As you know, the term “feudalism”
is the subject of significant controversy. Our book describes it as “a form of property rights where a landholding
(fief) is held in return for certain obligations.” Marc Bloch called it “a kind of network of dependent ties, involving fiefs and vassals. Susan Reynolds argues that even the terms “fiefs”
and “vassals” became legal constructs of university-trained lawyers. “Feudalism” itself is a modern
construct.
So, what gives? It is to the kinds of documents you’re
reading here that we must turn for answers.
How did people of that time understand their relationships? We are going to comb through some of these
documents tomorrow looking for clues.
You’ll note that in the set of readings compiled by Brian Tierney, the
editor groups them under headings: Lordship and Vassalage, The Fief
and Private Jurisdiction, Feudal Obligations, and The Peace and Truce of God. This last group does not involve feudal agreements per se,
but reflects attempts on the part of the church to control upper-class
violence. You can get a sense of that
violence when you read about the convoluted history of Count William of
Aquitaine and Hugh of Lusignan in Geary.
According to my own
graduate school training (some of which took place under Brian Tierney), the
feudal “system” consists of three components.
They are:
Today we have centralized
nation-states with standing armies. In
the medieval period, as you know, this was not the case. So, here’s Question 1: What do you learn from the documents you’ve
read about the organization of military service? How are men enlisted to fight for other men; what sorts of
resources do they provide and under what circumstances? You are not going to be able to be
exhaustive about this, so don’t even try.
But pick a couple of feudal agreements, and while you’re at it look at
that mess with William of Aquitaine and his long-suffering man Hugh, and tell
me in a paragraph what you see going on, to the best of your ability.
As for landholding, we’ve
already discussed this in Tuesday’s class, looking at the manner in which lords
exploited the surplus production of the lands over which they had control. The third element, jurisdiction, grants the
vassal “immunity” in his holding, meaning that he is immune from interference
by his lord. As a result, he is
responsible for dispensing justice and maintaining order.
Question 2 concerns the ideal relationship as contrasted
with the real one. What are the things
that were expected of lords and vassals?
How well did these expectations work out in actual practice? You can once again look at the story of Hugh
and William.
For Questions 3, looking
at the ways in which these men functioned, do they seem to have a sense of
legality and illegality about their relationships? In other words, are there indications that this is more than just
individual agreements between individual lords and their vassals?
Don’t get tied up in
knots, but do the best you can.