Coincidental to the choice of a heterodiegetic narrator, the erotic
rep resen tatio n in A m elie. de__SaiiLfcFar is a m im etization of male
discourse th at eschews expressions of feminine desire. Therefore, not
only in literary conventions such as the sofa or linguistic preciosity, but
also in the deeper structure of implicit power relations do we note a
conform ity of Amelie with the male tradition of erotic representation.
Regardless of the type of language used, descriptions of the body and its
movements contradict the theory expressed in Julie ou j!ai sauvem a.rose
244
that modesty should be upheld by avoiding a “plume hardie.” Ameliejde

SainfcEar is by far the most “masculine” of any of the works attributed to
Choiseul-M euse as regards n arra tiv e voice and re p re se n ta tio n a l
preference. The possibility th at the work m ay have resulted from
collaboration with a male w riter rem ains difficult to prove.60 Even
assuming that it was solely written by Choiseul-Meuse, the fact rem ains
th at it can stand as an example of the type of writing by a woman th at
denies the feminine, a writing form strongly criticized by Cixous and
Irigaray.
On the other hand, J u lie o u j’a is a u v e m a ro s e is perhaps the most
“fem inine” of the works attributed to Choiseul-Meuse.61 Its narration
adopts a “personal voice,” and shares affinity with representational
techniques in Entre Chien et Loup. Examining scenes in Julie ou j ’ai
sauvejna„rase depicting Julie’s heterosexual and homosexual (lesbian)
rom antic encounters, will reveal if discursive practice tends to favor the
theoretical preference for a veiled eroticism.
Julie’s resolve to preserve h er virginity is first put to the test by
Saint-Albin, an older gentleman and friend of the family. After trying to
convince Julie of his affection, Saint-Albin attem pts to deflower her in a
carriage.
L’en treprenant Saint-Albin m ettoit au tan t de feu dans ses gestes

que dans ses paroles. Plus prom pt que 1’eclair, plus avide que
l’oiseau de proie qui fond sur la tendre fauvette, il sem blait me
devorer en me couvrant de baisers, et sa main tem eraire profanait
le secret asile des plaisirs les plus doux. II ne fut pas longtemps
possesseur du terrain qu’il avait si brusquem ent usurpe: la voix de
la persuasion l’aurait peut-etre conduit a la victoire; mais il etait
im possible de m ’em porter d ’assaut, et, p ar mille efforts qui
l’etonnerent, je parvins a me debarrasser entierem ent de lui. (vol.
1,58)
245
The narration focuses on the m an’s animalistic yet unsuccessful attempts.

Euphemistic language, such as “le te rra in ” and “le secret asile des
plaisirs” characterizes the erotic representation. Shortly after this
episode, Julie relates that “il fit plusieurs tentatives; mais elle furent
toutes egalem ent infructueuses: sa violence ne servit q u ’a m ’irriter.”
(vol. 1, 65) Only the effects not the details of Saint-Albin’s violence is
presented.
In the following passage, Julie, now well-practiced in the a rt of
resistance, portrays herself with one of h er lovers, Camille, in the
boudoir:
II semblait creer de nouvelles jouissances; il variait tout, jusqu’aux

baisers. (...) Sa langue amoureuse excitait la mienne a lui rendre ses
caresses; nos dents se frappaient doucem ent, et souvent, dans un
moment de delire, les siennes laissaient sur mes levres une legere
em preinte qui en augm entait encore le vermilion. (...) ma main
timide encore, mais qui s’enhardissait par la resistance, se glissait
furtivem ent, puis se retirait avec crainte, puis enfin s’ecartait
davantage et parcourait tous les tresors que Ton cherchait a lui
ravir. (vol. 2, 35-6)
The language of the extract, which is as affected as that in the works by
Morency and Cottin, has a striking quality that, without being obscene,
does not mask the action. The strong emotional effects of the encounter
are not underscored as they are in Hlyrine and Claire d ’Albe, but rath er
the accent in the scene is on the body, the tongue, the teeth, the lips, the
hands. Erotic representation in Julie ou j ’aisau v e jn a ro s e distinguishes
itself from the narrative tendencies in Amelie de Saint-Far because it
focuses on both the woman’s and the m an’s gestures. The differences lie
in the fact that the narrative in Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose, like Entre
Chien_et_Lo.up, is in the autodiegetic personal voice, rath er than in the
2 46
heterodiegetic public voice used in Amelie de Saint-Ear. The narrator

does not distance herself from the narrative, but is personally invested
in it. The scene cited above is told from the wom an’s point of view as
participant, and not as a third party observer of the encounter. The
point of view is focalized on the wom an’s body and her movements,
ra th e r than the m an’s. Julie’s role here is active not passive. The
personalized representation is, in fact, more daring than any other in
Entre.C hien et„Loup, and it does indicate an active participation in
defining pleasure, and a further de-censoring of feminine desire.
Julie_ouJ_’aL sauve m a rose does have implicit limits concerning
w hat will be rep re se n te d th a t are extraneous to any p resen ted
representational theories. The maxim that rules Julie’s life, which is to
keep her virginity at all costs, determ ines the content of representation
in each passage. Essential to the eroticism of the novel is “the obstacle.”
We have noted this narrative strategy in Morency’s lllyrine in which
illness or family served as obstacles to heighten the desire of the
characters. In Julieôu jlaisauve_m a rose, the obstacle is crucial to the
work. The obstacle, Julie’s virginity, defines the eroticism of the work
itself.
Julie’s self-determ ined loyalty to the maxim never to lose her
virginity is the strongest obstacle th at deters her male lovers. For
example, shortly after the scene cited above, Camille tries to employ
force to obtain the “last favor” from Julie. Her defense consisted in her
forced theatrical tears which brought her lover back to his senses. At
oth er times in the narrative, words of reason are used to convince the
men of her right. Even when her determ ination appears to waver, other
obstacles emerge. Impotence and castration occur as obstacles during
247
the heroine’s rom antic adventures. Cryle has noted the use of the same
narrative strategy in Nerciat’s Le Diahle au corps (1803), and rem arks
that for male impotence to be m entioned at all as part of erotic narrative
is surprising because it foils sexual expression.62 Male impotence in Julie
o u j ’a isa u v e m a ro se , however, is not overcome as it is in Nerciat’s work.
In fact, it cannot be overcome because it is a safeguard against the loss of
virginity that is so highly valued in this text.
As noted in the previous chapter, the heroine’s virginity pertains
only to heterosexual relations. No obstacle exists in the expression of
lesbian love between Julie and Caroline towards the denouem ent of the
novel. Begun as a plot for revenge against Versac who jilted her, Julie
set out to become the favorite of Caroline, “cette m oderne Sapho.”
Lesbian love soon becomes an unequaled way to combine “la decence”
and “la volupte” (vol. 2, 155). Erotic expression, therefore, is allowed a
certain freedom th at is not perm issible otherwise. The obstacle has
disappeared as the narrator, Julie, herself, remarks: “non seulem ent son
sexe n ’etait plus un obstacle a mes im petueux desirs, mais la nouveaute
de cette scene piquante et bizarre sembloit les aiguilloner encore” (vol. 2,
176).
The newness and intrigue of lesbian love is also briefly touched
upon in the “Premiere soiree” narrative in Entre _Chiem et JLoup. The
n arrato r describes h er attachm ent to h er friend, coincidentally nam ed
Julie, while they were in the convent. The n a rra to r describes her
experience in these terms: “Sa main pressait doucem ent les contours
d ’un sein qui s’arrondissait, chaque jo u r elle y p o rtait ses levres
vermeilles. J’aimais Julie... mais la nature ne se trom pait pas un seul
instant” (15). As has been discussed earlier, love or physical attraction
248
between two unm arried girls is often alluded to in French literature of

the eighteenth century, and passionate friendship is often difficult to
distinguish from erotic love.63 Although declarations of love and fidelity
were quite common and not seen as threatening, representations of
overtly sexual acts between women such as in Etttre_Chien._e.tJ.oup and
more im portantly in Julie. Q uj’aisauve m a rose were seen as scandalous
especially since they were penned by a woman. Thus, despite any
tendancies toward veiled erotic representation, these scenes were partial
reasons for the condemnation of the works.
Most re p re se n ta tio n s of lesbians belong to th e genre of
pornography w ritten prim arily by, yet always for, men. Huston notes
that lesbian desire in pornographic texts is subordinated to the male gaze
and male desire:
C’est pourquoi il est toujours precise, d ’une maniere ou d ’une autre,

que l’homosexualite des femmes est un pis-aller, un ersatz bon a
divertir des femelles sans males, une activite marginale, infantile,
parfois ridicule; jam ais une relation valable en elle-meme entre
deux adultes. Elle est toujours evoquee par rapport a l’homme...64
Goodden proposes th at the belief in the “physiologically less decisive
nature of female sexual arousal” and the erotic intrigue of female couples
in male fantasy explain the allusions to lesbianism in m ale-authored
texts.65 Marks, too, notes th at the discourse on lesbianism in texts
written by men, specifically in prose, tends to be derogatory, and is often
used to criticize or censor aberrant female behavior.66 Furtherm ore,
Monique Wittig has rem arked on the absence of a literary history of
lesbian literature by women, and criticizes the silence that has only been
marginally broken recently in Violette Leduc’s JLaJ&tarde (1964) and in
her own Corps lesbien (1973).67 What makes Leduc’s text interesting is
2 49
th at the narrator, as a lesbian, is describing her own experience, and is

no longer represented from an outside point of view.68 The narrative
point of view is, then, quite similar to that in Julie ou j ’ai sauve.ma rose.
Lesbianism in Choiseul-M euse’s Julie, albeit a m arginal, secretive
activity, is not represented as simple entertainm ent for women without
men, o r as a ridiculous childish pursuit. It is ra th e r a m eans to
gynocratic pleasure and power in male-dominated society.
Julie’s first encounter with Caroline in Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose is
n arrated sim ilarly to h e r adventures with her male lovers, but with
some im portant differences. There is no ambiguity regarding the sexual
nature of the relationship; it is clearly taken a step beyond passionate
friendship. The scene is longer and described in more detail with even
m ore references to th e body and th e ir gestures. T here are no
interruptions, and the scene is perm itted to come to a closure since the
danger th at a male lover poses is absent. The scene concludes with a
veiled reference to orgasm: “nous perdons, dans 1’ivresse qui la suit,
ju sq u ’au souvenir de notre existence” (vol. 2, 159). Although lesbian
desire and pleasure are celebrated, the narrato r conspicuously shrouds
her acts in mystery. The lacuna, or non-dit, is part of a narrative game,
yet is represented as p a rt of the code of behavior in the lesbian cult.
Julie explains later to Armand, her narratee, that she has taken an oath
of secrecy about the nature of the “delices” practiced by Caroline’s cult:
“Le plus grand crime etait de fausser le serm ent que l’on faisait preter a
toutes les nouvelles initiees, de ne reveler aucune des choses qui se
passaient dans le tem ple; ce crim e etait puni p a r la p erte de la
reputation” (vol. 2, 178). The punishm ent for the “crime” of telling the
secrets is a loss of reputation within the lesbian circle and in society.
2 50
Implicit in the punishm ent is perhaps the fear of the writer herself who
risks the loss of reputation for treating the subject of lesbianism. Thus,
any very specific details are not perm itted, and will rem ain a mystery.
By using the strategy of intentional self-censorship, the narrator obliges
the reader to imagine the mysteries which is a m anner of heightening
the level of eroticism and desire in the text. Feminine-lesbian desire is
thus explored, but not demystified.
Choiseul-Meuse presents a positive, guilt-free view of women
loving women, although she does not divulge the secrets which, for her,
are not representable. She participates in what Marks identifies as a
m ajor them atic transform ation regarding the lesbian in literature in
which, “the experience of loving a woman is, for the narrative voice, the
experience of awakening, the revelation of an unknown, unsuspected
world which, once glimpsed, can never be ignored.”69 Women writing
before the tw entieth century, with the exception of Choiseul-Meuse,
rarely explored lesbianism as an erotic elem ent in their texts. Choiseul-
Meuse’s novel, then, m ust be included in the yet to be w ritten literary
history of the lesbian in French literature.
Comparisons: Does_A Women’sJ:rotic Aesthetic Exist?

The alliance of “volupte” and “decence” in their erotic fiction was a
m ajor concern to Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse. An adherence to
the theory of a “veiled eroticism” or what LaMettrie would term “ecriture
voluptueuse” was a way to express desire in the text while respecting a
certain degree of modesty. “Veiled” representation that avoids explicit
description can be considered a “feminine” approach to eroticism. What
is term ed a “masculine” approach is more closely tied to an “unveiled”
251
representation which is obscene or pornographic because of its use of

explicit language and descriptions. The appropriation of the “masculine”
approach by a woman w riter was, and even is still today, seen as
subversive and contrary to what is acceptable. Nevertheless, depending
on the degree of m anipulation of the traditionally phallocratic sexual
econom y which is in h eren t in the m asculine approach, it can have
positive implications as regards the de-censoring of female sexuality, the
body and desire.
We have found that the theory of a veiled eroticism is revealed in
the writing practices of Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse, although in
some instances it is transgressed. On the one hand, we have seen that
the eroticism in Cottin’s ClairajTAlbe privileges the psychological over
the physical. Detailed descriptions of the act are not p art of the textual
com position of the work, and thus it expresses a consistently veiled
physical eroticism. On the other hand, in Morency’s Iliyrine, both the
emotional and physical are brought to light. The representation of love-
making in the text, though not overly explicit, elucidates the physical
m anifestations of desire. The m ajority of passages in Ulyrine favor a
“veiled” eroticism , yet, at certain m om ents in the text, the textual
representation of the body, by reason of its focal intimacy, can no longer
be considered as modest or “veiled.” The representation of the erotic in
the censored novels of Choiseul-M euse, however, is slightly m ore
difficult to reduce to one simple conclusion. The approach to the erotic in
each work is different. In comparison to the strategies used in the works
by Morency and Cottin, Choiseul-Meuse’s novels tend to place much more
of an accent on the physical rather than the psychological manifestations
of love, a tendency that may account for the reaction of the Restoration
252
censors. In E ntreX hien etJLoup, we do find a veiled eroticism that

precludes obscenity which is similar to passages from lllyrine and Claire
d ’Albe. A m eliede Saint-Far and J u lie o u j!a i sauve . m a rose, however,
contain bolder descriptions of sexual acts. The representation of the
erotic in Amelie„_de._SamtrTar conform s closely to the “m asculine”
approach, and subjects female desire to a phallocratic economy. On the
o th er hand, in Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a ro se, phallocratic econom y is
subverted in favor of presenting feminine pleasure and desire. Although
the representation in the novel may be term ed “m asculine” because of
the use of explicit language, it represents a progression in literary
history by no longer censoring or presenting the female body and
pleasure in a derogatory light. The m ost original aspect of Choiseul-
Meuse’s novel Julie ou j ’ai sauve m a rose is the representation of
lesbianism. It is p art of the little known history of saphism in French
history, an d does distinguish itself from the treatm en t of lesbian
eroticism in texts by male authors. Resisting the voyeuristic qualities of
some texts, lesbianism in this novel is represented in a positive manner,
and as a solution to the serious problem of expressing sexual desire
while rem aining d ecen t an d v irtuous. Thus, while m indful of
m ain tain in g a d elica te b alance betw een veiled an d unveiled
representations of eroticism, Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse broke
from traditional writing conventions of women authors. Regardless of
scandal, lllyrine ou l’ecueil d e l’inexperience or Claire d ’Albe were not
censored, n o r did they become p art of the Enfer of the Bibliotheque
Nationale as did the libertine-erotic works of, am ong others, their
contemporary Mme de Choiseul-Meuse.
253
Kates
1Barry Ivker, An Anthology-and Analysis_ofJL7_th and. 1.8th Century

French Libertine Fiction (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms
International, 1977) 4.
2 Denis Diderot and Jean d ’Alembert, eds., Encyclopedic, ou Dictionnaire

raisonne des sciences, des arts et des metiers, 3rd ed., vol. 5 (Livourne,
1772) 850. The article is signed (D. J.).
3Julien Offray de la Mettrie, LaVolupte in CEuyxes-Philosophiq ues

(Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1970) 207. Subsequent
references to La Volupte will be noted in the text.
4Walter Kendrick, TheSecreCMuseum (New York: Penguin Books, 1987)

70.
Sciaudine Brecourt-Villars, Ecrire d ’amour: anthologie de textes

erotiques feminins: 1799-1984 (Paris: Ramsay, 1985) 19.
^Gloria Steinem, “Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present

Difference,” Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography, ed. Laura
Lederer (New York: William Morrow, 1980) 37.
7Lucienne Frappier-Mazur, “Convention et subversion dans le rom an

erotique feminin (1799-1901),” Romantisme: revuedudixm euviem e
siecle 59 (1988): 109.
^Frappier-Mazur, “Convention et subvention”, 109.
9jean-jacques Pauvert, Anthologie historique des lectures erotiques de

Sade a Fallieres (1789-1914) (Paris: Gamier, 1982) xxv.
1OPauvert, Anthologie JiistO E iquedeslectureserotiquesdeG uillaum e

Apollinaire a Philippe Petain (Paris: Jean-Claude Simoen, 1979) xxv.
Pauvert, 1979, xxvi.
12pascal Pia, ed., Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques domaine franeais

(Paris: Mercure de France, 1971) xii.
254
13Brecourt-Villars, Ecrire.d’amour, 21.
14Luce Irigaray, Ce sexe qui n’e n e s tp a s u n (Paris: Editions de Minuit,

1977) 197.
ISToril Moi, SexualZTextuaLEolitics (London and New York: Routledge,

1985) 135.
1 6 lr ig a r a y , Ce sexe quLn’en ost pas un, 199.
l 7Irigaray, C e s e x e q u in ’e n e s tp a s u n , 201-02.
18Irigaray, C e se x e q u L n le n estp a su n , 202.
l^Marie-Frangoise Hans and Gilles Lapouge, Les femmes, la

pornographie, l’erotisme (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1978) 45.
20Hans and Lapouge, 51.
21 Charles Monselet, Les oublies et les dedaignes: figures litteraires de la

fin du 18eme siecle (Alengon, 1857) 133.
22cited in Monselet, 136-37. The edition of Rosalina, located at the

University o f California Los Angeles, is not currently available for
consultation.
23Monselet, 137.
24peter Cryle, “Passing the Time in Erotic Narrative: Fictions of Power

and Negotiation in Crebillon, Nerciat and Sade,” Romanic Review 80.3
(May 1989): 375.
25cryle, 375.
26cryle, 375.
27Georges Bataille, Qeuvres Completes de Georges Bataille vol. 12 (Paris:

Gallimard, 1988) 401-02.
255
28see Rene Pomeau’s introduction to Lesliaisonsdangereuses (Paris:

Gamier-Flammarion, 1964), and more recently the discussions in Joan
dejean’s LiteraryJFortiflcations: Rousseau,JLaclos ,_Sade, 191-208, and
Colette Cazenobe’s Le_systeme-du libertinage de Crebillon a Laclos.
29Hans and Lapouge, 43-4.
30see the discussion of these works in Wald Lasowski, Libertines (Paris:

Gallimard, 1980) 97-112.
81 Lasowski, 101.
8 2Pascal Pia, Les Livres de PEnfer du XVleme siecle a nos jours vol. 1
(Paris: C. Coulet et A. Faure, 1978) 350.
83Hugues Rebell, Journal d ’uneenfantvicieuse (Paris: Les classiques

interdits, 1980) 17.
34Rebell, 18.
35Mme de Genlis, D eJ’influencedes fem m essurlalitteratureJxancaise

(Paris, 1811) 354.
36Eusebe Girault de Saint-Fargeau, Revue des Romans, vol. 1 (Geneva:

Slatkine Reprints, 1968) 149.
37jean Galmier, preface, Claire d ’Albe, by Sophie Cottin (Paris: Regine

Deforges, 1976) 13. Histoire d ’O is a famous piece of female-authored
French eroticism which is attributed to Pauline Reage. For Gaulmier, the
erotic impact of Claire d ’Albe and Histoire d ’Q lies in the woman’s self-
determination to overcome insignificant social or moral conventions.
38pierre Fauchery, La Destinee feminine dans le roman europeen du dix-

huLtieme_siecle (Paris: Armand Colin, 1972) 171.
39m iian Faderman, SurpassingtheToveofM enLR om anticFriendship

and Love between Women from th e Renaissance to the Present (New
York: William Morrow and Co., 1981) 75. See also: Angelica Goodden,
The Com pletelover: Eros. Nature. and Artiflce in the Eighteenth-Century
ErenchLNovel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) 258.
256
40Faderman, 75-6.
4lFaderm an, 80.
42Genlis, 345.
43Fernand Drujon, Cataloguedes ouvrages, ecrits etdessins.detoute

naturepo_ursuivis,_supprirnes„Qux:ondamnesdepuisJe21jDCtobreJ1814
jusqu’au_31 juillet JL8.7I (Paris, 1879) 19, 145, 214.
44Girault de Saint-Fargeau, Revue des romans, vol. 1, 321.
45LaMettrie, LaVoluple, 214.
46Helene Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” trans. Keith and Paula
Cohen, New French Feminisms, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de
Courtivron (New York: Schocken Books, 1980) 255.
47nelene Cixous, “Le rire de la Meduse,” LlArc 61 (1975): 43.
48Nancy K. Miller, “Emphasis Added: Plots and Plausibilities in Women’s

Fiction,” PMLA 96.1 (January 1981) 37. Miller points out that Cixous’
theory on difference is one that “privileges a textuality of the avant-
garde.”
49cixous, “Le rire de la Meduse,” 42.
SOportions of the “Septieme Soiree are cited in Brecourt-Villars, Ecrire

d ’am our, 78-79. The expression “petit Hussard de l’amour” refers to a
topos of the female Don Juan. See also Mrs. Charlotte Ramsay Lennox,
Donquichotte femelle (1773) cited in Martin, Mylne and Frautschi.
SlLucienne Frappier-Mazur, “Marginal Canons: Rewriting the Erotic,”

Yale French Studies 75 (19881: 115.
52susan Sniader Lanser, Fictions of Authority: WomerL Writers and

Narrative Voice (Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 1992) 15-16.
53Lanser, 18.
257
54Lanser, 19.
55Frappier-Mazur, “Marginal Canons,” 124.
56see Denise Miege, Litterature erotique feminine, vol. 1 (Paris: Editions

Civilisation Nouvelle, 1970) 125-29. Although her compilation is
somewhat unreliable, Miege selected the same passage that I cite, and
another that is identical to Pauvert’s selection that relates a menage a
trois with Alexandrine, Elise and the Colonel.
57Lasowski, 42.
58Frappier-Mazur, “Marginal Canons,” 116.
59irigaray, Ce sexe qui.n’en est.pas un, 198.
60see Drujon, 19. Drujon notes “On pretend aussi que Rougemont y a
pris part” in his article on A m eliede. Saint-Far.
GlCuriously, the anthologies by Pauvert, Miege and Brecourt-Villars do

not include any passage from Julieôuj’a isa u v em a ro se despite the fact
that a few editions are readily available in the Enfer o f the Bibliotheque
Nationale.
62cryle, 377.
63Faderman, 79.
64-Nancy Huston, Mosaique de la pornographic (Paris: Denoel-Gonthier,

1982) 84.
65coodden, 258-59.
66Elaine Marks, “Lesbian Intertextuality,” Lesbianism, ed. Wayne R.

Dynes and Stephen Donaldson (New York: Garland, 1992) 189.
67Monique Wittig, The Lesbian Body, trans. David LeVay (New York:
William Morrow &Co., 1975) 9.
68Marks, 201.
69Marks, 189-90.
Chapter 7
CONCLUSION: TRANSGRESSION AND CONFORMITY IN WOMEN’S

LIBERTINE FICTION
Transgression and conform ity characterize the libertine texts of

Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse. They overstepped the bounds
of societal and textual norm s established for women authors within
the co n tex t of late-E nlightenm ent France since th ey a d a p te d
structures and models of libertine texts established by male authors,
a m im etization of male discourse. Any degree of conform ity to a
libertine ethic and aesthetic is in fact transgressive simply because
they chose to express them selves in a type of writing th at was not
viewed as acceptable for women. Regardless of the m oralistic
stances which were e ith er Rousseauist or libertine, the aesthetic
principles to which they adhered place them as p art of the genre of
lib ertin e-ero tic lite ra tu re . L ibertine-erotic texts, by definition,
re p re se n t sexuality in e ith e r an explicit or veiled m an n er by
co n cen tratin g on the physical aspects of love. R epresenting a
com bination of psychological and physical elem ents in an intim ate
relationship distinguished Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse from
other French women authors before and during the Enlightenment.
Despite cohesion as a genre, the Restoration censors did not
tre a t the five novels uniform ly. We have proceeded on the
assum ption that censorship is an em piric indicator of w hat ethic and
260
aesthetic criteria a work did not fulfill to avoid judgm ents of being
unsuitable for readers. Regardless of certain sim ilarities in content
an d form to Choiseul-M euse’s th ree censored novels, M orency’s
lllyrine and C ottin’s C laire^d’Albe were evidently not viewed as
in to lerably transgressive even d uring one of the m ost m orally
dem anding times of French literary history. Each work prom pted
h arsh reaction because of its erotic content, b u t only Amelie_de.
Saint-Far, E n tre C h ie n e t Loup and Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose were
placed on police index in 1825 with the latter facing fu rth e r legal
ram ifications as it was slated for destruction in 1827. Therefore,
Choiseul-Meuse’s Julie was judged by far to be the most dangerous
work. Nevertheless, our analysis has raised questions concerning
w hat appears to be an oversight on the p art of the censors who did
not target lllyrine in particular for placem ent in the Enfer. A brief
sum m ary of the results of our com parative study will underscore the
representational practices th at were m anifest in the five novels.
Each of the w o m en -au th o red lib e rtin e texts assum es a
p articular ethical stance that conforms either to the ethos presented
by LaMettrie in L a V o lu p te and L’a rt de jouir, o r to the m odel
presented by Rousseau in Emile and Julie ou la Nouvelle Heloise. The
dichotom y indicates an adherence to certain values and counter-
values. LaMettrie’s libertine ethic accepts as sexually moral the non-
m other, the non-wife (adulteress), and places an accent on the
p u rsu it of individual physical pleasures. The Rousseauist ethic
prom otes the authority of the m other figure, the faithful wife, and
261
the moral pleasures of domestic bliss. The libertine ethic reverts to

the a n c ie n t eth ical tra d itio n of C yrenaic hedonism , w hereas
Rousseau’s ethic is representative of the philosophical reevaluation of
m otherhood in the Enlightenm ent, and is m ore closely associated
with Christian values. Appropriating LaMettrie’s proposals becomes
a m ore defiant act on the part of the woman writer, because it allows
for an expression of female sexuality for individual pleasure which is
n o t necessarily related to the societal values of conjugality and
p ro creatio n . On th e o th e r h and, a d h eren ce to the ideals of
R ousseauism indicates an acceptance of th e w om an’s role as
helpm ate, wife and m other in a phallocratic hierarchy.
A woman au th o r in the eighteenth century held the privileged
position as an ideal moralist, and was expected to show allegiance to
C hristian p recep ts o f v irtu o u s behavior. Likewise, th e fem ale
ch aracter in a novel functioned as the dissem inator of the moral
message. The fate of the female heroine serves as an indicator of
tran sg ressiv e o r conform ist a ttitu d e s tow ard the C hristian or
Rousseauist ethic. In libertine literature by women, a heroine’s fate
acquires an ethical significance which does not always observe the
proprieties of Christian morality.
The d e n o u em en ts o f M orency’s llLyrine_oju._l!e.cu£iL_d_e
l’inexperience and Choiseul-Meuse’s Entre Chien et Loup and Julie ou
j ’a i sauve ma rose do not signify a categorical rejection of the
libertine ethic. None of the texts shows the condem nation of the
heroine for her libertine acts. Libertinism is represented as a less
26 2
serious sin, or not a sin at all. In EntrejChienuet_Loup, prom ises of

fu tu re discretion and m arriage arrangem ents suffice to earn the
heroine forgiveness for h er com portm ent. Libertine behavior is
n eith er fully accepted nor fully condem ned. On the o th er hand,
libertinism is accepted as a viable m oral alternative in lllyrine ou
llecueil deJL’inexperience and Julie o u j ’a is a u v e m a rose. In both
texts, the m oral ideal of conjugal bliss is rejected in favor of the
p u rsu it of Hedonist pleasures. The heroine of lllyrine, Suzanne, is
cognizant of both the pleasures and pains involved in the adoption of
a libertine lifestyle. Although she regrets not being able to uphold
the moral ideals of Rousseau, she proposes her name game illusion as
the ultim ate way to reconcile her preference for pursuing individual
pleasures behind a facade of conjugal fidelity. The heroine of Julie
ou j ’ai sauve ma rose also em braces libertinism , but reinterprets its
significance. Julie proposes virginity not as a counter-value to
libertinism , bu t as its essential elem ent for a woman to m aintain
v irtu e and pow er while seeking unlim ited hedonistic pleasures.
Lesbian love becom es th e e th ical peak o f fem ale sexuality.
Libertinism and free female sexual expression as a viable alternative
m orality to Christianity or the Rousseauist ideal renders lllyrine_oju
TecueiL de Tinexperience and Julie ou j ’ai_sauve m a rose the m ost
recusant of the w om en-authored libertine texts. It is for this reason
th a t suspicions have been raised concerning the exem ption of
lllyrine from the Enfer. Although its position on the m erits of
libertinism is not as strongly expressed as in Julie_ouj!aLsauv£_m a
263
rose, lllyrine does exhibit a point of view th at could certainly be

interpreted as offensive to public morals.
Among the w om en-authored lib ertin e texts, C ottin’s Claire
d ’Albe and Choiseul-Meuse’s Amelie de Saint-Far construct edifying
en d in g s th a t p ro m o te the R ousseauist ideal. L ibertinism is
condem ned in order to privilege the m oral pleasures of domestic life.
After being initiated, the heroines, Claire, Amelie and Alexandrine,
neglected th eir expected obligation to be wives and m others. They
violated the norm s of society and C hristian m orality by pursuing
individual pleasures outside of wedlock. Punishm ent of the wom an’s
libertine behavior through death or isolation signifies a rejection
within the texts of the libertine ethic. Libertinism in Claire_d!Albe
and Amelie xle SaintrFar is represented as such a serious crime that
the possibility of future m arriage or the construction of illusions of
fidelity cannot atone for it. We m ust look m ore closely at the
differences in the representation of the erotic to explain why, despite
their shared condem nation of libertine behavior, Amelie de Saint-Far
was nevertheless placed in the Enfer.
Although th eir texts did not explicitly prom ote LaM ettrie’s
view of libertine m orality, Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse each
appropriated his proposals for erotic writing. LaMettrie declared the
value of textual representation of sensual pleasure (/a vo lu p te) that
heightened desire by prom oting the use of the im agination. He
rejected the aesthetic w orth of pornographic w riting th at was to be
adopted later by such writers as the Marquis d ’Argens, the Marquis
264
de Sade, Hugues Rebell and Georges Bataille. LaMettrie’s vision of a

represented sexuality th at claim ed to respect virtue and propriety
was attractive for women w riters of the late-E nlightenm ent who
wished to express the physical aspects of love and desire. Choiseul-
Meuse’s theories of erotic w riting are rem arkably close to those of
LaMettrie. Although only Choiseul-M euse p resen ts h er theories
explicitly in Julie o u j ’a is a u v e m a ro s e , Morency and Cottin adhere to
them as well in their libertine texts.
The theory, how ever, was n o t alw ays ev id en t in textual
practice. It is probable th at the specifics of erotic representation,
m ore so than the position on libertinism , w ere the determ ining
factors for the censorship of Choiseul-M euse’s th ree novels. This
would explain why Amelie d e Saint-Far was judged as offensive to
public morals despite the condem nation of libertine behaviors at the
denouem ent.
The three authors conform to male m odels of aesthetic and
structural qualities of a libertine text, but rein terp ret them as well.
The most striking differences pertain to the representation of gender
and female sexuality in w om en-authored libertine texts. Sharing
pleasure is valorized in both lllyrine and Claire d ’Albe, but eroticism
in Choiseul-M euse’s text is based on one p a rtn e r’s pow er over
another. For example, the eroticism of violence, the “jouissance de
l’hom m e” as rapist and seducer of women is underm ined in lllyrine.,
bu t is characteristic of erotic representation in Amelie_de„Saint-Ear.
To the contrary, the dynam ics of power are shifted in favor of the
26 5
woman in Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose. The heroine is shown to be in

control of her own destiny and sexual pleasure at the expense of her
partners. This shift th at underm ines the phallocratic economy was
no d o ubt interp reted as a direct offense to the prevailing m orality
and was certainly contrary to acceptable literary discourse during
the Restoration.
In addition, concerning the final stage of the libertine initiation
process, the heroines, Suzanne, Claire and Amelie, seek to recapture
the “eternal fem inine” within themselves. On the other hand, Julie’s
quest for the ideal, seducible and controllable man, a reinterpretation
of the “m asculine” model, displaces sexual mystification. The male in
Julie ou jâi sauve m a rose thus becomes the inaccessible object of
fem inine desire. While expressing both “volupte” and “decence” in
th e ir discursive practice, M orency, C ottin a n d Choiseul-M euse
privilege fem inine pleasure and desire with the noted exception of
Amelie de Saint-Fa r which subjects female desire to a phallocratic
economy.
Furtherm ore, although each of the five libertine-erotic novels
practice w hat we have term ed a “veiled” eroticism , we observe a
decisive shift in representational practice in Choiseul-Meuse’s texts.
We note an accent on the body and physical pleasure in lllyrine, but
not to the same degree as in, most evidently, Ametie_de_i>aintliar
and Julie ou j ’ai sauve ma rose. The scenes depicting heterosexual
an d lesbian love-m aking use m ore explicit language th a t calls
attention to both the male and female body. Not only do the scenes
266
tend to be more explicit, but they are m ore num erous than in either
Illyrine or Clair_e__d!Albe. Thus, it becom es clear th at Choiseul-
Meuse’s texts are characterized by a m ore pervasive and daring
m anner of portraying the erotic.
R epresentations of physical love an d desire in th e late-
E nlightenm ent texts signifies a first step tow ard wom en a u th o rs
offering th eir perspectives on female sexuality an d the n atu re of
feminine desire. The choice to represent eroticism indicates not only
an aspiration to e n ter new spheres of writing, but also a belief that
aspects of physical love can be reproduced in wom en’s texts. They
entered the initial phase in Irigaray’s advice to all women: “ne vous
obligez pas a la rep etitio n , ne figez pas vos reves ou desirs en
representations uniques et definitives. Vous avez tan t de continents
a explorer que vous d o n n er des frontieres rev ien d rait a ne pas
«jouir» de toute votre «nature».” 1 Although they created scandals or
were subject to judicial condem nations, women w riters of libertine
texts in the late-E nlightenm ent broke down som e of the social
barriers by testing their artistic freedom.
W ithin the context of the co n strain t placed upon women
w riters of the period to w rite m orally sound works o r suffer a
damaging loss of reputation, the composition of erotic passages was a
daring violation of the norm s of accepted female discourse. Granted,
Cottin composed the scenes in Claire_d’Albe, her first novel, under the
shield of anonym ity because she needed the money th at sales of the
book would generate. In addition, it is highly possible th at Choiseul-
267
Meuse also wrote in order to generate funds, and to test the bounds
of her own writing. Her reputation was protected by the rum ors of
the existence of Madame Guyot whose origin is unknown. Although
she signed her novels Madame de C*** which indicates a desire for
an o n y m ity , C hoiseul-M euse n e ith e r disavow ed n o r a d m itte d
authorship when speculations abounded as to th eir true author. So
little is known of Choiseul-Meuse th a t it is difficult to speculate
fu rth er on the reasons th at prom pted her to write erotically.
Morency stands ou t as an exception because she signed her
own nam e to h er text, and therefore refused the protection of an
anonym ous edition. The autobiographical co n ten t in the erotic
passages of Illyrine_ou l’ecueil de l ’inexperience shows that Morency
placed herself at m ore personal risk than the o th er women authors
o f the late-Enlightenm ent. She risked h e r rep u tatio n to fulfill a
desire to write about h er experiences as a woman, and represent
them in a m anner th at challenged the norm s of discourse established
for women authors. It rem ains surprising, given the conclusions
draw n here based on the textual content of llLyrine, th at Morency
never suffered any legal consequences for her writing.
O ther women w riters th at are presen ted in Brecourt-Villars’
anthology, E crire_d’am our, dared to transgress norm s of fem ale
discourse by w riting erotically. The texts by Morency, Cottin and
Choiseul-M euse m ark only the beginning of a new direction in
literary history. They are part of the previously neglected history of
wom en’s libertine literatu re of late-Enlightenm ent France, but are
268
also p art of a wider history that includes all erotic literature written
by women including lesbian literatu re. In a typology of male
discourse which is respected or rejected, the p resen t study may
provide the groundwork for future investigations of the erotic works
of Madame de Duras, Vicomtesse de Cceur-Brulant, Rachilde, or
Pauline Reage, to name but these few.2
269
Notes
iLuce Irigaray, Ce S e x e q u in ’e n e s t pas un (Paris: Editions de

Minuit, 1977) 202.
^The references are based on citations in Brecourt-Villar’s anthology

of Olivier ou le secret (1822) by Madame de Duras, LeRom an de
Violette (1870) by Vicomtesse de Coeur-Brulant, M onsieur Venus
(1884) by Rachilde, and His.toine_dlQ (1955) by Pauline Reage. No
study is presently available using this corpus th at would reveal
tendencies of women’s erotic fiction of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Prim aryS ources
C***, Madame de. A m elied eS ain T F aro u la fatale erreur. 2 vols.

N.p., 1882.
C***, Madame de. Julie _Quj!aLsauve_ma.rose. 2 vols. Bruxelles, 1882.
Choiseul-Meuse, Mme de. Entre Chien et Loup. Bruxelles, 1894.
Cottin, Sophie. Claire_d’Albe. Paris: Regine Deforges, 1976.
Morency, Suzanne G. de. Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience. Paris:

Garnier, 1983.
SecondarySources
Adam, Antoine. Les Libertins au dix-septieme siecle. Paris: Buchet-

Chastel, 1964.
Apollinaire, Guillaume, Fernand Fleuret and Louis Perceau. Enfer de

la Bibliotheque Nationale. Paris: Bibliotheque des curieux,
1919.
Aretino, P. The Ragionamenti. Hollywood, California: Brandon
House, 1966.
Argens, J. B. de Boyer d \ Therese Philosophe ou memoirs pou r servir

a l’histoire du P. Dirraq et de Mademoiselle Eradice. The Hague,
n.d.
Amelle, Une oubliee: Madame Cottin. Paris, Plon, 1914.
Aulnoyes, Francois des. Histoire et philosophie de rerotism e. Paris:

La Pensee m oderne, 1958.
Bataille, Georges. Oeuvres Completes de Georges Bataille. Paris:

Gallimard, 1988.
271
Brecourt-Villars, Claudine. E c rired ’amour: anthologie de textes

erotiquesfem inins (1799-1984). Paris: Ramsay, 1985.
Brewer, David. “Diderot and the Image of the O ther (Woman).”

L!Espritjcreateur 24.1 (Spring 1984): 53-65.
Carter, Angela. The SadeanW omanLand th e ld e o lo g y o f

Pornography. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Castel-Cagarriga, G. “Le Roman de Sophie Cottin.” Revue des_ deux

m ondes (May-June 1960): 120-37.
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1907.
Cazenobe, Colette. “Une prerom antique meconnue, Madame Cottin.”

T ravaux-de-Litterature 1 (1988): 175-202.
—. Le S y stem e d u lib e rtin a g e d e C re b illo n a L a c lo s. Oxford: The

Voltaire Foundation, 1991.
Cioranescu, Alexandre. B ib lio g ra p h ie d ela .litteratureT rancaise du

Dix-Huitieme siecle. Paris: CNRS, 1969.
Cixous, Helene. “Le Rire de la Meduse.” LlArc 61 (1975): 39-54.
—. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Trans. Keith and Paula Cohen. New
French Feminisms. Ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de
Courtivron. New York: Schocken Books, 1980. 245-64.
Copley, Antony. Sexual Moralities in F ran ce, 1780-1980. London,

New York: Routledge, 1989.
Coulet, Henri. “Monde et libertinage dans le rom an frangais du XVIIIe

siecle.” Sitzungsberichte der Akademie denAVissenschaften 5
(1978): 177-84.
Crocker, Lester G. Nature and Culture: Ethical T h o u g h tin the French

Enligh tenm ent. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963.
27 2
Cryle, Peter. “Passing the Time in Erotic Narrative: Fictions of Power

and Negotiation in Crebillon, Nerciat and Sade.” Romantic.
Review 80.3 (May 1989): 371-90.
Cusset, Catherine. “Sophie Cottin ou l’ecriture du deni.” Romantisme

3.77 (1992): 25-31.
Darnton, Robert. Edition et se d itio n :L ’univers de la litterature

clandestine au XVlIIe siecle. Paris: Gallimard, 1991.
Dayras, Michele, ed. Liberte, egalite...et les femmes7. 2 vols. Paris:

Editions du Libre Arbitre, 1990.
Dejean, Joan. Libertine. Strategies:.^freedom and.the_NovelJn

Seventeenth-Century France. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1981.
Diderot, Denis and Jean d ’Alembert, eds. Encyclopedic,.ou Dictionnaire

raisonn<X des_sciences,desartsetdes.m etiers. 3rd ed.
Livourne, 1772.
Diderot, Denis Supplem ent au voyage de Bougainville in Le Ne_veu__de

Rameau, Satires,Xontes_etLEntretiens. Eds. Jacques and Anne-
Marie Chouillet. Paris: Livre de Poche, 1984.
—. “Sur les femmes.” Oeuvres .completes deJDiderot Ed. Jules

Assezat. Paris, 1875.
Drujon, Fernand. Catalogue des ouvrages, ecrits et dessins de toute

nature poursuivis, supprim es ou CQndamnes depuis le 21
Dworkin, Andrea. Pornography: Men Possessing Women. New York:

Perigree, 1981.
Faderman, Lillian. Surpassing theX ove

andX ove between AYomen.from the.Renaissance to
New York: William Morrow and Co., 1981.
Falvey, John. “Women and Sexuality in the Thought of LaMettrie.”

Womah and Society in Eighteenth-Century France. Eds. Eva
Jacobs, W. H. Barber, Jean H. Bloch, F. W. Leakey and Eileen Le
27 3
Breton. London: Athlone Press, 1979. 55-68.
Fauchery, Pierre. La Destinee_£eminine_dans .le rom an _europeenL_du_

dix-huitieme siecle. Paris: Armand Colin, 1972.
Fontenay, Elisabeth de. Diderot: _Reason and JResonance, Trans.

Jeffrey Mehlman. New York: George Braziller, 1982.
Fouquet, Catherine and Yvonne Knibiehler La_femmeet les medecins:

analyseJhistorique. Paris: Hachette, 1983.
Frappier-Mazur, Lucienne. “Convention et subvention dans le rom an

erotique feminin (1799-1901).” Romantism e: revue du dix-
neuviem esiecle 59 (1988): 107-119.
—. “Marginal Canons: Rewriting the Erotic.” Y aleT renchStudies 75

(1988): 112-28.
Fremy, Dominique and Michele Fremy, eds. Quid. Paris: Editions

Robert Laffont, 1987.
Gaulmier, Jean. “Roman et connotations sociales: «Mathilde» de

Madame Cottin.” Roman et Societe. Ed. Michel Raimond. Paris:
Colin, 1973. 7-17.
—. “Sophie et ses m alheurs.” Romantisme 3 (1972): 3-16.
—. Preface. Claire d ’Albe. By Sophie Cottin. Paris: Regine Deforges,

1976. 7-15.
Gay, Jules, ed. BibliograpJhie des ouvrages relatifs a l ’amour, aux

femmes,_au_mariage. 6 vols. Turin, Londres, 1871.
—. Les_femmes_de_lettres. Paris, 1878.
Genlis, Madame de. Les Voeux tem eraires. Hambourg and Paris,
1798.
—. De. L’influence_ des_ femmes_ sur. la litterature_ frangaise comme

protectrices des lettres et comme auteurs. Paris, 1811.
274
Goodden, Angelica. The Complete Lover: Eros, Nature and Artifice in

the Eighteenth-Century French Novel. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1989.
Goulemot, Jean-Marie. CesJivres_ciu!on-neTit_q.ue_dIune_main;..lecture

eLlecteursdehvxes_pornographiquesaudix-Jiuitiem e_ siecle.
Paris: Alinea, 1990.
Graffigny, Frangoise de. Lettres d ’uneP eru v ien ne. New York: Modern
Language Association of America, 1993.
Hans, Marie-Frangoise and Gilles Lapouge. Les-femmes, la

pornographie, l’erotisme. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1978.
Hibler, Richard W. H ap p in essT h ro u g h T ran q u illity ;T h e S c h o o lo f

Epicurus. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984.
Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry baron d \ La morale .unLverselle. N. p.,

1820.
—. Systeme de la nature, ou des lois du monde phvsique e t du_

monde_moral. 1821. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966.
Huston, Nancy. M osaiquedeJa_pornographie. Paris: Denoel-

Gonthier, 1982.
Irigaray, Luce. Ce sexejquLn_’en_est pasxm . Paris: Editions de Minuit,

1977.
Ivker, Barry. An Anthology and Analysis of 17th_and 18th Century

French Libertine Fiction. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms
International, 1977.
Jacob, P-L. Preface. Julie .ou jlai sauvexna rose. By Madame de C***.
Bruxelles, 1882. i-xi.
Jones, Howard. The Epicurean Tradition. London and New York:

Routledge, 1989.
Kearney, Patrick J. The Private Case. London: Jay Landesman

275
Limited, 1981.
Kendrick, Walter. Ih.e_Se.cr.et_Mu.seum. New York: Penguin Books,

1987.
Kroll, Richard W. F. The MateriaLWorld:_Titerate Culture Jn_the

Restoration and Early Eighteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Lachevre, Frederic. Le .Libertinage au dix-septieme siecle. Paris:

Honore Champion, 1925.
Laclos, Pierre Choderlos de. Les Liaisons dangereuses. Paris:

Garnier-Flammarion, 1981.
Lacroix, Paul. Directoire, Consulat etJEmpire. Paris, 1884.
LaMettrie, Julien Offray de. La_Volupte in CEuvresPhilosophiques.

Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1970.
Narrative Voice. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 1992.
Laqueur, Thomas W. Making Sex, .Body .and Gender EroirL the Greeks
loJxend. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990.
Lasowski, Wald. Libertines. Paris: Gallimard, 1980.
Lesuire, Robert-Martin. La courtisane am oureuse et vierge, ou

memoires de Lucrece, ecrit par ellerm em epour servir de
Lo Duca. Histoire de Perotisme. Paris: La Jeune Parque, 1969.
Marchand, Jacqueline. LesJtam anciers Jibertins_du.dix-huitieme^

siecle. Paris: Editions rationalistes, 1972.
Marks, Elaine. “Lesbian Intertextuality,” Lesbianism. Ed. Wayne R.

Dynes and Stephen Donaldson. New York: Garland, 1992. 181-
205.
276
Marquiset, Alfred. Les Bas-BIeus„du Premier Empire. Paris:

Champion, 1914.
Martin, Angus, Vivienne Mylne and Richard L. Frautschi.

Bihliographie_d_u_genreromanesque,. 1751-1800. London, Paris:
Mansell, 1977.
Merlett, Gustave. X ableaudelalL tteraturefrari< ;aise:180Q -1815.

Paris, 1883.
Miege, Denise. Litterature erotique_feminine. Paris: Editions

Civilisation Nouvelle, 1970.
Miller, Nancy K. “Emphasis Added: Plots and Plausibilities in

Women’s Fiction.” PMLA 96.1 (January 1981) 36-48.
Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual Politics. London and New York:

Routledge, 1985.
Monselet, Charles. Les oublies et les dedaignes; figures litteraires de

laX indu. 18em esiecle. Alengon, 1857.
Nagy, Peter. Libertinage et revolution. Trans. Christiane Gremillon.

Paris: Gallimard, 1975.
Nodier, Charles. CEuvres completes de Charles Nodier. Geneva:

Slatkine Reprints, 1968.
O’Connor, Eugene, trans. The EssentialEpicurus: Letters, Principal

D octrines,V aticarLSayings,andFragm ents. Buffalo:
Prometheus Books, 1993.
Pauvert, Jean-Jacques. Anthologie des lectures erotiques de Sade a

Fallleres. Paris: Garnier, 1982.
Emm anuelle. Paris: Ramsay, 1980.
~ . AnthQlQgie liistorique deiiectu res erotiques de_Quillamiie_

Apollinaire a Philippe Petain. Paris: Jean-Claude Simoen, 1979.
277
Perceau, Louis. Bibliographic du rom an erotique au 19e siecle. Paris:

Georges Fourdrinier, 1930.
Pia, Pascal. Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques dom aine frangais.

Paris: Mercure de France, 1971.
—. Les_ Livres__dei’Enfei:.du_XVleme_SLecle_a_nQsj'ours. Paris: C.

Coulet et A. Faure, 1978.
Pigoreau, Alexandre. Petite Bibliographie BiograpMco-Romanciere.

1821. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1968.
Pilon, Edmond. M usesetB ourgeoises de jadis. Paris, 1907.
Pinhas-Delpuech, Rosy. “De Paffranchi au libertin, les avatars d ’un

mot.” Eros Philosophe. Ed. Frangois Moureau and Alain-Marc
Rieu. Geneva and Paris: Slatkine, 1984. 11-20.
septieme siecle. Paris: Boivin, 1943.
Pratt, T. M. “The Widow and the Crown: Madame Cottin and the
Limits of Neoclassical Epic.” British Journal for Eighteenth-
Century Studies 9. 2 (Automn 1986): 197-203.
Prud’homme, Louis Marie. Repertoire universel, historique,

biographique des femmes celebres, m ortes ou vivantes. Paris,
1826.
Querard, J. M. La France litteraire. Paris, 1834.
Rebell, Hugues. Journal d ’une enfant vicieuse. Paris: Les classiques

interdits, 1980.
Reichler, Claude. L'age libertin. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1987.
Rodis-Lewis, Genevieve. Epicure et son ecole. Paris: Gallimard, 1975.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile. Ed. Y. M. Allioux. Paris: Larousse,

278
1972.
—. Julie ou la nouvelle Helo'ise. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1967.
Rustin, Jacques. “Definition et explicitation du rom an libertin des

Lumieres.” Travaux de linguistique et d e Jittera tu re 16 (1978):
27-34.
Sade, D. A. F. de. L aE h ilosopM edansleboudoir. Paris: Jean-Jacques

Pauvert, 1968.
—. CEuvxes com pletes. Paris: Jean-Jacques Pauvert, 1961.
Sahakian, William S. History of Philosophy. New York: Barnes and

Noble Books, 1968.
Saint-Fargeau, Eusebe Girault de. Revue des rom ans. 1839. Geneva:
Slatkine Reprints, 1968.
Schwartz, Joel. TheSexuaLEQliticsQfJeanrJacquesRQUsseau. Chicago

and London: U of Chicago E, 1984.
Silver, Marie-France. “Le rom an feminin des annees revolutionaires.”

Eighteenth-Century Fiction 6.4 (July 1994): 309-26.
Spencer, Sarnia I. “Sophie Cottin (1770-1807).” French Women

Writers: A Bio-Biographical Source Book. Ed. Eva Martin
Sartori and Dorothy Wynne Zimmerman. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1991. 90-98.
—. “The French Revolution and the Early Nineteenth-Century

French Novel: The Case of Sophie Cottin.” Eroceedings of the
18. Santa Barbara: W estern Society for French History, 1991.

498-504.
Spink, J.S. La Libre pensee francaise de_Gassendi a Voltaire. Paris:

Editions Sociales, 1966.
Steinbriigge, Lieselotte. D asm oralischeC eschlecht: Theorien und

279
literarische Entw.uiTe_ub_er_dieJJatur derTrau_irLder_

franzosischen Aufklarung. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag,
1987.
Steinem, Gloria. “Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present

Difference.” TakeJ3ack the Night: __Women on Pornography. Ed.
Laura Lederer. New York: William Morrow, 1980. 35-39.
Stewart, Joan Hinde and Philip Stewart. Introduction. Lettres_de_

Mistriss_Henley_puMees_pan.soii_amie. By Isabelle de Charriere.
New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1993) iv-
xxii.
Stewart, Joan Hinde. G ynographs^french NovelsJby Women o f th e ,

la te Eighteenth Century. Lincoln and London: U of Nebraska P,
1993.
Strum, Ernest. Crebillon fils et le libertinage au dix-huitieme sLecle.

Paris: Nizet, 1970.
Sykes, L. C. Madame Cottin. Oxford: Blackwell, 1949.
Vartanian, Aram. “La Mettrie, Diderot, and Sexology in the

Enlightenment.” Essays on the Age of Enlightenm ent in Honor
ofira_0.JW.ade. Ed. Jean Macary. Geneva: Droz, 1977. 347-67.
Voltaire, Francois Marie Arouet de. TmittLdejmelaphysique. Ed. H.

Temple Patterson. Manchester: M anchester UP, 1937.
Wittig, Monique. IheJLesbianJlody. Trans. David LeVay. New York:

William Morrow & Co., 1975.
VITA
Beth Ann Glessner
Born December 9, 1965 in Indiana, Pennsylvania
Education:
Master of Arts in French Literature (1990)
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Bachelor of Arts in International Business (1987)
Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania
High School Diploma (1983)
Indiana Area High School, Indiana, Pennsylvania
Employment:
Instructor of French (1994-Present)
Departm ent of Foreign Languages and Literatures
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Teaching Assistant (1987-1994)

D epartm ent of French; Departm ent of Comparative Literature
Instructor of French (1990-1994)

D epartm ent of Independent Learning
Lectrice (1988-1989)
Departem ent d'Anglais; Langues Etrangeres Appliquees;
Institut d'Etudes Politiques
Universite Lumiere Lyon II, Lyon, France
H onoraryandProfessionalO rganizations:
Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society, Penn State University chapter
Alpha Mu Gamma Language Honorary, Grove City College chapter
Jonathan B. Ladd Scholarship, Grove City College
American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (East-Central)
Modern Language Association

Libertinism and Gender in Five Late-Enlightenment Novels by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Libertinism and Gender in Five Late-Enlightenment Novels by Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INFORM ATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

U niversity M icrofilm s In tern atio n al

L ib ertin ism an d gender in five la te-en ligh ten m en t novels by

Glessner, Beth Ann, Ph.D.

LIBERTINISM AND GENDER IN FIVE LATE-ENLIGHTENMENT NOVELS

Subm itted in Partial Fulfillment

SX>>[y(y{ 2~/ 2 u rv > n

From 1799 to 1809, three women authors, Suzanne G. de

rep re se n ta tio n re in te rp re ts the m ale paradigm by focusing the

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF WOMEN-AUTHORED

Chapter 2. THE FORGOTTEN AND THE SCORNED: AN INTRODUCTION

Suzanne Giroux de Morency: 1771-18?? .............................................. 17

Chapter 3. RECEPTION OF WOMEN’S LIBERTINE FICTION:

The Evolution of French Censorship ...................................................... 55

Chapter 4. GENDER, PHILOSOPHY AND THE ORIGINS OF

Libertinism and Philosophy .................................................................... 84

Chapter 5. HEROINE INITIATION AND ETHICAL STANCES IN WOMEN’S

Receiver Gender and Intended Message ............................................... 135

Chapter 6. GENDERED EROTIC AESTHETICS.............................................. 203

The Erotic, the Pornographic: An Overview ......................................... 203

Chapter 7. CONCLUSION: TRANSGRESSION AND CONFORMITY IN

Notes ........................................................................................................ 269

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................ 270

Primary Sources ...................................................................................... 270

INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF WOMEN-AUTHORED LIBERTINE FICTION

In France one finds several dictionaries, catalogues and anthologies

Aside from citations in anthologies of erotic literature, critical

the scheme of literary history. Lacroix writes: “Les romans du Directoire

English, “Marginal Canons: Rewriting the Erotic.” Frappier-M azur’s

N agy,14 S tru m ,15 C azenobe16 and R u stin 17 have fo cused th e ir

essential elem ent of the definition lies in the textual representation of

tendencies, education of the hero or heroine (i. e., libertine initiation),

exam ined in relation to the libertine texts by Morency and Choiseul-

w hat extent Morency, Cottin and Choiseul-Meuse participate in the

ISee: Alexandre Pigoreau, PetLte Bibliographie biographico-romanciere

2Pascal Pia, Dictionnaire des oeuvres erotiques domaine frangais (Paris:

1 (Paris: Simoen, 1979), vol. 2 (Paris: Ramsay, 1980), vol. 3 (Paris:

4ciaudine Brecourt-Villars, Ecrire d ’amour: anthologie de textes

Sjean-jacques Pauvert, Anthologie des lectures erotiques de Sade a

6Mme de Genlis, De I’influencedesTem m es su r la litterature franqaise

7 Paul Lacroix, Directoire, Consulat etEm pire (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1884)

^For another recent work on the genre of erotic-libertine literature that

^Lucienne Frappier-Mazur, “Marginal Canons: Rewriting the Erotic,” YaLe

lOAretino’s Ragionamenti (1534-36) was republished and translated

11 Barry Ivker, An Anthology and Analysis of 17th and 18th Century

12see: Frederic Lachevre, Le Libertinage au dix-septieme siecle (Paris:

1^Jacqueline Marchand, Les Romanciers libertins du dix-huitieme siecle

definition of libertine literature which results in the denial that Les

14peter Nagy, Libertinageetj'evolutiori, trans. Christiane Gremillon

15Ernest Strum, Crebillon fils et le libertinage au dix-huitieme siecle

16coIette Cazenobe, LeSystem edulibertinagedeX rebilkm iLLaclos

ITjacques Rustin, “Definition et explicitation du roman libertin des

ISHenri Coulet, “Monde et libertinage dans le roman frangais du XVIIIe

22Helene Cixous, “Le Rire de la Meduse”, L’A rc 61 (1975): 42.

THE FORGOTTEN AND THE SCORNED

SuzanneG iroux de M orency:1771-18??

a «Illyrine» et «Rosalina» par Mme G*** de Morency, Paris, E.

Frautschi list the editions of Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience under

seam stress. In a surprise letter, Count Zimmerman proposed setting

Morency" in Les__o.ublies_e.tJes_dedaignes was the last to be written on