CHAPTER XIII.

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM

34. Older Institutions Involving Elements of Feudalism

The history of the feudal system in Europe makes up a very large part of the history of the Middle Ages, particularly of the period between the ninth and the fourteenth centuries. This is true because feudalism, in one way or another, touched almost every phase of the life of western Europe during this long era. More than anything else, it molded the conditions of government, the character and course of war, the administration of justice, the tenure of land, the manner of everyday life, and even the relations of the Church with sovereigns and people. "Coming into existence," says a French historian, "in the obscure period that followed the dissolution of the Carolingian empire, the feudal regime developed slowly, without the intervention of a government, without the aid of a written law, without any general understanding among individuals; rather only by a gradual transformation of customs, which took place sooner or later, but in about the same way, in France, Italy, Christian Spain, and Germany. Then, toward the end of the eleventh century, it was transplanted into England and into southern Italy, in the twelfth and thirteenth into the Latin states of the East, and beginning with the fourteenth into the Scandinavian countries. This regime, established thus not according to a general plan but by a sort of natural growth, never had forms and usages that were everywhere the same. It is impossible to gather it up into a perfectly exact picture, which would not be in contradiction to several cases."[297]

The country in which feudalism reached its fullest perfection was France and most of the passages here given to illustrate the subject have to do with French life and institutions. In France, speaking generally, feudalism took shape during the ninth and tenth centuries, developed steadily until the thirteenth, and then slowly declined, leaving influences on society which have not yet all disappeared. When the system was complete--say by the tenth century--we can see in it three essential elements which may be described as the personal, the territorial, and the governmental. The personal element, in brief, was the relation between lord and vassal under which the former gave protection in return for the latter's fidelity. The territorial element was the benefice, or fief, granted to the vassal by the lord to be used on certain conditions by the former while the title to it remained with the latter. The governmental element was the rights of jurisdiction over his fief usually given by a lord to his vassal, especially if the fief were an important one. At one time it was customary to trace back all these features of the feudal system to the institutions of Rome. Later it became almost as customary to trace them to the institutions of the early Germans. But recent scholarship shows that it is quite unnecessary, in fact very misleading, to attempt to ascribe them wholly to either Roman or German sources, or even to both together. All that we can say is that in the centuries preceding the ninth these elements all existed in the society of western Europe and that, while something very like them ran far back into old Roman and German times, they existed in sixth and seventh century Europe primarily because conditions were then such as to _demand_ their existence. Short extracts to illustrate the most important of these old feudal elements are given below. It should constantly be borne in mind that no one of these things--whether vassalage, the benefice, or the immunity--was in itself feudalism. Most of them could, and did, exist separately, and it was only when they were united, as commonly became the case in the ninth and tenth centuries, that the word feudalism can properly be brought into use, and then only as applied to the complete product.

(1) VASSALAGE

For the personal element in feudalism it is possible to find two prototypes, one Roman and the other German. The first was the institution of the later Empire known as the _patrocinium_--the relation established between a powerful man (patron) and a weak one (client) when the latter pledged himself to perform certain services for the former in return for protection. The second was the German _comitatus_--a band of young warriors who lived with a prince or noble and went on campaigns under his leadership. The _patrocinium_ doubtless survived in Roman Gaul long after the time of the Frankish invasion, but it is not likely that the _comitatus_ ever played much part in that country. It seems that, with the exception of the king, the Frankish men of influence did not have bands of personal followers after the settlement on Roman soil. But, wholly aside from earlier practices, the conditions which the conquest, and the later struggles of the rival kings, brought about made it still necessary for many men who could not protect themselves or their property to seek the favor of some one who was strong enough to give them aid. The name which came to be applied to the act of establishing this personal relation was _commendation_. The man who promised the protection was the lord, and the man who pledged himself to serve the lord and be faithful to him was the _homo_, after the eighth century known as the vassal (_vassus_). In the eighth century, when the power of the Merovingian kings was ebbing away and the people were left to look out for themselves, large numbers entered into the vassal relation; and in the ninth century, when Carolingian power was likewise running low and the Northmen, Hungarians, and Saracens were ravaging the country, scarcely a free man was left who did not secure for himself the protection of a lord. The relation of vassalage was first recognized as legal in the capitularies of Charlemagne. Here is a Frankish formula of commendation dating from the seventh century--practically a blank application in which the names of the prospective lord and vassal could be inserted as required.

Source--Eugene de Roziere, _Recueil General des Formules usitees dans l'Empire des Francs du Ve au Xe siecle_ ["General Collection of Formulae employed in the Frankish Empire from the Fifth to the Tenth Century"], Vol. I., p. 69. Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, pp. 3-4.

To that magnificent lord ----, I, ----. Since it is well known to all how little I have wherewith to feed and clothe myself, I have therefore petitioned your piety, and your good-will has decreed to me, that I should hand myself over, or commend myself, to your guardianship, which I have thereupon done; that is to say, in this way, that you should aid and succor me, as well with food as with clothing, according as I shall be able to serve you and deserve it.

And so long as I shall live I ought to provide service and honor to you, compatible with my free condition;[298] and I shall not, during the time of my life, have the right to withdraw from your control or guardianship; but must remain during the days of my life under your power or defense. Wherefore it is proper that if either of us shall wish to withdraw himself from these agreements, he shall pay ---- shillings to the other party, and this agreement shall remain unbroken.[299]

(Wherefore it is fitting that they should make or confirm between themselves two letters drawn up in the same form on this matter; which they have thus done.)

(2) THE BENEFICE

The benefice, or grant of land to a vassal by a lord, by the Church, or by the king, had its origin among the Franks in what were known as the _precaria_ of the Church. At the time of the Frankish settlement in Gaul, it was quite customary for the Church to grant land to men in answer to _preces_ ("prayers," or requests), on condition that it might be recalled at any time and that the temporary holder should be unable to enforce any claims as against the owner. For the use of such land a small rent in money, in produce, or in service was usually paid. This form of tenure among the Franks was at first restricted to church lands, but by the eighth century lay owners, even the king himself, had come to employ it. The term _precarium_ dropped out of use and all such grants, by whomsoever made, came to be known as benefices ("benefits," or "favors"). The ordinary vassal might or might not once have had land in his own name, but if he had such he was expected to give over the ownership of it to his lord and receive it back as a benefice to be used on certain prescribed conditions. In time it became common, too, for lords to grant benefices out of their own lands to landless vassals. A man could be a vassal without having a benefice, but rarely, at least after the eighth century, could he have a benefice without entering into the obligations of vassalage. Benefices were at first granted by the Church with the understanding that they might be recalled at any time; later they were granted by Church, kings, and seigniors for life, or for a certain term of years; and finally, in the ninth and tenth centuries, they came generally to be regarded as hereditary. By the time the hereditary principle had been established, the name "fief" (_feodum_, _feudum_--whence our word feudal) had supplanted the older term "benefice." The tendency of the personal element of vassalage and the territorial element of the benefice, or fief, to merge was very strong, and by the tenth century nearly every vassal was also a fief-holder. The following formulae belong to the seventh century. The first (a) is for the grant of lands to a church or monastery; the second (b) for their return to the grantor as a _precarium_--or what was known a century later as a benefice.

Source--Eugene de Roziere, _Recueil General des Formules_, Vol. I., p. 473. Translated by E. P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, pp. 6-8.

[Sidenote: Description of property yielded to a church or monastery]

[Sidenote: Terms of the contract]

[Sidenote: Penalty for faithlessness]

(a)

I, ----, in the name of God. I have settled in my mind that I ought, for the good of my soul, to make a gift of something from my possessions, which I have therefore done. And this is what I hand over, in the district named ----, in the place of which the name is ----, all those possessions of mine which there my father left me at his death, and which, as against my brothers, or as against my co-heirs, the lot legitimately brought me in the division,[300] or those which I was able afterward to add to them in any way, in their whole completeness, that is to say, the courtyard with its buildings, with slaves, houses, lands (cultivated and uncultivated), meadows, woods, waters, mills, etc. These, as I have said before, with all the things adjacent or belonging to them, I hand over to the church, which was built in honor of Saint ----, to the monastery which is called ----, where the Abbot ---- is acknowledged to rule regularly over God's flock. On these conditions: that so long as life remains in my body, I shall receive from you as a benefice for usufruct the possessions above described, and the due payment I will make to you and your successors each year, that is ---- [amount named]. And my son shall have the same possessions for the days of his life, and shall make the above-named payment; and if my children should survive me, they shall have the same possessions during the days of their lives and shall make the same payment; and if God shall give me a son from a legitimate wife, he shall have the same possessions for the days of his life only, after the death of whom the same possessions, with all their improvements, shall return to your hands to be held forever; and if it should be my chance to beget sons from a legitimate marriage, these shall hold the same possessions after my death, making the above-named payment, during the time of their lives. If not, however, after my death, without subterfuge of any kind, by right of your authority, the same possessions shall revert to you, to be retained forever. If any one, however (which I do not believe will ever occur)--if I myself, or any other person--shall wish to violate the firmness and validity of this grant, the order of truth opposing him, may his falsity in no degree succeed; and for his bold attempt may he pay to the aforesaid monastery double the amount which his ill-ordered cupidity has been prevented from abstracting; and moreover let him be indebted to the royal authority for ---- solidi of gold; and, nevertheless, let the present charter remain inviolate with all that it contains, with the witnesses placed below.

Done in ----, publicly, those who are noted below being present, or the remaining innumerable multitude of people.

[Sidenote: The property again described]

[Sidenote: Returned to the original owner to be used by him]

(b)

In the name of God, I, Abbot ----, with our commissioned brethren. Since it is not unknown how you, ----, by the suggestion of divine exhortation, did grant to ---- [monastery named], to the church which is known to be constructed in honor of Saint ----, where we by God's authority exercise our pastoral care, all your possessions which you seemed to have in the district named, in the vill [village] named, which your father on his death bequeathed to you there, or which by your own labor you were able to gain there, or which, as against your brother or against ----, a co-heir, a just division gave you, with courtyard and buildings, gardens and orchards, with various slaves, ---- by name, houses, lands, meadows, woods (cultivated and uncultivated), or with all the dependencies and appurtenances belonging to it, which it would be extremely long to enumerate, in all their completeness; but afterwards, at your request, it has seemed proper to us to cede to you the same possessions to be held for usufruct; and you will not neglect to pay at annual periods the due _census_ [i.e., the rental] hence, that is ---- [amount named]. And if God should give you a son by your legal wife, he shall have the same possessions for the days of his life only, and shall not presume to neglect the above payment, and similarly your sons which you are seen to have at present, shall do for the days of their lives; after the death of whom, all the possessions above-named shall revert to us and our successors perpetually. Moreover, if no sons shall have been begotten by you, immediately after your death, without any harmful contention, the possessions shall revert to the rulers or guardians of the above-named church, forever. Nor may any one, either ourselves or our successors, be successful in a rash attempt inordinately to destroy these agreements, but just as the time has demanded in the present _precaria_, may that be sure to endure unchanged which we, with the consent of our brothers, have decided to confirm.

Done in ----, in the presence of ---- and of others whom it is not worth while to enumerate. [Seal of the same abbot who has ordered this _precaria_ to be made.]

(3) THE IMMUNITY

The most important element in the governmental phase of feudalism was what was known as the immunity. In Roman law immunity meant exemption from taxes and public services and belonged especially to the lands owned personally by the emperors. Such exemptions were, however, sometimes allowed to the lands of imperial officers and of men in certain professions, and in later times to the lands held by the Church. How closely this Roman immunity was connected with the feudal immunity of the Middle Ages is not clear. Doubtless the institution survived in Gaul, especially on church lands, long after the Frankish conquest. It is best, however, to look upon the typical Frankish immunity as of essentially independent origin. From the time of Clovis, the kings were accustomed to make grants of the sort to land-holding abbots and bishops, and by the time of Charlemagne nearly all such prelates had been thus favored. But such grants were not confined to ecclesiastics. Even in the seventh and eighth centuries lay holders of royal benefices often received the privileges of the immunity also. Speaking generally, the immunity exempted the lands to which it applied from the jurisdiction of the local royal officials, especially of the counts. The lands were supposed to be none the less ultimately subject to the royal authority, but by the grant of immunity the sovereign took their financial and judicial administration from the counts, who would ordinarily have charge, and gave it to the holders of the lands. The counts were forbidden to enter the specified territories to collect taxes or fines, hold courts, and sometimes even to arrange for military service. The layman, or the bishop, or the abbot, who held the lands performed these services and was responsible only to the crown for them. The king's chief object in granting the immunity was to reward or win the support of the grantees and to curtail the authority of his local representatives, who in many cases threatened to become too powerful for the good of the state; but by every such grant the sovereign really lost some of his own power, and this practice came to be in no small measure responsible for the weakness of monarchy in feudal times.

The first of the extracts below (a) is a seventh-century formula for the grant of an immunity by the king to a bishop. The second (b) is a grant made by Charlemagne, in 779, confirming an old immunity enjoyed by the monastery at Chalons-sur-Saone.

Sources--(a) Text in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio V., Formulae_, Part I., pp. 43-44.

(b) Text in _Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges_ (Pertz ed.), Vol. II., p. 287. Adapted from translation in Ephraim Emerton, _Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages_ (new ed., Boston, 1903), p. 246.

[Sidenote: A formula for a grant of immunity]

(a)

We believe that we give our royal authority its full splendor if, with benevolent intentions, we bestow upon churches--or upon any persons--the favors which they merit, and if, with the aid of God, we give a written assurance of the continuance of these favors. We wish, then, to make known that at the request of a prelate, lord of ---- [the estate named] and bishop of ---- [the church named], we have accorded to him, for the sake of our eternal salvation, the following benefits: that in the domains of the bishop's church, both those which it possesses to-day and those which by God's grace it may later acquire, no public official shall be permitted to enter, either to hold courts or to exact fines, on any account; but let these prerogatives be vested in full in the bishop and his successors. We ordain therefore that neither you nor your subordinates,[301] nor those who come after you, nor any person endowed with a public office, shall ever enter the domains of that church, in whatever part of our kingdom they may be situated, either to hold trials or to collect fines. All the taxes and other revenues which the royal treasury has a right to demand from the people on the lands of the said church, whether they be freemen or slaves, Romans or barbarians, we now bestow on the said church for our future salvation, to be used by the officials of the church forever for the best interests of the church.

(b)

Charles, by the grace of God King of the Franks and Lombards and Patrician of the Romans, to all having charge of our affairs, both present and to come:

By the help of the Lord, who has raised us to the throne of this kingdom, it is the chief duty of our clemency to lend a gracious ear to the need of all, and especially ought we devoutly to regard that which we are persuaded has been granted by preceding kings to church foundations for the saving of souls, and not to deny fitting benefits, in order that we may deserve to be partakers of the reward, but to confirm them in still greater security.

[Sidenote: The old immunity enjoyed by the monastery at Chalons]

Now the illustrious Hubert, bishop and ruler of the church of St. Marcellus, which lies below the citadel of Chalons,[302] where the precious martyr of the Lord himself rests in the body, has brought it to the attention of our Highness that the kings who preceded us, or our lord and father of blessed memory, Pepin, the preceding king, had by their charters granted complete immunities to that monastery, so that in the towns or on the lands belonging to it no public judge, nor any one with power of hearing cases or exacting fines, or raising sureties, or obtaining lodging or entertainment, or making requisitions of any kind, should enter.

Moreover, the aforesaid bishop, Hubert, has presented the original charters of former kings, together with the confirmations of them, to be read by us, and declares the same favors to be preserved to the present day; but desiring the confirmation of our clemency, he prays that our authority may confirm this grant anew to the monastery.

[Sidenote: =The immunity confirmed=]

Wherefore, having inspected the said charters of former kings, we command that neither you, nor your subordinates, nor your successors, nor any person having judicial powers, shall presume to enter into the villages which may at the present time be in possession of that monastery, or which hereafter may have been bestowed by God-fearing men [or may be about to be so bestowed].[303] Let no public officer enter for the hearing of cases, or for exacting fines, or procuring sureties, or obtaining lodging or entertainment, or making any requisitions; but in full immunity, even as the favor of former kings has been continued down to the present day, so in the future also shall it, through our authority, remain undiminished. And if in times past, through any negligence of abbots, or luke-warmness of rulers, or the presumption of public officers, anything has been changed or taken away, removed or withdrawn, from these immunities, let it, by our authority and favor, be restored. And, further, let neither you nor your subordinates presume to infringe upon or violate what we have granted.

[Sidenote: Penalties for its violation]

But if there be any one, _dominus_,[304] _comes_ [count], _domesticus_,[305] _vicarius_,[306] or one vested with any judicial power whatsoever, by the indulgence of the good or by the favor of pious Christians or kings, who shall have presumed to infringe upon or violate these immunities, let him be punished with a fine of six hundred _solidi_,[307] two parts to go to the library of this monastery, and the third part to be paid into our treasury, so that impious men may not rejoice in violating that which our ancestors, or good Christians, may have conceded or granted. And whatever our treasury may have had a right to expect from this source shall go to the profit of the men of this church of St. Marcellus the martyr, to the better establishment of our kingdom and the good of those who shall succeed us.

And that this decree may firmly endure we have ordered it to be confirmed with our own hand under our seal.

35. The Granting of Fiefs

The most obvious feature of feudalism was a peculiar divided tenure of land under which the title was vested in one person and the use in another. The territorial unit was the fief, which in extent might be but a few acres, a whole county, or even a vast region like Normandy or Burgundy. Fiefs were granted to vassals by contracts which bound both grantor and grantee to certain specific obligations. The two extracts below are examples of the records of such feudal grants, bearing the dates 1167 and 1200 respectively. It should be remembered, however, that fiefs need not necessarily be land. Offices, payments of money, rights to collect tolls, and many other valuable things might be given by one man to another as fiefs in just the same way that land was given. Du Cange, in his _Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis_, mentions eighty-eight different kinds of fiefs, and it has been said that this does not represent more than one-fourth of the total number. Nevertheless, the typical fief consisted of land. The term might therefore be defined in general as the land for which the vassal, or hereditary possessor, rendered to the lord, or hereditary proprietor, services of a special character which were considered honorable, such as military aid and attendance at courts.

Sources--(a) Nicolas Brussel, _Nouvel Examen de l'Usage general des Fiefs en France pendant le XI, le XII, le XIII, et le XIVe Siecle_ ["New Examination of the Customs of Fiefs in the 11th, the 12th, the 13th, and the 14th Century"], Paris, 1727, Vol. I., p. 3, note. Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, pp. 15-16.

(b) Maximilien Quantin, _Recueil de Pieces du XIIIe Siecle_ ["Collection of Documents of the Thirteenth Century"], Auxerre, 1873, No. 2, pp. 1-2. Translated by Cheyney, _ibid._

[Sidenote: The count of Champagne grants a fief to the bishop of Beauvais]

(a)

In the name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Amen. I, Louis,[308] by the grace of God king of the French, make known to all present as well as to come, that at Mante in our presence, Count Henry of Champagne[309] conceded the fief of Savigny to Bartholomew, bishop of Beauvais,[310] and his successors. And for that fief the said bishop has made promise and engagement for one knight and justice and service to Count Henry;[311] and he also agreed that the bishops who shall come after him will do likewise. In order that this may be understood and known to posterity we have caused the present charter to be attested by our seal. Done at Mante, in the year of the Incarnate Word, 1167; present in our palace those whose names and seals are appended: seal of Thiebault, our steward; seal of Guy, the butler; seal of Matthew, the chamberlain; seal of Ralph, the constable. Given by the hand of Hugh, the chancellor.

[Sidenote: A grant by Count Thiebault]

(b)

I, Thiebault, count palatine of Troyes,[312] make known to those present and to come that I have given in fee[313] to Jocelyn d'Avalon and his heirs the manor which is called Gillencourt,[314] which is of the castellanerie[315] of La Ferte-sur-Aube; and whatever the same Jocelyn shall be able to acquire in the same manor I have granted to him and his heirs in enlargement of that fief. I have granted, moreover, to him that in no free manor of mine will I retain men who are of this gift.[316] The same Jocelyn, moreover, on account of this has become my liege man, saving, however, his allegiance to Gerad d'Arcy, and to the lord duke of Burgundy, and to Peter, count of Auxerre.[317] Done at Chouaude, by my own witness, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1200, in the month of January. Given by the hand of Walter, my chancellor.

36. The Ceremonies of Homage and Fealty

The personal relation between lord and vassal was established by the double ceremony of homage and fealty. Homage was the act by which the vassal made himself the man (_homo_) of the lord, while fealty was the oath of fidelity to the obligations which must ordinarily be assumed by such a man. The two were really distinct, though because they almost invariably went together they finally became confounded in the popular mind. The details of the ceremonies varied much in different times and places, but, in general, when homage was to be performed, the prospective vassal presented himself before his future seigneur bareheaded and without arms; knelt, placed his hands in those of the seigneur, and declared himself his man; then he was kissed by the seigneur and lifted to his feet. In the act of fealty, the vassal placed his hand upon sacred relics, or upon the Bible, and swore eternal faithfulness to his seigneur. The so-called "act of investiture" generally followed, the seigneur handing over to the vassal a bit of turf, a stick, or some other object symbolizing the transfer of the usufruct of the property in question. The whole process was merely a mode of establishing a binding contract between the two parties. Below we have: (_a_) a mediaeval definition of homage, taken from the customary law of Normandy; (_b_) an explanation of fealty, given in an old English law-book; (_c_) a French chronicler's account of the rendering of homage and fealty to the count of Flanders in the year 1127; and (_d_) a set of laws governing homage and fealty, written down in a compilation of the ordinances of Saint Louis (king of France, 1226-1270), but doubtless showing substantially the practice in France for a long time before King Louis's day.

Sources--(a) _L'Ancienne Coutume de Normandie_ ["The Old Custom of Normandy"], Chap. 29.

(b) Sir Thomas Lyttleton, _Treatise of Tenures in French and English_ (London, 1841), Bk. II., Chap. 2, p. 123.

(c) Galbert de Bruges, _De Multro, Traditione, et Occisione gloriosi Karoli comitis Flandriarum_ ["Concerning the Murder, Betrayal, and Death of the glorious Charles, Count of Flanders"]. Text in Henri Pirenne, _Histoire du Meurtre de Charles le Bon, comte de Flandre, par Galbert de Bruges_ (Paris, 1891). Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, p. 18.

(d) _Les Etablissements de Saint Louis_ ["The Ordinances of St. Louis"], Bk. II., Chap. 19. Text in Paul Viollet's edition (Paris, 1881), Vol. II., pp. 395-398.

[Sidenote: A Norman definition of homage]

(a)

Homage is a pledge to keep faith in respect to matters that are right and necessary, and to give counsel and aid. He who would do homage ought to place his hands between those of the man who is to be his lord, and speak these words: "I become your man, to keep faith with you against all others, saving my allegiance to the duke of Normandy."

[Sidenote: The oath of fealty]

(b)

And when a free tenant shall swear fealty to his lord, let him place his right hand on the book[318] and speak thus: "Hear thou this, my lord, that I will be faithful and loyal to you and will keep my pledges to you for the lands which I claim to hold of you, and that I will loyally perform for you the services specified, so help me God and the saints." Then he shall kiss the book; but he shall not kneel when he swears fealty, nor take so humble a posture as is required in homage.

(c)

Through the whole remaining part of the day those who had been previously enfeoffed by the most pious count Charles, did homage to the count,[319] taking up now again their fiefs and offices and whatever they had before rightfully and legitimately obtained. On Thursday, the seventh of April, homages were again made to the count, being completed in the following order of faith and security:

[Sidenote: The rendering of homage and fealty to the count of Flanders]

First they did their homage thus. The count asked if he was willing to become completely his man, and the other replied, "I am willing"; and with clasped hands, surrounded by the hands of the count, they were bound together by a kiss. Secondly, he who had done homage gave his fealty to the representative of the count in these words, "I promise on my faith that I will in future be faithful to Count William, and will observe my homage to him completely, against all persons, in good faith and without deceit." Thirdly, he took his oath to this upon the relics of the saints. Afterwards, with a little rod which the count held in his hand, he gave investitures to all who by this agreement had given their security and homage and accompanying oath.

[Sidenote: An ordinance of St. Louis on homage and fealty]

(d)

If any one would hold from a lord in fee, he ought to seek his lord within forty days. And if he does not do it within forty days, the lord may and ought to seize his fief for default of homage, and the things which are found there he should seize without compensation; and yet the vassal should be obliged to pay to his lord the redemption.[320] When any one wishes to enter into the fealty of a lord, he ought to seek him, as we have said above, and should speak as follows: "Sir, I request you, as my lord, to put me in your fealty and in your homage for such and such a thing situated in your fief, which I have bought." And he ought to say from what man, and this one ought to be present and in the fealty of the lord;[321] and whether it is by purchase or by escheat[322] or by inheritance he ought to explain; and with his hands joined, to speak as follows: "Sir, I become your man and promise to you fealty for the future as my lord, towards all men who may live or die, rendering to you such service as the fief requires, making to you your relief as you are the lord." And he ought to say whether for guardianship,[323] or as an escheat, or as an inheritance, or as a purchase.

The lord should immediately reply to him: "And I receive you and take you as my man, and give you this kiss as a sign of faith, saving my right and that of others," according to the usage of the various districts.

37. The Mutual Obligations of Lords and Vassals

The feudal relation was essentially one of contract involving reciprocal relations between lord and vassal. In the following letter, written in the year 1020 by Bishop Fulbert of Chartres[324] to the duke of Aquitaine, we find laid down the general principles which ought to govern the discharge of these mutual obligations. It is affirmed that there were six things that no loyal vassal could do, and these are enumerated and explained. Then comes the significant statement that these negative duties must be supplemented with positive acts for the service and support of the lord. What some of these acts were will appear in the extracts in Sec.38. Bishop Fulbert points out also that the lord is himself bound by feudal law not to do things detrimental to the safety, honor, or prosperity of his vassal. The letter is an admirable statement of the spirit of the feudal system at its best. Already by 1020 a considerable body of feudal customs having the force of law had come into existence and it appears that Fulbert had made these customs the subject of some special study before answering the questions addressed to him by Duke William.

Source--Text in Martin Bouquet, _Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France_ ["Collection of the Historians of Gaul and of France"], Vol. X., p. 463.

To William, most illustrious duke of the Aquitanians, Bishop Fulbert, the favor of his prayers:

[Sidenote: What the vassal owes the lord]

Requested to write something regarding the character of fealty, I have set down briefly for you, on the authority of the books, the following things. He who takes the oath of fealty to his lord ought always to keep in mind these six things: what is harmless, safe, honorable, useful, easy, and practicable.[325] _Harmless_, which means that he ought not to injure his lord in his body; _safe_, that he should not injure him by betraying his confidence or the defenses upon which he depends for security; _honorable_, that he should not injure him in his justice, or in other matters that relate to his honor; _useful_, that he should not injure him in his property; _easy_, that he should not make difficult that which his lord can do easily; and _practicable_, that he should not make impossible for the lord that which is possible.

However, while it is proper that the faithful vassal avoid these injuries, it is not for doing this alone that he deserves his holding: for it is not enough to refrain from wrongdoing, unless that which is good is done also. It remains, therefore, that in the same six things referred to above he should faithfully advise and aid his lord, if he wishes to be regarded as worthy of his benefice and to be safe concerning the fealty which he has sworn.

[Sidenote: The obligations of the lord]

The lord also ought to act toward his faithful vassal in the same manner in all these things. And if he fails to do this, he will be rightfully regarded as guilty of bad faith, just as the former, if he should be found shirking, or willing to shirk, his obligations would be perfidious and perjured.[326]

I should have written to you at greater length had I not been busy with many other matters, including the rebuilding of our city and church, which were recently completely destroyed by a terrible fire. Though for a time we could not think of anything but this disaster, yet now, by the hope of God's comfort, and of yours also, we breathe more freely again.

38. Some of the More Important Rights of the Lord

The obligations of vassals to lords outlined in the preceding selection were mainly of a moral character--such as naturally grew out of the general idea of loyalty and fidelity to a benefactor. They were largely negative and were rather vague and indefinite. So far as they went, they were binding upon lords and vassals alike. There were, however, several very definite and practical rights which the lords possessed with respect to the property and persons of their dependents. Some of these were of a financial character, some were judicial, and others were military. Five of the most important are illustrated by the passages given below.

(_a_) AIDS

Under the feudal system the idea prevailed that the vassal's purse as well as his body was to be at the lord's service. Originally the right to draw upon his vassals for money was exercised by the lord whenever he desired, but by custom this ill-defined power gradually became limited to three sorts of occasions when the need of money was likely to be especially urgent, i.e., when the eldest son was knighted, when the eldest daughter was married, and when the lord was to be ransomed from captivity. In the era of the crusades, the starting of the lord on an expedition to the Holy Land was generally regarded as another emergency in which an aid might rightfully be demanded. The following extract from the old customary law of Normandy represents the practice in nearly all feudal Europe.

Source--_L'Ancienne Coutume de Normandie_, Chap. 35.

[Sidenote: The three aids]

In Normandy there are three chief aids. The first is to help make the lord's eldest son a knight; the second is to marry his eldest daughter; the third is to ransom the body of the lord from prison when he shall be taken captive during a war for the duke.[327] By this it appears that the _aide de chevalerie_ [knighthood-aid] is due when the eldest son of the lord is made a knight. The eldest son is he who has the dignity of primogeniture.[328] The _aide de mariage_ [marriage-aid] is due when the eldest daughter is married. The _aide de rancon_ [ransom-aid] is due when it is necessary to deliver the lord from the prisons of the enemies of the duke. These aids are paid in some fiefs at the rate of half a relief, and in some at the rate of a third.[329]

(_b_) MILITARY SERVICE

From whatever point of view feudalism is regarded--whether as a system of land tenure, as a form of social organization, or as a type of government--the military element in it appears everywhere important. The feudal period was the greatest era of war the civilized world has ever known. Few people between the tenth and fourteenth centuries, except in the peasant classes, were able to live out their lives entirely in peace. Of greatest value to kings and feudal magnates, greater even than money itself, was a goodly following of soldiers; hence the almost universal requirement of military service by lords from their vassals. Fiefs were not infrequently granted out for no other purpose than to get the military service which their holders would owe. The amount of such service varied greatly in different times and places, but the following arrangement represents the most common practice.

Source--_Les Etablissements de Saint Louis_, Bk. I., Chap. 65. Text in Paul Viollet's edition (Paris, 1881), Vol. II., pp. 95-96.

[Sidenote: The conditions of military service]

The baron and the vassals of the king ought to appear in his army when they shall be summoned, and ought to serve at their own expense for forty days and forty nights, with whatever number of knights they owe.[330] And he possesses the right to exact from them these services when he wishes and when he has need of them. If, however, the king shall wish to keep them more than forty days and forty nights at their own expense, they need not remain unless they desire.[331] But if he shall wish to retain them at his cost for the defense of the kingdom, they ought lawfully to remain. But if he shall propose to lead them outside of the kingdom, they need not go unless they are willing, for they have already served their forty days and forty nights.

(_c_) WARDSHIP AND MARRIAGE

Very important among the special prerogatives of the feudal lord was his right to manage, and enjoy the profits of, fiefs inherited by minors. When a vassal died, leaving an heir who was under age, the lord was charged with the care of the fief until the heir reached his or her majority. On becoming of age, a young man was expected to take control of his fief at once. But a young woman remained under wardship until her marriage, though if she married under age she could get possession of her fief immediately, just as she would had she waited until older. The control of the marriage of heiresses was largely in the hands of their lords, for obviously it was to the lord's interest that no enemy of his, nor any shiftless person, should become the husband of his ward. The lord could compel a female ward to marry and could oblige her to accept as a husband one of the candidates whom he offered her; but it was usually possible for the woman to purchase exemption from this phase of his jurisdiction. After the thirteenth century the right of wardship gradually declined in France, though it long continued in England. The following extract from the customs of Normandy sets forth the typical feudal law on the subject.

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

Heirs should be placed in guardianship until they reach