21437 The nobility state relationship (3)

190 • Antoni Mączak

gentry-aristocracy relationship), on that estates ability to answer new socio-polit-ical challenges; and that this was a feedback phenomenon, because (3) the State was also a strong factor which shaped and reshaped, created, and in extreme cases even tried to destroy nobilities; and that, consequently, (4) the nobility-state relationship clearly defined the distinctive characteristics (differentia specifica) of par-ticular States.

The nobility-state relationship will be discussed from two viewpoints: that of the nobles and that of the State. However, there were marked differences between members of the nobility according to both wealth and their place in the power system. Moreover the State was not a dear-cut entity According to Michael Braddick,

It is... an eitremely misleading shorthand that equates the State with the centre. The State is distinct from the locality not by being central but by being morę extensive than the local-ity; it is one of the things common to a number of localities rather than an alien and hostile central body. Thus the customary usage of centre versus locality cannot be said to refer to any geographical rcality but to orientations of interest or identity. A morę satisfactory shorthand might be extensive versus particular.¹

This dilemma of the central and the local, discussed in Chapter 4 of this vol-ume by Gerald Aylmer, was crutial for the power strategies of the nobles: they could compete with other elites (urban, ecclesiastical) for a place in the 'central goverament’, dominate local govemment, or merely concentrate their attention on running their own estates and governing their subjects: this was also a 'public responsibility'.

10.1 The Perspective of the Nobility

The printipal medieval stereotype relating to the nobility was that the knights were primarily warriors, defenders of the kingdom, the prince, and the popula-tion. After the formation of corporative estates, this would lead them to daim extensive fiscal freedoms. Yet this medieval ideology offered no elear proposals for their role in the centralizing administratiye structures of the modern age.

The noble-state relationship was not identical with nobility-state relations and the nobles were developingparallel strategies, individual and corporative, according to their means and connections, status and ambitions.

The crucial element of the emerging modern State was the political (and fiscal) interplay between the centre and the locality. The growth of the central institu-ńons, judidal, fiscal, and military, that appropriated major areas of responsibility, was certainly the most notable manifestation of the long-term political change. Though the centre was not identical with the State, contemporaries often identi-

fied the State (sometimes avant la lettre; but preferring to use morę specific, less abstract terms, like 'kingdom' or 'republic') with the monarch, his houschold, and associates. The advancement strategy depended on the means available to a fainily and on the starting-point of its striving for power. Any attempt at systematization must inevitably be crude; there were probably few cases of ambitious families that did not attempt morę than one route to social advancement.

The traditional path was that of a vassal or follower. One had to choose a patron who was likely to win against his competitors, and then advance upwards among his followers to a position close to the lord’s person. That strategy was practical even after vassalage had disappeared. It was perfectly compatible with bastard feu-dalism and could be adapted to the morę bureaucratic power structures of the six-teenth and seventeenth centuries. An interest in genealogy (including notorious falsifications) and heraldry was brought about because of its value for social ascent through lineage. The family, and /or kin, was interpreted fairly broadly; the familia could comprise the familiares, meaning ‘followers’ or ‘servants’. Thepatron's ability to promote his clients largely determined his position. In the patiimonial State, loyalty was among the fundamental virtues and qualifkations of office-holders. It was therefore practicable to choose dependable subordinates from among a rangę of followers.

Generally it may be said that the naturę of the State (and morę spedfically the nobility-state relation) was defined by the number of rungs effectively separating the humblest members of the corpus politicum from the prince, and also by the naturę of the gap between them.

An effective method of securing a foothold in the State structure was by becom-inga creditor of the State. The indenture system created hosts ofprincely creditors whom it was almost impossible to repay exceptby farming out, or selling to them, parts of the domain and/or offices, topped up with ennoblement or hereditary tides. The endemic financial crisis of the ‘domain State' madę this form of social and political advancement the rule rather than an anomaly. However, what had helped to shape the ruling elites now became a burden for the fisc and an intoler-able limit on government power. This eventually led to various movements which aimed to cut the aristocrats' exorbitant share in the public sector of the economy.

Perry Anderson argues that ‘the growth of Estates... did not alter the relationship between the monarchy and nobility in any unilateral direction. These insti-tutions ... increased the potential collective control of the nobility over [the monarchy].'⁶ As time went on, wherever assemblies of Estates, provindal or generał, were summoned, they encountered increasing interest from politically con-sdous nobles. The assemblies’ role in the process of social promotion is well

⁶ Andersoi

1,46.

1

Braddick (1991), 2.