FEUDALISM
[Sidenote: Feudalism the outgrowth of prevailing conditions and earlier
customs.]
40. Feudalism was the natural outcome of the peculiar conditions which
prevailed in western Europe during the ninth and tenth centuries. Its
chief elements were not, however, newly invented or discovered at that
period but were only combined in order to meet the demands of the times.
It will be well, therefore, to consider briefly those customs in the
later Roman Empire and among the invading Germans which suggest (1) the
habit of the mediæval landowner of granting his land to others in such a
way that, while he retained the title, they became, to most intents and
purposes, the real owners; and (2) the relation of lord and vassal.
[Sidenote: Conditions of landholding in the later Roman Empire.]
[Sidenote: The _beneficium_.]
We have seen how, before the barbarian inroads, the small landowners in
the Roman Empire had often found it to their advantage to give up the
title to their land to more powerful neighboring proprietors.[62] The
scarcity of labor was such that the new owner, while extending the
protection of his name over the land, was glad to permit the former
owner to continue to till it, rent free, much as if it still belonged to
him. With the invasions of the barbarians the lot of the defenseless
small landholder became worse. He had a new resource, however, in the
monasteries. The monks were delighted to accept any real estate which
the owner--for the good of his soul and to gain the protection of the
saint to whom the monastery church was dedicated--felt moved to turn
over to them on the understanding that the abbot should permit the
former owner to continue to cultivate his fields. Though he no longer
owned the land, he still enjoyed its products and had only to pay a
trifling sum each year in recognition of the monastery's ownership.[63]
The use, or _usufruct_, of the land which was thus granted by the
monastery to its former owner was called a _beneficium_. The same term
was applied to the numerous grants which churches made from their vast
possessions for limited periods and upon various conditions. We also
find the Frankish kings and other great landowners disposing of their
lands in a similar fashion. The _beneficium_ forms the first stage in
the development of mediæval landowning.
[Sidenote: The origin of the relationship of lord and vassal.]
Side by side with the _beneficium_ grew up another institution which
helps to explain the relation of lord and vassal in later times. Under
the later Roman Empire the freeman who owned no land and found himself
unable to gain a living might become the dependent of some rich and
powerful neighbor, who agreed to feed, clothe, and protect him on
condition that he should engage to be faithful to his patron, "love all
that he loved and shun all that he shunned."[64]
[Sidenote: The _comitatus_.]
The invading Germans had a custom that so closely resembled this Roman
one that scholars have found it impossible to decide whether we should
attribute more influence to the Roman or to the German institution in
the development of feudalism. We learn from Tacitus that the young
German warriors were in the habit of pledging their fidelity to a
popular chieftain, who agreed to support his faithful followers if they
would fight at his side. The _comitatus_, as Tacitus named this
arrangement, was not regarded by the Germans as a mere business
transaction, but was looked upon as honorable alike to lord and man.
Like the later relation of vassal and lord, it was entered upon with a
solemn ceremony and the bond of fidelity was sanctioned by an oath. The
obligations of mutual aid and support established between the leader and
his followers were considered most sacred.
[Sidenote: Combination of the _comitatus_ and the _beneficium_ produces
feudal land tenure.]
While there was a great difference between the homeless and destitute
fellow who became the humble client of a rich Roman landowner, and the
noble young German warrior who sat at the board of a distinguished
military leader, both of these help to account for the later feudal
arrangement by which one person became the "man," or faithful and
honorable dependent, of another. When, after the death of Charlemagne,
men began to combine the idea of the _comitatus_ with the idea of the
_beneficium_, and to grant the usufruct of parcels of their land on
condition that the grantee should be true, loyal, and helpful to them,
that is, become their _vassal_, we may consider that the feudal system
of landowning was coming into existence.[65]
[Sidenote: Gradual development of feudalism.]
[Sidenote: The fief.]
[Sidenote: Infeudation and subinfeudation.]
[Sidenote: Vassal and subvassal.]
41. Feudalism was not established by any decree of a king or in virtue
of any general agreement between all the landowners. It grew up
gradually and irregularly without any conscious plan on any one's part,
simply because it seemed convenient and natural under the circumstances.
The owner of vast estates found it to his advantage to parcel them out
among vassals who agreed to accompany him to war, attend his court,
guard his castle upon occasion, and assist him when he was put to any
unusually great expense. Land granted upon the terms mentioned was said
to be "infeudated" and was called a _fief_. One who held a fief might
himself become a lord by granting a portion of his fief to a vassal upon
terms similar to those upon which he held of his lord or suzerain.[66]
This was called _subinfeudation_, and the vassal of a vassal was called
a _subvassal_ or _subtenant_. There was still another way in which the
number of vassals was increased. The owners of small estates were
usually in a defenseless condition, unable to protect themselves against
the insolence of the great nobles. They consequently found it to their
advantage to put their land into the hands of a neighboring lord and
receive it back from him as a fief. They thus became his vassals and
could call upon him for protection.
It is apparent, from what has been said, that, all through the Middle
Ages, feudalism continued to grow, as it were, "from the top and bottom
and in the middle all at once." (1) Great landowners carved out new
fiefs from their domains and granted them to new vassals. (2) Those who
held small tracts brought them into the feudal relation by turning them
over to a lord or monastery, whose vassals they became. (3) Finally any
lord might subinfeudate portions of his estate by granting them as fiefs
to those whose fidelity or services he wished to secure. By the
thirteenth century it had become the rule in France that there should be
"no land without its lord." This corresponded pretty closely to the
conditions which existed at that period throughout the whole of western
Europe.
[Sidenote: The hereditary character of fiefs and its consequences.]
It is essential to observe that the fief, unlike the _beneficium_, was
not granted for a certain number of years, or for the life of the
grantee, to revert at his death to the owner. On the contrary, it became
hereditary in the family of the vassal and passed down to the eldest son
from one generation to another. So long as the vassal remained faithful
to his lord and performed the stipulated services, and his successors
did homage and continued to meet the conditions upon which the fief had
originally been granted, neither the lord nor his heirs could rightfully
regain possession of the land. No precise date can be fixed at which it
became customary to make fiefs hereditary; it is safe, however, to say
that it was the rule in the tenth century.[67]
The kings and great nobles perceived clearly enough the disadvantage of
losing control of their lands by permitting them to become hereditary
property in the families of their vassals. But the feeling that what the
father had enjoyed should pass to his children, who, otherwise, would
ordinarily have been reduced to poverty, was so strong that all
opposition on the part of the lord proved vain. The result was that
little was left to the original and still nominal owner of the fief
except the services and dues to which the practical owner, the vassal,
had agreed in receiving it. In short, the fief came really to belong to
the vassal, and only a shadow of his former proprietorship remained in
the hands of the lord. Nowadays the owner of land either makes some use
of it himself or leases it for a definite period at a fixed money rent.
But in the Middle Ages most of the land was held by those who neither
really owned it nor paid a regular rent for it and yet who could not be
deprived of it by the original owner or his successors.
[Sidenote: Subvassals of the king not under his control.]
Obviously the great vassals who held directly of the king became almost
independent of him as soon as their fiefs were granted to them in
perpetuity. Their vassals, since they stood in no feudal relation to the
king, escaped the royal control altogether. From the ninth to the
thirteenth century the king of France or the king of Germany did not
rule over a great realm occupied by subjects who owed him obedience as
their lawful sovereign, paid him taxes, and were bound to fight under
his banner as the head of the state. As a feudal landlord himself, he
had a right to demand fidelity and certain services from those who were
his vassals. But the great mass of the people over whom he nominally
ruled, whether they belonged to the nobility or not, owed little to the
king directly, because they lived upon the lands of other feudal lords
more or less independent of him.
Enough has been said of the gradual and irregular growth of feudalism to
make it clear that complete uniformity in feudal customs could hardly
exist within the bounds of even a small kingdom, much less throughout
the countries of western Europe. Yet there was a remarkable resemblance
between the institutions of France, England, and Germany, so that a
description of the chief features of feudalism in France, where it was
highly developed, will serve as a key to the general situation in all
the countries we are studying.
[Sidenote: The fief the central institution of feudalism.]
[Sidenote: Homage.]
42. The fief (Latin, _feudum_) was the central institution of feudalism
and the one from which it derives its name. In the commonest acceptance
of the word, the fief was land, the perpetual use of which was granted
by its owner, or holder, to another person, on condition that the one
receiving it should become his vassal. The one proposing to become a
vassal knelt before the lord and rendered him _homage_[68] by placing
his hands between those of the lord and declaring himself the lord's
"man" for such and such a fief. Thereupon the lord gave his vassal the
kiss of peace and raised him from his kneeling posture. Then the vassal
took the oath of fidelity upon the Bible, or some holy relic, solemnly
binding himself to fulfill all his duties toward his lord. This act of
rendering homage by placing the hands in those of the lord and taking
the oath of fidelity was the first and most essential obligation of the
vassal and constituted the _feudal bond_. For a vassal to refuse to do
homage for his fief when it changed hands, was equivalent to a
declaration of revolt and independence.
[Sidenote: Obligations of the vassal. Military service.]
[Sidenote: Money fiefs.]
The obligations of the vassal varied greatly.[69] Sometimes homage meant
no more than that the vassal bound himself not to attack or injure his
lord in honor or estate, or oppose his interests in any other manner.
The vassal was expected to join his lord when there was a military
expedition on foot, although it was generally the case that the vassal
need not serve at his own expense for more than forty days. The rules,
too, in regard to the length of time during which a vassal might be
called upon to guard the castle of his lord varied almost infinitely.
The shorter periods of military service proved very inconvenient to the
lord. Consequently it became common in the thirteenth century for the
king and the more important nobles to secure a body of soldiers upon
whom they could rely at any time, and for any length of time, by
creating money fiefs. A certain income was granted to a knight upon
condition that the grantee should not only become a vassal of the lord
but should also agree to fight for him whenever it was necessary.
[Sidenote: Other feudal obligations.]
[Sidenote: Money payments.]
Besides the military service due from the vassal to his lord, he was
expected to attend the lord's court when summoned. There he sat with
other vassals to hear and pronounce upon those cases in which his
peers--i.e., his fellow-vassals--were involved.[70] Moreover, he had to
give the lord the benefit of his counsel when required, and attend him
upon solemn occasions. Under certain circumstances vassals had to make
money payments to their lord, as well as serve him in person; as, for
instance, when the fief changed hands through the death of the lord or
of the vassal, when the fief was alienated, when the lord was put to
extra expense by the necessity of knighting his eldest son or providing
a dowry for his daughter, or when he was in captivity and was held for a
ransom. Lastly, the vassal might have to entertain his lord should the
lord come his way. There are amusingly detailed accounts, in some of the
feudal contracts, of exactly how often the lord might come, how many
followers he might bring, and what he should have to eat.
[Illustration: A Mediæval Castle near Klagenfurt, Austria]
[Sidenote: Different classes of fiefs.]
There were fiefs of all kinds and of all grades of importance, from that
of a duke or count, who held directly of the king and exercised the
powers of a practically independent prince, down to the holding of the
simple knight, whose bit of land, cultivated by peasants or serfs, was
barely sufficient to enable him to support himself and provide the horse
upon which he rode to perform his military service for his lord.
[Sidenote: The nobility.]
[Sidenote: Their privileges.]
In order to rank as a noble in mediæval society it was, in general,
necessary to be the holder of land for which only such services were due
as were considered honorable, and none of those which it was customary
for the peasant or serf to perform. The noble must, moreover, be a free
man and have at least sufficient income to maintain himself and his
horse without any sort of labor. The nobles enjoyed certain privileges
which set them off from the non-noble classes. Many of these privileges
were perpetuated in France, and elsewhere on the continent, down to the
time of the French Revolution, and in Italy and Germany, into the
nineteenth century. The most conspicuous privilege was a partial
exemption from taxation.
[Sidenote: Difficulty of classifying the nobles.]
It is natural to wish to classify the nobility and to ask just what was
the difference, for example, between a duke, a count, and a marquis.
Unfortunately there was no fixed classification, at least before the
thirteenth century. A count, for instance, might be a very inconspicuous
person, having a fief no larger than the county of Charlemagne's time,
or he might possess a great many of the older counties and rank in power
with a duke. In general, however, it may be said that the dukes, counts,
bishops, and abbots who held directly from the king were of the highest
rank. Next to them came an intermediate class of nobles of the second
order, generally subvassals of the king, and below these the simple
knights.
[Sidenote: Feudal registers.]
43. The great complexity of the feudal system of land tenure made it
necessary for the feudal lords to keep careful registers of their
possessions. Very few of these registers have been preserved, but we are
so fortunate as to have one of the count of Champagne, dating from the
early thirteenth century. This gives us an idea of what feudalism really
was in practice, and shows how impossible it is to make a satisfactory
map of any country during the feudal period.
[Illustration: Fiefs and Suzerains of the Counts of Champagne]
[Sidenote: Growth of the possessions of the counts of Champagne typical
of the period.]
At the opening of the tenth century we find in the chronicles of the
time an account of a certain ambitious count of Troyes, Robert by name,
who died in 923 while trying to wrest the crown of France from Charles
the Simple. His county passed to his son-in-law, who already held, among
other possessions, the counties of Château-Thierry and Meaux. His son,
in turn, inherited all three counties and increased his dominions by
judicious usurpations. This process of gradual aggrandizement went on
for generation after generation, until there came to be a compact
district under the control of the counts of Champagne, as they began to
call themselves at the opening of the twelfth century. It was in this
way that the feudal states in France and Germany grew up. Certain lines
of feudal lords showed themselves able, partly by craft and violence,
and partly, doubtless, by good fortune, to piece together a considerable
district, in much the same way as we shall find that the king of France
later pieced together France itself.
[Sidenote: The register of the counts of Champagne illustrates the
complexity of feudal relations.]
The register referred to above shows that the feudal possessions of the
counts of Champagne were divided into twenty-six districts, each of
which centered about a strong castle. We may infer that these divisions
bore some close relation to the original counties which the counts of
Champagne had succeeded in bringing together. All these districts were
held as fiefs of other lords. For the greater number of his fiefs the
count rendered homage to the king of France, but he was the vassal of no
less than nine other lords beside the king. A portion of his lands,
including probably his chief town of Troyes, he held of the duke of
Burgundy. Châtillon, Épernay, and some other towns, he held as the "man"
of the Archbishop of Rheims. He was also the vassal of the Archbishop of
Sens, of four other neighboring bishops, and of the abbot of the great
monastery of St. Denis. To all of these persons he had pledged himself
to be faithful and true, and when his various lords fell out with one
another it must have been difficult to see where his duty lay. Yet his
situation was similar to that of all important feudal lords.
The chief object, however, of the register was to show not what the
count owed to others but what his own numerous vassals owed to him. It
appears that he subinfeudated his lands and his various sources of
income to no less than two thousand vassal knights. The purpose of the
register is to record the terms upon which each of these knights held
his fief. Some simply rendered the count homage, some agreed to serve
him in war for a certain length of time each year, others to guard his
castle for specified periods. A considerable number of the vassals of
the count held lands of other lords, there being nothing to prevent a
subvassal from accepting a fief directly from the king, or from any
other neighboring noble landholder. So it happened that several of the
vassals of the counts of Champagne held of the same persons of whom the
count himself held.
[Sidenote: The infeudation of other things than land.]
It is evident that the counts of Champagne were not contented with the
number of vassals that they secured by subinfeudating their land. The
same homage might be rendered for a fixed income, or for a certain
number of bushels of oats to be delivered each year by the lord, as for
the use of land. So money, houses, wheat, oats, wine, chickens, were
infeudated, and even half the bees which might be found in a particular
forest. It would seem to us the simpler way to have hired soldiers
outright, but in the thirteenth century the traditions of feudalism were
so strong that it seemed natural to make vassals of those whose aid was
desired. The mere promise of a money payment would not have been
considered sufficiently binding. The feudal bond of homage served to
make the contract firmer than it would otherwise have been.
[Illustration: The arrow indicates a lord of whom the vassal held one or
more fiefs.]
It is clear, then, that no such regular hierarchy existed as some
historians have imagined, beginning with the king and ending with the
humblest knight included in the feudal aristocracy. The fact that
vassals often held of a number of different lords made the feudal
relations infinitely complex. The diagram on page 115, while it may not
exactly correspond to the situation at any given moment, will serve to
illustrate this complexity.
[Sidenote: The feudal system maintained only by force.]
44. Should one confine one's studies of feudalism to the rules laid down
by the feudal lawyers and the careful descriptions of the exact duties
of the vassal which are to be found in the contracts of the period, one
might conclude that everything had been so minutely and rigorously fixed
as to render the feudal bond sufficient to maintain order and liberty.
But one has only to read a chronicle of the time to discover that, in
reality, brute force governed almost everything outside of the Church.
The feudal obligations were not fulfilled except when the lord was
sufficiently powerful to enforce them. The bond of vassalage and
fidelity, which was the sole principle of order, was constantly broken
and faith was violated by both vassal and lord.[71]
[Sidenote: The breaking of the feudal bond.]
It often happened that a vassal was discontented with his lord and
transferred his allegiance to another. This he had a right to do under
certain circumstances, as, for instance, when his lord refused to see
that justice was done him in his court. But such changes were generally
made merely for the sake of the advantages which the faithless vassal
hoped to gain. The records of the time are full of accounts of refusal
to do homage, which was the commonest way in which the feudal bond was
broken. So soon as a vassal felt himself strong enough to face his
lord's displeasure, or realized that the lord was a helpless minor, he
was apt to declare his independence by refusing to recognize the feudal
superiority of the one from whom he had received his land.
[Sidenote: War the law of the feudal world.]
We may say that war, in all its forms, was the law of the feudal world.
War formed the chief occupation of the restless aristocracy who held the
land and exercised the governmental control. The inveterate habits of a
military race, the discord provoked by ill-defined rights or by
self-interest and covetousness, all led to constant bloody struggles in
which each lord had for his enemies all those about him. An enterprising
vassal was likely to make war at least once, first, upon each of his
several lords; secondly, upon the bishops and abbots with whom he was
brought into contact, and whose control he particularly disliked;
thirdly, upon his fellow-vassals; and lastly, upon his own vassals. The
feudal bonds, instead of offering a guarantee of peace and concord,
appear to have been a constant cause of violent conflict. Every one was
bent upon profiting by the permanent or temporary weakness of his
neighbor. This chronic dissension extended even to members of the same
family; the son, anxious to enjoy a part of his heritage immediately,
warred against his father, younger brothers against older, and nephews
against uncles who might seek to deprive them of their rights.
In theory, the lord could force his vassals to settle their disputes in
an orderly and righteous manner before his court. But often he was
neither able nor inclined to bring about a peaceful adjustment, and he
would frequently have found it embarrassing to enforce the decisions of
his own court. So the vassals were left to fight out their quarrels
among themselves and found their chief interest in life in so doing. War
was practically sanctioned by law. The great French code of laws of the
thirteenth century and the Golden Bull, a most important body of law
drawn up for Germany in 1356, did not prohibit neighborhood war, but
merely provided that it should be conducted in a decent and gentlemanly
way.
[Sidenote: Tourneys and jousts.]
The jousts, or tourneys, were military exercises--play wars--to fill out
the tiresome periods which occasionally intervened between real
wars.[72] They were, in fact, diminutive battles in which whole troops
of hostile nobles sometimes took part. These rough plays called down the
condemnation of the popes and councils, and even of the kings. The
latter, however, were too fond of the sport themselves not to forget
promptly their own prohibitions.[73]
[Sidenote: Disastrous effects of feudal warfare generally recognized.]
[Sidenote: The 'Truce of God.']
45. The disastrous nature of the perpetual feudal warfare and the
necessity of some degree of peace and order, had already become apparent
even as early as the eleventh century. In spite of all the turmoil,
mankind was making progress. Commerce and enlightenment were increasing
in the older towns and preparing the way for the development of new
ones. Those engaged in peaceful pursuits could not but find the
prevailing disorder intolerable. The Church was untiring, as it was
fitting that it should be, in its efforts to secure peace; and nothing
redounds more to the honor of the bishops than the "Truce of God." This
prohibited all hostilities from Thursday night until Monday morning, as
well as upon all of the numerous fast days.[74] The church councils and
the bishops required the feudal lords to take an oath to observe the
weekly truce, and, by means of the dreaded penalty of excommunication,
met with some success. With the opening of the Crusades in 1096, the
popes undertook to effect a general pacification by diverting the
prevailing warlike spirit against the Turks.
At the same time the king, in France and England at least, was becoming
a power that made for order in the modern sense of the word. He
endeavored to prevent the customary resort to arms to settle every sort
of difficulty between rival vassals. By increasing the military force
that he had at his command he compelled the submission of cases of
dispute to his tribunals. But even St. Louis (d. 1270), who made the
greatest efforts to secure peace, did not succeed in accomplishing his
end. The gradual bettering of conditions was due chiefly to general
progress and to the development of commerce and industry, which made the
bellicose aristocracy more and more intolerable.
General Reading.--The older accounts of feudalism, such as that
given by Guizot or Hallam, should be avoided as the reader is
likely to be misled by them. The earlier writers appear, from the
standpoint of recent investigations, to have been seriously
mistaken upon many important points. In French, LUCHAIRE, _Manuel
des Institutions Françaises_ (Hachette & Co., Paris, $3.00), and
ESMEIN, _Cours Élémentaire d'Histoire du Droit Français_ ($2.00),
are excellent.
In English there is EMERTON'S Chapter XIV on "Feudal Institutions"
in his _Mediæval Europe_, and ADAMS, _Civilization_, Chapter IX,
devoted especially to the origin of feudalism. CHEYNEY gives a
selection of documents relating to the subject in _Translations and
Reprints_, Vol. IV, No. 3.