
Well into the 19th century, much of France languished in a pre-modern limbo, hardly touched by the Enlightenment, Christianity or even the Roman civilisation that had preceded both. Outside the big cities, Ancient Gaul seemed a more vivid and relevant influence than the French Revolution.
France’s shockingly recent ‘pagan’ past (from the word paganus, not coincidentally Latin for ’rustic’) is resurrected in Graham Robb’s The Discovery of France, a fantastic study brimming with fascinating portraits, meticulously reconstructed scenes and bizarre facts about a country before it was centralised, homogenised and tamed by its rationalist hub, Paris.
Up until the early 20th century, Robb suggests, it still seemed the other way around. It was Paris that was being colonised, by its provinces: “By the mid-nineteenth century, half the inhabitants of Paris came from the provinces and most of them did not consider themselves Parisian. Migrants spent as little money as possible while away from home. Mentally, they never left their pays (…) In certain Paris streets, the sounds and smells of villages and provincial towns drowned out the sounds and smells of the capital. For many, their street cry was the only French they spoke.”
“Tinkers and scrap-metal merchants from a particular valley of the Cantal were concentrated around the Rue de Lappe near the Bastille. Water-carriers and labourers from the neighbouring valley lived in the same quartier, divided from their compatriots by a street instead of by the river Jordanne.”
“All the people involved in the conspiracy on which Alexandre Dumas based The Count of Monte Cristo came from the same part of Nimes and lived in the same quartier in Paris, between the Place du Chatelet and Les Halles (…) Traces of these urban villages are still visible, especially near the big railway stations: the name of a cafe or restaurant, a regional dish, a waiter’s accent or a photograph of a cow in a mountain meadow.”
This map illustrates Mr Robb’s point exactly. The accompanying graph shows how, even in 1920 (the publication date of this map), fully half of the population of Paris was born outside the city, as compared to only 39% of native Parisians. The map itself shows how these new Parisians huddle together in regional ghettos, no doubt originated by the ancestors of most of those ‘native’ Parisians.
This Paris of urban villages is a fairly accurate reflection of the geography of France in general: Artesians, Flemings and other northerners congregate in the 18th arrondissement, in the north of the city. Bretons and Normans from out west settle in the westerly 15th and 16th arrondissements, Corsicans in the southerly 14th and Burgundians from the east in the easterly 20th.
The legend explains that les provinciaux “generally establish themselves near the terminal stations of the railways leading to their native province. For example, the Bretons live near the gare Montparnasse, people from Creuse and Gascony near the gare d’Orleans and Flemings close to the gare du Nord, etc.”
Many thanks to Maciej for providing me with this excellent map.


What are those Corsicans doing in the 1st Arrondissement? Bonapartists hanging around the palaces? ;)
Comment by Geiseric — February 11, 2009 @ 1:22 am
I tried reading “The Discovery of France.” I think I got through about 1/3 of it. It was good, at first, gasping over the lost world outside of Paris… and then, it started to seem like it was just hitting the same things, again, and again, and I thought about how much of the book remained. Not a bad book, just about five times too long maybe? ;-)
Comment by Wraith — February 11, 2009 @ 1:37 am
The Provençaux also seem to follow the Paris = France geography analogue. Weird how that happens.
Comment by Aaron — February 11, 2009 @ 1:39 am
It’s the same in Edinburgh today. English students in Marchmont, Poles on Leith Walk. The bizarre thing is that the outlying territories (Niddrie, Craigmillar) are where the poorer half of the natives are.
Comment by David Robertson — February 11, 2009 @ 2:59 am
I also read “The Discovery of France”, and second Wraith’s opinion that it was far far too long. Just read the first chapter in the bookshop.
I was hoping he’d get past the opening collection of anecdotes, and give us more structure, tie the stories to other knowledge (like the rather strange industrial revolution that France had) but he didn’t, the anecdotes just kept coming.
Comment by Michael — February 11, 2009 @ 3:43 am
[...] Strange Maps. Mercredi, février 11th, 2009 Non classé, divers, [...]
Pingback by Répartition | Jessie Rumble // — February 11, 2009 @ 8:22 am
I live in the XIX arrondissement and many street names are derived from the people that used to live there. I guess it might be the same in other arrondissements. I never took time to check properly.
But nowadays, not many “Alsaciens” or “Lorrains” there since the people repartition now has to do with wealth: rich = from north west to south west; poor = north east to south east. I’m being voluntarily manichean here :) But it’s scarily accurate.
A Breton exiled to Paris speaking.
Comment by Julien — February 11, 2009 @ 8:28 am
I live in bottom of the XXe, and if there are any Creusois left in my neighbourhood, i would be quite surprised ! :)
Comment by phrawzty — February 11, 2009 @ 10:15 am
@ Wraith (#2), Michael (#5):
In my defense: I only got halfway through the book (to just about where the quote is lifted from) and then had it stolen from me – at about the right time, by the sound of it.
Comment by strangemaps — February 11, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
That sucks that your book was stolen, but, in context it makes for a pretty funny footnote. Thanks for the laugh. ;)
Comment by Wraith — February 11, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
At leat we were still called by our real names: Flemings and Artesians and not by this stupid acronym “CHTIS”
Phil from Lille
Comment by Phil from Lille — February 11, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
“Pagan”? I’m Breton – the most “arriere,” the most different, the most Provincial Province – and nobody but a few self-satisfied Parisians has ever denied that we were way too Catholic for our own good!
When I lived in Paris I lived in the XVIIe, by the way.
Comment by Juliette — February 11, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
it’s really interesting!
Comment by susanna — February 12, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Also disappointed by Robb’s book. I thought it read like a series of magazine articles. The second half was more interesting to me — about how you actually went around and “discovered” france by making maps and taking measurements.
Comment by charlie — February 12, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
I wonder if anyone has done a modern-day map of immigrants in the various arrondissements?
Comment by Kirk — February 12, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
What about all those foreigners who came to study art, sitting in a studio and drawing the poverty-stricken models, maybe breathing the same air as the greats? The kind of people described in “Of Human Bondage”?
Comment by Jenny — February 12, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
Nice one, thanks a lot great piece.
Comment by Chris — February 13, 2009 @ 9:52 am
There are some interesting outliers. For instance, there is a belt of Auvergnats across VI-V-XII-XI, and then one other clot way off to the west in XVI. There are Corse in I-IV, right in the center, and then a few way down south in XIV. The Savoisien have II-III (just north of center) to themselves, and then NW of them is are Provenceaux – all from far SE France. There are more Provenceaux in XII to the far SE. And how did the Bearnais (from far SW France) end up in the mid-north IX?
It might be interesting to see if similar patterns occured in the U.S. For instance, when southern blacks migrated to northern cities, were there clots of migrants in say Detroit from particular counties in Mississippi?
We know that some European immigrants tended to congregate in certain areas of the U.S. (Finns in the Michigan Upper Peninsula for instance). What were the sub-patterns (if any) in Irish, or Italian, or German migration?
Comment by Rich Rostrom — February 14, 2009 @ 7:45 am
I think it can hardly be said that these populations lived in ghettos. Even in its extended meaning, the word seems to apply to very cohesive populations, with specific shops, businesses and services located in a small area. I don’t think anything close to US Chinatowns ever existed in Paris for people from the provinces. They may have been seeking shelter and help from people who emigrated from the same area before them, but their job and activities led them to mix more with other Parisians.
The word “village” may be even a little excessive, even it has been commonly used.
Ironically, it seems that some of ghettoes appeared in Paris much more recently, as for Chinese people. Probably the language problem is relevant to the question.
Comment by Patrick — February 14, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Oh, by the way, if much of the country may have lagged behind Paris at that time, reviving the ancient Gauls is quite far-fetched. Gaul civilization dissolved into Roman culture over 2,000 years ago! Pre-Revolution French government is often called “Ancien Régime” (would “Old rule” be a correct translation?). A better fit, probably.
Comment by Patrick — February 14, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Oh crap. Flammands. There goes the neighborhood!
Comment by Cappy — February 14, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
> Rich Rostrom
This geographical repartition is because people used to live near railway stations linking to their previous province.
> Patrick
Before Chinatown, you could find Polish and Russian “villages” on the North-East of Paris.
And new immigrants from a town or village used to settle in the same street than previous ones from the same place: a question of language, food, and help in finding a job.
Comment by clarisse — February 15, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
[...] de nos voisins belges, espagnols et allemands et une cartographie par arrondissement des provinciaux à Paris en 1920 (installés près de leur gare d’arrivée, [...]
Pingback by [Brik a Brak] n°30 « [ Blok Not ] _.oO Kronik|Umeur|Ydés — February 17, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Urban Villages in Paris (2009)
The new hoods of Paris:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/02/11/01016-20090211ARTFIG00037-des-bandes-de-plus-en-plus-violentes-a-paris-.php
Comment by Bougoises Pig — February 17, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Be (very) wary of “Le Figaro”…
Comment by Fergal — February 22, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Very interesting. Thank you.
Comment by Olli — February 25, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Quote: “Be (very) wary of “Le Figaro”…”
… But no more than of *any* other organ of the French press. They all make Dan Rather pass for a paragon of Truth and Virtue.
Comment by Jules le Renard — May 26, 2009 @ 7:13 am