What do you think?
Rate this book
Le roman familial de la Révolution française
This latest work from an author known for her contributions to the new cultural history is a multidisciplinary investigation of the foundations of modern politics. "Family Romance" was coined by Freud to describe the fantasy of being freed from one's family & joining one of higher social standing. Lynn Hunt uses the term broadly to describe the images of the familial order underlying revolutionary politics. In a wide-ranging account using novels, engravings, paintings, speeches, newspaper editorials, pornographic writing & revolutionary legislation about the family, Hunt shows that politics were experienced thru the grid of the family romance.List of IllustrationsPrefaceThe family model of politicsThe rise & fall of the good fatherThe band of brothersThe bad motherSade's family politicsRehabilitating the familyPatriarchy in the Past Tense?Index
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
3 people are currently reading
243 people want to read
About the author
Lynn Hunt
466 books82 followersLynn Avery Hunt is the Eugen Weber Professor of Modern European History at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her area of expertise is the French Revolution, but she is also well known for her work in European cultural history on such topics as gender. Her 2007 work, Inventing Human Rights, has been heralded as the most comprehensive analysis of the history of human rights. She served as president of the American Historical Association in 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 16, 2017
This is a study of the use of familial archetypes and of their transformations in the period 1789 until the ascent of Napoleon in France. Although the author is an historian, the book refers primarily to the theories of sociologists and, as the title suggests, psychoanalysts. Much reference is made to the arts of revolutionary France, literary, theatrical and visual. Most interesting to me was the chapter on Sade and the concluding remarks on gender politics.
December 5, 2013
A clever psychological account of the French Revolution. Hunt argues that the monarchy was tied to family order in the 18th-century French collective unconscious. The king represented the national "father"; the people were his children.
As the century wore on, anxiety about the role of the king in French political life arose simultaneously with concern over paternal tyranny in literal families. At first, this led to the the father/king's being depicted in French art and literature as a "good father" whose rightful authority rested on persuasion, benevolence, and consent rather than absolute right. In the 1780s, however, even the good father came under threat. In novels, for example, children, including orphans, often took center stage. And in politics, the revolutionary "children" decided in 1792 to kill the father/king and collectively take his place.
The death of the father/king, however, left difficult questions unanswered. First, would one of the brothers (or a written constitution) take the father's place at the head of the family, or would the brothers find some way to live as strict equals? They chose equality, but as it turned out, this required the elimination of dissent; from this was born the Terror. (Eventually, Napoleon settled the matter for a while by ending the French experiment in fraternal rule and reestablishing paternalism.) Second, what role would the mother and the sisters have in the new national family? Here, the revolutionary brothers displayed remarkable fear of any sort of public role for women. They killed the queen for being a bad woman -- that is, taking for on a public role and being allegedly a corrupter of men. For similar reasons, they ruthlessly confined their sisters to the private domestic sphere, trying to prevent the feminization that they feared would undermine the fraternal order.
After the Terror, however, the French consciously and unconsciously rehabilitated the image of the "good family" as an environment in which the individual could find protection and stability without being subject to tyranny.
Hunt supports her deceptively simple thesis brilliantly, grounding her argument in a careful analysis of 18th-century cultural production and political discourse. Of course, she cannot change the fact that the collective unconscious does not present itself for a direct examination. Her account is thus coherent, plausible ... and impossible to falsify. I find this historiographically problematic. Nevertheless, the book is fascinating. Furthermore, Hunt has constructed a valuable window into the Jacobins' attitudes toward women.
As the century wore on, anxiety about the role of the king in French political life arose simultaneously with concern over paternal tyranny in literal families. At first, this led to the the father/king's being depicted in French art and literature as a "good father" whose rightful authority rested on persuasion, benevolence, and consent rather than absolute right. In the 1780s, however, even the good father came under threat. In novels, for example, children, including orphans, often took center stage. And in politics, the revolutionary "children" decided in 1792 to kill the father/king and collectively take his place.
The death of the father/king, however, left difficult questions unanswered. First, would one of the brothers (or a written constitution) take the father's place at the head of the family, or would the brothers find some way to live as strict equals? They chose equality, but as it turned out, this required the elimination of dissent; from this was born the Terror. (Eventually, Napoleon settled the matter for a while by ending the French experiment in fraternal rule and reestablishing paternalism.) Second, what role would the mother and the sisters have in the new national family? Here, the revolutionary brothers displayed remarkable fear of any sort of public role for women. They killed the queen for being a bad woman -- that is, taking for on a public role and being allegedly a corrupter of men. For similar reasons, they ruthlessly confined their sisters to the private domestic sphere, trying to prevent the feminization that they feared would undermine the fraternal order.
After the Terror, however, the French consciously and unconsciously rehabilitated the image of the "good family" as an environment in which the individual could find protection and stability without being subject to tyranny.
Hunt supports her deceptively simple thesis brilliantly, grounding her argument in a careful analysis of 18th-century cultural production and political discourse. Of course, she cannot change the fact that the collective unconscious does not present itself for a direct examination. Her account is thus coherent, plausible ... and impossible to falsify. I find this historiographically problematic. Nevertheless, the book is fascinating. Furthermore, Hunt has constructed a valuable window into the Jacobins' attitudes toward women.
September 18, 2018
A fascinating analysis of the French Revolution that examines the French people using the sociological construct of the family. Hunt speculates that the killing of Louis XVI left a vacuum in the family that had to be replaced by the new Assembly. The entire book provides substantial evidence for Hunt's theory and explores how the nation saw itself at the time and how it sought to construct itself. The book is well structured and every chapter relates to her theory. Unlike some history books I have read, this one doesn't get bogged down in pointless detail. The details are fascinating because they connect to a theory that the author is positing. My only minor complaint is that the book makes its point and then perhaps belabors it a little too long. Still, I read this book very quickly and enjoyed the emphasis on sociological framing.
Read
October 28, 2024Read for my PhD, on my supervisor’s advice; I appreciate that this is niche, but am covering it because I read almost the whole thing straight through, instead of just one or two chapters. Hunt argues that the murders of the King and Queen of France created deep rifts in the thinking of ordinary people; the King was so consistently seen as the father of his country, and his body as sacred and untouchable, that killing that body meant needing to come up with another story about fathers and families, not just about politics. Gearing up to killing the Queen was easier in some ways but harder in others: Marie Antoinette was never seen as the good mother of France, but the cultural narratives around her before her death made her out to be a degenerate whore and reached a crescendo by alleging that she’d committed incest with her own son, thus corrupting the future of the nation. The novel I’m currently writing about—Hubert de Sevrac by Mary Robinson—was published in 1796 and deals with a French nobleman disinherited by both the Revolution and the machinations of the family servant, with many arguments in the novel about the purpose of nobility and the legitimacy of paternal authority, so it all seems relevant. Still have to work out how to fold Hunt’s ideas in to my chapter, though. Source: Senate House Library #loveyourlibrary
May 1, 2015
I did not really like this one. Absolutely too many leaps....even for a theoretical work. The chapter on Sade is so incoherent I am not sure she even knows what she is talking about. That being said, she stays on task up to that point. If you like theoretical, metaphorical history with not so random 18th century porn throughout.....then here you go.
September 17, 2019
Interesting take on how the French Revolution changed gender roles. Hunt uses psychoanalysis and cultural works as examples of theories. Marie Antoinette is discussed at length, as well as Sade’s pornographic novel from
1795 Philosophy of the Bedroom. Freud is discussed throughout as well as novels and art showing the portrayal of family roles both good and bad. I read this book for a graduate level seminar class on women and modern European history. Not having a strong background in the French Revolution, this book piqued my interest, and I will be reading more on gender and women during that time period.
1795 Philosophy of the Bedroom. Freud is discussed throughout as well as novels and art showing the portrayal of family roles both good and bad. I read this book for a graduate level seminar class on women and modern European history. Not having a strong background in the French Revolution, this book piqued my interest, and I will be reading more on gender and women during that time period.
March 15, 2020
I feel as if I have to justify this enthusiastic rating. With the admission that I'm no scholar of the era, I'll just go ahead and say the book was incredibly interesting, informative, and accessible. Thoroughly enjoyed it, if one can "enjoy" learning about all the ways in which liberté and égalité only applied to half the population.
November 3, 2024
我看的是簡體中文商務印書館的版本，其實總共就看了四天，最後兩天分別是在兩次教會活動上，邊聽牧師/神父無聊的講話，邊翻閱。整本書越寫越沒意思，講到父親在小說中逐漸隱身，本以爲是女性地位提升，但實際上擺脫父親桎梏的角色通常不得善終。到了壞母親那章，看得不爽，瘋癲的薩德 渾身上下嘴最硬之盧梭，還有諸男權犯。有個小細節讓我感嘆，法王想要除掉市場上流通的關於自己孫子路易十六的不雅淫穢文字，是把能買的書都買光，這可真文明呀，放在中華人民共和國，首先根本不會流傳這種涉及天潢貴胄的淫蕩書籍，其次真要是出現了這種玩意（which is impossible），想必政府派人直接打砸搶，誰敢賣這些 吃不了兜着走呢，還付錢買下來，夢都做不了這麼美。
April 20, 2019
This was interesting, and I enjoyed her argument, which I thought was very unique- essentially, the Revolution upends the idea of the king as father of his people, but becomes stuck trying to figure out how to replace him, leading eventually to a new “father” in Bonaparte.
November 30, 2021
3.5
Actually such an interesting read that explores the way in which monarchical politics mimic traditional (patriarchal) families.
Actually such an interesting read that explores the way in which monarchical politics mimic traditional (patriarchal) families.
Read
January 1, 2024School
March 12, 2023
「家庭羅曼史」是佛洛伊德指稱神經官能患者幻想希望逃離自己鄙視的親生父母，而由某些具有較高社會地位的人取代，作為對原生家庭的復仇；而Lynn Hunt將「家庭羅曼史」由個人心理層次上升到集體無意識，以此為主旨構成法國大革命政治理念的家庭秩序想像。Lynn Hunt在《法國大革命時期的家庭羅曼史（The Family Romance of the French Revolution）》裡運用各種小說、繪畫、版畫、報章雜誌等等文化藝術產物，以家庭成員定位的變化試圖分析法國民眾潛意識對於王權隕落後，社會秩序重組與公共資源的重新分配的渴求與焦慮。對專制暴虐王權的不滿促使革命的產生，拉下了王族，繼而建立起對個人自由的信仰，但對家與國的疑慮同樣伴隨而來。
故事從路易十六命喪斷頭台那一刻拉開序幕，前法王之死象徵著破舊除新的儀式，但民眾高興的同時也潛藏著不安與恐懼，昔日家國合一、君主亦父的政治秩序關係讓眾人無法免除「弒父」的惶恐，我想這也是因為他們破壞了長久存續的政治制度，不確定接下來該往何處去，只能在焦慮中試圖想像與建立「無父」與其權威不再的新社會秩序，探討新的關係可以航行至哪裡，這亦激發新的社會能量。作者依次檢視了當時人們對每個家庭成員的價值辯證，剖析他們在政治上的集體無意識。當這樣的想像在藝術創作中傳達出新的價值觀與信仰，隨著時間流逝，不斷的對這樣的假定進行設想，逐漸積累成足以搖撼舊制度與舊觀念的力量，因為原本以為到死都只能走的這一條路已開拓出其他的各種可能，相信有更多路可走的期待凝聚成強烈的社會氛圍，成為擊垮王權體制的力量。
父親消失後，出現了許多藝術創作，設想父親／君王不在的家／國將會有何變化，「兄弟愛」是他們首先出現的想像，不限於血緣羈絆的兄弟，亦包含同樣從事革命活動的兄弟，兄友弟恭、互不爭奪昔日如君父地位般至高無上的個人崇拜是其願景，共享昔日被父親獨霸的資源，但實際上兄弟之間仍然會互相爭奪與競逐，秩序重組造就新的禁忌，亦因此產生新的焦慮，而父親除了在文本中「不在」、「消失」，或者立場轉為薄弱以外，也從暴虐專制轉為溫和、相對尊重家人的形象，而無論是「父子」或「兄弟」，即使犧牲親職的私領域，仍然能在革命的公共領域中共享情誼。
在這一段中，作者闡述「法式共和」、「美式共和」的不同。法國共和是從內而外的破壞、再創造，他們深受王權體制與活人神話所苦，所以極力避免個人崇拜的再現，故而選擇在這個基礎上尋求互相聯結又能和平共處的方式；而美國出於對以「父親」自居的英國的不信任，極力掙脫殖民體制的���縛，於是宣示自己是「自由之子」，繼而是「開國之父」，讓美國的政治意象成為確實的形體讓人尊崇其存在與價值。
女人在討論中多數仍是被排擠的，儘管在私領域已被認可同樣擁有繼承權益，但仍然被排除在公共事務之外。值得一提的是，當革命政府決定新立起一個政治形象時，為了避免偶像崇拜而重蹈昔日君父神話的覆轍，選用虛構的女子作為政治理念宣傳的形象，而原因竟是法國歷代女性皆無王位繼承權，這一措施可以避免君父聯想，這讓我有點難過。
然而，即使是虛構的存在，女性族群依舊在革命活動期間逐次滲透入公共空間，成為男性潛在的威脅，讓他們感到不安。當時雖然政治議題上已有許多面向，卻沒有太多針對女性地位的討論，女性仍是次於男性的性別。作者探討這段觀念變革的過程讓我覺得昔日的女性真的就是被當成一種資源，與財富、貨物、權力是同等的概念，在男性的想像中是理所當然的由他們獨佔，即使革命促使秩序重組，他們仍然無法擺脫以往對女人的定位，所以才會覺得男性可以決定女人的價值、應該做什麼事情又能做些什麼事情，並沒有將女人當作獨立人格來對待，父權並沒有隨著「父親」消失，只是轉化成另一種排擠女人生活空間的形式，無論是公共空間或私人空間。
在以「瑪麗．安東尼特」為中心的性與女體象徵論述中，也包含一眾哲學家、作家、政治家的厭女傾向。為了讓踏入公共空間的女人們返回私人領域，革命政府／男性又在此時搬出為人妻、為人母的貞靜美德，並且宣揚家庭價值的必要，在生物學上導出「男女有別」，女性能生育，屬於自然的，只能從事直性的勞務，且樣樣都不如男性，因此推演出她們不能像男性一樣負責知識性工作的結論，指稱女性在政治上同樣擁有付出的能力，但屬於她們的場域是家庭，是私人領域，而公共領域是男性專屬，告訴女人妳們該怎麼做，才會是「好妻子」、「好母親」。女人只有在身為人妻、人母的定位中能獲得認可，但此時研討的離婚法又對女性極為不公。作者針對女性的探討讓我想起前陣子看過的話：「女人就是一塊磚，哪裡需要就往哪裡搬。」
在這樣的秩序定位下，薩德在《香閨哲學》中將這樣對女人的處置推演成極致的想像，反倒在這樣的想像中，看見其中的荒謬與不合理，加上對自由主義的信仰與對女人的預設定位互相抵觸，迫得眾人不得不繼續去思考女性議題。「孩童文學」則從最初的孤兒認祖歸宗的收場（有歡喜有悲劇）演變成孤兒憑藉一己之力打下自己的一片天，前者通過高貴血緣的認證重新確立自己於社會上的立足點，後者則必須超脫於父母之上，而父權在其中的作用不是消失就是幾乎沒有，孩童建立屬於自己的世界與社會地位，方可克服沒有血親／社會立足點的缺憾。
《法國大革命時期的家庭羅曼史》是一本豐富有趣的歷史研究，援引十八世紀的藝術創作進行政治無意識的解釋看得很過癮，但對目前的我也有不太好讀懂的部分，可能也有誤讀的部分，日後再讀也許會更明白作者想傳達的意涵。在這本書中，我體會到二百多年前的人與現在的我們的許多共通點，包括對女性與非主流族群或隱或顯的歧視、對舊制度破滅與重塑新秩序的期待和焦灼、對未知將來的惶惶不安，當時的有些理想鄉想像如今看來相當荒謬而不可理喻，但也有些狀況仍是現在進行式的真實，例如針對女性再婚的法律限制。這些認知讓我感覺自己跟十八世紀的人們距離並沒有太遙遠，也能從當時人們對政治社會議題的探討回過頭來看待現在自己所處的世界，整體來說，稱得上是一本讓我很有收獲的歷史書籍。
☆、台灣人，閱讀版本為台灣的麥田出版社的繁體中文版。
故事從路易十六命喪斷頭台那一刻拉開序幕，前法王之死象徵著破舊除新的儀式，但民眾高興的同時也潛藏著不安與恐懼，昔日家國合一、君主亦父的政治秩序關係讓眾人無法免除「弒父」的惶恐，我想這也是因為他們破壞了長久存續的政治制度，不確定接下來該往何處去，只能在焦慮中試圖想像與建立「無父」與其權威不再的新社會秩序，探討新的關係可以航行至哪裡，這亦激發新的社會能量。作者依次檢視了當時人們對每個家庭成員的價值辯證，剖析他們在政治上的集體無意識。當這樣的想像在藝術創作中傳達出新的價值觀與信仰，隨著時間流逝，不斷的對這樣的假定進行設想，逐漸積累成足以搖撼舊制度與舊觀念的力量，因為原本以為到死都只能走的這一條路已開拓出其他的各種可能，相信有更多路可走的期待凝聚成強烈的社會氛圍，成為擊垮王權體制的力量。
父親消失後，出現了許多藝術創作，設想父親／君王不在的家／國將會有何變化，「兄弟愛」是他們首先出現的想像，不限於血緣羈絆的兄弟，亦包含同樣從事革命活動的兄弟，兄友弟恭、互不爭奪昔日如君父地位般至高無上的個人崇拜是其願景，共享昔日被父親獨霸的資源，但實際上兄弟之間仍然會互相爭奪與競逐，秩序重組造就新的禁忌，亦因此產生新的焦慮，而父親除了在文本中「不在」、「消失」，或者立場轉為薄弱以外，也從暴虐專制轉為溫和、相對尊重家人的形象，而無論是「父子」或「兄弟」，即使犧牲親職的私領域，仍然能在革命的公共領域中共享情誼。
在這一段中，作者闡述「法式共和」、「美式共和」的不同。法國共和是從內而外的破壞、再創造，他們深受王權體制與活人神話所苦，所以極力避免個人崇拜的再現，故而選擇在這個基礎上尋求互相聯結又能和平共處的方式；而美國出於對以「父親」自居的英國的不信任，極力掙脫殖民體制的���縛，於是宣示自己是「自由之子」，繼而是「開國之父」，讓美國的政治意象成為確實的形體讓人尊崇其存在與價值。
女人在討論中多數仍是被排擠的，儘管在私領域已被認可同樣擁有繼承權益，但仍然被排除在公共事務之外。值得一提的是，當革命政府決定新立起一個政治形象時，為了避免偶像崇拜而重蹈昔日君父神話的覆轍，選用虛構的女子作為政治理念宣傳的形象，而原因竟是法國歷代女性皆無王位繼承權，這一措施可以避免君父聯想，這讓我有點難過。
然而，即使是虛構的存在，女性族群依舊在革命活動期間逐次滲透入公共空間，成為男性潛在的威脅，讓他們感到不安。當時雖然政治議題上已有許多面向，卻沒有太多針對女性地位的討論，女性仍是次於男性的性別。作者探討這段觀念變革的過程讓我覺得昔日的女性真的就是被當成一種資源，與財富、貨物、權力是同等的概念，在男性的想像中是理所當然的由他們獨佔，即使革命促使秩序重組，他們仍然無法擺脫以往對女人的定位，所以才會覺得男性可以決定女人的價值、應該做什麼事情又能做些什麼事情，並沒有將女人當作獨立人格來對待，父權並沒有隨著「父親」消失，只是轉化成另一種排擠女人生活空間的形式，無論是公共空間或私人空間。
在以「瑪麗．安東尼特」為中心的性與女體象徵論述中，也包含一眾哲學家、作家、政治家的厭女傾向。為了讓踏入公共空間的女人們返回私人領域，革命政府／男性又在此時搬出為人妻、為人母的貞靜美德，並且宣揚家庭價值的必要，在生物學上導出「男女有別」，女性能生育，屬於自然的，只能從事直性的勞務，且樣樣都不如男性，因此推演出她們不能像男性一樣負責知識性工作的結論，指稱女性在政治上同樣擁有付出的能力，但屬於她們的場域是家庭，是私人領域，而公共領域是男性專屬，告訴女人妳們該怎麼做，才會是「好妻子」、「好母親」。女人只有在身為人妻、人母的定位中能獲得認可，但此時研討的離婚法又對女性極為不公。作者針對女性的探討讓我想起前陣子看過的話：「女人就是一塊磚，哪裡需要就往哪裡搬。」
在這樣的秩序定位下，薩德在《香閨哲學》中將這樣對女人的處置推演成極致的想像，反倒在這樣的想像中，看見其中的荒謬與不合理，加上對自由主義的信仰與對女人的預設定位互相抵觸，迫得眾人不得不繼續去思考女性議題。「孩童文學」則從最初的孤兒認祖歸宗的收場（有歡喜有悲劇）演變成孤兒憑藉一己之力打下自己的一片天，前者通過高貴血緣的認證重新確立自己於社會上的立足點，後者則必須超脫於父母之上，而父權在其中的作用不是消失就是幾乎沒有，孩童建立屬於自己的世界與社會地位，方可克服沒有血親／社會立足點的缺憾。
《法國大革命時期的家庭羅曼史》是一本豐富有趣的歷史研究，援引十八世紀的藝術創作進行政治無意識的解釋看得很過癮，但對目前的我也有不太好讀懂的部分，可能也有誤讀的部分，日後再讀也許會更明白作者想傳達的意涵。在這本書中，我體會到二百多年前的人與現在的我們的許多共通點，包括對女性與非主流族群或隱或顯的歧視、對舊制度破滅與重塑新秩序的期待和焦灼、對未知將來的惶惶不安，當時的有些理想鄉想像如今看來相當荒謬而不可理喻，但也有些狀況仍是現在進行式的真實，例如針對女性再婚的法律限制。這些認知讓我感覺自己跟十八世紀的人們距離並沒有太遙遠，也能從當時人們對政治社會議題的探討回過頭來看待現在自己所處的世界，整體來說，稱得上是一本讓我很有收獲的歷史書籍。
☆、台灣人，閱讀版本為台灣的麥田出版社的繁體中文版。
March 9, 2014
Lynn Hunt's book is a perfect example of the cultural history that was one the rise during the 80's and 90's. In this book, she analyzes the French Revolution through the lens of culture with special attention to the production of literature, art, and its depictions and ideas around the role of kingship.
She explores what can be called a collective cultural consciousness that shifts in its way of viewing the king. She links the political discourse about the king with the cultural discourse on the role of the father and family. She examines how in literature, art, and political discourse the king was portrayed as the father and the nation as family or as children and how this discourse and view shifted over time from portraying him as the "good" father to the "tyrannical" father.
The book is heavily focused on a theoretical framing of the French Revolution and deeply connected to psychoanalysis. She does a brilliant job theorizing on the the cultural pulse behind the French Revolution and demonstrates some of the great things that came from the cultural turn using literary and cultural methods of analysis especially applying the theories of representation and depiction.
Even if one is not a French historian, her methods can be adopted in other fields of history and the book proves to be useful and interesting for anyone interested in cultural history and gender.
She explores what can be called a collective cultural consciousness that shifts in its way of viewing the king. She links the political discourse about the king with the cultural discourse on the role of the father and family. She examines how in literature, art, and political discourse the king was portrayed as the father and the nation as family or as children and how this discourse and view shifted over time from portraying him as the "good" father to the "tyrannical" father.
The book is heavily focused on a theoretical framing of the French Revolution and deeply connected to psychoanalysis. She does a brilliant job theorizing on the the cultural pulse behind the French Revolution and demonstrates some of the great things that came from the cultural turn using literary and cultural methods of analysis especially applying the theories of representation and depiction.
Even if one is not a French historian, her methods can be adopted in other fields of history and the book proves to be useful and interesting for anyone interested in cultural history and gender.
July 8, 2018
To tap into the political unconscious and collective imagination of French society during the French Revolution, Hunt daringly arouses Freud’s theory of the family romance in her book, The Family Romance of the French Revolution. Using Freud’s theory as a base and implementing her own interpretation of the family romance, Hunt exhibits through novels, legislation, pornography etc. how French society related their current political power structure to that of the structure of the family. For example, she sees the Monarchy for the French, as a traditional patriarchal framework that revolutionaries tried to transform. Their new society or “family” was to be one where a fraternity of brothers were at the helm and promoted the subordination and domestication of women, making their existence one that stays in the private sphere, thus leaving the public sphere to be one of only men. Merging gender history, cultural history and political history together, her thesis and examples of Revolutionary France’s “family romances” is seductive and mesmerizing but does contain flaws that taint the book’s overall effectiveness and importance.
June 8, 2016
This book is an absolute delight, and I can't recommend it highly enough. Reading about the French Revolution-- or any revolution-- will be hugely impacted. The symbolism and psychology of revolutions, and how a society deals with something so tumultuous, how that changes a culture, all of that is covered in depth in this book. While it has a very purposefully narrow and specific scope, the wider implications are easily seen and applied. A worthwhile read for anyone interested in the French Revolution, or any revolution.
September 28, 2015
Fascinating study of how literature, art, and commentary during the French Revolution reveal attitudes toward the family at that time. You can only do so much with psychoanalyzing history, and it's difficult to make strong causal links, but the descriptive parts were illuminating. I also appreciated the gender history, where Hunt doesn't just describe particular women, but actually addresses the whole gender system of the time period and how the historical actors perceived it.
October 18, 2009
Interesting points of how family structure can be applied to a political realm and how the if the family is broken, society is broken, but overall, it seems she stretches Frued's idea and it just seemed a little much.
October 19, 2014
The first four chapters were pretty interesting. The last two chapters didn't hold my interest at all, and didn't seem really relevant to the first part of the book. I also don't totally buy the author's main argument, but a decent case was made for it in the first four chapters.
January 29, 2008
Best addition to French Revolution historiography since the 60s.
March 23, 2008
this book changed my whole view on the french revolution and french feminism, exploding it out into another universe of consciousness.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews