In his Dictionnaire Historique des Mœurs Usages et Coutumes des François (1767), François-
Alexandre Aubert de la Chenaye-Desbois (1699-1784), a French man of letters who had abandoned the order of Capucins without being discharged of his vows, distinguishes four ranks of nobility in France: first, princes du sang (royal princes); second, haute nobiesse (upper
nobility); third, nobiesse ordinaire (ordinary nobility); fourth, nouveiiement annoblis (the
recently ennobled). Charles Loyseau (1566-1627), Avocat en Pariement, on whose collected
writings (1610) Desbois relied for his information, views the situation somewhat differently:
“..nous avont trois degrez de nobiesse; à sçavoir ies simpie Nobies que nous appeiions
gentilshommes, efecuyers, ceux de la haute nobiesse, que nous qualifions seigneurs e t
chevaliers, et ceux du suprême degré que nous nommons princes.”4 Loyseau did not enter a
separate classification for the nouveiiement annobiis and, as will be seen presently, for him they
simply constituted the latest recruits to the ranks of the French nobility.
Loyseau goes on to distinguish between two types of nobility in his own time: “noblesse de race & noblesse de naissance; ceux dont les ancêtres ont toujours passé pour noble, & dont on ne
peut découvrir l ’origine, sont noble de race; ceux dont ies ancêtres ont été annoblis, sont
nobles de naissance; car l’acte d’annoblissement prouve qu’iis ont été roturiers (commoners).”s
The Encyclopédie (1765) defines it more extensively: “Noblesse ancienne ou du sang, qu’on
appelle aussi noblesse de race ou d’extraction, est celle que ia personne tient de ses ancetres,
et non pas d’un office ou de lettres du prince; on ne regarde comme ancienne noblesse que
celle dont ies preuves remontent à plus de cent ans, & dont on ne voit pas l’origine...”.6 Here
the second type of nobility is considered: “Noblesse d’Office ou Charge...ce//e qui vient de
i’ecercice de quelque office ou charge honorable, & qui à ie privilege d ’annobiier.”7 It continues:
“Noblesse de robe...ce//e qui provient de l’exercise de quelque office de judicsature auquel le
titre & ies privileges de noblesse sont attachés.
“Quoique ia profession des armes soit ia voie ia plus ancienne par laquelle on ait commencé à
d ’é p é e ..”.6
Perhaps Loyseau provides the most succinct and elegant distinction between the two types of French nobility: “...nous avons l’ingenuité, qui est la noblesse provenant d’ancienne race, et
celle qui provient des dignitez. La premiere est sans commencement, et l'autre a son
commencement: l’Une est native; l’autre dative; et II y a apparence d’appeler celle-cy Noblesse,
et celle là générosité, ou plûtôt gentillesse, ainsi que communément parmy nous on distingue
les Nobles hommes d’avec les Gentlls-hommes...
“A succession de temps, lors’qu’Il fut mal aisé de discerner chacune notion, ceux qui étolent: ou
Issus des anciens Francs ou du moins qui avolent trouvé moyen de parvenir à leurs
franchises... furent nommez gentils-hommes...
“La noblesse pourtant n ’est pas un simple privilege particulier, et contraire au droit commun,
mais elle naist d’un droit public et général et procédé des moyens établis d’ancienneté...
“Voilà quand à la gentillesse, qui excede la mémoire des hommes: et quand à la noblesse, dont
on sçalt la cause et le commencement, elle vient en France de l’annobllssement... Or II peut faire
cét ennoblissement en deux façons; à sçavoir ou par lettres expresses à cette fin, ou par la
collation et Investitude des Offices et seigneuries ennoblissantes, desquelles consiste
proprement la noblesse de dignité."^
In his view, gentlls-hommes, the backbone of the French nobility, and therefore of French
society, had existed from time immemorial, their titles were hereditary and derived through
gentillesse or générosité. Dignité, on the other hand, was an honour given to an individual for a
specific, major achievement, a personal merit which endowed public status. Such titles which were not transferable to heirs (at least not at the same rank), were seen as true nobility, distinguished by the immediacy of the titleholder to their origin.10
Lettres d ’annobllssement (which proved the acquisition of status) from the king exacted two
preconditions from the newly ennobled. The first was a payment to the monarch to indemnify him for the subsidies from which the recently ennobled and his descendants would be released in future, through the acquisition of their new status. The second precondition was a charitable donation to those people who, as a result of his ennoblement, would have to bear added levies of expenditure.! 1 One of the prerogatives of the Nobility not enjoyed by commoners was
exemption from the personal poll tax [ Taille].12 it was up to the chambre des comptes to settle
both these matters. In the earliest days of the monarchy, ennoblement was still based on military performance; later however, posts that led to possible ennoblement and to hereditary peerage were extended to include a range of State functions, or Royal Offices {Charges de la Couronne):
King’s Secretary, members of the Parlement de Paris, magistrates of the royal courts and the
upper courts of Paris, treasurers of France, members of the judiciary, financiers and so on.13
Belle-lsle Maréchal de France (1684-1761) voiced reservation about such privileges: “J ’al
toujours remarqué avec douleur que nous prodiguons trop les Lettres de Noblesse en
France...”.14
Yet it was precisely the existence of titles of nobility bestowed on an individual for personal merit which gave rise to the separate (or the fourth) classification of the French nobiiity which Aubert de la Chenaye-Desbois includes, and which Loyseau left out. The category of the
nouvellem ent annoblis implied personal distinction rather than hereditary status. It
encompassed those ennobled from the bourgeoisie or roturiers (commoners) as well as those
raised from the lower noblesse ordinaire, to the upper haute noblesse, or noblesse Illustre.
If Loyseau considered the newly ennobled simply as part of the nobility, he was quite clear about the unity of the nobility as a whole, as an Ordre, or Estate, separate from the third Estate: “...en
France nous faisons bien plus d ’Estat de la Noblesse [than in England], laquelle nous ne
mêlons aucunement avec le menu peuple, ...nous la tenons pour un Ordre entièrement séparé
du peuple: même nous mettons les Princes parmi la noblesse, et n ’y maintenant si petit
Gentilhomme, qu’un Prince fasse difficulté de recevoir à sa compagnie à sa table... ”is
In France throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, changes were implemented somewhat erratically to manage the State and maintain a Nobility. The edict of January 1598 revoked ali titles of nobility that had been accorded in the past two hundred years. ie The increased numbers of Offices of the judiciary, had been a problem even earlier, however. François I (1515-1547) and Henri II (1547-1559) had created many noblemen. An edict of May 1560 then had set out to quash all newly created Offices once they had been vacated by their holders, through death, forfeiture, resignation or othenvise. The pronounced aim was to reduce the number of Office-holders and return to the earlier quota. 17
Nonetheless, in December 1604 the system of Paulette was introduced, here described by the
historian François Eudes de Mézeray: “Ce fut de les assurerà la veuve & héritiers de ceux qui
possédaient, moyennant que ies pouves payassent tous ies ans le soixantième denier de ia finance à
iaqueile ces offices auraient esté evaiuez; faute dequoy ils retourneraient par ieur mot au profit du Roy.
On nomma ce droict, en termes de Finance, LE D R O IC T ANNVEL: Le vulgaire rappelle, LA
PAVLETE, du nom de Paulet, qui en fut le Traittant..".^Q Despite remonstrations by notables
in 1618 against the sale of Offices, the practice persisted, and under Louis XIV the proliferation of Civil servants increased. In November, 1640 all anoblissemens created in the past thirty years
were revoked.19 A declaration of January 1629, known as the Code f^ichaud, forbade all
gentilhommes and Officers of Justice and of Finance from engaging in any commerce.20 A
further Ordonnance of the same date forbade Seigneurs whose lands lay on the coasts from
adopting the titles of admirals, or vice-admiral on their territories or from pursuing any trade from the sea, or from their lands. 21 An edict of March 1672 established the hereditary nature of the Offices of: notaires, procureurs, sergens & archers,22 and in 1678 the price of Judiciary Offices was fixed. 23 An edict in 1704 created Offices of: officiers municipaux; concierge-buvetier (bar
keeper) in various Courts of law, as well as several new posts.24
The new posts granted privileges of ever smaller stature and significance. In 1705 a declaration was issued pertaining to the sale, by auction, of Offices that had been seized in order to recover the cost of increased w ages.25 A month later, a declaration revoked the privileges accorded since 1698, through the establishment of Offices of judicature, police and finance.26 in June 1716, in the regency of Philippe d’Orleans (1715-1723), several Offices were suppressed:
maires, échevins, consuls, capitouls, avocats & procureurs du rois, archers hérauts, and others.
The election to these offices was granted, thenceforth, to cities, communities and parishes
in s te a d .27 On the whole it thus seems that the importance and value of the status and
distinction of nobility had reached a low ebb. Still, Office and Office-holders were imbued with the public dignity which their particular Office of State imparted.
According to the Encyclopédie (1751-65) the existence of a nobility was fundamental to the
political function of the government and to the structure of a monarchy based on the maxim:
“point de noblesse, point de monarque”. The absence of a nobility, would produce a purely
brought in as example of unacceptable tyranny. In the original, military, French nobility one could progress. In stages from the lower noblesse ordinaire to the ultimate distinctions of the
h a u te n o b ie s s e . Both of these categories of nobility were subdivided into further
subcategories. Unless someone was directly ennobled by the king for a specific act, a long, ordered, and well-known procedure had to be gone through to progress up the ladder. It made for a structured process, arduous at times; during each stage the aspirant had opportunities to learn the skills and formalities expected as well as observing them In practice.
Both the Encyclopédie and Desbois relied for their Interpretations of the subject of Chevalerie,
on Mémoires sur i’Ancienne Chevalerie, considérée comme un établissement Politique et
Militaire, by Jean-BaptIste De la Curne de SaInte-Palaye (1697-1781), member of an ancient
noble family, member of the Académie Françoise, of the Académie Royale des inscription &
Beiie-iettres, and of the Académies Royales of Nancy and of Crusca (his father had been
gentilhomme to the duc d ’Orieans).29 The first part of his four part work was delivered as a
lecture to the Académie Royale des Belles-Lettres In 1746 (published as the proceedings of
the A cadém ie entitled L ’Education qui préparoit ies jeunes gens à ia Chevalerie. In it he
discussed the necessary progression preliminary to membership In the Order of Chevalerie:
page-, écuyer and finally cheva/Zer.
The fundamental distinction between nobiesse and dignité of Office was carried, according to
Loyseau, well beyond the titles themselves: “..nôtre Nobiesse vient, ou de race ou de Dignité
celle de race consiste à être issu d ’une race exempte de condition roturière, et partant elle est
intérieure, principale, et directe...Au contraire ia Nobiesse provenant des Offices est
accidentelle extérieure, accessoire et indirecte, n ’étant pas attribué intérieurement, et
principaiement à ia personne à cause d ’eiie même, mais iuy étant transférée extérieurement et
accessoirement...”.30 That Is, he saw In hereditary nobility a quality Internalized or Ingrained In
the person, whilst Offices were only external to the person. These Internal and external (or inner and outer) facets of man and behaviour are discussed below In the section on
Education and
Manners, as well as In Chapters III & IV.
Henri comte de Bouiainviiiiers (1658-1722), researched and wrote on French historical, and
(published posthumously in 1732), he reflects on the question of Offices from their very beginnings. He ascribes the root of the ever growing and unending erosion of the status of nobility to clerks whose literacy and knowledge of Belle-Lettres led to their acquisition of Offices
which greatly increased their status: “...chacun, à l’aide des Sciences et de ia politesse qu’elles
communiquent, tâche à s ’élever au-dessus de sa condition naturelle, à supianter ses
concurrans, à se former dans ies affaires ou dans ies Charges...". He described the effects on
the traditional ancienne nobiesse: “fJiais si notre siècle voit souvent ies effets de l’ambition des
particuliers, H ne voit pas moins communément ies chutes de ces fortunes, bâtis hors du
fondement solide d’un véritable Nobiesse. On ne peut considérer sans étonnement l ’état
present des familles de ceux qui de nos jours ont occupé ie fi/iinistere avec plus d’autorité et de
richesse que n ’en eu nos anciens Rois. ..Disons donc, que dans ia confusion à laquelle nous
exposont tant de changemens dans ies mœurs, et dans i’esprits, dans ia guerre et dans ie
Gouvernement, il n ’est pas étonnant que l ’on ait oubliée ce que c ’est que l’ancien
Nobiesse...”.3^
Boulainvilliers laid part of the blame for this decline on the ancienne nobiesse itself. From
around the fourteenth century onwards judiciary chevaliers {chevaliers en Lois) were created
because of the laxity of true chevaliers in fulfilling their duties. This provided an opening for
clerks of low birth to advance and establish themselves (later the suffix en Lois was dropped).32
That is, acquired knowledge allowed upstarts to confront and replace the ancienne nobiesse
and to undermine its security, certainty, and the systematic advancement it had relied on. A different view of knowledge and science was held by René Descartes (1596-1650), himself of noble birth, who made these into acceptable pastimes for gentilhommes; this acceptance was
achieved after much struggle, mainly after his death. The acknowledgement by the State of the importance of the sciences and letters was marked by the establishment of the Académie royale
des sciences (1663) and the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (1663).
Approaches other than that of Boulainvilliers, however, are found in the writings of some members of the ancienne nobiesse who wrote advice for their children, seeking to impress on
them the necessity of not being complaisant about their status. One such'^Anne-Therese de Marguenat de Courcelles, marquise de Lambert (1648-1733), roughly contemporary with
aged nine and a daughter aged seven, whom she brought up. She wrote two separate works For them: 1. Avis d ’une Mere à son Fils and 2. Avis d’une Mere à sa fiile. These and other
writings were published in her lifetime, but much later. In Avis d ’une Mere à son Fiis she
advised her son not to take his status for granted; “La naissance fait moins d'honneur, qu’elie
n ’en ordonne; & vanter sa race, c’est iouer ie mérite d ’autrui ”33 Also: “...Croyez donc n ’avoir jamais assez fait, dès que vous sentez que vous pouvez mieux faire.",34 and : “Dans un Empire
où la Raison seroit la maîtresse tout seroit égal, & l ’on ne donneroit de distinction qu’à la Vertu."35
In her advice to her daughter, the marquise de Lambert noted the transience of honour: “Pour
fixer VOS desirs, pensez que vous ne trouverez point hors de vous de bonheur solide n i
durable. Les honneurs & ies richesses ne se font point sentir iong-tems; leur possession
donne de nouveaux desirs; l’habitude aux plaisirs les fait disparaître.”3q
The general belief that children needed to be brought up to recognize and uphold their status was advanced in the professionally written Le Portrait d ’un honneste Homme (1692) by Abbé Goussault, Licencié de la Sorbonne, conceiiier au Pariement de Paris: “...il ne faut pas souffrir
qu’iis [enfans] prennent des maniérés de vivre indignes de ieur nom, de ieur famille & de leur naissance.37
The French nobility, a greatly fragmented State institution of viscous composition and volatile, fluctuating character, changed through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to include ever greater numbers of outsiders. With new modes of affiliation to the nobility, and with growing numbers of newly introduced Offices of State administered by outsiders rather than by members of the ancienne nobiesse, one was faced, according to Boulainvilliers, with quantity
taking over from quality. A view similar to that of Boulainvilliers concerning the decline of the nobility due to deterioration of their legitimate standing under Louis XIV, appears in the anonymously published Les soupirs de la France esclave qui aspire après ia liberté (1689-90).38
The nobility, according to Sir Francis Bacon, paraphrased in the Encyclopédie, could be viewed
from two aspects: firstly as part of the State, and secondly as a condition of the individual.39 In France in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, though a condition was
bestowed on an individual, it transmitted itself beyond the person to involve his entire family, apart from the implication that it continued in perpetuity if the title was hereditary. This implication, however, was not always honoured (see above, p 50).
Throughout the period French society adhered on the whole to the traditional structure dominated by division into “Orders”. Unlike modern socioeconomic classes, these divisions depended essentially on hereditary groupings. People were still classified according to their
“qualité', “dignité' or status. The notion of “Orders” originated in religious orders, and since the
French Orders of Chevalerie were closely connected to the Catholic Church,4o its Orders were
named after saints (Saint Michei, Saint Esprit, and so on.) And obligations of service, service to
the king in particular, had not yet lost their lustre; “...comme encore aujourdh’uy nous appeiions
particuiierement ies Officiers, ies serviteurs domestiques des Princes, et appeiions Offices ieurs
cuisines et autre iieux de s e r v i c e .Honourable pursuit of service, according to Sainte-Palaye,
formed part of the bonds between younger men and illustrious chevaiiers whom they served