turns-00020.parquet:48808
009f03ce1dfc0f33ee8b6d79degenerate_repetitionAbsentFinal dense release
USER
请将“Last among the privileges of appropriation were the tax privileges of the First and Second Estates, the towns and certain corporations. The material signifi-cance of these is not easy to determine. It is incontestable, however, that despite growing indirect taxation, despite the introduction of the ‘tenth' and later the ‘twentieth' on income from landed property which were raised irrespective of the estate membership of the landowner in question, despite the clergy's ‘voluntary donations' and the forced loans demanded from office holders that had often to be written off, villagers were taxed disproportionately highly. The taille fell almost exclusively on this stratum of the population. The general pattern is repeated in the tax rolls of the villages. Well-to-do peasants certainly bore the absolutely highest share, but relatively they were taxed less than the poorer peasants.153 The tax system not only financed the regular incomes of office-holders, pensions, and the profits that the king's creditors drew from the state debt, it also directly favoured those who had escaped from poverty. This was not always true in each individual case. Sometimes the owners of seigneuries were forced to contribute to the peasants' taille,154 and in many cases the level of the taille set a limit to private extraction. The tax system did not work only directly, but also indirectly, as a system for redistributing the extracted ‘surplus' product within the ruling estates. We shall finally mention a very particular ‘tax' privilege and the attempt to abolish it. The introduction of the corvée, a ‘national' imposition on the peas-ants, was a measure of transport policy. It was practised from the 1680s, and in 1735 became an official law. This ‘labour tax' provided for the engagement of the rural population in road building, for which they were drafted twice a year for a few days (generally around ten days per year). Workers were not supposed to be sent more than about 8 kilometres from home, and were to receive free food and transport costs. Peasant horses were also drafted. Corvée workers were to be used for earthworks, and the transport of stones and sand, i.e. all the rougher tasks. For the actual roadbuilding, the intention was that wage-workers would be used. In practice, the corvée affected all peasants living in the vicinity of construction plans. The ‘national' labour obligation thus had not only a socially unequal effect, but a locally unequal one as well. The corvée saved on monetary taxation, but the intendants, who had to supervise the construction, and the specialists from the Ecole des Ingénieurs des Ponts et Chausées, soon discovered that corvée workers were expensive, as they worked unwillingly, slowly and without care. In 1758, therefore, a choice between money tax and labour tax was introduced in lower Normandy, and this was soon followed in other regions. From 1762 to 1763 the labour duty was completely replaced by a money tax in Limoges, and Turgot, who was intendant in Limoges at the time, made this a general measure when he became controller of the king's finances. This however aroused violent protest, as the tax was demanded from everyone. The parlement de Paris argued, as we have already mentioned, that no more money could be demanded from the peasants, but the basic objection was to the abolition of the previous tax privilege of the richer estates. The conflicts over the corvée are significant in the present context in that this obligation was designed for one of the government's few actual development programmes. Since neither in the seventeenth nor the eighteenth century were there sufficient funds at hand for this key government ‘function', this meant that production continued to be overwhelmingly local and regional in its orientation. A few grandes routes were indeed constructed in the seventeenth century. But only from the 1720s did mining entrepreneurs and manufacturers, who had relied until then on chiefly local outlets, start with increasing frequency to demand improved roadways. For a long while these demands did not meet with any notable success. An initial systematic measure was the legalisation of the corvée, a further measure was the establishment of a unitary administration (but not competent for all the pays d'état) and the training of specialists. It was only in the second half of the eighteenth century that even smaller places could be reached by wheeled vehicles. But since trade beyond a local level still remained limited, the roads frequently remained empty and were therefore often hardly maintained. Even these bad roads were usable for men and animals who carried their loads from place to place. To sum up, those privileges of the ruling estates that were sanctioned by power continued to receive protection from the courts in the eighteenth century, if not in every case from the government itself. The privileges of the economically dependent, on the other hand, thus especially the collective usufruct of peasants and the rights of journeymen in the framework of guild organisation, increasingly lost their legal protection from the middle of the century. Reproduction of the ruling estates If we try to set a date to the transition between the phase in which the forms of rule of the French ancien régime established themselves, and the phase in which these forms were fully developed, we need to focus on the structural change in the nobility. With the separation of the strata of nobility, and the formalisation of conditions of access, the ‘political' conditions for the reproduction of the ruling estates finally became structural features of generalised personal power. This connection between reproduction of the nobility and generalised power will concern us in the present section. In other words, we shall focus on a tenth of the male and female population of France at the very most, including perhaps 2 per cent of the total population who were nobles of the First and Second Estate, and those who anticipated advance into the privileged estates for themselves or at least for their children. Under the ancien régime, social advance at all levels of society required the adoption of new patterns of thought and conduct, and corresponding integra-tion into the new estate that was aspired to. These conditions began with the simple transition from roturier to bourgeois. For in ancien régime France, bourgeois meant a person of leisure, and in accordance with the form of socially privileged sources of income that prevailed in France, the description bourgeois was largely reserved by contemporaries for urban rentiers. Georges Lefebvre proposed in his justly celebrated work Les paysans du Nord pendant la Révolution française,155 that the well-to-do peasants of whom there were at this time two or three in each village made up a bourgeoisie rurale - along with the notaires and avocats who lived in the country. But a concept of this kind is far too oriented to a society in which material situation has already come to prevail as the most important criterion of distinction between different social strata. The coqs du village, if they cultivated their farms themselves, were still peasants in the prevailing view of the ancien régime. They may have stood at the peak of the peasantry, but they did not belong to the bourgeoisie, i.e. the aristocracy of the whole Third Estate. The bourgeoisie lived overwhelmingly from rents, thus in this respect already like the nobility. When contemporaries spoke of the bourgeoisie, what they meant was not something like the economic élite of the Third Estate, for merchants could be far more wealthy than office-holders, surgeons or scholars, and yet not automatically achieve social integration into the circle of those who considered themselves as bourgeois and thus something better. In the provinces, the appellation bourgeois seems to have generally been applied to prosperous individuals who had retired from business. These often added to their name that of their country seat. At the end of the ancien régime, the bourgeoisie in many places, Chartres for example, lived overwhelmingly on the income from landed property. It was different in Paris, where the bourgeoisie was more a kind of caste, access to which was obtained, if not by birth, then rather by marriage than by the mere acquisition of money. Com-pared with the provincial bourgeoisie, the Parisians were less well off, and in the district of the Marais, for example, they drew 70 per cent of their income from rents and 30 per cent from offices.156 If the bourgeoisie of the ancien régime was very far from being the bearing group of a new economic form, there were conversely many entrepreneurial families among the rich and powerful nobility - something that revisionist historians never tire of pointing out. Since their social status was not assailable, and their horizon possibly somewhat wider than that of the bourgeois, who were eagerly set on fulfilling the demands of an aristocratic life in terms of their habitus, many nobles expanded their mining operations, established other manufactures, invested in colonial trade or modernised the administration of their estates. These are particular examples. On the whole, however, the nobility was characterised more by appropriation from the own-ership of land and office, seigneurial rights, state loans and speculation on the state debt. In order to make clear the structural change in the nobility, we should recall first of all that the French nobility until the sixteenth century had been a nobil-ity of the sword [noblesse d'épée]. Even before the seventeenth century not all of the king's officers had been active militarily, but the notion of nobility con-tained the obligation to support the royal or princely lord in battle in time of need. It corresponded to this that the self-conception of the nobility could be summed up in the notion of honour. This traditional view of nobility was actually reinforced by the internal wars of the second half of the sixteenth century. In the establishment phase of the ancien régime, it also became char-acteristic of the nobility that ennoblement effected immediate admission into a unitary noble estate. The prestige of those who were ennobled by lettre may not have been as high as that of the offspring of famous noble lineages, but ennoblement did not just endow a ‘nobility in waiting' but conferred genuine gentillesse. Conversely, gradual de facto ascent into the nobility by the way of so-called tierce fois was both common and accepted. If a family had acquired a seigneurie, lived a noble life and - assuming its origin was urban - had escaped the levy of the franc-fief, then after three generations it was counted as noble and could claim the corporate privileges of the nobility. On the other hand, noble families who sank into poverty also lost in the course of time their noble status (cf. in particular Section a of this chapter).”翻译为中文
ASSISTANT
最后，占有特权中的税收特权归第一和第二等级、城镇和某些公司所有。这些的物质意义并不容易确定。然而，尽管间接税收增加、尽管引入了对土地产权收入不分等级成员身份征收的“十分之一税”及后来的“百分之一税”、尽管要求神职人员“自愿捐赠”和向官员强征的贷款往往不得不注销，村民们的税负仍然高得不成比例。农业税几乎完全落在这一人口阶层身上。村庄的税单中重复出现了一般模式。富裕的农民当然承担了绝对最高的份额，但相对来说，他们的税负低于较贫穷的农民。税收制度不仅资助了官员的常规收入、养老金和国王债权人从国家债务中获得的利润，还直接有利于那些摆脱贫困的人。这并非在每个个案中都成立。有时，领地所有者被迫贡献给农民的农业税，而且在许多情况下，农业税的水平限制了私人提取。税收制度的作用不仅是直接的，而且也是间接的，作为在统治等级内重新分配提取的“剩余”产品的系统。 我们最后提及一个非常特殊的“税收”特权和废除它的尝试。引入的徭役，对农民的“国家”征收，是一项交通政策措施。从1680年代开始实践，并于1735年成为官方法律。这种“劳动税”规定了农村人口参与道路建设，他们每年被征召两次，为期几天（通常约每年十天）。工人不应被派送到家中8公里以外的地方，并应获得免费食物和交通费用。农民的马匹也被征召。徭役工人被用于土木工程，以及石头和沙子的运输，即所有较粗重的任务。实际道路建设的意图是使用工资工人。实际上，徭役影响到了所有居住在建设计划附近的农民。因此，“国家”的劳务义务不仅在社会上影响不平等，而且在地方上也不平等。徭役节省了货币税收，但必须监督建设的总督和来自国王桥梁和道路工程学校的专家很快发现，徭役工人开销很大，因为他们勉强、缓慢且不小心地工作。因此，1758年，在下诺曼底引入了货币税和劳动税之间的选择，很快其他地区也跟进。从1762年到1763年，利摩日的劳动义务完全被货币税替代，当时在利摩日担任总督的图尔戈特在成为国王财政主管时将这一措施普遍化。然而，这引起了强烈抗议，因为税收要求每个人都交付。正如我们已经提到的，巴黎高等法院争辩说，不能再向农民要求更多的钱，但基本反对的是废除较富裕阶层之前的税收特权。 关于徭役的冲突在当前背景下很有意义，因为这项义务是为政府为数不多的实际发展计划之一而设计的。由于在十七和十八世纪都没有足够的资金用于这一关键政府“职能”，这意味着生产继续主要是本地和地区性的。的确，在十七世纪建造了一些主要公路。但直到1720年代，依赖于主要本地市场的矿业企业家和制造商才越来越频繁地要求改善道路。这些要求长期没有取得任何显著成功。一个初步的系统措施是徭役的合法化，另一个措施是建立统一的管理机构（但不负责所有的pays d'état）和专家的培训。直到十八世纪后半叶，即使是较小的地方也能够通行轮式车辆。但由于超出本地级别的贸易仍然有限，因此道路经常保持空旷，因此往往几乎没有得到维护。即使是这些糟糕的道路，对于从一个地方搬运负担的人和动物来说也是可用的。 总之，在十八世纪，通过权力批准的统治阶层的那些特权继续得到法院的保护，尽管不是在每个案例中都来自政府本身。另一方面，经济上依赖的特权，因此特别是农民的集体用户权和行会组织框架内学徒的权利，从世纪中叶开始越来越失去其法律保护。 统治阶层的再生产 如果我们试图为法国旧制度统治形态确立自身的阶段与这些形态完全发展的阶段之间的过渡设定一个日期，我们需要关注贵族阶层的结构变化。随着贵族阶层的分层和准入条件的形式化，统治阶层再生产的“政治”条件最终成为了普遍个人权力的结构特征。在目前部分，我们将关注贵族再生产与普遍权力之间的这种联系。换句话说，我们将关注最多不超过法国男女总人口十分之一的人，包括大约2%的拥有第一和第二等级贵族身份的人群，以及那些期待自己或至少他们的孩子晋升为特权阶层的人。 在旧制度下，社会上各个层级的进步都要求采纳新的思想和行为模式，以及相应地融入所向往的新阶层。这些条件始于从平民到市民的简单过渡。因为在旧制度法国，市民意味着一个有闲阶层的人，根据在法国普遍存在的社会特权收入形式，市民这一描述在当时主要保留给城市收租者。Georges Lefebvre在其公正著名的作品《法国大革命期间北部农民》中提出，当时每个村庄有两到三个富裕的农民构成了乡村市民阶层 - 与居住在乡村的公证人和律师一起。但这样的观念过于倾向于一种物质情况已经成为区分不同社会阶层最重要标准的社会。如果他们自己耕种农场的话，村中的佼佼者仍然是旧制度普遍观点中的农民。他们可能站在农民的顶端，但他们不属于市民阶层，即整个第三等级的贵族。市民阶层主要依靠租金生活，因此在这方面已经像贵族一样。当当代人谈论市民阶层时，他们的意思不像是第三等级的经济精英，因为商人可能比官员、外科医生或学者更富有，但并不自动获得社会融入自认为是市民的人群，因此更优越的圈子。 在省份，市民这一称号似乎通常被用于已经退出商业的富裕个体。这些人经常在他们的名字后面加上他们乡村庄园的名字。在旧制度末期，许多地方的市民，例如夏尔特，主要依靠土地财产的收入生活。在巴黎情况不同，那里的市民更像是一个种姓，获得入门资格，如果不是通过出生，那么更多是通过婚姻而不是单纯的金钱收购。与省市市民相比，巴黎人生活水平较低，在马雷区，例如，他们的收入有70%来自租金，30%来自职位。 如果说旧制度的市民阶层远非新经济形态的承载群体，那么反过来说，在富有且有权势的贵族中也有许多企业家家庭 - 这是修正主义历史学家们永不厌倦地指出的。由于他们的社会地位是牢不可破的，并且他们的视野可能比那些急切地满足贵族生活要求的市民更广泛，许多贵族扩大了他们的采矿业务，建立了其他制造业，投资于殖民地贸易或现代化管理他们的领地。这些是特别的例子。然而，总的来说，贵族更多地被土地和办公室所有权、领主权、国家贷款和对国家债务的投机的占有所特征。 为了明确贵族中的结构变化，首先我们应该回忆一下，直到十六世纪，法国贵族一直是剑士贵族[noblesse d'épée]。即使在十七世纪之前，不是所有国王的官员都在军事上活跃，但贵族的概念包含了在需要时支持王室或亲王领主作战的义务。这一点表明，贵族的自我认识可以总结为荣誉的概念。这种传统的贵族观念实际上被十六世纪下半叶的内战进一步强化。在旧制度的建立阶段，贵族的特点也是封爵使人立即被接纳进入统一的贵族阶层。通过封信封爵的人的威望可能不如著名贵族后裔的威望高，但封爵不仅仅授予了“等待中的贵族”身份，而且赋予了真正的贵族身份。相反，通过所谓的第三次方式逐渐实际升入贵族阶层既是常见又被接受的。如果一个家庭获得了一个领地，过着贵族生活，假设其起源是城市的，并且逃避了franc-fief的征收，那么经过三代人之后，它就被视为贵族，并且可以要求贵族的集体特权。另一方面，陷入贫困的贵族家庭也会随着时间失去他们的贵族地位（具体参见本章的第a节）。