Charles Loyseau,
A Treatise on Orders (1610)
- What does Loyseau think about the privileges of nobility?
- Loyseau discusses different professions in his sections on the nobility and the rankings within the Third Estate. What do these discussions suggest about the relationship between work and social standing in seventeenth-century France?
- Why does Loyseau insist that the Third Estate is not synonymous with the bourgeoisie?
Lit de Justice to Register the Edict of November 1770
- How does the Parlement de Paris describe its role in protecting monarchical power?
- What does the language of this document suggest about the strength of the absolute monarchy in 1770?
Parlementary Remonstrance Against the Edict Suppressing Guilds and Communities of Arts and Trades (March 2-4, 1776)
- What class assumptions are evident in this document?
- How does the Parlement defend the existence and function of guilds?
Loyseau Question 1:
ReplyDeleteLoyseau doesn't really have a lot of opinion to share about most of the privileges he mentions, except for three: exemption from the taille (and other war taxes), exemption from lodging soldiers, and permission to hunt game. He says that these three privileges make perfect sense -- the first two because it is only reasonable that a man who contributes his life in the defense of his country should not also have to contribute his goods, and the third because it is a way in which the nobles can practice war tactics during peacetime.
I definitely agree with him on these points for exactly the reasons he gave. Keeping your soldiers in shape during the "off season" is important. Also, I think that risking their lives in defense of the country has earned them the comfort of not having to sacrifice from their home life any further.
Loyseau thinks that the privileges of nobility derive from ancient law and arrangements of the state. He states that nobility is not simply a privilege but has origins in public and general law.
ReplyDeleteRachel B.
Comments need to be a paragraph in length to count towards your participation grade.
ReplyDeleteLoyseau insists that the Third Estate is not synonymous with the bourgeoisie because the Third Estate is all the common people apart from the clergy and nobility. The "bourgeois" are the upper class of the Third Estate. They are inhabitants of towns, not just any towns, but privileged towns and villages that have the right corporate a communal form of government. The "bourgeois" also has a voice in the town assemblies where as the rest of the Third Estate does not.
ReplyDeleteRachel B.
Loyseau Question 3.
ReplyDeletehe says that the bourgeoisie are not synonmous with the third estate because there are not a lot of members to the Bourgeoisie. there are only a select few that are in this group, they are the more elite of the third estate but not so elite that they are put in the category of the nobility. the bourgeoisie are more intelligent than the normal people who reside in the third estate as well as have better occupations. the bourgeoisie get to participate in the city affairs like the town assemblies and what not which the nobility could not participate in. in a since they are in a group of there own. right above the third estate and right below the nobility. this is what i believe is why he insists that they are separate.
Daniel Gitlin
Loyseau Question 1:
ReplyDeleteLoyseau outlines some privileges of the nobility that include; exemption from the taille, exempt from lodging soldiers in their homes, the right to hunt game in authorized places. The most important privilege is that when a gentlemen commits a crime he is not given the same punishment as the common people. He attempts to explain exactly why these privileges are justified but, although they seem absurd to me, he is writing an ideal of society. It seems that he goes out of his way to justify these privileges, specifically that there are some exceptions to the rule that gentlemen who commit crimes are treated more favorably than common people. Basically, he presents an ideal that is a very unequal picture of society.
Loyseau Question 1 -
ReplyDeleteLoyseau says that the nobility have a few privileges. They are exempt from the taille or other taxes for war. He thinks that is a reasonable thing because they give their lives for the defense of the state. The nobility also don't have to lodge soldiers in their homes and can hunt in authorized places that commoners cannot. Apparently, if commoners hunted in these places, it would lead them to abandon their jobs. He also thinks that hunting helps the nobility practice "exercises resembling war" during peacetime. Loyseau also says that nobility who commit crimes are not going to be punished as severely as commoners. I don't agree with this at all. As others above me have already said, it is very unequal treatment.
Lindsay Berreth
Tori Barnes
ReplyDeleteAccording to Loyseau, the Third Estate is everyone not included in the clergy and the nobility while the bourgeoisie is a much smaller population that is the upper class of the Third Estate. The bourgeoisie live in privileged towns with governments, hold higher ranking jobs and have more money and honor than the rest of the common people in the Third Estate.
Tori Barnes
ReplyDeleteIn the Parlementary Remonstrance Against the Edict Suppressing Guilds and Communities of Arts and Trades document, assumptions are made about the rich and the poor classes. The rich are assumed to be well behaved and wanting good order so the police do not need to supervise them closely. Poorer classes need to be more watched as they are more dangerous because of the skills the posses and they have more needs than the rich so therefore might cause more trouble.
2.How does the Parliament defend the existence and function of guilds?
ReplyDeleteThe Parliament defends the existence and function of the guilds by stating that the guilds offer "easier policing of the capital and greater security within commerce" (Mason and Rizzo, 27). In the fourth paragraph, they paint an image of the overwhelming city of Paris and how the police depend on these mediums or go-betweens authority of guilds because their “power is more extensive because they exercise immediate surveillance and command by example” (27). On the next page in the second paragraph, it can be assumed that they believe by having this system of examining the workers by their master and by the master’s guild officials that this will only cause “harmony” within the community and join them together.
Kate Starnes
Loyseau suggests that the higher up you are in stature the less manual labour you are meant to do. In fact, the higher up you are the less work period you have to do. This continues on with punishments. Nobles arent punished as harshly or as physically as the common peasants. The nobles do have to worry about the sword though which is a punishment that common people cannot have. The hierarchy was one of privilege and birth right. It was almost impossible to move out of your standing.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Straub
The Lit de Justice suggests that the monarchy was still strong in 1770. The parlement is begging the king to reconsider and to revoke his edict rather than forcing or demanding. It is clear though that the parlements are affraid of the king going overboard and losing his power and the effects that his edicts will have on the country however there is no attempt to actually force the kings hand. It seems to be an empty plea that the king can just brush aside if he wishes. I sense nowhere that the parlement actually has the power to do something other than say pretty please to the king.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Straub
Johanna Gotay
ReplyDeleteLoyseau believes that in France, the three "Estates have their oder and rank one after the other." The nobility is followed by the ecclesiastical and the Third Estate is last. Thus, he believes that the nobilities privileges must have exceptions. He mentions these exemptions in regards to legal matters. He is concerned that the "activities leadind to the forgeiture of nobility" are being performed for profit. Likewise he believes that the nobilities privileges has its "origins in a public and general law and proceeds from means established to this effect long ago in each country." He also believes that the nobilities privileges are great in number. For example, they are exempted from the personal taxes "levied for purposes of war," and when they commit a crime they "are not punished as rigorously as the common people." I believe that his opinions give better insight on the nobilities privileges and rights. These rights give us a look into the societal hierarchy that persisted in France post the revolution and what caused its uprising.
-Johanna Gotay
2- How does the Parlement de Paris describe its role in protecting monarchial power?
ReplyDeleteIt is said in the passage that the parlement always worked to "strengthen and increase the monarchies sacred authority." The parlement regards the monarchy (crown) it as the "soul of the state and the founding principle of its very existence." However, parlement asks that the King give them permission to to judge such actions against the crown and domestically with his consent. The parlement believes that in doing so they are protecting the monarchial power of France. By showing the people that they rule without the King's say they believe that they can represent the people. Therefore strengthening the monarchy.
-Johanna Gotay
-Johanna Gotay
Loyseau Question 3
ReplyDeleteLoyseau believed that the Bourgeois was a part of the Third Estate, that is to say that the members where not of the First or Second Estates (Clergy and Nobility respectively), but that The Third Estate was filled with others who where not part of the Bourgeois. As he describes it the Bourgeois are only found in privileged towns where in the members of the Bourgeois take part 'in the honors of the city' (serving in assemblies, being office holders etc.) The Third Estate also included people who where not members of the Bourgeois; merchants, tradesmen, laborers, financiers etc. The Third Estate from the way that I read it, was broken down in to levels of higher precedence for those in the Bourgeois and lesser levels for those who where laborers.
Cathryn Salisbury-Valerien
What does the language of this document suggest about the strength of the absolute monarchy in 1770?
ReplyDeleteThe language in the document seems like it is trying to ask the king delicately for permission. It uses terms like "sire" and "Your Majesty" alot. It seems like it is trying to be polite to the King because he could say no very easily. Use of this type of language to me seems like the monarchy is strong. The King holds all of the power and the people writing this document are trying to use the best possible language to get him to register the edict.
Lindsay Berreth
Loyseau Question 3
ReplyDeleteLoyseau outlines the difference between the Third Estate and the bourgeois as the fact that the Third Estate includes "only the inhabitants of the towns, that in old French are called bourgs." The term bourgeois, however, doesn't include the same inhabitants as the Third Estate. Also, common people, who are part of the Third Estate, cannot call themselves bourgeois because they do enjoy the same privileges as the real bourgeois.
1. What does Loyseau think about the privileges of nobility?
ReplyDeleteHe thinks that they are good because they are a right that the nobility is born with that they deserved and have gotten for centuries. They are allowed to hunt where commoners are not so they can stay on point in case of times of war. they nobility was also exempt from paying the taille because it was thought that they shouldnt have to pay the state money if they were already defending it with their life.
3. Why does Loyseau insist that the Third Estate is not synonymous with the bourgeoisie?
The Third Estate was the largest class that held all the commoners. The bourgeoisie was an elite subsection of this class that was technically right below the nobility, although they weren't privileged enough to have the nobility's privileges. However their occupations were better than commoners (not manual labor) and they were respected as well. They had a voice in town assemblies and the happenings of their cities and towns.
Steph Talarek
Lit de Justice to Register the Edict of November 1770
ReplyDeleteHow does the Parlement de Paris describe its role in protecting monarchical power?
The Parlement de Paris describes its role as one of strengthening, increasing and defending sovereign authority. I found this letter very interesting as the Parlement obviously tried to pursuade the King by appealing to his ego ("all your subjects will applaud", "nations will admire your wisdom")and to the betterment of the population ("not risk making the liberty, life, honor and property rights of your subjects the plaything of unforeseen events"). Also, the Parlement carefully warned the King of regretting his decision in the future ("which the monarch will soon regret"). So, while the Parlement definitely saw themselves as those charged with strengthening and increasing the King's authority, they also saw themselves as "careful" advisors to the King who sought to persuade him through appeals to his position and ego, as well as through repeated pledges of "submission, love and fidelity".
y marteeny
Lit de Justice Question II:
ReplyDeleteThe language of this document suggests that in 1770 the absolute Monarchy was, while in decline, also retained it's authority through the King's edicts. The writing suggests humility and obedience towards the crown, but it simultaneously seems to lecture the king on how to best run his country. Moreover, the entire document is the Parlement's attempt to reverse the King's decision on an edict which they see as damaging to the French people, and their perception of the crown.
James Scutari
1. How does the Parlement de Paris describe its role in protecting monarchical power?
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph the parlement comes out and states that they, “always worked to strengthen and increase this sacred authority, which it regards as the soul of the state and the founding principle of its very existence” (25). The Parlement even goes on to say that the “preservation of this authority” is of great importance to them and that they would, “make the sacrifice of accepting the humiliations to the magistracy gathered in the present edict if that were truly useful to the true interest of your authorities…”(25). From what these two quotes state, it sounds like the parlement is trying to tell the king that they will stand by him through whatever he decides because they trust that he has his people’s best interest at heart and will make the right decision.
Kate Starnes
Charles Loyseau, Question II:
ReplyDeleteLoyseau's document, A Treatise on Orders, suggests that and individuals position in the Third Estate of France correlates with their profession. If a persons living is earned through physically intensive labor, such as farming, then they make up the husbandmen, and the bottom rung of French society. Above them are the artisans, the merchants/men of commerece or banking, and finally the educated (men of letters). Furthermore, French nobility were forbidden from farming, as it was seen as demeaning. French society deemed laborers of all types as "vile persons."
James Scutari
Loyseau Question #1
ReplyDeleteLouseau states that nobility survives on a basis on privileges. The privileges of the nobility are that they are exemption from the taille, exemption from lodging soldiers, and permission to hunt game. They are exempt from the taxes because they are the ones who fight in the wars, so they are already giving much to the effort and it would be too much to ask them to pay money in addition. They do not have to lodge soldiers for the same reason why they do not have to pay taxes, they are fighting in the war and therefor giving all that they can in the effort, so they do not have to house soldiers. They are allowed to hunt game because there is not a fear that they will leave their normal jobs and obligations to continue to hunt all the time, there is that fear with the common men. They also need to be able to hunt to keep up their war like mindset while in times of peace. In addition when committing a crime, the punishment is different from what would happen if a commoner had committed the crime. Nobles can be decapitated, but not hanged or flogged.
Loyseau Question #3
He states that the Third Estate is different from the bourgeois because of size, power, and money. The Third Estate was the largest in France, but the bourgeois was just a small group of people who were not quite noble. The bourgeois live in towns and have honors and voice in assembly, which for the most part the Third Estate did not. Also, the bourgeois live in towns only with "communal government and corporate existence". They get to participate in the government and corporate life, and so they live in towns where these rights can be exercised.
Kate Sinrud
Loyseau Question #1
ReplyDeleteHe stated about the nobles that they were given rights that the common men were not. Nobels had the following rights, they were exemption from the taille (and other war taxes), exemption from lodging soldiers, and permission to hunt game. They were exempt from taille because they were the soldiers in the wars and therefor had already given enough to the effort and did not have to provide any more than they had. For the same reason as the taille, the nobles did not have the allow soldiers to stay int heir homes, because they were already fighting in the war. They were allowed to hunt because it was a peace time activity that could keep them in the war mindset. It was an activity that was kept from the common people because there was a fear that they would leave their normal obligations to keep hunting all the time. There were also differences in punishment for crimes. The Nobel were never hanged or flogged and the commoners were never decapitated.
Loyseau Question #3
The third estate was by far the largest class in France, but the bourgeois was only a small segment of the third Estate. They were not at noble ranking but they were higher than the rest of the Third Estate. They lived in towns with communal governments and corporate existence. They had honor in city life and they had a voice in the local government. A voice at assembly and honor in the city were the rights that the bourgeois had over the rights of the common men.
Parlementary Remonstrance Question #1:
ReplyDeleteTwo main class assumptions are made in this document. It says that the rich want order, and that the poor are troublemakers. This is said to be the case because the poor have jobs which have taught them more "dangerous" skills, and these skills supposedly give them more ways to cause harm. Another claim made is that the poor are troublemakers because they have more needs which would give them a reason to cause problems.
What class assumptions are evident in this document?
ReplyDeleteAccording to this document the class assumptions are there through the policing of said classes and people. Authority of the throne is a chain, all links are joined with the first, which is dangerous to break. As stated in the text their are some classes that police must exercise all it's vigilance. The rich is not as much of a concern. The poor is watched closer because," they only stand to gain from trouble." This is because their skills offer them greater means to do harm, and they are the more fearsome for having more needs.
J. Smith