24965 The nobility state relationship (5)

192 • Antoni Mączak

known for PoJand, a country where provindai Diets constituted the core ofrepub-Jicanism on a nadonal scalę, and self-government at local level.

In the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, the provincial Diets (sejmiki) in Poland-Lithuania elected deputies and gave them instructions, nominated candidates for various posts and dignides, madę decisions about local taxes, provincial by-laws, the milida, law and order. Their sessions constituted a rostrum for politicians where upstarts had to demonstrate their gift for rhetoric. Most noblemen ofsub-stance participated in the provindal Diets. The sdons of the wealthiest families used to be elected to the Chamber of Deputies of the Sejm, the Jower house of the bicamera1 nadonal Diet, but rarely morę than once. Such proof of greatpopular-ity with the populus nobilium madę the young magnate, like an andent Roman nobilis, a proper and immediate candidate for further dignides and a seat in the Senate, that is, the upper house of the Sejm. Freąuently deputies came ffom the provindal nobility who also dominated the law courts and local administration. Lesser nobles had to prove their worth laboriously working up ffom humble ori-gins, or from less disdnguished functions and offices, to the higher ones. The Diet was a perfect stage for them, regardless of whether they acted on their own account or as dients of another.

In other countries, the representative assemblies played a similar, if rarely equally important, sodal and political role for the gentry. However, legał and even techmcal factors, such as the ffequency of sessions, were decisive for their role in the life of the landed gentry. This holds good for any meetings of country gentle-men, such as the Justices’ Sessions and Assizes in England. It was characteristic of them (as, for that matter, of the dty patricians) for their public commitments to be interspersed with the events of their private lives—christenings, weddings, funer-als, and so on.¹

In the France of Louis XIY in sharp contrast to Poland, the nobles were expected to show their loyalty, and ‘the prindpal subtlety’ of their negotiations naust have been ‘in non-negotiating', particularly taxes and other burdens.² But in a somewhat abstract way what has been stated about the Frenchpays d’etat seems ironically to fit contemporaneous Poland-Lithuania. In France, on the one hand, ‘the asSiembly was morę effectively manipulated by the king, but on the other, it had morę serious and consequential work to do’;³ in some remote provinces of Poland-Lithuania, the role of the ruling prince was played by the magnate, even if he was only a ‘broker’ effectively monopolizing access to resources at the centre.

But the representative assemblies, local and nadonal, could also be champions of noble dissent and this is why their activities were regarded by some rulers as

The Nobility-State Relationship • 193

incompatible with the growth of royal power and prerogative. Virtual estinction, if not formal suppression, of the assemblies of estates in most German principali-des during and after the Thirty Years War increased the direct andpersonal depen-dence of the landed gentlemen upon the ruler, and it must have influenced their community life as well.

The mechanisms of dientage are discussed in Chapter 7 so I can confine my com-ments to a few specific observations on the nobility-state relationship. Absolute monarchy was perfectly compatible with the existence of noble dientage; the problem was who was permitted to play patron. The form of power which could not be tolerated by absolute rulers was the territorial power-base of the great lords. This had been an important issue in the Middle Ages, but it gained momentum from the beginnings of the modem period. With the exception of a few areas where urban interests had the upper hand in political life, the higher nobilitys landed wealth and traditional domination over an are a madę them fairly obvious candidates for appointment to offices, which were likely to bring them additional power and profits.

Before and during the early sixteenth century, France and Spain experienced aristocratic domination over huge areas, which would disappear with the devel-opment of formal State institutions. Take for instance the Gascon family of La Tremoille which had vast estates along the Atlantic coast, felt responsible for its defence, and dominated the nobility of a great area extending from Brittany down to Guyenne.⁴ The strong position of the Tremoilles in these regions madę them eligible for high office but created a potential for conflict of interest with the king. By the late sixteenth century, their greatness was gone, and the Frondę was to offer them a last chance to use their influence in Brittany.⁵

In the two violent political conflicts that preceded the Revolution, the Wars of Religion and the Frondę, regional influence was used chiefly through levies of retainers.⁶ The Frondę of the Princes may be regarded as the last effort of the aristocrats to regain their political position, as a confrontation of two types of power: that of the loyal governors and intendants, and of the high aristocrats availing themselves of their own wealth and influence over the nobility and towns. However, this distinction was by no means exdusive because many gov-ernors loyal to Cardinal Mazarin had multiple connections in their provinces. The suppression of the Frondę finally destroyed the power of the aristocracy as territorial lords but left them the role of ornament to the monarchy. The finał blow to the magnates was delivered by the royal court at Versailles which,

1

Mingay (1963), u6,118.

2

* Conti to the Estates of Languedoc (1662), ąuoted by Beik (1985), 305.

3

Ibid. 314.

4

weaiy (1985), 187,212.    ⁵ Kettering (1986!?), 421.

5

w p_or the Wars of Religion, see a recent summing-up by Jouanna (1977), 80; on the dien-

6

tage in particular: Kettering (1989), 221,239;