1. Harsin (2002), 262 produces evidence to dispute the standard account. A recent summary of that account by Delattre (2000), 108–111 attributes it to Daniel Stern’s (alias Marie d’Agoult) contemporaneous memoir, Histoire de la Revolution de 1848. Agulhon (1983) provides historical background to the revolution and its aftermath.
2. Flaubert, Sentimental Education (cited in Agulhon 1983), 39–40.
3. Guedalla, P. (1922), 163–164.
4. Exactly how Louis Napoleon came to power has been the subject of many riveting accounts, including, of course, that of Marx (1963). Agulhon (1983) is more discreet but evaluates historical opinion and the historical record with great care.
5. The most devastating evidence has been assembled by Casselle (2000). But the edited collections by Bowie (2001) and Des Cars and Pinon (1991) already strongly suggest this, and the most recent biography of Haussmann, by Carmona (2002), recognizes that Haussmann’s Mémoires are less than reliable.
6. Janis (1986) presents Le Secq’s photos of the demolitions in 1851–1852 in full, and much of Marville’s photographic record is reproduced in De Thèzy (1994).
7. Cited in Hambourg (1981), 9.
8. Weeks (1999), 28 and Carmona (2002) confirm the account, which is based on Haussmann’s Mémoires.
9. Loyer (1988), 67.
10. Steegmuller (1950), 168.
11. Flaubert (1979b), 134.
12. See accounts by Klein (1967) and Clark (1973a).
13. Baudelaire (1981), 104–107.
14. Baudelaire (1983b), 56–57.
15. Baudelaire (1981), 402–408.
16. Baudelaire (1947), 25–27.
17. Kemple (1995) provides a very interesting discussion of Marx’s reliance upon and admiration for Balzac. See also Prawer (1978).
18. Daumier is discussed in Clark (1973a). A more conventional appraisal is given by Passeron (1979)
19. Schorske (1981).
20. Benjamin (1999). Among the many other compelling commentaries on this work, I find Frisby (1988), Gillock (1996), and Buck-Morss (1991) most useful for my purposes.
21. I cite Gaillard’s (1977) work in particular because I am a great admirer of it and have drawn extensively upon her findings in what follows.
22. Scott (1988).
23. Rancière (1989).
24. The fullest theoretical statement is laid out in Harvey (1996). The theoretical framework that informed (but did not, I hasten to add, dictate) the form of the original Paris study (that which holds good in this version) was set out in Harvey (1982).
1. Baudelaire (1965), 119–120.
2. Balzac, History of the Thirteen (HT), 311, 330.
3. Prendergast (1992), Marcus (1999), and Stierle (2001) are outstanding studies by literary critics that pay close attention to Balzac’s understanding of urban life.
4. The first volume of the Pléiade Collected Works give Balzac’s organization of the works as decided upon in 1845. The introductory essay is by Pierre-Georges Castex, and the chronology of publication and revisions of Balzac’s works is laid out by Roger Pierrot.
5. Balzac, HT, 132.
6. Jameson (1982), 157.
7. Balzac, The Peasantry, 22; The Wild Ass’s Skin (WAS), 268–269; 189.
8. Balzac, WAS, 137–138.
9. Balzac, HT, 179–184.
10. Balzac, HT, 180.
11. Balzac, HT, 82.
12. See Kemple (1995).
13. Balzac, The Peasantry, 38, 108; see also Scott (1985).
14. Balzac, The Peasantry, 215.
15. Clark’s (1973b), 120–124 account of the rising hostility to Courbet’s painting Burial at Ornans (which depicted class relations in the countryside) as it was moved from Ornans to be exhibited in Paris provides an interesting parallel. Clark comments that the Parisian bourgeois, when faced with an image that did not fit their preconceptions, were wounded and perplexed in ways they did not fully understand.
16. Balzac, Lost Illusions (LI), 170–182.
17. Balzac, HT, 33, 56, 151, 309–315: The Simmel (1971) reference is to his famous essay “The Metropolis and Mental Life.”
18. Balzac, César Birotteau, 75.
19. Balzac, HT, 311, 325; see also Poulet (1959), 137.
20. Marx (1967), 151; Balzac, Eugenie Grandet.
21. Balzac, HT, 312–318
22. Balzac, HT, 64.
23. Balzac, Cousin Bette (CB), 428.
24. Balzac, Old Goriot (OG), 249.
25. Cited in Farrant (2001), 129.
26. Balzac, HT 309–310.
27. Balzac, HT, 312–313.
28. Balzac, HT, 318–320.
29. Balzac, HT, 321.
30. Balzac, HT, 322; on working conditions, see 318.
31. Balzac, HT, 324.
32. Balzac, HT, 325.
33. Balzac, HT, 318.
34. Balzac, HT, 31, 34, 181.
35. Balzac, HT, 178.
36. Balzac, HT, 112.
37. Balzac, HT, 34, 87, 128.
38. This contrast between ranging over space and being trapped in place is an important theme both economically and politically in this period. I shall later argue that the Commune (a revolution in a place) was largely destroyed by the superior capacity of the forces of reaction to command space, and to mobilize the rest of France to crush the revolutionary movement in Paris. This was also, as was noted in the introduction, a tactic that Thiers may have urged on Louis Philippe in February 1848.
39. Marcus (1999), 74.
40. Balzac, HT, 31.
41. This point is made strongly in Dargan (1985), Farrant (2001), and Stierle (2001).
42. The passages here are from Balzac, OG, 27–33.
43. Marcus (1999).
44. Balzac, HT, 366.
45. Balzac, HT, 305.
46. Balzac, The Unknown Masterpiece.
47. Balzac, Cousin Pons (CP), 148.
48. Benjamin (1999), 19.
49. Balzac, HT, 382
50. Poulet (1959), 106.
51. Balzac, HT.
52. Cited in L. Marx (1964), 164.
53. K. Marx (1973), 539; see also Harvey (1989), part III.
54. Balzac, The Quest of the Absolute, 173–174.
55. Balzac, WAS, 53–54.
56. Balzac, WAS, 198–199.
57. Quoted in Poulet (1959), 103–105.
58. Quoted in Poulet (1959), 99–100.
59. Balzac, HT, 32–33, 324.
60. Balzac, HT, 147.
61. Balzac, OG, 304.
62. Quoted in Poulet (1959), 126.
63. Balzac, Colonel Chabert.
64. Boyer (1994), 187–197; 372–379—I find Boyer’s work very illuminating on many aspects of the problem of urban memory.
65. K. Marx (1963), 18.
66. This distinction is highlighted in Halbwachs (1992), Boyer (1994), and Benjamin (1968), particularly his “Theses on the Philosophy of History.” The quotes that follow are from Benjamin and Boyer.
67. Balzac, HT.
68. Rossi (1982), 130.
69. Ferguson (1994) makes this point convincingly.
70. K. Marx (1967), chapter 1, does a famous job of dissecting the fetishism of commodities.
71. The figure of the flaneur in nineteenth-century Paris has exercised a peculiar fascination ever since Baudelaire highlighted it. Benjamin (1999) spends a great deal of time on it. Wilson (1992) provides a useful and critical overview coupled with an outline of its history.
72. Balzac, The Physiology of Marriage, 123–124.
73. Jameson (1995), 226.
74. Balzac, HT, 190.
75. Poulet (1959), 110. See also Balzac, Louis Lambert, 246.
1. Clark (1984), 36.
2. Kantorowicz (1957).
3. Agulhon (1981).
4. Balzac, The Peasantry, 183.
5. Flaubert, Sentimental Education, 290.
6. Foucault (1984), 241.
7. Agulhon, (1981), 57.
8. César Daly’s contributions have been examined at length by Becherer (1984).
9. The texts assembled by Ionescu (1976) are very helpful, and I have made considerable use of them in what follows.
10. Hill (1975); on the role of the French historians in the 1840s, see Agulhon (1983).
11. Rose (1978) is a powerful biography of Babeuf.
12. The texts on utopian thinking assembled by Corcoran (1983) are invaluable, and I make much use of them here. The collection of reflections and analyses assembled by the Société d’Histoire de la Révolution de 1848 is also excellent. Blanqui’s life and works are considered at length in Dommanget (1926, 1957, 1970). Tristan (1843, 1982) provides both historical and political insights.
13. Benjamin (1999), 736.
14. Benjamin (1999), 25–26.
15. Durkheim (1958) goes to considerable lengths to rehabilitate Saint-Simon’s reputation, in the face of the claims of August Comte (who worked as a student with Saint-Simon but later broke with him) to have been the source of the original ideas that founded contemporary social theory.
16. Text in Ionescu (1976), 153.
17. Texts in Ionescu (1976), 80, and Taylor (1975), 32.
18. Text in Ionescu (1976), 210.
19. Rancière (1989), in a brilliant and controversial text, reconstructs the thoughts and motivations of a select group of worker-writers and -poets who contributed to the worker presses that began to form in the 1830s and 1840s.
20. Bakunin’s (1976) life of Leroux is a key source.
21. Baguley (2000) pays considerable attention to Louis Napoleon’s engagements with utopianism in the 1840s and traces some of the effects in Second Empire policies.
22. There are two useful English editions of Fourier’s works, published in 1971 and 1996; the introduction to the first, by Beecher and Bienvenue, provides useful background on his life and times. Beecher (2002) has a comprehensive biography of Considérant.
23. Beecher and Bienvenue, (1971), 36.
24. Johnson (1974), 66, provides a lot of background information on the various movements and publications while concentrating strongly on Cabet and the Icarians.
25. Cited in Corcoran (1983), 113; the collection organized by the Société d’Histoire de la Révolution de 1848 is a very rich source.
26. Sewell (1980).
27. Cited in Bakunin (1976), 99.
28. Rancière (1989).
29. Cited in Valette (1981).
30. Cited in C. Moses (1984), 92.
31. Cited in C. Moses (1984), 83, 111.
32. Vincent (1984), 144–146. There are many biographies and studies of Proudhon; I have mainly used Vincent (1984) and Hyams (1979).
33. Moss (1976) provides quite a lot of information on the associations, and Agulhon (1983) also gives them passing mention. The fundamental source is Gossez (1967).
34. See Vincent (1984), 141. Some of the speeches at the communist banquet are printed in Corcoran (1983), 72–79.
35. See Corcoran (1983), 188–196.
36. See Corcoran (1983), 81–82.
37. Johnson (1974), 107.
38. Rancière (1989), xxvi. The introduction to the English translation summarizes the responses of Johnson and Sewell to Rancière’s argument.
39. Beecher and Bienvenue (1971), 33–34.
40. The attack on the utopians began with The Communist Manifesto of 1848.
41. Piore and Sable (1984); Harvey (1989), part II.
42. Becherer (1984).
43. Quoted in Marrey (1981, 193).
44. Pinon (1991).
45. Beecher and Bienvenue (1971), 2–7.
46. Marrey (1981), 203–204.
47. See Corcoran (1983), 193.
48. Benjamin (1999), 635.
49. The figure of Perreymond has been rediscovered in recent years (along with Meynadier, Lanquentin, and, of course, César Daly). Recent sources include Marrey (1981), Papayanis (2001), Moret (2001), Roncayalo (2002), and Des Cars and Pinon (1991). There is also a brief outline of his thought in Boyer (1994).
50. Marchand (1993) pays quite a bit of attention to Meynadier’s ideas.
51. Ferguson (1994) uses the contrasts between Balzac and Flaubert to great effect.
52. Ferguson (1994), 95.
53. Flaubert, Sentimental Education (1964), 18, 257.
54. Ferguson (1994), 99.
1. Ferguson (1994) makes the revolutionary tradition the main focus of her account.
2. Chevalier (1973), 45.
3. Marx (1963, 1964); Agulhon (1983); Dautry (1977).
4. There are several biographical accounts of Haussmann’s life in addition to his somewhat unreliable Mémoires. The most complete (and therefore dullest) of these are Des Cars (1978) and Carmona (English translation 2002). Lameyre (1958) is more readable. For a lively recent account in English, see Weeks (1999).
5. Van Zanten (1994), 199–23.
6. There are several excellent accounts of the transformation of Second Empire Paris, such as Girard (1952, 1981) and Gaillard (1977); in English, the standard account by Pinkney (1958) has been thoughtfully supplemented by Jardine (1995). Marchand (1993) puts Haussmann’s works in a longer term perspective in a very perceptive way.
1. Leon (1976), 241; Clout (1977).
2. Girard (1952), 111.
3. Baudelaire (1983b), 73.
4. Plessis (1973), 110.
5. Miller (1981), 37.
6. This revolution in consumption patterns was strongly articulated according to income and class positions and pretensions, as contemporary commentators like Fournel (1858, 1865) clearly noticed.
7. Retel (1977).
8. Giedion (1941) provides a laudatory appraisal and, interestingly, Robert Moses (1942) wrote a thoughtful analysis of Haussmann’s contributions, methods, and shortcomings early in his career as he in many ways replicated Haussmann’s achievements in New York during the 1950s and 1960s (see Caro, 1974).
9. Haussmann, (1890–1893), vol. 2, 34.
10. Girard (1952), 118.
11. Greenberg (1971); Hazareesingh (1998).
12. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol 2, 202.
13. Schivelbusch (1977).
14. Zola (1954), 76–79.
1. Autin (1984); Bouvier (1967); Zola (1991).
2. Harvey (1982), chapter 10, is the basis for this argument.
3. Tudesq (1956).
4. Marx (1967), vol. 3, 592; (1973), 156.
5. Dupont-Ferrier (1925); Levy-Leboyer (1976).
6. Autin (1984); Plessis (1982).
7. Autin (1984), 186.
8. Miller (1981), 28.
9. Lescure (1980), 19.
10. Zola (1991), 117–118.
11. Zola (1954a), 76.
12. Plessis (1982), 81.
13. Duchêne (1869).
14. Autin (1984), 249–256.
15. Hyams (1979), 154–71; Vincent (1984).
16. Kelso (1936), 102.
17. Workers Commission of 1867, Rapports des délégations ouvrières (1969), vol. 1, 126.
1. Daumard (1965), 23–35. This work more generally is a fundamental source on the propertied interest in Paris during this period. Sutcliffe (1970) also is very helpful.
2. Daumard (1965), 137.
3. Gaillard (1977), 85–120.
4. Daumard (1965), 228.
5. Gaillard (1977), 136.
6. Gaillard (1977), 110–112.
7. See Pinkney (1958), 185–187; Sutcliffe (1970); 40–41; Gaillard, (1977), 27–30. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 310, 371, also provides a parallel account. See also Daumard (1965), 215.
8. Halbwachs (1928).
9. Massa-Gille (1973), chapter 5; Sutcliffe (1970), 117.
10. Zola (1954a), 108.
11. Gaillard (1977), 121–127 and Daumard (1965), 267.
12. Gaillard (1977), 104–15; 127–44; Lameyre (1958, 152).
13. Girard (1981), 186; Gaillard (1977), 82.
14. Sutcliffe (1970), 118.
15. Girard (1981), 173–175; Sutcliffe (1970), 158; Daumard (1965).
16. Autin, (1984), 186; Lameyre (1958), 140–142; Gaillard (1977), 92; Halbwachs (1909).
17. Gaillard (1977).
18. Sutcliffe (1970); Gaillard (1977), 85–100.
1. Gramsci (1971), 212–223; Zeldin (1958, 1963). A more benign view of Louis Napoleon can be found in Baguley (2000) and Carmona (2002) which seem to be part of a revisionist trend toward much greater appreciation of his contributions than was typically the case in the past.
2. Pinkney (1958); Massa-Gille (1973); Sutcliffe (1970).
3. Ferry (1868) is the key text. See also Sutcliffe (1970), 42.
4. A. Thomas (n.d.), 65.
5. Pinkney (1958), 178; the implications of debt financing are examined in Harvey (1982), 266–270.
6. Rougerie (1965), 129–134.
7. Gaillard (1977), 224–230, 269–273, 331–334; Kulstein (1969), 100.
8. Kulstein (1969); Zeldin (1958).
9. St. John (1854), 25.
10. Clark (1973a), 121; Rifkin (1979). Fournel’s (1858, 1865) accounts are very rich with detail on street life.
11. Payne (1966); A. Thomas (n.d.), 174.
12. Dalotel, Faure and, Freimuth (1980); Kulstein (1969).
13. Bellet (1967).
14. Rifkin (1979).
15. Zeldin (1958, 1963).
16. Corbon (1863), 93; Duveau (1946); Rifkin (1979); Rancière and Vauday (1988).
17. Lefebvre (1974), 370.
18. Lazare (1869, 1870).
19. This is where Marx (1963) began his inquiry.
20. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 371.
21. Gaillard (1977), 136.
22. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 200.
23. Gaillard (1977), 331–332.
24. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 197–202.
1. Corbon (1863); Sewell (1980).
2. Rancière (1989).
3. Chevalier (1950), 75.
4. Scott (1988), chapter 6; Sewell (1980).
5. Daumas and Payen (1976); Chevalier (1950); Gaillard (1977); Retel (1977); Scott (1988).
6. Cottereau (1980); Girard (1981), 215–216; Gaillard (1977), 390; Duveau (1946), 252–269.
7. Cottereau (1988), 121.
8. Gaillard (1977), 380–391.
9. Chevalier (1950), 96; Gaillard (1977), 443.
10. Duchêne (1869).
11. Plessis (1982).
12. Gaillard (1977), 286.
13. Marx (1967), vol. 1, 342; Cottereau (1988), 146–148.
14. Du Camp (1875), vol. 6, 235.
15. Gaillard (1977); 378; 446.
16. Miller (1981).
17. Daumas and Payen (1976), 147.
18. Daumas and Payen (1976), 135; Zeldin (1958), 76.
19. Hershberg (1981) makes this point very strongly through a detailed analysis of the data for nineteenth-century Philadelphia.
20. Corbon (1863).
21. Foulon (1934); Lejeune (1977).
22. Cottereau (1988), 130.
23. Lejeune and Lejeune (1984).
24. Lepidis and Jacomin (1975), 230.
25. Cottereau (1988), 144.
26. Lejeune and Lejeune (1984), 102–103; Zola (1970), 176–177.
1. McKay (1933).
2. Rougerie (1965, 1968b).
3. Hanagan (1980, 1982); Cottereau (1980), 70.
4. Sewell (1980).
5. Chevalier (1950); Gaillard (1977), Cottereau (1988), and Rancière (1989) all agree on the direction of this basic trend.
6. Retel (1977), 199–207.
7. Poulot’s (1980) account is fascinating and Varlin’s evidence comes in the Workers’ Commission of 1867, Rapport des délégations ouvrières, (1869), vol. 1, 99.
8. A. Thomas (n.d.); Sewell (1980); Hanagan (1982); Duveau (1946)
9. Rougerie (1968a); Duveau (1946).
10. Gaillard (1977), 245–246.
11. A. Thomas (n.d.), 179.
12. Poulot (1980).
13. Duveau (1946), 236–248.
14. Chevalier (1950), 96; Fribourg (1872).
15. Lazare (1869, 1870), Cochin (1864), 83; Duveau (1946), 363; Gaillard (1977), 417.
16. Chevalier (1950); Pinkney (1958), 152.
17. Price (1981); Weber (1976); for a specific example see the memoires of Nadaud (1895).
18. Chevalier (1950), 233; Pinkney (1953; 1958), 157–161; Gaillard (1977), 405; Rougerie 1965).
19. Duveau (1946), 284–295; Gaillard (1977), 406–411.
20. Duveau (1946, 327); E. Thomas (n.d.), 200.
21. Simon (1861); Leroy-Beaulieu (1868).
22. Vanier (1960), 109; Dalotel (1981).
1. Michelet (1981), 65; see also Gaillard (1977), 222–224, and Scott (1988), 147.
2. E. Thomas (1966).
3. E. Thomas (1966), chapter 1; Simon (1861).
4. Scott (1988); Miller (1981); McBride (1976, 1977–1978); Lejeune and Lejeune (1984).
5. E. Thomas (1966); Michel (1981).
6. F. Green (1965), 95.
7. Zeldin (1973), 307; Corbin (1978); Harsin (1985).
8. St. John (1854), 233–308; Lejeune and Lejeune (1984).
9. Harsin (1985); see also Poulot (1980).
10. Dalotel (1981), 134.
11. Scott (1988), 101; Cottereau (1980).
12. Rancière and Vauday (1988)
13. Dalatel (1981), 72.
14. Cottereau (1980), 25–27; Le Play (1983), 9; (1878), 5, 427–430.
15. Hellerstein (1976); McBride (1976), 21–22.
16. Michelet (1981).
17. Wilson (1992) gives a helpful critique of Pollock (1988), 62.
18. Le Play (1983), 9; Zeldin (1973), vol. 1, 293–303.
19. Berlanstein (1979–1980); Le Play (1983), 149; 274. Cottereau (1980) argues strongly for a broadly non-conflictual relation between feminism and socialism even in the face of Proudhon’s exclusions. Rancière and Vauday (1988), however, suggest otherwise.
20. Corbon (1863), 65; McLaren (1978).
21. Poulot (1980); E. Thomas (1966); C. Moses (1984).
1. Chevalier (1950), 50; Marx (1967), vol. 1, 269.
2. Fay-Sallois (1980); Chevalier (1950), 46–52; Girard (1981), 136; Gaillard (1977), 225.
3. Guerrand (1966), 85; Corbon (1863), 181; A. Thomas (n.d.), 179; Flaus (1949); Gaillard (1977), 129–31; Lameyre (1958), 174.
4. Poulot (1980), 146; Audiganne (1854), vol. 2, 379.
5. Engels (1935); Gaillard (1977), 209; Commission des Logements Insalubres de Paris (1866); Lazare (1869); Poulot (1980), 146.
6. Guerrand (1966), 105, 199.
7. Gaillard (1977), 233–267; Duveau (1946), 328–343.
8. Foulon (1934), 56–67.
9. Anderson (1970), 1975.
10. Hutton (1981).
11. Auspitz (1982).
12. Gaillard (1977), 281.
13. Girard (1981), 288–289; Gaillard (1977), 270.
14. Gaillard (1977), 416–423.
15. Foulon (1934), 20–26; Dalotel, Faure, and Freirmuth (1980); Michel (1981).
16. Duveau (1946); Le Play (1983).
17. Fay. Sallois (1980); Donzelot (1977).
1. Van Zanten (1994), 211; Truesdell (1977) devotes a whole book to this question of spectacle. Sennett’s (1978) book is by far the most interesting because it embeds an understanding of theatricality and spectacle within a more general understanding of how the capitalist city was evolving during these years. T. Clark (1984) uses the connections between commodification and spectacle to get at the sensibility deployed in the impressionist movement among the artists of the 1860s.
2. N. Green (1990), 77–80; Rancière (1988).
3. Benjamin (1973), 165–167.
4. Zola (1995), 76–77; on fashion see Vanier (1960).
5. Sennett (1978), 145–148.
6. Quoted in Bachelard, p. 192.
7. Baudelaire (1947), 52–53.
8. T. Clark (1984), 36.
9. Goncourt (1962), 53; see also Sennett (1978).
10. Haine (1996), 37; 162–163.
11. Goubert (1986), 74–76.
12. Vanier (1960), 178–180; Goncourt (1962), 53.
13. Benjamin (1973).
14. Benjamin (1973), 74.
1. Gould (1995). See also Cobb (1975); Castells (1983); Ferguson (1994).
2. Daumard (1965, 1973).
3. Chevalier (1973); Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 200.
4. Marx (1963), 75; (1964), 47; Chevalier (1973).
5. Corbon (1863), 34–48.
6. Hugo (1976), 15.
7. Sewell (1980), 259.
8. Zeldin (1973), 481.
9. Duveau (1946), 218; Kulstein (1969); Corbon (1863).
10. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 200.
11. Greenberg (1971), 80; Rougerie (1965), 75.
12. Gaillard (1977), 231.
13. Lefebvre (1974); Gaillard (1977); Greenberg (1971).
14. Paris Guide 1983 edition (1867), 170; M. Fried (1963).
15. Chevalier (1973), 300.
16. Quoted in Chevalier (1973), 198–199.
17. Margadant (1982), 106.
18. Corbon (1863), 102.
19. Reybaud (1869).
20. Copping (1858), 5.
21. Sennett (1978), 137.
22. Poulot (1980); Haine (1996); Sennett (1978), 215.
23. Gould (1995).
24. Cottereau (1988), 155; Berthier (1998); Haine (1999).
25. See Rifkin and Thomas (1988).
1. Jordan (1995) covers these aspects of Haussmann’s works particularly well.
2. N. Green (1990).
3. Reid (1991); Goubert (1986); Gandy (1999); Jordan (1995).
4. Trollope, quoted in Reid (1991), 38.
5. Pinkney (1958), 125–126.
6. Reid (1991), 30; Pinkney (1958), 132.
7. Quoted in Gandy (1999), 24.
8. Gandy (1999), 24.
1. Rifkin (1979).
2. Charlton (1959), 2.
3. Corbon (1863), 83.
4. Charlton (1959), 10; Flaubert (1982), 25; Du Camp (1875); Goncourt (1962, 275; Delacroix (1980), 96.
5. Baudelaire is quoted in Klein (1967), 86; Hugo (1976), 1047.
6. Foulon (1934); Michelet (1981), 350; Flaubert (1976), 325.
7. Chevalier (1973), 269; Scott (1988); Le Play (1878).
8. Fortescue (1983); Zeldin (1973), 39.
9. T. J. Clark (1973a, 1973b); Rubin (1980).
10. Gildea (1983), 321.
11. Fox and Weisz (1980); Weisz (1983); Williams (1965).
12. Quoted in Zeldin (1958), 101; F. Green (1965), chapter 3.
13. Rifkin (1979); Hugo (1976); Tchernoff (1906), 517.
14. Marx (1963), 15.
15. Michael Fried (1969); Baudelaire (1981).
16. Rancière and Vauday (1988).
17. Paris Guide 1983 edition (1867), 33; Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 533; Vidler (1978), 84.
18. Vidler (1978), 91.
19. Zola (1954a).
20. Veuillot (1867), ix; Ferry (1868).
21. Goncourt (1962), 61.
22. Baudelaire (1947), 94.
23. Berman (1982), 155–164; Wohlforth (1970).
24. Wohlforth (1970); Marx (1973), 163.
25. Translation by David Paul, quoted in Benjamin (1973), 57.
26. Zola, (1954a), 78–79.
1. Quoted in T. J. Clark (1973a), 16; and in Hertz (1985), 173–174.
2. St. John (1854), 91.
3. Rifkin (1979).
4. Tchernoff (1906), 506–526; Copping (1858), 80; T. J. Clark (1973a); F. Green (1965).
5. Copping (1858).
6. Quoted in Glacken (1967), 592; Gobineau (1853–1855); Biddiss (1970).
7. The myth of the noble savage is taken apart in Ellingson (2001).
8. Laurentie, quoted in Hazareesingh (1998), 127.
9. Chevalier (1973); Marchand (1993).
10. Gossmann (1974); Said (1979).
11. Hitzman (1981); Said (1979), 167.
12. Michelet (1981); Zola (1991).
13. Flaubert (1979a), 198–199.
14. Quoted in Chardak (1997); Dunbar (1978), 52.
15. T. J. Clark (1973b).
16. N. Green (1990).
17. Berman (1982), 153; Benjamin (1973); Vidler (1978).
18. Dommanget (1969).
19. St. John (1854), 11.
20. Hazareesingh (1998); Greenberg (1971), 24.
21. Haussmann (1890–1893), vol. 2, 202; St. John (1854), 14; Greenberg (1971); Gould (1995).
22. Paris Guide (1867), 30.
23. Chevalier (1973), 360–361.
24. Flaubert (1964), 334.
25. Lazare (1870), 60.
26. Cited in Lidsky (1970), 46.
27. Baudelaire, (1983b), 67; Flaubert (1979b), 49; Goncourt, from Becker (1969).
28. Hutton (1981), 66.
29. Audiganne (1854, 1865). See also Corbon (1863); Poulot (1980).
30. Vallés (1872–1873); Corbon (1863), 209; Lazare (1869, 1870, 1872).
31. Lepidis and Jacomin (1975), 285.
32. Hutton (1981); Dommanget (1926, 1969).
33. Corbon (1863), 110; Hyams (1979); Procès-verbaux de la Commission 0uvrière de 1867 (1867), 28–33.
34. Marx (1967), vol. 3, 441.
35. Sewell (1980), 243–276.
36. Corbon (1863), 122–141.
37. Moilin (1869); Bernard (2001).
38. Lissagaray (1976), 393.
39. Quoted in Lidsky (1970), 45, 115; Thomas (1966), 182.
40. The most complete study is that of Thomas (1966).
41. Hertz (1983).
42. Agulhon (1981), 99.
43. A. Thomas (n.d.), 164; Procès-verbaux de la Commission Ouvrière de 1867 (1867), 100; Moon (1975); C. Moses (1984).
44. Hyams (1979), 274.
45. D’Hericourt (1860); F. Green (1965), 95; E. Thomas (1966), 70–87.
46. Reff (1982); T. Clark (1984).
47. Agulhon (1981), 185; Hertz (1983).
48. Michelet (1981); Baudelaire (1983b), 531; Procès-verbaux de la Commission Ouvriere de 1867 (1867).
49. Simon (1861); see also Procès-verbaux de la Commision Ouvrière de 1867 (1867), 213–17; Scott (1988).
50. Dalotel (1981), 122; Procès-verbaux de la Commission Ouvrière de 1867 (1867), 233.
1. Marx (1963), 135.
2. Zeldin (1958), 10.
3. Thomas (n.d.), 192.
4. Lejeune (1977); Rougerie (1968b).
5. The battle for political consciousness is described in detail in Dalotel, Faure, and Freirmuth (1980).
1. Jonquet (1890), 54.
2. Dansette (1965); Jonquet (1890).
3. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909). This four-volume history of the building of Sacre-Coeur is a major source of information. It was privately printed and circulated, and very few copies exist. The library of the basilica has all four volumes, and others can be found in the Bibliothèque Nationale. A two volume assemblage of documents and commentaries was produced by Benoist (1992).
4. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 10–13.
5. Ibid.
6. Guillemin (1956).
7. E. Thomas (1967).
8. Lissagaray (1976).
9. Bruhat, Dautry and Tersen, (1971), 75.
10. Marx and Lenin (1968); Cerf (1971).
11. Lazare (1872); Becker (1969).
12. Bruhat, Dautry, and Tersen (1971); Edwards (1971).
13. Lissagaray (1976), 75.
14. Guillemin (1971); Bruhat, Dautry, and Tersen (1971), 104–105; Dreyfus (1928), 266.
15. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 88, 264.
16. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 264.
17. Accounts of the Commune are many and varied. I have made extensive use of Bruhat, Dautry, and Tersen (1971); Lissagaray (1976), who was a participant; Rougerie (1971); Jellinek (1937); Edwards (1971). Du Camp (1878) provides a highly partisan account from a right-wing perspective, and Lidsky (1970) assembles a collection of writings from the period hostile to the Commune. The photography of the event and its aftermath has been the subject of interest in recent years; see Noel (2000), for a wonderful collection, as well as the Réunion des Musées Nationaux (2000). The myth of the petroleuse has been thoroughly investigated by E. Thomas (1966), and Rougerie (1965) examines in detail the records of all the trials of participants to find out who participated and to get some idea of motivations.
18. Foulon (1934).
19. Audéoud is quoted in Jellinek (1937), 339. Becker (1969), 28, in his selections from Goncourt’s diary entries during the Commune period, gives the quote as being from Goncourt.
20. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 13.
21. Becker (1969), 312.
22. Guillemin (1971), 295–296; Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 2, 365.
23. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 27.
24. Jonquet (1890), 85–87.
25. Pinkney (1958), 85–87; see also Woolf (1988).
26. Dansette (1965), 340–345.
27. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 88.
28. Ibid.
29. Abadie (1988), 222–224.
30. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 244.
31. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 1, 269.
32. Dansette (1965), 356–358; Lepidis and Jacomin (1975), 271–272.
33. Ville de Paris, Procès-verbaux (August 3, October 7, and December 2, 1880).
34. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909), vol. 2, 71–73.
35. Rohault de Fleury (1903–1909) 71–76.
36. Lesourd (1973), 224–225.