What happens to the classification of the peasantry as a subaltern group in a country where the president - presumably the most powerful man -declares that he is a "peasant and the son of a peasant"a This declaration by Syria's longest ruler in the 20th century, Hafez Al Asad, reflects two fundamental aspects of the literature on Syria's modern history. The first is that the history of 20th Syria -the history of its anti-colonial struggle, the rise of nationalism among its populace, and the founding and building of its state - is, as depicted in the historiography, intimately intertwined with the history of its peasantry. The second fact is that this history poses a serious challenge to the notion of the peasantry - in general terms - as a subaltern group. In this paper, I critically examine the way the peasantry of 20th century Syria has been represented in the historiography. I ask the following questions: How do historians of Syria depict the peasantry (both men and women peasants) and what role do they allot to them in the making of history of the countryo In other words, based on the historiography alone, are we able to construct a coherent narrative of the peasant, as a collective and an individual Or are there multiple narratives that occasionally converge but often don'tg Based on these depictions, do the peasants emerge as dominant subjects of history, and if they do, what type of agency are they allotted (rebellious, conservative, masculine)e I pose these questions in relation to pre-eminent works about Syria's peasantry, namely those of Hanna Batatu, Raymond Hinnebusch, and Abdallah Hanna. Other secondary works, including those by Michael Provence and Perthes Volker, are also examined.