The number of the dependents in a household {l.e.dom estiques ), whose duties were
multifarious, varied greatly through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Drawing on his own experience, Audiger, a one time soidier who served in Spain and Rome before turning
Maître d’hôtel & Hmonadlen2o listed, in La Maison Réglée (1692), detailed examples of the kinds of dom estiques required in different types of household. Amongst these he described
“Maison d ’un grand Seigneur..."; and “ Maison d’une Dame de Qualité...”.^2^ ln the household of a grand seigneur (a bachelor’s house) Audigier included: “Intendant; Aumosnier; Secretaire;
Cuisinier; Garçon d’Office; Deux Garçons de Cuisine; Deux Pages; Six, ou quatre iaquais; Deux
cochers; Deux Postiiions; Deux Garçons de Garasse; Quatre Paifreniers; Un suisse, ou Portier"
He also suggested further domestiques who might be employed to serve different Officiers^ 2 2
Once married, the grand seigneui’s household would increase, and it would increase even
further once children appeared. The staff he suggested specifically to attend on children were:
Gouvernante d ’enfans. Nourrice, Gouverneur ou Précepteur, Vaiet de Chambre, one or two
Laquais, and a Servante pour la Nourrice.^23
ln architectural treatises, the detailed lodging requirements of specific domestic staff in the houses of French noblemen appeared very much later. It seems that Le Camus de Mezières’s
Le Genie de l’Architecture (1780) was the first to mention these, with descriptions of the
space requirement he proposed for an extensive list of possible staff members. Of particular interest are Le Camus de Mezières’ descriptions of children’s quarters together with those of members of staff engaged to look after them. His list of employees is only marginally longer than the one Audiger had proposed nearly one hundred years earlier. Le Camus de Mezières’ treatise will be considered in Chapters III & IV.
The liberty of other dependents in the household was just as restricted, in law, as was that of the immediate family. Even if domestiques were considered part of the house {see pp 61-2) they
were considered, in law, as paid agents whom J-N. Guyot describes in Répertoire Universel et
Raisonné de Jurisprudence civile, criminel, canonique et béneficiaie (1784-5): “..quelqu’un qui
reçoit des gages, et demeure dans ia maison de ia personne qui le paye. Tels sont les valets,
iaquais...”.^24 According to Guyon their payment was meant to be annual. When Henri Richard,
Docteur en Droit, considers the legal position of domestiques under the Ancien Droit in Du
Louage de Services domestiques en Droit Français, he describes their relationships with their
masters as straightfonward contractual arrangements: “Le domestique et le maître sont liés par
un contract de louage en vertu duquel le domestique s ’engage à servir le maître moyennant un
salaire déterminé qui porte aussi le nom des gages."^2s When he specified the obligations of the parties to such contracts he stated that: “..ie louage de services à vie est interdit, comme
portant atteinte à ia liberté humaine...".^26 Some social historians of recent years view the situation of urban domestiques in such houses as hôtels differently. J-P. Gutton for example, in
domestiques were not wage earners, but were paid only once they had finally left their post of employment.127
The remuneration of the paid members in households varied as much as did their posts. Audiger (1692), indicated the conventional remuneration of a variety of staff in different types of households. The best paid staff member in the house of a grand Seigneur was the maistre
d ’hotel who received 500 livres, followed by the écuyer with 400/., then the secretaire, and the
cuisinier, each with 300/., followed by many others. All these members of staff might
themselves have several domestiques servants at their disposal. The Nourrice and the
Gouverneur or Précepteur received 300 livres each.i2s But, as he made clear in his preface, his
suggestion was only a guideline: “...Je ne diray point icy quels gages ny quelles récompenses
ies maîtres & maîtresses sont obligez de donner à leurs domestiques, cela se fait à discretion,
ou suivant leur pouvoir"
ln La Maison Regiée, Audigier also remarked on the way domestic staff ought to be treated with
love and affection: “...mais comme un vieux proverbe dit, que les bons Mainstres font les bons
valets, je ne puis m ’empescher avant que d ’aiier plus loin sur ie chapitre & devoir de ces
derniers, de couler icy quelques mots en passant de ce que ies Maîtres & Maistresses doivent à
leurs domestiques, & de quelle maniéré H faut qu’ils en usent avec eux pour en estre bien
servis. Je dirai donc que, si ies maîtres & maîtresses tant grands que petits Seigneurs, ou
autres de plus mediocre état, veulent que leurs gens ayent de l’amour & de l’affection pour eux,
H faut qu’ils ies traittent avec douceur & bénignité, qu’ils ne se mettent point sur ie pied de les
casserd'abord. . . ".129 He also suggested that consideration need be given to aging domestic
staff: “...ils {maîtres & maîtresses ) doivent tous considérer qu’un vieux domestique qui n ’est
plus en état d ’aprendre un m étier ny d ’aiier servir ailleurs, est véritablement digne de
compassion, & que c ’est alors qu’Is doivent le plus s ’efforcer de leur faire quelque biens, &
d ’imiter en cela feu Monsieur le Prince de Condé, qui suivant ie mérité & ies services de ses
anciens domestiques leur assignoit des pensions, ou leur donnoit des emplois dans ses terres,
où iis pouvoient doucement & sans peine passer ie reste de leurs j o u r s . .Armand de
Bourbon, Prince de Conti entered provisions for his staff in his Testament (1664): “Je veux que
l’on paye à tous mes domestiques ies gages & pensions qui se trouveront leur estre dûes au
fût pas finie.
“Je donne à mes Valets de pieds à chacun 400iivre une fois payées pour ies mettre en métier, &
autant au garçon de ma cham bre’'^3^ Considerations that seem beyond his contractual
obligations.
In general, even the most menial domestic worker in a Parisian noble hôtel part/cu//er considered
that he was better off than he would be working elsewhere. This was captured by the celebrated moralist and writer Jean de La Bruyère {^639-^696)écuyer-gentilhomme to Monseigneur le duc
(the son of Prince de Condé ), in Les Caractères which first appeared in 1687: “Le suisse, le
valet et l’homme de livreé ne jugent plus d’eux mêmes par leur première bassesse, mais par
l’élévation et la fortune des gens qu’ilsservent.. .".132 The importance of this workforce can be
deduced from the range of edicts and royal declarations which referred to them. Many of these proclamations restricted their appearance (dress and luxury), others forbade them to bear arms. Whereas defiance of the former was subject to fines, defiance of the latter restriction carried the death penalty.133
Regulations for engaging domestiques were passed by an edict as early as 1350, directed at
house owners, warning them against acquiring staff in an ungentlemanly fashion: “Nulmaître ne
peut tirer un valet de chez un autre maître, par un plus fort salaire, à peine d’a m a n d e .ln order
to limit the risk of malpractice by staff, their past honesty needed to be ensured in order to safeguard the security of citizens; to that effect a declaration directed at masters, was issued in 1565: “II est défendu de recevoir aucun domestique, s ’il ne représente un certificat de son
ancien ma/fre.”i35 There were also restrictions based on moral or religious grounds, as noted in
H. Richard’s Du Louage de Services Domestiques en Droit Français. In 1280 the Parlement de
Paris forbade Jews from engaging Christian servants. A declaration registered at the Parlement
in 1685 forbade Protestants from engaging Catholic domestiques. This was overturned,
however, in the following year when a declaration stated that no Protestant could be engaged as a domestique by another Protestant. They could only serve Catholics. 136