UC Riverside

To what extent can the style and form of language convey authority? Can an author construct herself as authoritative solely by appropriating the style and form of an authoritative discourse? I consider three cases from the eighteenth century—a century that saw dramatic debates and shifts in the practice of writing and publishing—in order to examine how the link between language and authority was challenged, appropriated, and altered. I have relied on close readings of the texts as well as historical research to answer such questions as: To what extent were authors able to construct authority? To what extent could writing style and form serve as a proxy for authority? How did readers perceive the connection between authority and writing style and form? In the case of John Toland, he cloaked the heterodox arguments of his Nazarenus (1718) and Pantheisticon (1751) in the guise of biblical criticism and liturgy, respectively, in hopes of appropriating ecclesiastical authority. His readers were largely unconvinced of his religious fervor and thus his linguistic masquerade gained him few followers. Toland’s example demonstrates the limitations of style and form as a proxy for authority. The contributors to the Journal des Dames, on the other hand, enjoyed some success in their attempt to fashion women as authoritative contributors to the French public sphere. Translating the paradigm of women’s authority already established in the salons to the masculine public print sphere of periodicals, the contributors to and editors of the Journal des Dames were able to fashion themselves as legitimate, authoritative authors. Finally, I consider Denis Diderot’s attempt to forge a new style and form of writing. I argue that his style and form were meant to provoke the reader into conscious, authoritative interpretation. His radically modern prose, however, was roundly rejected. Together, these examples demonstrate the limits and advantages of appropriating styles and forms of language so as to seem authoritative. They highlight the institutional and historical character of authority, and they illustrate how difficult authority is to acquire.