Le Bonheur au féminin: stratégies narratives des romancières des Lumières <i>Le Bonheur au féminin: stratégies narratives des romancières des Lumières</i> . Par I <scp>sabelle</scp> T <scp>remblay</scp> . (Espace littéraire). Montréal: Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 2012. 184 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining happiness preoccupied eighteenth-century French intellectuals, including the women novelists whom Isabelle Tremblay discusses in her monograph, which offers ‘une étude thématique’ (p. 9) of how French women writers attempted to redefine personal happiness within the constraints imposed upon their lives. She includes a wide array of writers in her survey, from the better-known names of Lambert, Tencin, Épinay, Riccoboni, Le Prince de Beaumont, and Charrière, to the little-read works of Beccary, Robert, Villeneuve, and Kéralio. In the first half, Tremblay examines the traditions that defined the lives of the majority of women of the period: marriage, motherhood, and virtue. She argues that, while her chosen authors recounted stories of ‘une aliénation profonde’ (p. 27) within the restricted lives of women, they also championed self-respect and personal accomplishment as key components of women's true happiness. Riccoboni and Épinay used irony as a means of critiquing the ideologies responsible for women's misery within marriage, while others proposed strategies for surviving this oppressive institution, such as seclusion, flight, travel, or withdrawal from society. Motherhood, because it involved the care and education of children, was seen to compensate for a woman's lack of marital satisfaction. Virtue, as these novelists conceived it, led women to reflect independently on social norms and brought them peace of mind. In the second half, Tremblay focuses on how study, female friendship, and love helped women give meaning to their lives. Study was portrayed as offering women a sense of usefulness and increasing their self-esteem. Friendship not only enabled them to know themselves better, but provided comfort and support in their tribulations. And love, rather than passion, was depicted as steadfast, a sentiment on which women could rely during their struggles and which would impart a sense of ultimate value to their existence. In conclusion, Tremblay asserts that eighteenth-century women's fiction ‘participe à redéfinir l'archétype de l'héroïne féminine qu'incarne désormais la figure de la femme heureuse’ (p. 152). While Le Bonheur au féminin lacks a comprehensive presentation of the wider cultural debates surrounding happiness (and the author's concluding assertion is not fully substantiated), this is nonetheless a welcome reading of these under-studied women authors of the period and one that ties their contributions to an important debate within eighteenth-century society. Scholars will find much food for thought in Tremblay's study, which represents a significant step in the direction towards a better understanding of French women's fiction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".