Un Manuel forestier de l'an X

International audience

English. A FORESTRY MANUAL OF YEAR X - The unrecognized work of Jean-Georges-Bernard LORENTZ first director of the School of Forestry. - The Annals have published in 1929 the first lectures given at the Forestry School of Nancy from 1825 to 1829 by LORENTZ. Professor HUFFEL in his introduction has clearly emphasized the features of this instruction, which remains at the basis of thedevelopment of ideas about forestry in France, during the nineteenth century. This instruction was very closely in touchwith German Sylviculture, with the works of BURGSDORF and HARTIG, and by virtue of this, it is shown to have broken deliberately in many respects with the traditional French Sylviculture, as practised by the officers of the « Master Crafts ». In his work M. BLAIS first studies shortly the developmentof forestry ideas in France between the beginning of the Revolution and the establishment of the School; then he presents a Forestry Manual which appeared in Year X of the Republic (1801-1802). This book constitutes a very remarkable element of transition between the French and the German Sylviculture. Extracts from the most interesting chapters are reported, which reveal that the author of the Manual did not content himself with stealing from his predecessors, but succeeded inconciliating them and in making a really synthetic exposition. The chapter on the methods of forest-organization by area and volume is very significant in this respect. In a concluding section M. BLAIS studies the problem of the authorship. The Manual is the work of a certain J. B. LORENZ: there had never been any question of identifying this man never specially remarked until now, with the celebrated founder of the School of Nancy, whose biography was well-known in an other way. M. BLAIS proves this identification : he shows that the "Forestry Manual" is attributable to the pen of the young Bernard LORENTZ, who was then Forest-ranger at Kirchheimbolandin the department of Mont Tonnerre, an excellent observation post from which to study German sylviculture. Being given the strong personality of LORENTZ, this identification has not failed to rouse objections, which the author takes pains to refute. Finally LORENTZ emerges from this hitherto unknown paternity with an enhanced reputation, and it is with a lively sympathy that he, who was destinated to become the intransigent advocate of conversions into high forest, may be seen seeking in his youth his true direction.