ABSTRACT
The rural community is only partly dependent on the seigneurie and the state. It is above all an independent community, and its inhabitants manage their affairs by themselves. To study these facts, the historian depends on the archives. Many sources have disappeared, but enough remain to understand how village government was organised; What did peasants do on their own? What business did they manage by collaborating with the Church? With the seigneurie? With the province or with the representatives of the state? The subject has an important historiographical aspect: at one time, elites and historians despised peasants, mocked their inability to govern themselves and distorted their history; At other times the perception of the peasants was more favourable to them, and they were made an example for the democracy under construction. In both cases, this is not necessarily an accurate presentation of the administration of the villages by their inhabitants. Our article presents the issues and biases of a rural community history; the complexity of a global “history of the village” based on more than 40,000 particular histories in different provinces; the general principles of village important historiographical aspect: at one time, elites and historians despised peasants, mocked their inability to govern themselves and distorted their history; At other times the perception of the peasants was more favourable to them, and they were made an example for the democracy under construction. In both cases, this is not necessarily an accurate presentation of the administration of the villages by their inhabitants. Our article presents the issues and biases of a rural community history; the complexity of a global “history of the village” based on more than 40,000 particular histories in different provinces; the general principles of village administration and the main developments from the early 16th century to the late 18th century.
