Office holding:  Evidence from Five Burgundian Villages

Although the thesis of fabrication seems compelling, it is important to ask how in fact village government functioned? Did oligarchic forms prevail as circumstances would suggest?

To pursue these questions we can draw on the evidence of five villages: the three Tart villages that have already been introduced and those of Longecourt and Thenissey.  The former bordered Tart-le-Haut to the south and was the home of the Marquis of Longecourt, the lord of Longecourt and the three Tarts.  Thennisey was located in a more remote region, northwest of the provincial capital of Dijon, and about a half day's walk from Sacy.

Every year in each of these communties, the village assembly named seven men to serve as its officers:

• a provost (procureur syndic) who served as the village chief executive;
• two collectors (asséeurs) who shared the weighty responsibility of keeping the tax rolls and collecting taxes;
• two counsellors (prudhommes) who inventoried the possessions of deceased residents, inspected chimneys, and helped to adjudicate minor disputes and police the village;
• and two field wardens (messiers) who, charged with the security of fields and crops, investigated incidents of trespass and damage and cited the offending party in the seigneurial court.

These nominations were recorded in the annual meeting of the lord's court, when the officers were formally installed in their positions.

To get gauge the economic standing of the heads of households, we can consult the list of royal tax assessments, for the assessment were based more or less well on annual income.

With these data, we can examine the possible relationship between officeholding and economic standing from the 1750s to the eve of the Revolution. The results, summarized in the following tables below, suggest that village government was, in fact, rather more "democratic" and less oligarchic than expected.

 [ Next ][ Officholding ] [ Tables ] [ Conclusion ]