Feudalism

a medieval political and social system. It reached a high degree of development in western and central Europe. The collapse of Charlemagne's Empire left his extensive domains in disorder. Bandits prowled unchecked. Light armed bands of Hungarians rode furiously through the land like Cossacks. Year after year plundering Danes in long, light, many-oared ships followed the coasts, threaded the inlets of the sea, and ascended the rivers, ravaging, plundering, and burning. In such a condition of affairs, proper incentive was impossible; thrift but invited assault; savings invited torture; hearthstones invited desecration. No one could build with the certainty of occupying; none could sow with the reasonable assurance of reaping. Had not the strong arm of the Teuton and his genius for political organization come to the rescue, the fairest portions of Europe must have relapsed into savagery.

Feudalism took the place of Charlemagne's imperial courts and soldiery; it arose to protect life and property. Whatever abuses and after developments of feudalism may have arisen, it should be borne in mind that the institution arose out of the natural instinct of the strong to provide that protection for themselves and theirs which a shadowy or altogether lacking general government did not provide. Strong men everywhere, old captains, counts of the empire, sturdy landholders, militant abbots, martial men of high degree, and fighting men of low degree began the fortification of their homes, and the weak flocked to them for protection. These early strongholds grew into castles.

The fundamental theory of feudalism is not aristocracy, but protection. The persons of feudal society are the protectors and the protected. A protector may in turn be protected by a higher protector, and so on up to the monarch. The early feudal leaders neither usurped nor inherited their estates. They were natural leaders, men of prowess, who sprang into positions of danger, men who built fortresses and organized followers, joined forces and finally put an end to invasion. In later days feudal possessions were inherited. Occasionally occupiers of strongholds themselves became robbers. Advantage was seized to oppress the weak; and in time feudalism, having outlasted the necessity of its being, became the recognized means of oppressing the common people, and thus it had to go.

As a military organization the striking features,--the essential features,--were the castle and the mailed horsemen. Castles,--massive structures of masonry, of which an account may be found elsewhere,--rose, converting hills, promontories, mountain passes, and islands into impregnable strongholds. The strength of a great castle was such that, once within its shelter and provided with food and water, the owner and his garrison might defy the power of a monarch.

The mailed horsemen, the knights and their followers, are described in the article on CHIVALRY. The armor-clad warriors of Europe during the eleventh and twelfth centuries must have numbered some hundreds of thousands. The rolls of William the Norman called for a war strength of 60,000 English knights in armor ready to ride at his call. The thousands of dismantled castles, that still crown hill after hill and overhang every road and river, indicate that continental Europe also was policed effectively. The Danes and the Hungarians and the bandits were able to give the slip to slow-moving bodies of footmen; but the iron-clad horse of the castle,--for "in these days, kings, nobles, and knights, to be always ready, kept their horses in the rooms in which they slept with their wives,"--ready to pour out like bees on provocation, rendered the passes impracticable and the fords impassable. The petty raids of the invaders ceased and feudalism entered upon centuries of rise and decay.

The system of landholding in vogue is known as feudal tenure. Some eighty variations are described, but certain general ideas underlie all. To begin with, every landholder was in theory a tenant of some superior holder or landlord. This superior landlord was known as a lord or suzerain; the landholder was a vassal; the land so held was a fief. A lord might have many vassals and might himself be a vassal. In theory, at least, the greatest lord was the monarch. A vassal might hold many fiefs and be a vassal of many lords. A vassal might also sublet holdings and be a lord to many vassals. In this way lands were divided and subdivided, the lowest possible limit being a bit of land on which a vassal could maintain himself without manual labor and be in position to report in person or send a mounted horseman if called upon for military service. Such a tract was known as a knight's fee. Fiefs were rated at so many knights' fees or knights' holdings.

Lands and vassals constituted a military aristocracy. The importance of a lord depended upon the magnitude of his fief or fiefs. Complexity of relationship existed between lords and vassals. In extreme cases a king might hold land from a vassal and thus be a vassal of his own vassal. Instead, then, of being a term of reproch, vassal was a term of honor and denoted membership in the aristocratic society of the Middle Ages.

Ordinarily fiefs descended from father to eldest son. When a lord died the eldest son or next of male kin became lord, and vassals were summoned to do homage for their fifs. This was a public ceremony. The lord remained seated while the vassal approached with uncovered head, sank on bended knee, placed his hands within the hands of his lord and promised to be his man, to be faithful to him, to depend upon him, and to render service as per the terms of his tenure. The lord raised his vassal graciously, gave him the "kiss of peace," handed him a sword or a clod in token of title to the fief, and promised to defend him in the possession of it. In case the vassal failed to appear or refused to do homage, his fief was forfeited, always provided the lord was powerful enough directly or by reason of his connection to enforce the term of tenure. In case a lord of high degree was due to render homage to one of low degree it was customary to appear by deputy. All these were matters of varying and variously enforced etiquette. In case a vassal died his heir was required to do homage or forfeit his ancestor's fief. Thus we hear of newly crowned kings of England summoned to France to do homage for French fiefs held of the kings of France.

The terms on which fiefs were held do not seem severe.

1. Military service. Each fief was rated as above stated, at so many knights' fees. The vassal bound himself to appear when summoned with forces of knights and men-at-arms, corresponding to the rate of his fief. This force he was held to maintain in the field at his own expense for a term fixed usually at not to exceed forty days in the year. Each lord had the immediate command of his own vassals of the monarch.

2. Court service. Each vassal was expected to sit as consulting judge in his lord's court, usually three times a year. The lord presided, the vassals (and here again the reader must not forget that vassal in equivalent to gentleman) sat as a deliberative body. A vassal might be condemned only by his fellow vassals, his peers, or his equals, sitting thus in judgment. The council of peers expected to be consulted by the lord ere enterprises of risk and of an unusual character were decided upon. In this we see the germ of the house of lords customary in European countries. The lords have grown out of the court or council of the immediate vassals of the monarch.

3. Financial service. A vassal was held by custom to perform financial services of several kinds:

a. A relief or gift amounting to, say a year's revenue, when he received the fief.

b. Aids. The more common aids were aid to ransom his lord if taken prisoner, aid to meet the expense of knighting his oldest son, and aid in making up a dowry on the marriage of the oldest daughter.

c. Obligation to entertain lord and retinue on the occasion of a visit. Many of these entertainments were conducted on a scale of magnificence. Some of them bankrupted the givers. The comical conditions as to length of time and diet contained in some of the old accounts indicate that some lords were not above the necessity of boarding around.

d. Alienation--fines. In case a vassal desired to transfer his fief to another, he was required to pay a "fine."

e. During the minority of an heir, the lord assumed guardianship and could, if so minded, absorb the revenues on the legal ground that the vassal was too young to render the service by which the fief was held.

f. A lord was entitled to dispose of a female ward in marriage. He might for a sum set her free to marry as she liked. In order to extort payment a mean lord might even resort to threats of a hateful marriage.

Land was not the only property held subject to feudal tenure. We find important offices and the privileges of hunting in the forests, fishing in the streams, and of cutting timber were held by a similar title. Even the church adopted many features of the feudal system. The parishes were held by rectors quite after the manner of fiefs. The clergyman was invested by law with a "benefice" or living, and was entitled by law and custom to parsonage and glebe and tithes and fees. Instead of lord--we speak now of temporal matters--he held under bishop or archbishop, and ecclesiastical courts were held corresponding to the lord's councils of vassals or peers. Bishop and abbot were temporal lords and had vassals and were in turn vassals of temporal lords.

Beneath the feudal aristocracy consisting of vassals and lords, both temporal and spiritual, lay the mass of people. We may understand the condition of the people by the description of what was known in England as a manor. We use the word in the sense of an estate of a lord or thane having a village community settled upon it. A manor may be said to have corresponded in the main to a parish. A single manor or estate might be the whole of a fief, but ordinarily a baron or lord of a manor held many manors. According to the Doomsday survey, William the Conqueror held 1,422 manors in his private royal possession. His brother Odo was given 430 manors scattered through seventeen counties. Other great vassals enjoyed similar holdings. About half of each manor was set apart for the direct use of the lord of the manor. The rest was divided into:

1. Closes or fenced fields, one for each standard crop, as a wheat close, a turnip close, etc.

2. Meadow lands for hay.

3. Commons or pasture lands where stock might be herded.

4. Waste lands where turf and brushwood might be gathered.

5. Forests utilized for timber and swine pastures.

6. Farms to let.

The residents of a manor may be classified as:

1. Fighting men, who held farms in return for military service. The lord of the manor depended on these men to render the military service which he owed his lord,--in England, the king. This was tenure of knight service.

2. Freeholders, soc-men, or men who held farms at a rental that was neither military nor menial. This rental might be money or fowl or grain or fish, but it was not personal service. The persons of freeholders were their own. They were free to go and to come, but were amenable to the manor courts.

3. Villeins or villagers. These were a grade above serfs. They were held for menial service, but they might transfer their allegiance from one lord to another. They held land on specified terms, and, so long as they rendered the agreed service, could not be expelled from their homes.

4. Serfs or base-villeins. The distinction between villeins and serfs was not always clear. Those to the manor born might not leave it, but they knew not what the day might bring forth. Still others held no land. They were household servants--virtually slaves. There was no particular limit to the farm of a freeholder, but the best that a base villein could expect was five acres of land, for which he was obliged to work on the lands of the lord one day a week, summer and winter, and three days a week in harvest. The better class of villeins were allowed five or six times as much land and were furnished tools and utensils, a yoke of oxen, a cow, and six sheep; but they were required to turn out with their oxen to work in the fields of the lord. The abbot of Peterborough held a manor on which eighteen serfs, Hugh Miller, and others, by name, were required to work three days a week for him the year around, save during the holiday weeks at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, while beyond this, each serf was held to give the lord abbot a bushel of wheat, eighteen sheaves of oats, eight hens, and one cock yearly and five eggs at Easter.

The chief buildings on the manor were the parish church and the manor house. The latter varied greatly with locality and time. Regular features were a great hall, a chamber or two, a kitchen, and cellars. There were, of course, outbuildings, as stables and granaries. The freeholders dwelt in their own cottages on their own farms. The villeins lived in more or less wretched hovels in a village, strung along a central street.

The lord of the manor or his representative was expected to hold court in the manor house. These courts were of two kinds:

1. Court-baron. The accounts of tenants were examined; rent and service were inquired into. If the falcon, piece of armor, candles for the parish church, or pound of rare pepper were not forth-coming form the freeholders, or if the beans, peas, honey, and eels had not been rendered by the villeins, or if the miller or the smith had not paid his silver piece, the matter was inquired into.

2. The court leet. This was an occasion for a military review and a trial of criminal cases. The knights were expected to appear to show that their arms and armor, their horses and men-at-arms were in readiness for war. If the miller had charged an unjust toll, if the serfs had poached game to appease hunger, if men had brawled over their ale, if women had scolded, if any had committed theft--in all such cases the lord of the manor had authority to assign stripes and imprisonment; but "mercy" prompted him to levy fines instead for the benefit of his own pocket. In case of greater crime, the lord of the manor had no power of life and death. These crimes were tried by a higher court.

It remains to speak of the bailiff or reeve. In the absence of the lord, the reeve was foreman of the estate. He divided the closes into strips and assigned them to the serfs. He decided what land should be plowed and what land should lie fallow to recover fertility. He called out the serfs to fence, plow, sow, reap, flail, ditch, and hew for their master. He collected rents, stored his lord's produce, and marketed the surplus. He was the busy man of affairs of the entire manor. The business-like qualities of the reeve are described by Chaucer in the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales.

In theory, the feudal system was admirable. Each person down to the humblest tenant of the soil had a lord whose duty and interest it was to protect him and see that he suffered no injustice. Practically, however, the operation of the system was attended with much cruelty and favoritism. Theoretically, the meanest subject, even a serf, had his day in court, but we know that, practically, in many parts of Europe, and in all parts at times, the luckless wight who acquired the ill will of his lord had little chance for redress. He might be arrested and thrown into a dungeon, where he would be allowed to languish for the rest of his natural life. The king and the courts had authority to come to his relief, but walls were thick and dungeons were deep, and justice was not always on the alert. One of the greatest obstacles to the growth of the modern nations of western Europe was the power of the large nobles who were practically independent of their sovereigns. Save in England, the king had no immediate connection with the people. The only way that he could enforce the most salutary laws against a noble was by enlisting other nobles to punish him,--no easy matter, in the day of strong castles, a forty day military service, and no gunpowder.

In conclusion, we may say that feudalism united certain Roman and certain Teutonic elements; that it took form in a period of need; that its idea was noble; that it grew oppressive; and that it got in the way of nationality. Gunpowder put an end to the institution of chivalry, and feudalism thus lost one of its chief supports. Cities became a strong political factor. Feudalism, latterly a system of mere privileges, began to lose ground. So great a system cannot die out in a day. The feudal system of land tenure was abolished in England about 1660; in Scotland, in 1747; in France, in 1789, at the time of the time of the Revolution; in Germany and Austria, about 1848; a somewhat similar system was brought to an end in Japan in 1871, when the nobles ceded their rights to the mikado. The great landed estates of England and other parts of Europe were acquired during the days of feudal tenure. There is still much complaint on the score that these estates were acquired on condition that the holders should render military service. The nobility still hold the estates, but the cost of war is defrayed by general taxation. One cannot help hoping that these characteristic estates, with their beautiful parks and buildings, may be kept intact in all their beauty; but there is much reason in the arguments that they should belong to the people and not to a few fortunate descendants of feudal holders.

A part of the feudal idea still holds in the doctrine of eminent domain. According to this theory, all land belongs in reality to the state. The state is at liberty to take possession at any time that the land is needed for roads, railways, canals, public buildings, school houses, or other public purpose.

See Castle; Knight

While the disorders were at their worst any man of courage who could get together an armed force and fortify a dwelling, found the neighborhood ready to turn to him as its master. Other weaker landlords gladly surrendered to him their lands, to receive them back as "fiefs"; while they themselves became his "vassals," acknowledging him as their "lord" and, at call, fighting under his banner. In return, the lord promised these vassals protection in all just rights. The soldiery so provided afforded protection to other classes. The peasants saw that they were no longer to be slain or driven captive by chance marauders. They ventured to plow and sow, to raise crops and rear children. In case of danger they found asylum in the circle of palisades at the foot of the castle. In return for this security they cultivated the lord's crop, acknowledged him as their landlord, and paid him dues for house, for cattle, and for each sale or inheritance. The village became his village; the inhabitants became his villeins ("villains"). One master, however tyrannical, could not be so great an evil as exposure to constant anarchy. Hence there grew up peculiar privileges of the lord, which in later times came to be unspeakably oppressive and obnoxious, but which in origin were usually connected with some benefit conferred by him. The lord's services did not stop with defense against robbers. He slew the wild beast, and so came finally to have the sole right to hunt,--with atrocious game laws to preserve animals, large and small, for his pleasure. He was also the sole organizer of labor: he built the mill, the oven, the ferry, the bridge, the highway, with the labor he protected: then he took toll for the use of all these conveniences; and later he demolished the mill that the villeins would have built for themselves.--West, Modern History.

Later the masters of these castles were the terror of the country, but they saved it first; and though feudalism was to become so oppressive in the latter part of its existence, it had its time of legitimacy and usefulness. Power always establishes itself through service and perishes through abuse.--Duruy, Middle Ages.

Disastrous as were most of the effects of the system, it at least justified its existence by saving Christendom from the foe without. . . . The price at which Christendom bought its safety was enormous: nevertheless no price was too high when the future of Europe was at stake. Any ransom was worth paying, if thereby Rome was saved from the Saracen, Mainz from the Magyar, Paris from the heathen of the North.--Oman, Dark Ages.

The feudal possessions of the counts of Champagne were divided into twenty-six districts, each of which centered about a strong castle. 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. Chatillon, Epernay, 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.

It appears that he subinfeudated his lands and his various sources of income to no less than two thousand vassal knights. 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.

It was 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. 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.--Robinson, Western Europe.

Hawissa, who was wife to William Fitz-Roberts, renders 130 marks and 4 palfreys, that she may have peace from Peter of Borough, to whom the king has given permission to marry her, and that she may not be compelled to marry.--English Royal Accounts.

In Wermington are 7 hides at the taxation of the king. And of this land 20 full villeins and 29 half-villeins hold 34 virgates and a half; and for these the full villeins work 3 days a week through the year; and the half-tenants as much as corresponds to their tenancies. And these men have in all 16 plows, and they plow 68 acres and a half and besides this they do 3 boon-works with their plows, and they ought to bring from the woods 34 wagonloads of wood. And all these men pay pound 4 11s. 4d.; and at the love feast of St. Peter, 10 rams and 400 loaves and 40 platters and 34 hens and 260 eggs. And there are 8 socmen who have 6 plows. In the demesne of the court are 4 plows and 32 oxen and 9 crows and 5 calves and 1 riding horse and 129 sheep and 61 swine and 1 draught horse and 1 colt. And there is 1 mill with 1 virgate of land, and 6 acres which pays 60s. and 500 eels. And Ascelin, the clerk, holds the church with 2 virgates of land, from the altar of St. Peter of Borough. Robert, son of Richard, has 2 virgates and a half. In this vill 100 sheep can be placed.--Official description of a manor belonging to Peterborough Abbey about 1125.

The obligations of the villein toward his lord were either rents in kind, as provisions, grain, cattle, or poultry, products of the land and farm; or labor or services of the body, the corvees in the fields and vineyards of the lord, the building of the castle or cleansing of the moat, the repair of roads, the making of furniture, utensils, horse-shoes, plowshares, carriages, etc.--Duruy, Middle Ages.

"God has punished us for our sins," cries the chronicler of St. Denys, in a passion of bewildered grief, as he tells the rout of the great host which he had seen mustering beneath his abbey walls. But the fall of France was hardly so sudden or so incomprehensible as the ruin at a single blow of a system of warfare, and of the political and social fabric which rested on it. Feudalism depended on the superiority of the mounted noble to the unmounted churl; its fighting power lay in its knighthood. But the English yeomen and small freeholders who bore the bow in the national fyrd had raised their weapon into a terrible engine of war; in the English archers Edward carried a new class of soldiers to the fields of France. The churl had struck down the noble; the yeoman proved more than a match in sheer hard fighting for the knight. From the day of Crecy feudalism tottered slowly but surely to its grave.--Green, History of the English People.