What do you think?
Rate this book
The Flour War: Gender, Class, and Community in Late Ancien Regime French Society
In the spring of 1775, a series of food riots shook the villages and countryside around Paris. For decades France had been free of famine, but the fall grain harvest had been meager, and the government of the newly crowned King Louis XVI had issued an untimely edict allowing the free commerce of grain within the kingdom. Prices skyrocketed, causing riots to break out in April, first in the market town of Beaumont-sur-Oise, then sweeping through the Paris Basin for the next three weeks. Known as the Flour War, or the guerre des farines, these riots are the subject of Cynthia Bouton's fascinating study.
Building upon French historian George Rude's pioneering work, Bouton identifies communities of participants and victims in the Flour War, analyzing them according to class, occupation, gender, and location. As typically happened, crowds of common people (menu peuple) confronted those who controlled the grain-bakers, merchants, millers, cultivators, and local authorities. Bouton asks why women of the menu peuple were heavily represented in the riots, often assuming crucial roles as instigators and leaders. In most instances, the people did not steal the provisions but forced those they cornered to sell at a price the rioters deemed "just." Bouton examines this phenomenon, known as taxation populaire, and considers the growing "sophistication of purpose" of rioters by placing the Flour War within the larger context of food riots in early modern Europe."
Building upon French historian George Rude's pioneering work, Bouton identifies communities of participants and victims in the Flour War, analyzing them according to class, occupation, gender, and location. As typically happened, crowds of common people (menu peuple) confronted those who controlled the grain-bakers, merchants, millers, cultivators, and local authorities. Bouton asks why women of the menu peuple were heavily represented in the riots, often assuming crucial roles as instigators and leaders. In most instances, the people did not steal the provisions but forced those they cornered to sell at a price the rioters deemed "just." Bouton examines this phenomenon, known as taxation populaire, and considers the growing "sophistication of purpose" of rioters by placing the Flour War within the larger context of food riots in early modern Europe."
336 pages, Paperback
First published November 23, 1993
2 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
About the author
Cynthia A. Bouton
3 booksA specialist in early modern and Revolutionary Europe and the Atlantic, Cynthia Bouton is professor of history at Texas A&M University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 15, 2017
The Flour War was probably one of the last communal insurrections to occur in France prior to the French Revolution. Grain riots were not unheard of at this time, yet what makes the study of this specific tumult worthwhile are the signals it contains with regard to the changing nature of the relationship between the people and the government. Newly-crowned King Louis XVI was attempting to move toward a free market economy, and botching it up in a big way. His edicts were untimely, ill-constructed and poorly enacted. Tensions, already high in several villages, strained to their breaking point. Violence erupted. And while this sounds, from a historical perch, pretty unremarkable and par for the course, the nature of the tensions involved show it to be anything but.
Louis told his grain merchants that they no longer had to limit themselves to selling their product in the local marketplace. They could shop their grain to whomever they pleased. Nor would they be forced to do business through middlemen, as had been the practice. If you want to sell to the big city of Paris, hey, put your sacks on a wagon and come on down. Want to sell overseas? You can do that, too. In fact, the King encourages you to find the customer who most appeals and make your deal. Mon Dieu, just have at it.
Upon hearing this news, the grain merchants fell back in their chairs. (Those who had moustaches were no doubt twirling them.) Their goods, instead of being trundled off to the rural market for the price it would bear, began to be stockpiled as alternate venues were avariciously explored. Deals were made to sell the grain in other towns and other cities - grain that now did not make an appearance locally but went directly from storehouse to barge, headed for unseen destinations. The odd sacks that stayed around began to be priced more lucratively, and soon became unaffordable to many in the community.
The community was not amused.
Grain and the flour it turned into, and the bread that flour made, had long been considered a product a person had a right to. In hard times it was meant to be provided at an affordable price to those in need. This was sustenance; a matter of survival. There was, for the French villager of this era, a major moral component in the mix. Bread was something you simply didn't screw around with. It may help to understand that protesters had been known to refer to the royals as "boulanger, la boulangere, et le petit mitron" (the baker, the baker's wife, and the baker's little helper). Grain, flour and bread were symbols of the paternalistic relationship long felt by these people for their ruler - yet it is this very paternalism that a free market economy is destined to destroy.
This is the dynamic in play, and while I have admittedly over-simplified the particulars you should know that Cynthia A. Bouton does not. Hers is an exceedingly dry, academic, and compulsively thorough examination of the forces behind the Flour War - and a study I could only recommend to those who planned to do a dissertation on the subject.
Or had two long shelves of French history they were stalwartly attempting to plow their way through.
Louis told his grain merchants that they no longer had to limit themselves to selling their product in the local marketplace. They could shop their grain to whomever they pleased. Nor would they be forced to do business through middlemen, as had been the practice. If you want to sell to the big city of Paris, hey, put your sacks on a wagon and come on down. Want to sell overseas? You can do that, too. In fact, the King encourages you to find the customer who most appeals and make your deal. Mon Dieu, just have at it.
Upon hearing this news, the grain merchants fell back in their chairs. (Those who had moustaches were no doubt twirling them.) Their goods, instead of being trundled off to the rural market for the price it would bear, began to be stockpiled as alternate venues were avariciously explored. Deals were made to sell the grain in other towns and other cities - grain that now did not make an appearance locally but went directly from storehouse to barge, headed for unseen destinations. The odd sacks that stayed around began to be priced more lucratively, and soon became unaffordable to many in the community.
The community was not amused.
Grain and the flour it turned into, and the bread that flour made, had long been considered a product a person had a right to. In hard times it was meant to be provided at an affordable price to those in need. This was sustenance; a matter of survival. There was, for the French villager of this era, a major moral component in the mix. Bread was something you simply didn't screw around with. It may help to understand that protesters had been known to refer to the royals as "boulanger, la boulangere, et le petit mitron" (the baker, the baker's wife, and the baker's little helper). Grain, flour and bread were symbols of the paternalistic relationship long felt by these people for their ruler - yet it is this very paternalism that a free market economy is destined to destroy.
This is the dynamic in play, and while I have admittedly over-simplified the particulars you should know that Cynthia A. Bouton does not. Hers is an exceedingly dry, academic, and compulsively thorough examination of the forces behind the Flour War - and a study I could only recommend to those who planned to do a dissertation on the subject.
Or had two long shelves of French history they were stalwartly attempting to plow their way through.
March 2, 2015
In her The Flour War: Gender, Class, and Community in Late Ancien Régime French Society, Cynthia A. Bouton argues that the more than 300 subsistence riots in the Paris Basin in 1775 embody the growing tensions between paternalist moral economy and the capitalist values of protoindustrialized France and that they tested changing power relations of the late Ancien Régime by drawing from overlapping social networks of communities based on class, gender, and region (223, 599). Bouton writes that the Flour War stands apart from previous subsistence movements since participants represented a narrower group and transcended traditional gender roles because of the increased vulnerability of the working class (484, 549). She claims it was one manifestation of the popular discontent that would culminate in revolution (601, 612). It “cemented disparate individuals into cohesive communities” (391, 497).
Bouton organizes her arguments thematically by. She establishes from legal and tax records that subsistence was a social right traditionally ensured by the crown and that therefore Louis XIV’s decision to circumvent this paternalist tradition by freeing the grain market challenged widespread traditional values (16-18, 70, 190). The Flour War was a community movement grounded in shared ideals in which diverse, overlapping, communities demonstrated against not only grain policy but also changing power structures (24-25, 67, 82, 118, 577). An analysis of the movement on a community rather than an individual level paints a picture of the complexity of life in Ancien Régime France (27, 90). She shows how these events reveal regional (122, 443), gendered (459), and class (442) community ties of the time.
Bouton contrasts the Flour War with other food riots of the Early Modern era. She establishes that taxation populaire was already a tradition in times of hardship that people could adapt to serve their present needs (37), that both elite and working classes had participated in subsistence riots (50, that threats to one’s family’s livelihood in times of crisis lead to rioting and that women, whose foremost role is to feed their families, therefore usually dominated riots (37-38, 463). But these traditions changed with with the development of capitalism and proletarianization, which made more people more dependent on food purchasing (49, 149, 163, 296, 517) and which accompanied a decline in charity as a social institution (61-62). Also evident of the changing political climate in 1775 was the government’s harsher than usual punishment of rioters (267-269).
Gender is important in Bouton’s account. She shows that traditionally subsistence rioting was the domain of women “as an extension of their roles in the family economy” (72). She points out that while women wielded significant power in this regard, patriarchal attitudes meant that they were usually punished more leniently than men, which could be used to their advantage (73, 498). She criticizes historians for having dismissed women’s movements and therefore subsistence riots as apolitical (106, 114). In the Flour War, too, women pervaded [except in rural areas (379)], and many riot leaders were women (242, 299). But men participated more than in previous subsistence riots, which Bouton compellingly attributes to the restructuring of families under burgeoning capitalism and the “feminization” of many men by taking on traditionally female family (297, 368, 528, 538) — especially among “the food-purchasing common people” (309, 592). These men were seen as “politically more dangerous” (528) and received harsher punishments, and many blamed women for inciting their riotous behaviour (536-537).
Bouton’s book is well argued and draws successfully on a plethora of examples from primary sources, but it suffers somewhat from a lack of organization. While the chapters are organized thematically, there is a great deal of overlap and repetition, such that it reads like a series of essays rather than a cohesive text. However, its main strength stems from Bouton’s convincing and detailed interpretation of primary sources — mostly government records of arrests, taxation, and correspondence from thirteen departmental archives (624-625). From this research, she gives examples of specific events in detail to justify her interpretation provide context, showing the ties shared between participants and revealing them as a narrower section of society (506). She also draws effectively on secondary sources, mainly to contrast her evaluation with others to show the Flour War’s significance among subsistence riots as a barometer of the existing tensions between complex communities and social powers (97, 114, 423) — a fact she claims is met with “almost universal neglect” (97). The text thus imparts a general understanding of how subsistence riots have been understood as well as how the Flour War embodies people’s struggles to adapt to life under capitalism, and convincingly calls to stop perceiving food riots as apolitical manifestations of hunger (116, 517).
Despite the repetition that makes The Flour War less concise, it is a well-researched and compelling book. By carefully setting up the historical context of the Flour War as a subsistence riot and as a particularly trying time in history, and by using primary sources to illustrate some of the individual confrontations and figures involved, Bouton succeeds in viscerally presenting the complex tensions and anxieties that united and divided society in late Ancien Régime France. Her categorization of riot activity into four categories further helps to reveal the ways different communities expressed their needs and values (314). She compels this reader to agree with her thesis by showing how rioters were unmistakably drawn from the specific class of working people who were neither poor nor elite and whose families were most sensitive to fluctuations in grain price (178, 262) and how men from these families were essentially feminized and driven to take on traditionally female roles. She proves that such factors differentiate the Flour War from previous subsistence riots and convincingly attributes them to the industrialization that redefined family life, community ties, and power relations in early modern Europe (163, 443). Although she’s careful to state that most rioters were not concerned with the monarchy (405), she nevertheless shows how the Flour War embodied public dissent as previous riots had not (417) and helped to shape solidarity leading up to the revolution (483, 522, 601, 612).
WORK CITED
• Bouton, Cynthia. The Flour War: Gender, Class, and Community in Late Ancien Régime French Society. (1993) Penn State Press.
Bouton organizes her arguments thematically by. She establishes from legal and tax records that subsistence was a social right traditionally ensured by the crown and that therefore Louis XIV’s decision to circumvent this paternalist tradition by freeing the grain market challenged widespread traditional values (16-18, 70, 190). The Flour War was a community movement grounded in shared ideals in which diverse, overlapping, communities demonstrated against not only grain policy but also changing power structures (24-25, 67, 82, 118, 577). An analysis of the movement on a community rather than an individual level paints a picture of the complexity of life in Ancien Régime France (27, 90). She shows how these events reveal regional (122, 443), gendered (459), and class (442) community ties of the time.
Bouton contrasts the Flour War with other food riots of the Early Modern era. She establishes that taxation populaire was already a tradition in times of hardship that people could adapt to serve their present needs (37), that both elite and working classes had participated in subsistence riots (50, that threats to one’s family’s livelihood in times of crisis lead to rioting and that women, whose foremost role is to feed their families, therefore usually dominated riots (37-38, 463). But these traditions changed with with the development of capitalism and proletarianization, which made more people more dependent on food purchasing (49, 149, 163, 296, 517) and which accompanied a decline in charity as a social institution (61-62). Also evident of the changing political climate in 1775 was the government’s harsher than usual punishment of rioters (267-269).
Gender is important in Bouton’s account. She shows that traditionally subsistence rioting was the domain of women “as an extension of their roles in the family economy” (72). She points out that while women wielded significant power in this regard, patriarchal attitudes meant that they were usually punished more leniently than men, which could be used to their advantage (73, 498). She criticizes historians for having dismissed women’s movements and therefore subsistence riots as apolitical (106, 114). In the Flour War, too, women pervaded [except in rural areas (379)], and many riot leaders were women (242, 299). But men participated more than in previous subsistence riots, which Bouton compellingly attributes to the restructuring of families under burgeoning capitalism and the “feminization” of many men by taking on traditionally female family (297, 368, 528, 538) — especially among “the food-purchasing common people” (309, 592). These men were seen as “politically more dangerous” (528) and received harsher punishments, and many blamed women for inciting their riotous behaviour (536-537).
Bouton’s book is well argued and draws successfully on a plethora of examples from primary sources, but it suffers somewhat from a lack of organization. While the chapters are organized thematically, there is a great deal of overlap and repetition, such that it reads like a series of essays rather than a cohesive text. However, its main strength stems from Bouton’s convincing and detailed interpretation of primary sources — mostly government records of arrests, taxation, and correspondence from thirteen departmental archives (624-625). From this research, she gives examples of specific events in detail to justify her interpretation provide context, showing the ties shared between participants and revealing them as a narrower section of society (506). She also draws effectively on secondary sources, mainly to contrast her evaluation with others to show the Flour War’s significance among subsistence riots as a barometer of the existing tensions between complex communities and social powers (97, 114, 423) — a fact she claims is met with “almost universal neglect” (97). The text thus imparts a general understanding of how subsistence riots have been understood as well as how the Flour War embodies people’s struggles to adapt to life under capitalism, and convincingly calls to stop perceiving food riots as apolitical manifestations of hunger (116, 517).
Despite the repetition that makes The Flour War less concise, it is a well-researched and compelling book. By carefully setting up the historical context of the Flour War as a subsistence riot and as a particularly trying time in history, and by using primary sources to illustrate some of the individual confrontations and figures involved, Bouton succeeds in viscerally presenting the complex tensions and anxieties that united and divided society in late Ancien Régime France. Her categorization of riot activity into four categories further helps to reveal the ways different communities expressed their needs and values (314). She compels this reader to agree with her thesis by showing how rioters were unmistakably drawn from the specific class of working people who were neither poor nor elite and whose families were most sensitive to fluctuations in grain price (178, 262) and how men from these families were essentially feminized and driven to take on traditionally female roles. She proves that such factors differentiate the Flour War from previous subsistence riots and convincingly attributes them to the industrialization that redefined family life, community ties, and power relations in early modern Europe (163, 443). Although she’s careful to state that most rioters were not concerned with the monarchy (405), she nevertheless shows how the Flour War embodied public dissent as previous riots had not (417) and helped to shape solidarity leading up to the revolution (483, 522, 601, 612).
WORK CITED
• Bouton, Cynthia. The Flour War: Gender, Class, and Community in Late Ancien Régime French Society. (1993) Penn State Press.
April 12, 2008
Bouton does a good job of describing how nuanced food riots really were in 18th century France. There were many different ways to riot, many different kinds of rioters, and rioting she discusses the politics (or lack there of) behind rioting. Surprise for me: only 2% of people arrested during the riots had caused violence against another person.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews