Of course, the fact remains that there is a relatively large number of robins among supporters of Jansenism. But before adopting Goldmann’s explanation, one should ask oneself if there are not others, simpler and more likely. This is what M, Taveneaux does: “What reasons,” he writes, “account for this union of the officer bourgeoisie and Jansenism? “And he replied:” Some are contingent: the magistracy, defiant with regard to the company of Jesus, ultramontanism and Roman enterprises, saw in the Jansenists natural allies for the defense of the maxims of the kingdom and liberties of the Church of France; Jansenism quickly became colored with Gallicanism. But there is a land link, almost organic, between Jansenism and bourgeoisie. The bourgeois has been, in the modern world, the free man par excellence: held by his condition outside the seigniorial hierarchies, he escapes the ties of dependence which, in the society of the Old Regime, regulate the relationships between men and goods. This autonomy, originally legal and economic, has been transposed into the realm of consciousness. There lies the meeting ground between Jansenism and bourgeoisie; both blur the intermediaries in devotion, they tend to level the hierarchies, grant a privileged place to the interior life and to the moral reform, superior in their eyes to the liturgical splendors and even to the sacraments practiced without measure. In short, both personalize religion,  . “. Mr. Roland Mousnier points out for his part, and this reason may well be the most important, that robins, because they are cultivated and have leisure, constitute the social layer in which life has developed most intense intellectual. It is therefore with them that artistic or intellectual currents, whatever they are, naturally meet the most echoes frock design 2020.
Thirdly, it may be very strange that socio-economic dissatisfaction was expressed in such a roundabout way. It was already, when Goldmann had only explained his ideas in articles, what Mr. Léo Hamon objected to him in the general discussion which closed the conference on Pascal which was held in November 1954 in Royaumont: “What you do not explain in this article  , this is why this uneasiness of these social classes has focused on all the intellectual themes of Jansenism. If I can speak a Sorelian language, why is Jansenism, in the doctrinal sense of the term, which provided the myth of unease and concern for the classes that you are analyzing, why this dissatisfaction, this aspiration?  . “This is also Mr. Taveneaux’s point of view:” It is difficult to see the reasons which would have brought a crisis, economic in its origins, to express oneself in doctrinal or spiritual terms . “. Certainly, and many politicians or business leaders would no doubt wish that, like that of the robins of the 17th century, the dissatisfaction of their citizens or their employees was always expressed in such a indirect way that ‘It took three centuries and an exceptionally perceptive researcher to finally understand it. Also, when Goldmann wrote, as we have seen, that “it would be useless to insist at length on the link between the economic and social situation of officers in the 17th century and Jansenist ideology”, it is difficult not to share the astonishment of Mr. Serge Doubrovsky: “It is paradoxical that Goldmann judges” useless to  . “.