environmental issues during the french revolution...

Environmental Issues during the French Revolution: Peasants,

Politics and Village Common Land

NOELLEPLACK

IntroductionWhile there is a rich tradition of historicalwriting on the earlymodernFrenchcountryside, there is relatively little literature on the intersection between theenvironmentandruralsociety.Indeedveryfewsocialhistorianshaverecognisedthe environment as “a critical factor affecting human agency”.1 Althoughthe founding principle of theAnnales journalwas to act as anagent de liaison between geographers, economists, sociologists and historians, landscapes wereoftendiscussed in termsof theirpermanentandquasi-permanentelements.2Forexample,FernandBraudel,inMéditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II,givesprimaryimportancetotheroleoftheenvironment,buthefailstoshowitinmotion.3EventhoughthepowerfulinfluenceoftheenvironmentwasemphasisedbyBraduellikenooneelsebefore,hisviewofitwasasanessentiallyunchangingforce.4Braudel’spupilandheirtohisintellectualthrone,EmmanuelLeRoyLaduriealsoplacedprimeimportanceonthephysicalenvironment.InhismagisterialPeasants of Languedoc,LeRoyLadurieismoresensitivetoecologicalchange.5Theworkcharacteristicallyopenswithadescriptionoftherurallandscapeofmountains,garrigues,plains,vineyardsandolives,holm-oaksandchestnuttreesofMediterraneanFrance.YetforLeRoyLaduriethisenvironmentwasinconstantfluxduringtheperiodunderinvestigationasthegarriguesandoncedepletedforestrecoveredinthethinlypopulatedlandsofthefifteenthcentury.6LeRoyLadurie

1 S.Mosley,“CommonGround:IntegratingSocialandEnvironmentalHistory”,Journal of Social History, 39(2006),915–933.

2 SeeP.Burke,The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929–89(Cambridge:PolityPress,1990),pp.22andnote44.

3 F.Braudel,The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (London:Collins,1972).

4 J.R.McNeill,“ObservationsontheNatureandCultureofEnvironmentalHistory”,History and Theory, 42(2003),5–43.

5 E.LeRoyLadurie,The Peasants of Languedoc(Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1974).6 LeRoyLadurie,Peasants of Languedoc, pp.15–19.

Environmental Issues during the French Revolution 291

wasalsooneofthefirsttoengageinclimatehistorybyexaminingharvestdatestochartweatherpatternsduringthelastmillennium.7

So to a limited extentAnnales historianswere engaged in environmentalhistoryavant la lettre.Nevertheless,bothJohnMcNeillandCarolineFordhaveclaimed that true “environmental history” has only recently taken off inFrancecompared to its initial launch inNorthAmerica during the 1970s.8 Could it bebecausetheAnnales school,whichprescribedthemethodsandproblemsformuchofthehistoryundertakeninFranceduringlasthalfcentury,didnotreallyconceiveoftherurallandscapeas“theenvironment”asthuslimitedthedevelopmentofthisfield?InfactthetermenvironnementwasrarelyusedinFrenchhistoricalcirclesbeforethe1980s.Sincethentherehavebeenseveralbookswhichhaveexploredwater and urban themes,9 but by far the overwhelming focus of most Frenchenvironmentalhistoryhasbeenonforests.

Mostofthehistoryofforests,whichcoveronequarterofFrenchterritoryandholdimportantculturalmeaning,hasbeenproducedbytheGrouped’HistoiredesForêtsFrançaisesledbyAndréeCorvol.10Someofthemostimportantrecentwork of this group has been the production of guides to archival and printedsourcesonthehistoryofenvironmentinFrancefortheeighteenthandnineteenth

7 E.LeRoyLadurie,Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate since the Year 1000 (London:Allen&Unwin,1971)and,withM.Baulant,“GrapeHarvestsfromtheFifteenththrough the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 10 (1980), 839–849.ThismethodischallengedbyJ.DeVries,“Histoireduclimatetéconomie:desfaitsnouveaux,uneinterpretationdifférente”,Annales ESC, 32 (1977),198–226andA.Guerreau,“Climatetvendanges(XIVe–XIXesiècle):révisionsetcomplements”,Histoire et Mesure, 10(1995),89–147.

8 McNeill, “Observations”, p. 29 and C. Ford, “Landscape and Environment in FrenchHistoricalandGeographicalThought:NewDirections”,French Historical Studies,24(2001),125–134.

9 A.Corbin,The Lure of the Sea: The Discovery of the Seaside in the Western World, 1750–1840 (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994);A.Guillerme,Les Temps de l’eau: la cité, l’eau et les techniques: nord de la France: fin IIIe siècle-début XIXe siècle (Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1983);J.P.Goubert,La Conquête de l’eau: l’avènement de la santé à l’âge industriel (Paris:Laffont,1986);G.Dupuy,L’Urbanisme des résaux (Paris:ArmandColin,1991);G.Massard-GuilbaudandC.Bernhardt,eds,Le Démon moderne: La pollution dans les sociétés urbaines et industrielles d’Europe(Clermont-Ferrand:Pressesdel’UBP,2002).

10 A. Corvol, ed., L’Homme aux bois: Histoire des relations de l’homme et de la forêt, XVIIe–XXe siècle (Paris:Fayard,1987);A.Corvol,La Natue en révolution: 1750–1800 (Paris:L’Harmattan,1993).AlthoughthisGrouphasdominatedFrenchforesthistory,thereareafewcontributions in English: see P.M.Bamford, “French Forest Legislation andAdministration,1600–1789”, Agricultural History, 29 (1955), 97–107 and Forests and French Sea Power, 1660–1789 (Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1956);I.Cameron,“ThePolicingofFrenchForestsinEighteenth-centuryFrance”,Past and Present Society Colloquium (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1983);H.Graham,“PolicingtheForestsofPre-industrialFrance:RounduptheUsualSuspects”,European History Quarterly, 33(2003),157–182.

292Noelle Plack

centuries.11Fromtheseworksitisclearthatthereisaneedtodistinguishbetweentheshort-termphenomenaoftheFrenchRevolutionanditslonger-termimpacts.TounderstandtheRevolutionaryenvironmentalheritagethesetwocontrastsmustbe kept inmind. On the one hand the Revolution’smaterial inscription on thelandscapemustbeexamined,andontheothertheimprintthatitleftonmentalités intermsofthesystemofprivatepropertymustalsobeconsidered.WhatiscertainisthattheRevolutionunleasheda“politicsofnature”andthiscataclysmiscentralforunlockingmuchoftheenvironmentalhistoryofeighteenthcenturyFrance.

Indeed, a substantial amount of the environmental history about modernFrancehashadthelégende noireoftheFrenchRevolutionasitsstartingpoint.12This legend contends that the Revolution of 1789 unleashed a reckless andunmitigatedenvironmentaldisasterinthecountryside.Thelégende noireplacestheblamesquarelyontheshouldersoftheFrenchpeasantrywhotookadvantageofthebreakdowninruralauthoritytoinvadeandpillageforestsandtoclearwasteland.Despite warnings and complaints from local officials and countless decrees bysuccessive revolutionary assemblies, illegal tree cutting and occupation of thevacants continueduncheckeduntil,accordingtothelegend,thereestablishmentoforderundertheEmpireandRestoration.Moderndayhistorianshaveperpetuatedthe légende noire of the French Revolution.13 In his Landscape and Memory, SimonSchamatargets1789asthedatewhenstatesupervisionofforests,whichhadbeenregulatedwithvaryingdegreesofsuccesssinceColbert,collapsed.Withtheproclamationof“liberty,equalityandfraternity”,forestswerehenceforthopentoeveryoneandassuch,theruralpoorhelpedthemselvestoasmuchwoodastheywanted.14Historians,whenwritingabouttheruralpoorandtheirrelationshiptotheenvironment,havetendedtoechotheconclusionsandassumptionsofurbanelites,whopennedofficialreportsorgavespeechesintheNationalAssembly.15

11 A.CorvolandI.Richefort,eds,Nature, environnement et paysage: L’heritage du XVIIIe siècle, guide de recherche archivistique et bibliographique(Paris:L’Harmattan,1995)andA.Corvol,ed.,Les Sources de l’histoire de l’environnement: Le XIXe siècle(Paris;L’Harmattan,1999).

12 In the first instance, see D. Woronoff, ed., Révolution et espaces forestiers (Paris:L’Harmattan,1989)andparticularly,D.Woronoff,“La‘dévastationrévolutionaire’desforêts”inthisvolume,pp.44–52.

13 SeeL.Badré,Histoire de la forêt française (Paris:Arthaud,1983),p.122;D.Solokian,“Forêts/Eauxet forêts” inDictionnaire historique de la Révolution française, ed. A.Soboul,(Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1989),pp.456–460;P.Sahlins,Forest rites: The War of the Demoiselles in Nineteenth-century France (Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard:HarvardUniversityPress, 1994), pp. 14–15; T.Whited,Forests and Peasant Politics in Modern France (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000),pp.24–25.

14 S.Schama,Landscape and Memory (London:HarperCollins,1995),pp.179–180.15 P.McPhee,‘“TheMisguidedGreedofPeasants’?PopularAttitudestotheEnvironmentin

theRevolutionof1789”,French Historical Studies, 24(2001),247–270Morerecentculturalstudiesof“nature”havealsofocusedoneliteattitudes:seeD.G.Charlton,New Images of the


It was contemporaries of the Revolution who first began to describe thedecadeafter1789astheperiodwhenamassivewaveofenvironmentaldestructioncommenced. Rougier de la Bergerie, a leading agronomist and member of theSociété d’Agriculture,producedamemoirin1801thatoutlinedthemajorcausesofecologicaldegradationsincetheRevolution.16AlthoughRougierwassensitiveto the regionalvariations inclimateandagrariansystems thatexisted inFranceduringthelateeighteenthcentury,heclaimedthatboththeinhabitantsofFranceand their governments have been culpable in the destruction of the naturalenvironment.Firstandforemost,Rougieridentifiedtheruralmasses,“lespeuplesdescampagnes”,astheprimeinstigators.Inspiredbytheirnewlyfoundfreedom,thepeasantrybelievedthat“alloftheoldrules(regardingforestsandwoodland)wereabolishedalongwithroyalty,theestatesandtheparlements”.17Thisledmanytousurpandclearapieceofwoodorwastelandortopasturetheirbeastsinforestedareasthatwerepreviouslyoff-limits.RougieralsoplacedsomeoftheblameontheRevolutionarylawof10June1793,whichauthorisedthedivisionofcommonlandandwaswidelyappliedinthesouthofFrance.

However, this légende noire of theFrenchRevolution ismisconceived inseveralways, as PeterMcPhee has argued in recentwork.18 Crucially,McPheehaspointedout thatmostof thehistoriographyof thisphenomenonhascentredon forests and the forested regions ofFrance.As discussed above,most of thiswork has been carried out by Corvol and the Groupe d’Histoire des ForêtsFrançaises,butthisofcoursedistortsandconfusesthehistoryoftheforestwiththehistoryof theenvironment.Aprimeexampleof this is theattitudeofDugasde laBoissonny: inanarticleonRevolutionary legislation, theauthordiscussesandanalysesonlylawsthatrelatetoforests.19Thisisanunfortunateconfounding,sine therewere other rural landscapes inFrance thatwere the focus of specificlegislationandexperiencedenvironmentalchangeduringtheRevolution.Thus,itisnecessarytoexpandthenotionofenvironmentalhistorytoincludenon-wooded

Natural in France: A Study in European Cultural History, 1750–1800 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984) and N. Green, The Spectacle of Nature: Landscape and Bourgeois Culture in Nineteenth-Century France (Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,1990).

16 Archives Nationales (HenceforthA. N.), F10 335, Rougier de la Bergerie,Mémoire et observations sur les abus des défrichemens et le destruction des bois et forêts avec un projet d’organisation forestière (Paris,1801).

17 Rougier, p.11.18 P.McPhee,Revolution and Environment in Southern France, 1780–1830: Peasants, Lords,

and Murder in the Corbières (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 141–147; “TheMisguidedGreedofPeasants”,247–269;The French Revolution, 1789–1799 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),pp.194–195andLiving the French Revolution (Basingstoke:Palgrave,2006),pp.218–222.

19 C.DugasdelaBoissonny,“LaLégislationrévolutionnaire”inNature, environnement et paysage,pp. 59–72.

294Noelle Plack

wastelands (vacants) and other types of rural spaces, such as common lands(biens communaux), whichwere the focus ofmuch tension, debate and reformduringtheRevolutionaryperiod.Thisarticleattemptstorectifythissituationbypresentingaplace-specificcasestudyofcommonlandreformwhichwillexaminetheintersectionofenvironmental,societalandeconomicchangefromthebottomup.AsStephenMosleyhasargued,localandregionalcasestudiesarebestsuitedto tease out the complexity of human-nature relations and how societies andenvironmentsshapeandreshapeeachother.20

The French Revolution and Common LandDuring the FrenchRevolution, village common land became a prime target forreform.TheRevolutionaryJacobinspassedadecreeon10June1793thatallowedfor the egalitarian partition of common land between all members of a villagecommunity, regardless of age or sex.21 This law was truly revolutionary, as itallowed for allmembers of the village community over the age of twenty-one,includingwomen,tocasttheirvoteinaspecialmeetingtodecidethefateofthecommons.22Ifonethirdoftheresidentswereinfavourofsuchadivision,thenallcommonland,exceptwoods,mines,andpublicareas,wouldbesubjecttopartition.ThislawwaswidelyappliedinthedepartmentsofNorth,North-EastandSouth,buthadlesssuccessinWest,South-West,CentreandAlps.23Thehistoriographyonthelawof10June1793generallyhasfallenintotwocategories.First,therehavebeennumerousregionalinvestigationsoftheimpactofthislawinthezonesofgreatestimplementation.24Thesestudieshavebeenmostconcernedwithdeterminingthescaleofsuccessfulpartitionsandthesocio-economicimpactofthechangeintenure

20 Mosley,“CommonGround”,p.921.21 Afull-textreprintoflaw,whichcontainsninety-ninearticlesinfivesections,isfoundinG.

Bourgin,Le Partage des biens communaux, documents sur la preparation de la loi du 10 juin 1793 (Paris:Imprimerienationale,1908).

22 For an analysis ofwomen’s inclusion in the law, see S.Aberdam, “Deux occasions departicipationféminineen1793:levotesurlaconstitutionetlepartagedesbienscommunaux”,Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 339(2005),17–34.

23 Foroverviewsoftheimplementationofthe10June1793decreee,seeN.Vivier,Propriété collective et identité communale: Les Biens Communaux en France 1750–1914 (Paris:PublicationsdelaSorbonne,1998),pp.169–174.

24 See,forexample,P.Guichonnet,“Bienscommunauxetpartagesrévolutionnairesdansl’anciendépartementduLéman,”,Études ruales,36(1969),7–36;P.M.Jones,“CommonRightsandAgrarianIndividualismintheSouthernMassifCentral,1750–1880”inG.LewisandC.Lucas (eds),Beyond the Terror: Essays in French Regional and Social History, 1794–1815 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1983),pp.121–151;J.-P.Rothiot,“LaQuestiondescommunauxdanslesVosges(1770–1816):triage,partageetappropriationprivée”,Annales de l’Est, 1(1999),211–245;P.Saillol,“LesBienscommunauxdansleCreusesouslaRévolution”inLa Révolution française et le monde rurale (Paris:CTHS,1989),pp.301–315.


ofcommonland.The lawof10June1793hasalsobeenat theheartof intenseideologicaldebatessurroundingthepeasantryandtheirrelationshiptotheFrenchRevolutionandagrariancapitalism.Somehistorianshavequestioned thedegreeto which small peasant proprietors were involved in the transition to capitalistagriculture, while others point to evidence which suggests that some peasantsembracedcommercialproductionandagrarianindividualism.25Thus,thelawhasbeenextensivelyexaminedintermsofitspolitical,institutional,socio-economicandideologicalsignificance,butuntilnowitsenvironmentalconsequenceswerenotrecognised.Acase-studyofthedepartmentoftheGardwillnowbepresentedtoanalysetheJacobinpartitionlawintermsofitsenvironmentalandsocio-economiceffects.

ThedepartmentoftheGardislocatedinsouthernFranceintheoldregimeprovince of Languedoc (seeMap). Its southernmost limit is theMediterraneancoastalplain,whiletheeasternborderismarkedbytheRhôneriver.Thewesternextremes of the department are dominated by the Cévennesmountains.Withinthisverydiverse landscape,perhapsalmosthalfof thesurfaceareaconsistedofsterilelandswhichwerecommunallyowned.MostofthecommonlandintheGardcameintheformofrough,rockyhillsidescoveredinscrubbybrushandfewtrees;officiallytheselandswereclassifiedasvacantsorterres en friche,butwereknownto localsasgarrigues .26 In theGardwecanestimate that twenty-fivepartitionswerevotedunderthe10June1793legislationinthedepartmentoftheGardandthat at least eighteen of thesewere actually carried out.27However, evenwhentheyweresuccessful,itwasunusualforvillagerstopartitiontheirentirestockofcommonland;itwasmostlikelyjustaportionofit.

25 This ongoing debate has produced some very stimulating inquiries. For overviews seeP.McPhee,“TheFrenchRevolution,PeasantsandCapitalism”,American Historical Review, 94 (1989), 1265–1280 andP.M. Jones, “GeorgesLefebvre and thePeasantRevolution:fiftyyears on”,French Historical Studies, 16 (1990), 545–563.Thekeyworks are:G.Lefebvre,“LaRévolutionfrançaiseetlespaysans”inEtudes sur la Révolution française (Paris:PressesUniversitaires deFrance, 1954), pp. 246–268; “ThePlaceof theRevolution in theAgrarianHistoryofFrance”inR.ForsterandO.Ranum(eds),Rural Society in France: Selections from the Annales, Economies, Sociétés et Civilisations (Baltimore:The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1977),pp.31–49andA.Ado,Paysans en Révolution: Terre, pouvoir et jacquerie 1789–1794 (Paris:Sociétédesétudesrobespierristes,1996).

26 S.V.Grangent,Description abrégée du département du Gard, rédigée en brumaire, an VIII (Nîmes,1800),p.12; for thegarrigue seeA.Bilange,“LagarriguedeNîmes”,Société Languedocienne de géographie(1942),72–107.

27 N.L.Plack,“AgrarianIndividualism,CollectivePracticesandtheFrenchRevolution:thelawof10June1793andthepartitionofcommonlandinthedepartmentoftheGard”,European History Quarterly, 35(2005),39–62.

296Noelle Plack

Map – The Department of the Gard, c . 1790

Themajorityofpartitionstookplacein thegarrigues micro-regionwhichdominatesthemiddleandeasternhalfofthedepartment.Mostofthelegaldivisionswerecarriedoutintwodistinctareas.ThefirstwastheterritorybetweenNîmesandAlèsand thesecondwasalong theeasternboarderof thedepartment in theCôtes-du-Rhône .Bothof theseareashavesimilar topographical features, that istosay theyare typicalgarrigue landscapeswithsomearable lowlandsoffsetbydryhillsidescoveredinscrubbybrush.OnlyonelegalpartitionwasmadeinthecoastalplainbetweenNîmesandtheMediterraneaninthevillageofSaint-Laurentd’Aigouze and none in the northern and western corners of the department,whicharedominatedbytheCévennesmountains.Therearemanyreasonswhyacommunitywouldnotdivideitscommonland.Thecostofimplementationmightbetoohigh,theresultingplotswouldbetoosmall,orthecommonsweresimplyavitalcomponentoftheruraleconomy,servingaspastureforlivestock,andtheirdissolutionwould be fatal to the community.However, itmust be stressed thatmanymorecommunitiesexperiencedillicitclearingoftheircommonsduringtheRevolutionary decade than the number of communes that legally divided theirlands. Some of these actions were regularised by Napoleon and the RestoredBourbonswiththelawsof9VentôseXIIand23June1819.


Onecommune thatdid successfullydivide its commonsunder the lawof10June1793wasAramon,locatedontherightbankoftheRhôneRiverbetweenAvignonandBeaucaire(seeMap).AcasestudyofthepartitionofcommonlandthattookplaceinthisvillagewillhighlightmanyofthesocialandenvironmentalfactorsthatwereattheforeduringtheRevolutionarydecade.AramonhasRomanorigins and its name derives from the Latin ara montis, meaning altar of themountain.Thecentreofthevillageisperchedonahilloverlookingtheriver,butits territory ofmostly roughgarrigue and green oakwoods stretches along theriverbankforalmost10km.Throughouttheeighteenthcentury,thesecommunallandsprovidedforthecommunity’sneeds.In1728aRoyalofficialfromtheEaux et forêts remarkedthatthecommunitypossessedawoodonanislandintheRhônefromwhich they cut and soldwood every three years.28The profits from thesesales,usually700–800livres,wouldbeusedtopayoffthecommunity’sdebtandalsotoshoreupthebanksoftheislandwhichwereexposedtofloodingfromtheRhone.29 In the 1720s it was reported that inhabitants cleared some abandonedland(bien abandonné, non valeur)andhadplanteditwithgrain,olivesandgrapevines.These individualshaddeclared theseplots,mostof themnomore thanafewhectares,andwerepayingthetaxes(taille)forthem.30Inadditiontowoodsandwaste land,Aramonpossessed(andstillpossesses today)a largeamountofcommunalgarrigues covered indry, scruffybrushanda few trees.These areasprovidedpastureforthecommunity’slivestockandheatingandcookingmaterialsfortheinhabitants.In1728,thegarrigues ofAramonwereestimatedtobearound1000hectares.31

WhentheopportunitytodivideupthecommonscameundertheRevolutionaryJacobindecree in1793, the inhabitantsofAramonweresomeof thefirst in theGardtoconveneameetingofthevillageassembly.Thismeeting,attendedbyallresidents,tookplaceon11August1793duringwhichitwasunanimouslydecidedthatthemajorityofAramon’scommonswouldnotbedivided,sincetheyconsistedofwoodedgarrigue hillsidesthatservednotonlyaspastureforthecommunity’slivestockbutalsoasapreciousresourceforthepoor.32Itwasdecided,however,thattwosectionsofcommunallandwouldbedividedupbetweenalloftheinhabitantsofAramonregardlessofageorsex.InDecember1793theexpertsnominatedbytheinhabitantsheldameetingandoutlinedthetwoareasofcommonlandthatwere

28 Archives départementales du Gard (henceforthA.D.G.)C1348Mémoire de la visite et verification des bois, garrigues, …des communautés du Dioceze d’Uzès, 1728 .

29 Thefloodingof theRhônewas addressed again in 1789 in the community’sCahier de doléances wheninhabitantsaskedthemonarchtohelpfinancethebuildingofembankmentstoprotectthebuildingsandfieldsadjacenttothemightyriver,A.D.G.C1194.

30 A.D.G.3E11Communautés et Consulat, Aramon, Biens Communaux, 1718–21 .31 A.D.G.C1348Mémoire de la visite et verification des bois, garrigues, …des communautés

du Dioceze d’Uzès, 1728 .32 A.D.G.L512Assemblage des citoyens d’Aramon domiciles, 11 août 1793 .

298Noelle Plack

tobedivided.33Thefirstwasasectionoflandlocatedinthequartier de Bertrandconsistingof 72salmées orabout48hectares.Interestingly,thislandwasformallyownedbytheci-devant seigneur andémigré noble,Sauvau.Thecommunityhadsuccessfullyre-integratedthislandunderthelawof28August1792,whichallowedvillagerstoseektherestorationofanycommonlandunjustlytakenfromthembytheirseigneurs;therestoredlandswereapprovedandrecognisedbydepartmentalofficials on 30March 1793.34 It is significant that these lands,which had beensymbolicallywonbackfromtheirformerlordduringthepassionateyearsof1792–1793,werethendividedupbetweentheinhabitantsofAramonunderthelawof10June1793.

ThesecondsectionofcommonlandthattheinhabitantsofAramondecidedto divide was 126 salmées or 94 hectares located on an island in the Rhônecalled,L’Isle du Mouton (Sheep Island).During the original deliberation,whenthedecisionwastakentodividetheselands,theinhabitantsalsodecidedthattheplotsshouldbegroupedtogetherintofamilialparcels,sothattheresultingholdingswouldbe larger andcouldbe cultivated together.Thus, thefirst sectionof landintheBertrandQuarterwasdividedupinto568familyallocations,whileSheepIslandwaspartitionedinto526familialparcels.35ThepopulationofAramonwasrecordedas569feu (households)in1794;thisevidencesuggeststhateveryfamilyinthevillagereceivedatleastoneparcelintheBertrandQuarterandsomelargerfamiliesmayalsohave received landonSheep Island.36 In1804 the legalityoftheseactionswascorroboratedwhenthemayorofAramonsubmittedtothePrefectof theGard theprocès verbal ofDecember1793and testified that thenewplotholderswerepayingthetaxes(impôts)fortheselands.37In1807,anofficialfromtheforestadministrationvisitedAramonandconfirmedthatitscommonlandconsistedwoodedgarrigues coveringanestimated1100hectares.38Intheofficialstatisticalaccount of land use in the Gard from 1842,Aramon recorded 160 hectares ofcommunalwoods,776hectaresofpastureand42hectaresofuncultivatedlands.39Thus,whenthe1842figuresareaddedtogether,theamountofcommunallandin

33 A.D.G.2O163Procès verbal des experts, s .d . (15 décembre 1793) .34 Ibid .35 Theplotsdividedin1793canbeclearlyseenonthe1813cadastralmap,whiletherecipients

ofthelandaretheregisteredtax-payers,A.D.G.1164W3Cadatre, 7 avril 1813 &3P279État des Sections .

36 D.Lacroix,Paroisses et Communes en France . Dictionnaire d’histoire administrative et démographique: Gard (Paris:ÉditionsduCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,1986),p.81.

37 A.D.G.2O163Le Maire de la ville d’Aramon au Préfet du Département du Gard, 23 Floréal XII .

38 A.D.G.2O163,Procès-Verbal de visite et d’aménagement du bois Communal d’Aramon, 24 juin 1807 .

39 H.Rivoire,Statistique du department du Gard (Nîmes,1842).


theformofgarrigues thevillageusedforwoodlandandpasturehadnotchangedmuchfromthefiguresfrom1728.TheinhabitantsofAramonwerecertainlynotrecklesslandclearerswhoruinedtheruralenvironmentinfavouroftheirindividualgainas theproponentsof the légende noire wouldhaveusbelieve. Afterall, itwastheinhabitantswhodecidedunanimouslytodividejusttwosectionsoftheircommonlandin1793,becausetherestofthelandsservedthecommunity’sneeds.

Underlying contemporary stereotypes and the discourse of irresponsiblepeasants clearing land during the Revolutionary decade lies political and classconflict.After the fall of Robespierre, the period of theDirectory (1795–1799)witnessed impassioned debates between Royalist and Jacobins over the futureofFranceand its landed territory.Deputiesonboth sidesof thepoliticaldividedebated themerits of the 10 June 1793 decree and proposed projects for lawsregarding common land during this period. Despite the fact that none of theprojectseverreachedfruitioninlegislativeterms,thedebatesovertheproposalsinthemselvesshedlightonthekeythemesoftheutilityofcommonland,republicanlandownership and peasant anarchy.One set of opinions reflectedRoyalist andconservative attitudes regarding the commons and property ownership. Theseviews came from a number of Royalist deputies and can be clearly seen in areport produced by a commission chargedwith the task of examining commonlandpartition.40Firstandforemost,theseconservativedeputiestooktheviewthatbecausecommon landswereoriginallyconcessions fromseigneurs, theyshouldremainwith property owners; so any scheme to divide these lands should onlyincludethosewhoownedlandtobeginwith.OneRoyalistdeputy,Jean-FrançoisBarailonfromtheCreuse,believedthattheinclusionofwomen,childrenandnon-proprietors, such as domestic servants or sharecroppers,was an absurdity.41 ForBarailon,the1793decreehadcausedsuchviolenceanddisorderwithenclosuresviolatedandboundariestorndownthatthegoalofthelegislativeassemblyshouldbetoreclaimrespectforpropertyandproprietors.Thus,theseconservativedeputiescalledfortherevocationofallpartitionsmadeunder10June1793anddeclaredthatifthereweretobeanynewdivisionstheyshouldfavourthelandowningclasses.

Ontheothersideofthepoliticaldivide,Jacobindeputiespraisedthelawof10June1793andthedivisionofcommonlandbecauseitwasawaytomultiplypropertyownersandattachthemtotheRepublic.Alegendsurroundingthelawof10June1793developedasthesedeputiespropagatedtheideathatpoorerpeasantsalloverFrancereceivedplotsoflandfromthisdecree.CunierfromtheBas-Rhindeclared:“Obienscommunaux…grâceàvouschacunmangelepainquesesmainsont cultivé” (O common land, thanks to you, everyone eats the bread that they

40 Thereportof15PrairialVispreservedinA.N.ADX13.ThedeputiesonthecommissionwereCouhey,Boursin,Dalby,Sainthorent&Saladin.

41 A.N.ADX13Opinion de Barailon, Conseil des Cinq-Cents, 26FructidorIV.

300Noelle Plack

havegrownwiththeirownhands).42Amodestandlessimpassionedassessmentcame from an experienced legislator and agronomist, Heurtault-Lamerville,who believed that partition was beneficial for the prosperity of the Republic.43Lamerville’s agronomic beliefs were tingedwith republican rhetoric as he alsobelievedthatthepoormembersofruralsocietywouldbenefitifthecommonswerecultivatedbecause itwas the richwhomonopolised them forpastures.BecauseofthescaleofthedebateduringtheDirectoryonewouldbeforgivenforthinkingthatallofthecommonlandinFrancehadbeendividedunderthe10June1793decree.44However,onlyasmallamountoflandwaslegallydividedunderthislawandonlyifawholehostofsocio-economicandenvironmentalfactorswereright.InourcasestudyinthevillageofAramon,itwasonlycommonlandsuitableforcultivation thatwasdivided in1793; the restwas left as roughpasturebecauseitwasstill thebestuseof the land.Thus, the ruralenvironmentconstrained theactionsofindividualsinthecountrysideregardlessofthepoliticalidealsdebatedinParis.

Conclusion FromthisstudyofcommonlandpartitionduringtheFrenchRevolutionseveralkeypointsarise.First,thelégende noire oftheFrenchRevolution,whichcharacterisesthepeasantryasadestructiveanduncontrollablemass,needstobere-examined.Because the eighteenth-century peasantry did not leave much written evidence(except for the cahiers de doléances, but even thesewerewritten by better-offmembersof village community),45 oneway to recover their opinions is throughtheiractions.Giventheopportunitytoparticipateinademocraticdecisionovertheusageofcommonland,peasantsactedintheirownbestinterests.Theymayhavevotedtodividetheircommons,butinmanycasesitwasonlyaportionofthelandthatwasatthecommunity’sdisposal.Theydidthisbecausetheyunderstoodtheruralenvironment inwhich they livedandknewof thebalancesbetweenarableandpasturerequiredintheactualpracticeofagriculture.AlthoughtherewasillegalclearingofmuchcommonlandduringtheRevolutionarydecadeandmanyofficialslamented such actions, the communities themselves tolerated them, because inmanycases these smallplotswereusedby thepoor. In theeasternGard,muchoftheillegallyclearedlandwasturnedovertoviticultureinthefirstfewdecadesofthenineteenthcentury.46Thisconcentrationoncommercialviticulturereflected

42 A.N.ADX13Opinion de Cunier, Conseil des Cinq-Cents, 3PluviôseVII .43 A.N.ADX13Opinion de Heurtault-Lamerville, Conseil des Cinq-Cents, 3PluviôseVII.44 P.M.Jones,The Peasantry in the French Revolution (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press,1988),p.153.45 G.ShapiroandJ.Markoff,Revolutionary Demands: A Content Analysis of the Cahiers de

Doléances of 1789 (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1998),pp.147–160. 46 N.Plack,Common Land, Wine and the French Revolution: Rural Society and Economy in


changesinthelargereconomy.Throughoutthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcentury the textile industry,andconsequentlypastoralism,was insteadydeclineinthesouthofFrance.47Thisoncedynamicproto-industrywouldbereplacedbyregionalspecialisation. In thecaseof lowerLanguedoc theconcentrationwouldbeviticulturalasmoreandmorelandwasturnedovertothewinegrapes.LouisDermignyhascharacterisedthesecondhalfoftheeighteenthcenturyastheperiodwhen“l’économiedesubsistencecèdelepasàcelledemarché”(thesubsistenceeconomygavewaytothemarketeconomy).48BecausemuchofthehistoriographyofviticultureinLanguedochadfocussedonthe“revolutionofthe1850s”,ithastended to neglect the earlier periodwhen the foundations for themonoculturaltakeoffwerelaid.49

ThedebatesintheNationalAssemblyduringtheDirectorydemonstratetheextent towhich the issueof common landdivisionwaspoliticised.Reactionarydeputiescharacterisedpoorerpeasantsasdisorderlyandviolent,invadingpropertiesanddestroyingenclosures.However, itmustbe remembered thatenvironmentalchange did not suddenly begin in 1789.Without doubt therewasmassive landclearanceduringtheRevolutionarydecade,butthiswaspartofalargertendwhichbeganundertheBourbonMonarchy.ThelandclearanceedictsofLouisXVinthe1760s,whichencouragedtheseactionsandprovidedtaxexemptionstothosewhoclearedandcultivatedaplotof land,beganthefervourforclearance,which theRevolutionanditslegislationonlycontinuedandextended.50Buteveneighteenth-centurylandclearancemustbeputintothelongue durée ofenvironmentalchangein the region.Human transformation of the rural ecosystem can be traced backto the Neolithic period (6000 BC) when clearing land for agriculture began inLanguedoc.51Theseearlydéfrichementscontinuedforcenturiesuntiltheyreached

Southern France, 1789–1820 (Farnham:Ashgate,2009).47 M.Albert,A. Cabrol & J.P. Piniès, Bergers et troupeaux en Languedoc et Catalogne

(Carcassonne:GARAE,1985),pp.12–13;C.Fohlen,“EnLanguedoc:vignecontredraperie”,Annales ESC,4(1949),290–297;J.K.J.Thomson,Clermont-de-Lodève 1633–1789: Fluctuations in the Prosperity of a Languedocian Cloth-making Town (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982),pp.439&447–448;C.H.Johnson,The Life and Death of Industrial Languedoc, 1700–1920 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995).

48 L.Dermingy,“GrainsduVignoble”inP.Wolff(ed.),Histoire du Languedoc (Toulouse:Privat,1967),pp.397–401.

49 R. Laurent, “Les quatres âges du vignobles du Bas-Languedoc et du Roussillon” inÉconomie et Société en Languedoc-Roussillon de 1789 à nos jours(Montpellier:UniversitéPaul-Valéry,1978),pp.11–37andG.Gavignaud-Fontaine,Le Languedoc Viticole, La Méditerranée et l’Europe au siècle dernier (XXe) (Montpellier:UniversitéPaulValéry,2000),pp.19–42.

50 McPhee,“TheMisguidedGreedofPeasants?”p.266;seealsoN.Plack“AgrarianReformandEcologicalChangeduringtheAncienRégime”,French History, 19(2005),189–210.

51 G.Jalut,“Lesdébutsdel’agricultureenFrance:lesdéfrichements”inJ.Guilaine(ed.),La Préhistoire Française: Les Civilisations Néolithiques et Protohistorique de la France, vol. II(Paris:ÉditionsduC.N.R.S.,1976),pp.180–185andJ.Guilaine,“Lesdébutsdel’agriculture”

302Noelle Plack

their peak in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.52 In fact, the characteristicMediterraneangarriguelandscapeweknowtodaywascreatedoverthecenturiesby shepherds, who burned woodland to produce the vegetation they needed topasturetheirflocks.Hence,thegarriguesthemselvesareasymbolofthecontinuityofhumaninducedecologicalchangethroughoutthemillennia.53

Second,thefocusonpoorermembersofsocietyandtheiragencyreflectsachangeinthewayhistoriansunderstandtheFrenchRevolution.Inrecentdecadestherehasbeenabacklash in the linguisticandculturalstudiesof the“discourseof revolution”, as these have tended to distort and confuse the attitudes of thephilosophes,novelistsandstatesmenwiththeactualexperiencesofpeasantsandurbanworkers.54There has been a return to trying to analyse the impact of theFrenchRevolution on the lives of ordinary people.This new, revitalised socialinterpretationfocusesontheproblemsoftransformingasocietyofhierarchytooneofcivilequalityaswellasemphasisingtheroleoffreewillandhumanchoicesindeterminingtheoutcomeoftheFrenchRevolution.55MuchofthisworkhasalsofocusedonruralFrance.Historians,suchasPeterJones,JohnMarkoffandPeterMcPhee,deemthepeasantryandtheirengagementwithnationalpoliticsascentraltounderstandingtheFrenchRevolutioninitstotality.56

Intermsoftherelationshipbetweenthepeasantryandtheenvironment,thecase study presented here demonstrates that the poor had agency andwere notsimplyacteduponfromabove.Norwastheirawarenessoftheruralenvironmentlearnedfromtheirsuperiors.PeterMcPheehasarguedthatthehistoryofwestern

inPremiers bergers et paysans de l’Occident méditerranéen (Paris:Mouton,1976),pp.56–64.52 G.Bertraud,“PourunehistoireécologiquedelaFrancerurale”inG.DubyandA.Wallon

(eds),Histoire de la France rurale (Paris:Seuil,1975),vol.I,pp.48–113.53 I.G.Simmons,Environmental History: A Concise Introduction (London:Blackwell,1993),

pp.110–112.54 W.H.Sewell, Jr. “WhateverHappened to the“Social” inSocialHistory?” in J.W.Scott

and D. Keates (eds), Schools of Thought: Twenty-Five Years of Interpretive Social Science (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),pp.209–16andtheIntroductiontohisA Rhetoric of Bourgeois Revolution: The Abbè Sieyes and “What is the Third Estate?” (Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1994),pp.1–40;O.Hufton,Women and the Limits of Citizenship in the French Revolution (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992); S. Desan, “What’s after PoliticalCulture?RecentFrenchRevolutionaryHistoriography”French Historical Studies, 23:1(2000),163–196.

55 G.Kates,“Introduction”inThe French Revolution: Recent Debates and New Controversies (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 1–20 and J.D. Popkin, “Not Over After All: The FrenchRevolution’sThirdCentury”,Journal of Modern History, 74(2002),801–821.

56 Jones,The Peasantry in the French Revolution andLiberty and Locality in Revolutionary France: Six Villages Compared, 1760–1820 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003);J.Markoff,The Abolition of Feudalism: Peasants, Lords, and Legislators in the French Revolution (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996);McPhee,Revolution and Environment in Southern FranceandLiving the French Revolution, 1789–99 .


environmentalismhastendedtofocusonelites,whoarticulatedtheessentialtruthsabouttheenvironmentdowntotheirsocial“inferiors”.57FromMcPhee’sstudyofthecahiers de doléances of1789andtheexampleoutlinedaboveofpeasantactionsregardingcommonland,itisclearthatthepoorermembersofsocietydidhaveaprofoundunderstandingof theirenvironment.Theymadedecisionsandactedintheir ownbest interests anddidnothave tobe “enlightened”by their superiorsaboutwhichcropswouldgrowondryrockyhillsidesoraboutthebalancebetweenarableandpasture.However,thechoicestheymadewerealsoconstrainedbytheirenvironment.When landwas cleared,wine grapeswere a sound choice for thenewlyclearedplotsintheGardastheysuitedboththetopographyandtheeconomicconditionsof theday.This re-focussingonpoorermembersofsocietyand theiractions regarding theenvironmentdemonstrates the fruitful fusionof socialandenvironmental history and deepens our understanding of the all-encompassingimpactoftheFrenchRevolution.

Newman University College, Birmingham, UK

57 McPhee, “The Misguided Greed of Peasants?”, pp. 268–269; see, for example, G.F.LaFreniere,“RousseauandtheEuropeanRootsofEnvironmentalism”,Environmental History Review, 14 (1990), 41–72 and S. Pincetl, “Some Origins of French Environmentalism:AnExploration”,Forest and Conservation History, 37(1993),80–89.

environmental issues during the french revolution...

Documents