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 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.[332] 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 L66, 13s. and 4d. for the relief
of his land.

Richard of Estre renders an account of L15 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_.[333]

John de Balliol owes L150 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 L100 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 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 chateau of Auvillars.

Source--Teulet, _Layettes du Tresor 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:

[Sidenote: 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 chateau 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.[334]

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 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 [see p. 245], 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 reenacted, 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.

[Sidenote: 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 chateaux, 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[335] act upon such information and lay hold of the
malefactors, and if the latter 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.

[Sidenote: 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.[336]

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: The Truce of God confirmed]

[Sidenote: 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.[337] 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 chateau, 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 chateau 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[297] Charles Seignobos, _The Feudal Regime_ (translated in "Historical Miscellany" series), New York, 1904, p. 1.

[298] A man was not supposed in any way to sacrifice his freedom by becoming a vassal and the lord's right to his service would be forfeited if this principle were violated.

[299] The relation of lord and vassal was, at this early time, limited to the lifetime of the two parties. When one died, the other was liberated from his contract. But in the ninth and tenth centuries vassalage became generally hereditary.

[300] Casting lots for the property of a deceased father was not uncommon among the Franks. All sons shared in the inheritance, but particular parts of the property were often assigned by lot.

[301] The grant of immunity was thus brought to the attention of the count in whose jurisdiction the exempted lands lay.

[302] Chalons-sur-Saone was about eighty miles north of the junction of the Saone with the Rhone. It should not be confused with Chalons-sur-Marne where the battle was fought with Attila's Huns in 451.

[303] There is some doubt at this point as to the correct translation. That given seems best warranted.

[304] _Dominus_ was a common name for a lord.

[305] A member of the king's official household.

[306] A subordinate officer under the count [see p. 176, note 3].

[307] See p. 61. note 2.

[308] Louis VII., king of France, 1137-1180.

[309] The county of Champagne lay to the east of Paris. It was established by Charlemagne and, while at first insignificant, grew until by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it was one of the most important in France.

[310] Beauvais was about sixty miles northwest of Paris.

[311] That is, the bishop of Beauvais was bound to furnish his lord, the count of Champagne, the service of one knight for his army, besides ordinary feudal obligations.

[312] The county of Troyes centered about the city of that name on the upper Seine. It was eventually absorbed by Champagne.

[313] As a fief.

[314] A manor, in the general sense, was a feudal estate.

[315] A castellanerie was a feudal holding centering about a castle.

[316] That is, Count Thiebault promises Jocelyn not to deprive him of the services of men who rightfully belong on the manor which is being granted.

[317] Here is an illustration of the complexity of the feudal system. Count Thiebault is Jocelyn's _fourth_ lord, and loyalty and service are owed to all of the four at the same time. Accordingly, Thiebault must be content with only such allegiance of his new vassal as will not involve a breach of the contracts which Jocelyn has already entered into with his other lords. For example, Thiebault could not expect Jocelyn to aid him in war against the duke of Burgundy, for Jocelyn is pledged to fidelity to that duke. In general, when a man had only one lord he owed him full and unconditional allegiance (_liege homage_), but when he became vassal to other lords he could promise them allegiance only so far as would not conflict with contracts already entered into. It was by no means unusual for a man to have several lords, and it often happened that A was B's vassal for a certain piece of land while at the same time B was A's vassal for another piece. Not infrequently the king himself was thus a vassal of one or more of his own vassals.

[318] The Bible. Sometimes only the Gospels were used.

[319] Charles, count of Flanders, had just died and had been succeeded by his son William. All persons who had received fiefs from the deceased count were now brought together to renew their homage and fealty to the new count.

[320] Such a case as this would be most apt to arise when a lord died and a vassal failed to renew his homage to the successor; or when a vassal died and his heir failed to do homage as was required.

[321] This law would apply also to a case where a man who is already a vassal of a lord should acquire from another vassal of the same lord some additional land and so become indebted to the lord for a new measure of fealty.

[322] Reversion to the original proprietor because of failure of heirs.

[323] Such land might be acquired for temporary use only i.e., for guardianship, during the absence or disability of its proprietor.

[324] Chartres was somewhat less than twenty miles southwest of Paris.

[325] The terms used in the original are _incolume_, _tutum_, _honestum_, _utile_, _facile_, _et possibile_.

[326] In the English customary law of the twelfth century we read that, "it is allowable to any one, without punishment, to support his lord if any one assails him, and to obey him in all legitimate ways, except in theft, murder, and in all such things as are not conceded to any one to do and are reckoned infamous by the laws;" also that, "the lord ought to do likewise equally with counsel and aid, and he may come to his man's assistance in his vicissitudes in all ways."--Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Institutes_, Vol. I., p. 590.

[327] The duke of Normandy. Outside of Normandy, of course, other feudal princes would be substituted.

[328] It was the feudal system that first gave the eldest son in France a real superiority over his brothers. This may be seen most clearly in the change wrought by feudalism whereby the old Frankish custom of allowing all the sons to inherit their father's property equally was replaced by the mediaeval rule of primogeniture (established by the eleventh century) under which the younger sons were entirely, or almost entirely, excluded from the inheritance.

[329] Relief is the term used to designate the payment made to the lord by the son of the deceased vassal before taking up the inheritance [see p. 225]. The "custom" says that sometimes the amount paid as an aid to the lord was equal to half that paid as relief and sometimes it was only a third.

[330] The number of men brought by a vassal to the royal army depended on the value of his fief and the character of his feudal contract. Greater vassals often appeared with hundreds of followers.

[331] This provision rendered the ordinary feudal army much more inefficient than an army made up of paid soldiers. Under ordinary circumstances, when their forty days of service had expired, the feudal troops were free to go home, even though their doing so might force the king to abandon a siege or give up a costly campaign only partially completed. By the thirteenth century it had become customary for the king to accept extra money payments instead of military service from his vassals. With the revenues thus obtained, soldiers could be hired who made war their profession and who were willing to serve indefinitely.

[332] Every fief-holder was supposed to render some measure of military service. As neither a minor nor a woman could do this personally, it was natural that the lord should make up for the deficiency by appropriating the produce of the estate during the period of wardship.

[333] Tenants _in capite_ in England were those who held their land by direct royal grant.

[334] Apparently the king's court had been assembled several times to consider the charges against Viscount Atton, but had been prevented from taking action because of the latter's failure to appear. At last the court decided that it was useless to delay longer and proceeded to condemn the guilty noble and send him a statement of what had been done. He was not only to lose his chateau of Auvillars but also to reimburse the king for the expenses which the court had incurred on his account.

[335] The chapter was the body of clergy attached to a cathedral church. Its members were known as canons.

[336] That is, the penalty for using violence against peaceful churchmen, or despoiling their property was to be twice that demanded by the law in case of similar offenses committed against laymen.

[337] The ordeal of cold water was designed to test a man's guilt or innocence. The accused person was thrown into a pond and if he sank he was considered innocent; if he floated, guilty, on the supposition that the pure water would refuse to receive a person tainted with crime [see p. 200].