Смекни!
smekni.com

The Move From Aristocracy To Bureaucracy (стр. 1 из 3)

? Discuss This View Of The Development Of States Within Thi Essay, Research Paper

This question assumes much about the nature of an

aristocracy in a Europe that saw countries such as Turkey where, until around

1570, the aristocracy was almost negligible to Russia, where the boyars of Ivan

IV are believed by some to have replaced the Tsar himself. In a continent of

such diversity, there is bound to be a different reasoning for each form of

aristocracy and the development of each state.?

The schism is particularly strong between Western and Eastern Europe.In the fifteenth century, the Papal schism, the

accession of such characters as Charles VI of France, the repeated minorities

in Scotland and the limited constitutional power of the Holy Roman Emperor lent

western rulers a dependence on their nobles who started the period as the best

educated large class of lay people reliable for use at court, but this would

soon change, aided by the growth of educational institutes, founded on the spur

of the Renaissance and the Reformation.?

The death of the feudal army or fyrd was vital in decreasing the

importance of the nobility.? Experienced

mercenaries were hired across Europe with their experienced veteran

captains.? Henry VIII hired ?Scots,

Spaniards, Gascons, Portuguese, Italians, Albanians, Greeks, Tatars, Germans,

Burgundians and Flemings? according to one contemporary whilst Michael Romanov

kept 17,400 mercenaries in his service.?

His son, Alexis, employed 60,000 by 1663.? Until the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis, the French border along the

Spanish Road was guarded by 10,000 Swiss pikemen.? Removing the need to rely on the aristocracy as one?s source of

military power removed a vital part of the nobility?s hold on the monarchy and

took away all of their power to insist on political influence.? The destruction of nobility in battle, such

as that of the Scots at Flodden not only reinforced the need for professional

soldiers but reaffirmed the decline of the soldier-noble as a class, and set the

tone for an era of downsizing and demoting the old noblesse d?epee.? The

muzzling of the aristocracy and the power to patronise the lower nobility

increased the power of monarchies through this age . Bodin wrote that the only ?truly royal? states in

Early Modern Europe were England, Spain and France, and it is with these

category of states that we will start. France was a strongly monarchical state that, from

the reign of Francis I, openly held venal offices.? The growth of offices throughout the period and of the

office-holding class was more advanced in the French kingdom than elsewhere.

Between 1515 and 1665, the number of venal offices rose from 4,000 to 46,000

and the amount of revenue they produced was reckoned to be about 419 million

livres ? five times the annual royal budget.?

As a result of ennoblement through these channels, the noblesse de robe emerged to challenge

the three ancient estates (leading some historians to suggest, probably

mistakenly, that the gentry wished to form a fourth estate), and in line with

the increase in the sale of offices, they increased the power of their class.

Whereas Henri II and Francois I had courts filled with princes of the blood,

dukes, peers and great officers (reflecting the roots of the noblesse d??p?e), by the late sixteenth

century, the power of the old aristocrats even at the highest levels was being

eroded.? In 1594, the Constable

Montmorency-Damville sat on the Royal Financial Commission with three other

great nobles, but by 1598, with the exception of the Protestant Sully, the

King?s council was a representation of the noblesse

de robe. The accumulation of offices in France in some cases

did reinforce the aristocracy as they bought they way to influence, and in some

cases, wealthier aristocrats amassed such a number of offices of such influence

that they could become local sovereigns.?

This is paradoxical, given that a strong argument for the cultivation of

the culture of venality was as a means to counter the growing irritation of the

local Parlements and estates that

were enforcing forms of local independence.?

However, in general, this era saw a usurping of the great nobles by the

gentry. The growth of the influence of the gentry was not

just recognition of the growth of their numerical strength and improved status

as noblesse de robe, but as a result

of the faction and intrigue that pervaded France?s old nobility throughout the

Wars of Religion.? As a result, the

nobility tended only to return to favour as regards appointments during

exceptional cases of excellence or during times of royal weakness.? (For example, Gaston and Conde were recalled

to the royal chambers during the minority of Louis XIV.)? Louis XIV?s reign, starting in 1661,

typifies the trend: of his seventeen councillors, just two were from old

aristocratic houses.? Not only were the

old nobility racked with ancient grudges and prone to faction, but they almost

universally lacked the legal training necessary to maintain a seventeenth

century administrative position.? By the

advent of the seventeenth century, all that the nobility were fit for were

regional posts and army or ecclesiastical positions. Whilst the high nobility suffered, the robins (lawyers) gained a monopoly over

the sercretaryships in all of the sections of royal affairs requiring routine

administration and in the sovereign courts.?

It must be realised that the old system of old families dominating the

court had neither stigma nor problem for Early Modern Europe.? It was the order in which things lay.? As such, the growth of legal and financial

noblesse de robe dynasties was a hallmark of this era.? The Phelypeaux family provided nine

secretaries of state without a break between 1610 and 1777 whilst the Nicolay

family provided the nine first presidents of the Chambre des Comptes of Paris

between 1506 and 1791. By 1521, Francois I was complaining that ?most of the

offices of the kingdom, of all types, are owned in expectancy?.? Paradoxically, given their nouveau riche

means, the old hereditary principle of office was actually reinforced by the

noblesse de robe, who having bought offices, saw them as bought property and as

a means of reinforcing their membership of the second estate. Although Francois insisted that one had to survive

the changeover of office by forty days in order to prevent the establishment of

new dynasties and to allow the reversion of offices back to the Crown for their

resale, the droit annuel was later

adopted in exchange for the forty days rule, as a means of extracting money

from the offices.? Time-shared offices

were opposed at every turn, and eventually the format for the retention of

offices was of offices that could be inherited, but which were taxed.? The price of offices was hit by inflation,

which although reflected by the tied-in droit annuel, made offices unobtainable

by the royalty, so the crown could not benefit from the rise in values. As

another consequence of the inflation, the Crown could not afford to buy any

offices and so could not reform them.?

The growth in offices occurred at all levels. Offices, such as the

businesses of urban fishmongers, were soon acquired by the government in an

attempt to raise more revenue, but they succeeded only in confusing the

convoluted societal structure further.?

With offices out of the price range of the government, reform of the

system was impossible.? Revenue was

raised by the sale of new offices, created by adding layers upon layers were

added to the state administrative system.?

The Parlements recorded feelings of being threatened by a new executive

justice across the kingdom. The French bureaucratic class grew massively,

though most of the posts were redundant (the old taille office found itself monitoring the activities of a new

office in charge of all taxes and levies) and so reduced the number of bureaucrats

without increasing the active power of the government.? However, it is important to remember that

with the bought offices, many of the supposed bureaucrats were almost of

amateur status, and can not really be judged to be bureaucrats in the spirit of

the question. The growth of venal government never extended as

high as the kings? Chief Ministers.? The

ministries were never purchasable offices and they relied on personal contact

with the King for their appointment.? At

this level, it is fair to say that a professional bureaucracy rose up, although

whether one can regard the attitude of Richelieu as being any different to his

predecessors is debatable.? Not a

?professional,? in the modern sense of the word, he did use the position for

personal financial gain (to the tune of three million livres per annum) as did

his predecessors. Indeed, the nature of the post might suggest that although

the post was meritocratic, it had always been so.? This was not modernisation on the part of the Renaissance kings,

so much as royal common sense? Louis

XIV?s decision to rule alone reflects that the king?s advisers needed to be

suitably meritorious and that they were just a help to pragmatic kings? (it is

hard to believe that the egocentric Sun King would have found anyone that he

trusted more than himself.)? Had there

ever been more than pragmatic realism to the post, then the ceremony-obsessed

Louis would probably have had one.??

Richelieu and de Mazarin were France?s two most illustrious Ministers

and royal friendship was their sole qualification. The importance of the royal ministries was the power

to appoint, sack and reform ministers and ministries.? Richelieu was able to clear the court of redundant offices (such

as Admiral and Constable) by 1627, reflecting the diminishing of the importance

of the old hierarchy in favour of a new system. The King?s Council was rapidly

becoming less noble, as typified by the afore-mentioned selection preferences

of Louis XIV, and ministers of state were therefore less subservient to the

Council.? The Council of State, formed

in 1643, met passing statutes in the presence of the king and decrees in his

absence. Ministers for individual areas emerged, and foreign affairs ministers,

financial ministers and military ministers were all mandated by the rise of

Louis XIV.? Vitally, this system not

only reserved the king the power of appointment taken away by the venal

offices, but also allowed a meritocracy to emerge at the highest levels of

government.? Although the French system was more open to

newcomers than its formality might suggest, it is important to remember that by

the eighteenth century, the noblesse de robe and the noblesse d?epee were

indistinguishable, and that although the later system was more competent,

excluding those lacking judicial training, it was by no means a

bureaucracy.? Indeed, it was with the

aim of joining the aristocracy that bureaucrats emerged.? Although the venality of the French system was very

extreme, it is a good example of the muzzling of the aristocracy and the rise

of the educated lower gentry and noblesse

de robe.? A pattern that occurs

elsewhere, although for different reasons. In Spain, similar diminuation of the great offices

was occurring although the extensive scale of venal offices was not so great.? As such, in 1520 the Constable and Admiral

were given joint regency with Adrian of Utrecht, a deviation from the normal

path of Spanish government made in order to win over the rapidly weakening

Castilian nobility.? Charles V had

stopped having a Secretary of State by 1530, and instead deferred such

responsibility to a pair of secretaries of state.? The movement from these secretaries to real ministries only came

under Olivares who set up a Junta de

Ejecucion to make a centralised policy to circumvent the twelve Cortes.?

The Juntas were sabotaged and abolished by 1643 and Spain once more

became a politically fragmented and regionalist country, closer to a monarquia than a monarchy. Olivares was attempting to cripple the Cortes system

and the regional assemblies because it was precisely counter to the

meritocratic system that had produced him.?

The royal council of Castile had been dominated by the great nobility

theoughout the fifteenth century and faction had overruled real political

questions.? As such, after 1480, the

nobles lost the right to vote on affairs of state.? Although the 1504-6 and 1516-22 crises demonstrated their

continued power, by the 1530s they were finally reduced to the position that

Olivares wanted them.? The replacement

of the Spanish aristocracy required the intake of large numbers of letrados (University trained jurists)

and they soon came to dominate the corregidores

? the posts of administration and justice.?

They brought about a rapid improvement in the general standard of justice

in Spain, but they were soon corrupted and by the seventeenth century they

represented the interests of local grandees.?

Murcia?s official in 1647 protected bandits and promoted smuggling out

of Portugal. The era saw the rise of the educated lesser nobility,

in accordance with the rise of education in Spain.? The two Castilian universities became twenty by 1620, making

Spain one of the best educated countries in Europe.? The thirteen Aragonite universities and twenty Castilian

institutions supplied all of the twenty-four judges in the Chancelleria of

Valladolid, and fifty of Philip IV?s hundred councillors were university

professors.? Most were from northern

Spanish families who had been ennobled within three generations.?? Philip IV?s council of Castile was entirely

run by letrados whilst the Audencias (Courts

of Appeal) were also effectively run by the letrados. Due to the improvement in the education of the

judges and magistrates, there was no real control of the lawyers by the

monarchy, which meant that, in Olivares? words justice fell into ?total

abandon?, as the justices went unmonitored.?

As such, hereditary posts developed and a venal culture developed.? Carlos II?s reign (1665) saw a commentator

observe that ?there are those who occupy their offices as though they bought

them? and that dignities were made into ?inheritances or sales?.? The Castilian crown started to sell offices

formally and raised 90 million ducats between 1619 and 1640.? Important positions for the localities

became semi-hereditary posts and cities were almost self-governing by the

1700s.? Although Charles V halted

further ennoblements through offices, this period saw the growth of the lower

aristocracy, replacing the grandees as the real power-base in Spain. ??????????? In England, a similar pattern occurs, but it is not due

to the growth of lay education so much as the faction of the English

aristocracy.? Within two generations of

the end of the War of the Roses, no Tudor was likely to allow the build up of

any more dynastic rivals, especially given their own inability to get

heirs.? Henry VIII?s reliance on

mercernaries over domestic troops was another aspect of his emasculation of the

nobility.? Equally, the need to exclude

the monasteries from the royal administration encouraged the growth of the

lower noble bureaucracy.? Although there

was no Eltonian ?New Monarchy? in this time, it is fair to say that we do see

an improved recognition for educated ordinary men in the English court.? Wolsey was the son of an Ipswich butcher,

and according to Elton, Cromwell was a ?Putney wide-boy.???? Although the era brings a new opportunity

for the advancements of ordinary people at the court, this was the result of

the development from chamber finance to exchequer economics and the subsequent

movement from arrogance about the rights of noble to a marginally more

egalitarian arrogance about the rights of the educated man. ??????????? In France and Spain, we see the growth of the lower

nobility and upper gentry into a class of administrators that in many cases

bought their way into the state structure, and then passed their position on,

so creating not a bureaucracy, but a new elite.? The old oligarchy that relied on the financial and military power

of nobles and used the church?s resources, especially after Martin V?s drive

for ecclesiastical administrative power following the schism to restore papal

prestige, was replaced by an oligarchy of lay clerks drawn from the bloated

?educated? class. ??????????? This is a pattern repeated in other western states.? In Germany, the rights and privileges of the

nobility were well recorded.? The

Imperial Knights (Ritterschaft) formed leagues and contested their position