Darnton points out that the Montpellier shifted his definitions of “bourgeois” and “estate” throughout the 400-page compendium. Yet, the twenty-first century reading analyzing these texts is seemingly unable to divorce the Marxist definition of a “bourgeois” as someone who controls the modes of production. Therefore, Montpellier’s message is effectively lost in translation and the true effect of his observations are not critically analyzed. To Montpellier, the bourgeois includes the artisans, the apprentices and journeymen, not just the masters, doctors, and lawyers; they are all city dwellers. That is the common thread which Montpellier uses to define them. In the same vein, the roles of people are constantly changing and were just as fluid in the eighteenth century. The dynamic shifts in how people are grouped and defined is exemplified through Montpellier’s discourse on
Darnton points out that the Montpellier shifted his definitions of “bourgeois” and “estate” throughout the 400-page compendium. Yet, the twenty-first century reading analyzing these texts is seemingly unable to divorce the Marxist definition of a “bourgeois” as someone who controls the modes of production. Therefore, Montpellier’s message is effectively lost in translation and the true effect of his observations are not critically analyzed. To Montpellier, the bourgeois includes the artisans, the apprentices and journeymen, not just the masters, doctors, and lawyers; they are all city dwellers. That is the common thread which Montpellier uses to define them. In the same vein, the roles of people are constantly changing and were just as fluid in the eighteenth century. The dynamic shifts in how people are grouped and defined is exemplified through Montpellier’s discourse on