An Introduction to the History of Western Europe Part 10

In order to understand the position of the mediaeval n.o.ble and the origin of feudalism we must consider the situation of the great landowners. A large part of western Europe in the time of Charlemagne appears to have been divided up into great estates, resembling the Roman villas. Just how these originated we do not know. These estates, or _manors_, as they were called, were cultivated mainly by serfs, who were bound to the land and were under the control of its proprietor. They tilled such part of the estate as the owner reserved for his own particular use, and provided for his needs and their own without the necessity of buying much from the outside. When we speak of a mediaeval landowner we mean one who held one or more of these manors, which served to support him and left him free to busy himself fighting with other proprietors in the same position as himself.[59]

[Sidenote: Immunities.]

It had been common even before Charlemagne's time to grant to monasteries and churches, and even to individuals, an extraordinary privilege which exempted their lands from the presence or visits of government officials. No public officer with the power to hear cases, exact fines, obtain lodging or entertainment for the king and his followers when traveling about, or make requisitions of any kind, was to enter the lands or villages belonging to the monastery or person enjoying the _immunity_. These exemptions were evidently sought with a view to getting rid of the exactions of the king's officials and appropriating the various fines and fees, rather than with the purpose of usurping governmental prerogatives. But the result was that the monasteries or individuals who were thus freed from the requisitions of the government were left to perform its functions,--not, however, as yet in their own right, but as representatives of the king.[60] It is not hard to see how those who enjoyed this privilege might, as the central power weakened, become altogether independent. It is certain that a great many landowners who had been granted no exemption from the jurisdiction of the king's officers, and a great many of the officers themselves, especially the counts and margraves, gradually broke away altogether from the control of those above them and became the rulers of the regions in which they lived.

[Sidenote: Tendency to hereditary offices.]

The counts were in a particularly favorable position to usurp for their own benefit the powers which they were supposed to exercise for the king. Charlemagne had chosen his counts and margraves in most cases from the wealthy and distinguished families of his realms. As he had little money, he generally rewarded their services by grants of estates, which only served to increase their independence. They gradually came to look upon their office and their land as private property, and they were naturally disposed to hand it on to their sons after them. Charlemagne had been able to keep control of his agents by means of the _missi_.

After his death his system fell into disuse and it became increasingly difficult to get rid of inefficient or rebellious officers.

[Sidenote: Forces opposed to disruption, viz., partial survival of royal authority and feudalism.]

Yet we must not infer that the state ceased to exist altogether during the centuries of confusion that followed the break-up of Charlemagne's empire, or that it fell entirely apart into little local governments independent of each other. In the first place, a king always retained some of his ancient majesty. He might be weak and without the means to enforce his rights and to compel his more powerful subjects to meet their obligations toward him. Yet he was, after all, the _king_, solemnly anointed by the Church as G.o.d's representative on earth. He was always something more than a feudal lord. The kings were destined to get the upper hand before many centuries in England, France, and Spain, and finally in Italy and Germany, and to destroy the castles behind whose walls their haughty n.o.bles had long defied the royal power.

[Sidenote: Feudalism.]

In the second place, the innumerable independent landowners were held together by _feudalism_. One who had land to spare granted a portion of it to another person on condition that the one receiving the land should swear to be true to him and perform certain services,--such as fighting for him, giving him counsel, and lending aid when he was in particular difficulties. In this way the relation of lord and va.s.sal originated.

All lords were va.s.sals either of the king or of other lords, and consequently all were bound together by solemn engagements to be loyal to one another and care for one another's interests. Feudalism served thus as a sort of subst.i.tute for the state. Private arrangements between one landowner and another took the place of the weakened bond between the subject and his king.

The feudal form of government and the feudal system of holding land are so different from anything with which we are now familiar that it is difficult for us to understand them. Yet unless we do understand them, a great part of the history of Europe during the past thousand years will be well-nigh meaningless.[61]

CHAPTER IX

FEUDALISM

[Sidenote: Feudalism the outgrowth of prevailing conditions and earlier customs.]

40. Feudalism was the natural outcome of the peculiar conditions which prevailed in western Europe during the ninth and tenth centuries. Its chief elements were not, however, newly invented or discovered at that period but were only combined in order to meet the demands of the times.

It will be well, therefore, to consider briefly those customs in the later Roman Empire and among the invading Germans which suggest (1) the habit of the mediaeval landowner of granting his land to others in such a way that, while he retained the t.i.tle, they became, to most intents and purposes, the real owners; and (2) the relation of lord and va.s.sal.

[Sidenote: Conditions of landholding in the later Roman Empire.]

[Sidenote: The _beneficium_.]

We have seen how, before the barbarian inroads, the small landowners in the Roman Empire had often found it to their advantage to give up the t.i.tle to their land to more powerful neighboring proprietors.[62] The scarcity of labor was such that the new owner, while extending the protection of his name over the land, was glad to permit the former owner to continue to till it, rent free, much as if it still belonged to him. With the invasions of the barbarians the lot of the defenseless small landholder became worse. He had a new resource, however, in the monasteries. The monks were delighted to accept any real estate which the owner--for the good of his soul and to gain the protection of the saint to whom the monastery church was dedicated--felt moved to turn over to them on the understanding that the abbot should permit the former owner to continue to cultivate his fields. Though he no longer owned the land, he still enjoyed its products and had only to pay a trifling sum each year in recognition of the monastery's ownership.[63]

The use, or _usufruct_, of the land which was thus granted by the monastery to its former owner was called a _beneficium_. The same term was applied to the numerous grants which churches made from their vast possessions for limited periods and upon various conditions. We also find the Frankish kings and other great landowners disposing of their lands in a similar fashion. The _beneficium_ forms the first stage in the development of mediaeval landowning.

[Sidenote: The origin of the relationship of lord and va.s.sal.]

Side by side with the _beneficium_ grew up another inst.i.tution which helps to explain the relation of lord and va.s.sal in later times. Under the later Roman Empire the freeman who owned no land and found himself unable to gain a living might become the dependent of some rich and powerful neighbor, who agreed to feed, clothe, and protect him on condition that he should engage to be faithful to his patron, "love all that he loved and shun all that he shunned."[64]

[Sidenote: The _comitatus_.]

The invading Germans had a custom that so closely resembled this Roman one that scholars have found it impossible to decide whether we should attribute more influence to the Roman or to the German inst.i.tution in the development of feudalism. We learn from Tacitus that the young German warriors were in the habit of pledging their fidelity to a popular chieftain, who agreed to support his faithful followers if they would fight at his side. The _comitatus_, as Tacitus named this arrangement, was not regarded by the Germans as a mere business transaction, but was looked upon as honorable alike to lord and man.

Like the later relation of va.s.sal and lord, it was entered upon with a solemn ceremony and the bond of fidelity was sanctioned by an oath. The obligations of mutual aid and support established between the leader and his followers were considered most sacred.

[Sidenote: Combination of the _comitatus_ and the _beneficium_ produces feudal land tenure.]

While there was a great difference between the homeless and dest.i.tute fellow who became the humble client of a rich Roman landowner, and the n.o.ble young German warrior who sat at the board of a distinguished military leader, both of these help to account for the later feudal arrangement by which one person became the "man," or faithful and honorable dependent, of another. When, after the death of Charlemagne, men began to combine the idea of the _comitatus_ with the idea of the _beneficium_, and to grant the usufruct of parcels of their land on condition that the grantee should be true, loyal, and helpful to them, that is, become their _va.s.sal_, we may consider that the feudal system of landowning was coming into existence.[65]

[Sidenote: Gradual development of feudalism.]

[Sidenote: The fief.]

[Sidenote: Infeudation and subinfeudation.]

[Sidenote: Va.s.sal and subva.s.sal.]

41. Feudalism was not established by any decree of a king or in virtue of any general agreement between all the landowners. It grew up gradually and irregularly without any conscious plan on any one's part, simply because it seemed convenient and natural under the circ.u.mstances.

The owner of vast estates found it to his advantage to parcel them out among va.s.sals who agreed to accompany him to war, attend his court, guard his castle upon occasion, and a.s.sist him when he was put to any unusually great expense. Land granted upon the terms mentioned was said to be "infeudated" and was called a _fief_. One who held a fief might himself become a lord by granting a portion of his fief to a va.s.sal upon terms similar to those upon which he held of his lord or suzerain.[66]

This was called _subinfeudation_, and the va.s.sal of a va.s.sal was called a _subva.s.sal_ or _subtenant_. There was still another way in which the number of va.s.sals was increased. The owners of small estates were usually in a defenseless condition, unable to protect themselves against the insolence of the great n.o.bles. They consequently found it to their advantage to put their land into the hands of a neighboring lord and receive it back from him as a fief. They thus became his va.s.sals and could call upon him for protection.

It is apparent, from what has been said, that, all through the Middle Ages, feudalism continued to grow, as it were, "from the top and bottom and in the middle all at once." (1) Great landowners carved out new fiefs from their domains and granted them to new va.s.sals. (2) Those who held small tracts brought them into the feudal relation by turning them over to a lord or monastery, whose va.s.sals they became. (3) Finally any lord might subinfeudate portions of his estate by granting them as fiefs to those whose fidelity or services he wished to secure. By the thirteenth century it had become the rule in France that there should be "no land without its lord." This corresponded pretty closely to the conditions which existed at that period throughout the whole of western Europe.

[Sidenote: The hereditary character of fiefs and its consequences.]

It is essential to observe that the fief, unlike the _beneficium_, was not granted for a certain number of years, or for the life of the grantee, to revert at his death to the owner. On the contrary, it became hereditary in the family of the va.s.sal and pa.s.sed down to the eldest son from one generation to another. So long as the va.s.sal remained faithful to his lord and performed the stipulated services, and his successors did homage and continued to meet the conditions upon which the fief had originally been granted, neither the lord nor his heirs could rightfully regain possession of the land. No precise date can be fixed at which it became customary to make fiefs hereditary; it is safe, however, to say that it was the rule in the tenth century.[67]

The kings and great n.o.bles perceived clearly enough the disadvantage of losing control of their lands by permitting them to become hereditary property in the families of their va.s.sals. But the feeling that what the father had enjoyed should pa.s.s to his children, who, otherwise, would ordinarily have been reduced to poverty, was so strong that all opposition on the part of the lord proved vain. The result was that little was left to the original and still nominal owner of the fief except the services and dues to which the practical owner, the va.s.sal, had agreed in receiving it. In short, the fief came really to belong to the va.s.sal, and only a shadow of his former proprietorship remained in the hands of the lord. Nowadays the owner of land either makes some use of it himself or leases it for a definite period at a fixed money rent.

But in the Middle Ages most of the land was held by those who neither really owned it nor paid a regular rent for it and yet who could not be deprived of it by the original owner or his successors.

[Sidenote: Subva.s.sals of the king not under his control.]

Obviously the great va.s.sals who held directly of the king became almost independent of him as soon as their fiefs were granted to them in perpetuity. Their va.s.sals, since they stood in no feudal relation to the king, escaped the royal control altogether. From the ninth to the thirteenth century the king of France or the king of Germany did not rule over a great realm occupied by subjects who owed him obedience as their lawful sovereign, paid him taxes, and were bound to fight under his banner as the head of the state. As a feudal landlord himself, he had a right to demand fidelity and certain services from those who were his va.s.sals. But the great ma.s.s of the people over whom he nominally ruled, whether they belonged to the n.o.bility or not, owed little to the king directly, because they lived upon the lands of other feudal lords more or less independent of him.

Enough has been said of the gradual and irregular growth of feudalism to make it clear that complete uniformity in feudal customs could hardly exist within the bounds of even a small kingdom, much less throughout the countries of western Europe. Yet there was a remarkable resemblance between the inst.i.tutions of France, England, and Germany, so that a description of the chief features of feudalism in France, where it was highly developed, will serve as a key to the general situation in all the countries we are studying.

[Sidenote: The fief the central inst.i.tution of feudalism.]

[Sidenote: Homage.]

42. The fief (Latin, _feudum_) was the central inst.i.tution of feudalism and the one from which it derives its name. In the commonest acceptance of the word, the fief was land, the perpetual use of which was granted by its owner, or holder, to another person, on condition that the one receiving it should become his va.s.sal. The one proposing to become a va.s.sal knelt before the lord and rendered him _homage_[68] by placing his hands between those of the lord and declaring himself the lord's "man" for such and such a fief. Thereupon the lord gave his va.s.sal the kiss of peace and raised him from his kneeling posture. Then the va.s.sal took the oath of fidelity upon the Bible, or some holy relic, solemnly binding himself to fulfill all his duties toward his lord. This act of rendering homage by placing the hands in those of the lord and taking the oath of fidelity was the first and most essential obligation of the va.s.sal and const.i.tuted the _feudal bond_. For a va.s.sal to refuse to do homage for his fief when it changed hands, was equivalent to a declaration of revolt and independence.

[Sidenote: Obligations of the va.s.sal. Military service.]

[Sidenote: Money fiefs.]

The obligations of the va.s.sal varied greatly.[69] Sometimes homage meant no more than that the va.s.sal bound himself not to attack or injure his lord in honor or estate, or oppose his interests in any other manner.

The va.s.sal was expected to join his lord when there was a military expedition on foot, although it was generally the case that the va.s.sal need not serve at his own expense for more than forty days. The rules, too, in regard to the length of time during which a va.s.sal might be called upon to guard the castle of his lord varied almost infinitely.

The shorter periods of military service proved very inconvenient to the lord. Consequently it became common in the thirteenth century for the king and the more important n.o.bles to secure a body of soldiers upon whom they could rely at any time, and for any length of time, by creating money fiefs. A certain income was granted to a knight upon condition that the grantee should not only become a va.s.sal of the lord but should also agree to fight for him whenever it was necessary.

[Sidenote: Other feudal obligations.]

[Sidenote: Money payments.]