A Rhetorical Analysis Of Peckacz's Old Regime

Peckacz’s article details the conflict between the salonnières in Old Regime France who supported French opera, and the intellectual philosophes who supported Italian opera. Peckacz makes the argument that opera in Old Regime France was more than just aesthetic, but was political as well. In conclusion, Peckacz makes the argument that the loyalty of salonnières in Old Regime “exemplifies their adherence to the principles involved in the conception of honnête”(414). As a source, Peckacz provides insight on the perspectives of both salonnières and philosophes, in what Peckacz presents as a constant conflict in the realm of aesthetic influence. As usability goes, I find that Peckacz’s argument provides a sharper picture of the both the salonnières
and the philosophes, while using opera as a medium to contrast the two groups that fought of aesthetic authority in Old Regime France. Pekacz’s article explores the role of the salonnière as the “authority of aesthetic judgment”(278), and the incursion of authority by the intellectual philosophes.
Peckacz makes the argument that the philosophes attempted to redefine the influence of the hostesses of the salon from the voices of taste in the aesthetic matter to which the philosophes believed themselves better suited, and rather made the salonnières into the icons of politeness. This ousting of influence by the philosophes, according to Pekacz, the salonnières were judged due to their lack of education seemed to make them unfit for judging anything that could not be gained from the domestic role of women. As a source in understanding salonnières in Old Regime France, Peckacz determines that any influence the salonnière women dissolved at the end of the 18th century. To come to the point, this article provides a possible solution to what Peckacz believes to be the collapse of the Old Regime salonnières in France in the wake of the 19th century and French
Revolution.

In her article, Roberts presents the argument that there was an extensive variation of ideologies among the philosophes specifically in regards to the shift from the bachelor life in pursuit of enlightenment to the beneficial aspect of enlightenment and its intersection with a family life. In an attempt to explain this shift, Roberts’s reasons that gender relations in the public sphere began to influence the ideologies of matrimony and scholarship to seep into the paradigms of marriage among intellectuals. As for usefulness in the scheme of researching salonnières in Old Regime France, this article provides insight into the gender relations among intellectuals, and the women they would marry. The objective of this source is to provide an account of the altering perception of women by philosophes of the time, as well as the shift in the idea of marriage and family in the wake of the French Revolution, which in turn provides valuable insight into the opinions that make up the divergence of gender relations among philosophes and salonnières to come at the beginning of the 19th century.

Wolfgang presents an argument that the relationship of the Old Regime salonnières as patronesses towards writers results in the capability for these French women to shape the literary community of France.
As these women worked in conjunction with me in the publication of writers, salonnières became the “spokeswoman of literary taste” of Old Regime France (116). In regards to the usefulness as a source in understanding the salonnières in Old Regime France, Wolfgang provides the argument the level of influence the salonnières in Old Regime France possessed over the literary community. In conclusion, Wolfgang’s argument helps shape the idea that while there were Old Regime institutions, such as court and universities, they were too restrictive at the time to become the epicenters of cultural taste and discussion. Therefore, it was the salon that provided such an outlet for both men and women to explore literary themes and works for publishing in the
period.