Comments?

--------------------

In 15th century England there were certainly non-gentry and non-urban landholders who lived off the production of land who were in the middle class, Yeoman for example. But where the line is between a lower class farmer and a middle class farmer would be I don't have much of an idea. At the other end you could draw the line at the distinction between being gentry or not or being a 40s holder or something else.

Someone who would be a gentleman and armetergious is in a different class, has different obligations, and different social expectations than a Yeoman, even if they both draw 10 or 15 pound income from their property a year. A yeoman is never going to be expected to serve in a Shire post, like a 'knight of the shire' as an MP, while a gentleman reasonably might. Also, a yeoman is never going to be sent out to raise a commission of array at a Sherrif or Tennant in Chiefs bidding, while a gentleman probably would - the yeoman would merely be expected to fulfil his obligation in normal circumstances, or bribe his way out of it.

Just like churchmen are in a different class - obviously at the higher levels of the three estates, there is a lot of bluring, as you have abbots and bishops from aristocratic families, indulging in their accustomed lifestyles before becoming churchmen. Likewise, wealthy members of the third estate, who have broken the mold of the 'most perfect society' blur the distinction between classes, as people like Dick Wittingdon climb the social ladder, and eventually make it into the next social classification.

The later in time we look of course, the greater the bluring as a usual rule, as feudalisim stops functioning, but as late as the 18th and 19th century, and even into the earliest decades of the 20th, there is a world between the 'Country squire', and the tennant farmer. We sometimes don't see this in the US, because the idea is foriegn to our national mythos and dogma, even if we did have an aristocracy of land, power, and wealth in all but name at the countries founding.

--------------------

It's a reasonable lot of land today, but if you had nothing but 10 acres to support you, and no other means of making a livelyhood but farming it, you would go hungry at times most years, and a bad year would see you and your family starving to death, or begging for your bread.

[ 07-31-2005: Message edited by: chef de chambre ]

--------------------

But it should be noted that these terms probably don't have alot of relevance by the fifteenth century.

Brent

If lines of division have already been established it would be useful to know, rather than simply tossing our misconceptions about. I have a gut feeling about where the class line is drawn case to case, but realize I don't have any sort of solid academic idea.

Gwen

--------------------

How about a small consensus, if not general agreement. Surely there must be some sort of consensus, else nothing coherent could ever be written about the subject.

Or am I smoking crack again?

For instance, the Paston family only passed 'legitimately' into the ranks of the gentry when they gained control of the right to hold a manorial court in one of their manors - the mere leasing of a manor did not a gentleman make. Clerks should be easier to define, being in religious orders, but even then it was confusing when literacy in latin was taken as evidence of being in minor orders, whether one was or not. Anyone not falling into the above catagories was in the third, larger catagory socially, regardless of their personal wealth.

--------------------

Actually, my family and I would starve now if all I did was attempt to make a living off of 10 acres. I can provide meat, milk and eggs, along with some fruit and vegetables, but not money to pay taxes, much less the modern tax to the rich of insurance. There also is not enough land to raise both hay for fodder, and wheat, barley, rye and oats for both the animals and us. Nor do I have the woodlands for (heating) fuel and raw materials.

The Amish and Mennonites not only have a large community to rely on, but their holdings are generally at least 20 to 50 acres per family.

I think 50 acres, 40 with a cash crop of black angus or some sort of specialty sheep might be enough. Until then, I must give my labour to the lords 5 days a week, and tend to my own on the remaining two.

So how has our lot actually improved over the last 1000 years? We are still serfs and peasants when you think about it...

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginevra:
Among academics is there an agreed-upon dividing line between the classes? If so, can [someone] explain it?

---

Typically in academic cirles the line between the classes used is that of whether or not a person was considered gentry by thier peers and that could change in ones lifetime as perceptions of you changed in the community. While theoretically to be gentry you either were born into it or gained landed rights and gained it by that but in reality it does not seem so clear cut. Basically if you had the trappings of gentry and were accepted as your peers as gentry you were. But that is a problematic definition when looking at socio-economics instead of simply looking at how society was structured. Thats not to say that as recreators of an historical culture should not use those lines but then we end up with people who are "Middle-Class Yeoman" who are really portraying an upper class.

There are actually academics who would say there is no middle class in the 15th century or that they are so small and unimportant as to not exist on any real level. One problem is that some scholars divide the Nobility and Gentry into the upper and middle class and leave everyone else as lower class. So you get them saying things like a certain luxury item fell in value or popularity and therefore became used by more people when those more people are still almost all gentry.

Its all really a mess and until someone writes a book aimed at defineing a middle class for 15th century England we probably won't have a good idea about it.

So to address the original question, I believe you would know you were upper class by being born into it. Another way would be specifically raised into it by the king or his representative who had the power to do so. You could become part of the clergy and therefore be set aside from being lower class. But that was probably more a career choice rather than an attempt at social climbing. Social climbing could be achieved through the art of war, but I feel very few people attempted to social climb. Rather they sought to do well and achieve a level of comfort.

--------------------

That fact was never in doubt or part of my enquiry, only where or if a line was drawn.

--------------------

The 'rise' of the middle class is attributed to the 19th century and is a product of the industrial revolution. What really happened however is that the middle class develops a consciousness in opposition to the upper-class aristocracy which the Nouveau Riche instead of adopting aristocratic ideals they keep more middle class ones at least partially because they were not accepted by the upper-class aristocracy. So if you want to define the middle class as having a consciousness that is not inline with the upper class/aristocracy then yes that is certainly when the middle class is formed. But is the opposition to the upper class needed to create a middle class consciousness and even more importantly does it really have to have its own consciousness or can it simply be those who fit in between two well defined consciousnesses but not belonging to either. But I'll return to this later.

Let me first say a thing or two about the idea of the Three Estates. While the idea was an interesting ideal for the social order in the 11th century by the 13th century it was already becoming out dated. The concept probably has more relevance in France then in England at a later date. In France the gentry were considered part of the nobility and therefore received the legal rights that came with being such. In England the gentry were part of the commons and did not share in the rights of the nobility. In regards to the secular clergy if you separate them you end up with a parallel socio-economic hierarchy to that of ordinary people. Rural parish priests farmed to Bishops being just like any other nobleman. St. Thomas a Becket may have one the battle but the Kings of England won the war for the most part in regards to clerical exemption from secular courts. Although the privilege meant that they were punished by the Church and not by seculars.

So back to the question of whether or not there was a middle-class consciousness in 15th century England and does there have to be a consciousness for there to be a middle-class. Lets begin with the later. Lets create an exemplar of a 15th century rural man who is neither upper class nor lower class. Let us call him Joe Bob. Joe Bob owns some land by freehold and some by lease. He subleases some of it to one of the local plowman that doesn't have enough land of his own to feed his family. The land Joe Bob and his household cultivate themselves is mostly worked by servants but he is not above doing work when needed but prefers to be active in his community and church. His son is in service to the local gentlemen and he is looking for ways to get his children ahead but only has limited options. Joe Bob is certainly not upper class or gentry. But is he really lower class and would he identify with his plowman neighbor who he leases some land to. He has some in common with both; he does not really labor for a living and yet sometimes cannot be above it. And would he identify with the part time laborers he hires at certain times of the year? Certainly not.

So now we beg the question, Is there any evidence for class consciousness in England that is not either upper class or lower class in late medieval England? We need look no further then Robin Hood. Yeoman trickster hero, he has servants and sometimes turns the social world of the gentry upside down, and the bad guy is usually someone of high rank. If you look at similar trickster before him they are usually members of the gentry.

I have always found the term middle class to be a little too simplistic in this time frame as it means many things to many people.

We have too many 20th century hang ups re class esp in UK, the middle classes were always seen as somehow failures at being upper class and lacking the moral and social integrity of the working classes. But they are currently the fastet growing sector with the definitions of middle class being relegated to house ownership and not necessarily higher education, a class within a class.

Maybe we should be talking in terms of new money over old money and an increase in capital and overall wealth?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent E Hanner:
So back to the question of whether or not there was a middle-class consciousness in 15th century England and does there have to be a consciousness for there to be a middle-class. Lets begin with the later. Lets create an exemplar of a 15th century rural man who is neither upper class nor lower class. Let us call him Joe Bob. Joe Bob owns some land by freehold and some by lease. He subleases some of it to one of the local plowman that doesn't have enough land of his own to feed his family. The land Joe Bob and his household cultivate themselves is mostly worked by servants but he is not above doing work when needed but prefers to be active in his community and church. His son is in service to the local gentlemen and he is looking for ways to get his children ahead but only has limited options. Joe Bob is certainly not upper class or gentry. But is he really lower class and would he identify with his plowman neighbor who he leases some land to. He has some in common with both; he does not really labor for a living and yet sometimes cannot be above it. And would he identify with the part time laborers he hires at certain times of the year? Certainly not.

---

I believe the appropriate term for JoeBob as described would be "Yeoman". Landholder, non-gentry, non-clergy, having a few tenant farms, occasionally employing cotters (yes they only own their home - no land) for labor.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Johnson:
I believe the appropriate term for JoeBob as described would be "Yeoman". Landholder, non-gentry, non-clergy, having a few tenant farms, occasionally employing cotters (yes they only own their home - no land) for labor.

---

Actually no, he is loosley based off Yorkshire Husbandman probate inventories. So he would be a Husbandman but certainly one moving up.

Gaythird, John, York, Husbandman, 1494
Appraised by Thomas Appliton, Richard Hutchyson and Richard Bentley husbandmen.

CASH nil

AULA
Two hallings, four cushions and a banker 1s
Two old chairs and two forms 4d
A copstool and a backstool 3d
A pair of iron gallows and two crooks VM
An aumbry VM
Three spits and two cobirons VM
A grater VM
A cooking-pot 2s
Another small cooking-pot and dish 11d
A dish 1s
A frying-pan 3d
Three bronze jars 5s. 3d.
A dish 1d
Four Chargers, three platters, four dishes and three pewter saucers 2s 6d
A basin and two ewers 2s 6d
Two candle-sticks 6d
Two chests 1s
A coverlet of red 12?
A tester, two hangings, a white and green coverlet 1s
An old coverlet 8d
A counterpane 6d
Three pairs of sheets 2s
A mattress 1s
Four codds 8d
A twill table-cloth 1s
Two table-cloths 7d
Four towels 1s
A heckle 3d
A bushel 3d
A peck and a spade 4d
Five sacks and two scuttles 9d
Two other twill sacks 7d
An axe and a bill 7d
A pair of wool-combs 2d
A rippling-comb 3d
Four tubs 10d
A kimnel 1s
A tub and two stands 10d
A brewing lead 5s
A saw 4d
A stir-vat 4d
A window-cloth 8d
A kylne-hair 10?
Total 2L 2s 3d

LIVESTOCK
A grey horse 7s
A bay horse 9s
A black horse 6s
Two foals 8s
A red stag 7s
Another stag 5s
Two oxen 17s
Two other oxen 19s
Two bullocks 2s
A cow 6?
Two calves 3s
Two quys 6s 8d
Four sheep with four lambs 5s 4d
Two wedders 2s 8d
A gimmer hog 10d
Two sows 4s
Two pigs 3s 3d
Two shottes 1s 8d
Three stone troughs 1s 8d
Two temes, two schabyls, two pairs of harness, four yokes, a horse temse, a cart saddle, a collar, a double cutwithy, another cutwithy, a hopper, a saddle and a scythe Valuation Faded
Two ploughs VM
A cart with a yoke bound with iron 13s 4d
A cart with iron tyres and its tackle 18s 8d
Utensils 4s
Total 8L 16s 1d

GRAIN
15 acres two and a half roods of rye and wheat at 3s 4d per acre total 2L 12s 1d
Seventeen acres of barley at 3s per acre total 2L 11s
Four acres of oats and peas at 2s per acre sold to Master John Deyse 8s
Total 5L 11s 1d

DEBTS OWING TO THE DECEASED
Richard Monkton 4s
Received from John Hutchynson for rent 2s 4d
Received from John Custans for a house sold 16L
Total 16L 6s 4d
Grand total of the goods 33L 9d

BEQUESTS AND FUNERAL EXPENSES
A beast for the mortuary and 3s 4d to the vicar of the church for tenths forgotten
The parish clerk 1s
Four pounds of wax 2s 10d
For expenses on the day of burial in bread, beer, cheese meat 2L
For expenses at the week's mind 2L
Paid for two torches at the parish church 12s
Paid to Agnes, his sister 1L
Paid to Richard Hutchynson 3s 3d
Paid to Thomas Applinton 3s 4d
Paid to William Claton 3s 4d
Paid to the house of Saint Leonard 2s
Paid to the four orders of mendicant friars of York 13s 4d
Paid for writing the will 1s 8d
Paid to a priest for celebrating mass for his soul 4L 6s 8d
Paid to Thomas Kendall and William Day, executers of the will, 2L 13s 4d
Expenses at the year's mind 3L
Paid for proving the will 2s 9d
Pair for proving the inventory 2s 9d
Paid for writing the inventory 2s
Paid in necessary expenses 6s 7d

Total 17L 13s 11d

Looking at your original question, I place social classification first, and then relative wealth within that social strata. You are right, Middle Class is a classification that really doesn't belong in the age.

--------------------