This article challenges the false opposition between public and private spheres that is often imposed upon our historical understanding in the Old Regime in France. An analysis of the work of Jürgen Habermas, Reinhart Koselleck, Philippe Ariès, and Roger Chartier shows that the "authentic public sphere" articulated by Habermas was constructed in the private realm, and the "new culture" of private life identified by Ariès was constitutive of Habermas's new public sphere. Institutions of sociability were the common ground upon which (...) public and private met in the unstable world of eighteenth-century France. Having superimposed the "maps" of public and private spheres drawn by Habermas and Ariès upon one another, the article then goes on to examine recent studies by Joan Landes and Roger Chartier to show the implications of drawing or avoiding the false opposition between public and private spheres for our understanding of the political culture of the Old Regime and Revolution. (shrink)

"The book mounts a challenge to the notion of a clear distinction between public and private and attempts to account for the mobility of the many boundaries between the two. The first essay introduces some of those problematic boundaries in the light of the influential studies of Habermas, Koselleck, Aries and Chartier, who together have helped shape our understanding of the formation of the modern public and private spheres. A number of essays deal with the nature of public opinion in (...) relation to state control and with the role of the intelligentsia. Some investigate non-political forms of sociability and the creation of various kinds of publics within the cultural realm. Others scrutinize gender roles and the validity of the accepted correspondence of male/female to public/private in the light of women's use of the printed word. (shrink)

Through case studies of two early nineteenth-century French geologists, this article shows how relations of family and friendship were integral to determining where science took place. Digging up the traces of what I call the “affective geographies” of individual scientists that are entangled with their intellectual itineraries, I show how the practice of science is embedded in such affective relations and thus in everyday life.

Dena Goodman here offers a fresh explanation of how critical theory broke out of the mold of an earlier tradition of discourse—the mirror for princes genre—and shaped its own course in the eighteenth century. Criticism in Action provides a historical analysis of French Enlightenment texts as actions and as the focus of critical activity in which writers and their potential readers participate. Goodman approaches texts as forces that shape the thinking and acting of the individuals engaged in the act of (...) reading and presents new interpretations of major Enlightenment texts by Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Diderot. (shrink)

This essay builds on recent scholarship on Linnaeus to revise our understanding of how and why he became influential in France in the 1790s. It looks in particular at the nontaxonomic writings of Linnaeus (such as the Amoenitates Academicae) and the young men associated with two voluntary societies that emerged in Paris early in the Revolutionary decade—the Société d’Histoire Naturelle and the Société Philomatique—drawing on their minutes as well as the correspondence and other writings of their members. The essay focuses (...) on Alexandre Brongniart (1770–1847), who was an active member of both societies, and the younger men he mentored, including Ernest Coquebert de Montbret (1780–1801) and Augustin Pyramus de Candolle (1778–1841). It concludes that to be Linnaean in Revolutionary France was not simply to embrace Linnaean taxonomy and nomenclature; rather, it was to practice natural history as a form of citizenship validated by patriotic arguments for its utility to the nation that were based on Linnaeus’s theory of natural and political economy grounded in the land. (shrink)