Since Adam Smith introduced the term “feudal system” in the eighteenth century[1], historians have tried to define the complex net of personal ties in the Middle Ages. None can agree on the origins, boundaries, or politics involved with “feudalism,” but most find it hard to break the cycle and continue to use the term as a utility, with a disclaimer in their introductions. Historians write their books, teach their classes, and argue their versions of “feudalism,” knowingly forwarding the misnomer to their students and future historians, who in turn find it hard to break the cycle and pass on the information with their own disclaimers. The terms “feudalism,” “feudal system,” and “feudal society,” with their grand generality, should be expunged from scholarly works, much the same as the term “dark ages” has been replaced by terms that are more appropriate. Historians like Elizabeth Brown and Susan Reynolds have started to unlearn the learned, but it will take a concerted effort of medieval historians to take a stand and break the cycle.
The origin myths of ‘feudalism” are as varied as the authors who penned them. Feudalism has been used to describe everything from ancient Egypt to the twentieth century sharecroppers in the United States. I will be dealing specifically with the Middle Ages here. Historian Marc Bloch writes, “European feudalism should be seen as the outcome of the violent dissolution of older societies.”[2] Bloch’s focus is on Western Europe in the ninth century as the Carolingian empire was disintegrating. The origins, for him, were “born in an infinitely troubled epoch.”[3] Other historians like Lynn White, argue that the origins are far older than the Carolingian period, he traces it back to the end of the Merovingian period and places the beginnings of feudalism as the need arose with the introduction of the heavy mounted shock combat by Charles Martel. “Charles Martel’s genius who fully grasped the possibilities inherent in the stirrup and created in terms of it a new type of warfare supported by a novel structure of society which we call feudalism.”[4] The argument deepens as historians move from the Frankish empires to those of Rome and England. William Maitland[5] argues that the “feudal system” never reached England, where others claim “feudalism” had to be born of a centralized government that the Merovingians lacked.
Historian Carl Stephenson agrees with Bloch on the timing of the birth of “feudalism” at the disintegration of the Carolingians, but their agreement stops there. Where Bloch encompasses everyone from the nobility to the peasants and serfs in his “feudal society,” Stephenson narrows his definition to “feudalism proper,” the lord-vassal relationship. As the cycle continues, historians feed off each other’s definitions of “feudalism,” create their own parameters, and continue to teach the generality of the adjective. Bloch notes in his introduction that the word “feudalism” is ill chosen, and even offers a solid replacement with “ties of dependence,” but fails to leave the confines of generations past. F.L. Ganshof claims “feudalism is far too generic of an adjective so we must limit ourselves to essentials.”[6] He notes the problem, but like most other medieval historians, just changes the definition to appease his discomfort with the misnomer.
The cycle, seemingly so easy to break, has its supporters. The arguments for keeping “feudalism” an active part of academic teaching are “utility,
and “indispensability.”[7] Historian Charles Wood writes, “The feudal pyramid…makes for clear diagrams, and schoolboys have to begin somewhere.”[8]The problems with a generic model that is easy to grasp and understand are, mainly, everyone has a different image or idea of what feudalism means. Second, by teaching abstractions and generalities that do not accurately define the systems in place, it is easy to confuse and frustrate the students. Third, why teach something that at the higher levels of scholarship will have to be relearned the right way?
The definitions of “feudalism” start small and spiral outward. The basic units are the lord-vassal relationship, widened it includes politics, military, social, ecclesiastical, economic, legal, and manorial systems. The temporal and geographical scopes also spiral outward and can include thousands of years, multitudes of empires, and countless ties of dependence. The term “feudalism” was never even used in the Middle Ages, though they did use “feudal” to describe customary laws of property. In order to break the cycle it is important to understand then repudiate the giants of the industry (Bloch and Ganshof), acknowledging their contributions to the field, then, place them on the shelf next to Aristotle where “feudalism” is no longer the center of the Medieval universe.
Bloch argues that the ill chosen word “feudalism,” limited by the narrow interpretations of traditional historians, has failed to capture the important social aspects of medieval history and the ties of dependence therefore created. Bloch asserts that “feudalism” is not just a system of law, territorial rights, or a system of military protection for lords and vassals, but rather it is a kind of society, a living organism, that reaches all the way down to the peasants. He emphasizes the bonds of the people, the social impact, and the political evolution in response to the changes brought forth by failing centralized powers, invading hordes, bonds of kinship, and the changing role of the nobility.
The ties of dependence, claims Bloch, widen the traditional feudal system into a feudal society. This living organism stretches from the king all the way down to the peasant, and encompasses the bonds of people, the social mentality, and the political organization. While Bloch notes the word, “feudalism” is ill chosen and not at all an accurate word to describe life in the medieval period, he does expand the generalization to “feudal society” where he places emphasis on both words. Bloch’s thesis aims at distancing the social from the political, but his foundation, from the invasions that crippled the state, to the stronghold of the manorial system which feudalism takes its name, is grounded in politics. Bloch rightly incorporates all the people, not just the nobility, into his “feudal society” and that sets it apart from other works on feudalism. He could have stuck with “ties of dependence” and tailored them to each individual relationship they incorporated. Elizabeth Brown argues, “Understanding the workings of medieval society necessarily involves exploring the intricate complexities of life rather than elaborating definitions and formulas designed to minimize, simplify, and obscure these complexities.”[9]
Ganshof, on the other hand, argues that the adjective “feudalism” is far too generic and attempts to narrow the definition to strictly political and legal connotations. Ganshof asserts that “feudalism” existed only within the nobility. “If we limit ourselves to essentials,” writes Ganshof, “it will be found that the word [feudalism] is used by historians in two more or less distinct senses.”[10] The two essentials Ganshof mentions are the rise of the military elite as vassals, and the legal binding of fiefdom.
Ganshof traces the origins of “feudalism” to the Merovingian period where constant warfare and raiding led to the necessity of free men finding retainers for protection in the service of the King. These men of the king called “antrustiones,” received the protection of a triple wergeld, virtually untouchable. The antrustio, with his special mark of protection was a picked fighting man and whatever his origins, he was treated as if he belonged to a high social rank. As these men of the king grew in stature, they in turn acquired men in their service. Mostly slaves, and given the name of “vassus,” this relationship would change over the coming centuries. The commendation of one man giving himself to another in service became a legal contract for life unless one party did not fulfill his end of the deal. Along with the ceremony of commendation (later homage and fealty) was the benefice of land. Susan Reynolds argues, “The terms such as ‘fief’, ‘benefice’, and ‘vassal’, lacked any technical meaning until the late twelfth century when they were given legal definition by the Italian lawyers who produced the Liber Feodorum.”[11]
By the ninth century with lord-vassal relationships a standard of the feudal institution (according to Ganshof), hereditary rights entered the contracts of commendation. The personal relationship of the lord and vassal was renewed on the death of one or the other with the new lord or the son/heir of the vassal. The hereditary rights did however come with stipulations. The new party was required to swear homage and fealty, and accept the responsibilities of their position. If a vassal died and his eldest son inherited the fief (primogeniture) but could not fulfill his soldierly duties, the hereditary rights would pass to the next in line, or if a daughter, then to her husband, so long as he was able to assume the duties outlined in the contract. While Ganshof narrowed his vision of “feudalism” to a small field, he too could have easily abandoned the word and opted for a more precise definition.
Both Bloch and Ganshof display uneasiness with the term “feudalism,” like countless others in the field, but fail to take the next step of breaking the cycle and deinstitutionalizing the word. A concept that is so understood, yet equally misunderstood, is far too general to keep active, while hoping someone takes a stand and disowns “feudalism” forever. History is a search for truth, driven by the need to understand who we are and who we were. Wild fantasy scenarios like Marxism can keep the abstractions and isms, but in solid academics, understanding and explaining the past, we must break the cycle and define individual events as they were to individual people rather than perpetuate a known flaw generation after generation. Goodbye “feudalism,” I hardly knew you at all.
Select Bibliography
Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. Translated by L.A. Manyon, with a forward by M.M. Postan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Brown, Elizabeth A.R. “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 1063-1088, at 1075-1076.
Cronne, H.A.” The Origins of Feudalism.” History, xxiv (1939).
Ganshof, F.L. Feudalism. Translated by Philip Grierson. Great Britain: Lowe & Brydone Printers Ltd., 1952.
Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith .London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., ed. Edwin Cannan, 1904.
Stephenson, Carl. Medieval Feudalism. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1942.
White, Lynn Jr. Medieval Technology & Social Change. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
William Maitland. The Constitutional History of England. London: Cambridge University Press, 1920. 143-161.
Wood, Charles T. The Quest for Eternity: Medieval Manners and Morals (New York: Doubleday Press, 1971), 177.
[1] Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith (London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., ed. Edwin Cannan, 1904.) His coinage of the term revolved completely around relationships dealing with the economics and agricultural production at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The term “feudal system” inspired a retroactive definition being placed on Medieval times, and has been used by a wide range of notable public figures. From Alexander Hamilton, to Carl Marx, and every Medievalist since.
[2] Marc Bloch, Feudal Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 443.
[3] Ibid., 3.
[4] Lynn white, Medieval Technology & Social Change (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 28.
[5] William Maitland, The Constitutional History of England (London: Cambridge University Press, 1920), 143-161.
[6] F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism (Great Britain: Lowe & Brydone Printers Ltd., 1952), 15.
[7] Elizabeth A.R. Brown, “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 1067.
[8] Charles T.Wood, The Quest for Eternity: Medieval Manners and Morals (New York: Doubleday Press, 1971), 177.
[9] Elizabeth A.R. Brown, “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 1084.
[10] F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism (Great Britain: Lowe & Brydone Printers Ltd., 1952), 15.
[11] Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), p475.
No comments:
Post a Comment