FEUDALISM
149. RISE OF FEUDALISM
A DARK AGE
The ninth century in western Europe was, as we have learned, [1] a period
of violence, disorder, and even anarchy. Charlemagne for a time had
arrested the disintegration of society which resulted from the invasions
of the Germans, and had united their warring tribes under something like a
centralized government. But his work, it has been well said, was only a
desperate rally in the midst of confusion. After his death the Carolingian
Empire, attacked by the Northmen and other invaders and weakened by civil
conflicts, broke up into separate kingdoms.
DECLINE OF ROYAL AUTHORITY
Charlemagne's successors in France, Germany, and Italy enjoyed little real
authority. They reigned, but did not rule. Under the conditions of the
age, it was impossible for a king to govern with a strong hand. The
absence of good roads or of other easy means of communication made it
difficult for him to move troops quickly from one district to another, in
order to quell revolts. Even had good roads existed, the lack of ready
money would have prevented him from maintaining a strong army devoted to
his interests. Moreover, the king's subjects, as yet not welded into a
nation, felt toward him no sentiments of loyalty and affection. They cared
far less for their king, of whom they knew little, than for their own
local lords who dwelt near them.
INCREASED POWER OF THE NOBLES
The decline of the royal authority, from the ninth century onward, meant
that the chief functions of government would be more and more performed by
the nobles, who were the great landowners of the kingdom. Under
Charlemagne these men had been the king's officials, appointed by him and
holding office at his pleasure. Under his successors they tended to become
almost independent princes. In proportion as this change was accomplished
during the Middle Ages, European society entered upon the stage of
feudalism. [2]
PARALLELS TO EUROPEAN FEUDALISM
Feudalism in medieval Europe was not a unique development. Parallels to it
may be found in other parts of the world. Whenever the state becomes
incapable of protecting life and property, powerful men in each locality
will themselves undertake this duty; they will assume the burden of their
own defense and of those weaker men who seek their aid. Such was the
situation in ancient Egypt for several hundred years, in medieval Persia,
and in modern Japan until about two generations ago.
EXTENT OF EUROPEAN FEUDALISM
European feudalism arose and flourished in the three countries which had
formed the Carolingian Empire, that is, in France, Germany, and northern
Italy. It also spread to Bohemia, Hungary, and the Christian states of
Spain. Toward the close of the eleventh century the Normans transplanted
it into England, southern Italy, and Sicily. During the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries the crusaders introduced it into the kingdoms which
they founded in the East. [3] Still later, in the fourteenth century, the
Scandinavian countries became acquainted with feudalism. Throughout this
wide area the institution, though varying endlessly in details, presented
certain common features.
150. FEUDALISM AS A SYSTEM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FEUDAL SOVEREIGNTY
The basis of feudal society was usually the landed estate. Here lived the
feudal noble, surrounded by dependents over whom he exercised the rights
of a petty sovereign. He could tax them; he could require them to give him
military assistance; he could try them in his courts. A great noble, the
possessor of many estates, even enjoyed the privilege of declaring war,
making treaties, and coining money. How, it will be asked, did these
rights and privileges arise?
FEUDAL TENURE OF LAND
Owing to the decay of commerce and industry, land had become practically
the only form of wealth in the early Middle Ages. The king, who in theory
was absolute owner of the soil, would pay his officials for their services
by giving them the use of a certain amount of land. In the same way one
who had received large estates would parcel them out among his followers,
in return for their support. Sometimes an unscrupulous noble might seize
the lands of his neighbors and compel them to become his tenants.
Sometimes, too, those who owned land in their own right might surrender
the title to it in favor of a noble, who then became their protector.
THE FIEF
An estate in land which a person held of a superior lord, on condition of
performing some "honorable" service, was called a fief. At first the
tenant received the fief only for a specified term of years or for his
lifetime; but in the end it became inheritable. On the death of the tenant
his eldest son succeeded him in possession. This right of the first-born
son to the whole of the father's estate was known as primogeniture. [4] If
a man had no legal heir, the fief went back to its lord.
VASSALAGE
The tie which bound the tenant who accepted a fief to the lord who granted
it was called vassalage. Every holder of land was the vassal of some lord.
At the apex of the feudal pyramid stood the king, the supreme landlord,
who was supposed to hold his land from God; below the king stood the
greater lords (dukes, marquises, counts, and barons), with large estates;
and below them stood the lesser lords, or knights, whose possessions were
too small for further subdivision.
PERSONAL SERVICES OF THE VASSAL
The vassal, first of all, owed various services to the lord. In time of
war he did garrison duty at the lord's castle and joined him in military
expeditions. In time of peace the vassal attended the lord on ceremonial
occasions, gave him the benefit of his advice, when required, and helped
him as a judge in trying cases.
THE VASSAL'S MONEY PAYMENTS
Under certain circumstances the vassal was also compelled to make money
payments. When a new heir succeeded to the fief, the lord received from
him a sum usually money equivalent to one year's revenue of the estate.
This payment was called a "relief." Again, if a man sold his fief, the
lord demanded another large sum from the purchaser, before giving his
consent to the transaction. Vassals were also expected to raise money for
the lord's ransom, in case he was made prisoner of war, to meet the
expenses connected with the knighting of his eldest son, and to provide a
dowry for his eldest daughter. Such exceptional payments went by the name
of "aids."
THE LORD'S DUTY TO THE VASSAL
The vassal, in return for his services and payments, looked to the lord
for the protection of life and property. The lord agreed to secure him in
the enjoyment of his fief, to guard him against his enemies, and to see
that in all matters he received just treatment. This was no slight
undertaking.
HOMAGE
The ceremony of homage [5] symbolized the whole feudal relationship. One
who proposed to become a vassal and hold a fief came into the lord's
presence, bareheaded and unarmed, knelt down, placed his hands between
those of the lord, and promised henceforth to become his "man." The lord
then kissed him and raised him to his feet. After the ceremony the vassal
placed his hand upon the Bible or upon sacred relics and swore to remain
faithful to his lord. This was the oath of "fealty." The lord then gave
the vassal some object--a stick, a clod of earth, a lance, or a glove--in
token of the fief with the possession of which he was now "invested."
FEUDAL GOVERNMENT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANARCHY
It is clear that the feudal method of land tenure, coupled with the custom
of vassalage, made in some degree for security and order. Each noble was
attached to the lord above him by the bond of personal service and the
oath of fidelity. To his vassals beneath him he was at once protector,
benefactor, and friend. Unfortunately, feudal obligations were far less
strictly observed in practice than in theory. Both lords and vassals often
broke their engagements, when it seemed profitable to do so. Hence they
had many quarrels and indulged in constant warfare. But feudalism, despite
its defects, was better than anarchy. The feudal lords drove back the
pirates and hanged the brigands and enforced the laws, as no feeble king
could do. They provided a rude form of local government for a rude
society.
151. FEUDAL JUSTICE
FEUDALISM AS A SYSTEM OF LOCAL JUSTICE
Feudalism was not only a system of local government; it was also a system
of local justice. Knights, barons, counts, and dukes had their separate
courts, and the king had his court above all. Cases arising on the lord's
estate were tried before him and the vassals whom he called to his
assistance in giving justice. Since most wrongs could be atoned for by the
payment of a fine, the conduct of justice on a large fief produced a
considerable income. The nobles, accordingly, regarded their judicial
rights as a valuable property, which they were loath to surrender to the
state.
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
The law followed in a feudal court was largely based on old Germanic
customs. The court did not act in the public interest, as with us, but
waited until the plaintiff requested service. Moreover, until the case had
been decided, the accuser and the accused received the same treatment.
Both were imprisoned; and the plaintiff who lost his case suffered the
same penalty which the defendant, had he been found guilty, would have
undergone.
THE OATH
Unlike a modern court, again, the feudal court did not require the accuser
to prove his case by calling witnesses and having them give testimony. The
burden of proof lay on the accused, who had to clear himself of the
charge, if he could do so. In one form of trial it was enough for him to
declare his innocence under oath, and then to bring in several "oath-
helpers," sometimes relatives, but more often neighbors, who swore that
they believed him to be telling the truth. The number of these "oath-
helpers" varied according to the seriousness of the crime and the rank of
the accused. This method was hardly as unsatisfactory as it seems to be,
for a person of evil reputation might not be able to secure the required
number of friends who would commit perjury on his behalf. To take an oath
was a very solemn proceeding; it was an appeal to God, by which a man
called down on himself divine punishment if he swore falsely.
ORDEALS
The consequences of a false oath were not apparent at once. Ordeals,
however, formed a method of appealing to God, the results of which could
be immediately observed. A common form of ordeal was by fire. The accused
walked barefoot over live brands, or stuck his hand into a flame, or
carried a piece of red-hot iron for a certain distance. In the ordeal by
hot water he plunged his arm into boiling water. A man established his
innocence through one of these tests, if the wound healed properly after
three days. The ordeal by cold water rested on the belief that pure water
would reject the criminal. Hence the accused was thrown bound into a
stream: if he floated he was guilty; if he sank he was innocent and had to
be rescued. Though a crude method of securing justice, ordeals were
doubtless useful in many instances. The real culprit would often prefer to
confess, rather than incur the anger of God by submitting to the test.
THE JUDICIAL DUEL
A form of trial which especially appealed to the warlike nobles was the
judicial duel. [6] The accuser and the accused fought with each other; and
the conqueror won the case. God, it was believed, would give victory to
the innocent party, because he had right on his side. When one of the
adversaries could not fight, he secured a champion to take his place.
Though the judicial duel finally went out of use in the law courts, it
still continued to be employed privately, as a means of settling disputes
which involved a man's honor. The practice of dueling is only now dying
out in civilized communities.
[Illustration: TRIAL BY COMBAT
From a manuscript of the fifteenth century.]
FEUDAL AND ROMAN LAW
Oaths, ordeals, and duels formed an inheritance from Germanic antiquity.
[7] They offered a sharp contrast to Roman law, which acted in the public
interest, balanced evidence, and sought only to get at the truth. After
the middle of the twelfth century the revival of the study of Roman law,
as embodied in Justinian's code, [8] led gradually to the abandonment of
most forms of appeal to the judgment of God. At the same time the kings
grew powerful enough to take into their own hands the administration of
justice.
152. FEUDAL WARFARE
FEUDALISM AS A SYSTEM OF LOCAL DEFENSE
Feudalism, once more, was a system of local defense. The knight must guard
his small estate, the baron his barony, the count his county, the duke his
duchy. At the lord's bidding the vassal had to follow him to war, either
alone or with a certain number of men, according to the size of the fief.
But this assistance was limited. A vassal served only for a definite
period (varying from one month to three in the year), and then only within
a reasonable distance from the lands for which he did homage. These
restrictions made it difficult to conduct a lengthy campaign, or one far
removed from the vassal's fief, unless mercenary soldiers were employed.
THE FEUDAL ARMY
The feudal army, as a rule, consisted entirely of cavalry. Such swiftly
moving assailants as the Northmen and the Magyars could best be dealt with
by mounted men who could bring them to bay, compel them to fight, and
overwhelm them by the shock of the charge. In this way the foot soldiers
of Charlemagne's time came to be replaced by the mailed horsemen who for
four centuries or more dominated European battlefields.
[Illustration: MOUNTED KNIGHT
Seal of Robert Fitzwalter, showing a mounted knight in complete mail
armor; date about 1265 A.D.]
ARMS AND ARMOR
The armor used in the Middle Ages was gradually perfected, until at length
the knight became a living fortress. [9] In the early feudal period he
wore a cloth or leather tunic covered with iron rings or scales, and an
iron cap with a nose guard. About the beginning of the twelfth century he
adopted chain mail, with a hood of the same material for the head. During
the fourteenth century the knight began to wear heavy plate armor,
weighing fifty pounds or more, and a helmet with a visor which could be
raised or lowered. Thus completely incased in metal, provided with shield,
lance, straight sword or battle-ax, and mounted on a powerful horse, the
knight could ride down almost any number of poorly armed peasants. Not
till the development of missile weapons--the longbow, and later the
musket--did the foot soldier resume his importance in warfare. The feudal
age by this time was drawing to a close.
PREVALENCE OF PRIVATE WAR
The nobles regarded the right of waging war on one another as their most
cherished privilege. Fighting became almost a form of business enterprise,
which enriched the lords and their retainers through the sack of castles,
the plunder of villages, and the ransom of prisoners. Every hill became a
stronghold and every plain a battlefield. Such neighborhood warfare,
though rarely very bloody, spread terrible havoc throughout the land.
THE PEACE AND TRUCE OF GOD
The Church, to its great honor, lifted a protesting voice against this
evil. It proclaimed a "Peace of God" and forbade attacks on all
defenseless people, including priests, monks, pilgrims, merchants,
peasants, and women. But it was found impossible to prevent the feudal
lords from warring with each other, even though they were threatened with
the eternal torments of Hell; and so the Church tried to restrict what it
could not altogether abolish. A "Truce of God" was established. All men
were to cease fighting from Wednesday evening to Monday morning of each
week, during Lent, and on various holy days. The truce would have given
Christendom peace for about two hundred and forty days each year; but it
seems never to have been strictly observed except in limited areas.
ABOLITION OF PRIVATE WARFARE
As the power of the kings increased in western Europe, they naturally
sought to put an end to the constant fighting between their subjects. The
Norman rulers of Normandy, England, and Sicily restrained their turbulent
nobles with a strong hand. Peace came later in most parts of the
Continent; in Germany, "fist right" (the rule of the strongest) prevailed
until the end of the fifteenth century. The abolition of private war was
the first step in Europe toward universal peace. The second step--the
abolition of public war between nations--is yet to be taken.
153. THE CASTLE AND LIFE OF THE NOBLES
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASTLE
The outward mark of feudalism was the castle, [10] where the lord resided
and from which he ruled his fief. In its earliest form the castle was
simply a wooden blockhouse placed on a mound and surrounded by a stockade.
About the beginning of the twelfth century the nobles began to build in
stone, which would better resist fire and the assaults of besiegers. A
stone castle consisted at first of a single tower, square or round, with
thick walls, few windows, and often with only one room to each story. [11]
As engineering skill increased, several towers were built and were then
connected by outer and inner walls. The castle thus became a group of
fortifications, which might cover a wide area.
[Illustration: PLAN OF CHÂTEAU GAILLARD
The plan is intended to represent that of a typical castle, as the plan of
Kirkstall Abbey represents that of a typical monastery.]
[Illustration: PIERREFONDS
A castle near Paris built about 1400 A.D. by a brother of the king of
France. It was dismantled in 1632 A.D., but was carefully restored in the
nineteenth century by order of Napoleon III. The exterior faithfully
reproduces the appearance of a medieval fortress.]
THE CASTLE AS A FORTRESS
Defense formed the primary purpose of the castle. Until the introduction
of gunpowder and cannon, the only siege engines employed were those known
in ancient times. They included machines for hurling heavy stones and iron
bolts, battering rams, and movable towers, from which the besiegers
crossed over to the walls. Such engines could best be used on firm, level
ground. Consequently, a castle would often be erected on a high cliff or
hill, or on an island, or in the center of a swamp. A castle without such
natural defenses would be surrounded by a deep ditch (the "moat"), usually
filled with water. If the besiegers could not batter down or undermine the
massive walls, they adopted the slower method of a blockade and tried to
starve the garrison into surrendering. But ordinarily a well-built, well-
provisioned castle was impregnable. Behind its frowning battlements even a
petty lord could defy a royal army.
[Illustration: CHÂTEAU GAILLARD (RESTORED)
The finest of all medieval castles. Located on a high hill overlooking the
Seine about twenty miles from Rouen. Built by Richard the Lion hearted
within a twelvemonth (1197-1198 AD) and by him called Saucy Castle. It was
captured a few years later by the French king Philip Augustus and was
dismantled early in the seventeenth century. The castle consisted of three
distinct series of fortifications, besides the keep which in this case was
merely a strong tower.]
A CASTLE DESCRIBED
A visitor to a medieval castle crossed the drawbridge over the moat and
approached the narrow doorway, which was protected by a tower on each
side. If he was admitted, the iron grating ("portcullis") rose slowly on
its creaking pulleys, the heavy, wooden doors swung open, and he found
himself in the courtyard commanded by the great central tower ("keep"),
where the lord and his family lived, especially in time of war. At the
summit of the keep rose a platform whence the sentinel surveyed the
country far and wide; below, two stories underground, lay the prison,
dark, damp, and dirty. As the visitor walked about the court-yard, he came
upon the hall, used as the lord's residence in time of peace, the armory,
the chapel, the kitchens, and the stables. A spacious castle might
contain, in fact, all the buildings necessary for the support of the
lord's servants and soldiers.
[Illustration: KING AND JESTER
From a manuscript of the early fifteenth century.]
THE CASTLE AS A RESIDENCE
The medieval castle formed a good fortress, but a poor home. Its small
rooms, lighted only by narrow windows, heated only by fireplaces, badly
ventilated, and provided with little furniture, must have been indeed
cheerless. Toward the close of the feudal period, when life became more
luxurious, the castle began to look less like a dungeon. Windows were
widened and provided with panes of painted glass, walls were hung with
costly tapestries, and floors were covered with thick Oriental rugs. The
nobles became attached to their castle homes and often took their names
from those of their estates.
AMUSEMENTS OF THE NOBLES
Life within the castle was very dull. There were some games, especially
chess, which the nobles learned from the Moslems. Banqueting, however,
formed the chief indoor amusement. The lord and his retainers sat down to
a gluttonous feast and, as they ate and drank, watched the pranks of a
professional jester or listened to the songs and music of ministrels or,
it may be, heard with wonder the tales of far-off countries brought by
some returning traveler. Outside castle walls a common sport was hunting
in the forests and game preserves attached to every estate. Deer, bears,
and wild boars were hunted with hounds; for smaller animals trained hawks,
or falcons, were employed. But the nobles, as we have just seen, found in
fighting their chief outdoor occupation and pastime. "To play a great
game" was their description of a battle.
[Illustration: FALCONRY
From a manuscript of the thirteenth century in the Bibliothèque Nationale,
Paris.]
154. KNIGHTHOOD AND CHIVALRY
APPRENTICESHIP OF THE KNIGHT
The prevalence of warfare in feudal times made the use of arms a
profession requiring special training. A nobleman's son served for a
number of years, first as a page, then as a squire, in his father's castle
or in that of some other lord. He learned to manage a horse, to climb a
scaling ladder, to wield sword, battle-ax, and lance. He also waited on
the lord's table, assisted him at his toilet, followed him in the chase,
and attended him in battle. This apprenticeship usually lasted from five
to seven years.
CONFERRING OF KNIGHTHOOD
When the young noble became of age, he might be made a knight, if he
deserved the honor and could afford the expense. The ceremony of
conferring knighthood was often most elaborate. The candidate fasted, took
a bath--the symbol of purification--and passed the eve of his admission in
prayer. Next morning he confessed his sins, went to Mass, and listened to
a sermon on the duties of knighthood. This ended, his father, or the noble
who had brought him up, girded him with a sword and gave him the
"accolade," that is, a blow on the neck or shoulder, at the same time
saying, "Be thou a good knight." Then the youth, clad in shining armor and
wearing golden spurs, mounted his horse and exhibited his skill in warlike
exercises. If a squire for valorous conduct received knighthood on the
battlefield, the accolade by stroke of the sword formed the only ceremony.
CHIVALRY
In course of time, as manners softened and Christian teachings began to
affect feudal society, knighthood developed into chivalry. The Church,
which opposed the warlike excesses of feudalism, took the knight under her
wing and bade him be always a true soldier of Christ. To the rude virtues
of fidelity to one's lord and bravery in battle, the Church added others.
The "good knight" was he who respected his sworn word, who never took an
unfair advantage of another, who defended women, widows, and orphans
against their oppressors, and who sought to make justice and right prevail
in the world. Chivalry thus marked the union of pagan and Christian
virtues, of Christianity and the profession of arms.
THE CHIVALRIC CODE
Needless to say, the "good knight" appears rather in romance than in sober
history. Such a one was Sir Lancelot, in the stories of King Arthur and
the Round Table. [12] As Sir Lancelot lies in death, a former companion
addresses him in words which sum up the best in the chivalric code: "'Thou
wert the courtliest knight that ever bare shield; and thou wert the truest
friend to thy lover that ever bestrode horse; and thou wert the truest
lover among sinful men that ever loved woman; and thou wert the kindest
man that ever struck with sword; and thou wert the goodliest person that
ever came among press of knights; and thou wert the meekest man, and the
gentlest, that ever ate in hall among ladies; and thou wert the sternest
knight to thy mortal foe that ever put spear in the rest.'" [13]
JOUSTS AND TOURNAMENTS
The all-absorbing passion for fighting led to the invention of mimic
warfare in the shape of jousts and tournaments. [14] These exercises
formed the medieval equivalent of the Greek athletic games and the Roman
gladiatorial shows. The joust was a contest between two knights; the
tournament, between two bands of knights. The contests took place in a
railed-off space, called the "lists," about which the spectators gathered.
Each knight wore upon his helmet the scarf or color of his lady and fought
with her eyes upon him. Victory went to the one who unhorsed his opponent
or broke in the proper manner the greatest number of lances. The beaten
knight forfeited horse and armor and had to pay a ransom to the conqueror.
Sometimes he lost his life, especially when the participants fought with
real weapons and not with blunted lances and pointless swords. The Church
now and then tried to stop these performances, but they remained
universally popular until the close of the Middle Ages.
INFLUENCE OF CHIVALRY
Chivalry arose with feudalism, formed, in fact, the religion of feudalism,
and passed away only when the changed conditions of society made feudalism
an anachronism. [15] While chivalry lasted, it produced some improvement
in manners, particularly by insisting on the notion of personal honor and
by fostering greater regard for women (though only for those of the upper
class). Our modern notion of the conduct befitting a "gentleman" goes back
to the old chivalric code. Chivalry expressed, however, simply the
sentiments of the warlike nobles. It was an aristocratic ideal. The knight
despised and did his best to keep in subjection the toiling peasantry,
upon whose backs rested the real burden of feudal society.
155. FEUDALISM AS A SYSTEM OF LOCAL INDUSTRY
DECLINE OF URBAN LIFE
Under the Roman Empire western Europe had been filled with flourishing
cities. [16] The Germanic invasions led to a gradual decay of trade and
manufacturing, and hence of the cities in which these activities centered.
As urban life declined, the mass of the population came to live more and
more in isolated rural communities. This was the great economic feature of
the early Middle Ages.
FEUDALISM AND RURAL LIFE
The introduction of feudalism fostered the movement from town to country,
for feudalism, as has been shown, rested on the soil as its basis. The
lord, his family, his servants, and his retainers were supported by the
income from landed property. The country estate of a lord was known as a
manor.
THE MANOR
A manor naturally varied in size, according to the wealth of its lord. In
England perhaps six hundred acres represented the extent of an average
estate. Every noble had at least one manor; great nobles might have
several manors, usually scattered throughout the country; and even the
king depended on his many manors for the food supply of the court.
England, during the period following the Norman Conquest, contained more
than nine thousand of these manorial estates. [17]
COMMON CULTIVATION OF THE ARABLE LAND
Of the arable land of the manor the lord reserved as much as needful for
his own use. The lord's land was called his "demesne," or domain. The rest
of the land he allotted to the peasants who were his tenants, They
cultivated their holdings in common. A farmer, instead of having his land
in one compact mass, had it split up into a large number of small strips
(usually about half an acre each) scattered over the manor, and separated,
not by fences or hedges, but by banks of unplowed turf. The appearance of
a manor, when under cultivation, has been likened to a vast checkerboard
or a patchwork quilt. [18] The reason for the intermixture of strips seems
to have been to make sure that each farmer had a portion both of the good
land and of the bad. It is obvious that this arrangement compelled all the
peasants to labor according to a common plan. A man had to sow the same
kinds of crops as his neighbors, and to till and reap them at the same
time. Agriculture, under such circumstances, could not fail to be
unprogressive.
[Illustration: FARM WORK IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
Plowing, Harrowing, Cutting Weeds, Reaping.]
FARMING METHODS
In other ways, too, agriculture was very backward. Farmers did not know
how to enrich the soil by the use of fertilizers or how to provide for a
proper rotation of crops. Hence each year they cultivated only two-thirds
of the land, letting the other third lie "fallow" (uncultivated), that it
might recover its fertility. It is said that eight or nine bushels of
grain represented the average yield of an acre. Farm animals were small,
for scientific breeding had not yet begun. A full-grown ox reached a size
scarcely larger than a calf of to-day, and the fleece of a sheep often
weighed less than two ounces. Farm implements were few and clumsy. The
wooden ploughs only scratched the ground. Harrowing was done with a hand
implement little better than a large rake. Grain was cut with a sickle,
and grass was mown with a scythe. It took five men a day to reap and bind
the harvest of two acres.
COMMON USE OF THE NON-ARABLE LAND
Besides his holding of farm land, which in England averaged about thirty
acres, each peasant had certain rights over the non-arable land of the
manor. He could cut a limited amount of hay from the meadow. He could turn
so many farm animals--cattle, geese, swine--on the waste. He also enjoyed
the privilege of taking so much wood from the forest for fuel and building
purposes. A peasant's holding, which also included a house in the village,
thus formed a complete outfit.
156. THE VILLAGE AND LIFE OF THE PEASANTS
A VILLAGE DESCRIBED
The peasants on a manor lived close together in one or more villages.
Their small, thatch-roofed, and one-roomed houses would be grouped about
an open space (the "green"), or on both sides of a single, narrow street.
The only important buildings were the parish church, the parsonage, a
mill, if a stream ran through the manor, and possibly a blacksmith's shop.
The population of one of these villages often did not exceed one hundred
souls.
A VILLAGE AS SELF-SUFFICING
Perhaps the most striking feature of a medieval village was its self-
sufficiency. The inhabitants tried to produce at home everything they
required, in order to avoid the uncertainty and expense of trade. The land
gave them their food; the forest provided them with wood for houses and
furniture. They made their own clothes of flax, wool, and leather. Their
meal and flour were ground at the village mill, and at the village smithy
their farm implements were manufactured. The chief articles which needed
to be brought from some distant market were salt, used to salt down farm
animals killed in autumn, iron for various tools, and millstones. Cattle,
horses, and surplus grain also formed common objects of exchange between
manors.
HARD LOT OF THE PEASANTRY
Life in a medieval village was rude and rough. The peasants labored from
sunrise to sunset, ate coarse fare, lived in huts, and suffered from
frequent pestilences. They were often the helpless prey of the feudal
nobles. If their lord happened to be a quarrelsome man, given to fighting
with his neighbors, they might see their lands ravaged, their cattle
driven off, their village burned, and might themselves be slain. Even
under peaceful conditions the narrow, shut-in life of the manor could not
be otherwise than degrading.
ALLEVIATIONS OF THE PEASANT'S LOT
Yet there is another side to the picture. If the peasants had a just and
generous lord, they probably led a fairly comfortable existence. Except
when crops failed, they had an abundance of food, and possibly wine or
cider drink. They shared a common life in the work of the fields, in the
sports of the village green, and in the services of the parish church.
They enjoyed many holidays; it has been estimated that, besides Sundays,
about eight weeks in every year were free from work. Festivities at
Christmas, Easter, and May Day, at the end of ploughing and the completion
of harvest, relieved the monotony of the daily round of labor. [19]
Perhaps these medieval peasants were not much worse off than the
agricultural laborers in most countries of modern Europe.
[Illustration: PLAN OF HITCHIN MANOR, HERTFORDSHIRE
Lord's demesne, diagonal lines. Meadow and pasture lands, dotted areas.
Normal holding of a peasant, black strips.]
157. SERFDOM
FREEMEN, SLAVES, AND SERFS
A medieval village usually contained several classes of laborers. There
might be a number of freemen, who paid a fixed rent, either in money or
produce, for the use of their land. Then there might also be a few slaves
in the lord's household or at work on his domain. By this time, however,
slavery had about died out in western Europe. Most of the peasants were
serfs.
NATURE OF SERFDOM
Serfdom represented a stage between slavery and freedom. A slave belonged
to his master; he was bought and sold like other chattels. A serf had a
higher position, for he could not be sold apart from the land nor could
his holding be taken from him. He was fixed to the soil. On the other hand
a serf ranked lower than a freeman, because he could not change his abode,
nor marry outside the manor, nor bequeath his goods, without the
permission of his lord.
OBLIGATIONS OF THE SERF
The serf did not receive his land as a free gift; for the use of it he
owed certain duties to his master. These took chiefly the form of personal
services. He must labor on the lord's domain for two or three days each
week, and at specially busy seasons, such as ploughing and harvesting, he
must do extra work. At least half his time was usually demanded by the
lord. The serf had also to make certain payments, either in money or more
often in grain, honey, eggs, or other produce. When he ground the wheat or
pressed the grapes which grew on his land, he must use the lord's mill,
the lord's wine-press, and pay the customary charge. In theory the lord
could tax his serfs as heavily and make them work as hard as he pleased,
but the fear of losing his tenants doubtless in most cases prevented him
from imposing too great burdens on them.
ORIGIN OF SERFDOM
Serfdom developed during the later centuries of the Roman Empire and in
the early Middle Ages. It was well established by the time of Charlemagne.
Most serfs seem to have been the descendants, or at least the successors,
of Roman slaves, whose condition had gradually improved. The serf class
was also recruited from the ranks of freemen, who by conquest or because
of the desire to gain the protection of a lord, became subject to him.
Serfdom, however, was destined to be merely a transitory condition. By the
close of medieval times, the serfs in most parts of western Europe had
secured their freedom. [20]
158. DECLINE OF FEUDALISM
DURATION OF FEUDALISM
Feudalism had a vigorous life for about five hundred years. Taking
definite form early in the ninth century, it flourished throughout the
later Middle Ages, but became decadent by the opening of the fourteenth
century.
FORCES OPPOSED TO FEUDALISM: THE KINGS
As a system of local government, feudalism tended to pass away when the
rulers in England, France, and Spain, and later in Germany and Italy,
became powerful enough to put down private warfare, execute justice, and
maintain order everywhere in their dominions. The kings were always anti-
feudal. We shall study in a later chapter (Chapter XXII) the rise of
strong governments and centralized states in western Europe.
FORCES OPPOSED TO FEUDALISM: THE CITIES
As a system of local industry, feudalism could not survive the great
changes of the later Middle Ages, when reviving trade, commerce, and
manufactures had begun to lead to the increase of wealth, the growth of
markets, and the substitution of money payments for those in produce or
services. Flourishing cities arose, as in the days of the Roman Empire,
freed themselves from the control of the nobles, and became the homes of
liberty and democracy. The cities, like the kings, were always anti-
feudal. We shall deal with their development in a subsequent chapter
(Chapter XXIII).
THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM
There was still another anti-feudal force, namely, the Roman Church. It is
true that many of the higher clergy were feudal lords, and that even the
monasteries owned vast estates which were parceled out among tenants.
Nevertheless, the Roman Church as a universal organization, including men
of all ranks and classes, was necessarily opposed to feudalism, a local
and an aristocratic system. The work and influence of this Church will now
engage our attention.
STUDIES
1. Write a brief essay on feudal society, using the following words: lord;
vassal; castle; keep; dungeon; chivalry; tournament; manor; and serf.
2. Explain the following terms: vassal; fief; serf; "aid"; homage; squire;
investiture; and "relief."
3. Look up the origin of the words homage, castle, dungeon, and chivalry.
4. "The real heirs of Charlemagne were from the first neither the kings of
France nor those of Italy or Germany; but the feudal lords." Comment on
this statement.
5. Why was the feudal system not found in the Roman Empire in the East
during the Middle Ages?
6. Why has feudalism been called "confusion roughly organized"?
7. Contrast feudalism as a political system with (a) the classical city-
states, (b) the Roman Empire, and (c) modern national states.
8. What was the effect of feudalism on the sentiment of patriotism?
9. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of primogeniture as
the rule of inheritance?
10. Explain these phrases: "to be in hot water;" "to go through fire and
water;" and "to haul over the coals."
11. Compare the oaths administered to witnesses in modern courts with
medieval oaths.
12. Why was war the usual condition of feudal society?
13. Compare the "Peace of God" with the earlier "Roman Peace" (_Pax
Romana_).
14. Mention some modern comforts and luxuries which were unknown in feudal
castles.
15. What is the present meaning of the word "chivalrous"? How did it get
that meaning?
16. Why has chivalry been called "the blossom of feudalism"?
17. Contrast the ideal of a chivalry with that of monasticism.
18. Show that the serf was not a slave or a "hired man" or a tenant-farmer
paying rent.
FOOTNOTES
[1] See page 312.
[2] The word has nothing to do with "feuds," though these were common
enough in feudal times. It comes from the medieval Latin _feudum_, from
which are desired the French _fief_ and the English _fee_.
[3] See pages 472, 478.
[4] The practice of primogeniture has now been abolished by the laws of
the various European countries and is not recognized in the United States.
It still prevails, however, in England.
[5] Latin _homo_, "man."
[6] Sir Walter Scott's novel, _Ivanhoe_ (chapter xliii), contains an
account of a judicial duel.
[7] See page 326.
[8] See page 331.
[9] See the illustrations, pages 408, 421, 422, 473.
[10] The French form of the word is _château_.
[11] A good example is the "White Tower," which forms a part of the Tower
of London. It was built by William the Conqueror. See the illustration,
page 498.
[12] See page 560.
[13] Malory, _Morte d'Arthur_, xxi, 13. See also Tennyson's poem, _Sir
Galahad_, for a beautiful presentation of the ideal knight.
[14] Sir Walter Scott's novel, _Ivanhoe_ (chapter xii), contains a
description of a tournament.
[15] _Don Quixote_, by the Spanish writer, Cervantes (1547-1616 A.D.), is
a famous satire on chivalry. Our American "Mark Twain" also stripped off
the gilt and tinsel of chivalry in his amusing story entitled _A
Connecticut Yankee at the Court of King Arthur_.
[16] See page 208.
[17] According to Domesday Book (see page 499) there were 9250 manors, of
which William the Conqueror possessed 1422. His manors lay in about thirty
counties.
[18] This "open field" system of agriculture, as it is usually called,
still survives in some parts of Europe. See the plan of Hitchin Manor,
page 435.
[19] See page 581-582.
[20] See page 612.