Contemporary literature about the salons is dominated by
idealistic notions of
politeness,
civility, and
honesty, though it is
debated whether they lived up to these standards. These older texts tend to portray reasoned debates and
egalitarian polite conversation. Dena Goodman contends that, rather than being leisure-based or "schools of civilité", salons were at "the very heart of the
philosophic community" and thus integral to the process of
Enlightenment. In short, Goodman argues, the 17th and 18th century saw the emergence of the academic, Enlightenment salons, which came out of the
aristocratic "schools of civilité". Politeness, argues Goodman, took second place to academic discussion., "La Conversation" (Paris, 1812)|alt=|left The period in which salons were dominant has been labeled the "age of conversation". The topics of conversation within the salonsthat is, what was and was not "polite" to talk aboutare thus vital when trying to determine the form of the salons. The salonnières were expected, ideally, to run and moderate the conversation (See Women in the salon). There is, however, no universal agreement among historians as to what was and was not appropriate conversation.
Marcel Proust "insisted that politics was scrupulously avoided". Others suggested that little other than
government was ever discussed. The disagreements that surround the content of discussion partly explain why the salon's relationship with the
public sphere is so heavily contested. Individuals and collections of individuals that have been of cultural significance overwhelmingly cite some form of engaged, explorative conversation regularly held with an esteemed group of acquaintances as the source of inspiration for their contributions to culture, art, literature and politics, leading some scholars to posit the salon's influence on the
public sphere as being more widespread than previously appreciated.
Relationship with the public sphere Recent historiography has been dominated by
Jürgen Habermas' work,
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (triggered largely by its translation into French in 1978, and then English in 1989), which argued that the salons were of great historical importance. Thus, while women retained a dominant role in the historiography of the salons, the salons received increasing amounts of study, much of it in direct response to or heavily influenced by Habermas' theory. The most prominent defense of salons as part of the public sphere comes from Dena Goodman's
The Republic of Letters, which claims that the "public sphere was structured by the salon, the press and other institutions of sociability". Habermas' dominance in salon historiography has come under criticism from some quarters, with Pekacz singling out Goodman's
Republic of Letters for particular criticism because it was written with "the explicit intention of supporting [Habermas'] thesis", rather than verifying it. The theory itself, meanwhile, has been criticized for a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of salons. The main criticism of Habermas' interpretation of the salons, however, is that the salons of most influence were not part of an oppositional public sphere, and were instead an extension of court society. This criticism stems largely from
Norbert Elias'
The History of Manners, in which Elias contends that the dominant concepts of the salons
politesse,
civilité and
honnêtetéwere "used almost as synonyms, by which the courtly people wished to designate, in a broad or narrow sense, the quality of their own behavior'. Joan Landes agrees, stating that, "to some extent, the salon was merely an extension of the institutionalized court" and that rather than being part of the public sphere, salons were in fact in conflict with it. Erica Harth concurs, pointing to the fact that the state "appropriated the informal academy and not the salon" due to the academies' "tradition of dissent"something that lacked in the salon. But Landes' view of the salons as a whole is independent of both Elias' and Habermas' school of thought, insofar that she views the salons as a "unique institution" that cannot be adequately described as part of the public sphere or court society. Others, such as Steven Kale, compromise by declaring that the public and private spheres overlapped in the salons. Antoine Lilti ascribes to a similar viewpoint, describing the salons as simply "institutions within Parisian high society".
Salonnières , salonnière, by
Marianne Loir (
National Museum of Women in the Arts,
Washington, DC) Historians have traditionally focused upon the role of women within salons. Works in the 19th and much of the 20th centuries often focused on the scandals and "petty intrigues" of the salons. Other works from this period focused on the more positive aspects of women in the salon. According to Jolanta T. Pekacz, the fact that women dominated the history of the salons meant that the study of salons was often left to amateurs, while men concentrated on "more important" (and masculine) areas of the Enlightenment. Historians tended to focus on individual salonnières, creating almost a "great woman" version of history that ran parallel to the Whiggish, male-dominated history identified by
Herbert Butterfield. Even in 1970, works were still being produced that concentrated only on individual stories without analysing the effects of the salonnières' unique position. The integral role that women played within salons as salonnières began to receive greaterand more seriousstudy in latter parts of the 20th century, with the emergence of a distinctly feminist historiography. The salons, according to Carolyn Lougee, were distinguished by "the very visible identification of women with salons" and the fact that they played a positive public role in French society. General texts on the Enlightenment, such as Daniel Roche's
France in the Enlightenment, tend to agree that women were dominant within the salons, but that their influence did not extend far outside of such venues. It was, however, Goodman's
The Republic of Letters that ignited a real debate surrounding the role of women within the salons and the Enlightenment as a whole. According to Goodman: "The salonnières were not social climbers but intelligent, self-educated, and educating women who adopted and implemented the values of the
Enlightenment Republic of Letters and used them to reshape the salon to their own social intellectual, and educational needs". 1832, salonnière in Paris where political and other émigré Italians, including composer
Vincenzo Bellini, gathered in the 1830s. Portrait by
Francesco Hayez|alt=|leftWealthy members of the aristocracy have always drawn to their court poets, writers and artists, usually with the lure of
patronage, an aspect that sets the court apart from the salon. Another feature that distinguished the salon from the court was its absence of
social hierarchy and its mixing of different social ranks and orders. In the 17th and 18th centuries, "salon[s] encouraged socializing between the sexes [and] brought nobles and bourgeois together". Salons helped facilitate the breaking down of social barriers which made the development of the enlightenment salon possible. In the 18th century, under the guidance of
Madame Geoffrin, Mlle de Lespinasse, and
Madame Necker, the salon was transformed into an institution of
Enlightenment. The enlightenment salon brought together Parisian society, the progressive
philosophes who were producing the
Encyclopédie, the
Bluestockings and other intellectuals to discuss a variety of topics. At that time, women had powerful influence over salons, where they carried very important roles as regulators who could select their guests and decide the subjects of their meetings, which could be social, literary, or political topics of the time. They also served as mediators by directing discussions. Salons were an informal form of education where women were able to exchange ideas, receive and give criticism, read their own works, and hear about the works and ideas of other intellectuals. Many ambitious women used salons to pursue a form of higher education. Two of the most famous 17th-century literary salons in
Paris were the
Hôtel de Rambouillet, established in 1607 near the
Palais du Louvre by the
marquise de Rambouillet, where gathered the original
précieuses, and, in 1652 in
Le Marais, the rival salon of
Madeleine de Scudéry, a long time
habituée of the Hôtel de Rambouillet. '''', borrowed from England's "
blue-stockings," soon found itself in use upon the attending ladies, a nickname continuing to mean "intellectual woman" for the next three hundred years. '',
Jean François de Troy, Paris salons of the 18th century hosted by women include the following: •
Adèle and Aurore de Bellegarde •
Madame Geoffrin •
Madame de Tencin •
Jeanne Quinault, hostess of the Bout-du-Banc •
Madame Dupin •
Constance Pipelet, later Constance de Salm following her
divorce •
Françoise de Graffigny, author of ''
Lettres d'une Péruvienne'' •
Julie de Lespinasse: her chief draw was
d'Alembert, but "though the name of M. d'Alembert may have drawn them thither, it was she alone who kept them there." • the
marquise du Deffand, the friend of
Horace Walpole • the
marquise de Lambert • the
duchesse du Maine •
Madame d'Épinay •
Madame Necker, the wife of the financier
Jacques Necker •
Madame de Staël, daughter of the Neckers, took over from her mother and in exile hosted the international
Coppet group •
Madame Helvétius, the wife of
Helvétius •
Sophie de Condorcet, wife of the mathematician and philosopher
Condorcet, visited by foreign notables and French thinkers alike •
Juliette Récamier, socialite and friend of Germaine de Staël •
Madame Roland, the political salon that was the resort of the
Girondists at the first stages of the
Revolution •
Madame Swetchine, wife of General Swetchine •
Julie Talma, a friend of
Benjamin Constant Some 19th-century salons were more inclusive, verging on the raffish, and centered around painters and "literary lions" such as
Madame Récamier. After the shock of the
1870 Franco-Prussian War, French aristocrats withdrew from the public eye. However,
Princess Mathilde still held a salon in her mansion, rue de Courcelles, later rue de Berri. From the middle of the 19th century until the 1930s, a lady of society had to hold her "day", which meant that her
salon was opened for visitors in the afternoon once a week, or twice a month. Days were announced in
Le Bottin Mondain. The visitor gave his visit cards to the
lackey or the ''maître d'hôtel
, and he was accepted or not. Only people who had been introduced previously could enter the salon''.
Marcel Proust called up his own turn-of-the-century experience to recreate the rival salons of the fictional duchesse de Guermantes and Madame Verdurin. He experienced himself his first social life in
salons such as
Mme Arman de Caillavet's one, which mixed artists and political men around
Anatole France or
Paul Bourget;
Mme Straus' one, where the cream of the aristocracy mingled with artists and writers; or more aristocratic
salons like
Comtesse de Chevigné's,
Comtesse Greffulhe's, Comtesse Jean de Castellane's, Comtesse Aimery de La Rochefoucauld's, etc. Some late 19th- and early 20th-century Paris salons were major centres for contemporary music, including those of
Winnaretta Singer (the princesse de Polignac), and
Élisabeth, comtesse Greffulhe. They were responsible for commissioning some of the greatest songs and chamber music works of
Fauré,
Debussy,
Ravel and
Poulenc. Until the 1950s, some
salons were held by ladies mixing political men and intellectuals during the IVth Republic, like Mme Abrami, or Mme Dujarric de La Rivière. The last salons in Paris were those of
Marie-Laure de Noailles, with
Jean Cocteau,
Igor Markevitch,
Salvador Dalí, etc., Marie-Blanche de Polignac (
Jeanne Lanvin's daughter) and Madeleine and
Robert Perrier, with
Josephine Baker,
Le Corbusier,
Django Reinhardt, etc. == Salons outside France ==