Part 22 (2/2)
[2] The modern Prussian military state was a departure from the main trend of Teutonic life. It represented a combination of later feudalism and the Roman imperialism. It was a perversion of normal development, a fungous growth upon inst.i.tutions of freedom and justice.
{294}
CHAPTER XVIII
FEUDAL SOCIETY
_Feudalism a Transition of Social Order_.--Feudalism represents a change from the ancient form of imperialism to the newer forms of European government. It arose out of the ruins of the Roman system as an essential form of social order. It appears to be the only system fitted to bring order out of the chaotic conditions of society, but by the very nature of affairs it could not long continue as an established system. It is rather surprising, indeed, that it became so universal, for every territory in Europe was subjected to its control in a greater or less degree. Frequently those who were forced to adopt its form condemned its principle, and those who sought to maintain the doctrine of Roman imperialism were subjected to its sway. The church itself, seeking to maintain its autocracy, came into direct contact with feudal theory and opposed it bitterly. The people who submitted to the yoke of personal bondage which it entailed hated the system. Yet the whole European world pa.s.sed under feudalism. But notwithstanding its universality, feudalism could offer nothing permanent, for in the development of social order it was forced to yield to monarchy, although it made a lasting influence on social life and political and economic usage.
_There Are Two Elementary Sources of Feudalism_.--The spirit of feudalism arises out of the early form of Teutonic social life. It sprang from the personal obligation of the comitatus, which was composed of a military leader and his followers or companions. The self-const.i.tuted a.s.sembly elected the leader who was most noted for courage and prowess in battle. To him was consigned the task of leading in battle the host, which was composed of all the freemen in arms. Usually {295} these chiefs were chosen for a single campaign, but it not infrequently happened that their leaders.h.i.+p was continuous, with all the force of hereditary selection.
Another phase of the comitatus is represented by the leader's setting forth in time of peace with his companions to engage in fighting, exploiting, and plunder on his own account. The courageous young men of the tribe, thirsting for adventure in arms, gathered about their leader, whom they sought to excel in valor. He who was bravest and strongest in battle was considered most honorable. The princ.i.p.al feature to be noted is the personal allegiance of the companions to their leader, for they were bound to him with the closest ties. For the service which they rendered, the leader gave them sustenance and also reward for personal valor. They sat at his table and became his companions, and thus continually increased his power in the community.
This custom represents the germ of the feudal system. The leader became the lord, the companions his va.s.sals. When the lord became a tribal chief or king, the royal va.s.sals became the king's thegns, or represented the n.o.bility of the realm. The whole system was based upon service and personal allegiance. As conquest of territory was made, the land was parcelled out among the followers, who received it from the leader as allodial grants and, later, as feudal grants. The allodial grant resembled the t.i.tle in fee simple, the feudal grant was made on condition of future service.
The Roman element of feudalism finds its representation in clientage.
This was a well-known inst.i.tution at the time of the contact of the Romans with their invaders. The client was attached to the lord, on whom he depended for support and for representation in the community.
Two of the well-known feudal aids, namely, the ransom of the lord from captivity and the gift of dowry money on the marriage of his eldest daughter, are similar to the services rendered by the Roman client to his lord.
The personal tie of clientage resembled the personal {296} allegiance in the comitatus, with the difference that the client stood at a great distance from the patron, while in the comitatus the companions were nearly equal to their chief. The Roman influence tended finally to make the wide difference which existed between the lord and va.s.sal in feudal relations. Other forms of Roman usage, such as the inst.i.tution of the _coloni_, or half-slaves of the soil, and the custom of granting land for use without actual owners.h.i.+p, seem to have influenced the development of feudalism. Without doubt the Roman inst.i.tutions here gave form and system to feudalism, as they did in other forms of government.
_The Feudal System in Its Developed State Based on Land-Holding_.--In the early period in France, where feudalism received its most perfect development, several methods of granting land were in vogue. First, the lands in the immediate possession of the conquered were retained by them on condition that they pay tribute to the conquerors; the wealthy Romans were allowed to hold all or part of their large estates.
Second, many lands were granted in fee simple to the followers of the chiefs. Third was the beneficiary grant, most common to feudal tenure in its developed state. By this method land was granted as a reward for services past or prospective. The last method to be named is that of commendation, by which the small holder of land needing protection gave his land to a powerful lord, who in turn regranted it to the original owner on condition that the latter became his va.s.sal. Thus the lands conquered by a chief or lord were parcelled out to his princ.i.p.al supporters, who in turn regranted them to those under them, so that all society was formed in a gradation of cla.s.ses based on the owners.h.i.+p of land. Each lord had his va.s.sal, every va.s.sal his lord.
Each man swore allegiance to the one next above him, and this one to his superior, until the king was reached, who himself was but a powerful feudal lord.
As the other forms and functions of state life developed, feudalism became the ruling principle, from which many strove in vain to free themselves. There were in France, in the time {297} of Hugh Capet, according to Kitchen, ”about a million of souls living on and taking their names from about 70,000 separate fiefs or properties; of these about 3,000 carried t.i.tles with them. Of these again, no less than a hundred were sovereign states, greater or smaller, whose lords could coin money, levy taxes, make laws, and administer their own justice.”[1] Thus the effect of feudal tenure was to arrange society into these small, compact social groups, each of which must really retain its power by force of arms. The method gave color to monarchy, which later became universal.
_Other Elements of Feudalism_.--Prominent among the characteristics of feudalism was the existence of a close personal bond between the grantor and the receiver of an estate. The receiver did homage to the grantor in the form of oath, and also took the oath of fealty. In the former he knelt before the lord and promised to become his man on account of the land which he held, and to be faithful to him in defense of life and limb against all people. The oath of fealty was only a stronger oath of the same tenor, in which the va.s.sal, standing before the lord, appealed to G.o.d as a witness. These two oaths, at first entirely separate, became merged into one, which pa.s.sed by the name of the oath of fealty. When the lord desired to raise an army he had only to call his leading va.s.sals, and they in turn called those under them.
When he needed help to harvest his grain the va.s.sals were called upon for service.
Besides the service rendered, there were feudal aids to be paid on certain occasions. The chief of these were the ransom of the lord when captured, the amount paid when the eldest son was knighted, and the dowry on the marriage of the eldest daughter. There were lesser feudal taxes called reliefs. Of these the more important were the payment of a tax by the heir of a deceased va.s.sal upon succession to property, one-half year's profit paid when a ward became of age, and the right to escheated lands of the va.s.sal. The lord also had the right to land forfeited on account of certain heinous crimes. {298} Wards.h.i.+p ent.i.tled the lord to the use of lands during the minority of the ward.
The lord also had a right to choose a husband for the female ward at the age of fourteen; if she refused to accept the one chosen, the lord had the use of her services and property until she was twenty-one.
Then he could dispose of her lands as he chose and refuse consent for her to marry. These aids and reliefs made a system of slavery for serfs and va.s.sals.
_The Rights of Sovereignty_.--The feudal lord had the right of sovereignty over all of his own va.s.sal domain. Not only did he have military sovereignty on account of allegiance of va.s.sals, but political sovereignty also, as he ruled the a.s.semblies in his own way. He had legal jurisdiction, for all the courts were conducted by him or else under his jurisdiction, and this brought his own territory completely under his control as proprietor, and subordinated everything to his will. In this is found the spirit of modern absolute monarchy.
_The Cla.s.sification of Feudal Society_.--In France, according to Duruy, under the perfection of feudalism, the people were grouped in the following cla.s.ses: First, there was a group of Gallic or Frankish freemen, who were obliged to give military service to the king and give aids when called upon. Second, the va.s.sals, who rendered service to those from whom they held their lands. Third, the royal va.s.sals, from whom the king usually chose his dukes and counts to lead the army or to rule over provinces and cities. Fourth, the _liti_, who, like the Roman _coloni_, were bound to the soil, which they cultivated as farmers, and for which they paid a small rent. Finally, there were the ordinary slaves. The character of the _liti_, or _glebe_, serfs varied according to the degree of liberty with which they were privileged.
They might have emanc.i.p.ation by charter or by the grant of the king or the church, but they were never free. The feudal custom was binding on all, and no one escaped from its control. Even the clergy became feudal, there being lords and va.s.sals within the church. Yet the ministry, in their preaching, recognized the opportunity of {299} advancement, for they claimed that even a serf might become a bishop, although there was no great probability of this.
_Progress of Feudalism_.--The development of feudalism was slow in all countries, and it varied in character in accordance with the condition of the country. In England the Normans in the eleventh century found feudalism in an elementary state, and gave formality to the system. In Germany feudalism was less h.o.m.ogeneous than in France. It lacked the symmetrical finish of the Roman inst.i.tutions, although it was introduced from French soil through overlords.h.i.+p and proceeded from the sovereign to the serf, rather than springing from the serf to the sovereign. It varied somewhat in characteristics from French feudalism, although the essentials of the system were not wanting. In the Scandinavian provinces the Teutonic element was too strong, and in Spain and Italy the Romanic, to develop in these countries perfect feudalism. But in France there was a regular, progressive development.
The formative period began in Caesar's time and ended with the ninth century.
This was followed by the period of complete domination and full power, extending to the end of the thirteenth century, at the close of which offices and benefices were in the hands of the great va.s.sals of Charles the Bald. Then followed a period of transformation of feudalism, which extended to the close of the sixteenth century. Finally came the period of the decay of feudalism, beginning with the seventeenth century and extending to the present time. There are found now, both in Europe and America, laws and usages which are vestiges of the ancient forms of feudalism, which the formal organization of the state has failed to eradicate.
<script>