cials, 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.1 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 protectParallels to European ing life and property, powerful men in each locality feudalism 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 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 feudalism 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.2 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 The basis of feudal society was usually the landed estate. Here lived the feudal noble, surrounded by dependents over Feudal whom he exercised the rights of a petty sovereign. sovereignty He could tax them; he could require them to give him military assistance; he could try them in his courts. A 1 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 derived the French fief and the English fee. 2 See pages 472, 478. 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? 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 Feudal owner of the soil, would pay his officials for their tenure of 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. 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. 1 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. Personal 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 services of the vassal attended the lord on ceremonial occathe vassal sions, gave him the benefit of his advice, when required, and helped him as a judge in trying cases. money payments Under certain circumstances the vassal was also compelled to make money payments. When a new heir succeeded to the The vassal's fief, the lord received from him a sum usually 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 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 The lord's duty to the vassal slight undertaking. The ceremony of homage1 symbolized the whole feudal relationship. One who proposed to become a vassal and hold a fief came into the lord's presence, bareheaded Homage 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." 1 Latin homo, "man." Feudal government a 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 substitute for 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 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 Feudalism as had his court above all. Cases arising on the a system of local justice lord's estate were tried before him and the vassals whom he called to his assistance in giving justice. 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. Since most 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 Judicial adits service. Moreover, until the case had been ministration 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. Unlike a modern court, again, the feudal court did not require the accuser to prove his case by calling witnesses and having The oath 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. A form of trial which especially appealed to the warlike nobles was the judicial duel. The accuser and the accused fought The judicial 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 duel 1 Sir Walter Scott's novel, Ivanhoe (chapter xliii), contains an account of a judicial duel. |