A Source Book of Mediaeval History Part 27

Source--_L'Ancienne Coutume de Normandie_, Chap. 33.

Heirs should be placed in guardianship until they reach the age of twenty years; and those who hold them as wards should give over to them all the fiefs which came under their control by reason of wardship, provided they have not lost anything by judicial process.... When the heirs pa.s.s out of the condition of wardship, their lords shall not impose upon them any reliefs for their fiefs, for the profits of wardship shall be reckoned in place of the relief.

[Sidenote: The marriage of a female ward]

When a female ward reaches the proper age to marry, she should be married by the advice and consent of her lord, and by the advice and consent of her relatives and friends, according as the n.o.bility of her ancestry and the value of her fief may require; and upon her marriage the fief which has been held in guardianship should be given over to her. A woman cannot be freed from wardship except by marriage; and let it not be said that she is of age until she is twenty years old. But if she be married at the age at which it is allowable for a woman to marry, the fact of her marriage makes her of age and delivers her fief from wardship.

[Sidenote: The lord's obligation to care for the fief of his ward]

The fiefs of those who are under wardship should be cared for attentively by their lords, who are ent.i.tled to receive the produce and profits.[332] And in this connection let it be known that the lord ought to preserve in their former condition the buildings, the manor-houses, the forests and meadows, the gardens, the ponds, the mills, the fisheries, and the other things of which he has the profits. And he should not sell, destroy, or remove the woods, the houses, or the trees.

(_d_) RELIEFS

A relief was a payment made to the lord by an heir before entering upon possession of his fief. The history of reliefs goes back to the time when benefices were not hereditary and when, if a son succeeded his father in the usufruct of a piece of property, it was regarded as an unusual thing--a special favor on the part of the owner to be paid for by the new tenant. Later, when fiefs had become almost everywhere hereditary, the custom of requiring reliefs still survived. The amount was at first arbitrary, being arranged by individual bargains; but in every community, especially in France, the tendency was toward a fixed custom regarding it. Below are given some brief extracts from English Treasury records which show how men in England between the years 1140 and 1230 paid the king for the privilege of retaining the fiefs held by their fathers.

Source--Thomas Madox, _History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England_ (London, 1769), Vol. I., pp. 312-322 _pa.s.sim_.

Walter Hait renders an account of 5 marks of silver for the relief of the land of his father.

Walter Brito renders an account of 66, 13s. and 4d. for the relief of his land.

Richard of Estre renders an account of 15 for the relief for 3 knights' fees which he holds from the honor of Mortain.

Walter Fitz Thomas, of Newington, owes 28s. 4d. for having a fourth part of one knight's fee which had been seized into the hand of the king for default of relief.

John of Venetia renders an account of 300 marks for the fine of his land and for the relief of the land which was his father's which he held from the king _in capite_.[333]

John de Balliol owes 150 for the relief of 30 knights' fees which Hugh de Balliol, his father, held from the king _in capite_, that is 100s. for each fee.

Peter de Bruce renders an account of 100 for his relief for the barony which was of Peter his father.

(_e_) FORFEITURE

The lord's most effective means of compelling his va.s.sals to discharge their obligations was his right to take back their fiefs for breach of feudal contract. Such a breach, or felony, as it was technically called, might consist in refusal to render military service or the required aids, ignoring the sovereign authority of the lord, levying war against the lord, dishonoring members of the lord's family, or, as in the case below, refusing to obey the lord's summons to appear in court. In practice the lords generally found it difficult to enforce the penalty of forfeiture and after the thirteenth century the tendency was to subst.i.tute money fines for dispossession, except in the most aggravated cases. The following is an account of the condemnation of Arnold Atton, a n.o.bleman of south France, by the feudal court of Raymond, count of Toulouse, in the year 1249. The penalty imposed was the loss of the valuable chateau of Auvillars.

Source--Teulet, _Layettes du Tresor des Cartes_ ["Bureau of Treasury Accounts "], No. 3778, Vol. III., p. 70. Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3. pp. 33-34.

Raymond, by the grace of G.o.d count of Toulouse, marquis of Provence, to the n.o.bleman Arnold Atton, viscount of Lomagne, greeting:

[Sidenote: The court's sentence upon Arnold Atton]

Let it be known to your n.o.bility by the tenor of these presents what has been done in the matter of the complaints which we have made about you before the court of Agen; that you have not taken the trouble to keep or fulfill the agreements sworn by you to us, as is more fully contained in the instrument drawn up there, sealed with our seal by the public notary; and that you have refused contemptuously to appear before the said court for the purpose of doing justice, and have otherwise committed multiplied and great delinquencies against us. As your faults have required, the aforesaid court of Agen has unanimously and concordantly p.r.o.nounced sentence against you, and for these matters have condemned you to hand over and restore to us the chateau of Auvillars and all that land which you hold from us in fee, to be had and held by us by right of the obligation by which you have bound it to us for fulfilling and keeping the said agreements.

Likewise it has declared that we are to be put into possession of the said land and that it is to be handed over to us, on account of your contumacy, because you have not been willing to appear before the same court on the days which were a.s.signed to you. Moreover, it has declared that you shall be held and required to restore the said land in whatsoever way we wish to receive it, with few or many, in peace or in anger, in our own person, by right of lordship. Likewise it has declared that you shall restore to us all the expenses which we have incurred, or the court itself has incurred, on those days which were a.s.signed to you, or because of those days, and has condemned you to repay these to us.[334]

Moreover, it has declared that the n.o.bleman Gerald d'Armagnac, whom you hold captive, you shall liberate, and deliver him free to us.

We demand, moreover, by right of our lordship that you liberate him.

We call, therefore, upon your discretion in this matter, strictly enjoining you and commanding that you obey the aforesaid sentences in all things and fulfill them in all respects and in no way delay the execution of them.

39. The Peace and the Truce of G.o.d

War rather than peace was the normal condition of feudal society.

Peasants were expected to settle their disputes in the courts of law, but lords and seigneurs possessed a legal right to make war upon their enemies and were usually not loath to exercise it. Private warfare was indeed so common that it all the time threatened seriously the lives and property of the ma.s.ses of the people and added heavily to the afflictions which flood, drought, famine, and pestilence brought repeatedly upon them. The first determined efforts to limit, if not to abolish, the ravages of private war were made by the Church, partly because the Church itself often suffered by reason of them, partly because its ideal was that of peace and security, and partly because it recognized its duty as the protector of the poor and oppressed.

Late in the tenth century, under the influence of the Cluniacs [see p.

245], the clergy of France, both secular and regular, began in their councils to promulgate decrees which were intended to establish what was known as the Peace of G.o.d. These decrees, which were enacted by so many councils between 989 and 1050 that they came to cover pretty nearly all France, proclaimed generally that any one who should use violence toward women, peasants, merchants, or members of the clergy should be excommunicated. The principle was to exempt certain cla.s.ses of people from the operations of war and violence, even though the rest of the population should continue to fight among themselves. It must be said that these decrees, though enacted again and again, had often little apparent effect.

Effort was then made in another direction. From about 1027 the councils began to proclaim what was known as the Truce of G.o.d, sometimes alone and sometimes in connection with the Peace. The purport of the Truce of G.o.d was that all men should abstain from warfare and violence during a certain portion of each week, and during specified church festivals and holy seasons. At first only Sunday was thus designated; then other days, until the time from Wednesday night to Monday morning was all included; then extended periods, as Lent, were added, until finally not more than eighty days remained of the entire year on which private warfare was allowable. As one writer has stated it, "the Peace of G.o.d was intended to protect certain cla.s.ses at all times and the Truce to protect all cla.s.ses at certain times."

It was equally difficult to secure the acquiescence of the lawless n.o.bles in both, and though the efforts of the Church were by no means without result, we are to think of private warfare as continuing quite common until brought gradually to an end by the rise of strong monarchies, by the turning of men to commerce and trade, and by the drawing off of military energies into foreign and international wars.

The decree given below, which combines features of both the Peace and the Truce, was issued by the Council of Toulouges (near Perpignan) in 1041, or, as some scholars think, in 1065. Its substance was many times reenacted, notably by the Council of Clermont, in 1095, upon the occasion of the proclamation of the first Crusade. It should have procured about 240 days of peace in every year and reduced war to about 120 days, but, like the others, it was only indifferently observed.

Source--Text in Martin Bouquet, _Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France_ ["Collection of the Historians of Gaul and of France"], Paris, 1876, Vol. XI., pp. 510-511.

[Sidenote: Acts of violence forbidden in or near churches]

=1.= This Peace has been confirmed by the bishops, by the abbots, by the counts and viscounts and the other G.o.d-fearing n.o.bles in this bishopric, to the effect that in the future, beginning with this day, no man may commit an act of violence in a church, or in the s.p.a.ce which surrounds it and which is covered by its privileges, or in the burying-ground, or in the dwelling-houses which are, or may be, within thirty paces of it.

=2.= We do not include in this measure the churches which have been, or which shall be, fortified as chateaux, or those in which plunderers and thieves are accustomed to store their ill-gotten booty, or which give them a place of refuge. Nevertheless we desire that such churches be under this protection until complaint of them shall be made to the bishop, or to the chapter. If the bishop or chapter[335] act upon such information and lay hold of the malefactors, and if the latter refuse to give themselves up to the justice of the bishop or chapter, the malefactors and all their possessions shall not be immune, even within the church. A man who breaks into a church, or into the s.p.a.ce within thirty paces around it, must pay a fine for sacrilege, and double this amount to the person wronged.

[Sidenote: Attacks upon the clergy prohibited]

=3.= Furthermore, it is forbidden that any one attack the clergy, who do not bear arms, or the monks and religious persons, or do them any wrong; likewise it is forbidden to despoil or pillage the communities of canons, monks, and religious persons, the ecclesiastical lands which are under the protection of the Church, or the clergy, who do not bear arms; and if any one shall do such a thing, let him pay a double composition.[336]

[Sidenote: Protection extended to the peasantry]

=5.= Let no one burn or destroy the dwellings of the peasants and the clergy, the dove-cotes and the granaries. Let no man dare to kill, to beat, or to wound a peasant or serf, or the wife of either, or to seize them and carry them off, except for misdemeanors which they may have committed; but it is not forbidden to lay hold of them in order to bring them to justice, and it is allowable to do this even before they shall have been summoned to appear. Let not the raiment of the peasants be stolen; let not their ploughs, or their hoes, or their olive-fields be burned.

=6.= ... Let any one who has broken the peace, and has not paid his fines within a fortnight, make amends to him whom he has injured by paying a double amount, which shall go to the bishop and to the count who shall have had charge of the case.

[Sidenote: The Truce of G.o.d confirmed]

[Sidenote: Penalties for violations of the Truce]

=7.= The bishops of whom we have spoken have solemnly confirmed the Truce of G.o.d, which has been enjoined upon all Christians, from the setting of the sun of the fourth day of the week, that is to say, Wednesday, until the rising of the sun on Monday, the second day.... If any one during the Truce shall violate it, let him pay a double composition and subsequently undergo the ordeal of cold water.[337] When any one during the Truce shall kill a man, it has been ordained, with the approval of all Christians, that if the crime was committed intentionally the murderer shall be condemned to perpetual exile, but if it occurred by accident the slayer shall be banished for a period of time to be fixed by the bishops and the canons. If any one during the Truce shall attempt to seize a man or to carry him off from his chateau, and does not succeed in his purpose, let him pay a fine to the bishop and to the chapter, just as if he had succeeded. It is likewise forbidden during the Truce, in Advent and Lent, to build any chateau or fortification, unless it was begun a fortnight before the time of the Truce. It has been ordained also that at all times disputes and suits on the subject of the Peace and Truce of G.o.d shall be settled before the bishop and his chapter, and likewise for the peace of the churches which have before been enumerated. When the bishop and the chapter shall have p.r.o.nounced sentences to recall men to the observance of the Peace and the Truce of G.o.d, the sureties and hostages who show themselves hostile to the bishop and the chapter shall be excommunicated by the chapter and the bishop, with their protectors and partisans, as guilty of violating the Peace and the Truce of the Lord; they and their possessions shall be excluded from the Peace and the Truce of the Lord.

FOOTNOTES:

[297] Charles Seign.o.bos, _The Feudal Regime_ (translated in "Historical Miscellany" series), New York, 1904, p. 1.

[298] A man was not supposed in any way to sacrifice his freedom by becoming a va.s.sal and the lord's right to his service would be forfeited if this principle were violated.

[299] The relation of lord and va.s.sal was, at this early time, limited to the lifetime of the two parties. When one died, the other was liberated from his contract. But in the ninth and tenth centuries va.s.salage became generally hereditary.

[300] Casting lots for the property of a deceased father was not uncommon among the Franks. All sons shared in the inheritance, but particular parts of the property were often a.s.signed by lot.