New Literary History
New Literary History
New Literary History
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New Literary History
I. Introduction
both to develop new resources for uncovering the past and to find new
perspectives on older resources.
The following pages will look at other archives in preparation for a
more extensive consideration of literature as a cultural repository.
Following the lead of a few cultural historians, I will suggest that, when
handled judiciously, and in answer to appropriate questions, literature
can provide a reliable window on the past. Used carefully?and remem
bering that reality is never pure, simple, or linear?literature and the
arts can bring fresh light to our perception of history. One should not
expect literature to be an exact mirror or have a one-to-one relationship
with objective reality?the mimetic fallacy?but the historian/critic can
find it extraordinarily useful. It is a response to reality, whether by
reflection or reaction.
be exploited to reveal how the people felt, how they were affected by the
Revolution, whether?and, if so, how?they were influenced by those
world-shaking events that were taking place in and around Paris.
poems, the resulting literary production has attracted few readers in the
last 150 years. The novels and plays would have little interest today, were
it not that in their time they did attract readers and spectators in
significant numbers and thus indicate that writers were not alone in
their obsessions. Just as the chapbooks reflected the demands of their
public,22 so too did the novels and plays of the late eighteenth century.
An important, ever-expanding segment of society supported the literary
creations by purchasing books and theatre tickets. As Roger Chartier
puts it, "By means of more or less massive purchasing, readers indicated
their preferences; thus their tastes were in a position to influence book
production itself."23 Indeed, flesh-and-blood readers and spectators
assured life for fiction when their hard-earned money was devoted to
watching characters act out their lives on stage or page.
In preceding periods, authors could get by if they satisfied a wealthy
patron or a small cadre of like-minded people, and they tended to write
for an elite. But from the mid-eighteenth century it was no longer
common for a scribbler to discover a patron who would pay for the
honor of patronizing publication. Publishing had changed. Now, suc
cessful writers depended on mass markets of people who would pur
chase or rent their published wares. Novelists and playwrights in
particular were required to attract consumers, whether readers or
spectators. To be more precise, writers had to create works that would
appeal to others, many others, and attract an audience with money in
hand. In 1838 Balzac summed up the practice already more than half-a
century old: "The destiny of French literature is today fatally linked to
the bookstore and the newspaper."24 Publishers and theatrical producers
welcomed only those writers who could be counted on to build a
following among the rather large and rapidly growing general public.
Publishing novels, like producing plays, was expensive, and bankruptcy
awaited those who could not successfully predict public taste. If a writer
created a particular fiction or play, if publishers or producers were
willing to gamble their financial investment of time, equipment, and
personnel in order to bring such creations to the public, if people
actually paid to experience the end products, if such works were
republished, one can reasonably expect the creations to speak to the
same society and, often, to reflect the same reality. By studying a single,
large sample of novels and plays, scholars should be able to replicate
each other's work, much like good scientific experiments permit replica
tion. When approached with historical discernment and critical acu
men, literature becomes an increasingly reliable archive as its public
changed from a limited elite to a mass audience, for it responded to the
demands of its readers. Those upper-class people who had previously
served as patrons and subventioned books and plays were no longer
so that they would be more able to understand and cope with the
turmoil they saw and sensed around them.28 Everyone was well aware
that France was changing, and they wanted to know more: how it was
happening, what it was becoming, and how it would affect them.
Classical art featuring flower-bedecked, perfumed peasants enjoying
elegant ballets of languorous love in Elysian fields was no longer
attractive. Most often, if writers situated their adventures in the past, it
was a European or, better, a French history that dealt with problems of
current interest. Increasingly, literature treated the events of the present.
While manuals of literary history discuss at length the introduction of
Enlightenment ideas and the "green" of real nature to literature,
immersion in the actual works of pre-romantic and revolutionary
literature incontrovertibly demonstrates that writers were struggling to
portray the reality that surrounded them. The plot and, increasingly
across the eighteenth century, the characters and their personalities
were realistic.29 Where it can be verified, there is no doubt that the
background generally reflects the actual customs, attitudes, and facts of
the contemporary world, a perhaps surprising correspondence between
literature and society that leaves no doubt that readers wanted to
understand the world around them. In short, the study of literature
constitutes a very useful addition to our attempts to gain a comprehen
sive view of the late eighteenth century.
numbers of people who could read are the numbers of books being
printed. The inventory of Etienne Garnier's stock at his death in 1789,
for example, included 443,069 chapbooks. It is unlikely that he would
print such quantities unless he believed he would be able to sell them.
Garnier's and other publishers' print runs of the Biblioth?que bleue were
often substantial. B?lleme cites one of 18,500 copies, though most were
between 2,000 and 5,000. Emmet Kennedy documents printings of
"anywhere from 500 to 60,000 copies."32 This in a country whose
population at the time is estimated to be no more than twenty-eight
million people. In respect to the more lengthy and numerous novel
publications, Angus Martin, Vivienne G. Mylne, and Richard Frautschi's
Bibliographie du genre romanesque fran?ais, 1751-1800 documents the
irregular but significant increase in novels published?in original, in
translation, and in republication?through the last half of the century.
Large numbers of people were reading, or, expressed another way, a
large percentage of the population could and did read. The widespread
practice of oral reading as a social activity would, indeed, have spread
the influence of print even further, although it seems unlikely that
groups where works were read aloud could have been sufficiently
numerous to explain the plethora of publications.
Novels, especially, were a popular form that was designed to engage a
mass audience. They were often quite long, which gave authors the
space for extended insights, ideas, and opinions. Accordingly, if we want
a deeper understanding of attitudes, long fictions are more useful than
other genres, for they provide marvelously fertile portrayals of mind-sets
and cultural reality. As Mme de Sta?l says in the preface to Delphine
(1802), "History only makes us aware of the big strokes that are
manifested by the power of circumstances, but it cannot make us
penetrate into the intimate impressions which, by exerting influence on
the will of certain individuals, has determined the fate of everyone."33
The cumulative insights of theatrical and novelistic "fiction" into atti
tudes, habits of thought, customs, and the details of ordinary life are
often not just verisimilar but true, or, at least, believed true by the people
of the time. Though Hayden White argues that history is a story that
reveals the storyteller, I want to invert that insight and suggest that
stories frequently reveal history, especially its motivations and cultural
reality. Perhaps only through the arts can one open a perspective onto
historical patterns of attitudes, behavior, fashions, and optics of viewing
and appreciation.
Having now read hundreds of late eighteenth-century novels and
plays, not to mention numerous memoirs and letters by notables, I can
safely say that, in general, only the characters and their foregrounded
actions are "made up," and even those actions are rigorously maintained
passed, scholars like Cobb, Ratcliff, and Merrick have discovered other
documentary evidence to shore up such implications.
The necessity of multiplicity of example and focus of significance
imposes a way of working. As one would expect, given that "text" derives
from the Latin textus, meaning "weaving" or "web," texts always create an
intricate tapestry of relationships that are, in addition, an intimate part
of the social web. Such embedded literary creations indicate attitudes,
no matter how fantastic the main characters and their actions may be.
Major writers of our own century from Proust to Foucault have shown
that literature and society are extremely complicated, interrelated
complexes (or icons or images) of experience that are frequently
replicated. I think, for example, of Proust's A la recherche du temps perdu,
which was organized around the belief that his fictional "life" coheres
from start to finish because of the elements that, in repeating, recall
others in the narrator's unique life. The taste of the madeleine resusci
tates an extension that recalls a world to the narrator, and the gatherings
at Combray with Aunt L?onie are rejuvenated at every level of society as
the characters form other circles of intimates. The church steeples of
M?s?glise reverberate with the mention of every bell, and the orange
juice served chez les Guermantes ties Oriane to Mme Verdurin. Almost
any thread of leitmotifs may be followed into the entire tapestry of
Proust's masterpiece, which is inseparably joined to its society through
innumerable relationships with social realities that we know to be true,
like the description of a dying aristocracy or the conflicting attitudes
toward war with Germany.37
Of course, A la recherche du temps perdu is exceptional. It is nonetheless
typical in its resemblance to all other artworks that form an intimate part
of their contemporary society. Perhaps not every aspect of literature or
society forms an extension that eventually allows us to envisage a whole,
and it is, to be sure, true that not all details, not all traits, not all
relationships are interesting. Furthermore, nothing assures that the
investigator will remark the element that proves truly significant. Leo
Spitzer admitted in regard to his own "philological circle" that he could
provide no step-by-step rationale to assure that someone else would
choose an unquestionably significant element. "The first step is the
awareness of having been struck by a detail, followed by a conviction that
this detail is connected basically with the work."38 As several well
regarded scholars recently pointed out in respect to cultural studies,
there are "no guarantees about what questions are important to ask
within given contexts or how to answer them: hence no methodology
can be privileged or even temporarily employed with total security and
confidence, yet none can be eliminated out of hand. Textual analysis,
semiotics, deconstruction, ethnography, interviews, phonemic analysis,
VI. Conclusion
University of Kansas
NOTES
1 The question I pose is somewhat different from those that have previously interested
scholars. Lionel Gossman, "History and Literature: Reproduction or Signification," in The
Writing of History: Literary Form and Historical Understanding, ed. Robert H. Canary and
Henry Kozicki (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 3-39; Jean Serroy, "Le
roman et l'histoire au XVIIe si?cle avant Saint-R?al," Studifrancesi37, no. 2 (1993): 243-50;
and Herbert Lindenberger, The History in Literature: On Value, Genre, Institutions (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1990), have, for example, been drawn to the period when
history became a genre distinct from novels and other genres like biography and scientific
treatises. Leo Braudy, Narrative Form in History and Fiction (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1970), agrees with most others that these distinctions took place in the
eighteenth century. He goes on to analyze the ways literature differs from history. Aristotle
(Poetics, chap. 9) and many, many others have taken up the latter issue. See, for just a few
examples, Louis O. Mink, "Narrative Form as a Cognitive Instrument," in Canary and
Kozicki's collection The Writing of History, 129-49; David H. Walker, "Literature, History
and Factidiversiality,"/?wrw?/ of European Studies 25 (1995): 35-50; Paul Hernadi, "Clio's
Cousins: Historiography as Translation, Fiction, and Criticism," New Literary History 7, no.
2 (1976): 247-56; Murray Krieger, "Fiction, History, and Empirical Reality," Critical Inquiry
1, no. 2 (1974): 335-60; and P. M. Wetherill, "The Novel and Historical Discourse: Notes
on a Nineteenth-Century Perspective," Journal of European Studies 15 (1985): 117-30.
2 For example, Lucien Febvre, Le probl?me de l'incroyance au XVIe si?cle: La religion de
Rabelais (Paris: A. Michel, 1968); Robert Darn ton, The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes
in French Cultural History (New York: Basic Books, 1984); Terry Castle, The Female
Thermometer: Eighteenth-Century Culture and the Invention of the Uncanny (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995); Masquerade and Civilization: The Carnivalesque in Eighteenth-Century
English Culture and Fiction (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986); Felicity
Nussbaum, Torrid Zones: Maternity, Sexuality, and Empire in Eighteenth-Century English
Narratives (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Deidre Lynch, The
Economy of Character: Novels, Market Culture, and the Business of Inner Meaning (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1998); Terry Eagleton, The Rape of Clarissa (Oxford: Blackwell,
1982); Lynn Hunt, The Family Romance of the French Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1992); Susan Dunn, The Deaths of Louis XVI (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1994); Mary Louise Roberts, Civilization without Sexes: Recon
structing Gender in Postwar France, 1917-1927 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994);
Bruce Robbins, The Servant's Hand: English Fiction from Below (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1986). It should be emphasized that each of these scholars turns to
literature in different ways and for different reasons. I owe the last reference, and the next
(note 3), to Philippe Carrard.
3 In more modern terms, "[T]he referential status of fiction is always in doubt. . . .
[EJvidence derived from literature about specific historical change in the short term is
inherently problematic" (Philip Stewart, "This Is Not a Book Review: On Historical Uses of
Literature, "Journal of Modern History 66 [1994]: 524).
4 I do not intend with these terms to curtail excessively the feelings, points of view, and
patterns of perception and experience that are the ultimate object of much culture studies
and cultural history. Simon During writes of "questions of pleasure, corporeality, fantasy,
identification, affect, desire, critique, transgression" (introduction to The Cultural Studies
Reader, ed. Simon During [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1993], 19);J. M. Roberts, of
"states of mind, conscious and unconscious assumptions, attitudes, prejudices, and
emotions" (TheFrench Revolution [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978], 155); Clifford
Geertz, of "customs, usages, traditions, habit clusters," as a set of "control mechanisms?
plans, recipes, rules, instructions . . . for the governing of behavior" ( The Interpretation of
Cultures: Selected Essays [New York: Basic Books, 1973], 44); Fred Inglis and Stuart Levine,
of "values" (Culture Studies [Oxford: Blackwell, 1993] and "Art, Values, Institutions and
Culture: An Essay in American Studies Methodology and Relevance," American Quarterly 24
[1972]: 131-65); and Michel Foucault, of "experience," that is, "the deployment of a unity
made up of rules and norms, some traditional, some new, which rest on religious, judicial,
pedagogical, medical institutions, as well as changes in the way individuals are brought to
attribute sense and value to their conduct, to their duties, to their pleasures, to their
sentiments and sensations, to their dreams" (Histoire de la sexualit?, vol. 2 [Paris: Gallimard,
1984], 10-11). Each of these factors represents worthy goals for investigation. It is, of
course, essential, as I argue below, to understand that each of these attributes, mind-sets,
heterotopias, beliefs, or whatever, is but a part of the enormous set or web of integrated
relationships that constitutes the particular culture in a moment of society.
5 Georges Lefebvre, The French Revolution: From 1793-1799, trans. John Hall Stewart and
James Friguglietti (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964), 2: 271. See, also, Roderick
Phillips, who notes that "the Revolution, considered as a political event, rarely intrudes
into the levels of family and personal life" (Family Breakdown in Late Eighteenth-Century
France: Divorces in Rouen 1792-1803 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980], 2). As Philippe Aries
writes in a particular instance, "The fact that today we can no longer behave with the same
lack of self-consciousness and sincerity in the same situations as our two sixteenth-century
princes indicates precisely that a change of attitude has come between them and us"
("L'histoire des mentalit?s," La nouvelle histoire, ?d. Jacques Le Goffe [1978; repr., Paris:
Complexe, 1988], 168). Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.
6 Compare David Hume: "It is universally acknowledged, that there is great uniformity
among the actions of men, in all nations and ages, and that human nature remains still the
same, in its principles and operations. . . . Would you know the sentiments, inclinations,
and course of life of the Greeks and Romans? Study well the temper and actions of the
French and English: You cannot be much mistaken in transferring to the former most o? the
observations, which you have made with regard to the latter. Mankind are so much the
same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange in this
particular" (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition, ed. Tom L.
Beauchamp [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000], 64).
7 Michel Vovelle, "Pertinence et ambigu?t? du t?moignage litt?raire," Id?ologies &
Mentalit?s (Paris: Maspero, 1982), 45.
8 Marie-Claude Phan, Les amours ill?gitimes: Histoires de s?duction en languedoc (1676-1786)
(Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1986).
9 Alain Lottin, introduction to La d?sunion du couple sous l'ancien r?gime: L'exemple du nord,
?d. Alain Lottin (Lille: Universit? de Lille, 1975), 28.
10 Jacques Dup?quier, "La population fran?aise de 1789 ? 1806," in vol. 3 of Histoire de la
population fran?aise, ed. J. Dup?quier (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1988), 64.
See, also, the volume's preceding study by Dup?quier and Ren? le M?e, "La connaissance
des faits d?mographiques de 1789 ? 1914," 15-30.
11 Robert Darnton, The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History (New York: W. W.
Norton, 1990), xiii.
12 James F. Traer, Marriage and the Family in Eighteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1980), 95.
13 Sarah Maza, "Stories in History: Cultural Narratives in Recent Works in European
History," American Historical Review 101, no. 5 (1996): 1495.
14 Lucien Febvre, "La sensibilit? et l'histoire: Comment reconstituer la vie affective
d'autrefois?" Combats pour l'histoire (Paris: Armand Colin, 1953), 234-35.
15 Of course, as Stewart suggests, by limiting oneself to a single work, more precision is
possible (537-38); see, also, Lynn Hunt, "The Objects of History: A Reply to Philip
Stewart, "Journal of Modern History 66 (1994): 541.
16 Robert Mandrou, De la culture populaire aux 17e et 18e si?cles: La biblioth?que bleue de Troyes
(1964; repr., Paris: Imago, 1985); and Genevi?ve B?lleme, La bible bleue: Anthologie d'une
litt?rature 'populaire' (Paris: Flammarion, 1975).
17 Louis Chevalier, Classes laborieuses et classes dangereuses ? Paris, pendant la premi?re moiti?
du XIXe si?cle (1958; repr., Paris: Hachette, 1984), 115.
18 Darn ton, The Great Cat Massacre, 18. Elsewhere, he goes further: "Bon mots and ballads
tended to vanish and be forgotten. But books fixed themes in print, preserving them,
diffusing them, and multiplying their effect. Even more important, books incorporated
them in stories with broad persuasive power. An anecdote or an irreverent aside was one
thing in a caf?, another in a printed book. The transformation into print actually altered
its meaning, because books blended seemingly trivial elements into large-scale narratives,
which often opened up perspectives into philosophy and history" (TheForbidden Best-Sellers
of Pre-Revolutionary France [New York: W. W. Norton, 1995], 190). See, also, his review
article, "The Symbolic Element in History, "Journal of Modern History 58, no. 1 (1986): 218
34. Natalie Zemon Davis has been particularly sensitive to the interpretive importance of
literariness; see her short discussion of how she has managed the potentially disruptive
influence of literature for a historian, "The Historian and Literary Uses," Profession 2003
(New York: Modern Language Association, 2003), 21-27.
19 Bruce Robbins, The Servant's Hand: English Fiction from Below (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1986), 36-37.
20 Cary Nelson?who recognizes that in literary studies critics believe that texts "shape
and limit their meaning internally," while "[c]ultural studies typically maintains that
meaning is the product of social, cultural, and political interaction"?calls for an
"alliance," a "merging" of the two ("The Linguisticality of Cultural Studies: Rhetoric, Close
Reading, and Contextualization," in At the Intersection: Cultural Studies and Rhetorical Studies,
ed. Thomas Rosteck [New York: Guilford, 1999], 213-14). Although neither of these
varieties of interpretation can ever be more than partially isolated from the other, as Jan
Mukarovsky cogently argues in his classic Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value as Social Facts
(trans. Mark E. Suino, Michigan Slavic Contributions, no. 3 [Ann Arbor: Dept. of Slavic
Languages, University of Michigan Press, 1970]), I would rather say that there should be
a chronological sequence where the "relatively autonomous cultural domain" (Nelson,
"Linguisticality," 215) of the literary text remains as isolated as possible until it is
understood as an aesthetic complex. At that point, one may fit it into the much larger
system of cultural relationships.
21 Richard Johnson, "What Is Cultural Studies Anyway?" in What Is Cultural Studies? A
Reader, ed. John Storey (London: Arnold, 1996), 94.
22 Mandrou, De la culture populaire, 23.
23 Roger Chartier, "Histoire intellectuelle et histoire des mentalit?s: Trajectoires et
questions," Revue de synth?se 3, nos. 111-12 (1983): 298. See, also, Mandrou, De la culture
populaire, 23; Allan H. Pasco, Sick Heroes: French Society and Literature in the Romantic Age,
1750-1850 (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997), 3-6.
24 Balzac, Les employ?s, vol. 7, La com?die humaine, Biblioth?que de la Pl?iade (Paris:
Gallimard, 1976-81), 892.
25 Jacques Le Goff, "Les mentalit?s: Une histoire ambigu?," in Faire de l'histoire: Nouveaux
objets, ed. J. Le Goff and Pierre Nora (Paris: Gallimard, 1974), 3: 87-88. Vovelle is willing
to open history to the arts, especially in respect to sensitivity ("Pertinence et ambigu?t?,"
37-50). Neither he nor the others that use literature provide a way to test the reliability of
such materials.
26 Le Goff, "Mentalit?s," 87-88.
27 Daniel Roche, Le peuple de Paris: Essai sur la culture populaire au XVIIIe si?cle (1981 ; repr.,
Paris: Fayard, 1998), 63.
28 Georges May, Le dilemme du roman au XVIIIe si?cle: Etude sur les rapports du roman et de la
critique (1715-1761) (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963); Thomas M. Kavanagh,
Enlightenment and the Shadows of Chance: The Novel and the Culture of Gambling in Eighteenth
Century France (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 120-21. Realism is one
of the most common claims of the eighteenth-century novel. In 1765, Fran?ois-Georges
Fouques Desfontaines announces, "I myself saw with my own eyes what I recount" (Lettres
de Sophie et du chevalier de **, pour servir de suppl?ment aux Lettres du Marquis de Roselle, par M.
de ***, 2 parts [London and Paris: Esclapart, 1765], vi); in 1788, Jacques-Henri Bernardin
de Saint-Pierre insists that the story is "true for the principal events" (Paul et Virginie, ed.
Pierre Trahard [Paris: Gamier, 1964], 201); in 1790, the abb? Guillaume-Andr?-Ren?
Baston assures at the outset that he will be "simple 8c true" (Narrations d'Oma?, insulaire de
la mer du sud, ami et compagnon de voyage du capitaine Cook, Ouvrage traduit de l'O-Ta?tien, par
M. K***, ?f publi? par le Capitaine L. A. B., vol. 1 [Rouen: Le Boucher le jeune, and Paris:
Buisson, 1790], 1); in 1792, Fran?ois-Am?d?e Doppet claims, "[T]he author himself
witnessed the things he tells" (Le commissionnaire de la ligue d'Outre-Rhin, ou le messager
nocturne, contenant l'histoire de l'?migration fran?oise, les aventures galantes et politiques arriv?es
aux chevaliers fran?ois, et ? leurs dames dans les pays ?trangers, des instructions sur leurs projets
contre-r?volutionnels, et des notices sur tous les moyens tent?s ou ? tenter contre la constitution, par un
Fran?ois qui fait sa confession g?n?rale et qui rentre dans sa partie [Paris: Buisson & Lyon, Bruyset
fr?res, 1792], vii); in 1793, Claude-Fran?ois-Xavier Mercier de Compi?gne humbly asserts,
"In my tale I will at least have the merit of being true" (Ismael et Christine, nouvelle historique,
nouvelle edition [1793; repr., Paris: Louis, Year III (1795)], 10); in 1799, Pierre-Jean
Baptiste Nougaret calls his story "this true story" (P?m m?tamorphos?, ou Histoire de Gilles
Claude Ragot, pendant son s?jour dans cette ville centrale de la R?publique fran?aise, o? l'on voit,
avec le r?cit de ses aventures merveilleuses, les ruses, tromperies, astuces, finesses, etc., etc., qu'il y a
?prouv?es, et auxquelles tous les citoyens sont en butte. Ouvrage qui peut faire suite aux Astuces et
tromperies de Paris, etc. etc., et r?dig? d'apr?s des m?moires authentiques [Paris: Chez l'auteur et
Desenne, Year VII (1799)], i); and so on. Carolyn A. Durham insists that "Realism [is] the
great innovation of the eighteenth-century novel," though she quotes Philip Stewart to put
the matter in proper perspective: "However extravagant, however unlikely, however much
it may strain credulity, [eighteenth-century novelists] claim it is all true" ("The Contradic
tory Becomes Coherent: La religieuse and Paul et Virginie," Eighteenth Century 23, no. 3
[1982]: 232).
29 I am only interested in the relationship between literature and contemporary reality,
though, of course, realism varies through the ages. As Father Ren? Rapin said, "The
verisimilar is whatever conforms to public opinion" (quoted from Jean-Pierre Cavaill?,
"Galanterie et histoire de 'l'antiquit? moderne': Jean Chapelain, De la lecture des vieux
romans, 1647'," Dix-septi?me si?cle 50.3 [1998]: 401).
30 B?lleme, Bible bleue, 25.
31 Roger Chartier, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991), 68-70.
32 Genevi?ve B?lleme, "Litt?rature populaire et litt?rature de colportage au 18e si?cle,"
in Livre et soci?t? dans la France du XVIIIe si?cle, ed. G. B?lleme and others, 2 vols. (Paris:
Mouton, 1965), 1. 65; Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 47. See, also, Mandrou, De la culture populaire, 17,
39-49.
33 Mme Germaine Necker de Sta?l, preface to Delphine, ed. Simone Balay? and Lucia
Omacini, 2 vols., Textes Litt?raires Fran?ais (1802; Geneva: Droz, 1987), 81.
34 I take this conclusion from chapter 1 of C. S. Lewis, Surprised by foy (New York:
Harcourt Brace, 1955), where he discusses the invention of fantasy. For a bibliography of
my own reading, though only half as long as it would be today, see Sick Heroes, 217-24.
35 Denis Diderot, Jacques le fataliste (1796), reprinted in uvres romanesques, ed. Henri
B?nac (Paris: Garnier, 1962), 505.
36 Pasco, "Incest in the Mirror," Sick Heroes, 108-32.
37 See, also, Pasco, "Reading the Age of Names in A la recherche du temps perdu,"
Comparative Literature 46 (1994): 267-87.
38 Leo Spitzer, Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics (New York: Russell &
Russell, 1962), 26-27.
39 Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula A. Treichler, introduction to Cultural
Studies, ed. Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler (New York: Routledge, 1992), 2.
40 Carolyn Steedman, "Women's Biography and Autobiography: Forms of History,
Histories of Form," in From My Guy to SdFi, ed. Helen Carr (London: Pandora, 1989), 98-111.
41 Pasco, "The Unrocked Cradle," Sick Heroes, 31-52.
42 Pasco, "On Making Mirages, Tahitian and Otherwise," Virginia Quarterly Review 77, no.
2 (2001): 247-61.
43 Natalie Zemon Davis, "Ghosts, Kin, and Progeny: Some Features of Family Life in
Early Modern France," Daedalus 106, no. 2 (1977): 87-114.
44 James Smith Allen, Popular French Romanticism: Authors, Readers, and Books in the 19th
Century (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981); and Fran?oise Parent-Lardeur, Lire
? Paris au temps de Balzac: Les cabinets de lecture ? Paris, 1830-1850 (Paris: Ecole des Hautes
Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1981). Louis Chevalier quotes Balzac's contemporaries,
George Sand and Baudelaire, who marvel at the accuracy of La com?die humaine, and takes
a similar, very strong position himself: "La com?die humaine, document d'histoire?" Revue
Historique 232, no. 1 (1964): 27-48.
45 Michelle Perro t, "The Family Triumphant," From the Fires of Revolution to the Great War,
ed. Michelle Perrot, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, History of Private Life 4 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1990), 134. Similarly, David Powell points out, "[T]he historical
content of the novels themselves has been surprisingly little studied" ("The Historical
Novel: History as Fiction and Fiction as History," The Historian 43 [1994]: 13). For
suggestive essays, see, in addition, Febvre, "La sensibilit? et l'histoire," 221-38; and, in the
same volume, his "Une vue d'ensemble: Histoire et psychologie," 207-20; Chevalier,
Classes laborieuses, esp. 69-259; Mandrou, Introduction to Modem France, 1500-1640: An Essay
in Historical Psychology, trans. R. E. Hallmark (New York: Holmes Se Meier, 1976);
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, "L'ethnographie ? la R?tif," Le territoire de l'historien (Paris:
Gallimard, 1978), 2: 337-97; and The New Historicism, ed. H. Aram Veeser (New York:
Routledge, 1989). For an excellent overview, see James Smith Allen, "History and the
Novel: Mentalit? in Modern Popular Fiction," History and Theory 22, no. 3 (1983), 233-52.
46 Natalie Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France: Eight Essays (Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1975), xvii. Stephen Greenblatt observes that "[literature
functions within this system in three interlocking ways: as a manifestation of the concrete
behavior of its particular author, as itself the expression of the codes by which behavior is
shaped, and as a reflection upon those codes" (Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to
Shakespeare [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980], 4). See, also, Maza, "Stories in
History," 1493-1515. As Marxists like Leon Trotsky (Literature and Revolution [Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1960] ), and Georg Luk?cs (Balzac et le r?alisme fran?ais [Paris:
Maspero, 1967] ) insisted, literature is both a reflection of the reality of its time and a
significant influence on the future. In my own study here, I am interested only in the
reflective capabilities of literary works. Poststructuralism has left some with no reason to
believe that literature is ever directly reflective; nonetheless, with sufficient precautions it
has much to teach us about the past.