What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies on the History of Society and Culture
Le Peuple de Paris: Essai sur la culture populaire au XVIIIe siècle
Entre le peuple chaud de l'histoire militante et le peuple froid d'une histoire trop pensée, j'ai tenté de retrouver l'identité spécifique d'une classe qui se constitue.
Michelet nous y invite. " Oh, qui saura parler au peuple?... sans cela nous mourrons " disait-il au chansonnier Béranger, signifiant ainsi l'existence d'un état populaire originel qui pour lui était la terre promise. Le peuple de Michelet n'est pas seulement l'objet d'une démonstration historique. C'est aussi un personnage familier, observé le dimanche aux barrières de Paris, entendu dans le témoignage d'une grand-mère perspicace et qui se souvient des années noires comme des bons moments, interrogé dans l'atelier, sur le chantier, au Michelet, historien de l'immédiat, montre comment il faut confronter les écrits des observateurs.
Pour l'historien du dernier quart du XX e siècle, toute la difficulté est là. L'unanimité sensible qui fonde la cohérence du Peuple romantique peut-elle être projetée sur le monde laborieux qui s'entasse dans le Paris des Lumières? Oui, dans une certaine mesure, si l'on confronte l'observation du dedans et celle du dehors, si l'on admet que les changements dans les classes iférieures sont bien plus lents qu'en haut, si l'on concède aux petites gens le droit à l'étrangeté que leur refusent en tous temps les hommes d'ordre. Pour arriver à ce but, il faut utiliser à la fois les témoins et les archives dormantes, principalement celles que les notaires ont laissées. Il faut aussi interroger les " littérateurs ", les " économistes moraux ", les médecins. Tous ces témoignages et réflexions permettent de replacer le peuple parisien au coeur d'une méditation générale sur la croissance dont les figures principales sont la Ville et l'Individu urbanisé.
Daniel Roche
Michelet nous y invite. " Oh, qui saura parler au peuple?... sans cela nous mourrons " disait-il au chansonnier Béranger, signifiant ainsi l'existence d'un état populaire originel qui pour lui était la terre promise. Le peuple de Michelet n'est pas seulement l'objet d'une démonstration historique. C'est aussi un personnage familier, observé le dimanche aux barrières de Paris, entendu dans le témoignage d'une grand-mère perspicace et qui se souvient des années noires comme des bons moments, interrogé dans l'atelier, sur le chantier, au Michelet, historien de l'immédiat, montre comment il faut confronter les écrits des observateurs.
Pour l'historien du dernier quart du XX e siècle, toute la difficulté est là. L'unanimité sensible qui fonde la cohérence du Peuple romantique peut-elle être projetée sur le monde laborieux qui s'entasse dans le Paris des Lumières? Oui, dans une certaine mesure, si l'on confronte l'observation du dedans et celle du dehors, si l'on admet que les changements dans les classes iférieures sont bien plus lents qu'en haut, si l'on concède aux petites gens le droit à l'étrangeté que leur refusent en tous temps les hommes d'ordre. Pour arriver à ce but, il faut utiliser à la fois les témoins et les archives dormantes, principalement celles que les notaires ont laissées. Il faut aussi interroger les " littérateurs ", les " économistes moraux ", les médecins. Tous ces témoignages et réflexions permettent de replacer le peuple parisien au coeur d'une méditation générale sur la croissance dont les figures principales sont la Ville et l'Individu urbanisé.
Daniel Roche
380 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1981
4 people are currently reading
108 people want to read
About the author
Daniel Roche
35 books10 followersDaniel Roche is a French social and cultural historian. His primary field of research is the cultural history of France during the later years of the Ancien Régime.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 6, 2019
3.5 stars
Certainly an informative book, but claiming a “highly readable style” is taking it too far. This is an academic text about the material and social conditions of Parisians in the 18th century. Parts of it (the first chapter or two in particular) consist of wordy academic language that doesn’t say very much, but other parts are extremely specific – what items of clothing were owned by what percentage of the population upon their death; what percentage of people picked up for crimes were capable of signing their names, etc. The author is very explicit about what sources he’s using and seems careful not to overstate his data. He’s also very interested in distinctions among “the people” rather than treating them as a monolith – servants lived differently from wage earners, for instance, even at the same income level, and were generally the means of transmission of culture between the rich and the poor. Also just some really interesting stuff in here: apparently everything was for sale on the streets of Paris, from songs (apparently people would actually buy the sheet music after hearing them sung, which is rather sweet) to secondhand food (leftovers from their employers’ tables being sold off by servants).
I should also add that despite the title, this is more than an essay – at 277 pages of text (there are no endnotes or reference pages though there are occasional footnotes – the sources are discussed in the text itself and most of the content appears to come from the author's original research), it’s a pretty standard-sized book.
My criticisms of the book are perhaps beside the point since I’m not sure it was ever intended for a general audience anyway, but here they are: first, it assumes knowledge of French history and society on the reader’s part. Even without having much I generally understood it, but there were some weird bits, like where the author refuted the notion that the Parisian poor didn’t have children because they either abandoned them or the kids ran away…. by giving statistics on the class from which abandoned children came, to prove that a large percentage came from higher up the social hierarchy. I was so confused by this – why were all of these people abandoning their kids? How do we know who was responsible? What did abandonment mean in this context (apparently some parents later returned)? At what age were children actually running away, and what happened to all these solo kids? Relatedly, the translator – despite translating the book from French to English presumably for those who, you know, don’t read French – left a number of words in French, including occasional key concepts and the titles of all of the books mentioned that were owned by Parisians.
Overall, I think this book will be quite useful for those doing research on eighteenth century Parisian society, less so for anybody else. Interesting stuff though and the author certainly seems to have reached his conclusions as a result of careful study.
Certainly an informative book, but claiming a “highly readable style” is taking it too far. This is an academic text about the material and social conditions of Parisians in the 18th century. Parts of it (the first chapter or two in particular) consist of wordy academic language that doesn’t say very much, but other parts are extremely specific – what items of clothing were owned by what percentage of the population upon their death; what percentage of people picked up for crimes were capable of signing their names, etc. The author is very explicit about what sources he’s using and seems careful not to overstate his data. He’s also very interested in distinctions among “the people” rather than treating them as a monolith – servants lived differently from wage earners, for instance, even at the same income level, and were generally the means of transmission of culture between the rich and the poor. Also just some really interesting stuff in here: apparently everything was for sale on the streets of Paris, from songs (apparently people would actually buy the sheet music after hearing them sung, which is rather sweet) to secondhand food (leftovers from their employers’ tables being sold off by servants).
I should also add that despite the title, this is more than an essay – at 277 pages of text (there are no endnotes or reference pages though there are occasional footnotes – the sources are discussed in the text itself and most of the content appears to come from the author's original research), it’s a pretty standard-sized book.
My criticisms of the book are perhaps beside the point since I’m not sure it was ever intended for a general audience anyway, but here they are: first, it assumes knowledge of French history and society on the reader’s part. Even without having much I generally understood it, but there were some weird bits, like where the author refuted the notion that the Parisian poor didn’t have children because they either abandoned them or the kids ran away…. by giving statistics on the class from which abandoned children came, to prove that a large percentage came from higher up the social hierarchy. I was so confused by this – why were all of these people abandoning their kids? How do we know who was responsible? What did abandonment mean in this context (apparently some parents later returned)? At what age were children actually running away, and what happened to all these solo kids? Relatedly, the translator – despite translating the book from French to English presumably for those who, you know, don’t read French – left a number of words in French, including occasional key concepts and the titles of all of the books mentioned that were owned by Parisians.
Overall, I think this book will be quite useful for those doing research on eighteenth century Parisian society, less so for anybody else. Interesting stuff though and the author certainly seems to have reached his conclusions as a result of careful study.
Currently reading
June 23, 2011i really need a category for "french history books that would be great if they didn't indulge in what seems to be a peculiarly french obsession with population statistics."
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews