Controversy about the importance the nobility had in eighteenth-century Europe is still a conversation among historians. Discussions arose about whether the lives these men led were meaningless or essential to the evolution of society. Isser Woloch mentioned that the essence of nobility originated in Medieval Europe. Society at that time was essentially composed of orders in which people were born into a predestined place (Woloch 73). Nobility is defined as a group of men who stood above other men, which was true of eighteenth-century Europe. The title of "nobility" had a great cultural impact, however, at its core this title was meaningless. It was purely used for social status. The families who belonged to the nobility inherited their societal rankings from their ancestors. Those who were not as fortunate to inherit this title made their way into this social group as a result of how much money they had, the land they owned, or they bought the title themselves. Members of society acquired a mania for prestige. Woloch argued that along with being a noble came a high amount of respect from all members within Europe, as well as an inherited power over the peasants and serfs who belonged to their land (Woloch 78). Yet, this power did not essentially mean they had much influence in society. Despite different viewpoints, this essay will argue that the title of nobility was important in societal hierarchy, although it did not hold significant or influential power in areas of Europe. The degree of importance of the nobility shifted from one country to the next. Members of some countries, such as Russia, believed that the nobles were men of great power and honor (Woloch, pg.86). The essay will focus on the different roles of the nobility in England and France. It will take the reader through the societal hierarchy in both areas. The essay will further look at the emphasis the nobility placed on maintaining their wealth and social standing, rather than being active citizens in Europe. The paper will be divided into three sections: hierarchy in the nobility, social influence, and political influence, with each focusing on the nobility's roles.
Woloch primarily focused on the transitions that took place within the social order. He further centered his argument on distinguishing between the roles nobility played in different areas of Europe. At the core of the social order, Woloch argued that the nobility was composed of wealthy families, primarily men, who acquired a high status through hereditary rights (Woloch, pg.89). The nobility held a great amount of respect and social value within hierarchies of Europe. In places such as France, those members of society who were not in the elite inevitably strived to work towards this title. Members of lower classes believed this title would grant respect for themselves and their families among other citizens. Through Woloch, one can begin to understand the value placed on the nobility. It is essential to understand that much of the importance the nobility attained was primarily granted by other members in society.
One of the main critiques of the French nobility was Dewald, who challenged the stereotypes of nobles and described them as being hostile towards other members of society. Overtime, the sword nobles of medieval Europe were transformed into wealthy landowning men who held political and administrative authority over structures in society. Dewald argued that nobles in many parts of Europe had lost the economic privileges and mostly unregulated political access they once had. Jay Smith mentioned that nobles in the eighteenth-century simply served the monarchy in order to distinguish themselves from the rest of society, not for the public good. Jerzy Lukowski argued that being a noble was largely a mental construct. The idea of being exclusive and being above others were key aspects a noble was expected to have. Apart from being exclusive among members in society, the nobility did anything but fulfill their supposed duties. In places such as Sweden, men who simply participated in the war were acknowledged with the title of a noble (Lukowski, pg.19). All ranks of the nobility, including lesser nobles and great ones, owed their status to tradition. However, Louis XIV underwent a, “reformation of the French nobility†in which he took back the status that the members of the lower nobility had acquired (Lukowski, pg.19). Louis XIV’s change of the status of the lower French nobles essentially showed the lack of importance this group of individuals had begun to have in France.
In Russia, the nobility, or boyars, held a high amount of political power and influence, in both the judicial courts and the army (Woloch, pg.75). These lords were allowed to exert complete power over all peasants in the land, free peasants included. John Cannon argued that the nobility, in comparison to lower classes, was the most highly successful group of elites (Cannon, pg.182). Eventually, Peter the Great constructed his own Reformation of the Russian nobility in which he personally chose the advisors that would work with him and removed the boyars from these positions (Woloch pg.99). In doing so, he began to lessen the amount of influence the nobility once had. To further diminish the so-called importance of the nobility, Peter the Great strictly allowed the status of nobility to only be acquired through physical contribution to the state instead of acquiring the title through tradition. Cannon viewed the elite as a group who added great value to society. They were men who participated in war and showed kindness to the poor. This is not true in most of Europe. For example, in Russia the barschchina was the institution of serfdom utilized by the nobility. It required unpaid labor services from the nobles’ peasants since the nobles did not farm their own land. The nobility in most of Europe, had ownership over peasants or serfs, and forced them to do brutal labor every day as well as strip them of most of their rights.
The nobility in France, also referred to as Dukes and lords, were held to a much higher standard than the nobility in England. The roles of the nobility differed based on whether one analyzed an urban or rural area. One key point used to determine a noble's significance was to look at where that particular noble stood in comparison to other nobles. The hierarchy of the nobility in France was composed of three groups: the Robe nobles, sword nobility, and bells (Woloch, pg. 309). The Robe nobles were those who had more recently acquired this title through their work as a judge in court. The sword nobility were passed down this title as a result of a history of participation in the French military in their families. Towards the end of the Eighteenth Century, Robe nobles and sword nobles had melded together through marriage (Woloch, pg.309). The differences among these two groups had disintegrated and the hierarchy of the French nobility had begun to decrease. In Eighteenth-century France, what linked many nobles with the middle class was their “mindset that marked them off as ‘gentlemen’†(Woloch, pg. 309). Both nobles and non-nobles were also granted similar privileges, such as ownership of land. The main source of distinction among the nobility was mostly a mental perception at this point. Jay Smith established that a shift in attitudes toward the nobility had led late eighteenth-century French thinkers to denounce the social hierarchies that had taken over old regime society. The movement of the Enlightenment paved the way for an approach that focused more on patriotic values, rather than societal ones.
Although nobility in England were not as significant as lords in France, they were still considered an important aspect of European society. The highest ranking societal group were the English peers. It was highly exclusive, composed of under 200 peers until after 1784 (Cannon, pg.133). The peerage was only 0.98 % of the elite as a whole, which made up a tiny elite within a tiny elite in English society. Since the group of elites included a large number of gentlemen, which had no official title of nobility, the peers were distinguished from this group. The influence of peers was not great, however, they were still considered an honorable and important part of society. Within the peerage, there were five titles: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron; duke being the most exclusive. The precedence any one peer had among those of his own title or rank depended on the antiquity of the title this individual held. The older the title, the more weight it acquired. Membership in the peerage was almost always hereditary. In the few exceptions where recruits were brought into the elite, they had to come from families with strong links to the nobility and were only allowed into the gentry, not the peerage (Clark, pg.178). The ‘openness' of the elite was non-existent. A small number of peers controlled, to a great extent, the majority of society and political positions. This group of people could sit in the House of Lords, which made up a part of the British Parliament. Despite being a part of the ruling government, the House of Lords essentially had no real power, which will later be analyzed in the essay. The non-hereditary upper class of England consisted of knights and baronets, but contrary to the peerage they had no legal privileges and could not sit in the House of Lords. Louis XIV decreased the rank of the lesser nobility, which diminished their title. The knights still had the right to be referred to as Sir, which allowed them to attain some level of societal importance derived from their title. On the other hand, the title of baronet was sold to wealthy commoners in order to make revenue. Unlike French society, English society had not progressed much since the eighteenth-century. There is still a strong presence of hierarchy throughout England.
The nobility in France mainly held social and financial power as a result of how much land they owned. The foundation of wealth was directly related to ownership of land. They did not contribute to society's working class “ignoble occupations, such as retail business or artisanal activity†(Woloch, pg.92). Instead, they held positions of authority. They supervised the manufacturing that took place in village communities and owned some of the largest coal mines in the country (Woloch, pg.92). They did not effectively contribute to society, they simply held high rankings. Although Dewald's main focus was the French nobility, he described them as a "violent and exploitative group in which most led vacant and parasitic lives, without the justification of service to their countries" (Dewald, 394). Dewald argues that members of the haute nobilité used their fortunes to sustain their positions and places in court society. They seeked the legal training and classical education that permitted them to dominate the chief institutions of courtly culture, rather than working to better society. Lords maintained courts, however they primarily dealt with topics that regarded seigneurs and their rights, not any other aspects of society (Woloch, pg.79). The honor these men held was all that seemed central in their lives, apart from their wealth and rank in society, of course. Their participation in court systems was a "crucial mark of privileged social status" (Woloch, pg.79). Those who were not lords would not have come close to attaining a similar position in society. A lord partook in seigneurialism, a system in which peasants lived under his jurisdiction and on his land. This allowed him to impose rules on his territory, work his peasants as much as he deemed fit, and charge the peasants fees. For example, peasants had to pay their lords whenever they would buy, sell, or trade a piece of land (Woloch, pg. 79). Peasants also had to pay a yearly fee, the cens, for their ownership of the harvest on the land owned by the lords. This system further allowed him to assert power over entire villages at times. As seigneurs, the lords' primary concern was how much income was possible to acquire under existing arrangements such as these. The land that lords owned, along with their peasants, was key in their social ranking. The French nobility influenced the importance and emphasis society placed on ranking, wealth, and power. Apart from that, they had no positive social impact.
The peerage of England held a social influence which derived from their large estates and excess wealth, similar to the French nobility. As a result of this, local politics and local government were dominated by the elite. One main symbol of success in their public lives was the English country house their family lived in (Lukowski, pg.125). The status of these families were kept intact through the right of primogeniture and their settlements. The peer's jurisdictional right over their land was something shared with thousands of non-peers, which made this right somewhat insignificant. The peerage usually, “employed thirty or more servantsâ€, in order to maintain proper status within their land (Woloch, pg.94). The more servants one had, the more power one had. The simple act of land ownership and ownership of servants served as physical symbols of power. In English society, the peers were expected to invest their time in luxuries such as hunting game. If they did not take part in “ a lavish lifestyle, there was little point in his being a peer†(Lukowski, pg.122). Similar to the French lords, the English peers placed a large emphasis on ranking and wealth, which made this a key aspect of eighteenth-century society. Men, women, and families strived to be a part of these elite groups in order to feel like they had value in their society.
Prominent nobles sought to shape perceptions of nobility and the roles nobles would play in the political life of France, apart from their social influence. Within their estates, nobility exercised extensive jurisdiction and had the say of activity and rules pertaining to their peasants. The wealth and large ownership of land these men had made them the natural choice when having selected who would exercise seigneurial or governmental authority (Lukowksi, 37). Apart from influence in their estates, the French nobility's main political influence was in Parlement, an exclusive and primarily judicial institution. Parlement, however, functioned very differently from the British parliament which will be looked at later in the essay. From the “200 families making up the patriciate, 40 dominated the 60 key posts which together made the real decisions in the republic†(Lukwoski, pg. 47). These families were inevitably the more wealthy and powerful ones. In Parlement there was an unresolved tension between the crown and nobility. The nobles who staffed and influenced this body of the government did so for their own profit. They simply wanted to have a say in the political aspect of society. Middle and lower class members of society sided against the noble elites due to the elites' amount of self-interest. As the eighteenth-century progressed, an increasing number of members in society began to realize the little value that elites added to life. The elites began to be portrayed as, “parasites who contributed nothing to the state, while the common people groaned under the burden of taxation†(Lukowski, pg.48). The nobility's lack of importance in society was evident when this group was wiped out as a result of the French Revolution and its elimination of the Old Regime. The 4th August Decree abolished all medieval feudal taxes on the peasantry. This essentially wiped away all medieval economic past in France.
The greatest privilege for the English nobility was exclusivity. Being a member of this group gave them great political influence, although this was not the basis of their power. As previously mentioned, their power lay in their large landed estates. The essence of the nobility's political influence was in the House of Lords, however its power gradually decreased overtime. The Upper House was referred to as a group of "firemen in a town without fires" (Clark,pg.181). The power it had was useless. The main source of power in Parliament, taxation and legislation, resided in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords. When George III came into power and chose to re-establish the power of the Crown, he solely focused on the House of Commons, rather than the Lords (Lodge, pg.264).Overtime, the small amount of power the House of Lords once held was further reduced, which left them powerless. All these elites held a position in a part of government that had absolutely no power. The role of the nobility in government became more diminished over time, which ultimately left them with only the power to counsel and defend the king.
French and English societies in the eighteenth-century were similar due to the overall importance placed on wealth, amount of land owned, and social ranking as a sign of respect and honor. The nobility had these three characteristics which ultimately made them seem more important than they actually were. Dewald and Lukowski analyzed the role nobility played in society and came to the conclusion that nobility added no value to eighteenth-century Europe. In some cases, it had been argued that they negatively impacted society because of the brutality of systems imposed, such as seigneurialism. The main attraction non-elites in eighteenth-century Europe had to the nobility was purely psychological. The sense of exclusiveness and having more value than others was what gave the nobility their ‘importance' within society. Although the nobility in France held political power in Parlement, the amount of ‘enemies' they attracted kept increasing over time. By the French Revolution, the nobility were completely wiped out. This was a representation of how much society benefited from their presence. The degradation of the importance of the House of Lords further knocked down the political influence the elite held in English society.