Seigneurialism was a system of rural organisation and land tenure used in 18th-century France. The basis of the seigneurial system, which originated from medieval feudalism, was almost entirely economic – it required peasants who occupied land owned by a seigneur to provide him with feudal dues and unpaid labour. These obligations and the seigneurial system that underpinned them were significant sources of dissatisfaction and grievance in the late 18th century.

Feudal origins

French seigneurialism was a system partly derived from feudalism, the dominant political, social and economic system in Europe during the Middle Ages. Medieval feudalism was a hierarchical system that organised communities so they could feed, supply and defend themselves.

Though inherently unequal, feudalism bound different social classes together with a series of bonds or obligations. The lord allowed peasants or serfs to work his land. In return, the peasants handed over a proportion of their grain or produce to the lord. The lord also shared land with his knights, who helped the lord defend his realm. All classes contributed to the church with gifts and tithes, believing they would facilitate blessings from God.

These feudal relationships and commitments provided medieval Europeans with enough sustenance, stability and security to survive in small communities through sometimes dangerous periods.

Seigneurialism emerges

Medieval feudalism in its entirety died out in France before the 1500s. By the turn of the 1700s, France had a strengthening national government and a rapidly changing economy – yet remnants of feudalism lingered in many rural areas. This diluted form of feudalism, which historians now call seigneurialism, was chiefly economic and concerned only with ownership and tenure of the land.

That some ideas and practices of medieval feudalism continued to exist within a growing capitalist economy was an anachronism. Yet seigneurialism was defended by the French nobility and the church – even by wealthy members of the bourgeoisie, who hoped one day to be seigneurs themselves.

As historian Jack Censer put it, “French society was a kind of hybrid, neither entirely free of the feudal past nor entirely caught up in it”.

“In the 1780s a French lord could collect a variety of monetary and material payments from his peasants; could insist that nearby villages grind their grain in the feudal mill, bake their bread in the feudal oven, press their grapes in the feudal wine press; could set the date of the grape harvest; could have local cases tried in his own court; could claim particularly favored benches in church for his family and point to family tombs below the church floor; could take pleasures forbidden the peasants – hunting, raising rabbits or pigeons.”
John Markoff, historian

Seigneurialism in operation

Seigneurialism was framed as being mutually beneficial but the reality is that it was inherently one-sided, with many benefits for the lord and few, if any, for the peasant.

The seigneur doled out sections of his estate in small plots to individuals, families or small groups. Those who occupied and worked the seigneur’s land were subject to a range of feudal dues, including the champart (paid in grain or produce) and the cens (paid in cash).

Where the system was strongest, the landowner could hold a seigneurial court within his estate and pass legal judgement on peasants who lived there. There were over 70,000 of these courts in place, though they operated very infrequently, some not sitting for many years.

Seigneurs could also demand the much-loathed corvée, which required each male peasant to provide several days of unpaid labour on the seigneur’s own projects. This usually took the form of working their private land or repairing buildings, fences, bridges or roads.

The seigneur often owned the flour mill, the baker’s oven and the grape press – all critical infrastructure in a rural village – and required annual payments for their use (banalités). In some regions, the seigneur was the only party permitted to own male pigs or cattle, for which he charged a stud or breeding fee.

A coveted position

Most seigneurs were nobles, though this was not always the case. Many members of the clergy and upper bourgeoisie purchased seigneuries (feudal estates) in the 17th and early 18th centuries. The status and trappings of the seigneur – the collection of feudal dues, exclusive hunting rights, an individual pew in the local church and so on – were prestigious and highly sought after.

The seigneurial system came under attack throughout the 1700s. Many philosophes condemned the historical origins of seigneurial dues, most of which stemmed from medieval ideas of fiefdom and fealty but were without real legal basis.

They also criticised the seigneurial system for its inequality, noting that in some seigneuries, the peasants existed as virtual slaves. Several radical economists suggested that seigneurial economics held back agricultural production. A more open labour market, they argued, would benefit economic progress.

The administration and paperwork involved in maintaining the seigneurial system were also extensive and complex. Unlike the Middle Ages, 18th-century feudal dues were usually outlined in contracts and deeds associated with land tenure.

Contribution to revolution

To what extent was seigneurialism a critical grievance leading to the French Revolution? This question has long interested historians. It is difficult to answer generally because seigneurial dues took different forms from place to place and were levied more rigorously in some parts of France than others. Seigneurial dues were proportionately heavier in northern France, for example, than in the south, at least for the champart and cens.

Regardless of this inconsistency, opposition to seigneurial dues was quite widespread across France. The best evidence for this can be found in the cahiers de doléance, the grievance books drawn up in early 1789 for submission to the Estates General.

Rigorous studies of cahiers drafted by the Third Estate show almost no support for retaining feudal rights as they stood. The majority of the cahiers (55 percent) suggested abolishing the champart and cens, albeit with some compensation to the seigneur. A smaller proportion (36 percent) suggested reforming or merging these payments. The cahiers were similarly opposed to the banalités, arguing that they be abolished with (43 percent) or without (40 percent) compensation to the seigneur.

1. Seigneurialism was a system of land tenure used in some rural areas of 18th century France. It was derived from and contained aspects of medieval feudalism.

2. Unlike medieval feudalism, which connected social classes and provided stability and security in a small community, 18th-century seigneurialism took the form of a land contract between the seigneur (lord or landowner) and the peasant farmer.

3. In seigneurial holdings, peasants were required to make annual payments to the seigneur, either in cash (cens) or with produce (champart). The seigneur also charged taxes for using infrastructure like the flour mill, wine press and baker’s oven (banalités).

4. The seigneur could also demand a period of unpaid labour from his tenants, called the corvée. Many peasants were also subject to seigneurial courts, which were overseen by the seigneur.

5. The feudal dues imposed under seigneurialism, while not applied uniformly across France, were nevertheless unpopular. This is reflected in the cahiers de doléance drafted by the Third Estate in early 1789.

Citation information
Title: ‘Seigneuralism’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/seigneurialism/
Date published: September 18, 2019
Date updated: November 6, 2023
Date accessed: May 2, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

Before the revolution, French society was divided into three estates or orders: the First Estate (clergy), Second Estate (nobility) and Third Estate (commoners). The Third Estate was by far the largest of the three estates, and its frustrations and grievances were pivotal factors in the unfolding revolution.

Diversity

The Third Estate comprised around 27 million people, or 98 percent of the population of France. As might be expected in such a large group, it contained considerable diversity.

There were many different classes and levels of wealth represented in the Third Estate, as well different professions and ideas. Its members lived in rural, provincial and urban locations. They ranged from lowly beggars and struggling peasants to urban artisans and labourers; from shopkeepers and the commercial middle classes to the nation’s wealthiest merchants and capitalists.

Despite the Third Estate’s enormous size and economic importance, it played almost no role in the government of the Ancien Regime. This lack of participation was a significant source of frustration, particularly for wealthy and educated members of the Third Estate.

The peasantry

Peasants inhabited the bottom tier of the Third Estate’s social hierarchy. Comprising between 82 and 88 percent of the population, peasant-farmers were the nation’s lowest social strata.

While levels of wealth and income varied, it is reasonable to suggest that most French peasants were poor. A very small percentage of peasants owned land in their own right and were able to live independently as yeoman farmers. The vast majority, however, were either feudal tenants, métayers (tenant sharecroppers who worked someone else’s land) or journaliers (day labourers who sought work wherever they could find it).

Whatever their situation, all peasants were heavily taxed by the state. If they were feudal tenants, peasants were also required to pay dues to their local seigneur or lord. If they belonged to a parish, as most did, they were expected to pay an annual tithe to the church. These obligations were seldom relaxed, even during difficult periods such as poor harvests, which pushed many peasants to the brink of starvation.

Urban dwellers

Other members of the Third Estate lived and worked in towns and cities. The 18th century was a period of industrial and urban growth in France, though most cities remained comparatively small. There were only nine French cities with a population exceeding 50,000 people. Paris, with around 650,000 people, was by far the largest.

Most commoners in the towns and cities made their living as merchants, skilled artisans or unskilled workers. Artisans worked in industries like textiles and clothing manufacture, upholstery and furniture, clock-making, locksmithing, leather goods, carriage making and repair, carpentry and masonry. A few artisans operated their own business but most worked for large firms or employers.

Before doing business or gaining employment, an artisan had to belong to the guild that managed and regulated his particular industry. Unskilled labourers worked as servants, cleaners, haulers, water carriers, washerwomen, hawkers – in short, anything that did not require training or membership of a guild.

Many Parisians, perhaps as many as 80,000 people, had no job at all: they survived by begging, scavenging, petty crime and prostitution.

Deteriorating conditions

The lives of urban workers became increasingly difficult in the 1780s. Parisian workers toiled for meagre wages: between 30 and 60 sous a day for skilled labourers and between 15 and 20 sous a day for the unskilled. Wages rose by around 20 percent in the 25 years before 1789, however prices and rents increased by 60 percent in the same period.

The poor harvests of 1788-89 pushed Parisian workers to the brink by driving up bread prices. In early 1789, the price of a four-pound loaf of bread in Paris increased from nine sous to 14.5 sous, almost a full day’s pay for most unskilled labourers.

Low pay and high prices were compounded by the miserable living conditions in Paris. Accommodation in the capital was so scarce that workers and their families crammed into shared attics and dirty tenements, most rented from unscrupulous landlords. With rents running at several sous a day, most workers economised by sharing accommodation. Many rooms housed between six and ten people, though 12 to 15 per room was not unknown.

Conditions in these tenements were cramped, unhygienic and uncomfortable. There was no heating, plumbing or common ablutions; the toilet facilities were usually an outside cesspit or open sewer while water was fetched by hand from communal wells.

The bourgeoisie

Not all members of the Third Estate were impoverished. At the apex of the Third Estate’s social hierarchy was the bourgeoisie or capitalist middle classes. The bourgeoisie were business owners and professionals with enough wealth to live comfortably.

As with the peasantry, there was also diversity within their ranks. The so-called petit bourgeoisie (‘petty’ or ‘small bourgeoisie‘) were small-scale traders, landlords, shopkeepers and managers. The haute bourgeoisie (‘high bourgeoisie‘) were wealthy merchants and traders, colonial landholders, industrialists, bankers and financiers, tax farmers and trained professionals, such as doctors and lawyers.

The bourgeoisie flourished during the 1700s, due in part to France’s economic growth, modernisation, increased production, imperial expansion and foreign trade. The haute bourgeoisie rose from the middle classes to become independently wealthy, well-educated and ambitious.

As their wealth increased so did their desire for social status and political representation. Many bourgeoisie craved entry into the Second Estate. They had money to acquire the costumes and grand residences of the noble classes but lacked their titles, privileges and prestige. A system of venality allowed the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie to buy their way into the nobility, though by the 1780s this was becoming frightfully expensive.

“The social structure on the European continent still bore an aristocratic imprint, the legacy of an era when, because land was virtually the sole source of wealth, those who owned it assumed all rights over those who worked it… Almost the whole population was lumped into a ‘third order’, called in France the Third Estate. Aristocratic prerogatives condemned this order to remain eternally in its original state of inferiority. [But] throughout … France, this ordering of society was challenged by a long-term change which increased the importance of mobile wealth and the bourgeoisie, and highlighted the leading role of productive labour, inventive intelligence and scientific knowledge.”
Georges Lefebvre, historian

Frustrated ambitions

The thwarted social and political ambitions of the bourgeoisie created considerable frustration. The haute bourgeoisie had become the economic masters of the nation, yet government and policy remained the exclusive domains of the royalty and their noble favourites.

Many educated bourgeoisie found solace in Enlightenment tracts, which challenged the foundation of monarchical power and argued that government should be representative, accountable and based on popular sovereignty. When Emmanuel Sieyes published What is the Third Estate? in January 1789, it struck a chord with the self-important bourgeoisie, many of whom believed themselves entitled to a hand in government.

What is the Third Estate? was not the only expression of this idea; there was a flood of similar pamphlets and essays around the nation in early 1789. When these documents spoke of the Third Estate, however, they referred chiefly to the bourgeoisie – not to France’s 22 million rural peasants, its landless labourers or its urban workers. When the bourgeoisie dreamed of representative government, it was a government that represented the propertied classes only. The peasants and urban workers were politically invisible to the bourgeoisie – just as the bourgeoisie was itself politically invisible to the Ancien Régime.

1. The Third Estate contained around 27 million people or 98 percent of the nation. This included every French person who did not have a noble title or was not ordained in the church.

2. The rural peasantry made up the largest portion of the Third Estate. Most peasants worked the land as feudal tenants or sharecroppers and were required to pay a range of taxes, tithes and feudal dues.

3. A much smaller contingent of the Third Estate were skilled and unskilled urban workers in cities like Paris. They were poorly paid, lived in difficult conditions and were pressured by rising food prices.

4. At the pinnacle of the Third Estate was the bourgeoisie: successful business owners who ranged from the comfortable middle class to extremely wealthy merchants and landowners.

5. Regardless of their property and wealth, members of the Third Estate were subject to inequitable taxation and were politically disregarded by the Ancien Régime. This exclusion contributed to rising revolutionary sentiment in the late 1780s.

Citation information
Title: ‘The Third Estate’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/third-estate/
Date published: September 3, 2019
Date updated: November 5, 2023
Date accessed: May 2, 2024
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.

Before the revolution, French society was divided into three Estates or orders. The Second Estate contained France’s nobility: the men and women who possessed aristocratic titles like Duc (‘Duke’), Comte (‘Count’), Vicomte (‘Viscount’), Baron or Chevalier.

A life of privilege

A noble title was not just an honorific: it also endowed its owner with certain rights and privileges. The most notable of these privileges was an exemption from personal taxes.

Not all noble titles were of equal status. The nobility, like the clergy, had its own natural hierarchy. Court nobles (those closest to the monarch) were the most prestigious. The noblesse d’epee (‘nobles of the sword’) earned their titles through military service, so considered themselves of greater importance. The noblesse de robe (‘nobles of the robe’) were granted their noble titles for non-military service, for their work as financiers, administrators, magistrates or court officials.

Hundreds of nobles, almost entirely men, also acquired their titles venally, by purchasing them from the crown rather than receiving them for service. Venality allowed wealthier members of the Third Estate to join the ranks of the Second Estate. In total, the Second Estate made up between one and one and a half percent of the population.

Cultural depictions

The nobility in pre-revolutionary France is often depicted as an extravagantly wealthy and lazy group, disconnected from the realities of French society. Cultural depictions also paint the nobility as hedonistic, indifferent or even cruel.

An example of this stereotype can be found in Les Liaisons Dangereuses (in English, Dangerous Liaisons), a 1782 novel by Pierre de Laclos. Told as a series of letters between the main protagonists, Dangerous Liaisons depicted an aristocratic elite that was fascinated with intrigues, manipulation, sexual conquest and negotiation, involving other aristocrats and commoners.

Dangerous Liaisons contained several criticisms of the Second Estate, both implied and explicit. Its wealthy characters, who had little else to do, engaged in decadent and immoral behaviour purely to relieve their boredom. The main characters used religion in a cynical manner, particularly the main character de Valmont, who feigns religious piety while sexually pursuing a married victim. Above all, the nobles in Les Liaisons Dangereuses show disdain for the lower classes, the servants and the bourgeoisie, while themselves contributing little or nothing to society.

Noble ambitions

The stereotypes perpetuated in Les Liaisons Dangereuses were undoubtedly true of some nobles but not all. Like aristocrats everywhere, a great number of French nobles were interested in accumulating wealth and expanding their power and influence.

Before the 1700s it was considered demeaning for noblemen to engage in any form of trade or commerce. It was even possible to be stripped of one’s noble titles for working (dérogeance).

By the time of the revolution, however, those attitudes had fallen away. Many noblemen had become energetic businessmen, capitalist and progressive in their thinking. They sought to expand and diversify their business interests by investing in trade, commerce and new ventures. In this respect, they were little different from the businessmen of the bourgeoisie.

For more conservative nobles, their main source of income was land. Wealthier nobles owned large estates and ran them as businesses. The main sources of income for these landed nobles were rents, feudal dues and the profits of agricultural production.

The hobereaux