CHAPTER XIII.
THE FEUDAL SYSTEM
A SOURCE BOOK OF
MEDIÆVAL HISTORY
DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF EUROPEAN LIFE AND
INSTITUTIONS FROM THE GERMAN INVASIONS
TO THE RENAISSANCE
EDITED BY
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG, A.M.
ASSISTANT IN HISTORY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
AND INSTRUCTOR IN SIMMONS COLLEGE
NEW YORK · : · CINCINNATI · : · CHICAGO
AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY
COPYRIGHT, 1907, BY
FREDERIC AUSTIN OGG
ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL, LONDON
W. P. 4
. . . . .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 régime 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
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
1
Scandinavian countries. This régime, 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."
……..
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 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 §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:
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. 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.
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.
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
2
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.
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. 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. The aide de mariage [marriage-aid]
is due when the eldest daughter is married. The aide de rançon [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.
(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
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
3
amount of such service varied greatly in different times and places, but the following
arrangement represents the most common practice.
Source—Les Établissements de Saint Louis, Bk. I., Chap. 65. Text in Paul Viollet's edition
(Paris, 1881), Vol. II., pp. 95-96.
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. 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. 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 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
pass 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.
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 nobility 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.
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
4
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 entitled to receive the produce and
profits. 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 passim.
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.
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 vassals 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 substitute money fines for dispossession, except
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
5
in the most aggravated cases. The following is an account of the condemnation of Arnold Atton,
a nobleman 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 château of Auvillars.
Source—Teulet, Layettes du Trésor 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 God count of Toulouse, marquis of Provence, to the nobleman Arnold
Atton, viscount of Lomagne, greeting:
The court's sentence upon Arnold Atton Let it be known to your nobility 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 pronounced sentence against you, and for these matters have
condemned you to hand over and restore to us the château 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 assigned 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 assigned to you, or because of those days, and has
condemned you to repay these to us.
Moreover, it has declared that the nobleman 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 God
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 masses 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
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
6
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, 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 God.
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 classes 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 God, sometimes alone and sometimes in connection with the Peace.
The purport of the Truce of God 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 God was intended to protect certain classes at all times and
the Truce to protect all classes at certain times." It was equally difficult to secure the
acquiescence of the lawless nobles 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 reënacted, 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.
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 God-fearing nobles 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 space 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 châteaux, 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 act upon such information and lay hold of the malefactors, and if the latter
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
7
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 space within thirty paces around it, must pay a fine for sacrilege, and double this amount
to the person wronged.
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.
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.
The Truce of God confirmed Penalties for violations of the Truce
7. The bishops of whom we have spoken have solemnly confirmed the Truce of God, 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. 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 château, 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 château 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 God 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 pronounced sentences to recall men to the
observance of the Peace and the Truce of God, 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.
Selection from A Medieval Sourcebook
8