Conclusion and Interpretation

All in all, the tables reveal a general pattern:

The men who were chosen as village officers were drawn, more or less proportionately, from the middle as well as the upper economic ranks of the community.

Stepping back to view things more broadly, village officeholding reflects key elements of the subordinate political culture in these communities. Among these elements were two rather different political tendencies, one of which was arguably "democratic."

• From the 1750s to the 1780s, the choice of village officers shows a marked preference in communal affairs for broad participation, for rotation through positions of authority and responsibility, for the sharing of the unwelcome burdens of communal life. 

• Holding a village office was scarcely a sinecure or mere privilege for each of them carried duties that were more or less onerous. The village syndic and tax collectors could be held financially responsible by the royal administration for any short fall of tax receipts.  For field wardens, citing a neighbor for trespass and its customary fine not an easy task either.

• In these respects, then, village officeholding reflected what Rousseau underscored as the foundation of democracy: the duty to share the burdens of public administration.

• The evident preference for broad participation was likely reinforced by the shared desire to prevent the wealthiest residents from dominating the village’s own domain of political authority. Since offices carried power as well as responsibilities, they were circulated so as not to be monopolized by a few influential men.

Although Restif's claim that Sacy's government functioned like an ancient republic was conscious effort at fashionable, reformist thought, the evidence at hand shows that he built his literary imitation on something real: the political  practice in rural Burgundy of broad participation in village governance.

[ Back ][ Officholding ] [ Tables ] [ Conclusion ]