- Round Table 10
-
- Nobilities in Comparative Perspective
The historians of Early Modern Europe are focussing intensively
on the ruling
groups of European countries, and several essays, monographs
and collections
of papers recently published substantially increased our knowledge
of the
subject. It seems useful to reflect upon the state of the art,
suggest new topics
and viewpoints. Panel members of Round Table 10 offered for discussion
several
topics of general importance:
- Proofs of nobility in various European
countries (V. Vedushkin, Moscow);
Court and aristocracy in Early Modern Sweden in a European perspective
(F. Persson, Lund);
Types of aristocratic patronage in Europe (J. P nek, Prague)
Noble violence and attitudes to violence, 16th and 17th centuries
(G.Lind, Copenhagen);
Evolution of castles as a reflexion of changing identity of the
nobility (P.Janssens, Brussels), and for comparison
The new nobility (kazoku) in building modern Japan (Y. Kim, Seoul).
-
- Some panel members kindly sent me their
comments in advance. What
follows is neither a summary of the papers nor an essay in synthesis.
It is an
opening list of problems for discussion and questions based on
a personal
research experience.
In 1936 Marc Bloch defined the nobility as un groupe pourvu d'un
statut juri-
- dique prcis qui se transmettait
avec le sang ou, dfaut d'hrdit, s'acqurait
seulement selon des r gles elles-m mes strictement dfinies
en droit. He con-
- trasted it with, i. a., the potentes viri,
interpreted as une classe de fait et non de
droit [Bloch 1936, 367]. This definition, although applied by
its author specif-
- ically to the French noblesse may fit
diverse social groups across Europe.
However, all regional studies of the nobility used to focus upon
diversities
within it. So the first items of our agenda may be: what is our
subject?
- The noble, what is in a name? And finally,
nobility or nobilities?
- This term is in some respects confusing
when applied to the Continent in
diverse periods of medieval and modern history. J. P. Cooper,
discussing
Europe from the British vantage point, commented: "though
the word noble was
usually reserved for the peerage in England, [...] in France,
Poland and other
countries it included those without titles who in England were
called the
- gentry." [Cooper 1971, 16]. The broad
gamut of national terms more or less cor-
- responding to the Latin nobilis (nobilitas)
had something in common: it reflected
either the high values of members of that group (German: Adel)
or its "high"
hereditary nature (Czech: çlechta, Polish szlachta; both
from German Geschlecht
= kin). A Swedish medieval term frlse, i. e. exempted ("free")
from taxes, with
unusual frankness stressed that desirable aspect of the noble
status.
- Marc Bloch noted a twofold origin of
the noblesse: its either a traditional
(i.e. immemorial) or legally acquired status. The noble status
normally led to the
hereditary one but the struggle for prestige and power often
bought about a
deep division between the "old" and the "new"
nobles. The picture heavily
depends upon the perspective. From a close vantage point, national
or even
regional, differences dominate and destroy the harmonious, synthetic
picture
of the nobility of Europe. Therefore in order to reach the comparative
per-
- spective it will be convenient to contrast
these two approaches.
Factors of uniformity and diversity. They were included
in the
definition but paradoxically, often consisted of the imponderables
of an
ideological or even mythic nature. The origin and provenance
of a noble group
was of foremost importance. The Renaissance discovery of Roman
literature
enriched the imagination of European nobility with hosts of ancient
heroes.
Probably most prolific in this respect were the escapees from
burning Troy.
Glorious ancestries were imagined: the Germanic Francs (as opposed
to the
commoners descending from the Celtic Gauls) in France, in England
the
Norman knights followers of William the Conqueror. All Lithuanian
nobles
allegedly descended from a Palemon (of Troy, for that matter)
and the Polish
ones directly from Japhet son of Noah (as contrasted to Cham
ancestor of the
peasantry and to Sem). The myth of a distinguished origin seems
to be the
most common element of the nobilities. It was sometimes contested
by the
"outs" (e. g. the "Norman" myth by the English
radicals) but, especially in the
ages of Renaissance and Baroque, it made a good reason for self-satisfaction
of
each noble group. Parallel to such group myths, each kinship
tried to push its
pedigree as far to the past as it was possible. A deep, best
of all "immemorial
origin", was crucial element of family's prestige. Yet the
state needed the nobles
[M¥czak 1996] and a demand of honours among the subjects
was even greater,
so that in most countries the ranks of the nobility were swelling.
- Since the fourteenth century Italian scholars
have impressively
- contributed to the theory of the nobility.
Bartolo a Saxoferrato underlined the
difference between the "natural" and "civil"
nobilt , the latter bestowed by the
prince upon outstanding commoners (honestos plebeios) [quoted
by Donati
1978,15sq]. In the subsequent discussion led by the lawyers and
the nobles
themselves stress was laid either on the "virtue" (an
equivocal term attributed
to the lite only) or on the "gold" ("old
gold" for that matter) [Donati 1978 and
1995, passim].
Viewing from general European perspective, we may take into
consideration one more element: who decided about the affiliation
to the order
of nobility. While the membership of the titled aristocracy usually
depended on
the ruler (besides the titles bestowed by the Pope and by the
Emperor to foreign
subjects), the systems of ennoblement were more diverse.
It would be interesting to compare for various countries
on which
conditions fellow noblemen were able to accept, or preferred
to reject, a person
(or a family). In the extreme case of Poland, already during
the fifteenth century
the decision who is noble and who is not belonged to county courts
of justice
elected and run exclusively by noblemen. In the next century
the Chamber of
Deputies of the Parliament for all practical purposes took over
the royal
prerogative of ennoblement. In the true monarchies that prerogative
remained
an important instrument of power. It was skilfully used by the
emperors even
when the Empire itself has lost its cohesion. A distant case
of modern Japan,
presented by Yongdeok Kim in his panel contribution, shows how
skilfully the
Meiji government created a new lite of "nobles by
merit", merged it with the old
aristocracy and made it a tool of the reform programme. What
in Europe was
being a rather conservative element (aristocratic titles, the
peers in parliaments)
became a
- The system of hereditary titles of honour
was a strong factor of progressing
uniformity of the European elites. In Early Modern Europe it
bore only formal
analogy with medieval Germanic and Latin names of offices (princeps,
dux,
Markgraf, comes, baro &c.). The titles fossilised already
in the Middle Ages and
eventually became a system of hereditary ranks understandable
internationally.
When, for instance, Michel de Montaigne visited Augsburg, "the
officers in the
town who were responsible for [...] honouring strangers of some
quality" took
him and his companion "for barons and knights" and
offered them adequate
quantity of local wine [Montaigne 1983, 35-36]. Incidentally,
those officers
would have had problems with a Hungarian or a Polish nobleman
because of
their different manners and dress.
Development of modern princely households, publication of
the
Hofkalenders that informed the public about their composition
(a sort of Social
Registers of the eighteenth century) along with the introduction
of military
ranks, created a common language of social stratification. However,
it was
highly misleading. In the later times in the court society "everybody"
was at
least a count and other factors counted more than the empty title:
closeness to
the prince, the family's prestige, blood relationships or wealth.
The court society could not exist without the nobles and
yet much
remains to be explained about the relation between the courts
and the nobility.
Any simple all-explaining formula seems illusory. In reaction
to Norbert Elias
recent monographs of particular European courts stress their
particularities
and conflicts between diverse factions or interest groups. Le
Roi-Soleil has lost
much of his position of a giant casting a long shadow over everything
at
Versailles, and the Versailles Court ceases to be a peerless
case [cf. Beik 1996;
Le Roy Ladurie 1997; more theoretically Duindam 1995]. But strangely
enough
the Elias' thesis gets support from an unexpected side. An obscure
Hofrat from
Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf presented to his duke (1640) a memoir
with a
brutally frank programme how "to diminish the nobility"
by tying them to the
court: Louis XIV au petit pied! Its author believed such ideas
had been already
implemented in Spain [Lohmeier 1978, 254-259].
- It may prove fruitful to analyse the courts
rather as a group or a network.
In the Empire the Frstenh"fe were in some respects
specific and inter-
- dependent [Mller 1995]. It is also
doubtful if the royal households ever
monopolised the Zivilisationsprozess of the nobility. In some
countries aristo-
- cratic or magnates' households rivalled
the royal court as centres of culture and
even of power. The architecture of castles and palaces, their
decorations,
interiors, gardens and parks reflected cultural ambitions of
their owners.
Depending on the situation they served diverse political and
advancement
goals. In Elizabethan England some residences were constructed
to host the
gracious (if somewhat parsimonious) queen. On the other end of
Europe, in
Poland, that reason played a minor role. In the early seventeenth
century the
characteristic residence type of Polish and Lithuanian magnates
became
palazzo in fortezza: the centre of the latifundium but also of
local social life and
the lord's domination over his lesser neighbours. In a manieristic
palazzo built
in the 1640's all the external walls were covered in sgrafitto
with a sort of
pedigree list: a characteristic billboard advertising the owner's
impressive
connections with all major families of the country, a fine display
of pride and
power. On the other hand, Paul Janssens shows how the new nobility
in the
Spanish Netherlands conserved traditional residences medieval
in style to
buttress their allegedly deep roots [Janssens 1996 and his contribution
to this
Round Table].
- Unquestionably, the ties between the power
centres and the rest of the
country were strong and vital for the state. What remains to
be explained are
diverse relationships between the "centre" and the
"periphery", the "court vs.
the country" and so on. These terms were amply discussed
in connection with
the original theses of Immanuel Wallerstein and Hugh Redwald
Trevor-Roper
but retain their value in relation to the nobility. It is my
thesis that each
nobleman's situation can be best understood if we imagine him
as somehow
spread between the power centre (the prince's household, his
court, admini-
- strative institutions) and his landed
estates and local influence [cf. Lind 1996,
133]. Where did come his income from from his estates or rather
his offices?
How important for his position and its advancement was his local
(or regional)
power basis? This opens the problem of patronage-clientage. Much
attention has been
- paid in the last twenty years to clientage
systems and to roles the nobles were playing in them. If one
may so generalise, Roland Mousnier and his followers used to
stress moral-
psychological motives of loyalty, even devotion to the patron
[cf. Hommage
1981], whereas the American students of French patronage (William
Beik,
Sharon Kettering) are prone to view that relationship more instrumentally
as
a tool of advancement or survival with little if any emotional
attachment [cf.
recent comment in this sense by Reinhard 1999, p. 207). Patronage
has been
a common type of relationship but in different human milieux
it played various
roles. Therefore it makes a perfect subject of comparative research.
Among
problems for discussion several functions and consequences of
patronage may
be mentioned. Did it contribute to the homogeneity and solidarity
of the Order?
Was it a link between the nobles and the commoners? What made
it
constructive or destructive for the state?
- And finally, can any of these questions
get a common answer for all, or
even most countries?
- An extreme case was Poland-Lithuania,
a very particular monarchia mixta,
where during the seventeenth century regional assemblies of the
nobility
acquired strong influence. An anonymous English-writing observer
of the Polish
policy already at the end of the sixteenth century stressed
the deep inequalities
among the nobility: "For that it is the common bande of
unity betweene the
riche and the poore, bothe by that meanes participating of the
benefittes of the
lande, the one by commaunde, and the other by the dependency
of the
Commaunders trencher, besides the correspondency of patrone,
and Cliente,
imitating in that the auncient Romane state [...]" And so
on [Elementa 1965,
86]. In the elective monarchy, from the early seventeenth century
patronage
increasingly became a political tool of the magnate in local
and national politics.
In most countries the movement took a reverse direction.
The Fronde des
Princes has shown that the followers were reluctant to support
their patrons
[Kettering 1986]. In Scotland after 1603, "the rule by the
pen" was replacing the
anarchy whereas in the North of England the domination of big
patrons, the
Percys and the Nevilles, had been destroyed already by the Tudors.
The gamut
of clientage in its social and customary, or cultural, expressions
all over
Europe from Castile to Lithuania and from Scotland to Sicily
was infinite.
Whom the nobility feared and how it changed. The students
of early
Modern European nobilities paid much attention to the crises
of their particular
groups or strata. There is no single answer to the question of
twilight of the
nobility as a ruling group. Nobilities were endangered early
and from different
sides. Curiously enough, what was being regarded as a danger
by the nobles
themselves, may be appraised nowadays by the historian. Massive
ennoble-
- ments of successful bourgeois or royal
servants as well as inflation of
aristocratic honours might be dangerous for the "ancient
blood" and yet it
underlined the valour of being noble.
- The very question of twilight and fall
of the nobility before the nineteenth
century is disputable. In some countries (chiefly Spain and Spanish
depend-
- encies) the titles depreciated, many commoners
acquired noble status through
royal service or simply by purchase. But the alternative danger
was weakening
or even brought physical extinction of the noble species, as
it was experienced
by traditional urban patriciates (see Venice, Lbeck).
It is a traditional topos that the principal danger for
the nobility consisted
in the "rise of the middle class". This may be reversed:
the true problem was
limited flexibility or adaptability to new economic conditions
and to the growth
of the state machine. A major subject for comparative research
is the spread of
Dienstadel in administrative service and willingness of the noblemen
to reach
for professional education [see e.g. for Bavaria, Mller
1974; for Sweden, Gaunt
1975].
The problem raised by Gunner Lind noble attitudes to violence
may be
discussed against the broad background of what Charles Tilly
called division
of Europe into "coercion-intensive" and "capital-intensive"
(i. e. coercion-
extensive!) regions [Tilly 1990; 1993, 31]. The American scholar
had something
different in mind, but his theses may help us to analyse the
phenomenon of
violence as well. In the early modern age the distinction between
the public and
the private began to appear, and what may be called "right
to violence" was
challenged by the courts of justice and other state institutions.
Intensity and
forms of violence among the nobles themselves testify to the
advancement of the
Zivilisationsprozess (or modernisation) of the nobility. This
reflects the growing
role of legislation and state administration but also a parallel
change of mores
and customs. In Poland, hostile forays against landed estates
and other forms
of what the Germans called die Fehde, began to peter out among
the nobility
not before the late seventeenth and in the early eighteenth century.
- In the light of this and similar problems
one may reconsider the set of
phenomena often rather awkwardly classified as "refeudalisation".
Atienza
Hern ndez [1994, 249] rightly writes in this connection about
"the corporate
appropriation of the means of administration" and analyses
"the material
means of political power in the same way as the means of production."
This
leads us to the conception of Frederic Lane who regarded the
state as an
"protection-producing" and "violence-using enterprise"
[Lane 1979, 50-65]. The
American scholar was focussing mainly on the oceanic expansion
of European
powers but his approach may help us to interpret the noblemen's
individual
and corporate struggle for their share of the cake [cf. M¥czak
1989].