Dutton, Paul V.

OpenKnowledge@NAU

Rural Communism in France, 1920–1939. By Laird Boswell (Ithaca, Cor-nell University Press, 1999) 266 pp. $47.50This book should have been written long ago. Rural militants and sup-porters played a major role in the electoral success of the French Com-munist Party (pcf) between the world wars. In fact, as Boswell notes inhis introduction, the pcf remained as the largest communist party in theWest after Adolf Hitler banned its German counterpart in 1933. If ruralbackers were instrumental in sustaining such an important communistmovement during the turbulent (and relatively well-studied) interwaryears, one would think that a signiªcant literature on the phenomenonwould have emerged long ago. Yet, Boswell’s study falls on mostlyparched ground. Previous explanations rely on difªcult-to-examine left-ist political traditions that date to the turmoil of 1848. These studies pur-port to explain voting habits by a sort of Newtonian law wherebysuccessive generations of rural voters consistently rewarded parties thatemerged further to the left—toujours plus à gauche. This theory has ruralvoters falling into the laps of the pcf as if by gravity. But Boswell willhave none of it. His approach takes rural communism on its own terms,in its own context, and by its own voices. Boswell hypothesizes thatfrom “the point of the view of the peasantry, rural communism was acoherent response to unfulªlled desires for political and social reform,the fears born of the Great War, the crisis of a quickly declining ruralsector in search of salvation and identity” (7). He make his case using adiverse mix of evidence and methodological approaches.The book has a little something for everyone. It is a regional study,in the sense that it focuses on the three departments of the Limousin(Corrèze, Creuse, and Haute Vienne) and the neighboring departmentof Dordogne. Based on data gathered from these interwar strongholds ofrural communism, Boswell carefully, but convincingly, generalizes to abroader political landscape.Archival and published sources from national, departmental, and lo-cal archives abound, but two particularly helpful methodologies domi-nate the body of the text. The ªrst is electoral geography. Boswellmarshals an impressive battery of inferential statistics to explain leftiststrength in the countryside. Correlational analyses distinguish the com-munist vote from other political parties—spatially, historically, structur-ally—and show that the pcf enjoyed an unusually stable implantation atthe village and communal levels. Boswell bolsters these ªndings with anecological regression analysis in which he persuasively culls individual-level voting behavior from broader electoral outcomes.Having demonstrated a strikingly stable communist support andsketched its social composition, Boswell turns to more common multi-ple regression analysis in order to examine the interaction of political be-havior, demography, population density, religion, and farm structure.The results permit Boswell to question several long-held theories. Forexample, he concludes that pcf support did not originate from what hadbeen assumed to be its natural adherents—the most proletarianized and470 | PAUL V. DUTTONpoorest of rural inhabitants (landless agricultural workers and sharecrop-pers). Rather, he ªnds the Party’s faithful supporters in “a balanced mixof small-holding peasants, tenant farmers, agricultural workers, tempo-rary migrants, artisans, and shopkeepers” (89).Boswell’s quantitative analysis is matched by evidence garneredfrom oral interviews with thirty-four surviving pcf militants. ThoughBoswell quickly concedes a lack of statistical representation among hissubjects, these interviews provide an indispensable texture to the study.Using them, Boswell skillfully interprets his subjects’ worldviews andhow they contributed to their support for the Party.Boswell’s study is an elegant history that greatly complicates ourview of communism in France and elsewhere. More might have beensaid about the Popular Front and the peasantry’s perceptions of its effortsto stabilize grain prices and enact social welfare in the countryside. Butthese are minor quibbles. Most important is the contribution that RuralCommunism in France makes to a growing literature that interrogates ourpresumptions about what is “urban” and what is “rural.” On this count,Boswell’s work is a treasure.Paul V. DuttonNorthern Arizona UniversityCosimo De’Medici and the Florentine Renaissance. By Dale Kent (New Ha-ven, Yale University Press, 2000) 537 pp. $39.96That we know so much about ªfteenth-century Florence is not merelythe result of its appeal as the setting for one of the “golden ages” thatshaped the modern world. It is also due to the extraordinary riches of thecity’s archives. Historians are naturally drawn to evidence, and the Flor-entines were lavish both in what they recorded and in what they pre-served. There is probably no other place in the world, except perhapsVenice, about which we can know so much, despite the passage of 500years.Despite the wealth of information, however, Cosimo de Medici,the man who more than any other embodied this golden age, remainsenigmatic and elusive. His public achievements are well known: theenormous wealth he accumulated as the head of a huge internationalbank; his political and diplomatic efforts as he rose to dominate Florenceand then to represent its interests on a broader stage; his building pro-jects; and his patronage of the great artists of his time, notably FilippoBrunelleschi, Donatello, and Fra Angelico. But he was not a man wholet outsiders into his private world, and, as a result, historians have longbeen divided about the larger aims that he pursued. Was he seeking tomake himself the “prince” of Florence? Did he use his wealth mainly tofurther his political ambitions? In particular, was his patronage of the artsprimarily another means to that end—that is, were his buildings and hiscommissions intended as demonstrations of his wealth and power?REVIEWS | 471

Rural communism in France, 1920-1939 (review)

Rural Communism in France, 1920–1939. By Laird Boswell (Ithaca, Cor-
nell University Press, 1999) 266 pp. $47.50
This book should have been written long ago. Rural militants and sup-
porters played a major role in the electoral success of the French Com-
munist Party (pcf) between the world wars. In fact, as Boswell notes in
his introduction, the pcf remained as the largest communist party in the
West after Adolf Hitler banned its German counterpart in 1933. If rural
backers were instrumental in sustaining such an important communist
movement during the turbulent (and relatively well-studied) interwar
years, one would think that a signiªcant literature on the phenomenon
would have emerged long ago. Yet, Boswell’s study falls on mostly
parched ground. Previous explanations rely on difªcult-to-examine left-
ist political traditions that date to the turmoil of 1848. These studies pur-
port to explain voting habits by a sort of Newtonian law whereby
successive generations of rural voters consistently rewarded parties that
emerged further to the left—toujours plus à gauche. This theory has rural
voters falling into the laps of the pcf as if by gravity. But Boswell will
have none of it. His approach takes rural communism on its own terms,
in its own context, and by its own voices. Boswell hypothesizes that
from “the point of the view of the peasantry, rural communism was a
coherent response to unfulªlled desires for political and social reform,
the fears born of the Great War, the crisis of a quickly declining rural
sector in search of salvation and identity” (7). He make his case using a
diverse mix of evidence and methodological approaches.
The book has a little something for everyone. It is a regional study,
in the sense that it focuses on the three departments of the Limousin
(Corrèze, Creuse, and Haute Vienne) and the neighboring department
of Dordogne. Based on data gathered from these interwar strongholds of
rural communism, Boswell carefully, but convincingly, generalizes to a
broader political landscape.
Archival and published sources from national, departmental, and lo-
cal archives abound, but two particularly helpful methodologies domi-
nate the body of the text. The ªrst is electoral geography. Boswell
marshals an impressive battery of inferential statistics to explain leftist
strength in the countryside. Correlational analyses distinguish the com-
munist vote from other political parties—spatially, historically, structur-
ally—and show that the pcf enjoyed an unusually stable implantation at
the village and communal levels. Boswell bolsters these ªndings with an
ecological regression analysis in which he persuasively culls individual-
level voting behavior from broader electoral outcomes.
Having demonstrated a strikingly stable communist support and
sketched its social composition, Boswell turns to more common multi-
ple regression analysis in order to examine the interaction of political be-
havior, demography, population density, religion, and farm structure.
The results permit Boswell to question several long-held theories. For
example, he concludes that pcf support did not originate from what had
been assumed to be its natural adherents—the most proletarianized and
470 | PAUL V. DUTTON
poorest of rural inhabitants (landless agricultural workers and sharecrop-
pers). Rather, he ªnds the Party’s faithful supporters in “a balanced mix
of small-holding peasants, tenant farmers, agricultural workers, tempo-
rary migrants, artisans, and shopkeepers” (89).
Boswell’s quantitative analysis is matched by evidence garnered
from oral interviews with thirty-four surviving pcf militants. Though
Boswell quickly concedes a lack of statistical representation among his
subjects, these interviews provide an indispensable texture to the study.
Using them, Boswell skillfully interprets his subjects’ worldviews and
how they contributed to their support for the Party.
Boswell’s study is an elegant history that greatly complicates our
view of communism in France and elsewhere. More might have been
said about the Popular Front and the peasantry’s perceptions of its efforts
to stabilize grain prices and enact social welfare in the countryside. But
these are minor quibbles. Most important is the contribution that Rural
Communism in France makes to a growing literature that interrogates our
presumptions about what is “urban” and what is “rural.” On this count,
Boswell’s work is a treasure.
Paul V. Dutton
Northern Arizona University
Cosimo De’Medici and the Florentine Renaissance. By Dale Kent (New Ha-
ven, Yale University Press, 2000) 537 pp. $39.96
That we know so much about ªfteenth-century Florence is not merely
the result of its appeal as the setting for one of the “golden ages” that
shaped the modern world. It is also due to the extraordinary riches of the
city’s archives. Historians are naturally drawn to evidence, and the Flor-
entines were lavish both in what they recorded and in what they pre-
served. There is probably no other place in the world, except perhaps
Venice, about which we can know so much, despite the passage of 500
years.
Despite the wealth of information, however, Cosimo de Medici,
the man who more than any other embodied this golden age, remains
enigmatic and elusive. His public achievements are well known: the
enormous wealth he accumulated as the head of a huge international
bank; his political and diplomatic efforts as he rose to dominate Florence
and then to represent its interests on a broader stage; his building pro-
jects; and his patronage of the great artists of his time, notably Filippo
Brunelleschi, Donatello, and Fra Angelico. But he was not a man who
let outsiders into his private world, and, as a result, historians have long
been divided about the larger aims that he pursued. Was he seeking to
make himself the “prince” of Florence? Did he use his wealth mainly to
further his political ambitions? In particular, was his patronage of the arts
primarily another means to that end—that is, were his buildings and his
commissions intended as demonstrations of his wealth and power?
REVIEWS | 471


http://openknowledge.nau.edu/941/7/Dutton_P_1999_Review_Rual_Communism_France%281%29.pdf

Rural communism in France, 1920-1939 (review)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenKnowledge@NAU

OpenKnowledge@NAU