“Le Symbolisme … fut un mouvement libertaire en littérature” wrote Stuart Merrill in 1901.¹ For Merrill, whose own ties to French anarchism date from at least 1887, “libertaire” was a synonym of “anarchist.” The Symbolists' involvement with anarchism has been recognized and studied by several critics.² However, one problem faced by writers of the Symbolist movement was having the socio-political dimension of their works taken seriously. In part, this is because their writing is at some distance from usual forms of littérature engagée which may come to mind. Critics doubted then, and still today, that any socio-political dimension motivated Symbolist literature, arguing that many Symbolists openly embraced anarchist ideas only in the 1890s when anarchism had become fashionable. This impression is further magnified by the fact that almost without exception all of the critical attention has been directed at the 1890s, thereby ignoring the socio-political orientation of the movement at its inception. However, Merrill's perspective, which was shared by numerous fellow Symbolists, was that Symbolism did not become political; it was political in its essence. Indeed, a reexamination of the second half of 1886 reveals that the ties between the Symbolist movement and anarchism can be traced to the very beginnings of the movement.

Although aspects of Symbolist aesthetics are clearly derived from Baudelaire's poetry in the 1850s and then developed by Mallarmé and Verlaine in the following decades, the Symbolist movement itself, in terms of a group of writers who consciously used the label “Symbolist,” does not begin until Jean Moréas's “Manifeste” published in Le Figaro on September 18, 1886. These writers, mostly born between 1855 and 1865, were called “decadent” by the public.³ One of the goals of the manifesto was to move them beyond this pejorative epithet in the hope that the press would regard them as a serious movement.

The question arises as to when the Symbolists saw their writing as possibly having a socio-political dimension and whether others recognized this same potential. In fact, these connections can be traced to the very period during which the Symbolist movement was establishing itself during the second half of 1886.

In the months after the publication of the manifesto, an intense fight arose over which faction of the new writers could be called “Symbolist,” which should remain “decadent” and which journal would represent the new school. During this time, three literary conférences⁴ took place on October 20, October 25, and December 9, 1886. During the first two, the famous fin-de-siècle anarchist Louise Michel and other anarchists stood side-by-side with what were then considered to be “decadent” writers to discuss and promote this new literary movement. Louise Michel was announced as the main speaker at the third conference but failed to show. The October conférences have been studied by Noël Richard in Le Mouvement décadent⁵ and by Edith Thomas in Louise Michel ou la Velléda de l'anarchie.⁶ Both critics take their tone from the press reports of the time, which sarcastically greeted the unexpected fusion of the new, incomprehensible young writers and la Vierge Rouge, who, since her return from exile in New Caledonia, had become one of the leading figures of anarchism in France. Neither book grants much importance to the conférences, which are presented as an amusing fait divers of the life of the decadent movement (for Richard) or the life of Louise Michel (for Thomas).

Rather than representing “quirks” of literary history, these conférences are part of an overall openness by many future Symbolist writers toward revolutionary politics at the exact time when the Symbolist movement was establishing itself. Moreover, they show the early interest of anarchist groups in the revolutionary potential of this new form of writing.

Among literary groups trying to promote themselves as the representative of a new generation of writers are three main camps, each associated with one or more journals. The first included the journals La Vogue and Le Symboliste (Gustave Kahn, Jean Moréas, and Paul Adam); the second comprised the journals Le Scapin and La Décadence (Alfred Vallette, Édouard Dubus, René Ghil, Léo d'Orfer et al.); the third was Anatole Baju's Le Décadent. The boundaries between these groups was fluid to some extent. Ghil, for example, collaborated with all three of the groups yet was, by October 1886, most closely associated with Le Scapin and especially La Décadence. However, other boundaries remained intact: none of the main writers of La Vogue-Le Symboliste group (after Kahn took control) ever published in Le Scapin or La Décadence. Baju of Le Décadent seemed the most open of all and even allowed the La Vogue team to produce an issue of his journal on September 25, 1886.⁷

While Baju was content to claim decadence as the movement of the future, the other two groups fought over the right to represent the Symbolist movement. The name “Symbolism” seemed to have immediate resonance for many of the young writers trying to establish themselves in the literary field. It had the potential of offering respectability. Moréas was quite explicit about this as a motivation for writing his manifesto. However, this fundamental moment was more than a struggle for names. The two groups were separated by aesthetic differences and egos (Kahn, Moréas, and Ghil each wanted to be the chef d'école). Thus, the group who could claim the title “Symbolist” would also be in a position to define and mold the shape of the new movement.⁸

The period of intense maneuvering began with the publication of Jean Moréas's manifesto on September 18. Ten days later, on September 28, Kahn had printed in L'Événement the “Réponse des Symbolistes” (an article whose title suggested that Kahn spoke for all the Symbolists). This article, along with most of Moréas's manifesto, was reproduced in Paul Adam's piece “Le Symbolisme” (La Vogue, October 4-11, 1886). While Moréas, Kahn and Adam began claiming the designation “Symbolist” in the last two weeks of September, the rival pair of journals, Le Scapin and La Décadence, deposited a sample copy of a new journal, Le Symbolisme, artistique et littéraire, with the police on September 30 and with the Ministry of the Interior on October 1.⁹ In its October 1 issue, La Décadence claims to be “l'organe de l'école symbolique” (4) with Ghil at the head because of his Traité du Verbe with an “Avant-dire” by Mallarmé. Thus, at the beginning of October, Le Scapin and La Décadence appeared to be carrying the torch of Symbolism. However, a few days later, Kahn, Adam and Moréas published the first issue of Le Symboliste, journal hebdomadaire (dated October 7-14). After the second issue of Le Symboliste, the rival group of Le Scapin-La Décadence renounced—temporarily at least—its attempts at being “Symbolists.” An article by Alfred Vallette appeared in the October 16, 1886 issue of Le Scapin. Entitled “Les Symbolistes,” it attacked Moréas and Symbolism, concluding that “On peut dès maintenant affirmer que la littérature de notre fin de siècle ne sera point symboliste” (79). Although the timing of the article could give the impression that Le Scapin was suffering from a case of sour grapes, Vallette's article was curiously dated September 20. No explanation is given as to why it was published nearly one month later nor why Vallette would criticize Symbolism when the journal in which he played an important part had wanted to create a new journal called Le Symbolisme. Ghil, who was closely associated with Le Scapin and La Décadence would return to the adjective “symbolique” when describing his school in his new journal Les Écrits pour l'Art in January 1887, founded just weeks after the demise of Le Symboliste and La Vogue.

The “decadent” writers' interest in socio-political questions and their associations with anarchists began before the manifesto and continued through the period of the conférences. La Vogue—which Gustave Kahn called the first Symbolist journal¹⁰—had an anarchist, Henri Mayence (who also founded the artistic and literary group La Butte in 1885) as its gérant. Its first issue carried a column entitled “Courrier social” (probably written by Léo d'Orfer) which declared that “la Révolution sociale se fera. … L'urgence est qu'elle se fasse consciemment et intelligemment, contrairement à la Révolution politique au dix-huitième siècle.”¹¹La Vogue sought to publish documents that would aid its “œuvre éminemment rénovatrice.” At the end of May, Mayence and d'Orfer disappeared from the journal as did the “Courrier social,” but Kahn—whose anarchist sympathies led him later to describe himself as an intellectual anarchist—took full control. In mid October 1886, a change in the subtitle of La Vogue to artistique, scientifique et sociale [emphasis added] is announced.¹² The same week as the first conférence, La Vogue published “Jubilé des esprits illusoires,” an excerpt from the novel Les Demoiselles Goubert, critique de mœurs by Moréas and Adam. This texte-limite of Symbolist writing challenged mainstream norms of readability¹³ and overtly mocked notions of liberty and patrie. Less than one week before the first conférence, Le Symboliste (Oct. 15-22) changed its subtitle to Journal littéraire et politique [emphasis added]. Kahn's contributions to Le Symboliste addressed both cultural and social concerns. In fact, one of Kahn's attacks on the bourgeoisie earned the admiration of Trublot (Paul Alexis) who, writing for Le Cri du Peuple in popular French stated: “… M. Gustave Kahn met excellemment l'nez d'la bourgeoisie dans son ordure” (Oct. 31, 1886). Le Scapin, for its part, published poems by Louise Michel in July and August 1886 as well as a short article by her in the second November issue. Members of Le Scapin played an important part especially in the first conférence with Louise Michel. La Décadence listed Louise Michel as a collaborator. During June and July 1886 Le Décadent printed contributions from three anarchists—Charles Malato, Léon Schiroky, and Paterne Berrichon—all of whom frequented the monthly gatherings of the literary and artistic circle La Butte which Baju also attended. Anatole Baju, despite his claims of being uninterested in politics was an intensely political man.¹⁴Le Décadent ceased publication definitively in 1889 so that he could run as an anti-Boulangist candidate that year. That same year he likely was involved with the anarchist group “La Commune,”¹⁵ an organization that became “le groupe des Huit Heures” in 1890. Baju assisted in the founding of La Maison du Peuple in the 18th arrondissement.¹⁶ He later published Principes du Socialisme with a preface by Jules Guesde in 1895. Le Décadent included in its columns portraits of the famous anarchist Séverine as well as Paterne Berrichon and Henri Mayence. It also published announcements for the revolutionary socialist literary journal Le Coup de Feu, revue politique, littéraire, artistique.

While it is important not to overstate the significance of these contacts with anarchists and far-left politics, they provide evidence that the “decadent” writers were concerned with socio-political questions and did not live in a world apart from the anarchists. In fact, the worlds of the anarchists and the “decadents” always overlapped to some degree. Moreover, the openness these writers showed toward anarchism was not manifested toward any other political tendency.

On the other hand, most anarchists were suspicious of, if not hostile to, the new literature. This would remain true even during the 1890s. The majority of anarchists—the militants—felt that such forms of literature were not a serious way to participate in the movement. The revolution and a new social order would come from acts, not words. Often the militants came from working-class backgrounds whereas the writers who had an intellectual interest were bourgeois. Even the lead article of Jean Grave's Le Révolté, entitled “Le Pessimisme bourgeois,” decried this new literature:

Il paraît que les jeunes réactionnaires qui écrivent les romans à la mode et constituent l'école littéraire de l'avenir sont maintenant pessimistes. Depuis trois ou quatre mois environ, ces intéressants produits de la culture bourgeoise épanchent leur tristesse dans le sein de respectables journaux qui discutent gravement la question et cherchent quels moyens on pourrait bien employer pour ramener le calme dans ces pauvres âmes.¹⁷

This article is representative of most anarchists who preferred realist literature and usually held up Émile Zola and Jules Vallès as exemplary writers. Later, as the idea of the “intellectual anarchist” gained acceptance in Parisian anarchist milieus, Grave would be one of the leading anarchists to realize the revolutionary potential of this new literature, and he established friendly relations with a number of Symbolists. The main openness came from those anarchists who saw an educational value to literature. Of these, the strongest proponent was the former school teacher Louise Michel who wrote, for example, “Pour faire des révolutionnaires et des révolutionnaires conscients, il faut donner aux facultés intellectuelles et viriles tout leur développement, toute leur intensité.”¹⁸ She herself had published several literary works with this same goal.

Although the antagonism and mistrust between anarchist militants and anarchist intellectuals persisted, some militant anarchists did not shun contact with the world of avant-garde writers. One crossroad between these two worlds was the literary and artistic circle La Butte. Paul Alexis presided over the monthly meetings which began on November 28, 1885. As the anarchist Charles Malato described it, “je faisais partie d'un cercle montmartrois appelé “La Butte,” où se cultivaient la poésie et la prose. Naturalistes, symbolistes, et décadents s'y sont rencontrés sans se dévorer.”¹⁹ Among the anarchists who attended and often participated in these gatherings were Malato, Léon Schiroky, Jean Pausader, Paterne Berrichon and Henri Mayence.²⁰ The first three founded the Ligue Cosmopolite in 1886 in the 20th arrondissement near Père Lachaise Cemetery and started the review La Révolution Cosmopolite, journal révolutionnaire socialiste indépendant with the collaboration of Louise Michel that same year.

One of the first groups of anarchists, if not the first, to embrace openly the new literature as having a revolutionary social potential was called “Les Décadents, groupe politique et littéraire.” This group appears to have been formed independently from Le Décadent and other literary groups. Information about it is sketchy. Although the Paris police archives show there was a file on “Les Décadents,” it appears to have been lost or destroyed. This group, which existed for a few months in late 1886, was headquartered at 47, rue des Amandiers in the 20th arrondissement just a few blocks away from the Ligue Cosmopolite. Members organized not only the three conférences with Louise Michel, but also nine other announced meetings between October 6 to December 9, most of which were relatively small. They were at least 13 in number.²¹ Five names can be gleaned from the requests they made to the police to hold meetings: Paul Ridoux, Année, Paul Riotor, Charles Schaeffer, and Georges Deherme. Although little information is available on Année and Riotor, the others, especially Schaeffer, Ridoux and Deherme, were committed anarchists. Riotor and Schaeffer frequently attended anarchist meetings, and the latter was occasionally a featured speaker at some anarchist rallies. Année also attended anarchist meetings and helped Deherme draft a letter of support to La Révolution Cosmopolite.²²

Georges Deherme is the member who has had the most significant impact on late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century France. A wood worker from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, he collaborated on two anarchist journals in the mid-1880s. He also began one of his first educational groups with some fellow compagnons on rue Boulet.²³ He was arrested in February 1887 for putting up posters for the anarchist Ligue des Anti-Patriotes entitled “Aux conscrits” calling on soldiers to mutiny.²⁴ The police archives show him to be an active participant in anarchist meetings through the 1890s. During the 1890s, his activity moved toward reconciling the militants and the intellectuals of the anarchist movement. Lucien Mercier writes about Deherme:

Ainsi, entre 1890 et 1900, le “prolétariat intellectuel,” composé d'étudiants, de journalistes à la recherche d'un emploi, de jeunes écrivains …, groupe social aux contours mal définis, sensible à la dégradation de son statut, en proie aux difficultés d'insertion dans un monde en évolution, a des préoccupations proches de celles du monde ouvrier ou du moins l'imagine. Beaucoup seront auprès de Georges Deherme pour faire cesser le malentendu qui existe entre manuels et intellectuels.

(32)

The journal he founded, La Coopération des Idées, Revue mensuelle de Sociologie positive, pursued this same idea. In it, for example, he saw the social implications of the Symbolist writing of Bernard Lazare's Les Porteurs des torches: “Ce nouveau livre … est des plus intéressants. Il contribuera, nous en sommes convaincu, à éclairer les consciences et à secouer les torpeurs” (191).²⁵

The Décadents appeared to try to reconcile the militant and intellectual tendencies within anarchism. While little information exists on Deherme's exact role in the Décadents, most of his life was spent in pursuits compatible with the activities of this group.

Another clue to the view of the Décadents toward literature is found in what they intended to do with the proceeds from the conférences. The poster announcing the conférence indicated that its profits were to go to the “groupe politique et littéraire indépendant les Décadents.” Details of the use of the money were openly raised in the second meeting. The reporter of L'Événement writes: “Un décadent … répond … que le groupe décadent a été fondé pour répandre la littérature dans les classes ouvrières et que la recette doit servir à fonder une revue décadente ouvrière.”²⁶ Two police reports indicated either a “journal anarchiste” or “une revue littéraire ouvrière.” The type of project followed the lines that Deherme would later take. It was also in keeping with the direction taken the next year by Jean Grave when he added a literary supplement to the anarchist La Révolte and by the socialist Coup de Feu which reoriented itself to make it explicitly “l'organe littéraire du peuple” in 1887.²⁷

It is likely that this anarchist group was closely allied and overlapped with one of the most important anarchist groups in Paris. La Ligue des Anti-Patriotes (section du XX^e arrondissement) used 47, rue des Amandiers as their headquarters and held meetings there during the same period as the Décadents.²⁸ The Anti-Patriotes, formed at the beginning of August 1886, included about 20 participating members.²⁹ Among those actively attending meetings were Malato, and Schiroky (who had collaborated with Le Décadent) and Georges Deherme. The Ligue spawned a series of other anarchist anti-patriot groups across Paris in 1886. One means by which they planned to spread anarchism was by establishing an anarchist and antipatriot library at 47, rue des Amandiers.³⁰ This topic was on the agenda of the November 22, 1886 meeting: “Discussion sur l'utilité d'une bibliothèque socialiste et antipatriotique” (Nov. 23, 1886, “Convocations”). At the close of 1886, Jean Grave's Le Révolté considered the creation of this group to be one of the year's major achievements for anarchism.

The exact relationship of the Anti-Patriotes to the Décadents is uncertain. However, when the police searched 47, rue des Amandiers in pursuit of members of the Anti-Patriots in February 1887, one report indicates: “il y a bien là une chambre louée par cinq ou six individus; ils sont connus sous le nom de ‘décadents.’”³¹ In addition, when the poster which caused the search was released to the press, Henry Fouquier, commenting on the language used in the poster, remarked: “Ils ont parmi eux un littérateur, au moins, fort distingué, qui connaît les formules de Blanqui aussi bien que les artifices de langage.”³² While it is impossible to say who the author of this poster was, the Ligue des Anti-Patriotes obviously had a concern for the importance of language in bringing people to anarchism or in encouraging them to commit anarchist acts. Not only does the language of the poster suggest this, but so too do their plans to begin a library at 47, rue des Amandiers. Thus, in addition to sharing an address with the Décadents, they appeared to have a compatible appreciation of the power of words in the battle for anarchism.

The first conférence with Louise Michel took place on October 20. Her personal involvement in literature and her commitment to radicalizing people through education made her the ideal person to lead such a gathering, especially since she had published poetry in one of the leading “decadent” literary journals, Le Scapin, and was listed as a collaborator of La Décadence.

The poster announcing the first conférence gave the topic, “Analyse des quatre principales écoles: romantique, classique, naturaliste, et décadente,” thus placing the most recent school, “décadente,” on the same plane as three other well-established movements. The choice of invited guests is revealing: Clovis Hugues, Stéphane Mallarmé, Paul Alexis, René Ghil, Moréas, and Francis Enne. Three of them—Mallarmé, Ghil, and Moréas—were writers associated with the “decadents.” Hughes was known for his political literature (with a socialist inclination). Alexis and Enne were both naturalists.³³ Not surprisingly for a group that called itself “Décadents,” “decadent” writers were disproportionately favored.

It is not clear to what extent the Décadents coordinated their efforts with any of the literary groups in organizing the conférences. From the literary side only Anatole Baju and five or six people from Le Scapin—Alfred Vallette, Édouard Dubus, Gaston Dubédat, André Bucquet, Julien Leclercq, and possibly E-G Raymond—were mentioned by name in the press and police reports. One and possibly two members of Le Scapin helped run the meeting. Alfred Vallette was an assesseur and a “Raymond” was president, but it is unclear if this was Émile-Georges Raymond of Le Scapin or a Raymond whose name appeared from time to time at anarchist meetings.³⁴ The large presence from Le Scapin could be because Michel had published with them. Dubus presented his attendance as accidental, claiming that he and Julien Leclercq just happened upon the conference. One press report indicates that La Vogue and Le Symboliste were represented (Montorgueil 1). This could have likely been Gustave Kahn (who was on the editorial staff of both) as Jean Moréas did not attend and no indication of Paul Adam's presence can be found.³⁵

Judging from the press and police reports, the organizers must have been disappointed. Louise Michel showed an openness to the new school and mentioned the importance of musicality in literature, but spoke mostly of other matters indirectly related to literature. Dubus with a little help from Vallette tried to explain the new movement's purposes and help a mocking crowd understand poems by Mallarmé and Ghil.

In addition to the writers, journalists from the principal Parisian dailies were invited. The organizers clearly sought to publicize the event as much as possible. They got their wish, but every newspaper covering the conférence treated it in strongly derisive terms. The reporter from Le Temps wrote: “Il n'y a qu'à Paris qu' on puisse voir un spectacle pareil: Louise Michel venant donner son appui à Stéphane Mallarmé; … Quelle ville surprenante! Étonnez-vous que l'incohérence y ait des expositions.”³⁶ Théodore Massiac writing in Le Gil Blas commented: “Nous avons assisté hier soir à l'une des réunions les plus abracadabrantes où il nous ait été donné de nous trouver jusqu'ici.”³⁷

The second conférence received significantly less press coverage. This time, just one person from Le Scapin was listed as attending: Bucquet (who was an assesseur) and perhaps a second, Henri Feuchère.³⁸

The reporter from L'Événement indicates that Louise Michel was to speak:

1) Sur l'école décadente ou symboliste, sa raison d'être, sa philosophie et sa portée sociale;

2) Sur le romantisme, le symbolisme et le naturalisme.

This time, according to a police report, Louise Michel praised “la nouvelle école ‘décadente et symbolique’” and defended many of the ideas of the “decadent” writers.³⁹ Another police report indicates:

Louise Michel parle sur l'introduction des symboles dans le langage de la littérature. Elle dit que dans l'art littéraire comme dans les autres sciences, il faut créer des expressions nouvelles et imagées. À propos des symboles, elle compare les inventeurs à Prométhée. …

And yet a third report:

Louise Michel a dit que l'École Décadente a pour objet de chercher dans les symboles des choses réelles qui répondent aux besoins de l'humanité. Au lieu de la tourner en ridicule, il faudrait étudier les idées des Décadents et approfondir les symboles sur lesquels s'appuyent leurs théories. On y trouvera peut-être quelque chose qui fera sortir des vieilles traditions.

Elle demande une discussion libre afin d'arriver à persuader que les Décadents sont appelés à faire jaillir des idées nouvelles, utiles aux générations futures.”⁴⁰

This meeting, like the first, was constantly interrupted by people in the audience, making it difficult to hear and preventing the conférences from being anything close to the type of events the announcements suggested would take place. The Décadents received no help from Anatole Baju who is quoted as saying “la littérature n'est pas comme la politique; elle ne se discute pas en public.”⁴¹ In addition to being mocked by the audience, even some of those who spoke at the podium were hostile. For example, at both meetings Léon Roux vociferously attacked “decadent” literature in favor of naturalist literature.

Once again, the invitations addressed to the mainstream press backfired: already the young “decadent” writers who wrote incomprehensible verse were frequently ridiculed by the large dailies as were the anarchists who were considered to be little more than thieves or crazy people. The reporter of L'Événement described it as “une réunion de fumistes” (Flûte 1). For many, it was as if two parts of the lunatic fringe had come together to produce a highly amusing farce. For example, the article in the Gil Blas stated, “Louise Michel est aussi fantaisiste en art qu'en politique.” In most press accounts, the interruptions from the audience received more coverage than what the speakers attempted to present.

The third meeting was held on December 9, 1886 at the salle de l'Ermitage. It was attended by only about 70 people and largely seemed to have escaped the attention of the press, perhaps in part because Louise Michel did not come as had been announced. The conférence appears to have had little to do with literature and consisted of anti-Semitic and anti-republican speeches. Édouard Dubus is the only literary writer cited in the police records.⁴²

The three events also served to exacerbate the uneasy relations between the anarchists and revolutionary socialists. The naturalist author Paul Alexis, whose socialist positions earned him a daily column in the far-left Le Cri du Peuple and who was specifically invited to the first conference, wrote on October 22, 1886 that he did not attend and summed up his disappointment by writing in popular French “Que [sic] rigolade j'ai manquée.” In addition, prior to the conférences, Louise Michel had been a regular contributor to the socialist literary journal Le Coup de Feu and had attended their social activities. In the issue following the conférences, Alphonse Germain wrote about Louise Michel and the conférences:

Bien que son acte, purement littéraire, n'engageât en rien ses coreligionnaires, encore bien moins nous socialistes, la presse bourgeoise, accoutumée à travestir nos faits et gestes pour nous perdre dans l'opinion publique, en a profité pour faire une charge à fond de train sur les révolutionnaires, … et les montrer comme devant bouleverser les règles de la grammaire en même temps que les bases de la société. C'est pourquoi, bien que ne partageant pas toutes les idées de la citoyenne Louise Michel, nous devons protester.⁴³

After the conférences her name disappeared from the columns of this journal.

At least one account attests to the lack of interest among some anarchists. In the meeting of the anarchist group “Terre et Liberté” on October 23, the lack of success of the conférence is noted: “Mais les réunions de Décadents, de Louise Michel, ont peu de succès auprès des anarchistes.”⁴⁴ None of the anarchist journals wrote about the conférences.

On the literary side, the silence was nearly total. No articles appeared in La Vogue or Le Symboliste. Le Chat Noir in the November 6, 1886 issue printed an article saying, “Les récentes réunions … ont attiré l'attention de tous sur l'école décadente” and announced a series of texts by Louise Michel, Moréas, Ghil, Dubus, etc. However, a poem by Paul Adam in the same issue was the only part of this series to appear. Only in Le Décadent of October 30, 1886 are there any references. Baju, in the lead article, “Deux Littératures,” takes what happened at the second conférence as his point of departure to argue for the necessity of a popular literature and a separate “littérature de l'Aristocratie,” the latter being the literature of the Decadents. Even Baju, who was probably one of the most open journal directors among the petites revues, now closed the door—at least temporarily—on the idea of a literature that would not be divided along class lines.

Le Scapin, despite the participation of several of its members, did not even mention the conférences in passing. However, one interesting article on aesthetics by Louise Michel entitled “Le Symbole” appeared in the second November issue.⁴⁵ This article resembles some of the remarks she made at the two conférences. In general, she argues for the importance of the symbol as a tool that will allow people to see more of the world around them. For her, the symbol gives humanity the means by which to move forward toward a more promising future. Her article helps to provide a link between the type of language the Symbolists use and social progress.

On the left, the conférences added to the existing hostility directed toward the “decadents.” Far from being a simple farce, the revolutionary potential of this new form of writing was a threat to their position in the literary field. Some socialists and anarchists began to denounce this emerging group for fear that “decadent” literature might become the form of social art. Already in the September issue of Le Coup de Feu Eugène Chatelain wrote:

Les décadents … sous prétexte d'esthétique, ils cherchent à tomber les réalistes, les naturalistes et les socialistes.

La décadence littéraire, poétique et politique, sera bafouée et effacée par des écrivains vigoureux et vaillants qui feront de la littérature sensée, naturelle, virile, dans la société nouvelle qui vit déjà terre à terre avec nous.⁴⁶

He sees “decadent” literature as directly competing with the realist literature of the socialists. The November issue of Le Coup de Feu claims that the decadents are “réactionnaires.”⁴⁷ The following month this same journal attacked the language the decadents use (Germain 19-20). Léon Roux, who fought the decadents at both conférences attended by Louise Michel, is quoted as saying that naturalism is the “seule arme littéraire de la sociale.”⁴⁸ He continued his fight for a realist form of social art by organizing his own literary conférence a few months later in February 1887 which presented his vision of literature's role in the revolution.⁴⁹ In addition, within a week of the second conference, the Cercle Vallès—which described its goal as “donner à la jeunesse littéraire et artistique l'impulsion socialiste-révolutionnaire qui doit en faire le porte-étendard de la cause du Peuple”⁵⁰—had as its topic of discussion: “L'École décadente; le romantisme et le naturalisme et sur le rôle de la littérature dans la Révolution” (Oct. 31, 1886 “Convocations”). Given the socialist politics of this group, it is unlikely that they would have been supportive of the “decadents.” However, the conférences helped to make the question a pertinent one for some on the revolutionary left.

Although open declarations linking Symbolism to anarchism would not, for the most part, come until the 1890s, the writers of the Symbolist movement were in contact with anarchists and showed an openness that did not extend toward any other political tendency. The socio-political dimension that the Symbolists claimed for their writing was visible to those on the far left. Some, such as revolutionary socialists and many anarchists, decried it. However, some currents in the anarchist movement did see a social potential in Symbolist writing and promoted this new movement from its beginnings.

Finally, I would like to propose that the negative fallout in the press was so severe that it would be impossible for these two groups to come together openly for several years. Both groups were looking for recognition and wanted to be taken seriously. The negative press coverage of the two events with Louise Michel did not erase the compatibilities between these groups, it only made it more difficult to publicize these compatibilities. Only a few years later, in the 1890s, when both Symbolism and anarchism had gained a greater degree of acceptance, could these young writers openly associate themselves with revolutionary politics.

Notes

1. Stuart Merrill, “Critique de poèmes.” La Plume 291 (June, 1 1901) 409.

2. Jacques Monférier, “Symbolisme et Anarchie,” Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de la France 2 (avril-juin 1965): 233-38; Pierre Aubery, “L'Anarchisme des littérateurs au temps du symbolisme,” Mouvement Social 69 (1969): 21-34; Dick Gevers, “Anarchie et Symbolisme,” Avant-Garde 3 (1989): 12-28; Richard Sonn, Anarchism and Cultural Politics in Fin de Siècle France (Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1989); Thierry Maricourt, Histoire de la littérature libertaire en France (Paris: Albin Michel 1990); see especially “Les Écrivains symbolistes et l'anarchisme” 79-85; and to a lesser extent Alexander Varias, Paris and the Anarchists: Aesthetes and Subversives during the Fin de Siècle (New York: St Martin's Press, 1996).

3. In this article, I use “decadent” in quotations to reflect the way contemporary society (and many writers) referred to these authors—sometimes derisively, sometimes not.

4. Lacking a suitably clear English equivalent, I will retain the French term for these meetings at which there was an invited group of speakers and at which members of the audience could also speak.

5. Noël Richard, Le Mouvement décadent (Paris: Nizet, 1968).

6. Edith Thomas, Louise Michel ou la Velléda de l'anarchie (Paris: Gallimard, 1971).

7. La Pléaide was also an important journal for the Symbolist movement although it appeared primarily in the first half of 1886 and published issues in July, August and November before ending. This journal was also more independent and more distant from the question of labels than the other journals (even though Le Symbole was a name originally proposed for the journal). The writers of La Pléiade—Rodolphe Darzens, [Saint-] Paul Roux, Pierre Quillard, Jean Ajalbert, and Ephraïm Mikhaël—all became directly involved with politics at a later date (with the exception of Mikhaël who died young).

8. For further information on these rivalries see Guy Michaud, Message poétique du Symbolisme (Paris: Nizet, 1947), especially 332 ff.

9. According to the inside cover of La Décadence, no. 2. Oct. 15, 1886.

10. Gustave Kahn, Symbolistes et Décadents (1902; rpt. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1977) 42.

11. “Courrier social.” La Vogue I.1 (April 4, 1886): 28.

12. According to Le Symboliste of October 15-22, 1886.

13. Richard Shryock, “L'Autoréférentialité dans la littérature décadente-symboliste: de l'illisible au social,” Symposium 48.1 (spring 1994): 78-88.

14. Baju, like many of his generation, made a distinction between “politics” as parliamentary or traditional politics and other forms of involvement leading to social and/or political change.

15. Archives de la Préfecture de Police (APP), police report, B/a 1520.

16. APP, police report, B/a 1544 “La Maison du Peuple.”

17. “Le Pessimisme bourgeois,” Le Révolté, organe communiste-anarchiste 10 (Aug. 16-29, 1885): 1. This article responds largely to an exchange between Paul Bourde in Le Temps, “Les Poètes décadents” (Aug. 6, 1885) and Jean Moréas “Les Décadents” in Le XIX^e Siècle (Aug. 11, 1885).

18. Louise Michel, “La Ligue Cosmopolite,” La Révolution Cosmopolite 3 (September 18-25, 1886): 1.

19. Charles Malato, “Mémoires d'un libertaire: de Paris à Paris par Londres,” Le Peuple (January 1, 1938): 1.

20. Malato, Schiroky, Pausader, and Berrichon were all later sentenced to prison for their involvement in anarchist activities. Malato became one of the leading anarchists in France during the 1890s. Schiroky, who would later take the last name Ortiz, was sentenced to 15 years hard labor in the Procès des Trente for aiding Émile Henry, the anarchist responsible for two deadly bomb blasts (Jean Maitron, ed., “Léon Ortiz [Léon Schiroky],” Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français [Paris: Les Éditions Ouvrières 1976]). Pausader took the name Jacques Prolo and became a major figure in promoting anarchism in the 1880s and 90s. Mayence was also the gérant and a writer for the anarchist Sans-Culotte.

21. Georges Montorgueil, “Décadence et Révolution,” Paris (Oct. 22, 1886): 1.

22. APP, police report, Sept. 24, 1886, B/a 913.

23. Lucien Mercier, Les Universités populaires: 1899-1914: éducation populaire et mouvement ouvrier au début du siècle (Paris: Les Éditions Ouvrières, 1986) 17.

24. This sentence would later be reduced to one month of prison and a 100F fine.

25. “Les Livres qui font penser, Les Porteurs de torches,” La Coopération des Idées 15 (April 1897): 191. In his work in La Coopération des Idées and other journals of the time, he often brought together ideas and action (of which social art is one manifestation). This same task was at the heart of the highly successful Universités Populaires which he founded in 1899.

26. Flûte. “Notes parisiennes: la seconde des décadents,” L'Événement (Oct. 26, 1886): 1.

27. “À nos lecteurs” [signed “la Rédaction”], Le Coup de Feu (July 1887): 1-2.

28. Obviously, an address can correspond to scores of apartments; however, the announcements both indicated that the meetings were held “au fond de l'allée.” Some addresses, such as the Salle Hormel on rue Au Maire, were the frequent meeting place of several different groups. A number of anarchist groups (Communistes anarchistes des Amandiers, Anarchistes des Amandiers, or simply Anarchists) did use 47, rue des Amandiers, but only the Ligue des Anti-Patriotes and Les Décadents referred to it as their headquarters. It is probable that the same group used different names as all of the announcements that appeared in Le Cri du Peuple were almost identical in presentation. Often the time and the description of the meeting location were exactly the same, as can be seen in the “Convocations: réunions d'aujourd'hui, divers” section of the Cri du Peuple:

    14 novembre

    —Anarchistes.—8h 1/2s., 47, rue des Amandiers (au fond de l'allée).—Causerie sur la littérature et la Révolution.

    30 novembre

    —Ligue des anti-patriotes section du XX^e. 8h 1/2s., au siège social, 47, r. des Amandiers (au fond de l'allée). Discussion sur le rôle de l'enfant dans la société future.—Tous les jeunes socialistes sont invités.—Entrée libre.

    2 décembre

    Les Décadents, groupe politique et littéraire indépendant.—8 h 1/2 s au siège social, 47, rue des Amandiers.—Causerie sur le mariage et l'union libre. Entrée libre.

29. APP, police report, B/a 913.

30. APP, police report, B/a 913, Nov. 26, 1886.

31. APP, police report, B/a 913, Feb. 18, 1887, Police Commissioner Hamon.

32. Henry Fouquier, “La Vie de Paris,” Le XIX^e Siècle (Feb. 9, 1887).

33. On Alexis and Enne, see René-Pierre Colin, Zola, Renégats et alliés: la république naturaliste (Lyon: PUL, 1988).

34. Édouard Dubus reported “ce sont de nos amis qui composent le bureau” (“Une conférence décadente en 1886,” La Plume 34 [Sept. 15, 1890]: 167). The plural suggests that Raymond may have been from Le Scapin. Likewise Sutter-Laumann writes: “l'élément anarchiste de la réunion, représenté au bureau par un assesseur” (“Compagnons et Décadents,” La Justice [Oct. 21, 1886]: 1) which suggests that the president of the meeting was not an anarchist.

35. Ernest Raynaud claims that these meetings were organized by Dubus and that Rachilde, Sébastien Faure, Paule Minck, Paul Adam, Séverine, P.-N. Roinard, and Ibels all spoke (Ernest Raynaud, La Mêlée symboliste: (1870-1910); portraits et souvenirs [Paris: Nizet, 1971], 191-92). This recollection written more than 30 years after the event seems to have been affected by the passage of time. Indeed, Raynaud left the Symbolist movement and joined the École Romane because he disagreed with the anarchist influence (Richard Shryock, “Reaction within Symbolism: The École Romane,” French Review 71:4 [1998]: 577-84). His accounts of certain aspects of the Symbolist movement are influenced by his own conservative political and esthetic views.

36. “Au jour le jour,” Le Temps (Oct. 22, 1886): 1.

37. Théodore Massiac, “Louise Michel et l'école décadente,” Le Gil Blas (Oct. 22, 1886): 1.

38. In the police report the name is listed as “Fresch.”

39. APP, Contrôle Général, Oct. 26, 1886 B/a 1185.

40. APP, police report Oct. 26, 1886, B/a 1185.

41. APP, police report Oct. 26, 1886, B/a 1185.

42. APP, “Rapports Quotidiens,” 1886, B/a 97.

43. Alphonse Germain, “Décadence et Naturalisme,” Coup de Feu (Dec. 1886): 19.

44. APP police report, B/a 74.

45. Louise Michel, “Le Symbole,” Le Scapin 2.5 (Nov. [deuxième fascicule] 1886): 156-57.

46. Eugène Chatelain, “Revue du Mois” (Sept. 1886): 7.

47. “Fiches de notes,” Le Coup de Feu (Nov. 1886): 22-24.

48. Maxime Boucheron, “L'Actualité: Louise Michel décadente,” L'Écho de Paris (Oct. 22, 1886): 1.

49. APP, police report, Feb. 21, 1887, B/a 527.

50. Announcement in Le Coup de Feu, October 1886 without title or author.