We will be allowed to summarize his approach in the following way: because he is a historian, Mr. Mandrou seeks first “the heart of the book” in the historical part; but, still because he is a historian, M. Mandrou said to himself, after having examined this historical part, that decidedly “the heart of the book” must be, can only be elsewhere; and, because it is not literary, it concludes that it must be in the literary part.
But, of all the historians, it is undoubtedly Mr. Roland Mousnier whose opinion has the most weight, first, because he is, as Mr. Mandrou says, “the man of the question  . “, And then because it is on his work that Goldmann claims to have mainly relied . But the opinion of Mr. Roland Mousnier is quite adamant he considers the thesis Goldmann “unsustainable  . “.
Not being a historian, we will not enter into a long discussion which, moreover, would take us too far from our subject. We will content ourselves with briefly summarizing the four fundamental objections that can be made to Goldmann’s thesis, each of which alone would be enough to ruin it. We can, first of all, dispute the reality, at least at the time when Goldmann places it, of the discomfort of the “officers”,
discomfort which is, according to him, the hidden, but first cause of the Jansenist movement. This is what Mr. René Taveneaux: “The decline of the” officers “at the expense [sic]” committed “is historically questionable: the middle of the XVII thcentury is on the contrary, for the officers, the time of hopes and ambitious projects, exposed with complacency in the theories of the Fronde. How then to see in Jansenism a sociological conflict between two fractions of the bourgeoisie? The real opposition to the dress of class in power appear much later in the parliaments of the XVIII th century; this is where Jansenism take a political color, but not as a rejection of the world  . “. frock design 2020
Secondly, it can be disputed that there was as close a relationship between Jansenism and the nobility of dress as Goldmann claims. This is what Mr. Mandrou does which evokes “sociologically largely extra-parliamentary ties”  . Of the Jansenist movement. This is also what M. Taveneaux also does: “Reducing Jansenism to the dress class schematizes excessively social data: clergymen –
among whom a considerable number of regulars – nobles and even common people, all strangers to the concerns of the officers, continued to fuel the movement. It is impossible to grasp the reality of Jansenism through a single social group,
even if one extends its limits to the infrastructure of the Third State . “. Mr. Roland Mousnier notes for his part that “many are the officers, even in the sovereign Courts, who were not Jansenists” and that “many are the Jansenists who were neither officers nor aspirants to the offices  . “.