Spatial power system

The latter was thus orginized to appropriate the existing source of status, namely, ancestry and pedigree but was being gradually changed to secure the unique role of sovereign within that spatial power system; the origin of this changes was mainly economic but it now lays beyond the scope of our investigation. Gradual transformation of the mechanism of power took two forms. First, changes in pattern of behaviour of courtier. Not only was he now bound by the court and king (materially too), which was not the case in Middle Ages, but also forced into power play where to win meant to adhere to the regulations.

Second, changes in spatial organization of the power. This is deemed to be the most consequential of the changes. Now, as taken at absolute quality, the power in the system was often distributed in a way that opposed and contradicted the spatial configuration of the system. Noble classes might hold the inferiors down and extol the sovereign but their comport might be neglected and less noble or less witted or, in whole, less appropriate, according to the list of virtues og noblesse, will take the high ranks as if circumventing the existent rigid and defined spatial figuration of power.

In time when adhering to behavioral regulations and spatial power relation did not make a lot of sense, aristocrats (noblesse d’epee) were only capable of fighting ostensibly their opponents (Noblesse de robe) while king, which provoked this situation, only benefited from further redressing of the balance in his favour even if by occasional alliance with bourgeoisie.

It is under those stained conditions that pre-court Nobles, including bastards of blue blood, have completely lost their ground and not finding their place within thus changed structure, arrived at idealizing the noblesse and Romantic themes. Thus I conclude that category of ‘dual front class’ should, according to the logic of spatial organization of power, pressure and counter-pressure balance, relate all aristocracy which occupied the place between Sovereign and Bourgeoisie.

Aristocrats or ‘the prisoners of the court’ were truly ‘dual front class’ as regards their location within the power pyramid. Insofar as king could he would, after the logic of Elias, fight the aristocracy because, after all, in the beginning or, according to ancestry-based code of demeanor, king was just one of high born (not blue-blooded, because then royal blood has not yet acquired imperative status and king even might be elected among high born candidates) aristocracy, which possessed none of the inherent characteristics which could warrant his unique preeminence over the rest of aristocracy.

It follows that those characteristics should be acquired. Thus, king was interested in substituting Ancestry-based or Virtue-based power status, which left practically no place for king’s intervention and was historically conditioned, by more flexible Merit-based power status, which posed him at the top of pyramid and enabled him to define the status of individual within that pyramid. Blood was [in one regards the system at its absolute] no more a decisive factor as regard the pyramid.

To be just, the pyramid itself though left unchanged geometrically was entirely new. It was behavioral regulations which shaped the spatial power relations that changed and, in turn, changed the essence of that spatial power relation. The conclusion here is that blood as a factor that defined the place within spatial power structure was sidelined by kings personal favor or, in general, by king who declared the right to appraise personal merits of the individual and according to that appraisal to locate him within that spatial power structure.

As it was evolutional process, the old Virtue or Ancestry-based allocation co-existented as rudimentary with Merit-based allocation; this co-existence in spatial power pyramid might only spur the death struggle of the representatives of the old and new allocation scheme. Aristocracy virtually co-existed with bureaucracy in time and space. Now I propose reasonable question What actually moved Elias when he said that ‘dual front class’ is a strata ‘between famille royale and ducs et pairs’ or, in other words, between blue blooded and the rest of the noblesse?

Did not he himself concluded that aristocracy traversed the distance from mere existence (under the old scheme) to functionalized existence. What use then makes ‘dual front class’ category based on royal blood presence and only in this way relating spatial power structure? ‘Dual front class’ will make greater scientific import if related to aristocracy as class with depreciated status, located between king and bourgeoisie forming alliance.