French Nobility: Charles Loyseau And Isabelle De Charriere

The lifestyle in France, just like in all other European countries, has changed dramatically since the early 1700’s. People went from farmers to factory owners to all of the professions of today’s society. The main reason for the great changes in lifestyle that occurred in France was the Industrial Revolution, which urbanized most of France. But the Industrial Revolution was not the only thing that changed France. The monarchy fell the church changed, and the role people had in their jobs and family life change drastically.

There are very few members in the first and second estates, yet they owned the most land, while the third estate made up most of the population, yet owned very little land. “First: Clergy - 1% of the people owned 10% of the land. Second Estate: Nobles - 2% of the people owned 35% of the land. Third Estate - Middle class, peasants, city workers 97% of the people owned 55% of the land.” (Document 2) There were high prices, high taxes, and people were listening to enlightenment ideas. Louis XVI decided to tax the Second Estate. They called a meeting of the Estates-General - an assembly of representatives from all three estates. (ROI) In addition, as a political cause, the third estate had no privileges or say in the government,while both the clergy and nobles did. As mentioned before, the inequality of taxes proved another gap in the social classes. “The Revolution had been accomplished in the minds of men long before it was translated into fact.... The middle class...was sensitive to their inferior legal position. The Revolution came from them-the middle class. The working classes were incapable of starting or controlling the Revolution. They were just beginning to learn to read.” (Document 4) Estates- General was the first such meeting in 175 years. Met on May 5th,1789 in Versailles. In the Estate- General each estate had one vote. (ROI)

The French Revolution was a time of period where social and political was a disruption in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799. This time of period affected Social Structure of France prior to the French Revolution. The factors that caused this revolution was due to having a bad government system, weak superiority, and inequality of the classes of people in France during the war. In this research, I will define and explain how Social Structure contributed to the French Revolution Resentment of royal authoritarianism. The three estates that social structure consists of are first estate which are the clergies, second estate known as the Nobleman, and third estate which are the Bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers. The Revolution did not omit sharp distinctions among the social groups, neither did it alter the distribution of wealth. This caused them to divide into these three groups called as estates.

Nobility is defined as possessing fine personal qualities, high moral principles and ideals. With nobility also comes a sense of superiority, but this connection between the two words is sometimes misunderstood. Some believe that nobility is gained by being superior to someone else. However, true nobility is obtained by, as stated by Ernest Hemingway, one being superior to his or her old self. Our class this year has read several books and short stories, but I believe that the two books that shows the clearest and most powerful depictions of this message are The Crucible and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the developments of John Proctor and Huck Finn.

During the time period of the late sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century the concept of what nobility is and what it was conceived to be varied greatly as more modern thoughts developed and desperation of monarchs grew to meet such demand. The arguments related to nobility differed greatly, but these were the most crucial; the difference between the sword and the robe and the right to even hold such a position at all.

This caused a strong dislike of Louis to grow in France. In addition to political problems, France was facing social problems. In document two a graph of the Three Estates is displayed. In France the First Estate which was the clergy, made up only one percent of society, while the Second Estate which contained the nobility made up two percent and the Third Estate, which held all of the commoners made up ninety seven percent of society. The first and second estate contained the least amount of people and enjoyed the most privileges in France.

Question 2: If there is one art the French people perfected, it is the art of ennui. While this is diluted with every new generation, the French people still seem to be perpetually uninspired by their political system. Today, this ennui results in little more than complaining, but historically, it has led to unrest. The paramount result of this is the French Revolution. Before the Revolution, French society had been highly divided by class lines and the Third Estate struggled while the First and Second Estates enjoyed prosperity. After the French Revolution, however, the French did everything they could to distance themselves from this system.

During the 1700s, France’s government was run by a three system estate system. The First Estate was made up by the powerful clergy members, while the Second Estate was made with nobles. Peasants and working men made the Third Estate, also the largest estate. In this large estate there was a little class named the Bourgeoisie was a part of the Third Estate. Though the Bourgeoisie was highly educated and always had stable professions, they were not set aside from the peasants. The Third Estate was treated very poorly during the 1700s. Life was not suitable for the working class. The mistreatment and inequality led to the French Revolution. Inequality during this time period meant that things were not the same throughout each class. Unequal power between the estates, abuse of the Third Estate, and the taxes and price raises were the three reasons that outweighed the many political, social, and economic factors that led to the French Revolution.

The First and Second Estate didn’t do nearly as much work for the country as the Third Estate did. This estate consisted of 75% of the country. They were in charge of the distribution of the agricultural products that the country made. As Abbe Sieyes said, “What is the Third Estate? Everything; but an everything shackled and oppressed.” (Abbe Sieyes). The Third Estate is the same as the other Estates, but more poor than them. Abbe Sieyes believed that they deserved more recognition than they ever got. Overall, the First and Second Estate treated the Third Estate terribly, and didn’t give them recognition for their work caused the French

The social state of France was the final reason for the French Revolution. The French social class was divided into three classes that included the clergy, nobles, ant the common people. The First estate was made of the higher and lower clergy. The higher clergy lived amongst luxury while the lower clergy were miserable. The Second Estate was made of the court nobles and provincial nobles, the court nobles also lived in luxury and the provincial nobles did not enjoy the same treatment. The Third estate was made of common people such as farmers, cobblers, and sweepers. In document 10 it presents a political carton that shows people of the upper-class standing on and crushing someone of lower class. This shows how the upper class were riding

Although the Lais of Marie de France may seem to be ordinary tales of knights and chivalry, each explores the complicated issues surrounding love, loyalty, and gender. Marie uses four stories in particular to make statements on the relationships between men and women of that time.

Before the French Revolution, there were three estates, or classes: the nobility, the clergy and the commoners. The nobility and the clergy had many more privileges than the third estate and that is what caused the French Revolution. The Third estate was composed of the peasants, the workers and the bourgeoisie; unlike the other segments of the Third Estate, the bourgeoisie was able to communicate its grievances to the public during the period after the French Revolution: 1789-1799.

In the first half of “Death of the Duel,” Appiah begins by providing the details of a duel between two prominent British government officials, using the specific example as a jumping point to discuss the general idea of dueling. The form of honor being represented in this case is that of reputation and the maintenance of regard from the general public. This concept of honor as a form of social standing is interesting because it subverts Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs—and many other psychological theories that try to map out human instinct—which places safety and security in higher regard than it does “esteem” or ego. In the case of the duel, honor is considered the highest human need, even above life itself if one considers the death toll, although that mainly applies to the aristocratic class, who had most of their basic needs taken care of already.

The nobility of the Kingdom of France has been evaluated by various scholars of history. There is something to be said, however, for those who chronicled their impressions while living them in the 17th and 18th centuries. The excerpts of Charles Loyseau’s A Treatise on Orders, written in 1610, and Isabelle de Charriere’s The Nobleman, written in 1763 provide two very different glimpses on the French nobility from differing time periods. From these two accounts, it is clear that there was a marked shift in the way some viewed the nobility and their role in the operation of the French state. While Loyseau praises the nobility nearly wholeheartedly,

The idea of human dignity has been remarked and articulated in a number of the jurisprudence works of the mid-twentieth American legal philosopher, Lon L. Fuller. The Morality of Law, for instance, provides a valuable snapshot of Fuller’s preliminary sense of what his idea on human dignity might entail. In the core of his argument of legal morality, Fuller proposes that any neglect of eight principles of legality, which constitutes the internal morality of law, is not just only render the rational ground to obey the law and destroy the trusteeship between lawgiver and subject, but it further condemns and humiliates the dignity of person or human being as a free and responsible agent, self-determining center of action, and that they possess inherent dignity. In other important text, Fuller explicitly announces that the value of human dignity, over other extra-legal values, that must embodied within the structure of legal order. After he offers a long discussion of human capacity of action and communication under the forms of order, he writes: “ there is, therefore, in an ordered system of law, formulated and administered conscientiously, a certain built-in respect for human dignity, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that this respect will tend to carry over into the substantive ends of law.” Thirdly, in his draft essay Means and Ends, which can be considered both as an introductory of Fuller’s eunmoics theory of social order and Fuller’s reflection on the