The canon of the history of philosophy has been repeatedly criticized for its lack of diversity by Eileen O’Neill, Charles Mills, and others. In reaction to these criticisms, collaborative projects (such as Extending New Narratives in the History of Philosophy, Querelle, and Project Vox) are actively working on transforming how we engage with the history of philosophy by increasing the visibility of and facilitating research on the works of women and other thinkers from marginalized groups. These considerations have motivated me to explore my growing interest in Germaine de Staël’s work. Staël is not nearly as well-known as she should be among contemporary philosophers, although the Société des études staëliennes (a scholarly society presided over by Stéphanie Genand) and the affiliated journal Cahiers staëliens are dedicated to her work.
While it was Staël’s critical appropriation of Immanuel Kant’s ideas that first sparked my interest, I discovered that Staël was an unusually prolific writer who worked on moral and political philosophy, aesthetics, literature, and gender. Her work has inspired generations of writers and scholars, among them (as Lydia Moland’s insightful article notes) Lydia Maria Child, who published the first biography of Staël in the United States. I will share some background on Staël’s rather uncommon life and work, which will allow me to expand on her conception of philosophy with special emphasis on her reflections on women and gender norms.
Germaine de Staël-Holstein, née Anne Louise Germaine Necker, was born in Paris in 1766. She had a comfortable yet unconventional upbringing. Her parents, Jacques and Suzanne Necker, were commoners, Swiss, and Protestant, which considerably shaped Staël’s identity growing up in Catholic France. Jacques Necker built a successful political career working as Director General of the Royal Treasury of France under Louis XVI. Suzanne Necker was a writer and hosted one of the most sought-after salons at the time. As a child, Staël regularly partook in her mother’s salon. These interactions, combined with the education she received, contributed to Staël’s thirst for knowledge. Staël’s independence increased following her marriage to Baron Erik Magnus Staël von Holstein in 1786. Her newly acquired status and financial independence enabled her to start hosting her own salon in Paris, welcoming guests as renowned as the Marquis de Lafayette, the Marquis de Condorcet, Louis de Narbonne, and Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord. Staël also started publishing her own work in her early twenties.
While Staël’s first marriage did not last—the spouses agreed to part ways in 1797—she had no shortage of meaningful relationships in her life. Her liaison with fellow philosopher Benjamin Constant is widely known, and they substantially influenced each other’s work and ideas. She also engaged in extensive correspondences with an impressive number of acquaintances and friends, including not only Constant himself but also Elisabeth Hervey, Albertine Necker de Saussure, Adolphe de Ribbing, Juliette Récamier, August Wilhelm Schlegel, and many more. (Her general correspondence has been published as a nine-volume collection, part of which is translated into English.) Later in her life, Staël also held regular meetings of an evolving group of prominent thinkers, writers, and statesmen, later known as the Coppet group. She died in Paris in 1817, shortly after her second marriage to Albert de Rocca.
Another significant factor shaping Staël’s life and work was her strong opposition to Napoleon Bonaparte and his politics. While originally supportive of the French Revolution, Staël became increasingly critical of Napoleon’s administration and ideas. Her novel Delphine (1802) is dedicated to “the silent France” and, like many of her works, promotes values and ideals at odds with Napoleon’s. As noted in the epigraph, Delphine is a reflection on the struggles and constraints imposed on women by society: “A man must be able to brave public opinion, a woman to submit to it.” Women’s (in)ability to free themselves from social constraints is at the core of Delphine’s struggles, and the novel ends with the protagonist committing suicide in front of her lover. The novel generated plenty of heated reviews. Staël’s controversial stances and open criticism of the regime prompted Napoleon to ban her, first from Paris in 1803 and later from the French Republic. Her exile lasted twelve years and considerably influenced her thought.
There are very few topics that Staël did not write about. Apart from her correspondence, her large body of work engages with a wide range of themes and genres. While she is best known for her novels Delphine and Corinne, she also wrote fifteen theater plays, an essay on fiction, a treatise on happiness, and a treatise on literature. Staël substantially engaged with the work of other philosophers, including Rousseau (in Lettres sur les ouvrages et le caractère de J. J. Rousseau) and Kant, Fichte, Lessing, Jacobi, and others (in Germany).
Her chapter on Kant’s thought in Germany is especially remarkable. Kant’s ideas were still poorly known in France at the time. Together with Charles de Villers and Benjamin Constant, Staël made one of the most significant contributions to Kant scholarship in early nineteenth–century France. While her chapter is meant as an introduction to critical philosophy, it quickly turns into a subversive appropriation of Kant’s ideas used to serve her own philosophical purposes—a method commonly used by Staël and other early modern women philosophers to promote their own ideas while using the authority of another philosopher. As a result, Staël presents some of Kant’s ideas out of context, or even distorts them at times, to put forward her own conception of philosophy as a living endeavour that should serve the moral improvement of humanity:
Metaphysics, social institutions, arts, sciences; everything must all be appreciated in light of the moral improvement of man; it is the touchstone given to the ignorant as well as to the learned. (Germany vol. III, ch. I)
Plato’s philosophy is more poetical than Kant’s, Malebranche’s philosophy is more religious; but the great merit of the German philosopher has been to raise moral dignity, by grounding all that is beautiful in the heart in a strongly reasoned theory. The opposition that some have attempted to place between reason and feeling necessarily leads reason to selfishness and feeling to folly; but Kant, who seemed to be called to conclude all the grand intellectual alliances, made the soul one sole focus, in which all our faculties are in agreement with one another. (Germany vol. III, ch. VI)
Staël is averse to obscurantism and lengthy technical discussions in philosophy. For instance, she clarifies Kant’s account of space and time by comparing the forms of our sensible intuition to a prism through which we receive sensations. One of my students’ favorite anecdotes nicely captures her conception of philosophy as well as her boldness. When Staël met Fichte in person, she repeatedly insisted that he summarize his whole system of philosophy in no more than “fifteen minutes or so” so that she could finally understand what he meant by “the I” (das Ich). The anecdote was first reported by Ancillon in George Ticknor’s memoirs. Her accounts of other philosophers’ ideas are always remarkably clear and concise.
In line with her conception of philosophy as a morally useful endeavor, Staël did not hesitate to speak up on a range of pressing moral and political issues, including her various reflections on the French Revolution (Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Révolution and Considérations sur les principaux événements de la Révolution française). She repeatedly advocated for abolitionism through short stories like Mirza ou la lettre d’un voyageur and Histoire de Pauline, as well as in more formal pieces like “Appeal to the Sovereigns” and her preface to Wilberforce’s work, which attacks the ulterior motives of proponents of slavery:
When it is proposed that some abuse of power be eliminated, those who benefit from that abuse are certain to declare that all the benefits of the social order are attached to it. ‘This is the keystone,’ they say, while it is only the keystone to their own advantages; and when at last the progress of enlightenment brings about the long-desired reform, they are astonished at the improvements which result from it.
Staël’s works also show a special concern for women’s lives and their subordination in society. Her novels and short stories explore challenges faced by women in society, from the pressure to choose between one’s love life and career aspirations to the stigma of divorce. In addition to the better-known Corinne and Delphine, Stéphanie Genand recently edited and wrote a commentary on three previously unpublished short stories in which Staël engages with women’s relationship to madness and irrationality.
Staël’s more traditionally philosophical works echo these considerations, starting in her early letters on Rousseau. Despite her admiration of him, she strongly criticizes his proposals for women’s education, arguing that by tailoring Sophie’s education to Émile’s (presumed) needs, Rousseau has made Sophie excessively weak and sacrificed her for the benefit of Émile. In general, whenever Staël engages with questions pertaining to the nature of happiness or morality, she is eager to remind her readers that “nature and society have failed one half of the human species” (Treatise on the influence of passions, ch. IV). By not having access to a proper education, by having significantly less opportunities than men in society, and by being encouraged to cultivate their natural weaknesses instead of their strengths, women’s contribution to moral life is bound to be different than men’s, and their chances of achieving happiness much lower.
Staël, likely in a self-reflective manner, also reflects on the specific challenges faced by women writers. Glory, for a woman, is bound to be “a splendid mourning for happiness” (Germay vol. III, ch. XIX) by standing in conflict with women’s more traditional roles in society. On the other hand, love is no guarantee of a happy life either, as men and women are not treated equally on the matter: “Reputation, honour, esteem, everything depends upon the conduct which women in this connection observe; while even the laws of morality, according to the opinion of an unjust world, seem suspended in the relations of men with the fair sex.” (Treatise on the influence of passions, ch. IV) In this catch-22 situation, Staël decided to have it both ways and refused to choose between her love life and her career as a writer. This bold choice likely made her increasingly aware of what women had to lose on both fronts, and rather pessimistic in her reflections.
Staël’s most explicit proposals for the improvement of women’s lives are found in a chapter of her treatise on Literature (commented on, and translated into English, by Dalia Nassar and Kristin Gjesdal). She emphasizes that despite the many gender-related barriers affecting women’s lives, their situation could be radically improved in a better society, notably through access to better education. In a rare moment of optimism, Staël shares her hopes for how better legislations could concretely improve women’s lives:
I believe that there will come a time in which the philosophical legislators will pay serious attention to the education of women, to the civil laws that should protect them, to the duties that must be imposed upon them, and to the happiness that can be guaranteed to them. (Literature part II, ch. IV)
As noted by Geneviève Fraisse, while Staël’s life was marked by transgression—of social norms, of political power, of popular opinion—she was ultimately fighting for the right of others not to transgress, and to live their lives the way they please without fearing stigma, threats, or punishments. I like to think that she would be rather pleased to see what progress has been made to this day, and eager for us to keep fighting injustice everywhere.
The Women in Philosophy series publishes posts on women in the history of philosophy, posts on issues of concern to women in the field of philosophy, and posts that put philosophy to work to address issues of concern to women in the wider world. If you are interested in writing for the series, please contact the Series Editor Adriel M. Trott or the Associate Editor Alida Liberman.
Charlotte Sabourin
Charlotte Sabourin is a Faculty Member at Douglas College. Her research engages with critical feminist perspectives on the history of philosophy, and on early feminist contributions within the history of philosophy.
