6.1 Society and social order
Early modern society was hierarchical. According to the French lawyer Charles Loyseau (1564–1627), the division of people into different ranks was crucial to social stability:
Because we cannot live together in equality of condition, it is necessary that some command and others obey … Sovereign lords command all within their state, addressing their commands to the great; the great [address their commands] to the middling, the middling to the small, and the small to the people … Thus by means of these multiple divisions and subdivisions, the several orders make up a general order, and the several Estates a state well ruled.
(Loyseau, [1610] 1987, p. 14)
Although society remained hierarchical throughout the early modern period, the structure of that hierarchy changed over time.
Activity 5 Social structure
This should take around 5–10 minutes
Here are two definitions of the structure of society. The first is an extract from Loyseau’s Traité des ordres et simples dignités (‘Treatise on orders and plain dignities’); the other is from an article by Defoe (1660–1731), a novelist and social commentator, in an eighteenth-century newspaper.
Read the two quotations then answer the following questions:
- How many groups or orders do Loyseau and Defoe identify?
- What is the basis for their division of society?
Loyseau, Traité des ordres et simples dignités
Since the people is a body with several heads, it is divided by orders, Estates, or particular occupations. Some are dedicated particularly to the service of God, others to protecting the state by their arms, others to nourishing and maintaining it through peaceful occupations. These are our three orders or Estates General of France: the clergy, the nobility, and the Third Estate.
(Loyseau, [1610] 1987, p. 14)
Daniel Defoe, ‘Orders of society’
The great, who live profusely.
The rich, who live very plentifully.
The middle sort, who live well.
The working trades, who labour hard but feel no want.
The country people, farmers, &c., who fare indifferently.
The poor, that fare hard.
The miserable, that really pinch and suffer want.
(Defoe, [1709] 1971, p. 37)
Discussion
Loyseau describes three orders, based on their social function: the first estate, or clergy, who pray for the souls of the others; the second estate, the nobility, who protect the others from violence; and the third estate, or peasantry, who work to provide food for everyone. Defoe, however, identifies seven groups based on their relative wealth and hence their living conditions.
Loyseau’s description of three orders – clergy, nobles and peasants – dates back to the medieval period. It oversimplifies the social order, as there were significant variations in wealth and status within each group. For example, the nobility ranged from monarchs, some of whom were extremely wealthy, with many castles and palaces, to minor nobles who owned only a small estate with a single large house. It also leaves out merchants, traders and manufacturers: groups which grew in numbers and importance over the early modern period (Figure 3). Defoe’s description of seven gradations of wealth and status recognises this fragmentation of society, although most contemporary authors identified three groups: the elite, the middle or middling order (also often referred to as the middle sort, as seen in the extract from Defoe) and the poor.
Groups within early modern society are usually described as ranks, groups or orders, but not classes. ‘Class’ is the term used by historians working on the nineteenth century and refers to groups within industrial society, divided by their relationship to the means of production.
While nobles dominated the social elite in the sixteenth century, owning much of the land and wealth, by the eighteenth century they were joined in the social elite by wealthy merchants and bankers. Some merchants were much richer than the nobles; for instance the Fugger family in Germany earned huge amounts from their mines and lent vast sums of money to the nobility.
In the seventeenth century a new ‘middling order’ emerged. This group was made up of people with a wide range of occupations, such as smaller merchants, tradesmen, shopkeepers and prosperous farmers. It is hard to define the boundaries of the middle order, but members were recognisable by a group of characteristics. Members of the order employed staff to help in their businesses and households. They owned or rented a comfortable property, and expected to eat and drink well. They were educated, had good manners, paid taxes, took on social responsibilities, such as contributing to charities to care for the poor, and filled many roles in local government.
Below the middle order came the poor: a large and diverse group. Most poor people worked at some unskilled occupation – as market traders, labourers or laundrywomen, for example – but that work might be irregular. When they had no work, they were reduced to begging for food or money. The poor lived in cramped and often squalid dwellings, ate simple food, and had little or no schooling and few resources. Certain types of people were more likely to end up poor, including the old, the young, unmarried mothers, and the sick or disabled, all of whom found it difficult to find regular employment or work that paid a good wage.
Society was also divided along gender lines. Early modern Europe was a patriarchal society, where men held greater power than women. Men dominated the worlds of trade and of politics, but women were far from powerless. As parents, they had power over their children. Wealthy women ran large households, and the wives of nobles looked after their husbands’ estates while they were away on business or at war. A number of queens ruled in their own right during the early modern period, including Elizabeth I of England and Queen Christina of Sweden (1626–1689, reigned 1632–1654).
Early modern society was distinguished by a greater measure of mobility up and down the social scale than in medieval times. Successful merchants could become immensely rich, but misfortune or mismanagement could result in bankruptcy. A hard-working journeyman might establish a successful business, invest wisely, and ensure that his sons went to university and his daughters married well. Many peasant farmers could lose their access to common land, and be forced to become labourers or move to towns in the hope of finding work.
Activity 6 Family life
This should take around 20–30 minutes
Here are some short extracts from primary source documents that reveal something of early modern family life.
Part A: Ralph Josselin’s diary
Ralph Josselin (1617–1683) was the vicar at Earl’s Colne in Essex. His diaries record the everyday details of his life, including the births of his children. Josselin wrote in a style which is typical of the seventeenth century. You may find the grammar a bit odd and some words are spelt in an unfamiliar form. Josselin also uses some abbreviations to save time – not unlike modern texting! Reading historical texts is a skill so do try to work out what is being said. Often saying aloud exactly what you see can help. Where the meaning is hard to grasp we’ve provided the modern wording.
Read the following extract from The Diary of the Rev. Ralph Josselin 1616–1683, then answer the following questions:
- How would you sum up Josselin’s account of the births of his children?
- What does he describe?
- What is his attitude to the arrival of children?
[[p. 12]] [1642] My wife now growing bigge & ill, my mother [in law] came from Olny to us upon a Tuesday […] April : 12 : after sermon, having waited upon God in his house, my wife called her women and God was mercifull to mee in my house, giving her a safe deliverance, & a daughter which on Thursday April : 14 was baptized by the name of Mary, Mr Rich : Harlakenden, Mr John Litle, Mrs Mary Mildmay & my wives mother being witnesses. I entertayned my neighbors all about; it cost me 6l. & 13s. 4d. at least : they showed much love to mee from all parts : God blessed my wife to bee a nurse [Was able to breastfeed the baby], and our child thrived, and was even then a pleasant comfort to us : God wash it from its corruption & sanctify it and make it his owne […]
[[p. 65]] [May 5 1649] My deare wife had beene very ill for 3 weekes, now towards night paynes [pains] came fast on her and shee was delivered before nine of the clocke of her 5t [fifth] child, and third sonne, God giving us another sonne in stead of my deare Ralph whom he tooke away ; my wife was alone a great while with our good freinds Mrs Mary, and her mother ; some few women were with her, but the midwife not, but when God commands deliverance yr [there] is nothing hinders it.
[[p. 144]] [Nov 26 1664] On Thursday morning about seven of the clocke or before, my deare wife after many sad pains, and sadder feares, in respect of the unkindlines of her labor, was yett through Gods mercy, delivered of her 10th child, sixt daughter, and or [our] now seventh child and 5t daughter living, for wrh [which] mercy my soule blesseth him.
(Hockliffe (ed.), 1908, pp. 12, 65, 144)
Discussion
Josselin tells us very little about the births, or the infants – but he does describe something about his wife’s labours. (This is probably because men were not expected to be present at the birth itself: this was an event attended by women.) He clearly welcomes the children, and writes fondly of a dead child (‘deare Ralph’). Josselin spends a lot of space expressing his thanks to God for the safe delivery of children, and clearly sees that God rather than human agency ultimately determines whether children live or die.
Part B: Richard Gough, the history of Myddle
Richard Gough (1635–1723) wrote The History of Myddle between 1700 and 1706. It is a biographical portrait of a village, based on Gough’s own memories and reflecting his opinions. Most of the material describes life in the late seventeenth century.
Read the following extract from Gough’s ‘The account of the Watkins family’. Then answer the following questions:
- What does this document suggest about the importance of marriage, and attitudes to marriage, in the seventeenth century?
- What does it suggest about businesses?
Mr. Francis Watkins was married after the wars in England. He was heir to his father’s lands, and also to his art of good husbandry, in which his care, diligence, and skill, was not exceeded by any in this county. He marled [fertilised] several pieces, and got abundance of corn. He purchased lands in Tylley Park, and certainly, if he had lived, he had been an exceeding rich man. His wife was provident and sparing, even to a fault; and, therefore, he could not keep so good a house as his father did, which was no small trouble to him. He died and left five small children behind him; viz three sons and two daughters. His widow afterwards married with Mr. Charles Dimock, a younger brother of that ancient family, of the Dimocks of Willeton. He had no knowledge in husbandry, and his whole delight was in drinking; not as some drunkards plead, for company’s sake, but for the sake of drink. He lived but few years with her before he died. She had no child by him, and she got nothing, but rather lost by this marriage. She married a third husband, his name was John Cotton, an ancient bachelor. He was son and heir of Richard Cotton, of Haston. She got well by this marriage, which was helpful to her children. She had no child by him, and he died before her. She was much to be commended for giving her children good education, and put every one of them in a good condition to live. Mary, the youngest daughter, was married to Mr. Roe, of Preece. He was a fair and good-humoured man. He died and left her a widow, and now she is married again, but I know not what his name is. Elizabeth, the eldest, was married to John Joyce, who lives at the lodge in Kenwicke Park. John, the youngest son, was set apprentice to a grocer or merchant in Bristol, and was set up but broke; and, [[p. 53]] after receiving a small supply from his mother, he set up at Wolverhampton, and there married, and after grew melancholy and died. Francis the second son, was a grocer in Shrewsbury, and was set up in a good condition. He married a daughter of Mr. Collins Woolrich, an apothecary, and one of the senior aldermen of Shrewsbury, and had a good fortune with her; but he (trusting out goods too rashly) broke. William, the eldest son, was put a covenanted servant unto Mr. John Edwards, one of the ablest attorneys at law in this county. At expiration of his term, he married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Mr. John Edwards.
This Mr. William Watkins is now (1701) owner of this farm, and very happy in that it hath pleased God to give him such skill, care, and industry in good husbandry as his grandfather and father had, for he is not inferior to either of them therein. He is also happy in a prudent, provident and discreet wife who is every way suitable for such a husband. They live very lovingly together, very loving to their neighbours, and very well beloved by their neighbours, and they are both happy in that it hath pleased God in token of his love to them, and their mutual love one to another to bless them with many comely and witty children.
(Gough, 1979, pp. 52)
Discussion
Gough clearly thinks that marriage is important: he records all the marriages in the family (even Mary’s second marriage, although he knows nothing about her husband). All of the family marry at least once; Francis Watkins’ widow marries three times. This is not unusual for the period.
While farming can be a prosperous enterprise, Gough suggests that setting up in business can be a risky one: two of Francis’ sons fail in business.
OpenLearn - Early modern Europe: an introduction
Except for third party materials and otherwise, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence, full copyright detail can be found in the acknowledgements section. Please see full copyright statement for details.