Le village sous l’Ancien Régime (review)

Professor Antoine Follain (Université Marc Bloch de Strasbourg) has taken on a monumental task in his most recent book on the early modern French village, 1450–1789. The “invincible diversity” (p.424) of the Old Regime makes it difficult, if not impossible, to formulate general conclusions. The problem of defining the village, of distinguishing it from hamlets and towns, is “insoluble” (p.432). Follain believes that these problems of diversity and definition pose insurmountable obstacles to the articulation of a global typology of the Old Regime village - a traditional goal of historians of rural France. But this is not his aim. Rejecting the search for universal models, Follain argues that dynamics and process should be the focus of research into village life. In his words, we should be looking for “paths of evolution rather than types.” (p.435)

His argument is simple, convincing, and brilliant. At the beginning of the early modern period, roughly 1450, all French villages were under - and, in effect, constituted by - seigneurial authority. At the end of the period, marked by the revolutionary reforms of 1789–90, seigneurialism was abolished, and villages were transformed into elective municipalities. What interests Follain are the patterns of village evolution during the intervening 340 years. He discerns two trajectories. The first produced “municipal communities.” Predominant in the Northeast, East, and Midi, these villages were closely associated with the seigneurie. Originally, their echevins or consuls were local elites designated by and serving the interests of the seigneur. Over time, however, many of these communities appropriated seigneurial administrative and legal authority for themselves, sometimes even achieving complete independence from the seigneurie on which they had originally depended. The oligarchic and self-recruiting councils of municipal communities possessed great power - but power of seigneurial origin. Villages in Northern and Central France, however, experienced a different evolution. There, what Follain terms “parish communities” emerged when villages precociously escaped seigneurial control. Such villages were governed by general assemblies of inhabitants rather than oligarchic councils, and were thus possessed of “the spirit of participative democracy” (pp.317–18). But, having established their independence from seigneurial authority early on, they failed to appropriate for themselves the powers of the seigneurie (fiscal autonomy, rights of justice, police functions, etc.) that the municipal villages had acquired. In Northern and Central France, these powers were absorbed by the royal state which exercised them directly over the villages. Over time, the two evolutionary pathways began to converge, as municipal communities started to free themselves from seigneurial control and parish communities gained powers - notably auto-taxation - they had previously lacked. This long process of convergence was consummated by the Revolution which, Follain concludes in a Tocquevillian twist, brought to maturity trends initiated under the Old Regime.

While persuasive, Follain’s argument suffers from overstatement. He is correct to note the seigneurial origins of the municipal communities, but is on shakier ground when he asserts that they remained “subject to the seigneurie” (p.74). He supports this argument with two dubious assertions. The first is that seigneurs designated the village councilors. This was true in many Alsatian villages and may have been true in Lorraine; he cites examples from both provinces. But in my research in the village archives of Provence, I have never seen evidence that seigneurs had the right to appoint consuls. The second piece of evidence he offers is the mandatory presence at council meetings of the lieutenant of the local seigneurial court. This is undeniable. But what was the impact of the lieutenant’s presence? Follain asserts that the lieutenant was able to control council meetings, but he provides no evidence of this. I have read the deliberations of dozens of Provençal communities across the 17^th and 18^th centuries and found that lieutenants never spoke in council, never proposed policy, and never ruled on the council’s resolutions. Council transcripts dutifully invoke the lieutenant’s presence, but this seems like a formality. Perhaps he exerted influence behind the scenes, inhibiting the council’s...