| Summary: | Louis-Antoine Caraccioli was a divisive figure. While his works proved a commercial success, he was deplored by figures such as Friedrich Melchior von Grimm who, in 1764, declared him ‘l’un des auteurs les plus détestables de ce siècle.’ This thesis takes Caraccioli’s negative reception as its point of departure and explores the ways in which the author fought to craft his authorial identity in the public sphere. Drawing upon the concept of self-fashioning, I adopt a dual approach, considering Caraccioli’s practice in relation to his theories of selfhood. This is the first study to unite these distinct but complementary facets of the author’s work, and the first to pay close attention to his conscious crafting of a public image. I draw upon a range of texts, including the paratext and content of the author’s publications, and periodical press reviews, in addition to two previously undiscovered sources: a portrait of Caraccioli, and a manuscript catalogue entry concerning his works. The first half of this thesis establishes Caraccioli as an author wholly conscious of his reputation, and actively engaged in attaining literary success with a view to posterity. In producing ‘fashionable’ texts to appeal to the goût du siècle, Caraccioli invites consideration of the role of appearances in cultivating (authorial) selfhood. In a second strand, this thesis questions the relationship between ‘fashion’ and ‘fashioning.’ I first consider a dynamic whereby surface might shape depth, before taking an ‘inward turn’ with Caraccioli to explore the formation of the interior world through metaphors of the mind, modelled upon the public sphere. What emerges is a porous vision of self-fashioning, in which the world without ‘impresses’ upon the world within, and vice versa. Despite this fluid exchange between the public and private realms, Caraccioli nevertheless indicates the impossibility of ever ‘realising’ true selfhood in life. Instead, he points towards the immaterial afterlife as the fullest expression of selfhood. This view in turn opens up new possibilities for interpreting Caraccioli’s formation of his authorial identity and his drive for both contemporary and posthumous success.
|
|---|