In the Public Eye: A History of Reading in Modern France, 1800–1940 by James Smith Allen

Abstract

140 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE nature of the architectural orders, not to mention articles detailing Ackerman’s own thoughts on methodology. Of course every portrait (or self-portrait) is selective. Ackerman’s stress on methodological issues is timely, but the space is purchased at some cost. Ackerman passes over without commentary his pioneering work in what one might consider nontraditional fields for the architectural historian such as urban planning and military architec­ ture. Among his most notable contributions, for example, is the discussion of issues of urban planning in the Renaissance. A section of the Michelangelo book dealing with the Campidoglio is included, but absent is his valuable article on the urban development of Rome, “The Planning of Renaissance Rome, 1480—1580,” published in Rome in the Renaissance: The City and Its Myth, ed. P. A. Ramsey (Binghamton, N.Y., 1982). And, in the book about Michelangelo, Ackerman noted the importance of military architecture and technology in the career of every Renaissance architect, reminding architectural historians not to exclude these seemingly mundane matters. Urban planning and military architecture, therefore, are fields in which Ackerman has had a profound influence, as can be seen by his many students who are active in these areas today. But this is a minor matter in a volume that should bring Ackerman’s work many new friends. Nicholas Adams Dr. Adams will become editor of theJournal of the Society ofArchitectural Historians in April. He teaches at Vassar College. In the Public Eye: A History ofReading in Modern France, 1800—1940. By James Smith Allen. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991. Pp. xv + 356; illustrations, tables, notes, bibliography, index. $39.50. Despite the claim on the dustjacket, this book is not “the first broad study ofreading to focus on the period after 1800.” Martyn Lyons’s Le triomphe du livre: Une histoire sociologique de la lecture dans la France du XIXe siecle appeared in 1987. Although James Smith Allen’s study, unlike Lyons’s, extends into the 20th century, it does so in a perfunc­ tory manner. The two authors thus traverse much the same ground and draw on the same artists for their illustrations. Lyons’s treatment struck me as superior in most respects but has the drawback of being inaccessible to readers not fluent in French. Moreover, Allen’s work has some distinctive features; it contains the results ofhis own archival research and reflects his special interest in reader reception theory. In the Public Eye is divided into three main sections. Part 1, “The Historical Context,” combines a conventional survey of the produc­ tion and distribution of printed materials and of literacy rates with an unconventional treatment of “interpretative communities.” Censors TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 141 and critics, churches and schools, as well as more informal networks, are handled under this rubric. Parts 2 and 3 are both headed “Historical Interpretative Practices.” Part 2 deals with representations of reading in pictures, novels, memoirs, and journals; part 3 covers the reactions of readers to diverse literary trends and genres. The treatment is much more diffuse and disorganized than this outline suggests. Headings are unhelpful and confusing. A subdivision of a section entitled “Responses to Genre,” for example, is headed “Liter­ ature” and consists of describing reactions to a single play. Inciden­ tally, here as elsewhere (in the treatment of censorship), necessary distinctions between theatrical performance and published text are not drawn. The work as a whole has a hybrid character. A specialized mono­ graph, sampling reactions to selected works, has been grafted onto a derivative survey containing questionable generalizations. It is repeat­ edly asserted but never clearly demonstrated that reading practices changed from being “public and collective” to being “private and individual.” That silent reading was a medieval practice goes unnoted. A reference to “the church’s close coordination with the state to control publishing” (p. 108) does not allow for repeated clashes over this very issue. Treatment of class, region, and gender verges on caricature. We are told that women readers were more emotional than were male ones and went on weeping after the latter had stopped (p. 222; see also pp. 233-34, 247). In the more specialized portions, a...