CC BY
163
07.00.00 - ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
УДК 94(420).07 АЛЕКСАНДРОВА А.П.
кандидат филологических наук, доцент, кафедра английской филологии, Орловский государственный университет имени И.С. Тургенева E-mail: angelica.p.alexandrova@yandex.ru
UDC 94(420).07
ALEXANDROVA A.P.
Candidate of Philology, Department of English Philology,
Orel State University E-mail: angelica.p.alexandrova@yandex.ru
АНГЛИЙСКОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО В ГЕОРГИАНСКИЙ ПЕРИОД ENGLISH SOCIETY DURING THE GEORGIAN PERIOD
Статья посвящена английскому обществу в Георгианскую эпоху. Дается краткое описание структуры общества и его особенностей; демонстрируется тенденцию роста населения, вызванная промышленной революцией; в статье показана весьма неоднородная природа английского общества и доминирующая роль высшего класса (аристократии и дворянства) в политике страны.
Ключевые слова: Георгианская эпоха, эпоха Регентства, Англия, население, английское общество, социальная структура, классовая система, правительство, правительственная система, парламент, члены парламента, Палата общин.
The paper is devoted to English society during the Georgian era. It gives a brief description of its social structure and peculiarities and demonstrates a tendency of the population growth, which was caused by the Industrial revolution; it shows a highly variegated nature of English society and mentions the dominating role of the upper-class (aristocracy and gentry) in politics of the country.
Keywords: Georgian era, Regency era, England, population, English society, social structure, class-system, government, governmental system, Parliament, Members of Parliament, the House of Commons.
The Georgian era began with the German 'House of Hanover'. The period lasted from approximately 1714 to 1830. The dynasty was accepted with the Act of Settlement (1701). Even though these kings were accepted as monarchs following the Act of Settlement, it is claimed by some that they were not particularly popular monarchs, especially George I. The first two Georges were considered foreigners, especially by many Scots. George III, born in England, achieved wider British recognition. [1]
When Queen Anne died without any heirs, the English throne was offered to her nearest Protestant relative, George of Hanover, who thus became George I of England. Throughout the long reign of George, his son, and grandson, all named George, the very nature of English society and the political face of the realm changed. In part this was because the first two Georges took little interest in the politics of rule, and were quite content to let ministers rule on their behalf. These ministers, representatives of the king, or Prime Ministers, rather enjoyed ruling, and throughout this "Georgian period" the foundations of English political party system was solidified into something resembling what we have today. But more than politics changed; English society underwent a revolution in art and architecture. This was the age of the grand country house, when many of the great stately homes that we can visit today were built. Abroad, the English acquired more and more territory overseas through conquest and settlement, lands that would eventually make up an Empire stretching to every corner of the globe. [13]
The Georges presided over, and were active patrons of, a century of unparalleled elegance and taste. Through the reigns
of the Georges Britain became internationally powerful. If the 17th century was the age of the aristocracy and the 19th century the time of the industrial working classes, then the 18th century was the period when the middle classes held sway in terms of taste and consumption. [17]
This was a period of great change, as cities grew, trade expanded and consumerism and popular culture blossomed. The Georgians witnessed the birth of industrialisation; radicalism and repression; and extreme luxury alongside extreme poverty.
Life in the 18th-century city would have provoked a dazzling mixture of sensations: terror and exhilaration, menace and bliss, awe and pity. Cities expanded rapidly in 18th century Britain, with people flocking to them for work.
The most important development in eighteenth-century England was the growth of population. The population of Britain grew rapidly during this period, from around five million people in 1700 to nearly nine million by 1801. As a result, the people were spreading over the face of the country. It turned out to be that there was more population living on fertile soil than in towns. Thus, the typical Englishman was the yeoman in his field and not the man in the street. However, people began to move from the country into new industrial towns. Many people left the countryside in order to seek out new job opportunities in nearby towns and cities. Others arrived from further afield: from rural areas in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, for example, and from across large areas of Europe. It was one of the main features of Georgian England at the start of industrial revolution.
By today's standards, most 18th-century towns possessed
© Александрова А. П. © Alexandrova A.P.
remarkably young populations. Young people were drawn to urban areas by the lure of regular and full-time employment, and by the entertainments that were on offer there: the theatres, inns and pleasure gardens, for example, and the shops displaying the latest fashions.
London in particular was flooded with thousands of young people every year, many of whom worked as apprentices to the capital's numerous tradesmen. Other new arrivals gained employment as domestic servants to the dozens of aristocratic families that began spending much of their time in elegantly built town houses.
Though death rates remained relatively high, by the end of the 18th century London's population had reached nearly one million people, fed by a ceaseless flow of newcomers. By 1800 almost one in ten of the entire British population lived in the capital city. Elsewhere, thousands of people moved to the rapidly growing industrial cities of northern England, such as Manchester and Leeds, in order to work in the new factories and textile mills that sprang up there from the 1750s onwards.
During the Georgian Period, wealth and social class separated the English citizenry. Beginning with the Royals, citizens found their place based on birthright and wealth. The nobility stood above the gentry, who stood above the clergy, who stood above the working class, etc. [10]
The social structure of Britain has been highly influenced by the concept of classes. The class system is prevalent in the society of the United Kingdom in the 21st century too. The different classes were formed depending on various factors such as education levels, income and the type of occupation.
As per the norms of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there were basically two social classes. One was called as the House of Lords, comprising of the hereditary upper class and another one was the House of Commons, representing everyone else in the British social hierarchy.
In his book 'Life in Georgian England", Ernest Neville Williams, describing life of English people during the Georgian Era, looks at the class system.
England was thus a confederation of local communities. But horizontal divisions existed as well as vertical ones - in the form of a very complex class structure. There are upper-class, middle-class and lower-class. At the top were the few really great aristocratic families. Magnates like the Devonshires, the Newcastles, the Bedfords or the Rockinghams were as wealthy as some Continental sovereigns, and they looked down on the king of England who had been one of these. But they were not cut off socially from the rest of the peerage, and neither were they essentially distinct from the body of the landed gentry. The English aristocracy did not possess exclusive privileges like the French noblesse, for example, which set them as a race apart. English society was class-conscious but not caste-ridden. The peerage and the gentry can be regarded as one class. Within it there was more freedom of movement than anywhere else in Europe, and it is true also of the movement between it and other classes. [2]
Ease of manner was distinctive of the English upper class. Men and women were natural, spontaneous and straightforward. Men acted on impulse as they were uninhibited either by inner doubt or outer social pressures.
All this isn't surprising in view of the haphazard and disorganised nature of upper-class education. Many continued to be brought up at home under the direction of tutors, for most
of the schools were inadequate. Others, however, were sending their sons to one of the handful of schools that were emerging into prominence at that time, and this was normal practice at the end of the period. The most thriving public schools were Eton, Westminster, Winchester, Harrow and Rugby. Those who wanted to finish these schools had to take part in the Grand Tour paving the way to the highest society.
The freedom of movement between the classes extended practically right through the social scale. The exceptional diversification of English social classes helped to make this possible. The middle class is a case in point, for nothing is more difficult than to decide which types are covered by the term. Scientists say that the middle-class included merchants, professional men, doctors, lawyers and churchmen who were increasing in numbers and rising in status in this period. But they were a miscellaneous group, too, as they were recruited from all directions, from the gentry, the business classes and from the lower classes, for this was a good route up the social scale for a poor person with talents and industry. The lower gentry also presents difficulties as their birth and manner of life link them with the main body of the gentry, but their incomes place them on an economic level with the smaller businessmen. The rural class next lower down, the smaller farmers, the yeomen of England: they are not to be classed with manual labourers, but then neither are they gentlemen. The working class is rich in differentiated grades: craftsmen, copper-miners, weavers, cowmen, ploughmen, casual labourers trudging the streets in cities and squatters in villages.
The merchants as representatives of middle-class were the driving force of the English economy. Some of them fought so successfully that they thrust themselves outside the classes considered here, by becoming gentlemen. Edward Anthony the lawyer, Mr Marsh the solicitor and Dudley Ryder himself are representatives of another segment of the Georgian middle classes: the professional men. The burgeoning wealth of all classes and the increasing complexity of social and economic relations swelled the ranks of the lawyers, farmers, manufacturers, doctors, civil servants, clergy, soldiers, sailors, architects, teachers, writers and actors. The high and mighty Fellows and Licentiates were too few and too dear for most of the middle classes, who were doctored by a third group -the apothecaries. The profession of apothecary was becoming a respectable calling for the sons of prosperous farmers and tradesmen, and even gentlemen's sons are found on apprenticeship books. They were keeping the chemists and druggists out of the goldmine. Armed forces were expanding. Civil servants occupied the middle ground between the traders and the gentry. Manufacturers such as Arkwright and Wedgwood were so rich that they could pay the national debt.
People of middle-class attended public schools so they had a good education. In Georgian era was 'pudding-time' for the middle classes, but essentially they did not come into their own in this century. Until the last decades they were content to remain political and economic appendages of the nobility and gentry, and their social habits and attitudes were colored by this basic fact. Thus, a ball at the Assemblymight produce a contract.
In the Georgian England reformer, they were representatives of the Dissenting Academies, played a major role in the social life as they brought a thrust to development of education, science, industry and economics. Puritans didn't approve their position and tried to impose their manners. Fortunately, the
07.00.00 - ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ И АРХЕОЛОГИЯ 07.00.00 - HISTORICAL SCIENCES AND ARCHAEOLOGY
problem didn't last long.
The theory of the period says children should learn a trade and become useful citizens. Thus, the majority of the working people were rural (whether they were in agriculture or industry). Moreover, year by year a mass of landless laborers and unemployment were increasing so the laborers had to submit.
The typical villager was the yeoman. This term applies strictly to small freeholders, leaseholders and copyholders as well. The cottagers and squatters worked as tailors, shoemakers, weavers and spinners. Industrial workers were skilled craftsmen and they worked in their own homes, according to their own time-table, finding their own looms, size and candles, and employing their own wives and children as assistants. In newer industries like brewing and sugar-refining, the men were laborers under a foreman.
Domestic staff had its enduring hierarchy. In descending order, the clerk of the stables and the clerk of the kitchen, the cook, the confectioner, the baker, the bailiff, the valet, the butler, the gardener and the groom of the chambers. Below these came the lower servants, who wore livery: the coachman, the footman, the running footman and the groom, the under-butler and the under-coachman, the park-keeper and the gamekeeper and the porter, the postilion, the yard-boy, the provision-boy, the foot-boy, and, finally, the page. The female hierarchy had a similar pecking-order. The lady's maid (or waiting-woman or tire-woman), the housekeeper and the cook were in the higher echelons. Below them (though not in livery) were lined up the chambermaid, the housemaid, the maid of all work, the laundry maid and the dairy maid. These last four were about level, and right at the end came the scullery maid. Of course, this is the establishment of a wealthy household. A more modest one would begin lower down; but the order of precedence would be strictly maintained, even if the staff (as in a modest parson's house) consisted only of a personal man, a maid of all work and a scullery maid.
Insolent and aggressive though they could be, the lower classes accepted the existing structure of society and government till the last decades of the century. The Charity Schools were founded so literacy was growing. The religious reformers and the Sunday schools added their layers. And the Industrial Revolution sharpened the wits and transformed the habits of skilled elite. By that time the lower classes were on the move. They were no longer content to leave their political and social welfare in the hands of their betters.
It is impossible to give a brief account of the complexity of English society which is at all adequate. It is necessary to mention its highly variegated nature because it was of profound importance. The road from the bottom of the stairs was long, but there were many steps to scramble up, and each one was shallow. No one was far above or far below the next man; and this was rather different from earlier times, and from neigh bouring states where there were few people between the landlords at the top and the anonymous and featureless peasantry below. To change the image, English society was effervescent: countless bubbles were rising and falling as the ferment of activity on all sides of life was transforming the country into the first industrial state and the greatest power in the world. Society was seething, but the structure remained steady: it passed the stage of rapid industrialization, the most profound convulsion that economic man has yet learned to impose, on himself, with its political
structure undamaged and its institutions intact. By contrast, revolution was overturning the remaining governments of Ancien Régime and has continued to do so ever since. [2]
If the minute gradations in society made for the stability of the whole, the steepness of the climb provided the stimulus for the parts; for it was a great distance from the bottom to the top and the rewards were enormous. In the early part of the century, the great magnates were receiving £20.000 a year and more from their estates, while a labourer was lucky if he was making £20. This gap widened the economy boomed during the course of the century. But still it was a free society, and the sky was the limit; and the enticing prospects open to the enterprising acted like a magnet, electrifying the energies, the inventive talents and the business acumen of men at all levels, without which English nation would never have made its mark in the world. Many great leaders of the Industrial revolution rose from humble stations.
This top-heavy distribution of wealth produced a further dividend: the capital for the manifold activities of the period.
During this period of history there was a significant desire among all classes to improve their situation in life - if not for their benefit then for future generations of their family.
The Georgians shaped the nature of the social class system, and this remains in modern Britain. The upper class was a small segment of society and included the wealthiest. It was an elite aristocracy that was closed off to all others. The upper class was not infrequently subject to criminal acts in Georgian England though, as there was not a police forcein the modern form. Secondly, there was the middle class. This class was a little broader than the upper class, but it still retained a small percentage of society. It was made up of various businessmen and professionals. And, last but not least, there was the working class. The working class made up the majority of the Georgian era's population. It was a class that was exploited by the rich and it was often forced to work in the newly formed factories. [7]
The paramount position was enjoyed by the aristocracy and gentry in the social and economic life and it was reflected in the dominating role in politics, which they had fought for and won. The grip was far more all-embracing: it controlled the armed forces, the Church, the civil service and local government, from top to bottom. Thearistocratic families were investing in political power and social prestige buying land and estates.
A proper appreciation of the political activity of the landed classes depends on an understanding of the governmental system of the era. The king was the head of the state, and he ruled as well as reigned. He chose his ministers, decided on his policies but he had to take into account the wishes of Parliament as it had power and money. The most enduring ministers were Walpole, Henry Pelham, Lord North and the younger Pitt. Above half the Members of Parliament were independent country gentlemen. They owed their seats to no one but themselves. They had no political ambitions, and could vote on measures as their conscience guided them. About half of them supported the king's ministers. But no minister could complacently rely on them: if they all voted with the opposition, a government was doomed. Their presence in the Commons kept ministers on their toes: debates were genuine battles over real issues and not foregone conclusions.
The House of Commons consisted of the active politicians, the career men, the men who formed governments and led oppositions. They were organized into little groups, which were
the 'parties' of the time. Each group had a leader whose orders they took for different reasons: they owed their seats to him, or he had given them a job, or they were related to him, and so on. There was one larger group - "placemen". It included 100-200 people who voted for the king's government at all times and formed the permanent core of any ministerial majority. They were attached to the crown rather than to any politician.
A Prime Minister formed his majority out of the 'placemen' and the followers of whichever aristocratic leaders had helped him to set up a government. It is obvious that 'influence' played the major role there. But the system is absolved from the charges of utter baseness which have been hurled at it, by the necessity of placating those guardians of public honour, the independent gentry. Patronage was essential, but by itself was not enough.
With all its faults, the political structure produced sound government; and turned out to be made-to-measure for rapid economic expansion. Big money, whether landed or mercantile, had enough say in policy-making to ensure that England became a business concern with its eye on profit, instead of a dictator's plaything reaching out for glory. At home, the state held the ring while the business-men got on with the job: abroad, it captured markets for them by armed aggression. It even ensuredthe necessary austerity in the mass of the people, for paternal government was not to be expected of a gelded monarchy and an unwilling parliament. [2]
Eighteenth-century England is often claimed to be the origins of consumerism; where the conditions of capitalism engineered the consumer society which appears so pervasive in our contemporary world. Over the last twenty years historians, economists and sociologists have considered that consumerism has its roots in the commodity fetishism that was seen to emerge in Georgian England. They have pointed to the
'object crazes' of the period, the advent of mass-production and rising levels of affluence as evidence of this trend. Archaeologists working in this period have tended to echo this view, observing that the influx of goods and materials into society heralded an altered 'world-view', and an acceptance of the new commodity-driven society. This perspective takes a rather staid and sober response to the large-scale influx of objects into eighteenth-century England; it neglects a proper assessment of the 'mystical character of commodities' as defined by Marx, it obscures the socio-cultural use and value of objects in Georgian England, and it overlooks the complex relationships between the 'human and the non-human'. Using accounts from courtesy books, novels and the proliferation of 'object-centred' fiction, an alternative account to the 'consumer society' argument can emerge. Moving beyond large-scale processes this study focuses on the individual level, upon the manipulation of objects by people, and of people by objects. The consumer society of the eighteenth-century is not a mirror of our own; it exhibits a different form of consumerism and a different relationship with material culture. Georgian England was not a society solely enamoured with consumerism, the regard and association with material culture was complex and multiform. Applying the term 'consumer society' masks the responses of individuals towards material culture, a response which incorporated objects as participants, as active agents in society. [3]
The Georgian era was a period of staggering political, economic, social, intellectual, and artistic transformations, during which Britain became a modern nation and an industrial and imperial superpower. It is rather interesting to trace the influence of the Georgian era on the country's development, taking into account different aspects; probably, it will be the issue for the next publication.
References
1. Alexandrova A.P., KotovaYu.P. Spotlight on the History of Great Britain: a manual for students' classroom and independent work. Orel: Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev. 2017. 306 p.
2. Williams E.N. Life in Georgian England. London: B.T.BATSFORD LTD, 1962.
3. Wilson R. J. 'The mystical character of commodities': The consumer society in eighteenth-century England. Post-Medieval Archaeology. University of York.
4. http:// www.bbc.co.uk
5. http://www.britannia.com
6. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/story-of-england/georgians/daily-life/
7. http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2014/5/12/7tl0mvxrzexynquyu9bhadlx515na4#.W3iBvLoQ9u0=
8. http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2014/5/12/7tl0mvxrzexynquyu9bhadlx515na4#.W4jopc4zaUk
9. https://penandpension.com/2015/04/15/georgian-consumerism/
10. https://reginajeffers.blog/2015/08/19/7889/
11. https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain
12. https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/the-rise-of-cities-in-the-18th-century
13. https://www.britainexpress.com/History/Georgian_index.htm
14. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/royal-food/0/steps/17082
15. https://www.hierarchystructure.com/british-social-hierarchy/
16. https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/249
17. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/the-making-of-modern-britain-the-georgian-era-saw-the-middle-class-flaunt-a-new-found-w
18. https://www.wattpad.com/167800125-reading-the-regency-the-social-structure-of
