Peasant Revolt in France and England: a Comparison By C. S. L. DAVIES R.OFESSOR. Mousnier's Fureurs Pay- had, after all, little contact with each other, so p sannes, published in I967, is now avail- that merely chronological coincidence is not able in English with a rather less lively in itself significant. Fortunately an excellent title? It is an attempt to broaden the contro- review from the standpoint of the three coun- versy on the nature of French peasant revolts tries concerned is available by a troika of that has raged since the publication of Boris American historians. 8 My purpose is rather to Porclmev's book in I948, by comparing attempt to see how far Professor Mousnier's revolts fix seventeenth-century France, rZussia, typology of peasant revolt is applicable to and China. 2 For Frmlce, these consist of the England. He has specifically refrained from .Croquants of Saintonge, Augoumois, and making this particular comparison because Poitou in x636 and of P~rigord in I637, the another book of the same series is to deal with Nu-Pieds of Normandy in I639, and the Ton'& England. But since that work is concerned hens of Brittany in I675. For Russia, he with the Puritan R.evolution which, con- examines peasant involvement in the dynastic sidered as a "peasant revolt" was in a sense struggles kalown as the "Time of Troubles" at the revolt that never was, I feel justified in the begimfing of the seventeenth century, most attempting the comparison although inevit- notably that led by the ex-slave Bolomikov; ably it is not possible to do more thml treat a and the revolt of Stenka Razin, a Cossack who few general themes. 4 won considerable support fi'om the peasantry Fundamental to Professor Mousnier's views of the 1Lussi0alinterior during the years I667- on French society is his concept of a "society 7x. The Chinese example is provided by the of orders" as against a "class society." Pro- revolts led by Li Tzu-cheng and Ch0aig Hsien- fessor Porclmev held that France was "ftmda- chung which in the I64o's paralysed the Ming mentally feudal," that whatever the apparent r~gime and opened the way for the Manchu conflicts between the military nobility and the conquest. royal officials the state was in essentials an Professor Mousnier is eager to stress that his instrument of the landowning class, and that own expertise is confined to France. Compari- peasant revolts, therefore, even when they sons on this inter-continental scale are useful beganas protests against royal taxation, quick- in suggesting questions to be asked. One won- ly developed into a generalized attack on ders, though, whether they are meaningful psoperty, leading to a rally by the propertied comparisons, since the circmnstances of the classes to the forces of repression. Mousnier, three societies were so very different. They on the other hand, stresses far more the divi- 1 I'Zoland Mousifier, Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth Centmy France, Russia and China, transl. Brian Pearce, as no. I in 'The Great P,.evolutions Series', Allen & Unwin, 197 I. £4" 50 cloth, £2.75 paperback. -" Boris Porchnev [Porshnev], Les Soulhvements Populaires en France de 16"-3 ct i 648, Paris I963. The Kussian edition was published in I948 and a German translation in I954. For reviews of the controversy see Menna Prestwich in Eng. Hist. Rev., rxxxI, I966, pp. 565-72; J. H. M. Salmon, 'Venal Office and Popular Sedition in Z France', Past and Present, no. 37, x967, pp. 21-43 ; and rz. Mandrou in Rewle Historique, vol. 24~, I969, pp. -i 29-4O. For a useful survey of peasant revolts in Europe generally in the period 155o-I66o, see Henry Kamen, The h'on Century, I97I, ch. Io. M. O. Gately, A. Lloyd Moore, andJ. E. Wills, Jr, 'Seventeenth Century Peasant "Furies": some Problems of Comparative History', Past and Present, no. 5I, I97I, pp. 63-80. 41 have used some of the material I presented in an attempt to analyse English peasant revolts for French historians published in Amlales E.S.C., vol. 24, I969, pp. 24-6o. :~i~ !i~i .i~ I22 iiill 1:51~i ~; :! !ii I PEASANT REVOLT I23 sions among the privileged group.1 Fortun- their hostility was directed primarily against ately we need not now consider how far these tax-collectors.S Mousnier concedes that revolts two concepts are in fact opposed or how far could sometimes escalate into more general they merely complement each other, as far as attacks on the social order; for instance in the general structure of society is concerned. Brittany in z675. But where Porclmev sees The practical result, from the point of view of such escalation as natural, the sttrfacing of peasant movements, is that Mousnier stresses normally repressed class antagonisms, Mous- far more than Porclmev the importance of nier looks to exceptional conditions; in this "vertical" as opposed to "horizontal" loyal- case, a nobility unusually poor who, because ties. On the one hand, the lord felt obligations of their exceptional judicial privileges, united to his peasants. On the other, peasants were the roles of lord and of government agent in inclined to trust and. follow their lords. Local the eyes of the peasantry. feeling was strong, outsiders distrusted. The When they actually describe what hap- privileges of a partictdar town, of a historic pened, there is far less difference between the province, could be asserted against the cen- accounts of Porchnev and of Mousnier than tralizing tendencies of the monarchy, em- their theoretical constructs might lead us to bodied in the tax collector. "Peasant revolt" expect. By comparison, their analyses seem in a class sense was rare; so-called peasant re- somewhat mechanistic attempts to force com- volts were caused by noble incitement, or at plex social realities into predetermined theor- least comlivance, and were often in fact led by etical moulds. Several criticisms, however, nobles; the peasants delnanded no funda- can be made of Mousnier's approach in this mental change in the social structure but book. Although he is the author of a compre- mere]y the return of the good old customs; hensive questiom~aire for the use of students of and these customs were so localized, so particu- revolts, his analysis of causes is surprisingly lar, that a combination of the peasants of unsystematic; it is not always possible to dis- different provinces into a national revolt was cover, for instance, the fiscal situation in a given unlikely, even unthinkable. year, the state of the harvest, the geographical Any general exposition of Professor Mous- and social structure of the affected area, essen- nier's views is bound to over-simplify them. tial biographical information about leaders He is not dcnyhlg the existence of peasant (even La Mothe la Forest), and so on. 4 The revolts; he sees a radical difference between, evidence for involvement by individual nobles say, the Norman Nu-pieds of I639 and the as leaders stems (inevitably) from reports of initiatives of ParIements and of nobles during government agents, who were possibly in- the Frondes. Colmivance, rather than corpor- clined to underestimate the possibility of ate leadership, is what he stresses as the contri- popular initiative and to look for a scapegoat bution of the upper orders. Nobles did lead among the respectable classes. Moreover, in peasant revolts, but they tended to be excep- picking Oll the seventeenth century Mousnier tional individuals, such as La Mothe la Forest, has, possibly, selected a period peculiarly leader of the P&igord revolt of I637, rather favourable to his interpretation. By contrast than the nobility of the province as a whole. "° the social disturbances which accompanied the Nevertheless, noble imquence and the peasant's Wars of tkeligion in the sixteenth century (a respect for the social order are shown in the period curiously neglected by French social programmes of rebels and in their objectives; historians) reveal an acutely class-conscious z Peasant Uprisings, pp. 1-31 ; for a general discussionof the applicabilityof Professor Mousnier's classifica- tion see 1k. Mousnier(ed.), Probl~mesde Stratification Sociale (Actes du ColloqueInternational, 1966), Paris, 1968. "- Peasant Uprisings, ch. 4; cf. Porchnev, pp. 76-8o. 3 Cf. the similarity of aim between the peasants of Angoumois, who revolted in 1636, and the nobility of the sameregion, as shown in their cahierfor the projectedEstates-General of i649.--rz. Mousnier,J-P. Labatut, J. Durand (eds.), Probl~mes de Stratification Sociale, Deux Cahiers de ta Noblesse... 1649-51, Paris, 1965. 4 For the questionnairesee P. Deyon, 'lkecherchessur les Soul~vementsPopulaires en France de 1483 ~ 1787', Revue du Nord, xliv, 1962, pp. 281-9o. Although designedfor French revolts it is a valuable aide-m6moirefor analysis of peasant movements elsewhere. i,i'i!i I:?' THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ! 7:! )~ peasantry prepared to deny landlords their immunity of England, was strikingly shown by dues and clergy their tithes} the events of the I64o s. The English CivilWar Nevertheless, Professor Mousnier's stress on though accompanied by innumerable riots and ii : q . vertical solidarities is surely right and provides demolitions of fences, saw no fully fledged a useful working hypothesis for the student of peasant rebellions, tmless the activities of the popular revolt; revolts may not always have Clubmen qualify; indeed, one of the most re- been instigated by the upper-classes, or even markable features of the Puritan P.evolution by maverick individual noblemen, but where was the failure of the English cotmtryman to they were not there were special circumstances achieve, or even by and large to demand an which need explanation. To approach the improvement in his tenurial status, in sharp problem from the other angle, of a class- contrasts to the French peasant of W89.