¹ Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 115, 117, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Skocpol, , States and Social Revolutions, p. 116.Google Scholar

³ Skocpol, , States and Social Revolutions, pp. 116–17.Google Scholar

⁴ Skocpol, , States and Social Revolutions, p. 116.Google Scholar

⁵ On the loss of a check on exploitation provided by the central government when the Ching dynasty collapsed, see Rosenberg, William G. and Young, Marilyn B., Transforming Russia and China: Revolutionary Struggle in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 82Google Scholar; Thaxton, Ralph, ‘On Peasant Revolution and National Resistance: Toward a Theory of Peasant Mobilization and Revolutionary War with Special Reference to Modern China’, World Politics, 30 (1977), 24–57, pp. 27–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Skocpol, , States and Social Revolutions, pp. 150–1.Google Scholar

⁷ See Salmon, J. H. M., ‘Venality of Office and Popular Sedition in Seventeenth Century France’, Past and Present, 37 (1967), 21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pillorget, René, Les Mouvements insurrectionists de Provence entre 1598 et 1715 (Paris: Pédome, 1975)Google Scholar; Foisil, Madeline, La Révolte ties nu-pieds el les révoltes normandes tie 1639 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970)Google Scholar; Garlan, Yvon and Nièvres, Charles, Les Révoltes bretonnes de 1675: papier timbré et bonnets rouges (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1975)Google Scholar; Bercé, Yves, Histoire des croquants: études de soulèvements populaires au XVII siècle dans le sud-ouest de la France (Genève: Librairie Droz, 1974), 2 volumesGoogle Scholar. On the shift towards indirect taxes and the visibility of the state, see for example, Hufton, Olwen H., ‘Attitudes Towards Authority in Eighteenth Century Languedoc’, Social History, 3 (1978), 281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ardant, Gabriel, Théorie sociologique de l'impôt (Paris: SEVPEN, 1965), Vol. 2, p. 881Google Scholar. On the king's representatives at the local level, see for example the excellent case study by Root, Hilton Lewis, ‘Challenging the Seigneurie: Community and Contention on the Eve of the French Revolution’, Journal of Modern History, 57 (1985), 652–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a recent case study of counter-revolution, with a discussion of noble-peasant relations in collective action, see Sutherland, Donald, The Chouans: the Social Origins of Popular Counter-Revolution in Upper Brittany, 1770–1795 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar. For a summary of some of the literature on counter-revolution in the west of France, see Hutt, Maurice, Chouannerie and Counter-Revolution: Puisaye, the Princes and the British Government in the 1790s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), Vol. 1, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

⁸ Skocpol, Theda, ‘Review Essay: What Makes Peasants Revolutionary?’, Comparative Politics, 14 (1982), 351–75, p. 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Skocpol, , States and Social Revolutions, p. 152.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Disputes between royal and seigneurial courts were one indication of state-elite competition. See Lemercier, Pierre, Les Justices seigneuriales de la region parisienne dc 1580 à 1789 (Paris: Les Editions Domat-Montchrestien, 1933), pp. 277–80, 48–57Google Scholar; Bataillon, Jacques-Henri, Lex Justices seigneuriales du bailliage de Pontoise à la fin de Ancien Régime (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1942), pp. 71, 161–2, 81–6Google Scholar; Villard, Pierre, Les Justices seigneuriales dans la Marche (Paris: R. Pichon and R. Durand-Auzias, 1969), pp. 294–303Google Scholar, and in addition, Root, Hilton L., ‘En Bourgogne, I'Etat et la communauté rurale, 1661–1789’, Annales ESC, 37 (1982), 288–302.Google Scholar

¹¹ This argument arrives, by a somewhat different route, at a conclusion found in the literature on collective action. See Hardin, Russell, Collective Action (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1982). p. 81.Google Scholar