Feudalism
John A Geck
I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism. I'll
provide some background. In my undergraduate years, my main mentor referred
to fuedalsim as the 'f-word'. He actively discouraged people from using the
term when making comments, giving answers, without explaining what they
meant by it.That said, as I moved from the survey courses into seminar work,
he was much more willing to use the term (sometimes with 'air quotes') among
a small group of articulate and intelligent people who specialise in the
area.
Now that I'm in graduate school, I do find the term used, and this
coincides with the quesiton I have on the word, its connotation and its
denotation. Of course, you don't seem to find the word used in any primary
sources, so I'm willing to accept that it is indeed a later invention.
However, you can find throughout the sources references to enfeoffment,
feoffdom, 'becoming [so-and-so's] man'.
At the advice of said mentor, I spent my summer reading some of the
classic hits of medieval history, one of these being Marc Bloch's _Feudal
Society_, the views of which have most certainly been updated, challenged,
and elaborated since his time.
However, if we turn to Bloch's definition of feudalism, we find the
following:
'A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (i.e. the
fief) instead of a salary, which was out of the question; the supremacy of a
class of specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind
man to man and, within the warrior class, assume the distinctive form called
vassalage; fragmentation of authority--leading inevitably to disorder; and,
in the midst of all this, the survival of other forms of association, family
and State, of which the latter, during the second feudal age, was to acquire
renewed strength--such then seem to be the fundamental features of European
feudalsim.'
Leaving aside his remarks on a 'first' and 'second feudal age', which
requires a reading of his text, this does indeed seem to be not only in
accord with the primary sources which I read, but also allowing for 'other
forms of association', though I would suffix Bloch's remark by adding that
some other forms came into being at the same time.
So, since there's clearly some people who are very well-informed on the
subject, could anyone supply the main modern-day criticisms against Bloch's
definition? I believe that you can't simply say 'the feudal system' and
leave it at that, but so too can you not simply say 'medieval'. Why is it
that both terms cannot be used in an introductory or prefatory fashion
before moving on to a closer, wordier definition?
Cheers to all for any help,
John
John A Geck
that the term 'feudalism' is a later invention, I wasn't considering that
you do, at times, see references to feudum, as another word for a feoff.
E.G. 'Nos itaque... ipsa loca et terras in feudum perpetuum concedamus.'
The Grand Master Foulques de Villaret asks Latin Christians to settle at
Rhodes and elsewhere in order to protect the hospitallers' possessions
against the Turks. The settlers are promised to be enfeoffed with land and
other possessions. — Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid: Sección de Ordenes
militares — San Juan de Jerusalén: Llengua de Aragón, legajo 718 (original
parchment, slightly damaged; seal missing). — Printed: A. Luttrell: Feudal
Tenure and Latin Colonization at Rhodes: 1306-1415 (1970), repr. in idem:
The Hospitallers in Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece and the West 1291-1440, Collected
Studies, London 1978, no. III, pp. 771-73.
So that said, cheers again,
John
Bernardz
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, john...@utoronto.ca says...
> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things medieval,
> I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism. I'll
> provide some background. In my undergraduate years, my main mentor referred
> to fuedalsim as the 'f-word'.
>
I came up with something similar when studying Chinese history. Marxist
history stated that societies pass though a feudal stage. So as a result
Chinese historians called periods of their history feudal.
History is often a political weapon.
--
The rich and the poor want the same thing, money.
21st saying of Bernard
Michael W Cook
John A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 22/12/03 1:18 pm:
> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things medieval,
> I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism.
AHHHHHHHHH !!
Half the Group has just left, John, with their fingers in their ears
mumbling obscenities ending with:
"Oh No.....Not bloody feudalism........AGAIN."
Using such a word on here is like showing a crucifix to a vampire.
People will either ignore you, or you'll get trampled in the stampede.
This word, like the Battle that shouldn't be mentioned and the other Battle
that shouldn't be mentioned - should never be mentioned either.
Nothing personal........promise.
Just Google the word in an SHM group search and you'll see what I mean.
Cheers
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
John A Geck
news:BC0CEA67.170F4%crusader_p...@hotmail.com...
No offense taken; nevertheless, I would like to think of this as a more
acute consideration of the topic. I've supplied a quote which resonated well
with my impressions of the term. If anyone could simply explain why it's
wrong, I'd be very pleased. I have Googled through SHM before, and it seems
that the discussion degenerates into personal rivalry and name-calling. I'd
rather that this simple quesiton is answered academically and politely.
Cheers,
John
Michael W Cook
John A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 22/12/03 8:10 pm:
That's understandable, but I feel it's not such an easy question to answer.
Firstly, not knowing what is his first feudal stage and what his second is
immediately causes a problem. Once defined however, one can then break it
down yet again, but nobody ever seems to be able to agree on a date for a
beginning or indeed an ending to feudalism.
Secondly, "A subject peasantry" is certainly not a unique feature and is not
a good description to start with.
"The supremacy of a class of specialised warriors" is better, but also
misleading. Call them knights if you want for they were the dominant class,
but this again leads you down into a cul-de-sac, as in the earlier period
landless knights were a plenty.
Finally, "Fragmentation of authority - leading inevitably to disorder" again
confuses, because it suggests that feudalism was a negative force, as
opposed to a positive political force in which the monarchs themselves
become 'Feudalised' and subsequently strengthened as a result.
Feudalism to me is a word I find impossible to pin down with a satisfactory
description and meaning, therefore I find it best avoided, as do many others
on here.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
[...]
['feudalism':]
> I've supplied a quote which resonated well with my impressions
> of the term. If anyone could simply explain why it's wrong,
> I'd be very pleased.
Definitions are neither right nor wrong; the most relevant
questions, it seems to me, are 'Is it useful?' and 'Is it
generally accepted?'. One point that has been made here
repeatedly is that 'feudalism' does not have a generally accepted
definition, and as a result, you cannot know what someone means
by the term until he spells it out.
Lack of general acceptance obviously limits a definition's
utility, but here I'm thinking of a more intrinsic sort of
utility. Is it specific enough that it can be applied in
practice? Does it define something of interest, or just an
arbitrary category? Does it characterize a unique entity, or is
it more widely applicable?
Here's the quotation from Bloch again (with one typo fixed):
A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service
tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary, which was
out of the question; the supremacy of a class of
specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection
which bind man to man and, within the warrior class,
assume the distinctive form called vassalage;
fragmentation of authority--leading inevitably to
disorder; and, in the midst of all this, the survival
of other forms of association, family and State, of
which the latter, during the second feudal age, was
to acquire renewed strength--such then seem to be
the fundamental features of European feudalism.
This looks more like a laundry list than a definition, and it's
explicitly for *European* feudalism. Is he trying to define
European feudalism within a broader notion of feudalism? If so,
what is that notion? Is he simply trying to define a concept of
European feudalism that may or may not be a special case of a
wider phenomenon? If so, why? Why not just say 'Here's a list
of characteristics that were for the most part common to the
western European societies of the period xxxx-xxxx'? (I could
probably answer at least some of these questions by digging out
Bloch, but at the moment I'm more interested in pointing out some
of the reasons why the quotation is inadequate as a definition.
Similarly, I ignore, at least for now, any reservations about how
well defined the notion of vassalage actually is and how
generally this constellation of characteristics can actually be
found in medieval Europe.)
Brian
John A Geck
<<snip>>
Thank you very much for your response, Michael.
> That's understandable, but I feel it's not such an easy question to
answer.
>
> Firstly, not knowing what is his first feudal stage and what his second is
> immediately causes a problem. Once defined however, one can then break it
> down yet again, but nobody ever seems to be able to agree on a date for a
> beginning or indeed an ending to feudalism.
Similarly with the concept of 'medieval'. As far as that goes, I will note
here that I did attempt to say that I was lookign at the defintion in a more
connotative fashion, less than a denotative. This comes up more in my later
responses.
> Secondly, "A subject peasantry" is certainly not a unique feature and is
not
> a good description to start with.
There's lots of similarites between different culutres. This doesn't, of
course, mean that we can't use those traits as points of identification,
does it? However, you also seem to imply that the concept of a subject
peasantry isn't useful to hold in mind when discussing medival history.
There certainly was one, wasn't there?
> "The supremacy of a class of specialised warriors" is better, but also
> misleading. Call them knights if you want for they were the dominant
class,
> but this again leads you down into a cul-de-sac, as in the earlier period
> landless knights were a plenty.
I think you're bending the definition a bit here. Bloch doesn't say that all
specialised warriors were members of the higher class, only that the higher
class was one of specialised warriors. I think that this holds rather true.
> Finally, "Fragmentation of authority - leading inevitably to disorder"
again
> confuses, because it suggests that feudalism was a negative force, as
> opposed to a positive political force in which the monarchs themselves
> become 'Feudalised' and subsequently strengthened as a result.
I'll grant that this concept of fragmentation of authority is a dated one,
and Bloch does seem to impy that feudal ties were negative. Perhaps if we
delete that? All of the ideas that are summoned up for me when I hear
'feudal ties' are retained with that ommission.
> Feudalism to me is a word I find impossible to pin down with a
satisfactory
> description and meaning, therefore I find it best avoided, as do many
others
> on here.
Suppose we use it in the same way the medievals did? We say that
so-and-so was enfeoffed to one or another, or that land was granted in
perpetual feudality? Moving from there, could we not then use the adjective
'feudal'? I'll repeat this in a response to Brian Scott, but to say it
twice, can't feudal be used in a similar (NOT IDENTICAL) way as 'medieval'?
In other words, we can view all things medieval or all things
concievably definable as 'feudal' as a subset within an infinite set. To say
either summons up that subset, which is then further clarified through
explanation. E.g. we have hear a newsgroup soc.history.medieval. A similar
situation could be a newsgroup, soc.law.feudal.
I hope that that makes my point clear without stepping on anyone's toes.
Cheers,
John
John A Geck
Thanks for your response, Brian. More down below, of course:
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:1nx7w0qrhmjvy.1...@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:10:16 GMT, "John A Geck"
> <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
...
> Here's the quotation from Bloch again (with one typo fixed):
>
> A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service
> tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary, which was
> out of the question; the supremacy of a class of
> specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection
> which bind man to man and, within the warrior class,
> assume the distinctive form called vassalage;
> fragmentation of authority--leading inevitably to
> disorder; and, in the midst of all this, the survival
> of other forms of association, family and State, of
> which the latter, during the second feudal age, was
> to acquire renewed strength--such then seem to be
> the fundamental features of European feudalism.
>
> This looks more like a laundry list than a definition, and it's
> explicitly for *European* feudalism. Is he trying to define
> European feudalism within a broader notion of feudalism? If so,
> what is that notion? Is he simply trying to define a concept of
> European feudalism that may or may not be a special case of a
> wider phenomenon?
This certainly seems peripheral in some ways, but I can see your point.
Let's assume that he's talking about feudalism, specifically from medieval
Europe, becuase that's where I'm working from.
> If so, why? Why not just say 'Here's a list
> of characteristics that were for the most part common to the
> western European societies of the period xxxx-xxxx'?
Why not shorthand that by saying feudalism? I think that perhaps the -ism is
frightening (or distasteful) to people, so let's drop that; -isms are never
worth fighting for. Further, the point has already been raised that neither
does capitalism or communism have a single definable form.
Let's talk about the use of the adjective in such terms as 'feudal ties'.
When I hear that term, the gernal sense of the quote from Bloch above is
brought up for me (maybe minus that part about the destruction of central
authority and the spiral into disorder). When I read in texts that Miss
So-and-so, in an attempt to avoid losing possession of her allodial land
through marriage, donated them to her uncle the bishop, who immediately
enfoeffed her with them, I'd like to call that a 'feudal shell-game'.
There's loads of stuff dealing with that in many texts, and in many places,
there is no more specific definition supplied.
> (I could
> probably answer at least some of these questions by digging out
> Bloch, but at the moment I'm more interested in pointing out some
> of the reasons why the quotation is inadequate as a definition.
> Similarly, I ignore, at least for now, any reservations about how
> well defined the notion of vassalage actually is and how
> generally this constellation of characteristics can actually be
> found in medieval Europe.)
>
> Brian
See, I'd say precisely because notion of vassalage are confused in medival
Europe, it serves well to have a nice, big, sweeping term to encompass it
all.There's a number of issues raised with what you say for me: if vassalage
is ill-defined, should we throw that out also? There's lots of things that
are difficult to specify in our period. Throwing it out would be a terrible
shame, because medievals use the term often. Since they use foedum also, I
really wouldn't want to lose the ability to use this word. You use the term
medieval without clarification, but that too is a big, sweeping term with
little utility. Why not just say, ''Here's a list of characteristics that
were for the most part common to the western European societies of the
period xxxx-xxxx'?
Cheers,
John
Paul J Gans
>In article <CaCFb.146455$%TO.49178
>@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, john...@utoronto.ca says...
>> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things medieval,
>> I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism. I'll
>> provide some background. In my undergraduate years, my main mentor referred
>> to fuedalsim as the 'f-word'.
>>
>I came up with something similar when studying Chinese history. Marxist
>history stated that societies pass though a feudal stage. So as a result
>Chinese historians called periods of their history feudal.
>History is often a political weapon.
I can only agree with that if you remove the word
"often".
---- Paul J. Gans
erilar
but this time I have to, so scroll down...
In article <BC0D24F1.17153%crusader_p...@hotmail.com>, Michael W
Cook <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> in article IcIFb.148378$%TO....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
> John A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 22/12/03 8:10 pm:
>
> > "Michael W Cook" <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:BC0CEA67.170F4%crusader_p...@hotmail.com...
> >> in article
> >> CaCFb.146455$%TO.4...@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
> >> John A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 22/12/03 1:18 pm:
> >>
> >>> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things
> >>> medieval,
> >>> I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism.
> >>
> >> AHHHHHHHHH !!
> >>
> >> Half the Group has just left, John, with their fingers in their ears
> >> mumbling obscenities ending with:
> >>
> >> "Oh No.....Not bloody feudalism........AGAIN."
> >>
> >> Using such a word on here is like showing a crucifix to a vampire.
> >> People will either ignore you, or you'll get trampled in the stampede.
> >>
> >> This word, like the Battle that shouldn't be mentioned and the other
> > Battle
> >> that shouldn't be mentioned - should never be mentioned either.
> >>
> >> Nothing personal........promise.
> >>
> >> Just Google the word in an SHM group search and you'll see what I
> >> mean.
I know the feeling, but can't resist following the same old arguments
yet again 8-)
> >
> > No offense taken; nevertheless, I would like to think of this as a more
> > acute consideration of the topic. I've supplied a quote which resonated
> > well
> > with my impressions of the term. If anyone could simply explain why
> > it's
> > wrong, I'd be very pleased. I have Googled through SHM before, and it
> > seems
> > that the discussion degenerates into personal rivalry and name-calling.
> > I'd
> > rather that this simple quesiton is answered academically and politely.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John
>
>
> That's understandable, but I feel it's not such an easy question to
> answer.
>
> Firstly, not knowing what is his first feudal stage and what his second
> is
> immediately causes a problem. Once defined however, one can then break it
> down yet again, but nobody ever seems to be able to agree on a date for a
> beginning or indeed an ending to feudalism.
unlike "middle ages", which does refer to a particular period of
time, even if there is considerable disagreement about its "borders"
>
> Secondly, "A subject peasantry" is certainly not a unique feature and is
> not
> a good description to start with.
Oh, we could find these all over the place, although the conditions
of their subjection vary.
>
> "The supremacy of a class of specialised warriors" is better, but also
> misleading. Call them knights if you want for they were the dominant
> class,
> but this again leads you down into a cul-de-sac, as in the earlier period
> landless knights were a plenty.
Or you could throw in Japan's samurai warriors and THERE subject
peasantry to add to the obfuscation.
>
> Finally, "Fragmentation of authority - leading inevitably to disorder"
> again
> confuses, because it suggests that feudalism was a negative force, as
> opposed to a positive political force in which the monarchs themselves
> become 'Feudalised' and subsequently strengthened as a result.
I think I've just become further confused 8-)
>
> Feudalism to me is a word I find impossible to pin down with a
> satisfactory
> description and meaning, therefore I find it best avoided, as do many
> others
> on here.
I think I prefer to stick Sharon's description of actual use of the term
and avoid it otherwise.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as too many books. Bookshelves, on the other hand . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Paul J Gans
> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things medieval,
>I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism. I'll
>provide some background. In my undergraduate years, my main mentor referred
>to fuedalsim as the 'f-word'. He actively discouraged people from using the
>term when making comments, giving answers, without explaining what they
>meant by it.That said, as I moved from the survey courses into seminar work,
>he was much more willing to use the term (sometimes with 'air quotes') among
>a small group of articulate and intelligent people who specialise in the
>area.
> Now that I'm in graduate school, I do find the term used, and this
>coincides with the quesiton I have on the word, its connotation and its
>denotation. Of course, you don't seem to find the word used in any primary
>sources, so I'm willing to accept that it is indeed a later invention.
>However, you can find throughout the sources references to enfeoffment,
>feoffdom, 'becoming [so-and-so's] man'.
Oh yes. Fief and related terms occur all the time because
there really were fiefs. And benefices. And other awards
of land or the income from land.
> At the advice of said mentor, I spent my summer reading some of the
>classic hits of medieval history, one of these being Marc Bloch's _Feudal
>Society_, the views of which have most certainly been updated, challenged,
>and elaborated since his time.
Oh yes. One of those being his definition of feudalism.
>However, if we turn to Bloch's definition of feudalism, we find the
>following:
> 'A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (i.e. the
>fief) instead of a salary, which was out of the question; the supremacy of a
>class of specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind
>man to man and, within the warrior class, assume the distinctive form called
>vassalage; fragmentation of authority--leading inevitably to disorder; and,
>in the midst of all this, the survival of other forms of association, family
>and State, of which the latter, during the second feudal age, was to acquire
>renewed strength--such then seem to be the fundamental features of European
>feudalsim.'
>Leaving aside his remarks on a 'first' and 'second feudal age', which
>requires a reading of his text, this does indeed seem to be not only in
>accord with the primary sources which I read, but also allowing for 'other
>forms of association', though I would suffix Bloch's remark by adding that
>some other forms came into being at the same time.
>So, since there's clearly some people who are very well-informed on the
>subject, could anyone supply the main modern-day criticisms against Bloch's
>definition? I believe that you can't simply say 'the feudal system' and
>leave it at that, but so too can you not simply say 'medieval'. Why is it
>that both terms cannot be used in an introductory or prefatory fashion
>before moving on to a closer, wordier definition?
This is a tall order.
Bloch concentrated on feudalism as a sort of social order
in which roles were clearly defined in some sort of top
down order. That's not the feudalism envisioned by those
who treat it as a description of a method of land tenure.
I can't comment in more detail. But I can give you the
outline of the way things have gone.
The "standard" works on feudalism are, among others, Blochs,
which you have read, and F.L. Ganshof's "Feudalism" which
is one of the classics in the field. You will see if you
read Ganshof (it is a short book) that he and Bloch do not
agree.
The first hint of a reaction to the hoary use of the term
came from Peggy Brown's rather famous paper, "The Tyranny
of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe"
which appeared in _American Historical Review_ 79 (1974)
1063-88. It has been out there for a long time.
The next major salvo was the book by Susan Reynolds, _Fiefs
and Vassals_, published in 1994 and dedicated to Peggy
Brown.
Her chapter headings will give a clue as to where she is
going. They are "The Problem of Feudalism", "Vassalage
and the Norms of Medieval Social Relations", "Fiefs and
Medieval Property Relations", and so on. She pays attention
primarily to England and France with some discussion of
Italy and Germany.
Reynolds is not an easy read for layfolks (or, I suspect,
anyone else.) She is very heavy on references to the
original sources, that is, deeds and the like, pointing
out that what they *really* say is not quite what we
think they said.
A quicker summary in a delightful book that I can recommend
to anyone is Constance Brittain Bouchard's book _Strong of
Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry & Society in Medieval France_,
1998. She has a thorough discussion of the problem. For
example, on page 35 she writes: "If fief holding in the
High Middle Ages were all that was meant by 'feudalism,'
[her quotes -- PJG] the word might well be acceptable,
despite the universality that the -ism ending unfortunately
implies about what was actually a very narrow phenomenon."
And she goes on from there.
So you see that there is already a partial answer to your
question about Bloch. As long as he is using the word
in his book to mean something that he's carefully defined,
that's almost ok. The only remaining question then vis-a-vis
Bloch is how widespread was the system he describes? Does
it in fact describe any general trend or only some local
customs in a few places?
I can't answer that.
But you've stepped into the end part of a scholarly
battle that has taken place over most of the last decade.
As you know, usage of the old term dies hard, but it is
dying.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>John A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 22/12/03 1:18 pm:
>> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things medieval,
>> I'd love some clarification on the whole use of the term feudalism.
>AHHHHHHHHH !!
>Half the Group has just left, John, with their fingers in their ears
>mumbling obscenities ending with:
>"Oh No.....Not bloody feudalism........AGAIN."
>Using such a word on here is like showing a crucifix to a vampire.
>People will either ignore you, or you'll get trampled in the stampede.
>This word, like the Battle that shouldn't be mentioned and the other Battle
>that shouldn't be mentioned - should never be mentioned either.
>Nothing personal........promise.
>Just Google the word in an SHM group search and you'll see what I mean.
Disagree. It may be dry, but it is on topic. With
everyone going ga ga over Marvel the Clown why should
we not indulge ourselves.
We are going to be getting into 8th century armies soon
too.
:-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
[...]
> Suppose we use it in the same way the medievals did? We say that
>so-and-so was enfeoffed to one or another, or that land was granted in
>perpetual feudality? Moving from there, could we not then use the adjective
>'feudal'? I'll repeat this in a response to Brian Scott, but to say it
>twice, can't feudal be used in a similar (NOT IDENTICAL) way as 'medieval'?
> In other words, we can view all things medieval or all things
>concievably definable as 'feudal' as a subset within an infinite set. To say
>either summons up that subset, which is then further clarified through
>explanation. E.g. we have hear a newsgroup soc.history.medieval. A similar
>situation could be a newsgroup, soc.law.feudal.
>I hope that that makes my point clear without stepping on anyone's toes.
You certainly are not stepping on anyone's toes. An author
(or a person speaking) can use whatever terms they please.
If they are not common terms or if they are ambiguous terms,
then it pays to define them.
Once defined they are useful for that discussion.
The problem with -ism words is that they imply some sort
of universality. We can speak of spiritualism in many
parts of the world and (I hope) understand that there are
shared aspects of spirituality that are being discussed.
But some -ism words are not like that. A good example is
socialism, which these days has so many different meanings
in so many different places that saying that there is socialism
in the world conveys almost no information.
Feudalism is one of the worst in this regard. No two historians
seem to use it in the same way. And there seems to be little
or no commonality to what they individually define as feudalism.
In my personal opinion, in the early days of study of the
medieval period folks looked for universals. And, not having
too much knowlege, they found many. Of course it later
turned out that they had made many mistakes and that the
universals were not there.
Take knighthood for example. Knighthood is an invention
of the last half of the medieval period. Charlemange, for
example, had no knights. But the people who created the
"Song of Roland" many centuries later did not know that.
So they gave him knights such as Roland.
Further, in some areas knights were noblemen. In other
areas knights were simple free men who fought while
mounted on a horse. And in yet other areas knights were
basically serfs who fought mounted on a horse.
Where is the commonality there?
In the later Middle Ages, when knights had generally but
not universally climbed into the class of the lower nobility
(unless they had a greater claim in other ways) and when
the ranks had closed so that you could not be noble unless
both your parents and in some cases your grandparents
were nobles, it was hard for them to believe that William
the Conqueror had no knights among his nobles.
Today in the teaching of medieval history, the emphasis
is more on the differences among groups and nations.
This is because the similarities have been overplayed,
as you can see on this newsgroup, and time must be spent
knocking down some of those older notions.
They die hard.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Here's one way to do it. Remove the word "feudal". Thus
we can talk about 'ties' in the Middle Ages and we can
talk about the property 'shell-game'. Doesn't that work?
After all, every time and every society has had ties among
its members and every one has had various shell games.
What purpose does the word "feudal" serve in what you wrote.
See?
>> (I could
>> probably answer at least some of these questions by digging out
>> Bloch, but at the moment I'm more interested in pointing out some
>> of the reasons why the quotation is inadequate as a definition.
>> Similarly, I ignore, at least for now, any reservations about how
>> well defined the notion of vassalage actually is and how
>> generally this constellation of characteristics can actually be
>> found in medieval Europe.)
>>
>> Brian
>See, I'd say precisely because notion of vassalage are confused in medival
>Europe, it serves well to have a nice, big, sweeping term to encompass it
>all.There's a number of issues raised with what you say for me: if vassalage
>is ill-defined, should we throw that out also?
Perhaps, but not yet. There is a universal sense that vassalage
implies a greater-lesser relationship between two men. This does
not specify the relationship, it mearly states that one exists.
So even though there are some exceptions, I'd think the term
has plenty of meaning.
>There's lots of things that
>are difficult to specify in our period. Throwing it out would be a terrible
>shame, because medievals use the term often. Since they use foedum also, I
>really wouldn't want to lose the ability to use this word. You use the term
>medieval without clarification, but that too is a big, sweeping term with
>little utility. Why not just say, ''Here's a list of characteristics that
>were for the most part common to the western European societies of the
>period xxxx-xxxx'?
I don't think that any one is for throwing out all sorts of
terms just because they are fuzzy around the edges.
Words are about the conveyance of meaning. If they convey
meaning, even if it is only for that conversation, then the
word is useful. But if it does not convey any meaning, like
"feudalism", then why waste time on it.
By now you've likely seen my longish reply to an earlier post
of yours. When Peggy Brown wrote about the tyranny of a construct,
meaning "medievalism", she was talking about the tendency on
the part of authors to FORCE their evidence to fit a "feudalism"
model -- even when it did not fit. They did this because
"everyone knew" that the medieval system was "feudalism" and
so the evidence must show it.
See the problem? The evidence should take us where it takes
us and not beyond.
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
<john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you assuming that he's
defining a general concept of feudalism, one not necessarily
European in nature, or not?
>> If so, why? Why not just say 'Here's a list of
>> characteristics that were for the most part common to the
>> western European societies of the period xxxx-xxxx'?
> Why not shorthand that by saying feudalism?
What's the point? If by feudalism he means a specific
constellation of common characteristics of a specific set of
societies, the concept is too particular to be worth defining.
Identifying the common characteristics of societies more or less
co-located in space and time makes sense; giving a name to this
set of characteristics does not, unless the set has descriptive
value in some other context as well.
> I think that perhaps the -ism is frightening (or distasteful)
> to people, so let's drop that; -isms are never worth fighting
> for. [...]
??? I couldn't care less about the *form* of the word.
> Let's talk about the use of the adjective in such terms as
> 'feudal ties'. When I hear that term, the gernal sense of the
> quote from Bloch above is brought up for me (maybe minus that
> part about the destruction of central authority and the spiral
> into disorder).
What sort of ties would those be? Those between ruler and
subject? Patron and client? Landlord and tenant? Employer and
employed? Commander and soldier? Local bully and victim? Some
combination thereof? Even with the Bloch quotation in front of
me I can only guess at just what you have in mind. Indeed, I
can't be sure that you have anything specific in mind: 'feudal
ties' is an expression that can give the illusion of meaning not
just to the reader but also to the writer.
> When I read in texts that Miss So-and-so, in an attempt to
> avoid losing possession of her allodial land through marriage,
> donated them to her uncle the bishop, who immediately
> enfoeffed her with them, I'd like to call that a 'feudal
> shell-game'. There's loads of stuff dealing with that in many
> texts, and in many places, there is no more specific
> definition supplied.
>> (I could probably answer at least some of these questions by
>> digging out Bloch, but at the moment I'm more interested in
>> pointing out some of the reasons why the quotation is
>> inadequate as a definition. Similarly, I ignore, at least for
>> now, any reservations about how well defined the notion of
>> vassalage actually is and how generally this constellation of
>> characteristics can actually be found in medieval Europe.)
> See, I'd say precisely because notion of vassalage are confused
> in medival Europe, it serves well to have a nice, big,
> sweeping term to encompass it all.
You have it: 'medieval'. It's no accident, I think, that
'feudal' and 'medieval' are often synonymous in popular usage.
> There's a number of issues raised with what you say for me: if
> vassalage is ill-defined, should we throw that out also?
Some would do just that: 'Otherwise, having concluded that
vassalage is too vacuous a concept to be useful, I shall
concentrate my attention primarily on fiefs, which raise much
more substantial issues.' This is the final sentence of Chapter
2 of Susan Reynolds' _Fiefs and Vassals_; I shan't try to sum up
here the 30 pages of argumentation in the chapter!
> There's lots of things that are difficult to specify in our
> period. Throwing it out would be a terrible shame, because
> medievals use the term often.
Not so often as all that. Reynolds again, from section 2.2:
References to _vassi_ or _vasalli_ are not nearly
so common in the sources as one might suppose
from reading modern works on medieval history.
They occur frequently in Carolingian documents
and were exported by Frankish conquerors to Italy
and Germany, while contemporary contacts and
influences produced a few occurrences in England.
From the tenth century on, however, while both
Latin words continued to be used in Italy, they
gradually went out of use in France and Germany,
and did not return until they were brought back
from Italy by lawyers trained in the academic law
of fiefs. From the thirteenth century the occurrence
of forms of 'vassal' in deeds, governmental documents,
or legal texts in both countries seems to indicate the
spread of the new academic law. In England, where
legal education was different, the word remained rare
throughout the middle ages. Meanwhile, to judge
from literary texts, it passed into the vernacular in
France without any necessary connotation of a
specific relation to either lord or land. In the Song
of Roland it generally seems to mean something like
'man of valour' and the same kind of sense looks
likely in other texts.
> Since they use foedum also, I really wouldn't want to lose the
> ability to use this word.
Which? <Feodum> 'fief'? Or 'feudal'? It's specifically the
latter to which I'm objecting, not the former. 'Fief' is needed
as a translation of <feodum>, but it still has to be used with
care, as the medieval term meant a number of different things.
> You use the term medieval without clarification, but that too
> is a big, sweeping term with little utility.
Nonsense. It is simply the name of a historical period, and
though it's a little fuzzy around both the geographical and
chronological edges, it's still pretty widely and consistently
understood. See Sharon Krossa's post on this in response to
Renia.
> Why not just say, ''Here's a list of characteristics that were
> for the most part common to the western European societies of
> the period xxxx-xxxx'?
Because 'medieval' refers to a specific period of European
history, not to a set of societal characteristics. (Dick Wisan
has pointed out that periodizations aren't arbitrary, but I
suggest that in this case the boundaries are chosen partly for
reasons external to the period: at one end the collapse of the
Roman empire is hard to ignore, and the other is at least roughly
determined by the appearance of societies recognizably similar to
those in which the coiners of the term lived.)
Brian
Jim Beck
Bernardz
> So you see that there is already a partial answer to your
> question about Bloch. As long as he is using the word
> in his book to mean something that he's carefully defined,
> that's almost ok. The only remaining question then vis-a-vis
> Bloch is how widespread was the system he describes? Does
> it in fact describe any general trend or only some local
> customs in a few places?
>
> I can't answer that.
>
In Russian legal history, there was a major debate whether the lords
owned the peasants and the peasants owned the land. Or whether the lords
owned the land and the peasants worked on the land for the lord.
Was there any such dispute in medieval Western Europe?
--
It is really stressful to play properly blackjack when you have 16 and
the dealer has 10.
22nd saying of Bernard
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Here's the quotation from Bloch again (with one typo fixed):
>
> A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service
> tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary
Well for a start the Kingdom of Jerusalem had more money than land
and used money fiefs. Retinues were paid, Burne quotes the pay scales
for that of the Black Prince from knights banneret down. A class of
unfree knights existed in Germany.
The Ottomans had a subject peasantry and a class of specialised
warriors. So for that matter did the Mongols.
You could probably drive a coach and horses through Bloch's
definition.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
David C. Pugh
news:1sdjodf8iuc65$.1ioipqr7x7xfn.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:43 GMT, "John A Geck"
> <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
>
Piggybacking (can't find John's original) and snipping
> > When I read in texts that Miss So-and-so, in an attempt to
> > avoid losing possession of her allodial land through marriage,
> > donated them to her uncle the bishop, who immediately
> > enfoeffed her with them, I'd like to call that a 'feudal
> > shell-game'. There's loads of stuff dealing with that in many
> > texts, and in many places, there is no more specific
> > definition supplied.
>
It's definitely a shell game, but I'm not sure if the adjective achieves
anything other than obscuring the common features of shell games everywhere.
I'm confident a modern corporate or prenup lawyer would have no difficulty
relating to your example.
In correspondence with Michael Kuettner earlier, before his e-mail
account became inoperable, I pointed out that a major part of 'feudal'
goings-on was actually what we now call 'securitisation' -- the exchange of
an asset for the revenue therefrom. We still do enfeoffment in the classic
'feudal' sense of making over state property to chums of the ruler, in
return for political allegiance and sometimes a peppercorn rent, except that
now we call it 'privatisation'. And sub-enfeoffment is 'outsourcing'. :-)
I yearn for a common language in which to describe the financial,
economic and political shell-games of 2003 and 1203.
--
David C. Pugh
"From ghouls and ghosties and long-leggety beasties, and things that go bump
on the Net; Good Lord, deliver us."
To mail me, replace biblical character with his dad.
John A Geck
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:43 GMT, "John A Geck"
> <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
>
> > Thanks for your response, Brian. More down below, of course:
> What's the point? If by feudalism he means a specific
> constellation of common characteristics of a specific set of
> societies, the concept is too particular to be worth defining.
> Identifying the common characteristics of societies more or less
> co-located in space and time makes sense; giving a name to this
> set of characteristics does not, unless the set has descriptive
> value in some other context as well.
Not to dwell too much on this, but I would say that this is almost precisely
how the term 'medieval' works. I know that when most medievalists use the
term as an adjective, it's not in such a way that you could just replace it
with '500's to 1500's...' (i.e. 'Medieval Britain -> 500's to 1500's
Britain'). I know that the seeming utility of this adjective is that it can
be applied to other civilisations (e.g. Medieval Japan, Medieval China); the
issue there is that the dates don't corresspond, and once again, you are
obliged to guess (or have a good author) who will explain what s/he mean by
it. My interest in the use of the term feudal, I'll touch on below.
> > I think that perhaps the -ism is frightening (or distasteful)
> > to people, so let's drop that; -isms are never worth fighting
> > for. [...]
>
> ??? I couldn't care less about the *form* of the word.
Thank you for letting me know; I wasn't certain if you were against using
the term simply as a universal or against anything based on 'foedum', with
the exception of fief.
> > Let's talk about the use of the adjective in such terms as
> > 'feudal ties'. When I hear that term, the gernal sense of the
> > quote from Bloch above is brought up for me (maybe minus that
> > part about the destruction of central authority and the spiral
> > into disorder).
>
> What sort of ties would those be? Those between ruler and
> subject? Patron and client? Landlord and tenant? Employer and
> employed? Commander and soldier? Local bully and victim? Some
> combination thereof? Even with the Bloch quotation in front of
> me I can only guess at just what you have in mind. Indeed, I
> can't be sure that you have anything specific in mind: 'feudal
> ties' is an expression that can give the illusion of meaning not
> just to the reader but also to the writer.
With the exception of local bully and victim, except when being glib, I
think that the term could apply to all of these. it's interesting, you see,
because it is almost like the term feudal accomplished precisely what it
ought to here. It clarified the concept of ties down to the list you
provided above. Even if you thought up more, it would still be less than the
total number of ties possible. Likewise, to talk about Medieval Europe takes
the timeline from Beginning of Europe-->Present-Day and reduces it to a
thousand-year period. Still not too terribly useful, a term which requires
immediate explanation and further description, but once that's done, it
serves as a shorthand between speaker and listener. E.g. If I tell you that
I'm doing grad work in Medieval Studies, I've practically told you nothing.
I'd resent it, however, if you you said that I should simply say that I
study Studies. However, since we both enjoy things medieval, you would
likely ask me to specify precisely what I study; and, as it seems when I
talk with many of my classmates, it would turn out that even though we're
both medievalists, we don't study the same things, you knowing things I
don't, I knowing things you don't.
> > See, I'd say precisely because notion of vassalage are confused
> > in medival Europe, it serves well to have a nice, big,
> > sweeping term to encompass it all.
>
> You have it: 'medieval'. It's no accident, I think, that
> 'feudal' and 'medieval' are often synonymous in popular usage.
I think this is perhaps where the confusion lies: in the example that I gave
above (a bit of a throwaway) I said 'a feudal shell-game.' I had hoped that
in that context it would be clear that I wasn't using it synonomously to
'medieval'. Rather, I was using it as an adjective that describes a
particular form of interaction between ruler and subject, patron and client,
or landlord and tenant.
> > There's a number of issues raised with what you say for me: if
> > vassalage is ill-defined, should we throw that out also?
>
> Some would do just that: 'Otherwise, having concluded that
> vassalage is too vacuous a concept to be useful, I shall
> concentrate my attention primarily on fiefs, which raise much
> more substantial issues.' This is the final sentence of Chapter
> 2 of Susan Reynolds' _Fiefs and Vassals_; I shan't try to sum up
> here the 30 pages of argumentation in the chapter!
I'm a big fan of Reynold's work. I'm not saying that the term 'feudal' had
been excessively overused- however, since ties that are not based soely on
blood or other things are important in mnay discussions of things medieval,
I think it would be a shame to toss out that one, plus vassalage. It is
possible that Reynold's was taking the hardline approach she took because
she was leading a backlash against the usage.
You see, this seems to be a bit of a sign that Reynold's was working with a
very strong agenda. Paraphrasing, she says, 'The term vassi or vasalli are
not nearly as common as one might think, having had secondary-sources
corrupt your opinion [I thought I'd bring her stance more to the forefront,
in a wan attempt at humour]. They occur only frequently in Carolingean
sources and in Frankish sources. They also only occur in Italy after the
tenth century. Except for in many legal documents from the thirteenth
century onward.' It's a good quote, but still, I said that they use the term
'often'. Reynold's quote doesn't deny that.
> > Since they use foedum also, I really wouldn't want to lose the
> > ability to use this word.
>
> Which? <Feodum> 'fief'? Or 'feudal'? It's specifically the
> latter to which I'm objecting, not the former. 'Fief' is needed
> as a translation of <feodum>, but it still has to be used with
> care, as the medieval term meant a number of different things.
There's certain cases where rendering 'foedum' as a tangible noun is
difficult. I have seen cases (and will grudgingly and slowly dig them out)
where the meaning seems to be more that something was granted in perpetual
fiefdum. Of course, as you say, there too the term must be used with care,
but I wouldn't say it requires any more care than similar use of the term
'fief'.
> > You use the term medieval without clarification, but that too
> > is a big, sweeping term with little utility.
>
> Nonsense. It is simply the name of a historical period, and
> though it's a little fuzzy around both the geographical and
> chronological edges, it's still pretty widely and consistently
> understood. See Sharon Krossa's post on this in response to
> Renia.
I touched on this above, and I do hope I haven't upset you.
> > Why not just say, ''Here's a list of characteristics that were
> > for the most part common to the western European societies of
> > the period xxxx-xxxx'?
>
> Because 'medieval' refers to a specific period of European
> history, not to a set of societal characteristics. (Dick Wisan
> has pointed out that periodizations aren't arbitrary, but I
> suggest that in this case the boundaries are chosen partly for
> reasons external to the period: at one end the collapse of the
> Roman empire is hard to ignore, and the other is at least roughly
> determined by the appearance of societies recognizably similar to
> those in which the coiners of the term lived.)
>
> Brian
Thanks for your comments.
Cheers,
John
John A Geck
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com...<<snip>>
> > Now that I'm in graduate school, I do find the term used, and this
> >coincides with the quesiton I have on the word, its connotation and its
> >denotation. Of course, you don't seem to find the word used in any
primary
> >sources, so I'm willing to accept that it is indeed a later invention.
> >However, you can find throughout the sources references to enfeoffment,
> >feoffdom, 'becoming [so-and-so's] man'.
>
> Oh yes. Fief and related terms occur all the time because
> there really were fiefs. And benefices. And other awards
> of land or the income from land.
I'd like to say that fiefs and benefices are things that could be described
using the term 'feudal'. We could say 'fiefal' if that makes people more
comfortable. :)
I touched on this more in Brian Scott's response to my response to his
repsonse, but mainly, I think that if the term is clarified within a
particular work, it makes for a useful shorthand when using it later on in
that work. I think you touch on that later though.
<<snip>>
> Bloch concentrated on feudalism as a sort of social order
> in which roles were clearly defined in some sort of top
> down order. That's not the feudalism envisioned by those
> who treat it as a description of a method of land tenure.
Which is likely why there's such a strong backlash against _any_ use of the
term. High-school history teachers drawing big trangles on the board,
writing 'king' at the top, and 'peasants' at the bottom. However, I don't
think that even Bloch would agree with that...
> I can't comment in more detail. But I can give you the
> outline of the way things have gone.
>
> The "standard" works on feudalism are, among others, Blochs,
> which you have read, and F.L. Ganshof's "Feudalism" which
> is one of the classics in the field. You will see if you
> read Ganshof (it is a short book) that he and Bloch do not
> agree.
No, I am aware of that.
> The first hint of a reaction to the hoary use of the term
> came from Peggy Brown's rather famous paper, "The Tyranny
> of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe"
> which appeared in _American Historical Review_ 79 (1974)
> 1063-88. It has been out there for a long time.
>
> The next major salvo was the book by Susan Reynolds, _Fiefs
> and Vassals_, published in 1994 and dedicated to Peggy
> Brown.
As much as I like Reynold's book, it is very much agenda-driven. This isn't
necessarily a bad thing, but I do rather prefer what you append below from
Bouchard's book: 'If fief holding in the High Middle Ages were all that was
meant by "feudalism," the word might well be acceptable, despite the
universality that the -ism ending unfortunately implies about what was
actually a very narrow phenomenon.'
I will say, from what I've read through everyone's kind responses, that the
term 'feudalism' is best avoided; indeed, this was sort of the thought I had
coming in. Nevertheless, I do still like the term 'feudal', used, as I've
already said, as a reference shorthand when working within a text or
article.
> So you see that there is already a partial answer to your
> question about Bloch. As long as he is using the word
> in his book to mean something that he's carefully defined,
> that's almost ok. The only remaining question then vis-a-vis
> Bloch is how widespread was the system he describes? Does
> it in fact describe any general trend or only some local
> customs in a few places?
>
> I can't answer that.
>
> But you've stepped into the end part of a scholarly
> battle that has taken place over most of the last decade.
> As you know, usage of the old term dies hard, but it is
> dying.
Of course, it's still pretty strongly defended. Reynolds isn;t the only one
who's written on the subject recently.
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Thank you for your comments; I very much appreciate them.
Cheers,
John
John A Geck
news:bs96ur$483$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <1nx7w0qrhmjvy.1...@40tude.net>,
> b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
>
> > Here's the quotation from Bloch again (with one typo fixed):
> >
> > A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service
> > tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary
>
> Well for a start the Kingdom of Jerusalem had more money than land
> and used money fiefs. Retinues were paid, Burne quotes the pay scales
> for that of the Black Prince from knights banneret down. A class of
> unfree knights existed in Germany.
>
> The Ottomans had a subject peasantry and a class of specialised
> warriors. So for that matter did the Mongols.
>
> You could probably drive a coach and horses through Bloch's
> definition.
>
> Ken Young
Thank you for your comments. I've addressed in other responses that I didn't
think that Bloch was identifying things that were unique to feudalism,
simply things which were present in it.
The more I go on, the more I've realised that I don't think of Bloch's quote
as a definition. Rather, it was more that when he talks about the
'fundamental features' of European feudalism, I concentrated more on the
last part of his quote; that is, the part dealing with a particular form of
interpersonal ties. As far as that goes, I'd say that although the adjective
'feudal' might be usable very generally, it would require an explanation of
what is meant by it. From that point forward, it could be used as a
shorthand of sorts.
Cheers,
John
William Black
> "The supremacy of a class of specialised warriors" is better, but also
> misleading. Call them knights if you want for they were the dominant
class,
> but this again leads you down into a cul-de-sac, as in the earlier period
> landless knights were a plenty.
And the idea of a 'warrior aristocracy' both pre and post dates the idea of
the fief as well.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
William Black
"Bernardz" <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5c957c3494ff81b...@news.teranews.com...
> In Russian legal history, there was a major debate whether the lords
> owned the peasants and the peasants owned the land. Or whether the lords
> owned the land and the peasants worked on the land for the lord.
>
> Was there any such dispute in medieval Western Europe?
Probably.
However you're talking about a period of a thousand years and the whole
concept of 'ownership' changed several times.
The basis in England was that the king owned everything through right of
conquest, but land was usually given in perpetuity, except when it wasn't
(if you see what I mean) and so couldn't be taken back.
However as time passed this idea changed and land was freely sold to a class
that claimed it didn't inherit certain rights and duties from the land as
these were inherent in people and not property.
It's all horribly complicated, as any study of property rights over a
period of nearly a 1000 years is going to be.
Paul J Gans
>Good post.
To whom is this addressed?
Please include a few lines of context. Postings do NOT
arrive in the same order at different places.
----- Paul J. Gans, who hopes he did not miss
a good post.
Paul J Gans
>In article <bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
>> So you see that there is already a partial answer to your
>> question about Bloch. As long as he is using the word
>> in his book to mean something that he's carefully defined,
>> that's almost ok. The only remaining question then vis-a-vis
>> Bloch is how widespread was the system he describes? Does
>> it in fact describe any general trend or only some local
>> customs in a few places?
>>
>> I can't answer that.
>>
>In Russian legal history, there was a major debate whether the lords
>owned the peasants and the peasants owned the land. Or whether the lords
>owned the land and the peasants worked on the land for the lord.
>Was there any such dispute in medieval Western Europe?
>
As far as I know, no. The lords owned the land but did not
own the peasants. The peasants had what we might call
unbreakable lifetime contracts to perform certain services
in return for permission to use some of the lord's land.
The details varied. In most places the peasant could buy
his way out of the contract. And the details of what the
services were varied greatly. And some of the "contract
farmers" were in fact free men whose contracts were very
different. For one thing they were more mutual.
And yes, I've oversimplified this so much that someone
is bound to complain. 'Tis the nature of the beast,
for out of the complaints will come further enlightenment.
:-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J
At the risk of the collective arrows, can I offer this up.
This is a quote from a book that I have always quite liked,
Rick Fields, 'The Code of the Warrior' (New York, 1991)
'Many of these mounted warriors were nobles supported by peasants, who
worked their lands. But others were retainers, who exchanged their
military skill and equipment for support at the lord's manor, or for
lands their lord granted them. The warrior pledged his fealty his
faithful service to his lord, kneeling before him with folded hands; his
lord, in turn, promised to 'bear him succor', sealing the bargain with a
kiss as proof of friendship. The result was feudalism, a system in
which most power was held in a decentralized, though intricately
interrelated way by local noble strongmen: barons, dukes, counts and
knights.' p 138
Now, I know this is all rather simple. But I would be curious as to
what the thoughts are on just making this a simple assumption?
I still don't have a strong opinion on this one, so I would like to
offer it up.......
Paul J Gans
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i melding
>news:1sdjodf8iuc65$.1ioipqr7x7xfn.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:43 GMT, "John A Geck"
>> <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
>>
> Piggybacking (can't find John's original) and snipping
Yah. The net seems to be in decay mode. I have to read
some newsgroups from the NYU news server because many postings
don't make it to panix. And vice versa.
>> > When I read in texts that Miss So-and-so, in an attempt to
>> > avoid losing possession of her allodial land through marriage,
>> > donated them to her uncle the bishop, who immediately
>> > enfoeffed her with them, I'd like to call that a 'feudal
>> > shell-game'. There's loads of stuff dealing with that in many
>> > texts, and in many places, there is no more specific
>> > definition supplied.
>>
> It's definitely a shell game, but I'm not sure if the adjective achieves
>anything other than obscuring the common features of shell games everywhere.
>I'm confident a modern corporate or prenup lawyer would have no difficulty
>relating to your example.
Exactly. The terms have changed somewhat, but not too much.
For example, while William I in England claimed that all the
land was his, arbitrary siezures of his barons land did not
happen and would not happen because of the resistance all would
show to having "their" land taken.
So one did it by bringing charges of "treason". Of course many
times the land was then restored to heirs.
Today in the US (and I suspect in the UK) we have "eminent domain",
a process by which the government seizes your land in return for
a payment often far below market value. And no, it is not returned
to your heirs. ;-)
That's feudalism for you!
> In correspondence with Michael Kuettner earlier, before his e-mail
>account became inoperable, I pointed out that a major part of 'feudal'
>goings-on was actually what we now call 'securitisation' -- the exchange of
>an asset for the revenue therefrom. We still do enfeoffment in the classic
>'feudal' sense of making over state property to chums of the ruler, in
>return for political allegiance and sometimes a peppercorn rent, except that
>now we call it 'privatisation'. And sub-enfeoffment is 'outsourcing'. :-)
Yup.
> I yearn for a common language in which to describe the financial,
>economic and political shell-games of 2003 and 1203.
I doubt you'll get it. We've learned to obfuscate by
getting rid of the old terms and using new ones to make
it seem as though something really bright and modern
is going to improve your life.
When we talk of "party loyalty" what we mean is vassalage.
You've put your hands between the party leader's hands because
you expect rewards but now you'd better stay in line. In the
US it is taking the form of "if you are against us, you are a
pro-Saddam democrat liberal pinko socialist commie traitor and
you are lucky we haven't arrested you."
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
><<snip>>
>> > Now that I'm in graduate school, I do find the term used, and this
>> >coincides with the quesiton I have on the word, its connotation and its
>> >denotation. Of course, you don't seem to find the word used in any
>primary
>> >sources, so I'm willing to accept that it is indeed a later invention.
>> >However, you can find throughout the sources references to enfeoffment,
>> >feoffdom, 'becoming [so-and-so's] man'.
>>
>> Oh yes. Fief and related terms occur all the time because
>> there really were fiefs. And benefices. And other awards
>> of land or the income from land.
>I'd like to say that fiefs and benefices are things that could be described
>using the term 'feudal'. We could say 'fiefal' if that makes people more
>comfortable. :)
Be very careful. Benefices were, I believe, still awarded
in England in relatively recent times. They were known as
"livings". For all I know they are still around. I'd not
call them "feudal" at all.
And we have pensions. These are a continuation of a medieval
form of recompense too.
But most to the point, why not just call fiefs and benefices
fiefs and benefices. Why stick an adjective in front of them
at all?
>I touched on this more in Brian Scott's response to my response to his
>repsonse, but mainly, I think that if the term is clarified within a
>particular work, it makes for a useful shorthand when using it later on in
>that work. I think you touch on that later though.
I agree.
><<snip>>
>> Bloch concentrated on feudalism as a sort of social order
>> in which roles were clearly defined in some sort of top
>> down order. That's not the feudalism envisioned by those
>> who treat it as a description of a method of land tenure.
>Which is likely why there's such a strong backlash against _any_ use of the
>term. High-school history teachers drawing big trangles on the board,
>writing 'king' at the top, and 'peasants' at the bottom. However, I don't
>think that even Bloch would agree with that...
Exactly. Nor would he agree with the strict property
oriented usage of the term.
It is exactly this sort of thing that makes the term so
upsetting. If one says it to an audience one creates
dozens of *different* impressions.
>> I can't comment in more detail. But I can give you the
>> outline of the way things have gone.
>>
>> The "standard" works on feudalism are, among others, Blochs,
>> which you have read, and F.L. Ganshof's "Feudalism" which
>> is one of the classics in the field. You will see if you
>> read Ganshof (it is a short book) that he and Bloch do not
>> agree.
>No, I am aware of that.
And yet Ganshof had read Bloch.
>> The first hint of a reaction to the hoary use of the term
>> came from Peggy Brown's rather famous paper, "The Tyranny
>> of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe"
>> which appeared in _American Historical Review_ 79 (1974)
>> 1063-88. It has been out there for a long time.
>>
>> The next major salvo was the book by Susan Reynolds, _Fiefs
>> and Vassals_, published in 1994 and dedicated to Peggy
>> Brown.
>As much as I like Reynold's book, it is very much agenda-driven.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. (I did read your response
to Brian). Surely she had an agenda: to show that our understanding
and usage of some terms needs to be revamped. Is that bad?
Another and less controversial example is the Brunner thesis
that it was the stirrup that made heavy cavalry using lances
possible and it was the stirrup that created feudalism.
Lynn White made the theory popular and for a long while many
really believed it. Eventually some folks, like Reynolds,
pointed out that there were problems in the idea. Today
it is dead -- so dead that you may not even know about it
since I don't think anyone teaches it any more.
The story is briefly told at:
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/strpcont.html
a slightly differing view is at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html
>This isn't
>necessarily a bad thing, but I do rather prefer what you append below from
>Bouchard's book: 'If fief holding in the High Middle Ages were all that was
>meant by "feudalism," the word might well be acceptable, despite the
>universality that the -ism ending unfortunately implies about what was
>actually a very narrow phenomenon.'
I will give you more Bouchard tonight.
>I will say, from what I've read through everyone's kind responses, that the
>term 'feudalism' is best avoided; indeed, this was sort of the thought I had
>coming in. Nevertheless, I do still like the term 'feudal', used, as I've
>already said, as a reference shorthand when working within a text or
>article.
I have no real problem with that.
>> So you see that there is already a partial answer to your
>> question about Bloch. As long as he is using the word
>> in his book to mean something that he's carefully defined,
>> that's almost ok. The only remaining question then vis-a-vis
>> Bloch is how widespread was the system he describes? Does
>> it in fact describe any general trend or only some local
>> customs in a few places?
>>
>> I can't answer that.
>>
>> But you've stepped into the end part of a scholarly
>> battle that has taken place over most of the last decade.
>> As you know, usage of the old term dies hard, but it is
>> dying.
>Of course, it's still pretty strongly defended. Reynolds isn;t the only one
>who's written on the subject recently.
Well... nobody has been able to point to a more or less
universal understanding of what the term should mean. Most
of what I've read takes the point of view that "feudalism"
was a perfectly good term that was ruined by folks attaching
other meanings to it.
That's a good if somewhat useless view, in my opinon. And
it is, I think, made worse in that nobody can decide what
that ur-meaning of the word "feudalism" was. As you've said,
Bloch did not agree with Ganshof back when the term was in
fashion.
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>Thank you for your comments; I very much appreciate them.
Thank you. It is a good discussion.
---- Paul J. Gans
John A Geck
<<Very large snip>>
> >I'd like to say that fiefs and benefices are things that could be
described
> >using the term 'feudal'. We could say 'fiefal' if that makes people more
> >comfortable. :)
>
> Be very careful. Benefices were, I believe, still awarded
> in England in relatively recent times. They were known as
> "livings". For all I know they are still around. I'd not
> call them "feudal" at all.
If that's the case, then I would certainly agree. Do recent benfices oblige
one to loyalty (or some other powerful bonding emotion)? The whole process
of homage seems to carry that with it.
> And we have pensions. These are a continuation of a medieval
> form of recompense too.
>
> But most to the point, why not just call fiefs and benefices
> fiefs and benefices. Why stick an adjective in front of them
> at all?
It wasn't as much I thought we should say things like 'feudal benefices',
etc. But I think that we come into near-complete accord a bit further down.
> >I touched on this more in Brian Scott's response to my response to his
> >repsonse, but mainly, I think that if the term is clarified within a
> >particular work, it makes for a useful shorthand when using it later on
in
> >that work. I think you touch on that later though.
>
> I agree.
There it is! Unless, of course, you were agreeing that you touch on it
later...
<<snip>>
> It is exactly this sort of thing that makes the term so
> upsetting. If one says it to an audience one creates
> dozens of *different* impressions.
So useful only in the way I described above, that is, following a
definition...limited application.
> >As much as I like Reynold's book, it is very much agenda-driven.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. (I did read your response
> to Brian). Surely she had an agenda: to show that our understanding
> and usage of some terms needs to be revamped. Is that bad?
I may have downplayed by saying agenda-driven. What I was meaning to imply
is that although she claims that she is allowing the texts to speak to her
with no preconceptions, I think rather she went in deliberately avoiding
seeing anything fitting the 'feudal system' of hoary historians. While I
wouldn't say that this is 'bad', I would say that it requires a careful
reading of her text in the same way that Bloch and Ganshof must be read
carefully.
> I will give you more Bouchard tonight.
So much easier than reading it myself, thanks. I'm supposed to be writing a
term paper on the Templars, which is why I've been so vocal here of late.
Excellent distraction...
> >I will say, from what I've read through everyone's kind responses, that
the
> >term 'feudalism' is best avoided; indeed, this was sort of the thought I
had
> >coming in. Nevertheless, I do still like the term 'feudal', used, as I've
> >already said, as a reference shorthand when working within a text or
> >article.
>
> I have no real problem with that.
Great! See, I know that I could call that situation I referenced a 'property
shell-game', but I think that throwing in 'feudal' adds a touch of levity to
the phrase, without harming it, since the situation itself is described in
detail. This is, I imagine, a point of disagreement.
> Well... nobody has been able to point to a more or less
> universal understanding of what the term should mean. Most
> of what I've read takes the point of view that "feudalism"
> was a perfectly good term that was ruined by folks attaching
> other meanings to it.
>
> That's a good if somewhat useless view, in my opinon. And
> it is, I think, made worse in that nobody can decide what
> that ur-meaning of the word "feudalism" was. As you've said,
> Bloch did not agree with Ganshof back when the term was in
> fashion.
That I would agree with completely. Of course, another way of looking at
that is: since no one could agree what 'feudal' meant, each scholar has been
obliged to use it similarly to the model I set up above: shorthand within a
particular context.
> >Thank you for your comments; I very much appreciate them.
>
> Thank you. It is a good discussion.
As much 'fun' as Marvel may think he is, I'd trade all 1 000 000 000 posts
of his (I think he's gotten up to there by now) for a single conversation
that is on-topic and polite.
Cheers,
John
Brian M. Scott
<ga...@panix.com> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> Jim Beck <jbe...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>Good post.
> To whom is this addressed?
You: it's a follow-up to your long response to John Geck's
original post in the thread.
[...]
Brian
David C. Pugh
news:bsa072$1m1$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Nah. You find some money, proclaim it drug or terrorist money, don't
have to prove it, claim it forfeit, spend it on more people to find more
money.
> > In correspondence with Michael Kuettner earlier, before his e-mail
> >account became inoperable, I pointed out that a major part of 'feudal'
> >goings-on was actually what we now call 'securitisation' -- the exchange
of an asset for the revenue therefrom. We still do enfeoffment in the
classic
> >'feudal' sense of making over state property to chums of the ruler, in
> >return for political allegiance and sometimes a peppercorn rent, except
that now we call it 'privatisation'. And sub-enfeoffment is 'outsourcing'.
:-)
>
> Yup.
>
> > I yearn for a common language in which to describe the financial,
> >economic and political shell-games of 2003 and 1203.
>
> I doubt you'll get it. We've learned to obfuscate by
> getting rid of the old terms and using new ones to make
> it seem as though something really bright and modern
> is going to improve your life.
I'm waiting for the re-invention of the tax farmer. And curious to see
what they'll call him.
> When we talk of "party loyalty" what we mean is vassalage.
> You've put your hands between the party leader's hands because
> you expect rewards but now you'd better stay in line.
Even better in the days of Tammany. At least the lower orders got
something out of the deal. Now the only sops thrown to them are the
pleasures of contemplating fried blacks and bombed gooks.
In the
> US it is taking the form of "if you are against us, you are a
> pro-Saddam democrat liberal pinko socialist commie traitor and
> you are lucky we haven't arrested you."
Nah, that's the inquisition not feudalism :-/
Brian M. Scott
<john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:1sdjodf8iuc65$.1ioipqr7x7xfn.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:43 GMT, "John A Geck"
>> <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
[...]
>> What's the point? If by feudalism he means a specific
>> constellation of common characteristics of a specific set of
>> societies, the concept is too particular to be worth
>> defining. Identifying the common characteristics of societies
>> more or less co-located in space and time makes sense; giving
>> a name to this set of characteristics does not, unless the
>> set has descriptive value in some other context as well.
> Not to dwell too much on this, but I would say that this is
> almost precisely how the term 'medieval' works. I know that
> when most medievalists use the term as an adjective, it's not
> in such a way that you could just replace it with '500's to
> 1500's...' (i.e. 'Medieval Britain -> 500's to 1500's
> Britain'). I know that the seeming utility of this adjective
> is that it can be applied to other civilisations (e.g.
> Medieval Japan, Medieval China);
But you also know that there are folks who object to that
extension. I take a middle view, myself. I will grant that
there are enough similarities to make the usage not just
tempting but probably defensible, but at the same time I think
that it's incumbent on anyone who adopts such an extended usage
either to explain in what sense he intends 'medieval' or to use
it simply as a widely accepted shorthand for a specific period
in Japanese or Chinese history.
[...]
>>> I think that perhaps the -ism is frightening (or distasteful)
>>> to people, so let's drop that; -isms are never worth
>>> fighting for. [...]
>> ??? I couldn't care less about the *form* of the word.
> Thank you for letting me know; I wasn't certain if you were
> against using the term simply as a universal or against
> anything based on 'foedum', with the exception of fief.
Oh, I think that 'feudalism' has all of the problems of 'feudal'
and then some, but this opinion has nothing to do with fright or
distaste.
>>> Let's talk about the use of the adjective in such terms as
>>> 'feudal ties'. When I hear that term, the gernal sense of
>>> the quote from Bloch above is brought up for me (maybe minus
>>> that part about the destruction of central authority and the
>>> spiral into disorder).
>> What sort of ties would those be? Those between ruler and
>> subject? Patron and client? Landlord and tenant? Employer
>> and employed? Commander and soldier? Local bully and
>> victim? Some combination thereof? Even with the Bloch
>> quotation in front of me I can only guess at just what you
>> have in mind. Indeed, I can't be sure that you have anything
>> specific in mind: 'feudal ties' is an expression that can
>> give the illusion of meaning not just to the reader but also
>> to the writer.
> With the exception of local bully and victim, except when being
> glib, I think that the term could apply to all of these.
Why the exclusion? It seems to me just as important a
relationship as the others.
> it's interesting, you see, because it is almost like the term
> feudal accomplished precisely what it ought to here. It
> clarified the concept of ties down to the list you provided
> above.
Which for my money is no real clarification at all. How many
other types of asymmetric relationship are there? And if all
one means is that the relationship is asymmetric, why not just
say so?
But it's actually even worse. When I wrote that list, I was
still thinking of 'vassalage', not of 'feudal ties'. It should
also have included at least ties of fosterage and marriage
alliances, which needn't be asymmetric. And there is nothing
about any of these types of relationships that is especially
medieval.
> Even if you thought up more, it would still be less than the
> total number of ties possible. Likewise, to talk about
> Medieval Europe takes the timeline from Beginning of
> Europe-->Present-Day and reduces it to a thousand-year period.
> Still not too terribly useful, a term which requires immediate
> explanation and further description, but once that's done, it
> serves as a shorthand between speaker and listener. E.g. If I
> tell you that I'm doing grad work in Medieval Studies, I've
> practically told you nothing. I'd resent it, however, if you
> you said that I should simply say that I study Studies.
You wouldn't be the first student with an aversion to studies.
<g>
> However, since we both enjoy things medieval, you would likely
> ask me to specify precisely what I study; and, as it seems
> when I talk with many of my classmates, it would turn out that
> even though we're both medievalists, we don't study the same
> things, you knowing things I don't, I knowing things you
> don't.
Of course. The same is true mutatis mutandis if I say that I
studied mathematics, or even that I studied topology. The
difference between 'medieval' in 'medieval studies' and 'feudal'
in 'feudal ties' is that the former actually does significantly
delimit the possibilities; the latter, so far as I can see, does
not, unless you specifically meant the asymmetric sort, in which
case the term (a) can't be relied upon to convey that meaning,
(b) appears to be an unnecessary substitute for something like
'asymmetric personal ties', and (c) inaccurately suggests that
these ties are somehow peculiar to a particular age or social
structure.
>>> See, I'd say precisely because notion of vassalage are
>>> confused in medival Europe, it serves well to have a nice,
>>> big, sweeping term to encompass it all.
>> You have it: 'medieval'. It's no accident, I think, that
>> 'feudal' and 'medieval' are often synonymous in popular
>> usage.
> I think this is perhaps where the confusion lies: in the
> example that I gave above (a bit of a throwaway) I said 'a
> feudal shell-game.' I had hoped that in that context it would
> be clear that I wasn't using it synonomously to 'medieval'.
> Rather, I was using it as an adjective that describes a
> particular form of interaction between ruler and subject,
> patron and client, or landlord and tenant.
But in my opinion you weren't; you were using it in a way that
had no real meaning at all. You could just as well have said
'medieval shell-game' in the same context: they are equally apt,
and neither is self-explanatory. Indeed, since you had already
explained exactly what you meant, you could have called it almost
anything.
>>> There's a number of issues raised with what you say for me:
>>> if vassalage is ill-defined, should we throw that out also?
>> Some would do just that: 'Otherwise, having concluded that
>> vassalage is too vacuous a concept to be useful, I shall
>> concentrate my attention primarily on fiefs, which raise much
>> more substantial issues.' This is the final sentence of
>> Chapter 2 of Susan Reynolds' _Fiefs and Vassals_; I shan't
>> try to sum up here the 30 pages of argumentation in the
>> chapter!
> I'm a big fan of Reynold's work. I'm not saying that the term
> 'feudal' had been excessively overused- however, since ties
> that are not based soely on blood or other things are
> important in mnay discussions of things medieval, I think it
> would be a shame to toss out that one, plus vassalage. It is
> possible that Reynold's was taking the hardline approach she
> took because she was leading a backlash against the usage.
Not so much leading as doing the heavy lifting, I think.
It does, however, show that the unqualified statement that
'medievals use the term often' is misleading, since the term is
essentially confined to two contexts: Carolingian, and the 13th
c. and later usage that has to be understood in the context of a
legal theory that may or may not correspond well to the facts on
the ground. Discussion of vassals and vassalage in the 12th c.,
for instance, *isn't* going to get much support from contemporary
usage. The point about Old French vernacular usage is also
significant: it suggests that the connotations of English
'vassal' may be quite inappropriate in connection with the
Carolingian floruit of <vassi> ~ <vasalli>.
>>> Since they use foedum also, I really wouldn't want to lose
>>> the ability to use this word.
>> Which? <Feodum> 'fief'? Or 'feudal'? It's specifically the
>> latter to which I'm objecting, not the former. 'Fief' is
>> needed as a translation of <feodum>, but it still has to be
>> used with care, as the medieval term meant a number of
>> different things.
> There's certain cases where rendering 'foedum' as a tangible
> noun is difficult. I have seen cases (and will grudgingly and
> slowly dig them out) where the meaning seems to be more that
> something was granted in perpetual fiefdum.
No problem: <in feodo> is 'in fee'.
> Of course, as you say, there too the term must be used with
> care, but I wouldn't say it requires any more care than similar
> use of the term 'fief'.
'Feudal' certainly requires more care than 'fief'. The latter is
recognizably a (translation of a) technical term; used correctly,
it is genuinely albeit incompletely informative. The former
perhaps *ought* to be a technical term, but unfortunately it's
frequently (and I suspect usually) not used as one.
>>> You use the term medieval without clarification, but that too
>>> is a big, sweeping term with little utility.
>> Nonsense. It is simply the name of a historical period, and
>> though it's a little fuzzy around both the geographical and
>> chronological edges, it's still pretty widely and
>> consistently understood. See Sharon Krossa's post on this in
>> response to Renia.
> I touched on this above, and I do hope I haven't upset you.
Don't worry about it. The shoe is actually likely to end up on
the other foot: I tend to be a bit abrupt when I'm in a hurry or
strongly disagree with something.
[...]
I see that in a couple other posts you've agreed that
indiscriminate use of 'feudal' is problematic and indicated that
when it is used, it ought to be defined and used in the defined
sense. I have no real quarrel with this, though I note that even
with good intentions it may be hard to keep other common meanings
from sneaking in unnoticed.
Brian
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<JmMFb.124598$ea%.65894@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> Suppose we use it in the same way the medievals did? We say that
> so-and-so was enfeoffed to one or another, or that land was granted
> in perpetual feudality
Then you have to ask what the terms were. These were negotiated
contracts not fill in the names standard procedure.
Michael W Cook
A Geck at john...@utoronto.ca wrote on 23/12/03 12:54 am:
> "Michael W Cook" <crusader_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BC0D24F1.17153%crusader_p...@hotmail.com...
> <<snip>>
>
> Thank you very much for your response, Michael.
You're most welcome.
>> That's understandable, but I feel it's not such an easy question to
> answer.
>>
>> Firstly, not knowing what is his first feudal stage and what his second is
>> immediately causes a problem. Once defined however, one can then break it
>> down yet again, but nobody ever seems to be able to agree on a date for a
>> beginning or indeed an ending to feudalism.
>
> Similarly with the concept of 'medieval'. As far as that goes, I will note
> here that I did attempt to say that I was lookign at the defintion in a more
> connotative fashion, less than a denotative. This comes up more in my later
> responses.
Right on.
>> Secondly, "A subject peasantry" is certainly not a unique feature and is
> not
>> a good description to start with.
>
> There's lots of similarites between different culutres. This doesn't, of
> course, mean that we can't use those traits as points of identification,
> does it? However, you also seem to imply that the concept of a subject
> peasantry isn't useful to hold in mind when discussing medival history.
> There certainly was one, wasn't there?
No, I just said that subject peasantry wasn't a good starting point when
discussing feudalism, as it was neither an outstanding nor a unique feature.
>> "The supremacy of a class of specialised warriors" is better, but also
>> misleading. Call them knights if you want for they were the dominant
> class,
>> but this again leads you down into a cul-de-sac, as in the earlier period
>> landless knights were a plenty.
>
> I think you're bending the definition a bit here. Bloch doesn't say that all
> specialised warriors were members of the higher class, only that the higher
> class was one of specialised warriors. I think that this holds rather true.
It does hold true, but it's also an interpretation on how you read it.
In the classic view, the origins of feudalism lie in a military revolution,
whereby the Franks, who had previously fought on foot, increasingly adopted
heavy cavalry. Mounted warfare thereby became expensive, specialised and
certainly exclusive, and your military elite became your social elite.
>> Finally, "Fragmentation of authority - leading inevitably to disorder"
> again
>> confuses, because it suggests that feudalism was a negative force, as
>> opposed to a positive political force in which the monarchs themselves
>> become 'Feudalised' and subsequently strengthened as a result.
>
> I'll grant that this concept of fragmentation of authority is a dated one,
> and Bloch does seem to impy that feudal ties were negative. Perhaps if we
> delete that? All of the ideas that are summoned up for me when I hear
> 'feudal ties' are retained with that ommission.
That's your interpretation, but I still don't agree for the reason's stated.
However, I do concede it contains all the aspects of feudalism or whatever
you want to call it, I would just word it differently.
Don't ask me to do it, because I have no intention of making an arse of
myself :-)
>> Feudalism to me is a word I find impossible to pin down with a
> satisfactory
>> description and meaning, therefore I find it best avoided, as do many
> others
>> on here.
>
> Suppose we use it in the same way the medievals did? We say that
> so-and-so was enfeoffed to one or another, or that land was granted in
> perpetual feudality? Moving from there, could we not then use the adjective
> 'feudal'? I'll repeat this in a response to Brian Scott, but to say it
> twice, can't feudal be used in a similar (NOT IDENTICAL) way as 'medieval'?
Yes and no, but as you yourself stated, one has to give an explanation as to
what you mean by this word. It's also worth remembering that the word
'Feudalism' didn't appear until the 19th century, so all the things we
encompass within that word would be totally alien to someone in the middle
ages.
> In other words, we can view all things medieval or all things
> concievably definable as 'feudal' as a subset within an infinite set. To say
> either summons up that subset, which is then further clarified through
> explanation. E.g. we have hear a newsgroup soc.history.medieval. A similar
> situation could be a newsgroup, soc.law.feudal.
>
> I hope that that makes my point clear without stepping on anyone's toes.
Not at all.
Brian has given you an answer to the above I'd agree with.
I also don't seem to be getting all the replies on my server.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
--
Paul J Gans
>> Jim Beck <jbe...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Good post.
>[...]
>Brian
Oh. Thank you, Jim. <grin> Sorry. I was not fishing
for compliments.
But I still think one ought to include a bit of context
when posting.
---- Paul J. Gans
Bernardz
> Bernardz <Berna...@removehotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <CaCFb.146455$%TO.49178
> >@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, john...@utoronto.ca says...
> >> Although I consider myself reasonably well-informed on things medieval,
> >> provide some background. In my undergraduate years, my main mentor referred
> >> to fuedalsim as the 'f-word'.
> >>
>
> >I came up with something similar when studying Chinese history. Marxist
> >history stated that societies pass though a feudal stage. So as a result
> >Chinese historians called periods of their history feudal.
>
> >History is often a political weapon.
>
> I can only agree with that if you remove the word
> "often".
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
You are correct!
Bernardz
black_...@hotmail.com says...
> However as time passed this idea changed and land was freely sold to a class
> that claimed it didn't inherit certain rights and duties from the land as
> these were inherent in people and not property.
>
>
So in England people owned the land and the peasants worked it. Was this
true in Wales, Normandy and Scotland too?
Martin Reboul
"David C. Pugh" <solom...@online.no> wrote in message
news:7T0Gb.8027$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
The speed camera?
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
> At the risk of the collective arrows, can I offer this up.
>
> This is a quote from a book that I have always quite liked,
>
> Rick Fields, 'The Code of the Warrior' (New York, 1991)
>
> 'Many of these mounted warriors were nobles supported by peasants, who
> worked their lands. But others were retainers, who exchanged their
> military skill and equipment for support at the lord's manor, or for
> lands their lord granted them. The warrior pledged his fealty his
> faithful service to his lord, kneeling before him with folded hands; his
> lord, in turn, promised to 'bear him succor', sealing the bargain with a
> kiss as proof of friendship. The result was feudalism, a system in
> which most power was held in a decentralized, though intricately
> interrelated way by local noble strongmen: barons, dukes, counts and
> knights.' p 138
>
> Now, I know this is all rather simple. But I would be curious as to
> what the thoughts are on just making this a simple assumption?
>
> I still don't have a strong opinion on this one, so I would like to
> offer it up.......
Well, I'd say it just adds another definition of "feudalism" to the pile
;-)
(How many are we up to just in this December 2003 round of discussions?)
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:1sdjodf8iuc65$.1ioipqr7x7xfn.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:08:43 GMT, "John A Geck"
> > <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> >
> > > Thanks for your response, Brian. More down below, of course:
> <<snip>>
> > What's the point? If by feudalism he means a specific
> > constellation of common characteristics of a specific set of
> > societies, the concept is too particular to be worth defining.
> > Identifying the common characteristics of societies more or less
> > co-located in space and time makes sense; giving a name to this
> > set of characteristics does not, unless the set has descriptive
> > value in some other context as well.
>
>
> Not to dwell too much on this, but I would say that this is almost precisely
> how the term 'medieval' works. I know that when most medievalists use the
> term as an adjective, it's not in such a way that you could just replace it
> with '500's to 1500's...' (i.e. 'Medieval Britain -> 500's to 1500's
> Britain').
Can you give an example of such a usage (that is, one where it could not
be replaced by an explicit range of years)?
At the moment I can't think of any use I've seen that could not be
replaced by the time range. Mind you, most of the time when historians
use "medieval" they modify it to specify a particular sub-slice of the
general time slice. So, they'll say something about "late medieval" or
"early medieval" or "high medieval" (the middle bits) rather than
actually addressing the entire millennium at once. (This is mainly
because there is little to nothing that will be true of the whole
thousand years even in just one specific geographic location.) And even
that is only when they're not getting even more specific (the 16th
century or 1467 or whatever).
> I know that the seeming utility of this adjective is that it can
> be applied to other civilisations (e.g. Medieval Japan, Medieval China); the
> issue there is that the dates don't corresspond, and once again, you are
> obliged to guess (or have a good author) who will explain what s/he mean by
> it.
In my experience "medieval" when applied to other geographic regions
corresponds to roughly the same time slice (or a substantial portion of
it) as that of "medieval" Europe. The main motivation for using the term
seems to me to be simply Eurocentrism post-justified by various
perceived cultural/social/etc. similarities. That is, medieval Japan was
going on at the same time as medieval Europe and is called "medieval"
because that's the name of the European periodization and it's Europeans
who gave that time slice in Japan the same name. (In other words, the
term has the same kind of origins of most other large periodization
terms -- prejudice and whimsy.)
> My interest in the use of the term feudal, I'll touch on below.
>
>
> > > I think that perhaps the -ism is frightening (or distasteful)
> > > to people, so let's drop that; -isms are never worth fighting
> > > for. [...]
> >
> > ??? I couldn't care less about the *form* of the word.
>
> Thank you for letting me know; I wasn't certain if you were against using
> the term simply as a universal or against anything based on 'foedum', with
> the exception of fief.
We anti-feudalismists devoutly desire to see discussions based on what
medieval people actually did and said and wrote. It is for advancement
of that goal that we wish to get rid of the modern term and construct of
"feudalism", and "feudal" to the extent it (purposefully or
unintentionally) means "of or pertaining to feudalism".
But "medieval studies" does say more than just "studies", and even
without any explanations people know both a general time frame and (to a
lesser extent, due to the application of "medieval" to Japan, etc.)
geographic region because there is a generally agreed meaning for
"medieval". Just "studies", on the other hand, could refer to 21st
century nuclear physics...
In this way "medieval" conveys information. Not tons of information,
certainly not all possible or even all desirable information, but it
does convey _some_ information, however little. In contrast, "feudalism"
does not convey any information. One is not any less in the dark about
what someone means after they say "feudalism" than one was before they
did so. And, since "feudal" is so often used to mean "of or pertaining
to feudalism", it too conveys no information. If I have to ask you what
you mean (as always with feudalism/feudal) you haven't really conveyed
information to me. With "medieval" I don't have to ask you what you mean
to know basically what you meant by it -- little as that may be --
though of course I may, if I wish, ask for *additional* information
(such as what specifically you are studying within that 1000 year
period, etc.)
> > > See, I'd say precisely because notion of vassalage are confused
> > > in medival Europe, it serves well to have a nice, big,
> > > sweeping term to encompass it all.
> >
> > You have it: 'medieval'. It's no accident, I think, that
> > 'feudal' and 'medieval' are often synonymous in popular usage.
>
> I think this is perhaps where the confusion lies: in the example that I gave
> above (a bit of a throwaway) I said 'a feudal shell-game.' I had hoped that
> in that context it would be clear that I wasn't using it synonomously to
> 'medieval'. Rather, I was using it as an adjective that describes a
> particular form of interaction between ruler and subject, patron and client,
> or landlord and tenant.
Except the shell-game in the example wasn't all that feudal. It was
allodial and ecclesiastic donation as well. Why then classify it as
"feudal shell-game"? You've just disguised the true nature of the
shell-game in question and prejudiced all subsequent analysis, and all
for the sake of using an adjective that you didn't need to use.
> > > There's a number of issues raised with what you say for me: if
> > > vassalage is ill-defined, should we throw that out also?
> >
> > Some would do just that: 'Otherwise, having concluded that
> > vassalage is too vacuous a concept to be useful, I shall
> > concentrate my attention primarily on fiefs, which raise much
> > more substantial issues.' This is the final sentence of Chapter
> > 2 of Susan Reynolds' _Fiefs and Vassals_; I shan't try to sum up
> > here the 30 pages of argumentation in the chapter!
>
> I'm a big fan of Reynold's work. I'm not saying that the term 'feudal' had
> been excessively overused- however, since ties that are not based soely on
> blood or other things are important in mnay discussions of things medieval,
> I think it would be a shame to toss out that one, plus vassalage. It is
> possible that Reynold's was taking the hardline approach she took because
> she was leading a backlash against the usage.
I'm not sure what your saying -- are you advocating that it would be
helpful to apply "feudal" to things (ties, whatever) that are *not*
directly related to fiefs? How would that be helpful?
And what did they mean by it when they used it? Did they mean the same
thing? In the times when they didn't use it much, did they use something
else to mean the same thing? The same thing as what? (Rinse, repeat,
this time applying appropriate variations of the questions with regard
to our modern English terms often equated with the medieval Latin and
vernacular terms derived from it...)
And, most importantly, are you going to ask any of the above questions
if you think you already know what "vassalage" is from having read the
secondary (feudalismist) sources?
> > > Since they use foedum also, I really wouldn't want to lose the
> > > ability to use this word.
> >
> > Which? <Feodum> 'fief'? Or 'feudal'? It's specifically the
> > latter to which I'm objecting, not the former. 'Fief' is needed
> > as a translation of <feodum>, but it still has to be used with
> > care, as the medieval term meant a number of different things.
>
> There's certain cases where rendering 'foedum' as a tangible noun is
> difficult. I have seen cases (and will grudgingly and slowly dig them out)
> where the meaning seems to be more that something was granted in perpetual
> fiefdum. Of course, as you say, there too the term must be used with care,
> but I wouldn't say it requires any more care than similar use of the term
> 'fief'.
Just going with the example for the moment... how does the above require
or even just benefit from use of "feudal"? If what you want to highlight
(and contrast with some other kind of fief) is that it was perpetual,
what's wrong with "perpetual fief"? (Indeed, I'm at a loss for what you
would combine with "feudal" in order to try to convey the idea of
"perpetual fief"...)
> > > You use the term medieval without clarification, but that too
> > > is a big, sweeping term with little utility.
> >
> > Nonsense. It is simply the name of a historical period, and
> > though it's a little fuzzy around both the geographical and
> > chronological edges, it's still pretty widely and consistently
> > understood. See Sharon Krossa's post on this in response to
> > Renia.
>
> I touched on this above, and I do hope I haven't upset you.
>
> > > Why not just say, ''Here's a list of characteristics that were
> > > for the most part common to the western European societies of
> > > the period xxxx-xxxx'?
> >
> > Because 'medieval' refers to a specific period of European
> > history, not to a set of societal characteristics. (Dick Wisan
> > has pointed out that periodizations aren't arbitrary, but I
> > suggest that in this case the boundaries are chosen partly for
> > reasons external to the period: at one end the collapse of the
> > Roman empire is hard to ignore, and the other is at least roughly
> > determined by the appearance of societies recognizably similar to
> > those in which the coiners of the term lived.)
But mainly, these days, it is at heart simply habit. The terms and their
general times were established long ago and we're just carrying on with
them not because the original justifications are valid or any of our
later justifications are valid but because they're the established terms
that quickly, without re-explanation, indicate the broad time periods
intended.
Sharon, noting that in Scotland the Middle Ages ended on 17 and/or 24
August 1560 ;-)
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > Oh yes. Fief and related terms occur all the time because
> > there really were fiefs. And benefices. And other awards
> > of land or the income from land.
>
> I'd like to say that fiefs and benefices are things that could be described
> using the term 'feudal'. We could say 'fiefal' if that makes people more
> comfortable. :)
Fiefs, yes, of course they are "fiefal". (Mind you, "fiefal fiefs" is
rather redundant...) But why benefices, esp. benefices that do not
pertain to fiefs?
> I touched on this more in Brian Scott's response to my response to his
> repsonse, but mainly, I think that if the term is clarified within a
> particular work, it makes for a useful shorthand when using it later on in
> that work. I think you touch on that later though.
>
> <<snip>>
>
> > Bloch concentrated on feudalism as a sort of social order
> > in which roles were clearly defined in some sort of top
> > down order. That's not the feudalism envisioned by those
> > who treat it as a description of a method of land tenure.
>
> Which is likely why there's such a strong backlash against _any_ use of the
> term. High-school history teachers drawing big trangles on the board,
> writing 'king' at the top, and 'peasants' at the bottom. However, I don't
> think that even Bloch would agree with that...
No, I think the backlash has more to do with the myriad of definitions
(often contrary) rending the term devoid of information, increasing
doubts that any of the definitions are actually useful, and mounting
frustration that all the time and energy spent trying to make the Middle
Ages fit in to the modern constructs of "feudalism" are getting in the
way of actually studying what happened in the Middle Ages.
:-)
> Nevertheless, I do still like the term 'feudal', used, as I've
> already said, as a reference shorthand when working within a text or
> article.
But as a short hand for _what_?
The problem with "feudal" these days is that it is irretrevably
contaminated by "feudalism" (which is, as indicated, both meaningless
and misleading). Most people hearing/reading "feudal" will interpret it
as meaning "of or pertaining to feudalism" (using their own pet
definition of "feudalism", whatever that may be for them that day, over
which one has no control) -- even if one has very carefully explained
that by "feudal" one really does mean just "of or pertaining to fiefs"
and no more.
In fact, in reading various of your posts it has not been clear whether
by "feudal" you mean something more than just "of or pertaining to
fiefs". At various points, such as when you indicate you would include
the relationship between tenants and landlords and the like among
"feudal ties", you seem to be using "feudal" to mean "of or pertaining
to feudalism" rather than "of or pertaining to fiefs".
Now, if there is really a burning need for a shorthand adjective meaning
"of or pertaining to fiefs" (and I'm not sure there is -- it may be
better all around, at least for the next century or so, to just say
"pertaining to fiefs" or the like) then I think a different form needs
to be used. So, perhaps, "fiefal" is to be preferred -- but *only* if it
is carefully used to mean "of or pertaining to fiefs" and not just as a
replacement for "feudal" in all its feudalismal glory.
But note that this would mean that most of your list of "feudal ties"
are not "fiefal ties". The only fiefal tie would be between a lord and
the vassal to whom he has granted a fief. The tie between that vassal
and his king (of whom he does not hold land) would not be fiefal. The
tie between that vassal and his tenants would not be fiefal (as the
tentants rent not hold their land). And so on.
> > So you see that there is already a partial answer to your
> > question about Bloch. As long as he is using the word
> > in his book to mean something that he's carefully defined,
> > that's almost ok.
If his were the only definition in peoples minds when they read his
book...
> > The only remaining question then vis-a-vis
> > Bloch is how widespread was the system he describes? Does
> > it in fact describe any general trend or only some local
> > customs in a few places?
> >
> > I can't answer that.
> >
> > But you've stepped into the end part of a scholarly
> > battle that has taken place over most of the last decade.
> > As you know, usage of the old term dies hard, but it is
> > dying.
>
> Of course, it's still pretty strongly defended. Reynolds isn;t the only one
> who's written on the subject recently.
However, it seems to me that there is a generational aspect to the
divide. The active defenders of feudalism seem to be primarily rather
old (and one is tempted to say, set in their ways ;-). Eventually the
appointed day will arrive...
Sharon
David C. Pugh
news:1g6hatb.ff29ns186c5gkN%skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org...
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
(major snippage)
> > I think this is perhaps where the confusion lies: in the example that I
gave above (a bit of a throwaway) I said 'a feudal shell-game.' I had hoped
thatin that context it would be clear that I wasn't using it synonomously to
> > 'medieval'. Rather, I was using it as an adjective that describes a
> > particular form of interaction between ruler and subject, patron and
client, or landlord and tenant.
>
> Except the shell-game in the example wasn't all that feudal. It was
> allodial and ecclesiastic donation as well. Why then classify it as
> "feudal shell-game"? You've just disguised the true nature of the
> shell-game in question and prejudiced all subsequent analysis, and all
> for the sake of using an adjective that you didn't need to use.
That's the same as what I myself said upthread, but now said more
explicitly and emphatically. The true nature of this kind of shell game is
that person A appears to give, donate, make over or otherwise alienate
property to person B, while in fact retaining control of the asset, or
enjoying the revenue it generates, or both, the object being to pull the
wool over the eyes of persons C, D.... Z, of whom some will be rulers,
taxmen or various stakeholders. Enron and Parmelat on a smaller scale but
still sometimes rather complicated, and often dreamt up by professionals in
their own interest -- a meta-game.
Sometimes I think that productive economic activity is a by-product of
financial chicanery rather than the other way round -- the equivalent of
letting the mark win the first shell-game. :-)
I mentioned earlier that much of this medieval to-ing and fro-ing with
donations, commendation, enfeoffment and so forth is actually what we now
call securitisation of assets. This doesn't generally involve military
service, though in the case of a Sierra Leonian diamond warlord I be it
would; but there again, not all forms of medieval revenue-manipulation that
get called 'feudal' had anything to do with military service either.
If I make over my Porsche to my brother, with an agreement that he lets
me drive it whenever I want, in order to evade my creditors, is this
'feudal'? Of course not. So why is anything else?
If I am an independent professional but decide to join a partnership
(commendation?), with a long and complex agreement detailing which customers
are mine, which theirs and which ours, with non-competition clauses out the
wazoo (liege homage, anyone?), is this 'feudal'? Of course not. So why is
anything else?
If I decide to convert all my employees into self-employed contractors,
so that I don't have to pay them any longer (I get into much more trouble
from not paying an employee than not paying a small creditor), is this
'feudal'? It's not far from the classic model of enfeoffment of household
retainers, but is happening today.
I don't really see anything specifically 'feudal' even in the 'fief'
itself. Who cares who puts what bit of whose anatomy where to seal the deal?
Never mind the diplomatik, look at the economics!
Or how about on the international level. Was the status of Hong Kong
'feudal'? We could say that the UK 'held it of' China. If we got shot of the
Falklands by leaseback to Argentina, so that they were formally theirs but
everything else went on just as before, this would be entirely familiar to a
medieval. Because it's archetypal for human politics.
Why don't we pick on a formal aspect of the modern economy and call the
society of this year of our Ford 2003 'Stock-Optionism' -- so then we have
stock-optionist companies, stock-optionist peasants, sorry, workers,
stock-optionist governments....... Tourists will one day come to admire the
Stock-Optionist Heritage. :-) After the Dark Ages are over, of course :-)
:-)
Okay, perhaps I've got my Welsh up and have gone too far in the other
direction, but I hope the (gasp) hobbyist rant may be thought-provoking.
What gets me going like this is a typical day spent translating corporate
skulduggery in the morning and reading medieval history in the evening -- my
mind short-circuits and I suddenly can't see the artificial distinctions any
more :-)
P & E
Dick Wisan
>
>But "medieval studies" does say more than just "studies", and even
>without any explanations people know both a general time frame and (to a
>lesser extent, due to the application of "medieval" to Japan, etc.)
>geographic region because there is a generally agreed meaning for
>"medieval". Just "studies", on the other hand, could refer to 21st
>century nuclear physics...
If "medieval Japan" means only Japan during the European medieval
period, then we would be equally comfortable speaking of "medieval
Peru", "medieval Australia", "medieval Kansas". But we don't talk
that way because there seems very little common to those places
at those times. But, there does seem to be something interesting
roughly comparable between Japan and Europe in the periods we call
"mediaval" in those places. If we find in some other place at a
different time, a culture comparable in the same respects to Japan
and Europe in their medieval period (periods?), wouldn't we call
it "medieval"? (It may be shallow to say that the Mafia is
medieval in its thinking and organization, but it's not meaningless.)
Well, what are those characteristics? In what respects must things
resemble medieval Europe to justify the word? Is it easier to
define "medieval" in this sense than to define "feudal"?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
John A Geck
news:bsf84...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> If "medieval Japan" means only Japan during the European medieval
> period, then we would be equally comfortable speaking of "medieval
> Peru", "medieval Australia", "medieval Kansas". But we don't talk
> that way because there seems very little common to those places
> at those times. But, there does seem to be something interesting
> roughly comparable between Japan and Europe in the periods we call
> "mediaval" in those places. If we find in some other place at a
> different time, a culture comparable in the same respects to Japan
> and Europe in their medieval period (periods?), wouldn't we call
> it "medieval"? (It may be shallow to say that the Mafia is
> medieval in its thinking and organization, but it's not meaningless.)
>
> Well, what are those characteristics? In what respects must things
> resemble medieval Europe to justify the word? Is it easier to
> define "medieval" in this sense than to define "feudal"?
Thank you for putting that more succiently, perhaps, than I may have. This
was more or less the opinion that I have about the term 'medieval'. While
this certianly doesn't say that the term 'feudal' is at all better, or even
equal in clairty, it does imply that there are certain things in the messy
science that is history, which cannot be carefully defined or delineated. As
regards that, I would say that 'medieval' and 'feudal' both fail. As an
aside, I see that scholars of 'medieval' Japan, seem to feel more
comfortable using the term 'feudal'...
Happy holidays,
John
John A Geck
news:1g6hatb.ff29ns186c5gkN%skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org...<<snip>>
> > Not to dwell too much on this, but I would say that this is almost
precisely
> > how the term 'medieval' works. I know that when most medievalists use
the
> > term as an adjective, it's not in such a way that you could just replace
it
> > with '500's to 1500's...' (i.e. 'Medieval Britain -> 500's to 1500's
> > Britain').
>
> Can you give an example of such a usage (that is, one where it could not
> be replaced by an explicit range of years)?
I was doing that below, when talking about 'medieval Japan', et al. However,
if the motivaiton for that is simply prejudice and whimsy, than I suppose my
point fails. However, as Dick Wisan pointed out, I do believe that there is
more going on there than simply that.
> At the moment I can't think of any use I've seen that could not be
> replaced by the time range. Mind you, most of the time when historians
> use "medieval" they modify it to specify a particular sub-slice of the
> general time slice. So, they'll say something about "late medieval" or
> "early medieval" or "high medieval" (the middle bits) rather than
> actually addressing the entire millennium at once. (This is mainly
> because there is little to nothing that will be true of the whole
> thousand years even in just one specific geographic location.) And even
> that is only when they're not getting even more specific (the 16th
> century or 1467 or whatever).
<<snip>>
> > Thank you for letting me know; I wasn't certain if you were against
using
> > the term simply as a universal or against anything based on 'foedum',
with
> > the exception of fief.
>
> We anti-feudalismists devoutly desire to see discussions based on what
> medieval people actually did and said and wrote. It is for advancement
> of that goal that we wish to get rid of the modern term and construct of
> "feudalism", and "feudal" to the extent it (purposefully or
> unintentionally) means "of or pertaining to feudalism".
All for that first sentence. :)
<<giant snip>>
> Sharon, noting that in Scotland the Middle Ages ended on 17 and/or 24
> August 1560 ;-)
Thank you for all of your thoughts; you've provided much insight into the
debate for me.
Cheers,
John
Renia
> Good post.
Which one?
Renia
Brian M. Scott
> Jim Beck wrote:
>> Good post.
> Which one?
Paul's long response (Message-ID <bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com>)
to John Geck's original post in the thread.
Brian
Paul J Gans
>In article <bs9rt7$2bi$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
>black_...@hotmail.com says...
>> However as time passed this idea changed and land was freely sold to a class
>> that claimed it didn't inherit certain rights and duties from the land as
>> these were inherent in people and not property.
>>
>>
>So in England people owned the land and the peasants worked it. Was this
>true in Wales, Normandy and Scotland too?
Are we talking post conquest or pre-conquest?
Wales and Scotland were organized totally differently than
post-conquest England. I'm not expert on either one, but
others here are.
The situation in pre-conquest England was different than
that of post-conquest England. Normandy was again different.
The Duke did NOT own all the land, nor did the King of
France. So duties and obligations, if any, were quite
different.
Over time the King of France eventually enforced his
will over all of Normandy, but that was after John
lost it.
So part of the problem is that any static meaning one
tries to give to a term such as "feudalism" can only
apply to a particular time and place.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Sharon L. Krossa [???] says...
>>
>>But "medieval studies" does say more than just "studies", and even
>>without any explanations people know both a general time frame and (to a
>>lesser extent, due to the application of "medieval" to Japan, etc.)
>>geographic region because there is a generally agreed meaning for
>>"medieval". Just "studies", on the other hand, could refer to 21st
>>century nuclear physics...
>If "medieval Japan" means only Japan during the European medieval
>period, then we would be equally comfortable speaking of "medieval
>Peru", "medieval Australia", "medieval Kansas". But we don't talk
>that way because there seems very little common to those places
>at those times. But, there does seem to be something interesting
>roughly comparable between Japan and Europe in the periods we call
>"mediaval" in those places. If we find in some other place at a
>different time, a culture comparable in the same respects to Japan
>and Europe in their medieval period (periods?), wouldn't we call
>it "medieval"? (It may be shallow to say that the Mafia is
>medieval in its thinking and organization, but it's not meaningless.)
>Well, what are those characteristics? In what respects must things
>resemble medieval Europe to justify the word? Is it easier to
>define "medieval" in this sense than to define "feudal"?
Gee. I guess I'll bore everyone by repeating this again.
The term "medieval" originally meant western Europe during
a certain period of time.
More recently people (such as those in shm) have decided to
expand the term to include all of Eurasia and perhaps Africa
or the Americas. However, it was never decided how to
extend it. Do we extend it geographically, keeping the
same time limits or do we extend is to cover "medieval-like
practices" in other regions no matter when they occur.
So we can have medieval Japan as between 500 and 1500 AD
or we can have it during the Japanese "feudal" period
(as it is sometimes called) which was in early modern
times.
---- Paul J. Gans
Dick Wisan
Well, yes, but with the implication that it was a low place
between two hills. The dead time in between the ancients and
the moderns. Not far from "Dark Ages" as used by modern clods.
>More recently people (such as those in shm) have decided to
>expand the term to include all of Eurasia and perhaps Africa
>or the Americas. However, it was never decided how to
>extend it. Do we extend it geographically, keeping the
>same time limits or do we extend is to cover "medieval-like
>practices" in other regions no matter when they occur.
Yes. But, if you extend it, you have to identify (even if
fuzzily) what makes something "medieval-like"
>So we can have medieval Japan as between 500 and 1500 AD
>or we can have it during the Japanese "feudal" period
>(as it is sometimes called) which was in early modern
>times.
I hate to say it, but _that_ may be the real definition of
"feudal". "Medieval-like". But, one or the other of these
two has to have meaning. [Not _clear_ meaning, not necessarily
useful to decent historians, but not without meaning.]
Note, I understand why "feudal" is such a fudge. I understand
that it's probably better to avoid it, most of the time. But
meaningless? No.
E. C. Lee
Fascinating parallel. Well done!
JMHO,
Edie
Eve
Paul J Gans
Exactly. We creep away from old usages slowly.
>>More recently people (such as those in shm) have decided to
>>expand the term to include all of Eurasia and perhaps Africa
>>or the Americas. However, it was never decided how to
>>extend it. Do we extend it geographically, keeping the
>>same time limits or do we extend is to cover "medieval-like
>>practices" in other regions no matter when they occur.
>Yes. But, if you extend it, you have to identify (even if
>fuzzily) what makes something "medieval-like"
As you can see, folks here use both meanings I gave above.
Not too condusive to clarity... ;-)
>>So we can have medieval Japan as between 500 and 1500 AD
>>or we can have it during the Japanese "feudal" period
>>(as it is sometimes called) which was in early modern
>>times.
>I hate to say it, but _that_ may be the real definition of
>"feudal". "Medieval-like". But, one or the other of these
>two has to have meaning. [Not _clear_ meaning, not necessarily
>useful to decent historians, but not without meaning.]
Perhaps, but then, what were the Middle Ages like? They
weren't *like* anything except a continuously evolving
civilization.
>Note, I understand why "feudal" is such a fudge. I understand
>that it's probably better to avoid it, most of the time. But
>meaningless? No.
Speaking for myself, I tend to use "medieval" to mean what
is often here called the "Bermuda Triangle". I don't like
to extend that term to Japan (or anywhere else) nor do I
like the term "feudal" at all.
From my personal point of view, any similarities between
Japan's social organization at some period of its existance
and that of western Europe are accidental and we gain no
extra knowledge from the comparison. More: I think that
we *lose* knowlege by the comparison since we then may think
that all sorts of social and military structures were very
much the same when in fact they were not at all the same.
But folks will do what they will do and I can (and do) ask
for clarification if what is being discussed is not obvious
from context.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
But it may be useful to anyone interested in the
argument over "feudalism".
It is a long extract (several pages) from the book
_Strong of Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry & Society
in Medieval France_ by Constance Brittain Bouchard,
Cornell, 1998. I start on page 35:
***** Begin Extract *****
One of the most important developments in the
relationship between nobles and knights--and with the
king--was the rise of fief holding in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. To understand this key institution
it is necessary to clear away a lot of the underbrush
associated with the word "fedualism," for this term,
laden with unexamined and outdated assumptions, often
seriously misleads those trying to understand the
Middle Ages.
The word "feudalism" might at first glance appear
valid, inasmuch as it comes from a genuine medieval
Latin word, _feudum_. A _feudum_, usually translated
as "fief," was a piece of property which one aristocrat,
called the vassal, held for his lifetime from another,
his lord, in return for loyal support. Fiefs were given
in return for fidelity, not for a money rent, and
fief-holding involved only the aristocracy, not the great
mass of society. Fief-holding arrangements were a development
of the 11th century, when it first became common for aristocrats
to use grants of property to cement sworn alliances with each
other, and of the twelfth century, when the format of the
oaths and obligations entailed in a fief became increasingly
standardized.
If fied holding in the High Middle Ages were all that was
meant by "feudalism," the word might well be acceptable,
despite the universality the _-ism_ ending unfortunately
implies about what was actually a very narrow phenomenon.[10]
But over the last three centuries the word has been loaded
with a multitude of other meanings. Scholars and the popular
press alike have used the term in so many different ways--many
of them mutually exclusive and even contradictory--that it is
often impossible to carry out a productive discussion about
the various institutions that might be described as "feudalism."
Everyone who uses the term seems to have his or her own definition.
Elisabeth Brown over twenty years ago concluded that the term
"feudalism" had become virtually devoid of meaning and thus
proposed that it be entirely dropped from scholarly discussions--an
eminently sensible suggestion tha has regrettably not yet been
fully adopted.[11]
Part of the problem is that "feudalism" is not a medieval
term. It was created in the seventeenth century by historians
to describe what I would prefer to call "fief holding," a
system linking aristocrats together with each other via
oaths of loyalty and conditional transfer of property. But all
sorts of other meanings began to be attached to the word soon
after it was coined. During the French Revolution, it was
seized upon as a synonym for "old-fashioned" or "outmoded."
Thus when the ancien regime was dismantled during the summer
of 1789, and such elements of privlege as noble excmption
from royal taxes, or exclusive hunting preserves, and the selling
of judicial office were eliminated, the delegates to the
National Assembly announced that they were getting rid of
"feudalism." None of these privileges had anything to do
with the fiefs the people who coined the word "feudalism"
had thought they were describing. Indeed, none of the
privileges abolished in August, 1789 were even medieval; all
had developed in subsequent centuries. Yet this equation of
"feudalism" with special privileges for a small sector of
society has persisted. When the popular press calls developing
countries of the twentieth century "feudal," this is usually
what is meant.
But the biggest difficulties with the word "feudalism" derive
from its adoption by Karl Marx in the nineteenth century. To
its original seventeenth-century meaning of a form of social
institution linking aristocrats together (an institution that
began in the High Middle Ages) and its eighteenth century
meaning of legal privilege (which in fact developed in the
post-medieval period), Marx added a third meaning: economic
exploitation of peasants (of a sort that began in the late
Roman Empire). His views of economic forces was bound up with
a particular vision of Western history, in which the exploitation
of slaves in antiquity was directly replaced in the Middle Ages
by the exploitation of serfs. For him, "feudalism" was a
counterpart to "slavery," evn though he considered the subjugation
of serfs somewhat of an improvement over slavery. For Marx,
"feudalism" extended from the end of antiquity until the French
Revolution, when it was replaced by exploitation of the urban
proletariat under "capitalism".
Marx was certainly no medieval historian. Medievalists who
consider themselves Marxists have adopted his concern for the poor
and opressed but not by his tidy vision of serfs being exploited
in a uniform way for twelve hundred years, from the sixth century
to the eighteenth.[12] Nevertheless, Marx's use of the word
put an end to any possibility that "feudalism" might be usefully
employed to describe the complex and dynamic social patters which
actually characterized the Middle Ages.
One might have hoped that after a word has been used in
such highly discrepant social, legal, and economic senses (to
say nothing of its application to institutions that developed
a millenium or more apart), it could be jettisoned as no longer
useful. Instead, in te twentieth century there have been repeated
attempts to retain the term while adding even more layers of meaning
to it. "Feudalism" has sometimes taken on a political significance,
describing a system in which power is decentralized, held by many
different people acting essentially independently, so that the
wealthy became the de facto political leaders. More weakly
but even more pervasively, "feudal" is sometimes used as a
synonym for "noble," so that every castle becomes a "feudal"
castle, the Crusades become an exercise in "feudal" warfare,
and monasteriies that buried their noble patrons become "feudal"
churches. In the extreme version, "feudal" is simply a synonym
for "medieval," on the assumption that we need a single word
(_other_ than "medieval") to describe a society that included
both fief holding and landlord-peasant relationships. Thus
we read of "feudal times" or "feudal society."
Clearly, if the term can mean a form of political organization,
a model of economic exploitation, a type of social institution,
legal privileges, or even very vaguely, "the way things were
back then," its continued use can only obscure meaning. Many
medievalists, especially in the United States, have dropped
the term entirely, leaving it to scholars of the French
Revolution or Marxist thought (since at least they seem to
know what they mean by it), while trying to remind them
that the characteristics of the ancien regime were not those
of medieval society. French scholars, while recognizing the
problem, have tried to cling to the term "feodalite" (usually
in the narrow sense of fief-holding and "feodalisme" to mean
everything else.[14] But the "everything else" remains
problematic, and English does not even have the luxury of
two terms.
The only unifying feature of this diverse usage is that
"feudalism" has virtually always been used pejoratively.
It is _bad_ that some people have special privileges, that
landlords exploit workers, that power is decentralized, or
whatever. Hidden in every dscription of medieval society
as an age of feudalism is an a priori moral judgement that
the Middle Ages were not as good as modern times. Believing, then,
that the term is a clear hinderance to genuine understanding
and analysis of the past, I avoid "feudalism" in my discussion.
(The adjective "feudal," however, seems unavoidable. In using
it I refer specifically to fiefs.)
[10] The narrowness of the place fief holding occupied in
overall medieval society and politics has most recently
been stressed by Susan Reynolds, _Fiefs and Vassals_.
[11] Elisabeth A. R. Brown, "The Tyranny of a Construct."
[12] For example, the Marxist historian G.E.M. de Ste. Crox
resists characterizing serfdom as "feudalism," _The Class
Struggle in the Ancient Greek Word_, pp 267-69. Chris
Wickham has proposed a modified Marxist definition of
"feudalism" as a mode of production in which tenants,
not necessarily serfs, paid rents to a monopolistic
landowner class. "The Other Transition."
[13] This is the sence in which it is used by Poly
and Bournazel in an otherwise thoughtful work. _The
Feudal Transformation_, pp 1-3, 351-57. Susan Reynolds
has sought to replace the sterotype of medieval "feudalism"
with the concept of "ommunity." _Knights and Communities_.
[14] This is a distinction made, for example, by Dominique Barthelemy,
"Dominations chatelains de l'an mil," in Delort and Iogna-Prat, eds,
_La France de l'an mil_, pp 101-13. See also Pierre Toubert,
"Les feodalites mediterraneen: Un probleme d'histoire comparee,"
in _Structures feodales et feodalisme dans l'Occident mediterraneen,"
pp 1-14.
***** End Extract *****
---- Paul J. Gans
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
> In article <bs9rt7$2bi$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> black_...@hotmail.com says...
> > However as time passed this idea changed and land was freely sold to a class
> > that claimed it didn't inherit certain rights and duties from the land as
> > these were inherent in people and not property.
>
> So in England people owned the land and the peasants worked it. Was this
> true in Wales, Normandy and Scotland too?
Depends. (It always depends.) As someone else pointed out, "owned" isn't
quite as straightforward as one might assume from a modern perspective.
Likewise there are peasants and there are peasants. Then there is the
time issue -- when in particular?
As for Scotland -- well, that's a whole lot of complication in and of
itself. Who and in what part of Scotland?
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
> Sharon L. Krossa [???] says...
> >
> >But "medieval studies" does say more than just "studies", and even
> >without any explanations people know both a general time frame and (to a
> >lesser extent, due to the application of "medieval" to Japan, etc.)
> >geographic region because there is a generally agreed meaning for
> >"medieval". Just "studies", on the other hand, could refer to 21st
> >century nuclear physics...
>
> If "medieval Japan" means only Japan during the European medieval
> period, then we would be equally comfortable speaking of "medieval
> Peru", "medieval Australia", "medieval Kansas". But we don't talk
> that way because there seems very little common to those places
> at those times.
No, we don't talk that way -- to the extent we don't talk that way (and
some people do actually talk that way) -- because at some point the
historians of those times and places, for whatever prejudices and whimsy
of their own, decided not to transfer that particular European
periodization term over. (No, instead they use equally European based
terminology like "Pre-Columban"...)
In my experience, the only places that do not regularly get talked about
as "medieval X" tend to be places where the Westerners studying the
history prior to 1500 or so are primarily archaeologists rather than
historians.
> But, there does seem to be something interesting
> roughly comparable between Japan and Europe in the periods we call
> "mediaval" in those places. If we find in some other place at a
> different time, a culture comparable in the same respects to Japan
> and Europe in their medieval period (periods?), wouldn't we call
> it "medieval"? (It may be shallow to say that the Mafia is
> medieval in its thinking and organization, but it's not meaningless.)
Except that isn't the actual process, that isn't what has really been
happening in the periodization terms used (at least by culturally
Western historians) for different parts of the world. The process is
that historians looking at a different place in the same time-slice
(roughly 500-1500, give or take a century or so) and calling it
medieval, then (in some cases**) coming up with post-justifications for
why it isn't just Eurocentrism to use that European history
periodization and term (as well as adapting the particular end points to
better match the history of the place in question -- just as happens for
the different parts of Europe).
**(In other cases historians, understanding as they do that "medieval"
doesn't really mean anything but a particular, generally agreed,
arbitrary time slice, don't bother with other justifications.)
We've got medieval Africa (in all parts of Africa), medieval Asia (in
all parts of Asia, including Japan, China, Korea, India, etc.), and
medieval Europe. The only regions of the world not regularly called
"medieval" (for the period roughly 500-1500, give or take a century or
so) appear to be the Americas, Australia, and Antiartica -- and as said,
the histories of those places prior to 1500 or so are primarily the
realm of archaeologists, not historians, which is most likely the reason
why one rarely hears of "medieval Peru".
The other thing to note about "medieval" in reference to non-European
history is that normally when getting down to details, sub-periodization
and terminology takes over (just as it does for European history), which
is often entirely unrelated to European periodization and its terms.
> Well, what are those characteristics?
Good luck finding any. I am aware of no set of characteristics that will
be common to
Ireland in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
England in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
France in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
Italy in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
Germany in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
Norway in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
Hungary in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
Spain in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries
and
Scotland in the 6th, 11th, and 15th centuries (heck, there is little
enough that is common to different parts of Scotland even in the same
century...)
and all the other centuries and regions of Europe between roughly
500-1500 (give or take a century or so), especially not any common to
medieval Europe that distinguish it from other periods of European
history -- beyond the simple fact of existing in the arbitrary
time-slice of roughly 500-1500 give or take a century or so.
> In what respects must things
> resemble medieval Europe to justify the word?
Existing in the arbitrary time-slice of roughly 500-1500 give or take
century or so.
> Is it easier to
> define "medieval" in this sense than to define "feudal"?
Not at all, and for even more reasons than why "feudalism" (and it's
adjective "feudal") are problematic. You are trying to take a useful,
meaningful word with a generally agreed definition of referring to a
particular (if large) time-slice and trying to turn it into a
meaningless and misleading word that nobody agrees what it means or even
what kind of thing it refers to [like "feudalism" (and it's adjective,
"feudal")]. Why do you want to do that?
Note that if your criteria for applying "medieval" to some other place
is that that place's culture must resemble medieval Europe in some
common characteristics, to be consistent you're going to have to declare
much of medieval Europe not to be medieval anymore because the common
characteristic shared by all of medieval Europe throughout that 1000
years of their history is that there isn't any common, distinguishing
characteristic shared by all of medieval Europe throughout that 1000
years of their history other than simply existence during that arbitrary
time-slice.
Time periods are *time periods*. Why try to define them as something
other than time periods? From roughly noon to five pm, give or take an
hour or so, is "afternoon", regardless of what one does or does not do
during that period of time. Likewise, "Medieval" refers to _time_, not
culture. Trying to define it as referring to culture will only result in
a very poor understanding of medieval history as it cannot help but
prejudice your research. (You are assuming that because 21st people call
it "medieval", all these different times and places within Europe
between roughly 500 and 1500 must have something in common -- putting
the conclusion ahead of the evidence and research.)
Sharon
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
"Medieval" only fails if you mistakenly think it means anything more
than a particular, arbitrary slice of time. "The fourteenth century"
doesn't fail just because the only distinguishing characteristic the
fourteenth century shares across all cultures that have one is that it
runs roughly from 1300 to 1400 or so. "December 25th" doesn't fail just
because the only distinguishing characteristic December 25th shares
across all cultures that have one is that it falls after December 24th
and before December 26th...
Sharon
John A Geck
news:1g6ivvw.19as4w0t7lj40N%skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org...
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > Thank you for putting that more succiently, perhaps, than I may have.
This
> > was more or less the opinion that I have about the term 'medieval'.
While
> > this certianly doesn't say that the term 'feudal' is at all better, or
even
> > equal in clairty, it does imply that there are certain things in the
messy
> > science that is history, which cannot be carefully defined or
delineated. As
> > regards that, I would say that 'medieval' and 'feudal' both fail. As an
> > aside, I see that scholars of 'medieval' Japan, seem to feel more
> > comfortable using the term 'feudal'...
>
> "Medieval" only fails if you mistakenly think it means anything more
> than a particular, arbitrary slice of time. "The fourteenth century"
> doesn't fail just because the only distinguishing characteristic the
> fourteenth century shares across all cultures that have one is that it
> runs roughly from 1300 to 1400 or so. "December 25th" doesn't fail just
> because the only distinguishing characteristic December 25th shares
> across all cultures that have one is that it falls after December 24th
> and before December 26th...
>
> Sharon
Of course, not all cultures have the same fourteenth century or a December,
but that aside... :)
A lot of people, mistakenly or not, use 'medieval' to mean something more
than an arbitrary slice of time. Dick Wisan already provided the example of
'medieval Japan', which certainly occupies a different slice of time, as
does 'medieval China', regardless of overlap. Why are these slices
different? It indicates that the motivation for the choice is something
other than scientific accuracy as befits dates and chronology. The reasons
that the name, the period, etc were all originally chosen had very little to
do with a simply scientific choice. If the lifespan of the term 'medieval'
and 'midle ages' is any indication, 'feudal' is going to last for quite some
time.
Cheers,
John
Brian M. Scott
skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org (Sharon L. Krossa "No
Nonsense") wrote in soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> "December 25th" doesn't fail just
> because the only distinguishing characteristic December 25th shares
> across all cultures that have one is that it falls after December 24th
> and before December 26th...
Merlin. You forgot Merlin. <g>
Brian
John A Geck
> This is primarily for John A Geck, who asked for it.
> But it may be useful to anyone interested in the
> argument over "feudalism".
>
> It is a long extract (several pages) from the book
> _Strong of Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry & Society
> in Medieval France_ by Constance Brittain Bouchard,
> Cornell, 1998. I start on page 35:
>
> ***** Begin Extract *****
> ***** End Extract *****
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Thank you very much, Paul. I feel quite well-informed now on this little
slice of medieval law (an area, I must confess, I don't enter into all that
often).
Cheers,
John
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
> "Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense"" <skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org>
> wrote in message
> news:1g6ivvw.19as4w0t7lj40N%skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org...
> >
> > "Medieval" only fails if you mistakenly think it means anything more
> > than a particular, arbitrary slice of time. "The fourteenth century"
> > doesn't fail just because the only distinguishing characteristic the
> > fourteenth century shares across all cultures that have one is that it
> > runs roughly from 1300 to 1400 or so. "December 25th" doesn't fail just
> > because the only distinguishing characteristic December 25th shares
> > across all cultures that have one is that it falls after December 24th
> > and before December 26th...
>
> Of course, not all cultures have the same fourteenth century or a December,
> but that aside... :)
Which is why I said "that have one". Mind you, regardless of whether a
culture considers itself to have a 14th century or not or a December or
not, Westerners (who have both concepts) can still talk of what was
going on in those cultures in "the 14th century" and what happened on
"December 25th" and everyone will understand what time period is being
referred to -- as with "medieval".
The only exception is when talking to people who don't know what "the
14th century", "December 25th", or "medieval" mean at all, or who have
redefined their meanings to something that is different from the
generally agreed meaning. And in such cases, it is those who have
redefined the word to their own unique, special meaning who are at fault
for the subsequent lack of communication.
> A lot of people, mistakenly or not, use 'medieval' to mean something more
> than an arbitrary slice of time.
And the appropriate response to that is to correct them, and tell them
that it means simply a particular slice of time. Because the other
meaning they want it to have simply doesn't work *even for medieval
Europe*. (Or have you come up with even one defining characteristic that
applies to all of Europe from roughly 500-1500, give or take a century
or so?)
If someone tries to use "blue" to refer to shape rather than color, is
the best response to play along and work with them to try to redefine
blue as a shape, or to say "No, sorry, 'blue' doesn't refer to shape, it
refers to color, specifically the color blue."? (Just because various
blue things also have shapes -- in fact, many different shapes --
doesn't mean "blue" refers to shape...)
> Dick Wisan already provided the example of
> 'medieval Japan', which certainly occupies a different slice of time,
Not that I can see. From what I can tell "medieval Japan" is used for
roughly the same time slice, though some use it only when addressing the
later part of that time slice (using subperiodization terms for the
earlier part) -- much as with regard to European history some use
"medieval" only when talking about the later part of the medieval period
(using "dark ages" or the like for the earlier part).
Further, even accepting for the sake of argument that what is called
"medieval Japan" occurred in a completely different slice of time than
the Middle Ages, and even if Japanese historians really do mean to refer
to a set of cultural characteristics rather than a time period when they
say "medieval", why in the world should European historians be bound by
the colossally foolish mistakes of Japanese historians? If Japanese
historians want to regard Japan in a certain period as medieval because
they think it has some cultural characteristics erroneously believed to
be defining of the Eupopean medieval period, that's a mess of their own
making and European historians shouldn't compound the error by importing
such an untenable Japanese definition back to a European context.
[I suspect that "medieval Japan" these days is called "medieval" more as
a legacy of earlier historians than as any reflection of the current
crop's theories about whether medieval Japan is "medieval" because it is
like medieval Europe. My understanding is that in recent years Japanese
historians have been deciding that Japan has its own history that should
be approached on its own merits and not be defined by the history of
places half a world away. So perhaps in this context they have redefined
"medieval Japan" to refer to a different time slice than roughly
500-1500 give or take a century or so. But if so, then is like "braces"
meaning something different in the UK and in the USA, with the current
US use & definition being irrelevant to the current UK use and
definition.]
> as
> does 'medieval China', regardless of overlap.
From what I can observe "medieval China" even more than "medieval
Japan" is being used for roughly the same time slice, give or take a
century or so at either end.
(The reason why I keep defining medieval, even in the European context,
as "roughly 500-1500 give or take a century or so" is because such
variation at the end points is found within European historiography as
well.)
Also note that the parallel with "medieval Europe" is "medieval Asia",
not "medieval Japan". Depending on how many different cultures are
included in "medieval China", it may or may not be a reasonable parallel
to "medieval Europe".
> Why are these slices
> different? It indicates that the motivation for the choice is something
> other than scientific accuracy as befits dates and chronology.
No one said either the original motivations or the current use was about
scientific accuracy -- only that currently, when used correctly, the
time period term refers to a _time period_ (however fuzzy around the
edges) rather than to culture, or cultural characteristics, or anything
else.
Why are the starting and end points slightly different, both within and
outwith European cultures? Because different cultures and different
academic disciplines have different sub-periodization and the starting
and stoping points of larger periods are adjusted to fit the smaller
periods -- as always, for convenience (just like the very term medieval
is for convenience) [and often influenced, especially in the original
choice, by prejudice and whimsy].
And also because it really doesn't matter much if there is some
variation at the endpoints because the term is just a general/rough
indication of a large expanse of time. It really doesn't matter whether
one considers the 16th century part of the Middle Ages or not, and
likewise with the 15th century -- call both Early Modern or both
Medieval, it won't change the actual history of the 15th or 16th century
anywhere, and shouldn't change anyone's understanding of 15th or 16th
century history, either.
> The reasons
> that the name, the period, etc were all originally chosen had very little to
> do with a simply scientific choice.
I agree -- most were originally chosen out of (various, different)
prejudice and whimsy. (I have never suggested any were "scientific"
choices at all.) But these days the _original_ reasons for the
terminology (for example, in the context of European history, of the
medieval era being the uninteresting, backward "middle" period between
the wonderful, contemporary Renaissance period and the inspirational
Ancient period) don't matter. The meaning of words is often not
determined by their etymology.
Further, note that in the case of Europe, even the original basis for
the term "medieval" (and "Middle Ages") was not that all the places and
times within that period were supposed to have something in common -- it
was that (in the eyes of those coining the term) they did _not_ have the
important things in common with the previous (Ancient) and following
(Renaissance/Modern) periods -- which two periods those coining
"medieval" regarded as having much in common with each other.
In any case, we are not obligated to continue on with the mistakes of
earlier historians. The reasons for "medieval" being coined to describe
the time period of roughly 500-1500, give or take a century or so, don't
matter -- what does matter is that it is the current label used (and
generally agreed) to refer to that time period and is useful for that
purpose. Reading more into it is to make unsupported assumptions about
medieval history based on accidents of modern history rather than on the
evidence of medieval history itself.
> If the lifespan of the term 'medieval'
> and 'midle ages' is any indication, 'feudal' is going to last for quite some
> time.
But it isn't any indication. The basic and widely agreed meaning and
usefulness of "medieval" is to refer to a _time period_ and "feudalism"
(and it's adjective "feudal") is used to refer to (various) completely
different kinds of things. That some people also mistake "medieval" as a
synonym for "feudal" (in the sense of "of or pertaining to feudalism")
does not in any way support taking the continued use of "medieval" as
any indication of whether "feudalism"/"feudal" will likewise continue to
be used. (It's like saying the continued use of "blue" to refer to the
color blue shows that using "squaral" to refer to circles and triangles
[and various other shapes] will continue for quite some time...)
Not least among the differences is that increasing numbers of medieval
historians are abandoning "feudalism" altogether and yet *not*
abandoning "medieval" in reference to time period (understanding, as
they do, that an essentially arbitrary but agreed time period is a
quite, quite different thing from whatever the heck "feudalism" is).
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org
Sharon L. Krossa No Nonsense
Ah, but Merlin just experiences them backwards -- they still occur in
the order specified above...
John A Geck
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > Of course, not all cultures have the same fourteenth century or a
December,
> > but that aside... :)
>
> Which is why I said "that have one". Mind you, regardless of whether a
> culture considers itself to have a 14th century or not or a December or
> not, Westerners (who have both concepts) can still talk of what was
> going on in those cultures in "the 14th century" and what happened on
> "December 25th" and everyone will understand what time period is being
> referred to -- as with "medieval".
You are correct, and I'm guilty of poor reading. I only meant it as a bit of
levity anyway.
<<snip>>
> > Dick Wisan already provided the example of
> > 'medieval Japan', which certainly occupies a different slice of time,
>
> Not that I can see. From what I can tell "medieval Japan" is used for
> roughly the same time slice, though some use it only when addressing the
> later part of that time slice (using subperiodization terms for the
> earlier part) -- much as with regard to European history some use
> "medieval" only when talking about the later part of the medieval period
> (using "dark ages" or the like for the earlier part).
>
> Further, even accepting for the sake of argument that what is called
> "medieval Japan" occurred in a completely different slice of time than
> the Middle Ages, and even if Japanese historians really do mean to refer
> to a set of cultural characteristics rather than a time period when they
> say "medieval", why in the world should European historians be bound by
> the colossally foolish mistakes of Japanese historians? If Japanese
> historians want to regard Japan in a certain period as medieval because
> they think it has some cultural characteristics erroneously believed to
> be defining of the Eupopean medieval period, that's a mess of their own
> making and European historians shouldn't compound the error by importing
> such an untenable Japanese definition back to a European context.
It's actually even easier than that. From what I have seen, the terms
'medieval Japan' and 'medieval China' are used to refer to a rough span of
700-1800 and 200-1700 (very rough here), respectively. However, the reason
that they appear to do it, from the cursory examination I gave the subject
some time back, is neither because they are 'colossally foolish' nor because
they 'erroneously believe' that there are cultural similarities (on the
whole, not on specific comparisons) between the two geographic areas.
Japanese historians seem to use the term (when using English, obviously) to
refer to the Nara period through the Tokugawa period (710-1867). 'Medieval
China' as a term seems to be an indication of the division between
pre-Imperial, on one end, and post-imperial, on the other, which can in some
ways bring the 'medieval' period up to the 20th century.
As far as that goes, there's one similarity between 'medieval Europe'
and 'medieval Asia'- they both differed in certain ways from what preceded
the period and what followed.
> [I suspect that "medieval Japan" these days is called "medieval" more as
> a legacy of earlier historians than as any reflection of the current
> crop's theories about whether medieval Japan is "medieval" because it is
> like medieval Europe. My understanding is that in recent years Japanese
> historians have been deciding that Japan has its own history that should
> be approached on its own merits and not be defined by the history of
> places half a world away. So perhaps in this context they have redefined
> "medieval Japan" to refer to a different time slice than roughly
> 500-1500 give or take a century or so. But if so, then is like "braces"
> meaning something different in the UK and in the USA, with the current
> US use & definition being irrelevant to the current UK use and
> definition.]
Yes, but the concept behind the name is nevertheless the same. Medieval
Europe and Medieval Asia both had certain differences between the era
preceding them and the era follwing them. More on this down below.
> > as
> > does 'medieval China', regardless of overlap.
>
> From what I can observe "medieval China" even more than "medieval
> Japan" is being used for roughly the same time slice, give or take a
> century or so at either end.
> (The reason why I keep defining medieval, even in the European context,
> as "roughly 500-1500 give or take a century or so" is because such
> variation at the end points is found within European historiography as
> well.)
>
> Also note that the parallel with "medieval Europe" is "medieval Asia",
> not "medieval Japan". Depending on how many different cultures are
> included in "medieval China", it may or may not be a reasonable parallel
> to "medieval Europe".
Of course; this doesn't stop the term from being used, nor does it make much
of a difference in the current discussion anyway. Even if we say 'medieval
Britain', that still covers a huge time span, variety of cultures, et al.
> > Why are these slices
> > different? It indicates that the motivation for the choice is something
> > other than scientific accuracy as befits dates and chronology.
>
> No one said either the original motivations or the current use was about
> scientific accuracy -- only that currently, when used correctly, the
> time period term refers to a _time period_ (however fuzzy around the
> edges) rather than to culture, or cultural characteristics, or anything
> else.
I was confusing when I used the term 'scientific'. What I meant was that the
initial motivation for calling the Middle Ages 'medieval' was not simply to
have a convenient and arbitrary chunk of time to describe what one is
studying. Regardless of what similarities and dissimilarities are found in
'medieval' Europe, it certainly wasn't 'Classical' (which has its own
subdivisions, of course). Nor is it too much like 'Early Modern' (a
difficult and eventually outdated term in its own right). Even if we now
accept that the classical period and the early modern period now have very
few things in common with each other, we would still say that there are
marked differences between either one and 'medieval'. There are of course
similarities also.
What I mean by this is that for as long as the term 'medieval' exists, this
will always be the inital reason the term was chosen. On the other face of
this, we could say that if 'medieval' is able to take on a new meaning
without any break in usage, so too can 'feudal'.
> Why are the starting and end points slightly different, both within and
> outwith European cultures? Because different cultures and different
> academic disciplines have different sub-periodization and the starting
> and stoping points of larger periods are adjusted to fit the smaller
> periods -- as always, for convenience (just like the very term medieval
> is for convenience) [and often influenced, especially in the original
> choice, by prejudice and whimsy].
But the starting points are very different outside of Europe (with the
possible exception of northern Africa). Just because they overlap doesn't
mean that they're the same. That would be like saying that 'Early Modern'
and 'Medieval' are the same because they overlap.
> And also because it really doesn't matter much if there is some
> variation at the endpoints because the term is just a general/rough
> indication of a large expanse of time. It really doesn't matter whether
> one considers the 16th century part of the Middle Ages or not, and
> likewise with the 15th century -- call both Early Modern or both
> Medieval, it won't change the actual history of the 15th or 16th century
> anywhere, and shouldn't change anyone's understanding of 15th or 16th
> century history, either.
>
> > The reasons
> > that the name, the period, etc were all originally chosen had very
little to
> > do with a simply scientific choice.
>
> I agree -- most were originally chosen out of (various, different)
> prejudice and whimsy. (I have never suggested any were "scientific"
> choices at all.) But these days the _original_ reasons for the
> terminology (for example, in the context of European history, of the
> medieval era being the uninteresting, backward "middle" period between
> the wonderful, contemporary Renaissance period and the inspirational
> Ancient period) don't matter. The meaning of words is often not
> determined by their etymology.
I'd agree with that in part. However, I think that it might also be
important (and perhaps a bit more fair) to divorce the pejorative nature of
the name from the fact there there were nevertheless differences. The
earliest users of the term had a highly biased reason for choosing the name,
having the idea in the first place; however, couldn't we still say that they
were being somewhat accurate in seeing that there were major changes in the
way their culture was working? If we consider the renaissance to be a
process rather than a period, than the renaissance is one of the endpoints
for 'medieval'.
<<snip>>
Thank you for all of the other thoughts; I agree in a very large part.
Cheers,
John
Paul J Gans
Well, I think you've accidently done it here. By assigning the
term "medieval" to say China, the assigner is assuming that the
(unnamed and undefined) characteristics of "medieval Europe"
also apply to China during a certain time period.
That's obvious nonsense. Medieval is a time period. If I
say that my 6 to 8 pm at my house is the same as the 3-5 pm
period at my neighbors house, what am I saying? That we do
from 6 to 8 what they do from 3 to 5? Clearly that is NOT the
case with "medieval China" or "medieval Japan" or medieval
anything else.
Feudal is even worse. Its most general meaning is pejorative,
as Bouchard discusses in the excerpt I put up last night. But
beyond that China never had the political structures that
Europe had, it never had the social structures that Europe
had, the economics, the religion, etc., etc. etc. To say that
the two were the same in any meaningful way is to fool
one's readers into thinking that there are similarities where
there are none.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>John
Law?
By the way, the remainder of the chapter talks about fiefs,
what they were and what they were not. And, most importantly,
how they varied from place to place and over time.
---- Paul J. Gans
John A Geck
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect <g>. Although I'm not entirely certain
I follow your analogy, I'm using this as a learning process, not to defend
any deeply held beliefs that I hold myself. If you were to say that 6-8 is
the same as 3-5 at a neighbour's house, I'd have to presume that you mean
that what was going on at 6-8 at your house was indeed happening at 3-5 at
another's. That understood, I would agree that when one uses the term
'medieval China', they don't seem to mean that China shared similar
structures with any part of Europe. However, they also don't seem to use it
meaning that it's the same time period. Best to keep the two separate, then?
Japan is a dodgier example, becuase there does seem to be a many points of
comparison. Well-balanced and informed comparision, of course, identifying
major contrasts as well...
> Feudal is even worse. Its most general meaning is pejorative,
> as Bouchard discusses in the excerpt I put up last night. But
> beyond that China never had the political structures that
> Europe had, it never had the social structures that Europe
> had, the economics, the religion, etc., etc. etc. To say that
> the two were the same in any meaningful way is to fool
> one's readers into thinking that there are similarities where
> there are none.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were _no_ similarities. If you
take that route, that seems to imply that we must comepletely eradicate any
forms of comparison between any two cultures, because, of course, no two are
ever exactly the same. Taken to its furthest extreme, it could even prevent
comparisons of the same culture at two different points in history (though
this may be an overstatement). I know that this is a strongly-voiced
contention in some fields, but it does seem to prevent an even judicial use
of humankind's ability to form and identify patterns.
Thank you again for the Bouchard example,
John
John A Geck
I say law because 'fedual' was born out of legal terminolgy, and the study
of 'feudal' thingies like 'fiefs' and 'vassalage' are centered more in the
legal frame of things than in certian other areas.You see, if my major
concentration was on, say, property law in some slice of the middle ages,
then I'd have encountered this discussion some time back, and been acutely
aware of the debate surrounding it. However, I focus more on artistic
endevours and lay piety, things like that, which only deal peripherally with
such issues (i.e. donating property to monastic houses, etc.).
Cheers,
John
Brian M. Scott
<john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bskirt$4jp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
[...]
>> Feudal is even worse. Its most general meaning is pejorative,
>> as Bouchard discusses in the excerpt I put up last night.
>> But beyond that China never had the political structures that
>> Europe had, it never had the social structures that Europe
>> had, the economics, the religion, etc., etc. etc. To say
>> that the two were the same in any meaningful way is to fool
>> one's readers into thinking that there are similarities where
>> there are none.
> I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were _no_
> similarities.
Well, both were human cultures, and the gross tech levels were
fairly similar, given that we're talking about a fairly long
period, so I'll have to agree that there are likely to be *some*
similarities. <g> But are they actually more significant than
those between late antiquity and early middle ages, say?
I don't know how Paul meant it, but I would interpret his
statement a little differently. It's not that there are no
similarities at all, it's that the name implies the existence of
more than there really are: not just of similarities where they
exist, but also of similarities where there are none.
[...]
Brian
John A Geck
news:6ikg7cx3uug0$.6jny6z25itoy.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:39:43 GMT, "John A Geck"
> <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
>> had, the economics, the religion, etc., etc. etc. To say
>> that the two were the same in any meaningful way is to fool
>> one's readers into thinking that there are similarities where
>> there are none.
> > I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were _no_
> > similarities.
>
> Well, both were human cultures, and the gross tech levels were
> fairly similar, given that we're talking about a fairly long
> period, so I'll have to agree that there are likely to be *some*
> similarities. <g> But are they actually more significant than
> those between late antiquity and early middle ages, say?
>
> I don't know how Paul meant it, but I would interpret his
> statement a little differently. It's not that there are no
> similarities at all, it's that the name implies the existence of
> more than there really are: not just of similarities where they
> exist, but also of similarities where there are none.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
Your interpretation of his statement is decidely more measured than how
it sounded to me. Yours is a more qualified statement with which I would
agree. I do see that Japan has fallen by the wayside in this particular part
of the discussion, however. Is this because that is a civilisation, however
much its own construction with no European influence, which did have a
considerably closer level of comparison to medieval Europe (in some ways)?
A professor related to me some months backt he proceedings of a medieval
conference in Kyoto which he had attended. He said, in effect, that a loose
analogy can be drawn between 'medieval' Japan's attitude towards China and
medieval Europe's take on Roman civilisation (agian, in part, of course, and
only as a loose analogy). The main earmarks of the comparison dealt with
issues like Japan having a sort-of Matter of China, in the same way Western
Europe had the Matter of Rome...a similar adherence to Chinese as the
educated and literate language that was given class preference over the
vernacular. Things like that. Of course, the last could be applied to early
Rome and Greece as well.
Cheers,
John
Mike
> Bernardz <Berna...@removehotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
> >In Russian legal history, there was a major debate whether the lords
> >owned the peasants and the peasants owned the land. Or whether the lords
> >owned the land and the peasants worked on the land for the lord.
>
>
> As far as I know, no. The lords owned the land but did not
> own the peasants. The peasants had what we might call
> unbreakable lifetime contracts to perform certain services
> in return for permission to use some of the lord's land.
The end of feudalism always bothered me. During Feudalism peasants gave
money/goods/services to nobles as homage. After feudalism, peasants gave
money/goods/services to landlords as rent. Talk about a shell game of word
definitions. What's the dif?
The domestic reforms from the revolution of 1848 in the German areas
include: abolition of service, access to common lands (mostly forest
resources), minimum education levels, cessation of mandatory church tithes.
Can't you almost say feudalism was the impromptu yet to be formed government
of the periods 500-1500? Would I be right in venturing that feudalism
involved giving money/goods/services to a guy; while the post feudalist gave
it to the state, a bureaucratic parliamentary. The King of England himself
paid for all judicial expenses in the realm until what, 1811? I can get the
exact date if someone wants. Was not there also the case internationally,
when the King of Prussia was questioned for the first time by his parliament
when trying to conclude the military annexation of Schleswig Holstein in
1848.
Sorry to go outside the time limits of this group, but I thought the end of
feudalism important in defining it.
erilar
<1g6lpvq.1hk2o5g1evft34N%skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:02:07 GMT,
> > skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org (Sharon L. Krossa "No
> > Nonsense") wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > "December 25th" doesn't fail just
> > > because the only distinguishing characteristic December 25th shares
> > > across all cultures that have one is that it falls after December 24th
> > > and before December 26th...
> >
> > Merlin. You forgot Merlin. <g>
>
> Ah, but Merlin just experiences them backwards -- they still occur in
> the order specified above...
>
> Sharon
Exactly 8-)
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as too many books. Bookshelves, on the other hand . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
D. Spencer Hines
Brian "Igor" Scott is playing:
"What Master Gans meant to say...." ---- again.
This is always fun to watch.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Exitus Acta Probat
Fortem Posce Animum
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:6ikg7cx3uug0$.6jny6z25itoy.dlg@40tude.net...
Brian M. Scott
<erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in
soc.history.medieval:
> In article
> <1g6lpvq.1hk2o5g1evft34N%skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org>,
> skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org (Sharon L. Krossa "No
> Nonsense") wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:02:07 GMT,
>>> skros...@nonsense.MedievalScotland.org (Sharon L. Krossa "No
>>> Nonsense") wrote in soc.history.medieval:
>>> [...]
>>> > "December 25th" doesn't fail just
>>> > because the only distinguishing characteristic December 25th shares
>>> > across all cultures that have one is that it falls after December 24th
>>> > and before December 26th...
>>> Merlin. You forgot Merlin. <g>
>> Ah, but Merlin just experiences them backwards -- they still occur in
>> the order specified above...
> Exactly 8-)
Not, however, to Merlin. From his point of view 24 December
follows 25 December, and it's we who are experiencing them
backwards.
Brian
Paul J Gans
Consider what you just wrote about China. If "medieval China"
does not mean the same time period and it does not mean the
same structures, what *does* it mean?
My opinion is that it is just an obfuscatory phrase that
muddies the water. If there are similarities the person
makng the comparison should state them, don't you think?
>> Feudal is even worse. Its most general meaning is pejorative,
>> as Bouchard discusses in the excerpt I put up last night. But
>> beyond that China never had the political structures that
>> Europe had, it never had the social structures that Europe
>> had, the economics, the religion, etc., etc. etc. To say that
>> the two were the same in any meaningful way is to fool
>> one's readers into thinking that there are similarities where
>> there are none.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were _no_ similarities. If you
>take that route, that seems to imply that we must comepletely eradicate any
>forms of comparison between any two cultures, because, of course, no two are
>ever exactly the same. Taken to its furthest extreme, it could even prevent
>comparisons of the same culture at two different points in history (though
>this may be an overstatement). I know that this is a strongly-voiced
>contention in some fields, but it does seem to prevent an even judicial use
>of humankind's ability to form and identify patterns.
No, that's going too far. What I'm saying is that what
similarities there are are either trivial (one man was
beholden in some sense to another -- something that is
true in, I think, all cultures) or misleading (Chinese
war lords were like independent dukes in the medieval
west -- something too general to mean much).
I agree that humans have an ability to form and identify
patterns. And I think you'd agree that it would be good
if such were spelled out.
The problem lies, in my mind, in using terms like "feudal"
or "medieval", which have no clear-cut definition. If that
is true, how can something else be similar to them?
Example: it is true, I think, that England in 1150 was
organized very differently than France in 1150, even if
aristocrats had similar titles on both sides of the channel.
What similarities there are come from a common foundation
in Christianity and a somewhat shared history. But one
cannot look at the Count of Champaigne and compare his
rights, duties, perogatives, etc., to the Earl of Chester
at the same period -- even though earl and count are
somewhat similar titles.
Let me put it this way. If we are to get anywhere in
our understanding of the medievals, we have to look at
the details. Otherwise history becomes a Hollywood
movie.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>John
Ok. I see what you are driving at. But I don't think
that those who started giving out fiefs had law on their
mind when they did so. Each grant was individual. It
was only later that legal theorists tried to push all fiefs
into a single procrustean bed.
---- Paul J. Gans
Renia
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:bsj0uq$m6q$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>>>This is primarily for John A Geck, who asked for it.
>>>But it may be useful to anyone interested in the
>>>argument over "feudalism".
>>>
>>>It is a long extract (several pages) from the book
>>>_Strong of Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry & Society
>>>in Medieval France_ by Constance Brittain Bouchard,
>>>Cornell, 1998. I start on page 35:
>>>
>>>***** Begin Extract *****
>>
>><<snip>>
>>
>>>***** End Extract *****
>>>
>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
>
>
>>Thank you very much, Paul. I feel quite well-informed now on this little
>>slice of medieval law (an area, I must confess, I don't enter into all that
>>often).
>
>
>>Cheers,
>
>
>>John
>
>
> Law?
Why the question mark? It is a "law thing".
Renia
Renia
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bs9tm2$7h$6...@reader2.panix.com...
>
>>Bernardz <Berna...@removehotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bs8e0i$f7r$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com says...
>>>In Russian legal history, there was a major debate whether the lords
>>>owned the peasants and the peasants owned the land. Or whether the lords
>>>owned the land and the peasants worked on the land for the lord.
>>
>>
>>As far as I know, no. The lords owned the land but did not
>>own the peasants. The peasants had what we might call
>>unbreakable lifetime contracts to perform certain services
>>in return for permission to use some of the lord's land.
>
>
> The end of feudalism always bothered me.
It didn't end, in Britain. It's stil going on. Some people think it has
to do with the perceived class system in England. Others, simply, just
don't understand.
The others being mostly Americans.
> During Feudalism peasants gave
> money/goods/services to nobles as homage. After feudalism, peasants gave
> money/goods/services to landlords as rent. Talk about a shell game of word
> definitions. What's the dif?
>
> The domestic reforms from the revolution of 1848 in the German areas
> include: abolition of service, access to common lands (mostly forest
> resources), minimum education levels, cessation of mandatory church tithes.
>
> Can't you almost say feudalism was the impromptu yet to be formed government
> of the periods 500-1500? Would I be right in venturing that feudalism
> involved giving money/goods/services to a guy; while the post feudalist gave
> it to the state, a bureaucratic parliamentary. The King of England himself
> paid for all judicial expenses in the realm until what, 1811? I can get the
> exact date if someone wants. Was not there also the case internationally,
> when the King of Prussia was questioned for the first time by his parliament
> when trying to conclude the military annexation of Schleswig Holstein in
> 1848.
>
> Sorry to go outside the time limits of this group, but I thought the end of
> feudalism important in defining it.
No problem here. We all know that officially, feudalism doesn't end in
Scotland until 2004. What's more, it still actually exists in England.
In a diluted form, but it stil exists.
Renia
Paul J Gans
>Renia
What is a law thing? Fiefs? There certainly is law
about them, but then, there is law about everything
from lollypops to used shoes.
Fiefs were not instituted to create new law. Nor
were those who granted them particularly interested
in the eventual legal aspects of them. Further, fiefs
vary greatly in types and kind and conditions, if any,
attached. They are different in England than in France
and in any case were not the only method of property
conveyance nor even the most common.
--- Paul J. Gans
Renia
> Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!
>
> Brian "Igor" Scott is playing:
>
> "What Master Gans meant to say...." ---- again.
Remind me someone. Who is that second head in Hitchiker's Guide to the
Galaxy? Beealzibub someone? That's Scott. Talam. Talum. Or whatever.
Where's your 180-page sig gone, DSH?
Renia
Renia
> The problem lies, in my mind, in using terms like "feudal"
> or "medieval",
Quite so. I said, several posts ago, that "feudal" was about as useful
as "medieval". But, among "those who know", "medieval" is perfectly
accaptable, while "feudal" is not.
Methinks it is all pretentious shit among those who don't understand but
who like to sound clever and all-knowing.
Renia
Renia
Llobocks. Law was very much on their minds. It's the whole intrinsic
point of Englishness.
An Englishman's home is his castle. It's as simple as that.
Renia
John A Geck
> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:bskirt$4jp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> ><<snip>>
certain
> >I follow your analogy, I'm using this as a learning process, not to
defend
> >any deeply held beliefs that I hold myself. If you were to say that 6-8
is
> >the same as 3-5 at a neighbour's house, I'd have to presume that you mean
> >that what was going on at 6-8 at your house was indeed happening at 3-5
at
> >another's. That understood, I would agree that when one uses the term
> >'medieval China', they don't seem to mean that China shared similar
> >structures with any part of Europe. However, they also don't seem to use
it
> >meaning that it's the same time period. Best to keep the two separate,
then?
> >Japan is a dodgier example, becuase there does seem to be a many points
of
> >comparison. Well-balanced and informed comparision, of course,
identifying
> >major contrasts as well...
>
> Consider what you just wrote about China. If "medieval China"
> does not mean the same time period and it does not mean the
> same structures, what *does* it mean?
I thought I said that (again, I'm learning as I go here in this discussion,
so my views change). Actually, it was in another thread. The term medieval
China is used to refer to a period which has more common within its sweeping
timespan than the times before or after. Medieval China seems to refer to
Imperial China. That is, it's not pre-imperial, and it's not
post-imperial...its in the 'middle'. That's the sense I got anyway.
> My opinion is that it is just an obfuscatory phrase that
> muddies the water. If there are similarities the person
> makng the comparison should state them, don't you think?
Only if mistaken assumptions are carried along with the term. The terms
exist; it would be difficult to have everyone stop using them, particularly
in fields as far afield as Chinese or Japanese history, if the sense I got
of the terminology is accurate.
<<snip>>
> >I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were _no_ similarities. If you
> >take that route, that seems to imply that we must comepletely eradicate
any
> >forms of comparison between any two cultures, because, of course, no two
are
> >ever exactly the same. Taken to its furthest extreme, it could even
prevent
> >comparisons of the same culture at two different points in history
(though
> >this may be an overstatement). I know that this is a strongly-voiced
> >contention in some fields, but it does seem to prevent an even judicial
use
> >of humankind's ability to form and identify patterns.
>
> No, that's going too far. What I'm saying is that what
> similarities there are are either trivial (one man was
> beholden in some sense to another -- something that is
> true in, I think, all cultures) or misleading (Chinese
> war lords were like independent dukes in the medieval
> west -- something too general to mean much).
But surely you can't argue that there are no similarities which aren't
either trivial or misleading. There may be ones where it can help elucidate
a point. Again, I notice that Japan has fallen out of discussion. From what
little I know, I do think that one can say that 'Samurai were similar to the
knightly nobility of Europe in that both had a code of ethics (which of
course could be broken), chivalry and Bushido. Understanding that, the
difference is that the Bushido code places an importance on national
obedience, as well as obedience to one's leige lord. Whereas the importance
of a knightly ancestry was important in Europe, in Japan the idea of
ancestor-worship strengthened the importance of obeying the code. Other
points of comparison exist in the value both cultures placed on the display
of impassibility as regards pain, the protection of the weak, and the value
of glory and honour.' It's not necessary, but it is interesting. It makes
one consider what could possibly be thought of as 'human' values, things
like that.
> I agree that humans have an ability to form and identify
> patterns. And I think you'd agree that it would be good
> if such were spelled out.
>
> The problem lies, in my mind, in using terms like "feudal"
> or "medieval", which have no clear-cut definition. If that
> is true, how can something else be similar to them?
>
> Example: it is true, I think, that England in 1150 was
> organized very differently than France in 1150, even if
> aristocrats had similar titles on both sides of the channel.
> What similarities there are come from a common foundation
> in Christianity and a somewhat shared history. But one
> cannot look at the Count of Champaigne and compare his
> rights, duties, perogatives, etc., to the Earl of Chester
> at the same period -- even though earl and count are
> somewhat similar titles.
>
> Let me put it this way. If we are to get anywhere in
> our understanding of the medievals, we have to look at
> the details. Otherwise history becomes a Hollywood
> movie.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
And of course, I do agree that details are the lifeblood of historical
study and accuracy. However, some level of pedagogical or communicative
interest ought to come in at some point. You can't always explain something
to someone starting from the ground up. That seems to run the risk of
creating elite classes with certain specific historical knowledge. You can't
always say, 'if you want to know about such-and-such, read this book, this
book, and this book. This will help you understand the history and the
historiogrpahy of the subject.' This is good for grad work, but not for
everyday communication. Not even Professors want to hear all the details,
all the time. At least, that's how it has seemed to me.
If you want to give someone a general sense of an aspect of medieval
history, it really helps to be able to make comparisons. They function as
the jumping-off point whence one can begin to make distinctions. If I want
to explain Bushiod to someone without training them in Zen, Shintoism, et.
a. nor provide them with a history of Japan's culture from 700 CE, I could
say, "you know how the knightly nobility of Western Europe had the concept
of chivalric behaviour? Let's start from there..." That doesn't make a
Hollywood movie, does it?
Cheers,
John
John A Geck
I could nearly accuse you of nitpicking here. I was only using it as a brief
aside to a thank you. However, since you bring it up, I _do_ think those
that were giving out fiefs had law on their mind, at least in some sense.
That's why they would oftentimes write it down, and write down the rules
surrounding it. How is that not law? The lease on my apartment, as a modern
example- I consider that a legal document. What should we call the
obligations surrounding such grants of property, such promises of service or
protection?
Best,
John
John A Geck
<<snip>>
> >Why the question mark? It is a "law thing".
>
> >Renia
>
> What is a law thing? Fiefs? There certainly is law
> about them, but then, there is law about everything
> from lollypops to used shoes.
>
> Fiefs were not instituted to create new law. Nor
> were those who granted them particularly interested
> in the eventual legal aspects of them. Further, fiefs
> vary greatly in types and kind and conditions, if any,
> attached. They are different in England than in France
> and in any case were not the only method of property
> conveyance nor even the most common.
>
> --- Paul J. Gans
But weren't fiefs instituted to create a new law, a new code of
behaviour and obligation between two parties? To me, law is...(for fun,
we'll use the Dictionary Entry, the vaunted authority among grade-schoolers
and newsgroups alike!)...1) A rule of conduct or procedure established by
custom, agreement, or authority. Quite honestly, I agree with Msrs. Merriam
and Webster on this point. This is, indeed, the heart of 'Law'. Perhaps
you're thinking of good old definition 2, which is basically the protection
of definition 1 by a governing body. In England, fiefal contracts could be
brought before the king's justice...
Cheers,
John
Renia
> Renia <re...@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
>
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>Law?
>
>
>>Why the question mark? It is a "law thing".
>
>
>>Renia
>
>
> What is a law thing? Fiefs? There certainly is law
> about them, but then, there is law about everything
> from lollypops to used shoes.
>
> Fiefs were not instituted to create new law.
They were part of the law.
> Nor
> were those who granted them particularly interested
> in the eventual legal aspects of them.
Oh, yes they were. They kept this stuff for generations, and trawled
them up, centuries later, before the courts leet and baron, etc.
Sometimes, it wasn't even written down, but the Word Of The Elders was
sufficient, in law.
> Further, fiefs
> vary greatly in types and kind and conditions, if any,
> attached. They are different in England than in France
> and in any case were not the only method of property
> conveyance nor even the most common.
I can't talk of France. But in England, it was central to property law.
Still was until the early 20th century.
Renia
Brian M. Scott
wrote in soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> Can't you almost say feudalism was the impromptu yet to be
> formed government of the periods 500-1500?
No: 'impromptu yet to be formed' makes no sense. In any case
there most certainly were government structures in that period,
by no means all of the same form, and most of them were far from
impromptu.
> Would I be right in venturing that feudalism
> involved giving money/goods/services to a guy; while the post
> feudalist gave it to the state, a bureaucratic parliamentary.
No.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> Mike wrote:
[...]
>> The end of feudalism always bothered me.
> It didn't end, in Britain.
Perhaps, by one definition of the term. One that is remarkably
useless in studying the topic of this newsgroup.
[...]
Paul J Gans
Well, that's a rather rough way to characterize a fair
number of world-class medieval historians, but then,
I guess you know best.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Renia
But, but, fiefs started in France. It is as simple
as that, or have I been misinformed? By the way,
a Frenchman's home is not his castle.
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>> John A Geck <john...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
[context restored]
>>> I say law because 'fedual' was born out of legal terminolgy,
>>> and the study of 'feudal' thingies like 'fiefs' and
>>> 'vassalage' are centered more in the legal frame of things
>>> than in certian other areas.You see, if my major
>>> concentration was on, say, property law in some slice of the
>>> middle ages, then I'd have encountered this discussion some
>>> time back, and been acutely aware of the debate surrounding
>>> it. However, I focus more on artistic endevours and lay
>>> piety, things like that, which only deal peripherally with
>>> such issues (i.e. donating property to monastic houses,
>>> etc.).
>> Ok. I see what you are driving at. But I don't think that
>> those who started giving out fiefs had law on their mind when
>> they did so. Each grant was individual. It was only later
>> that legal theorists tried to push all fiefs into a single
>> procrustean bed.
> Llobocks. Law was very much on their minds. It's the whole
> intrinsic point of Englishness.
You're not paying attention. This discussion is by no means
limited to England and English usage. (Not that it would make
all that much difference even if it were.)
[...]
Brian M. Scott
<john...@utoronto.ca> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bsldss$bau$4...@reader2.panix.com...
> <<snip>>
>>> Why the question mark? It is a "law thing".
>> What is a law thing? Fiefs? There certainly is law about
>> them, but then, there is law about everything from lollypops
>> to used shoes.
>> Fiefs were not instituted to create new law. Nor were those
>> who granted them particularly interested in the eventual
>> legal aspects of them. Further, fiefs vary greatly in types
>> and kind and conditions, if any, attached. They are
>> different in England than in France and in any case were not
>> the only method of property conveyance nor even the most
>> common.
> But weren't fiefs instituted to create a new law, a new code of
> behaviour and obligation between two parties?
It does not appear so to me. New law seems to have been created
after the fact in an attempt to systematize a variety of
relationships established over a considerable period of time. If
you mean simply that each specific relationship entailed
obligations, I'll not disagree, but I think that it's stretching
to call that creation of a new law; you might as well say that I
create a new law if I promise a colleague to cover his classes
whenever he goes out of town.
[...]
Brian
Paul J Gans
If it is used to denote the time period from roughly 500 AD
to 1500 AD then it is fine. Otherwise it is just obfuscation
in the making.
>> My opinion is that it is just an obfuscatory phrase that
>> muddies the water. If there are similarities the person
>> makng the comparison should state them, don't you think?
>Only if mistaken assumptions are carried along with the term. The terms
>exist; it would be difficult to have everyone stop using them, particularly
>in fields as far afield as Chinese or Japanese history, if the sense I got
>of the terminology is accurate.
If the usage of medieval is to indicate a time period, I don't
think anyone has any problem with that.
><<snip>>
>> >I wouldn't go so far as to say that there were _no_ similarities. If you
>> >take that route, that seems to imply that we must comepletely eradicate
>any
>> >forms of comparison between any two cultures, because, of course, no two
>are
>> >ever exactly the same. Taken to its furthest extreme, it could even
>prevent
>> >comparisons of the same culture at two different points in history
>(though
>> >this may be an overstatement). I know that this is a strongly-voiced
>> >contention in some fields, but it does seem to prevent an even judicial
>use
>> >of humankind's ability to form and identify patterns.
>>
>> No, that's going too far. What I'm saying is that what
>> similarities there are are either trivial (one man was
>> beholden in some sense to another -- something that is
>> true in, I think, all cultures) or misleading (Chinese
>> war lords were like independent dukes in the medieval
>> west -- something too general to mean much).
>But surely you can't argue that there are no similarities which aren't
>either trivial or misleading. There may be ones where it can help elucidate
>a point.
I've lost track here. Are we talking about "medieval" or
"feudal". If we are talking feudal, I can't agree with you.
Because of the differences in culture, religion, history,
etc., all similarities are either superficial or trivial.
What else could they be?
>Again, I notice that Japan has fallen out of discussion. From what
>little I know, I do think that one can say that 'Samurai were similar to the
>knightly nobility of Europe in that both had a code of ethics (which of
>course could be broken), chivalry and Bushido. Understanding that, the
>difference is that the Bushido code places an importance on national
>obedience, as well as obedience to one's leige lord. Whereas the importance
>of a knightly ancestry was important in Europe, in Japan the idea of
>ancestor-worship strengthened the importance of obeying the code. Other
>points of comparison exist in the value both cultures placed on the display
>of impassibility as regards pain, the protection of the weak, and the value
>of glory and honour.' It's not necessary, but it is interesting. It makes
>one consider what could possibly be thought of as 'human' values, things
>like that.
Well then, why not compare them as you have done? What is
gained by saying that both knights and Samurai are "feudal"
when they clearly are not.
US troops have a code of ethics, chivalry, stress on the
importance of national obedience. Does that make them
like knights or samurai?
Further, I'd dispute that knights were at all interested
in the protection of the weak. And the value of glory and
honor are common among warrior elites of many cultures and
times.
>> I agree that humans have an ability to form and identify
>> patterns. And I think you'd agree that it would be good
>> if such were spelled out.
>>
>> The problem lies, in my mind, in using terms like "feudal"
>> or "medieval", which have no clear-cut definition. If that
>> is true, how can something else be similar to them?
>>
>> Example: it is true, I think, that England in 1150 was
>> organized very differently than France in 1150, even if
>> aristocrats had similar titles on both sides of the channel.
>> What similarities there are come from a common foundation
>> in Christianity and a somewhat shared history. But one
>> cannot look at the Count of Champaigne and compare his
>> rights, duties, perogatives, etc., to the Earl of Chester
>> at the same period -- even though earl and count are
>> somewhat similar titles.
>>
>> Let me put it this way. If we are to get anywhere in
>> our understanding of the medievals, we have to look at
>> the details. Otherwise history becomes a Hollywood
>> movie.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
> And of course, I do agree that details are the lifeblood of historical
>study and accuracy. However, some level of pedagogical or communicative
>interest ought to come in at some point. You can't always explain something
>to someone starting from the ground up.
I agree. The problem is that I think we can do that
without using huge, sweeping generalities.
>That seems to run the risk of
>creating elite classes with certain specific historical knowledge. You can't
>always say, 'if you want to know about such-and-such, read this book, this
>book, and this book. This will help you understand the history and the
>historiogrpahy of the subject.' This is good for grad work, but not for
>everyday communication. Not even Professors want to hear all the details,
>all the time. At least, that's how it has seemed to me.
That's correct.
> If you want to give someone a general sense of an aspect of medieval
>history, it really helps to be able to make comparisons. They function as
>the jumping-off point whence one can begin to make distinctions. If I want
>to explain Bushiod to someone without training them in Zen, Shintoism, et.
>a. nor provide them with a history of Japan's culture from 700 CE, I could
>say, "you know how the knightly nobility of Western Europe had the concept
>of chivalric behaviour? Let's start from there..." That doesn't make a
>Hollywood movie, does it?
Yes it does. Why not say that knights were generally wage slaves
working where and if they could. Their main job was to be enforcers
for their bosses and, in the unlikely event of gang warfare,
they formed the cadres on which their boss defended themselves.
If they were loyal and true, they might be rewarded in the end
with a pension and a place to live.
Will that do?
:-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Best,
>John
Well, take a look at some of those surviving written grants.
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> Paul J Gans wrote:
[...]
>> Nor
>> were those who granted [fiefs] particularly interested
>> in the eventual legal aspects of them.
> Oh, yes they were. They kept this stuff for generations, and trawled
> them up, centuries later, before the courts leet and baron, etc.
(Grandmothers. Eggs.) Non sequitur: this obviously says nothing
about the interests of the original grantors. You're also
confusing legal aspect in the sense of 'I need this information
to establish my right to this property' with legal aspect in the
sense of underlying legal theory. Granting of fiefs preceded
creation of the legal theory.
[...]
Paul J Gans
>news:bsldss$bau$4...@reader2.panix.com...
><<snip>>
>> >Why the question mark? It is a "law thing".
>>
>> >Renia
>>
>> What is a law thing? Fiefs? There certainly is law
>> about them, but then, there is law about everything
>> from lollypops to used shoes.
>>
>> Fiefs were not instituted to create new law. Nor
>> were those who granted them particularly interested
>> in the eventual legal aspects of them. Further, fiefs
>> vary greatly in types and kind and conditions, if any,
>> attached. They are different in England than in France
>> and in any case were not the only method of property
>> conveyance nor even the most common.
>>
>> --- Paul J. Gans
> But weren't fiefs instituted to create a new law, a new code of
>behaviour and obligation between two parties?
No. Go back and read Ganshof. Before fiefs magnates had
armed supporters who took oaths to support him. They became
"his men". He supported them and fed them. _Beowulf_ has a
long description of such men in the Great Hall of the Shield
Danes.
This got to be a bit of an economic and social hardship. Not
only did they often eat their master out of house and home,
but they, studly guys that they were, often totally disrupted
the social structure as well.
Somebody got the bright idea of getting most of the guys out
of the Great Hall. He gave them a farm (complete with peasants)
to live on that produced enough extra to keep the man in
arms and armor. The grant was only for the period in which
the man could still bear arms, but the die was cast and
there was no looking back. And the land never really passed
out of the possession of the magnate.
After that, things evolved. Grants became more formalized
and, since land was involved, a better class of ruffian
wanted to become the magnates "man". These men were originally
peasants, but with land available, younger sons of the
aristocracy applied for the jobs with the expectation that
they would be granted lands.
You can guess what happened after that. As I say, it is
all in Ganshof.
But the law had nothing to do with any of this except in
the case of disputes. And of course, it was the magnate
himself who settled these disputes. And he didn't give
a hoot what the magnate in the next county was deciding,
he had his own ideas.
>To me, law is...(for fun,
>we'll use the Dictionary Entry, the vaunted authority among grade-schoolers
>and newsgroups alike!)...1) A rule of conduct or procedure established by
>custom, agreement, or authority. Quite honestly, I agree with Msrs. Merriam
>and Webster on this point. This is, indeed, the heart of 'Law'. Perhaps
>you're thinking of good old definition 2, which is basically the protection
>of definition 1 by a governing body. In England, fiefal contracts could be
>brought before the king's justice...
No. You've gone off track, if you don't mind my saying so.
What you write about the law is quite true. But the
establishment of fiefs had nothing directly to do with
law. Of course, any grant is subject to disagreement and
so lawyers soon enough became involved. But there was
never any established "law of the fief". Each grant was
individual and unique, even if boilerplate language was
often used by lazy clerks.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Renia <re...@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>Law?
>>
>>
>>>Why the question mark? It is a "law thing".
>>
>>
>>>Renia
>>
>>
>> What is a law thing? Fiefs? There certainly is law
>> about them, but then, there is law about everything
>> from lollypops to used shoes.
>>
>> Fiefs were not instituted to create new law.
>They were part of the law.
Have it your way. If the Count of Anjou granted
land to his favorite henchperson and another henchperson
claimed that the new grant impinged on *his* land,
well, you can claim it was then a matter of law.
In fact it wasn't. The decision was made by the
Count of Anjou. Quite likely there would have been
no lawyers present. And it often happened that the
second overlapping grant would stand and the aggrieved
henchperson would get another patch of land somewhere
else to make up for it.
I in no way deny that eventually, with the rise of
written records, lawyers began to dominate these
procedings. But then, lawsuits can be and were filed
over everything. That did not make everything the
creation of the law.
In the same sense fiefs did not create law -- even
if, centuries later, legal experts not well versed
in medieval customs tried to make sense out of it all
by attempting to *deduce* what the supposed laws of
the fief were. There weren't any, of course. That's
all a later invention.
> > Nor
>> were those who granted them particularly interested
>> in the eventual legal aspects of them.
>Oh, yes they were. They kept this stuff for generations, and trawled
>them up, centuries later, before the courts leet and baron, etc.
>Sometimes, it wasn't even written down, but the Word Of The Elders was
>sufficient, in law.
You are talking about England. The fact that the monarch
claimed to own all the land made his courts the natural
place for conflict to end up. Wherever there is conflict
there are either armies or lawyers, or sometimes both.
That's a method civilization has developed to avoid
armed conflict. Nevertheless, the fact that people can
complain about anything and everything does not make
what they complain about creations of the law.
By the way, one reason why all those grants and charters
were kept is because they were all different. There was
no "law of the fief". If there were, one would not
need all that paper.
Of course, in France it was all different. And in Germany
it was again all different. So either "fief" is to apply
to England alone or your view of it needs to be broadened.
> > Further, fiefs
>> vary greatly in types and kind and conditions, if any,
>> attached. They are different in England than in France
>> and in any case were not the only method of property
>> conveyance nor even the most common.
>I can't talk of France. But in England, it was central to property law.
>Still was until the early 20th century.
Sure. That was *afterwards*. The fact that lawyers built
property law on fiefs does not tell us anything about fiefs.
It tells us about lawyers.
----- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:09:26 +0200, Renia
<re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in soc.history.medieval:
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Hilarious Magnus Cum Laude!
>> Brian "Igor" Scott is playing:
>> "What Master Gans meant to say...." ---- again.
> Remind me someone. Who is that second head in Hitchiker's Guide
> to the Galaxy? Beealzibub someone? That's Scott. Talam.
> Talum. Or whatever.
Presumably you're thinking of Zaphod Beeblebrox. What's the
matter, missy? Can't believe that people can disagree with you
independently? Tsk; that way lies paranoia.
[...]
John A Geck
> >> does not mean the same time period and it does not mean the
> >> same structures, what *does* it mean?
>
> >I thought I said that (again, I'm learning as I go here in this
discussion,
> >so my views change). Actually, it was in another thread. The term
medieval
> >China is used to refer to a period which has more common within its
sweeping
> >timespan than the times before or after. Medieval China seems to refer to
> >Imperial China. That is, it's not pre-imperial, and it's not
> >post-imperial...its in the 'middle'. That's the sense I got anyway.
>
> If it is used to denote the time period from roughly 500 AD
> to 1500 AD then it is fine. Otherwise it is just obfuscation
> in the making.
Doesn't it depend on who uses the term? As I said, this is a learning
process for me, but one thing I've learned is that scholars of 'medieval'
China seem to be using this term in a very unwhimsical, unprejudical way.
They mean it as the 'middle age' of China. After pre-imperial, before
post-imperial. Certainly the rules set by scholars of a culture halfway
across the globe have no justification to call that obfuscation?
> >> My opinion is that it is just an obfuscatory phrase that
> >> muddies the water. If there are similarities the person
> >> makng the comparison should state them, don't you think?
>
> >Only if mistaken assumptions are carried along with the term. The terms
> >exist; it would be difficult to have everyone stop using them,
particularly
> >in fields as far afield as Chinese or Japanese history, if the sense I
got
> >of the terminology is accurate.
>
> If the usage of medieval is to indicate a time period, I don't
> think anyone has any problem with that.
But it's already been established that in both Japan and China, the term
'medieval' refers to rather differnt (though overlapping) time periods. So
no, no one has a problem with it...but I bet you do, since its not the same
as that of 'medieval' Europe.
:)
><<snip>>
> I've lost track here. Are we talking about "medieval" or
> "feudal". If we are talking feudal, I can't agree with you.
> Because of the differences in culture, religion, history,
> etc., all similarities are either superficial or trivial.
> What else could they be?
We started with 'feudal', but moved to 'medieval.' The problem is that
Chinese and Japanese history scholars use the term 'medieval,' (and even
'feudal'!), but to refer to different time periods. Dick Wisan thus posited,
'Why do they use the terms if the dates are different?' It's either because
a) there's certain similarities betweent he two cultures, which you say
can't exist, or b) that the periods themseleves, within their own cultures,
are markedly diferent from what precedes and what follows them, thus making
them very much 'medieval' in the truest sense of the word. Though I don't
take quite as strong an approach as you against a), I can understand the
objection. B) has a very strong similarity that's not trival nor
superficial. Just weird, or viewed from a wierd angle.
> >Again, I notice that Japan has fallen out of discussion. From what
> >little I know, I do think that one can say that 'Samurai were similar to
the
> >knightly nobility of Europe in that both had a code of ethics (which of
> >course could be broken), chivalry and Bushido. Understanding that, the
> >difference is that the Bushido code places an importance on national
> >obedience, as well as obedience to one's leige lord. Whereas the
importance
> >of a knightly ancestry was important in Europe, in Japan the idea of
> >ancestor-worship strengthened the importance of obeying the code. Other
> >points of comparison exist in the value both cultures placed on the
display
> >of impassibility as regards pain, the protection of the weak, and the
value
> >of glory and honour.' It's not necessary, but it is interesting. It makes
> >one consider what could possibly be thought of as 'human' values, things
> >like that.
>
> Well then, why not compare them as you have done? What is
> gained by saying that both knights and Samurai are "feudal"
> when they clearly are not.
I didn't say they were feudal. (In fact, I think you were the first one in
this context to use the phrase 'feudal Japan' <g>). I was making the point
here that not all comparisons are trivial or superficial, depending on the
situaiton within which you are making the comparison. Further, if one of the
definitions for 'feudal 'is 'that which pertains to vassalage', then both
were often 'feudal'.
> US troops have a code of ethics, chivalry, stress on the
> importance of national obedience. Does that make them
> like knights or samurai?
'In those respects, yes. Though as I said, I don;t attach 'national
obedience' as much to knights...due to the lack of real nations for a goodly
period of the Middle Ages.
> Further, I'd dispute that knights were at all interested
> in the protection of the weak. And the value of glory and
> honor are common among warrior elites of many cultures and
> times.
I was discussing ideals...certainly you're not saying that knights didn't
ideally protect the weak, that is was part of the ethos of chivalry?
<<snip>>
> > And of course, I do agree that details are the lifeblood of
historical
> >study and accuracy. However, some level of pedagogical or communicative
> >interest ought to come in at some point. You can't always explain
something
> >to someone starting from the ground up.
>
> I agree. The problem is that I think we can do that
> without using huge, sweeping generalities.
I'm not for huge, sweeping generalities either. I am for using some of the
more prominant usage which is already out there, however. It helps to
communicate ideas to people. If they know the general, start there and move
to the specific.
> >That seems to run the risk of
> >creating elite classes with certain specific historical knowledge. You
can't
> >always say, 'if you want to know about such-and-such, read this book,
this
> >book, and this book. This will help you understand the history and the
> >historiogrpahy of the subject.' This is good for grad work, but not for
> >everyday communication. Not even Professors want to hear all the details,
> >all the time. At least, that's how it has seemed to me.
>
> That's correct.
If they don't want to hear the details, but they want an idea of the
subject, can't it help to use generalities to being to focus the subject?
This is why saying 'medieval' in the context of 'medieval Eruope' is
partially helpful. It doesn't say a lot, but it begins to narrow down the
subject.
> > If you want to give someone a general sense of an aspect of medieval
> >history, it really helps to be able to make comparisons. They function as
> >the jumping-off point whence one can begin to make distinctions. If I
want
> >to explain Bushido to someone without training them in Zen, Shintoism,
et.
> >a. nor provide them with a history of Japan's culture from 700 CE, I
could
> >say, "you know how the knightly nobility of Western Europe had the
concept
> >of chivalric behaviour? Let's start from there..." That doesn't make a
> >Hollywood movie, does it?
>
> Yes it does. Why not say that knights were generally wage slaves
> working where and if they could. Their main job was to be enforcers
> for their bosses and, in the unlikely event of gang warfare,
> they formed the cadres on which their boss defended themselves.
It doesn't make a Hollywood movie to take an unbiased look at the evidence.
Your description of knights above is, I'm afriad, almost harmfully cynical.
It leaves out a tremendous portion of what knights viewed themselves as, and
how others veiwed them. If you read almost any sort of medieval literature,
fictional or instructive, dealing with knights, it is quite clear that they
had a realtively agreed-upon ideal. Of course the reality wasn't like the
ideal, but to say that knights were nothing more than 'wage slaves' and
'enforcers' removes a large portion of their humanity.
> If they were loyal and true, they might be rewarded in the end
> with a pension and a place to live.
>
> Will that do?
>
> :-)
Unfortunately not, for the reasons I've briefly listed above.
Cheers,
John
John A Geck
I've not gone off track- you're simply taking a very specific (and dare I
say modern) definition of what 'law' is. Law needn't involve lawyers or
courts, even today. It doesn't matter that each is unique. So too are there
many different types of leases today, which are for the most part never
brought before lawyers nor courts. Nevertheless, it's still a legal
contract. Are you denying that a lease today is not a legal document until
it's violated? Why did they write down that fiefs were given, then?
Cheers,
John