Chiara Baravalle, On Lepore

Jill Lepore argues that, “because microhistorians’ subjects are only devices, they are less likely to fall in love with them than biographers.” It is rare that historians admit to the visceral experience of emotion that precedes their distanced analysis. Lepore makes some critical distinctions between microhistory and biography, including the difference between the evaluation of an individual versus culture, and the betrayal of subjects versus historical records. Yet, there is something about comparing microhistory to biography that is akin to the nonsensical comparison between a platonic and a romantic relationship: the intended purpose and the subsequent outcomes are incomparable. The juxtaposition of biography and microhistory downplays the empathy that a historian can unexpectedly develop through microhistorical analysis.

For all intents and purposes, nineteenth-century white middle-class fathers can be considered a subset of common individuals who do make the ‘biography’ cut, but who pass the microhistory bar. Upon embarking on this project, I had little sympathy for my subjects (‘fathers’): one the sections of my paper will be dedicated to understanding nineteenth-century American patriarchy through fatherhood. However, my research on fathers has forced me to view middle-class husbands and fathers less in terms of the binary ideology that blames them for their wives inferior socio-economic status in nineteenth-century America, and more in terms of their own frail humanity. This study has underscored that ideology and historical simplifications give the false impression of absolutes. In fact, the premise of my paper is to uncover the microhistory about nineteenth-century middle-class fatherhood that previous historians have almost completely ignored.