Peasants, Citizenry or Something Else?

[Sabina]

I hope this is the proper section for such a topic and be aware this post is a little long ...

As fairs have grown and changed over the many years an interesting debate has sprung up on what to call those who are not "royalty". In the beginning it would seem fairs were comprised of a royal court, the people of a court such as guards, handmaids, what have you followed with every one else being a peasant. But historically this is not accurate and has lead to many a misconception of the renaissance and even medieval society.

I start this thread to see what the view is on the societies of other fairs and if others have shared in this issue or do not find it a problem.

My argument is as such, part of what made the Renaissance was the growth and development of the middle class. Obviously, as most of us portray the English Renaissance which occurred later then that of other European countries there is a hint of medieval/ dark ages left behind in the portrayal depending on the time period one looks at. But there was still a middle class in England at this time and the society was comprised of many layers and groups of people. With this in mind we should strive to present a greater diversity of a fair's population.

To be honest, it was in watching the first season of The Tutors that brought me to reflect on this. There was a scene in which the Queen, Catherine, was leaving the court room to the cheers of the citizenry who felt positively towards her. These people are not "peasants" in the groveling, dirt covered image we see at many fairs. But they are also not "nobles" such as barons and knights. Though The Tutors is not a perfect representation of history it does offer one that is closer then that of much modern media before it.

Obviously for those who present a fantasy fair, this is perhaps not a problem at all due to the lack of historical representation. And certainly it can be said that we must all except some anachronisms in our productions, no one wants the plague.

However, while the term peasant refers to those of the lower class who tended to work in farm lands or rural areas we have grown to use it in our fairs to encompass all those who are not noble or apart of a court. But technically, many members of a court are servants or vassals and not them selves noble or of much status. So why is it then that merchants or those who portray other middle class specialties are viewed on the same level as peasants or serfs?

I feel that there must be a distinction between those who portray peasants as compared to merchants as compared to nobles and those of a royal court. And it would be beneficial to understand the concept of citizenry of a fair group in order to give more life and allow for an ability to relate to the setting. I believe it is possible to allow for a setting that is not only some what historically accurate but also allows a person an escape from reality that they look for when they visit a fair.

Finally I will note, if a greater distinction is not made, perhaps it would be best for us to call these Medieval Fairs instead of Renaissance Fairs. 

[lys1022]

Scarborough has five classes of English Citizen in their performing company:

- Royalty
- Nobility
- Gentry
- Yeomanry
- Peasantry

Each has a slightly different set of costuming guidelines which, for the most part, follow the Henrician sumptuary laws.  We have extensive History/Customs/Manners classes that assist our performing company members in learning the ins and outs of interactions amongst and between the various classes.

And really, we have additional sub-classes within those above.  The Church is a class in and of itself, as are indigents such as the Romani, and there's everyone's favorites: The Touched By God Squad.

I think that a number of faires portray the various class levels to some degree or another.  I know that Sterling, Maryland, and Scarby all do.

Lys

[tigrlily64]

Personally, I go as a playtron, and I would label myself as middle class, being the daughter of a merchant.  However, I don't feel that this is an important distinctionto make.  Most people come to have fun at fair, not study history.  While most pople don't think of the middle class, it's really all around them, as all the merchants and such would be considered some sort of middle clas, not peasants.  As for renaming it a Medieval Fair, I believe that most faires have royals that ruled during the Renaissance, and their time period is the Renaissance.

[Sabina]

Most people come to have fun at fair, not study history.

It is unfortunate that there seem to be many who do not believe the words and history and fun can go together. However, if this was true, living history settlements such as Jamestown may not exist. They not only act as a visual educational aid but allow for some form of entertainment to take place as well.

Also, it is important for non profit fairs acting under the 501(c)(3) nonprofit code, which would indicate the fair to be acting as an educational nonprofit, to be infact, historical and for educational purposes. Obviously not all fairs are nonprofit or act under the same code. But for those under this code, it could be argued that appropriate use of terms such as peasant, noble and merchant must be taken in order to keep with in legal operating standards.

[Dayna]

Bristol has a thriving middle class, merchants and gentry as well as those who maintain an inn lodging many of the visitors to our faire port city.  It really makes the illusion easier and more enjoyable, at least according to the comments I've heard.

Dayna

[Aaroncois]

Also, it is important for non profit fairs acting under the 501(c)(3) nonprofit code, which would indicate the fair to be acting as an educational nonprofit, to be infact, historical and for educational purposes.

As a former president of a 501(c)(3) organization, I can tell you that the rules for what defines one are extremely broad. If there's anything remotely educational going on (glass-blowing, candle-making, etc.), it's fine. It doesn't need to be H/A. A non-profit designation is fundamentally for income tax purposes. All the IRS really cares is that the funds aren't going to enrich individuals in a manner that ought to be taxed differently.

Since 99% of the attendees just want to hear some cool celtic music, feed their faces and watch some jousts and other performances, getting too picayune about the details probably isn't worth a great deal of effort to the fair's organizers. Hardly anybody will notice and the ones who do will say, "Huh. That's cool." and then go watch another show.

[Whistler Fred]

Also, it is important for non profit fairs acting under the 501(c)(3) nonprofit code, which would indicate the fair to be acting as an educational nonprofit, to be infact, historical and for educational purposes.

As a former president of a 501(c)(3) organization, I can tell you that the rules for what defines one are extremely broad. If there's anything remotely educational going on (glass-blowing, candle-making, etc.), it's fine. It doesn't need to be H/A. A non-profit designation is fundamentally for income tax purposes. All the IRS really cares is that the funds aren't going to enrich individuals in a manner that ought to be taxed differently.

Since 99% of the attendees just want to hear some cool celtic music, feed their faces and watch some jousts and other performances, getting too picayune about the details probably isn't worth a great deal of effort to the fair's organizers. Hardly anybody will notice and the ones who do will say, "Huh. That's cool." and then go watch another show.

I agree to some extent, but I also think that many patrons who aren't interested in historical accuracy can still sense that there are various types of folks wandering in the streets, and this adds to the ambiance of a good faire.  Just to see a townsman bowing to nobility, or a member of the gentry reacting to the attentions of a comely young peasant girl, can add a snapshot of history while providing entertainment opportunities for any type of audience.  

[RSLeask]

I agree to some extent, but I also think that many patrons who aren't interested in historical accuracy can still sense that there are various types of folks wandering in the streets, and this adds to the ambiance of a good faire.  Just to see a townsman bowing to nobility, or a member of the gentry reacting to the attentions of a comely young peasant girl, can add a snapshot of history while providing entertainment opportunities for any type of audience.  

This.  I remember that was one of the things that really drew me into the faires, back home, was all the different types of people that wandered around.  It really struck me how full the town was.  And now, I actually get to play it out for others, and I've been asked about that as well.  Maybe someday, one of them will get into the acting, too.  And thus perpetuate the faire.  But that's another big reason why I don't play a noble, titled, or anyone of the higher-class.  Then again, I don't play as a peasant or surf, either, as that's not really my style.

But there definitely needs to be that distinction.  And sure, you can have a full middle class, but that really depends on the years a faire is set in.  Middle class was still often regarded with upturned noses even as late as the... wait, did that ever really change?   

[Aaroncois]

Maybe I'm not taking the same message away from this thread that others are seeing. I don't see anywhere that it's being argued that there shouldn't be characters in persona acting like various types and classes of folks from Renaissance times. I was even on board with the notion that the social class distinction might be more profound and specific than is often portrayed. This is England (primarily) that we're talking about, after all. The country where slight variations in accent peg you to a particular level on the social hierarchy even today.

Where I took issue was with the notion that failing to be historically accurate might be in some fashion "not legal" or technically problematic to faires claiming non-profit status. Even assuming that somebody in the government understood the nuances sufficiently to have a concern, there's simply nothing in the non-profit status that would necessitate grueling historical accuracy.

[Katie Bookwench]

I think that one reason for the situation that you are describing is that while the strata of period society was very well defined, the general mindset both the american in an acting facility and the audience as a whole is more apt to see everyone as an equal.

Even though (in truth) even American society has it's social groups based on factors such as income, career and education, the basic ideal this country was founded on was that we are all equal. No Kings, no nobility.... everyone was to be put on the same level, and then responsible for making their way in the world with the talents they had. While we know this lofty premise was not the reality, a great number of Americans hold this ideal dear.

I think it also has to do with how the actors and patrons of a show dress. Every faire is different -I have garb that would pass as nobility for the Michigan Ren Fest that would- at best- be regarded as lower noble, or upper middles at a faire like Bristol. 

Add to that the tastes and styles of a great many patrons and actors, that they would rather portray the most beautiful characters, rather than just a lowly tradesman. Silks and brocades are far more attractive than woolens and flax... there are few people who wish to portray middes class for their own pesonal reasons.

Personally I'm not convinced that a Rennaissance Faire should be burdened with the responsibility of 'getting it right' any more than Hollywood is. Both are productions designed to entertain, not to teach. 

[Sabina]

Maybe I'm not taking the same message away from this thread that others are seeing. I don't see anywhere that it's being argued that there shouldn't be characters in persona acting like various types and classes of folks from Renaissance times. I was even on board with the notion that the social class distinction might be more profound and specific than is often portrayed. This is England (primarily) that we're talking about, after all. The country where slight variations in accent peg you to a particular level on the social hierarchy even today.

Where I took issue was with the notion that failing to be historically accurate might be in some fashion "not legal" or technically problematic to faires claiming non-profit status. Even assuming that somebody in the government understood the nuances sufficiently to have a concern, there's simply nothing in the non-profit status that would necessitate grueling historical accuracy.

I believe the thread sort of branched. The first part of the thread was the questioning of if there should be a middle class and if such a class should be called "peasant" or if the term "peasant" should be used in it's proper context.

Obviously on the tax level the government is more concerned about where the money goes instead of how inline an organization is with the definition of "educational" and all the other things that go under that code. But I think it helps to be historically accurate with in reason and simply requesting using the term "peasant" correctly is not the same as demanding proper fabric types be used in all garb. If an organization is claiming to be "educational" then why not adhere to something at least remotely educational by using proper terminology? Besides, it helps to have some educational appearance in case an investigation occurred due to some negative reason involving some one wishing the fair be done away with. Maybe that's a bit Machiavellian a thought but we have not come far from his time in regards to people with alternative motives engaging in our work.

Uh, but let's forget the taxes thing, we all know taxes= not good discussion. Sorry to have brought it up. It's just been issue at our local fair.

I really just wanted to see what the use of the term "peasant" was at other fairs and if other fairs have any one who insists on the use of the word "peasant" to describe their citizenry who are not noble or apart of a court? Also what's the opinion of others on the use of the term? Do other fairs have middle classes?

I find it interesting that other fairs do express something of a middle/mixed class amongst their actors.

[jcbanner]

The faire I'm at avoids teh issue all together.  among our "locals" we have the court and we have the villagers.  the court is conprised of teh royalty, and teh nobility, and the vilagers are everyone that makes the town function.  so that would be the farmers in at market, the tradesmen, and the merchants.

We tend to exclude many of the higher merchants so that we can have a more clearly definded distinction between who is titled, and who isn't.  we will on occation call people peasents, but only when they truely are.

[Lady Renee Buchanan]

I'm not sure I understand this.  Are you referring to those on cast only?  Am I correct when I *think* you mean that a cast should have nobility, middle class, and peasantry?

Because as a paytron who dresses in garb, I just usually wander around and look at everyone in garb, cast or not.  Then I look at what they're wearing.  If it's obvious noble garb, I think "nobility."  The same with peasant garb.  And if I see something that's not over the top noble, or not grovel in the dirt peasant, then I just figure that they are middle class or merchants.

Then I admire everyone's garb and go on about the faire having fun.  That's what faire is for me - fun.  I don't get bogged down in the "shoulds"  or "why or why nots."  Or anything like that.  That's too much like real life, and faire is my chance to play.

[Karima Hurrem Sultan, Roxelana Nastia de Rohatyn]

I have not yet, but aspire, to reach such heights as performer in the Ren Faires. However as a patron, and historical buff I see the positive side to both arguments here. As a visitor, I would like to see more middle class, to create a richer experience, a more entertaining environment. This might mean that as Tradesmen, they are not well respected by Court Members, or Land Owners...however to the "outsider" I believe it would increase the fun factor. However, the fun factor...as you say, is the point of the Faire...and many people do come simply to gawk, or show their children a bit of colorful history...either way, the more the merrier!

[Carl Heinz]

The larger Faires evolved from two models.

One, which I'll call the East Coast model (although it's not just found there), started with a fairly small number of theme characters which might be supplemented by a few SCA members and some environmental areas.  Crafts, other booth, shows, and, perhaps a joust provided the balance of the event.  I recall several rather harsh discussions on AFR a number of years ago in which eastern theme performers were really irate about the concept of a number of low or unpaid participants.  I think they felt their earnings were being threatened.

Another reason for an event not having a large number of participants is that it's difficult to deal with them individually.  That problem was resolved in the West Coast model by the creation of guilds and troupes.  Management then only has to deal primarily with the groups and really only gets involved with the members if there's a problem or for such things as registration, gate passes, etc.

The West Coast model (I'll call it that because RPFS is located there and is acknowledged as the original US faire) was started as an educational tool by a school teacher (Phyllis Patterson).  From that base, it evolved to some fairly large events (RPFS and the Northern California Renaissance Faire which replaced RPFN).  The large number of low or unpaid participants as a supplement to the theme characters, shows, crafts booths, joust, etc., has always been in that tradition.  Admittedly, the tradition of having a strong base of historical accuracy has been somewhat eroded, but the costuming is still closely monitored as is instruction in such things as BFA and street interaction.

So, to get back to the original discussion-

The classes generally portrayed are court (nobles), gentry (middle class), and peasants.  The yeomanry really isn't separate and tends to overlap in the gap between middle class and peasants.  There are also a few sailors and foreign visitors.  In the case of RPFS, there is an Italian group and Germans are a part of St Michael's Guild (military).  Although a number of visitors are pirates, they're around 150 years after Elizabethan Engnland.  But, we're happy to play with them as visitors.  We had privateers and the Crown got a share.

The middle class was present during the reign of Henry VIII and became much stronger with Elizabeth.  I believe that it evolved with the craft guilds.

My persona (John Woodman) is that of a Master Joiner and Turner who has reached an age where active involvement in his trade is now a very small part of his life.  He leaves the active operation of the business to his sons and sons-in-law who are now either Masters or Journeymen  I don't think you'd find any Elizabethan guild member who considered himself to be a peasant.  Many had more actual wealth than some nobles.

As an aside, you'll find a lot more peasants and fewer nobles and well dressed middle class on hot days.    Not everyone who appears to be a peasant is one.  To be sure, look at the quality of the clothing and attitude.  Is it patched and ragged or is clean and well cared for?  Does the person tend to grovel?  If not, the character may just be gentry or noble who doesn't care to be stylish and will dress according to the weather.  Cotton was fairly rare and expensive.  Linen was not by comparison.