Vicious Superiority: Violence in Aristocratic Households

The employment of servants was not solely an aristocratic practice; most families of the bourgeoisie and even some craftsmen's families had servants or domestics. While there were certainly as many benevolent employers amongst the aristocracy as in other classes, it is often the less kind-hearted households that attracted the attention of the contemporaries - thus, they are amongst those handed down to modern readers.

The rather unknown Marquis de Fimarcon employed a man by the name of Le Franc for about a decade. During this time, the marquis himself freely admitted that he had frequently punished Le Franc by beatings or the so-called "cachot" - these were typically found in prisons. It would therefore seem that he had imprisoned his own servant for various transgressions. Surprisingly, Le Franc did not leave his employer which he would have been more than entitled to do.

As it happens, the image of the ever-obedient servant meekly accepting their master or mistress' beatings were not quite accurate. Over the 18th century, the Enlightenment changed how people treated each other, even in the private sphere. Servants became less averse to openly accusing their "masters" of mistreatment whereas the upper classes developed an attitude more influenced by the shared humanity between themselves and their staff. This might seem obvious to modern readers, but it should be remembered that the social hierarchy was based on the theory of divine planning; those born to be aristocrats had long held a vastly different view of their socially inferiors. Likewise, it was widely accepted amongst these "inferiors" that they were just that - inferior. Their place in society required them to serve those better off which was not questioned for centuries due to the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on society - any criticism of this world order was largely seen as blasphemy and harshly punished. In fact, the church even pointed to the Bible itself to justify the master of the house's right to physically beat his servants by referencing St. Paul.

But by the mid-18th century everything was being questioned - including why someone ought to accept mistreatment simply due to their social status. Thus, society was slowly but steadily changing which also included the relationship between servant and employer. It should be said that the laws of the time did not grant the employer a carte blanche to do as he pleased with his household staff. French law itself forbade "excessive and malicious" treatment of servants; by the 1750's it was not uncommon to see servants contact the authorities if they were mistreated. Large parts of the nobility also considered it beneath an aristocrat to exhibit such brutality - even if they had been entitled to do so by law or clerical teachings.

As with any other societal aspect, there were those who refused to relinquish what they considered their natural right - just as there were those who never laid a hand on their employees. 

Princesse d'Harcourt

The Comte de Villefort was, sadly, not amongst the more sensible ones. His servant, Jean Benger, was one of the domestics who contacted the Parisian police force to report the abuse he had experienced at his employer's hands. Villefort was apparently fond of whipping Benger which had led to Benger informing him of his intention to leave.

Even before the emerging ideals of equality, there were those amongst the serving class who simply had no time for such a treatment. The Duc de Saint-Simon recalled how the Princesse d'Harcourt beat her serving-woman through the wall; rather than simply accepting it, the robust servant pounced on her employer and gave her a taste of her own medicine. The unnamed servant quickly made her escape. As it happens, the princesse was notorious for being a terrible mistress who frequently mistreated those in her employ. It is perhaps little wonder that none of her other servants came to the rescue of their mistress. Madame, wife of Philippe d'Orléans, inhabited the apartment below the princesse and corroborated the duke's claim by saying that she often heard the princesse abuse her servants.

Strangely, the Duc de Saint-Simon was amongst those who abhorred violence towards one's staff. It is said that he instructed his son not to use violence with the employees at all which was out of the ordinary in a society largely dominated by violence.

Another instance was that experienced by Legrain, employed by Mirabeau. The two engaged in a quarrel which eventually developed into an outright physical altercation. However, this does not seem to have had a particularly bad effect on the relationship between the two, as Legrain remained in his service. It would seem that Mirabeau was not the only one who indulged in actual fighting with his servants. The Cardinal de Retz was rumoured to have gotten into a fist-fight with one of his stable-boys. The episode was reported by a man by the name of Vauvenargues who even admitted that the cardinal lost.

Verbal abuse were not uncommon either. Marigny, the brother of Madame de Pompadour, shocked his dinner guests when he absolutely exploded upon minor mistakes made by his servant, such as placing a dish slightly wrong. Not even waiting until the company had departed, Marigny began ranting and raving at the manservant to the dismay of everyone involved. It should be said that this episode caused several of his aristocratic guests to part ways with him for good.  

Oddly enough, the decision to leave Marigny's circle of friends was less to do with the unpleasantness of the evening itself but rather what the host's behaviour represented. Many of those present considered his outburst anything but noble which was certainly not something anyone wished to be associated with. Those already predisposed to disdain towards the bourgeoisie-mistress of the king, quickly pointed to such behaviour as been a clear sign of their non-aristocratic origins.

Marquis de Marigny

There appear to have been a distinct difference in perception of the type of physical punishment used. The more extreme measures were collectively frowned upon but violence was pervasive throughout society. Parents thrashed their children, husbands were legally permitted to "chastise" their wives, masters "disciplined" their apprentices etc. Thus, when the Duc de La Feuillade gave his footman a rap with a whip, it did not cause much consternation - even though it happened in front of the king himself. It is not unlikely that such a behaviour was not only accepted but expected. 

The society of the ancien regime was extremely patriarchal, particularly within the family itself. The households of the nobility thus functioned with the master of the house as the "father" of the entire households; as such, he was given certain privileges including the right to physically chastise his family and staff. However, the difference appear to have been in the manner this discipline was administered. Severe or unwarranted violence was unacceptable, even undignified and certain unbecoming of a nobleman, including a duke. 

Yet, simultaneously, the Duc de La Feuillade would also be expected to control, even correct, his staff if they stepped out of line. In a way, he was considered responsible, as the behaviour of his servant reflected on him.