Dear Giovanna, thanks for your brave effort. Here I my first intuitive comments:

1. it seems plausible to call the English social structure "inherently feudal"

2. The country-orientation is perhaps less obvious, if you take it as a general notion of English social structure, as - if not earlier - by the late 18th and early 19th century surely the industrial revolution brought its results as far as urbanisation is concerned.

3. The concept of the middle classes also exists in German and - I guess - also in French. SO "citizenry" would not be excluded if you have another term (for another, more general social stratum).

4. Surely, there might be legal institutions in the UK that do not exist in France, due to the Napopleonis innovations. However, I guess that this discrepancy can also be explained by a wider difference, ,too, between Continental Law and Common Law.

5. Thanks for calling my attention to Lawrence Stone. Social history must be crucial for trying to answer this question - which is motivated by my intution (or one can call it working hypothesis, as well) that on a European-American scale the long experience of urban self-government might be an important and underestimated part of the progress towards a general progress towards democracy.

Dear Giovanna,

thanks for your answer (and vote) as well. As for your reply, first of all, indeed an art historian is an art historian is an art historian. And I really appreciate her wisdom. Certainly, Ppadio's style is all around in the 18th century. My remark, however, was not about the nobility and the political elite, but about society as such, in which the proportion of daily labourer and urban poors is certainly rising. THink about the early 19th century as the period of which Engels famusly wrote his social criticism of Manchester capitalism.

The same to you!

Ferenc

From a linguistic standpoint, there are gaps in the vocabulary of all languages, so a 1-to-1 correspondence of words from one to another is not to be expected. For instance, you cannot say "I am hungry" in Spanish. One must say the equivalent of "I have hunger." There is no good reason for the absence of an adjective to express hunger. On the other hand, any of those words are translatable into another language by using phrases or descriptions.

Dear GLenn, thanks for your suggestions, My first majors were English and Hungarian, so I think I see your point. Yet if we suppose that languages have vocabularies which cover the functions needed, my question translates to why is there a missing function in English for the phenomenon of the burgher.

Ferenc,

I take back everything. Finding the following offered by Google, it appears that English has a word for burgher: burgher. It also has a word for bourgeois: bourgeois/bourgeoisie. (English has many words borrowed like these: tsunami, taco, wiki, etc.)

------------

burgh·er

ˈbərɡər/

a citizen of a town or city, typically a member of the wealthy bourgeoisie.

Facing the same dilemma of translating Verbürgerlichung I opted for 'embourgeiosement'. It is not very elegant, but it is understandable in English--as Verbürgerlichung is not--and, indeed, it even has a Wikipedia entry.

Dear Bingham, indeed burgher seems to be the right word. But then the question comes why is is not used so commonly as the other ones are - even to the extent of almost escaping the attention of a linguist like you are. 

Dear Robert, thanks for sharing with us your own experience. I agree with you as far as your choice is concerned. Then the question is why do you not have your own word for the process itself.

Because becoming bourgeois has never been cool.

Dear Robert, but why? And how could it be cool in France and Germany?

The English equivalent word is "burgher" from "burgh" as in Edinburgh, etc. That said: the German word "burg" alludes to a particular habitational construct seen throughout France and Germany but less so in England. The Burg is a walled town with a Schloss (palace) or Festung (castle/fortress) in the middle with its own set of walls. Those that were artisans, administrators, clergy or other trades or professions that served (or provided goods whose production needed protection by) the feudal lord lived within the walls of the Burg. One sometimes now uses the term Burg in German only for the castle but this is not strictly correct as those I just described would not live with the feudal lord in his Schloss or Festung as that more protected place was for the Lord and other "Adel" or nobles. The ones who lived outside the inner wall but inside the outer walls are the "Bürger" or Burghers. Those that lived outide the outer walls were of no real value and expendible in the feudal hierarchy and did not merit any real protection (unless of course food production became threatened in a larger sense). These people were of course the peasants. So the word exists but it needs to be understood in context and the somewhat different social structure between the British Isles and the European mainland. Carcassonne is a good example.

Dear JEffrey, thanks for your detailed answer, it explains why originally there was such a distinction in the use of the term. However, one would think the second wave of the use comes with capitalism and urbanisation. It seems to me that the real question is why the problem of how to spread the value system and way of life of a burgher did not become a problem in Britain while it seems to be one on the Continent. Also, why the distinction betwen the citoyen and the bourgeois, as developed by Hegel was not a problem in the British context.

Dear Feri,

embourgeoisement is the (forced?) translation of  the German Verbürgerlichung butthat you of course know,  and the English word does contain bourgeoise -- you are right; the problem only repeats itself.

I am groping in the dark and I try to recall something from my Shakespeare-studies. What now comes to my mind is that the word borough  does not only mean 'town' or 'city' but also 'district', 'region' and, indeed, the biggest city in England (perhaps in Europe) in Shakespeare's time, i.e. London consisted of loose regions: city of Westminster, the city of London (itself) around St Paul's Cathedral, etc. So even if there was a wall or there was not, they thought of what we today call a town or city in terms of regions (districts), thus a town was an 'aggregate of districts' not a separate unit consisting of districts. In other words, a 'city-dweller' identified herself not as somebody living in a town but in a region: she lived in Westminster, and only "secondarily" in London. The further complication was that  Queen (Elizabeth) and her administration was in 'London', too but she lived in the Whitehall and not, strictly speaking, in 'London'. And boroughs were very much like villages, often with separate churches and markets, and the reflection and consciousness of living in a "town", or "city" came much later, when the French term was "borrowed". For some reason, they looked at organisational units, from the everyday perspective, differently: not in terms of a "unit consisting of...." but "some regions slowly built together creating a unit" (as in Hungary Balatonboglár and Balatonlelle 'reached' each other and for a while they were Boglár-Lelle, or Moson+Magyaróvár became Mosonmagyaróvár etc., not to mention Buda+Pest (+Óbuda))    Maybe one should do some research concerning the history of city/borough administration (where did the taxes go? to the borough or to 'London'?) and the legal-system  (did every borough have a judge?) -- the clue must be in their "form of life" :).   If one thinks she lives in a village (region/district), the village is the unit of  self-identification and not the larger unit (the city/town) the village had joined.  In Germany, there had to be city/town privileges which made it worthwhile to think in terms of belonging to the city directly (there were -- secondarily -- 'districts', 'regions' in 'German' cities/towns, too, of course).

But I am not a historian and this might be pure and false speculation, then ignore it., please :)

Best regards,

Géza

Dear Géza,

thanks indeed for your detailed recollections of Elizabethan London. Neither am I a historian, myself, but I came to the conclusion that a local loyalty must have been much stronger for most people even in the early modern period than we would expect. Therefore if I want to understand the real significance of belonging, as is necessary in a republican framework, I have to understand how people thought about their local identity. So indeed some urban history is urgently needed here. 

Dear Ferenc,

I think the fundamental difference between the feudal system in Britain vs the mainland might have something to do with it. In Britain only the eldest son (or designated heir) inherits the nobilary title whereas on the continent every child inherits the title. The result is that Lady Diana, daughter of an Earl, was considered a "commoner". On the continent there are huge numbers of "de"s and "von"s etc who have various titles  from simple "Equery" all the way up to "Prince". A consequence of this is a different class consciousness. In Britain by their definition there are a very small number of nobles. On the continent there is a huge number and if you are in Poland practically everyone is. Some say this does not make a difference but actually it still does. I know from personal experience having been welcomed to stay in the castles of continental nobility despited being impoverished in part because of the "de". In other cases i have been given a better table in a restaurant or defference from hotel staff. Certainly I experienced this in Vienna but not in London or at Oxford. This would never happen here in North America nor would it in Britain. It seems silly but this still happens. I do not know if anyone has done any research on the subject but I do think there is still a hint of the Ancien Regime on the continent that could not and never did exist in the British model.

Dear Jeffrey, thank you again, your suggestions sound to be very telling. And surely, what we are talking aobut, is "class consciousness". And it is really interesting that you connect it with the Ancien Regime. I would really welcome contributors, who gave some more along this line of "mentality" history.

(Just one cautionary remark: in the general awareness, Britain seems to be regarded as a rigid class society, with a strict adherence to hierarchy and traditional titles, which might not be the case, for example, in the Scandinavian countries? )

Is it possibly also because the status of 'free city' on the continent was granted earlier or more often or had more relatively power?  If this was the case, then one would expect that the Italian city-states might have the same concept (but I don't have Italian to know).  The difference there was that the Italian city-states were very much the territorial capital of the local duke (d'Este, Sforza, Medici, etc.), while it is my impression that the free cities of Germany were quite independent of the local duke or elector?

Certainly the Various English towns got their liberties from the 13C onwards, but I wonder if that relationship between the town and crown (parallels to two and gown?) manifested itself differently in England.  From my limited connection with some Scotsmen, it has seemed to me that the Scottish towns were also more 'burgherly' than the English.

Finally, the last thing to consider is that this conception was strengthened in the 19C when the various continental towns fought back to regain their pre-Napoleonic rights from the Metternichian conservative reforms.  Certainly this would deeply inform continental socialism and the mid-century revolutions there (1848, esp.)

Dea Steven,

Well, I do not know the Italian terminology, either. Perhaps someone could help us?

The Hanseatic towns surely look like quite independent. On the other hand, a number of German towns seem to me to be under some local magnate or prelate.

The idea that on the continent some towns got back their earlier privileges from Metternich's scheme sounds quite interesting. Unfortunately the connection between this possibility and continental socialism is less clear to me.

I think I would look for a supplementary answer more in intellectual history by know instead of a strictly urban history approach.

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,

As you well know , there is no one-t0-one correspondence between vocabulary and structure of languages, vocabulary items tend to go through morphological process of

split, underinterpretation, coalescence, etc  in translation to another language. These terms have gone through the process of '' delexalization'' ,  ( I have shared an article on this topic on researchgate) . Into the bargain, the cultural overtones and connotative associative meanings of these terms can not be the same in different linguistic and sociocultural communities hence languages .

goo luck with your research

Dear Rahimi, thanks for your linguistically precise answer for my question!

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,

There is also an English word 'burgess', which is fairly close to burger in meaning. In the 17th century there was a House of Burgesses in Virginia. See http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/House_of_Burgesses

Best wishes

Robert

welcome Ferenc,  I am delighted and elated to share my ideas with you.

best

a.

Dear Robert, thanks for this reminder as well. It makes me curious, why it has been pushed into the background?

F

Dear Ference, dear Robert

also this concept :

Embourgeoisement

is the theory that states  the  individuals can join the bourgeoisie as a result of their own efforts or collective action, becoming a member of middle class.  The opposite  trend is proletarianization. 

Dear Ferenc,

Several scholars on this site have suggested that it might be because of the weakness of the Burgertum in Britain; alternatively, it may have been because the Burgertum was so strong it needed no special term.

Best wishes

Robert

Dear Robert, my intuition points to the second one, but it is a bit frustrating that the two potential answers are just the opposites. :)

But thanks anyhow for your suggestions.

Best,

Ferenc