Feudalism (part 1)
Paul J. Gans
The material below is taken from Constance Brittain Bouchard's
_Strong of Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry & Society in Medieval
France_, Cornell, 1998.
I've posted some of it before. It is time to post it again.
This time I'm going to intersperse the material with my own
comments.
The indented material below is taken from pages 34-39.
The regular paragraphs are footnotes or my comments.
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
"feudalism," for this term, laden with unexamined and
outdated assumptions, often seriously misleads those trying
to understand the Middle Ages.
First, note the date. Eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Thus this is NOT a characteristic of the Middle Ages,
but only of the latter half of the medieval period --
and indeed did not really last in this form until the
end.
Second, Bouchard understands the "underbrush" of
"unexamined and outdated assumptions" attendent on
the word "feudalism".
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,
and not for a monetary rent, and fief holding involved only
the aristocracy, not the great mass of society. Fief-
holding arrangements were a development of the eleventh
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.
The important thing, not gone into by Bouchard at this point,
is that the term "vassal" predates the fief. Originally it
was a derisive term and is used that way even in some 12th
century literature. Further, the fief was NOT a reward
for military service only, but could be a reward for any
faithful service. And the bond between the lord and the
vassal exists *before* the fief is granted.
If fief 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]
Footnote [10] reads: "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_."
The paragraph continues:
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 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 that has regrettably
not yet been fully adopted.[11]
Footnote [11] reads: "Elisabeth A. R. Brown, `The Tyranny
of a Construct.'"
I think that there has been enough evidence of this in
this newsgroup. And it is why I frequently ask folks to
explain what they mean by "feudalism". In recent days we've
seen two or three different ones. The fault is not the
posters, they've grown up in one tradition or another, not
quite realizing that the term "feudalism" shifts meaning
from one text to another. Bouchard explains how this
developed:
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 transfers 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
privilege as noble exemption 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 wit hteh 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" wit 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.
I note in passing that Renia almost consistently uses the
original defintion of feudalism.
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
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 postmedieval
period), Marx added a third meaning: economic exploitation
of peasants (of a sort that began in the late Roman Empire).
His view 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," even though he considered
the subjugation of serfs somewhat of an improvement over
slavery. For Marx, "feudalism" extened from the end of
antiquity until the French Revolution, when it was replaced
by exploitation of the urban proletariat under "capitalism."
This, either straight or somewhat modified, is the position that
I believe Jeff presented.
Marx was certainly no medieval historian. Medievalists who
consider themselves Marxists have adopted his concern
for the poor and oppressed but not his tidy vision of serfs
being exploited in a uniform way for twelve hundred years,
from the sixth century to the eighteenth.[12]
Footnote [12] reads: "For example, the Marxist historian
G.E.M. de Ste. Croix resists characterizing serfdom as
"feudalism." _The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek
World_, 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."
Bouchard continues:
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 patterns which
actually characterized the Middle Ages.
And therein lies my real objection to calling any period of
Japanese history "feudal". I strongly doubt that the
"complex and dynamic social patterns" of the western European
medieval period really have matches in the equally complex
and dynamic social patterns of Japan, in spite of superficial
resemblances. In other words, to call Japan "feudal" is to
conjure up the *wrong* notions of western Europe, no matter
what notions of Japan they recall.
(to be continued)
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Constance Brittain Bouchard ---- as quoted by the goose
---------------------
Yes, that's correct.
Previously, Gans told us that these terms were not medieval and it's all
a 19th Century leftover.
He's never admitted to that egregious gaffe. He fears Righteous
Pratfall, if he does. Better just to bluff it out with silence, he
obtusely opines.
Bad Call. Extremely Short-Sighted.
The goose is only off by 200 years, but what the Hell, he's no
historian ---- so, it doesn't really matter does it?
Sociology is _much_ sloppier about such things as dates ----
particularly junior-high-school-level Sociology.
Gans, we should always remember, is a sociological popularizer of
"Things Medieval" ---- an auto-didact from the get-go. He is NOT an
Historian ---- certainly not a Medieval Historian.
Sir George Sansom has quite a more impressive set of credentials as a
Historian. When it comes to learning about Japanese Feudalism, one
would be a fool to turn to Gans vice Sansom for the solid historical
information.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
Paul J. Gans
> "Part of the problem is that "feudalism" is not a medieval term. It was
> created in the seventeenth century..."
> Constance Brittain Bouchard ---- as quoted by the goose
> ---------------------
> Yes, that's correct.
> Previously, Gans told us that these terms were not medieval and it's all
> a 19th Century leftover.
Yes. I've just told you again that "feudalism" is not a medieval
term.
> He's never admitted to that egregious gaffe. He fears Righteous
> Pratfall, if he does. Better just to bluff it out with silence, he
> obtusely opines.
Fool. You have nothing to say on the subject of "feudalism"
and so you make things up. Good for the imagination but not
for reputation, as if you had any.
I note with amusement that, contrary to your custom, you
did NOT redisplay the post where I talked about the 19th
century. Is it because it was a conversation about the
habits of English and American historians and their use
of the terms "medieval" and "western", and not at all about
the term "feudalism"?
Rant on.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans, the goose, Lies Through His Teeth ---- OR ---- He is so FLAKEY
that he cannot REMEMBER what he wrote just ONE DAY ago. There is no
other viable explanation. So which is it, LIAR or FLAKEY, Gentle
Readers ---- and especially college students? Gans owes us an
explanation ---- NOW.
-------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hungary and Constantinople: fateful 1444 decision
Date: 01/05/2001
Author: Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu>
Christopher Szabo <cavs...@netactive.co.za> wrote:
>>>> Paul J Gans wrote in message <92lf36$4v1$7...@news.panix.com>...
[...]
> Okay, sorry for the delay - I'm hopelessly busy! Anyway, whether it's
the
> end of the old Roman system, or the beginning of the new "European"
one, is
> six of one and half a doz. of the other, I reckon!
> Feudalism as I see it :))
> As a result of land becoming important due to the loss of the money
economy,
> the system began where people swapped something for something. If they
were
> poor, they could swap work in return for home and a chance to grow
food. If
> they were in need of protection, they could offer work, or military
duty, in
> return for protection from powerful enemies etc.
But this is not what happened. It is a 19th century attempt
to explain what *seemed* like a uniform system but which was
not a uniform system....
Paul J. Gans, the goose
-----------------------------Cordon Sanitaire-------------
"But this is not what happened. It is a 19th century attempt to explain
what *seemed* like a uniform system but which was not a uniform system."
[pjg]
Gans can't even get the century correct. [DSH]
And this guy pretends to know something about the development of the
word _Feudal_? [DSH]
--------------------
Gans, the goose, Lies Through His Teeth ---- OR ---- He is so FLAKEY
that he cannot REMEMBER what he wrote just ONE DAY ago. There is no
other viable explanation. So which is it, LIAR or FLAKEY, Gentle
Readers ---- and especially college students? Gans owes us an
explanation ---- NOW.
Who's the FOOL, vide infra postea, now?
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:ZNQ56.11$RF1...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Paul J. Gans
> Christopher Szabo <cavs...@netactive.co.za> wrote:
> [...]
You are correct. I did say this. It is a typographical
error, which is why I did not remember it. Make of it what
you will.
Shall I issue a "recte?"
------ Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
2. He should issue a Full-Bore Apology.
3. He called me a fool, accused me of having no reputation to lose, and
told me to "Rant On." He also said I had nothing to say on the subject
of Feudalism, which is a lie too. Read my posts at deja.com. Scores of
them on feudalism.
4. Now, he admits that he was bollixed. He is flummoxed and apparently
a FLAKE. But he also LIES. Vide infra. He STILL lies.
5. We need to see some Really Creative and Abject Gansian Grovelling
here, Gentle Readers. It's long overdue.
6. This is BY NO MEANS the first time I've caught him in a gaffe and a
lie of this sort.
7. Just the most recent.
8. Please note that STILL he avoids INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for his
gaffes and claims that it was a "typographical error." Liberals just
LOVE to blame their personal failings on others ---- or "typos" ----
allegedly trivial mistakes.
9. No, it clearly was NOT a "typographical error" ---- but perhaps it
was a READING COMPREHENSION ERROR. Gans should tell us the TRUTH about
that, not some cock and bull story about "typos." Again, Hines
prescribes the _Bonehead English Course_ at Columbia University for
Gans.
10. Please read Gans's feeble excuse, infra, again ---- Gentle Readers.
11. This is why I call the man a Fraud and a Charlatan ---- with good
cause, based on the evidence of his performance on this newsgroup ----
over nearly 3 1/2 years ---- not just a week or two.
12. Now, I've told him to get a copy of Sir George Sansom's fine book.
I've given him a complete citation. He should get cracking ---- and
stop prattling from the well of his inexhaustible ignorance.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:q_R56.14$RF1...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
George Bailey Sansom [1883-1965], Real Japanese Historian, of the first
water, not with Hines.
Once the goose has a copy of Sansom in his little webbed foot, Hines
will be happy to give him a kick in the seat of the pants to get him
started.
D. Spencer Hines
Short Cultural History_ and _Japan and the Western World_, both by Sir
George Sansom, the distinguished British historian. It is now a great
honor for me to hold the George Sansom chair in history at Columbia--to
be associated, even remotely, with this great historian whose books
sparked my interest in Japanese history."
---------------------
Dr. Carol Gluck, Professor of Japanese History, Columbia University, New
York, New York
Gans had apparently never even read Sir George.
Yet the goose babbles, bubbles, squeaks and prattles about Japanese
History ---- at a junior-high-school level, to be sure.
Appalling!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
Joe
Let the Roach Motel do it's work, and don't stain your shoes.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:q_R56.14$RF1...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
Gans has no viable defence against the Truths of Life, Character and
History, BUT hiding in a killfile.
By all means, he should have retreated to his warm, cozy killfile long
ago.
Hines told him so, repeatedly.
Gans has neither the wit [in both senses of that good English word with
more than one meaning ---- a la "feudalism"] nor the stamina to engage
in such "strong debate" ---- as the goose calls it.
Piker come a Cropper.
Goose, Honking, Flapping Wings in Outrage ---- Then Abjectly Retreating.
It is far, far better for him to retreat ignominiously to his killfile,
with some few, small patches of skin left intact and tail between legs,
[not amputated] rather than suffer more disgrace and the continuing
revelation of his congenital propensity to lie, misrepresent, distort,
conveniently forget, flake out, evade, dissimulate, drag red herrings
across the trail, pontificate from the depths of ignorance ---- and
attempt to disarm with sixth-grade humour ---- stickfinger and
slapstick.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
And, Oh, Yes ---- he should "Rant On."
But he should also read William of Poitiers, Guy, Bishop of Amiens and
Sir George B. Sansom, before he subjects us to any more of his ignorant
prattling on those historical subjects.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Joe" <joet...@noreply.net> wrote in message
news:BY266.283$4V3....@news01.micron.net...
tiglath
>
> First, note the date. Eleventh and twelfth centuries.
> Thus this is NOT a characteristic of the Middle Ages,
> but only of the latter half of the medieval period --
> and indeed did not really last in this form until the
> end.
Striving to find what is characteristic of the Middle Ages, lasting a
thousand years, is as striving to find what is characteristic of ancient
Rome: "People had two legs" holds, but I would like to know what is the
benefit and to whom to find out that the "median, average, and mode," if
they exist, of such long periods in which change was the rule. Such
sweeping simplifications may be useful in the Egyptian dynasties where
no-change was the rule, thus, that which characterized ancient Egypt makes
sense and may be easier to ascertain. At any rate, if feudalism or any
other medieval characteristic lasted a few centuries it is, in my opinion, a
medieval characteristic (qualified by dates, as everything should) rather
than 'cannot in any way thus be said to "typify" the Middle Ages' since it
does indeed typify the Middle Ages in some way, when you specify the dates
bracketing the long period of feudalism.
About:
"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 that has regrettably
not yet been fully adopted."
I think this is an unfortunate piece of hype.
During the last long thread on this subject I send mail to the history
aficionados I know in England, Spain, and Italy, and ask them to tell me
what they thought feudalism was. These are not scholars but people who are
extremely well read in history, especially European history. Then I
compared their answers to my idea of feudalism. The Catalan counties were
vassals of the Frankish king. Feudalism is something I heard about since an
early age. Not one reply was at odds with my idea of feudalism. I agree
that same as "western Europe," "feudalism" may at times move slightly the
scope of its meaning but there seems to be, according to my test, agreement
to its meaning in large part.
This large part in which there is agreement makes Brown's statement that the
term is devoid of meaning quite ridiculous.
This large part refers to feudalism in the sense:
Private contracts between sovereigns and great men of the realm who were
their vassals and who were in turn lords of vassals. Pledging homage and
fealty to his lord, the vassal assumed the obligation of performing military
and court services in return for protection and maintenance; maintenance
took the form of a benefice or fief, that is, a estate or public office held
in usufruct by the vassal, and heritable by their heirs. Thus the feudal
relationship tended to be rooted in the land over which the vassal exercised
dominion, i.e., the right to administer justice and to exercise public
functions. As the lord of an estate he was entitled to receive rents and
services from his tenants and to exercise judicial power over them.
In the case of Catalan counts there was subinfeudation. Viscounts pledged
homage and fealty to the counts and received investiture of their offices
held by hereditary right. The characteristic customs and institutions of
French feudalism were found in Catalonia and reached their fullest
development in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
I know no one who would be perplexed if I described this state of affairs by
"feudalism," at least none of the people I mentioned in Europe. I can see
how this attitude of "feudalism means nothing, no more," is a perversion
derived of letting the exceptions and the cases which don't have all the
usual elements of feudalism present, and misuses of the word, become too
large in the mind and leading to the absurdity of the exceptions spoiling
the rule, which is nonsense.
David C. Pugh
tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message news:93af76
(...)
> Private contracts between sovereigns and great men of the realm who
were
> their vassals and who were in turn lords of vassals. Pledging
homage and
> fealty to his lord, the vassal assumed the obligation of performing
military
> and court services in return for protection and maintenance;
maintenance
> took the form of a benefice or fief, that is, a estate or public
office held
> in usufruct by the vassal, and heritable by their heirs. Thus the
feudal
> relationship tended to be rooted in the land over which the vassal
exercised
> dominion, i.e., the right to administer justice and to exercise
public
> functions. As the lord of an estate he was entitled to receive
rents and
> services from his tenants and to exercise judicial power over them.
(...)
I'm wondering if this thread isn't trying to handle two somewhat
separate questions simultaneously, namely:
1. Whether the term "feudalism" has any meaning.
2. Whether the crucial features of "feudalism" (even as found in a
coherent and well-written definition like yours) actually existed.
For example, your phrase "the obligation of performing military and
court services in return for protection and maintenance; maintenance
took the form of a benefice or fief" is perfectly clear, but rightly
or wrongly, Reynolds is claiming that it is simply untrue that the
benefice was granted in return for contractual future service. She
says that it's a myth concocted much later.
David
Paul J. Gans
> 1. No. Of course not.
> 2. He should issue a Full-Bore Apology.
For what? Not posting a "recte?" Unlike you I do not have
infinite time to read and reread my own postings. Like other
folks, you get what you get. If you have any questions about
what I post, you can always do what other folks do and ask.
> 3. He called me a fool, accused me of having no reputation to lose, and
> told me to "Rant On." He also said I had nothing to say on the subject
> of Feudalism, which is a lie too. Read my posts at deja.com. Scores of
> them on feudalism.
Sorry about that. You are a fool, you have no reputation to lose,
and as far as I recall, posted nothing that in any way contradicts
what Bouchard wrote.
You seem to be good at dishing it out, but, like most cowards
(yes, I'm calling you that too) very poor at taking it.
> 4. Now, he admits that he was bollixed. He is flummoxed and apparently
> a FLAKE. But he also LIES. Vide infra. He STILL lies.
Aha.
> 5. We need to see some Really Creative and Abject Gansian Grovelling
> here, Gentle Readers. It's long overdue.
Sorry old chap. My buns are mine and *you* can't have them.
> 6. This is BY NO MEANS the first time I've caught him in a gaffe and a
> lie of this sort.
> 7. Just the most recent.
> 8. Please note that STILL he avoids INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for his
> gaffes and claims that it was a "typographical error." Liberals just
> LOVE to blame their personal failings on others ---- or "typos" ----
> allegedly trivial mistakes.
What is a typographical error done by a conservative? Policy?
> 9. No, it clearly was NOT a "typographical error" ---- but perhaps it
> was a READING COMPREHENSION ERROR. Gans should tell us the TRUTH about
> that, not some cock and bull story about "typos." Again, Hines
> prescribes the _Bonehead English Course_ at Columbia University for
> Gans.
You don't understand admission of a mistake, do you? Strange that.
> 10. Please read Gans's feeble excuse, infra, again ---- Gentle Readers.
> 11. This is why I call the man a Fraud and a Charlatan ---- with good
> cause, based on the evidence of his performance on this newsgroup ----
> over nearly 3 1/2 years ---- not just a week or two.
> 12. Now, I've told him to get a copy of Sir George Sansom's fine book.
> I've given him a complete citation. He should get cracking ---- and
> stop prattling from the well of his inexhaustible ignorance.
Aha, you are stumped again. Last time you brought this up you
claimed that there were "marked similarities" between Japanese
culture and western European culture. I asked you:
What are those "marked similarities"? Before we wax rhapsodic
about them, let's name them, place them in open view, and see
if indeed they are similarities indeed or just accidental
shadowings.
One thing you must learn is that you fool nobody by making
claims and then protesting that the *other* fellow should do
the research. It's your claim. You present evidence. Surely
Sir George has an apt paragraph or two on the subject. Let's
see it.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> George Bailey Sansom [1883-1965], Real Japanese Historian, of the first
> water, not with Hines.
> Once the goose has a copy of Sansom in his little webbed foot, Hines
> will be happy to give him a kick in the seat of the pants to get him
> started.
Can't answer the question, eh?
Why are you always so frightened of taking a position? If
you did, folks would respect you more.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Paul, please. Killfile. You diminish yourself.
> Let the Roach Motel do it's work, and don't stain your shoes.
I did make a mistake. I've learned over the years that the
best thing to do on the net is to grit one's teeth and
admit it. That he did not point out my mistake when I
made it, but saved it against future use was not lost either
on me or, I suspect, on any one else. It speaks for itself.
Paul J. Gans
> About:
I take your point, but it isn't me that you are arguing with.
If you ask the average person about the Middle Ages, the term
"feudalism", in one or another of its meanings, will come to
mind.
THAT's the problem.
That said, let me pick a friendly nit with you. You say:
> I can see
> how this attitude of "feudalism means nothing, no more," is a perversion
> derived of letting the exceptions and the cases which don't have all the
> usual elements of feudalism present, and misuses of the word, become too
> large in the mind and leading to the absurdity of the exceptions spoiling
> the rule, which is nonsense.
What *are* the "usual elements" of feudalism?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
[ranting deleted]
> It is far, far better for him to retreat ignominiously to his killfile,
> with some few, small patches of skin left intact and tail between legs,
> [not amputated] rather than suffer more disgrace and the continuing
> revelation of his congenital propensity to lie, misrepresent, distort,
> conveniently forget, flake out, evade, dissimulate, drag red herrings
> across the trail, pontificate from the depths of ignorance ---- and
> attempt to disarm with sixth-grade humour ---- stickfinger and
> slapstick.
[more ranting deleted]
I guess my replying to you upsets you more than my *NOT*
replying to you.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
A Vintage Gansian Lying Whiner.
The goose LIED and DISSIMULATED about what Hines had written and done.
He made a completely false charge against Hines ---- as he has done
repeatedly. None of them has stuck.
Aye, there's the rub.
Now, he wants sympathy for admitting that he was caught red-handed in a
flakey lie, by that same Hines.
| ...That he did not point out my mistake when I
| made it, but saved it against future use was not lost either
| on me or, I suspect, on any one [sic] else. It speaks for itself.
|
| ---- Paul J. Gans
LISTEN to the man WHINE.
The man has absolutely no shame. He piles NEW LIE on top of OLD LIE,
with abject abandon.
I DID point out his mistake when he made it. So, Hines has caught Gans
in yet ANOTHER flakey lie.
Here is Hines's post:
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Hungary and Constantinople: fateful 1444 decision
| "But this is not what happened. It is a 19th century attempt to
explain
| what *seemed* like a uniform system but which was not a uniform
system."
| [pjg]
|
| Gans can't even get the century correct.
|
| And this guy pretends to know something about the development of the
| word _Feudal_?
|
| Appalling.
|
| [N.B. Long, discursive post, full of junior-high-school-level
sociology
| [not History] snipped. ---- DSH]
|
| Now he'll tell us, "I was away from my books when I wrote that...", or
| some other lame excuse.
| --
|
| D. Spencer Hines
|
| Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
| This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end
beyond
| itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
| [c.1258-1264]
[...]
| Vires et Honor.
Gans has been caught red-handed in yet ANOTHER FLAKEY LIE.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:FU366.6$%N2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
| Joe <joet...@noreply.net> wrote:
D. Spencer Hines
easy to disprove.
Hines has now proven him to be a flakey liar twice, in just two days.
This syndrome is proof positive for the goose's congenital mental
sloppiness and his perpetual playing fast and loose with the facts.
Further, he whines that he doesn't have the time to check his outgoing
posts for errors after they have been posted ---- nor can he remember
what he posted just the day before. This indicates a man with severe,
and accelerating mental and memory problems. He should see a doctor.
In short, Gans doesn't read his own stuff ---- or rather fluff.
Hines doesn't blame him for that. If Hines conceptualised, ratiocinated
and wrote as poorly as does Gans, Hines wouldn't read his own stuff
either.
But Hines does have a guaranteed solution for Gans's problem.
Gans should limit his posts to only two or three per day ---- that way
he'll have time to check them for errors, gaffes, lies, absurdities and
dissimulations.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
tiglath
> What *are* the "usual elements" of feudalism?
I did provide a ten-line summary of them.
tiglath
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:by366.12077$v46.3...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> I'm wondering if this thread isn't trying to handle two somewhat
> separate questions simultaneously, namely:
> 1. Whether the term "feudalism" has any meaning.
> 2. Whether the crucial features of "feudalism" (even as found in a
> coherent and well-written definition like yours) actually existed.
>
> For example, your phrase "the obligation of performing military and
> court services in return for protection and maintenance; maintenance
> took the form of a benefice or fief" is perfectly clear, but rightly
> or wrongly, Reynolds is claiming that it is simply untrue that the
> benefice was granted in return for contractual future service. She
> says that it's a myth concocted much later.
>
> David
What was it then that was expected in return?
I am sure there are examples to support a number of varying opinions. The
problem is when someone says that something isn't true in an absolute way.
Then a simple counterexample suffices to disprove him or her.
"Let the Spaniards (Spani) know that we have granted them permission to
commend themselves in vassalage to our count, just as other free men do; and
if anyone receives a benefice from the one to whom he is commended, let him
know that he should render to his lord for it such service as our men
customarily render to their lords for similar benefices."
-- Charles the Bald's capitulary of 844 addressed to the inhabitants of
the county of Barcelona.
D. Spencer Hines
Imagine that ---- and not in the 11th or 12th Century.
Glory Be.
Yes indeed ---- thoughtless, sloppy, unvetted and unqualified
categorical statements can certainly get those who continuously use them
into deep doo-doo ---- right up to their grommets.
But, you see, Gentle Readers, Spain is not in the Gansian Bermuda
Triangle ---- so it doesn't count.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93apqe$7bd$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
David Debono
Take care
David D.
jeff wiel
[mucho text deleted with no loss of content]
: Deus Vult.
Sez you.
: How Sweet It Is!
How sweet is it?
Are you planning to contribute anything more than random snot-flinging?
jeff wiel
[snippage]
: 2. He should issue a Full-Bore Apology.
There's only one full bore around here.
When logic is on your side, pound on the logic.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When nothing is on your side, pound on the keyboard.
Do you have a point?
jeff wiel
: 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
: 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 postmedieval
: period), Marx added a third meaning: economic exploitation
: of peasants (of a sort that began in the late Roman Empire).
: His view 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," even though he considered
: the subjugation of serfs somewhat of an improvement over
: slavery. For Marx, "feudalism" extened from the end of
: antiquity until the French Revolution, when it was replaced
: by exploitation of the urban proletariat under "capitalism."
: This, either straight or somewhat modified, is the position that
: I believe Jeff presented.
[lotsa snip]
Strange to find myself agreeing with Marx, but there it is...
You've succeeded in defining out of existance the application of the word
"feudalism" in the time period in question. OK, fine. I'm not interested
in arguing about the meanings of words, I'm interested in determining
historical reality. I'll be glad to call the mode of agricultural
production in the period from the collapse of Rome to ~12th century any
term we can agree on. (However, a question does come to mind about how
words aquire meaning. If "feudalism" is commonly used to describe a
particular set of circumstances, by a large group of people, over a long
period of time, then that is what the word has come to mean, despite the
original meaning. The referent exists, we need to attach a word to it.)
As I understand things, and my source is not Marx or directly from
marxists, there was a system in place in southern Europe that derived from
the late Roman latifundia system. Large slave plantations held originally
by the rich and powerful, Caesar's buddies, etc. As central power
collapsed the plantation owners began to set themselves up as local lords,
with full political power over the inhabitants. The farm workers,
whichever is the correct term for them, had little or no freedom.
Note that I have not used the terms "feudalism", "vassalage",
"serf" etc. I do not want to argue about the words. I want to understand
the condition of southern European agricultural workers in the medieval
period.
I've also heard that the system was never fully developed in England -
Englishmen have always had traditional liberties.
And northern Europe is a completely different story from both. Any man who
could stake out a few acres of land, build a hall, and get a half dozen
armed men to swear allegence could be a king. With full rights and
priveleges, including making viking raids into Ireland and Scotland.
Northern contact with Romabourg was tenuous at best, so this seems to be
an independent development.
Paul J Gans
D. Spencer Hines
: derive from its adoption by Karl Marx in the nineteenth
: century. To its original seventeenth-century meaning
: 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 postmedieval
: period), Marx added a third meaning: economic exploitation
: of peasants (of a sort that began in the late Roman Empire).
: His view 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," even though he considered
: the subjugation of serfs somewhat of an improvement over
: slavery. For Marx, "feudalism" extened from the end of
: antiquity until the French Revolution, when it was replaced
: by exploitation of the urban proletariat under "capitalism."
[CBB]
: This, either straight or somewhat modified, is the position that
: I believe Jeff presented. [pjg]
[lotsa snip]
Strange to find myself agreeing with Marx, but there it is... [jw]
---------Cordon Sanitaire----------------------
No, Quite False.
It's not "strange" at all.
Thousands of misinformed folks babble and spout raw Marxist drivel all
the time, without realising it's Marx they are babbling and spouting.
Here's one more. Vide supra.
Further, Gans may have confused his "Feudalism from Marx" [dyed in the
wool from Red Diaper baby days] with historical fact ---- and therefore
have said "19th Century" vice "17th Century".
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
How Sweet It Is!
Paul J Gans
[deletions]
>About:
> "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 that has regrettably
> not yet been fully adopted."
>I think this is an unfortunate piece of hype.
I think that an unfortunate comment. Scholars who are well-known
and well-respected in their field deserve *some* attention. They
don't deserve to be passed off as hyping something.
Perhaps it would pay to look into the situation just a bit?
>During the last long thread on this subject I send mail to the history
>aficionados I know in England, Spain, and Italy, and ask them to tell me
>what they thought feudalism was. These are not scholars but people who are
>extremely well read in history, especially European history. Then I
>compared their answers to my idea of feudalism. The Catalan counties were
>vassals of the Frankish king. Feudalism is something I heard about since an
>early age. Not one reply was at odds with my idea of feudalism. I agree
>that same as "western Europe," "feudalism" may at times move slightly the
>scope of its meaning but there seems to be, according to my test, agreement
>to its meaning in large part.
>This large part in which there is agreement makes Brown's statement that the
>term is devoid of meaning quite ridiculous.
I don't think an informal survey will *quite* do the job.
I understand that you are reluctant to face up to the fact
that the term means many things. You've seen that right
here on shm. We've had at least two totally different
definitions of it already. We'd have more but most folks
don't want to post one.
>This large part refers to feudalism in the sense:
>Private contracts between sovereigns and great men of the realm who were
>their vassals and who were in turn lords of vassals. Pledging homage and
>fealty to his lord, the vassal assumed the obligation of performing military
>and court services in return for protection and maintenance; maintenance
>took the form of a benefice or fief, that is, a estate or public office held
>in usufruct by the vassal, and heritable by their heirs. Thus the feudal
>relationship tended to be rooted in the land over which the vassal exercised
>dominion, i.e., the right to administer justice and to exercise public
>functions. As the lord of an estate he was entitled to receive rents and
>services from his tenants and to exercise judicial power over them.
Except that this was not the rule. My post from Bouchard pointed
that out. History books often simplify "feudalism" to this, but
the actual facts, the documents from the past, do not bear it
out.
First, just as an example, the great lords of France were NOT
vassals of the king at all prior to about the 11th century.
They had to be overwhelmed militarily, primarily by Philip II,
before they agreed that the king had jurisdiction. And this
is quite late, 1200 and after.
Second, the vassal did not assume any obligation of supplying
military service in return for land. Bouchard dealt specifically
with that notion. Susan Reynolds, in her thick book, filled
with citations of source documents, does not find that either.
It is a quaint theory, but not one that holds up for either
England or France.
>In the case of Catalan counts there was subinfeudation. Viscounts pledged
>homage and fealty to the counts and received investiture of their offices
>held by hereditary right. The characteristic customs and institutions of
>French feudalism were found in Catalonia and reached their fullest
>development in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
I think not. Please re-read what I posted. What you are
repeating is the nicely tidied up version often presented
in texts. It does not correspond with actuallity.
As you have noted yourself, in Spain Christians at times
fought against each other, in *spite* of these supposed rules.
And when they fought *for* the Muslims, they were certainly
violating these rules.
I might also add, that what was characteristic of French
political organization in the north was *not* characteristic
of the south of France. The great counties and duchies of
the south were essentially independent, even if they paid
paper homage to the king.
You might also check the wars between the Dukes of Normandy
and the King of France, between Normandy and Anjou, between
Normandy and Anjou and Blois, etc. etc. The kings "vassals"
pissed on him all the time -- the best known example is when
the son of the Count of Anjou took the king's woman *and*
her lands, amounting to at least a quarter of France, and
told the French king to like it or lump it.
There followed several centuries of warfare between the two.
The Count of Flanders was a vassal of the king of France in
the time of Henry II. He also became a vassal of Henry II.
He got paid for the latter. In case of war between England
and France he promised Henry II to send about 100 knights
to France to meet his minimal sworn obligation, but he
promised to come in person with 1000 knights or more to
aid Henry *against* his supposed lord.
Even on a local level it was often the case that local
lords swapped land with each other, swearing "fealty"
to each other. Often meant nothing. It was like two
enemies shaking hands.
>I know no one who would be perplexed if I described this state of affairs by
>"feudalism," at least none of the people I mentioned in Europe. I can see
>how this attitude of "feudalism means nothing, no more," is a perversion
>derived of letting the exceptions and the cases which don't have all the
>usual elements of feudalism present, and misuses of the word, become too
>large in the mind and leading to the absurdity of the exceptions spoiling
>the rule, which is nonsense.
But Tiglath, these are NOT the usual elements, at least
not in the sense you mean them.
Did nothing Bouchard say mean anything? Do you just
ignore it when she writes that many of these things were
not really so?
Bouchard is not some stay-at-home historian dreaming up
things. She's one of the leading experts in this field.
She likely knows as much about the structure of the French
nobility during this period as anyone alive. She's *READ*
the damned charters, the grants, the awards. And she's
looked at the land transfers, the alliances, and the
dealings lords had with each other.
It isn't enough that some group will agree on a definition
of feudalism. Other groups will *not* agree with that
definition. Further, the definition has to describe
an actual condition that existed over a wide enough
area and a long enough time to be considered "characteristic"
of the period.
I have no doubt that one can find a relationship between
a group of lords that fits your definition. I can think
of several myself. That's not enough. It has to be
the general thing. And it wasn't.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
>news:by366.12077$v46.3...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
>> I'm wondering if this thread isn't trying to handle two somewhat
>> separate questions simultaneously, namely:
>> 1. Whether the term "feudalism" has any meaning.
>> 2. Whether the crucial features of "feudalism" (even as found in a
>> coherent and well-written definition like yours) actually existed.
>>
>> For example, your phrase "the obligation of performing military and
>> court services in return for protection and maintenance; maintenance
>> took the form of a benefice or fief" is perfectly clear, but rightly
>> or wrongly, Reynolds is claiming that it is simply untrue that the
>> benefice was granted in return for contractual future service. She
>> says that it's a myth concocted much later.
>>
>> David
>What was it then that was expected in return?
>I am sure there are examples to support a number of varying opinions. The
>problem is when someone says that something isn't true in an absolute way.
>Then a simple counterexample suffices to disprove him or her.
That's not what is being said. What is being said is that there
was no such general rule.
>"Let the Spaniards (Spani) know that we have granted them permission to
>commend themselves in vassalage to our count, just as other free men do; and
>if anyone receives a benefice from the one to whom he is commended, let him
>know that he should render to his lord for it such service as our men
>customarily render to their lords for similar benefices."
> -- Charles the Bald's capitulary of 844 addressed to the inhabitants of
>the county of Barcelona.
Sure. And what were the customary services? Please don't
guess or suppose.
Let me quote another bit of Bouchard, this from page 39:
"Laymen in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries
kept very few written records. Fief-holding relationships
between them, thus, would not have been recorded, and the
precise origins of such a relationship must therefor remain
unknown. The earliest known description of feudal obligations,
the _forma fidelitatis_, was given by Bishop Fulbert of
Chartres around 1020. The bishop had been asked to
describe the duties of lord and vassal for the duke of
Aquitaine. Clearly the fidelity under discussion here was
more than the loyalty kings had been demanding of their
subjects for centuries. That the duke had to ask and
the bishop had to research his answer indicates that
fief holding was not a commonly recognized system in
early eleventh-century French society."
Note clearly that kings had demanded *loyalty* for centuries.
This was something quite different. It also points out that
this was a very new institution in 1020, becoming formalized
for the first time.
This is generally recognized as being so. You can find
Fulbert's response to the Duke (or some form of it) on
Paul Halsall's pages.
As a result I strongly doubt that what Charles the Bald
was saying is what you mean by feudalism.
---- Paul J. Gans
MARTIN REBOUL
D. Spencer Hines wrote...
>
> 2. He should issue a Full-Bore Apology.
Isn't one Full Bore quite enough on here? Where is the Nutty Arithmetic
Professor anyway?
> 3. He called me a fool, accused me of having no reputation to lose.......
(An accurate, concise and well observed assessment)
>.....and told me to "Rant On." He also said I had nothing to say on the
subject
> of Feudalism, which is a lie too. Read my posts at deja.com. Scores of
> them on feudalism.
I'm sure you have plenty to say about many things Dave, and will continue to
do so ad nauseum (bit of Latin to cheer you up!). Alas, ranting is more your
style than 'saying'.
> 4. Now, he admits that he was bollixed. He is flummoxed and apparently
> a FLAKE. But he also LIES. Vide infra. He STILL lies.
Did someone say "ranting"??
> 5. We need to see some Really Creative and Abject Gansian Grovelling
> here, Gentle Readers. It's long overdue.
>
> 6. This is BY NO MEANS the first time I've caught him in a gaffe and a
> lie of this sort.
>
> 7. Just the most recent.
>
> 8. Please note that STILL he avoids INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY for his
> gaffes and claims that it was a "typographical error." Liberals just
> LOVE to blame their personal failings on others ---- or "typos" ----
> allegedly trivial mistakes.
>
> 9. No, it clearly was NOT a "typographical error" ---- but perhaps it
> was a READING COMPREHENSION ERROR. Gans should tell us the TRUTH about
> that, not some cock and bull story about "typos." Again, Hines
> prescribes the _Bonehead English Course_ at Columbia University for
> Gans.
>
> 10. Please read Gans's feeble excuse, infra, again ---- Gentle Readers.
>
> 11. This is why I call the man a Fraud and a Charlatan ---- with good
> cause, based on the evidence of his performance on this newsgroup ----
> over nearly 3 1/2 years ---- not just a week or two.
>
> 12. Now, I've told him to get a copy of Sir George Sansom's fine book.
> I've given him a complete citation. He should get cracking ---- and
> stop prattling from the well of his inexhaustible ignorance.
PLS PLS etc. Good to see the Festive Season hasn't affected your
cantankerous, nit-picking, idiotic and obsessive nature Davey boy! I prefer
you this way, it's like shooting rats in a barrel - unsporting, easy, fun
and cruelly satisfying! HNY.
cheers
Martin XX
MARTIN REBOUL
jeff wiel wrote...
> D. Spencer Hines (D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu) wasted bits thusly:
> [mucho text deleted with no loss of content]
>
> : Deus Vult.
>
> Sez you.
>
> : How Sweet It Is!
>
> How sweet is it?
To one who is so regularly forced to swig the bitter dregs from the cup of
humiliation and defeat, I should think anything tastes sweet........
Paul J Gans
>: 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
>: 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 postmedieval
>: period), Marx added a third meaning: economic exploitation
>: of peasants (of a sort that began in the late Roman Empire).
>: His view 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," even though he considered
>: the subjugation of serfs somewhat of an improvement over
>: slavery. For Marx, "feudalism" extened from the end of
>: antiquity until the French Revolution, when it was replaced
>: by exploitation of the urban proletariat under "capitalism."
>: This, either straight or somewhat modified, is the position that
>: I believe Jeff presented.
>[lotsa snip]
>Strange to find myself agreeing with Marx, but there it is...
Nothing wrong with that. Only a fool would throw out
everything he wrote without examination.
>You've succeeded
No. I haven't. Please. This happens to me often when
I post a long excerpt. Constance Bouchard may have
succeeded, not me. I just posted the extract.
I'm not an expert in the developments in southern Europe.
Perhaps David Read or someone else can comment.
But you are right. What happened in various places was
different, place to place. England, for example, always
had a free peasant class. In (northern) France it was
almost completely eliminated as the lords tended to surpress
the free peasants, pushing them down to servile status.
Norway, Denmark, and Sweden were, of course, different again.
---- Paul J. Gans
Lblanch001
>I'm sure you have plenty to say about many things Dave, and will continue to
>do so ad nauseum (bit of Latin to cheer you up!).
It'll do that, all right. Please go to a quiet place and type "ad nauseam"
(note the A where you have a U) until it becomes second nature. Otherwise we'll
hear about your shaky grasp of Latin till the cows come home.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
Paul J Gans
>D. Spencer Hines wrote...
>>
>> 2. He should issue a Full-Bore Apology.
>Isn't one Full Bore quite enough on here? Where is the Nutty Arithmetic
>Professor anyway?
My experience is that he does not often post over the weekend.
And when he comes back on Monday, he'll likely not read the
accumulated material, at least not all of it.
But he will read one post, fire from the hip, and be amazed
that folks will think that he did not understand the situation.
[...]
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Martin Reboul writes:
>>I'm sure you have plenty to say about many things Dave, and will continue to
>>do so ad nauseum (bit of Latin to cheer you up!).
>It'll do that, all right. Please go to a quiet place and type "ad nauseam"
>(note the A where you have a U) until it becomes second nature. Otherwise we'll
>hear about your shaky grasp of Latin till the cows come home.
No matter. We will certainly hear about *some* bit of
trivia. The man is of endless shallowness.
------ Paul J. Gans
David Read
writes
<snip>
>
>I'm not an expert in the developments in southern Europe.
>Perhaps David Read or someone else can comment.
I posted a little on this subject back in 1999, in reply to a point
made by you. I noted at the time in that post that both Islamic and
Japanese "feudalism" might be worth discussing in some detail, although
I certainly did not and do not have any sort of competency to deal with
either. I had rather hoped that Anthony Bryant and H. D. Miller might
have spoken up on these points, but, IIRC, they remained silent, and
perhaps were not around at the time. However, I did subsequently look at
a couple of books on Japanese history for references to "feudalism", and
again, IIRC, in the very recent and scholarly treatment in the Cambridge
Medieval History on Japan, discussion of "feudalism" is conspicuous by
its absence. (I welcome correction on that point, though, and I'll be
happy enough to try to get the volume again to check the facts. However,
that does not and will not mean that I have read the book from cover to
cover, so you can take this opinion for whatever it is worth).
In the meantime, what follows is a re-post of a post of mine from 15th
August 1999, including an extract from an interesting exercise in
contortionism by Mark C. Bartusis.
BEGIN QUOTE
Possibly. Are you and, more importantly, Reynolds, simply attacking the
-ism in "feudalism", thus leaving historians, students and general
readers free to use the terms "feudal" and "feudalization" and "feudal
system" ? Does the -ism in itself make "feudal" a propaganda term,
rather than a technical one, (to use Brian Scott's words) ?
Keeping in mind my own perspective on this matter, as highlighted by one
reviewer's (Hyams) references to _iqta_ and _chigyu_, I mentioned the
Byzantine term _pronoia_. The best, and most recent discussion of this
that I have read is in _The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society
1204-1453_ by Mark C. Bartusis, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.
Bartusis writes:-
"To what degree was the late Byzantine army a "feudal" institution,
and to what degree did it contribute to what some scholars refer to as
the "feudalization" of late Byzantium? Numerous scholars use the word
"feudal" when discussing certain late Byzantine institutions, practices,
and even the society itself. These scholars, the majority of whom adopt
the Marxist view of feudalism as a stage in historical development
immediately and inevitably following an age of slavery, must construct a
definition of feudalism which is broad enough to include Byzantium, or
at least Late Byzantium, and which equates late Byzantine and Western
feudal society, at least socioeconomically. Thus, they may characterize
feudalism as "the presence of the seigneurial estate peopled by
dependent peasants" or "the exercise of public authority by private
persons," or as a social system marked by "the territorial aspect of
political relations and the political aspect of territorial relations."
The first of these characterizations can apply to late Byzantium
depending on how the words "seigneurial" and "dependent" are defined
and the second can at least be debated, while the third, though quite
elegant, is comprehensible perhaps to few but the most devoted Marxists.
Most other scholars, the "bourgeois historians" in the vocabulary of
Marxism, prefer to view feudalism as primarily a system of hierarchical
relationships among members of the ruling class, and since the Western
feudal concepts of fealty, homage, the benefice, and vassalage found
little no expression in Byzantium, they consider it misleading to apply
the term feudalism to Byzantium at all, as laden as it is with
autochthonous Western European connotations. Nevertheless, nearly all
scholars see certain parallels or analogies between Western medieval and
late Byzantine institutions and while there is a hesitancy to employ the
word feudalism, one often encounters reference to "feudalizing
tendencies" or the "feudalization" of Byzantium. Along these lines what
is most noticeable in late Byzantium was the decentralization of
political authority and the devolution of public (state) power into
private hands through the granting of privileges - fiscal,
administrative, and, in the opinion of some scholars, judicial - to
large landowners and even to towns.
This is not the place to conduct an extended discussion on whether or
not late Byzantium was a "feudal" society. Rather, we are interested
merely whether the army included elements that could be considered
"feudal." We first consider what made Western European armies feudal:
the remuneration of the majority of soldiers was derived from the fief;
the recruitment and the military obligation of the majority of soldiers
was based on vassalage; the process of mustering the host and its
internal organization were based on the feudal hierarchy; and the
command structure of the host was closely related to the ranks within
the feudal hierarchy." pp358-9
Bartusis then goes onto examine the Late Byzantine army, including the
system of pronoia_, in the light of these definitions, as the conclusion
to his study.
I would also be interested to read what s.h.m's resident scholars on
Islamic and Japanese medieval history have to say about this, and
whether serious discussions of _iqta_ and _chigyu_ are or have been
compromised by inappropriate comparison with western European
"feudalism". Is it only western historians of medieval Japan or Islam
who have felt obliged to draw any such parallels, or have Japanese and
Islamic scholars themselves fallen into this trap, if trap it is ?
END QUOTE
cheers,
--
David Read
David C. Pugh
went as e-mail to Tiglath instead. Wrong button, sorry)
----- Original Message -----
From: tiglath <tig...@usa.net>
> > I'm wondering if this thread isn't trying to handle two somewhat
> > separate questions simultaneously, namely:
> > 1. Whether the term "feudalism" has any meaning.
> > 2. Whether the crucial features of "feudalism" (even as found
in a coherent and well-written definition like yours) actually
existed.
For example, your phrase "the obligation of performing military
and court services in return for protection and maintenance;
maintenance took the form of a benefice or fief" is perfectly clear,
but
rightly > or wrongly, Reynolds is claiming that it is simply untrue
that the
> > benefice was granted in return for contractual future service. She
> > says that it's a myth concocted much later.
> What was it then that was expected in return?
The Reynolds line is that the benefice was a reward for *past*
service. Any future service would be based on something else, but not
a contractual obligation arising by the benefice.
> "Let the Spaniards (Spani) know that we have granted them permission
to > commend themselves in vassalage to our count, just as other free
men
do; and> if anyone receives a benefice from the one to whom he is
commended,
let him> know that he should render to his lord for it such service as
our
men> customarily render to their lords for similar benefices."
Nice one. Yes, I'd like to see her explain that. Perhaps she does:
it's a big book, diabolically abstruse.
Her other main line, that the decay of the concept of public power has
been vastly exaggerated, I feel much more that I understand.
David
tiglath
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:93b9gb$dhr$1...@news.panix.com...
> tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
> > [...] -- Charles the Bald's capitulary of 844 addressed
> > to the inhabitants of
> > the county of Barcelona.
>
> Sure. And what were the customary services? Please don't
> guess or suppose.
Long answer. Sorry.
------
Pre-Carolingian society had two systems of landholding which were to
be found in the Midi. One, much the more common, was the system of
holding land allodially in full outright ownership. The other was a
use of precaria or benefices in which land was held conditionally. To
these two systems the Carolingian monarchs added a third, the aprisio.
The aprisio did not appear until 780, when, as has been noted,
Charlemagne had to face the problem of providing for Spanish refugees
who had fled to the Midi after the failure of his Saragossa expedition
of 778. He solved this problem by allotting to these hispani tracts
of uncultivated land in Septimania belonging to the royal fisc, which
they were to hold under special conditions.
As territory south of the Pyrenees was gradually liberated from the
Moslem yoke, the aprisio system was extended into Catalonia, until by
812 such holdings were to be found over a wide area in the maritime
Catalan counties of Barcelona, Gerona, Ampurias, and Roussillon, as
well as around Narbonne, Carcassonne, and Béziers, and in Provence.
In 812 disputes between aprisio holders and the local counts and
inhabitants of the regions in which they were located caused some
forty-two important spani settled in Carolingian domains under this
system to carry their complaints to Aix-la-Chapelle to the emperor
Charlemagne himself. They may have been accompanied by some minores
or smaller aprisio holders. As a result of their complaints Charles'
successor Louis the Pious in 815 and 816 regulated the status of
aprisiones in edicts which embodied principles found in his father's
original grant of 780 and his extension of aprisio rights to the
inhabitants of Barcelona and Tarrassa about 802. In 844 Charles the
Bald made some minor changes and issued another capitulary concerning
aprisiones.
From these Carolingian enactments we learn the exact nature of an
aprisio, particularly one held by one of the majores like John of
Fontjoncouse or Asnar Galindo. In the first place important aprisio
holders did homage for their holdings to the Carolingian emperor.
The statutes reveal another fact -- they were all free men. They paid,
therefore, no special dues or cens to the counts or their agents, and
they had the right to settle disputes among themselves and those whom
they brought in to cultivate their holdings in accordance with their
own Visigothic law, without recourse to the official tribunals of the
counts. The one exception concerned criminal cases or majores causas
in which the counts were still to have jurisdiction, just as they did
in cases involving disputes between aprisio holders and the native
inhabitants of their districts.
Such privileges enjoyed by the large aprisio holders also carried with
them certain responsibilities. The most important one was the duty of
military service. These milites, as they were sometimes called, were
required, upon call, to join the count's army and take part in
frontier campaigns. They also had to furnish horses and purveyance to
royal missi and envoys traveling to and from Spain. They were also
permitted to receive benefices from counts and to enter into a
dependent relationship with them in return for such grants of lands.
To understand landholding systems found in the rest of the Midi,
however, we must look for something other than aprisiones, interesting
and unique though this system may be. North of the Pyrenees a system
of honores, precaria, and beneficia seems to have been much more
important. The honores, as they were called, present the easiest
problem. An honor was a position, office, or charge, a county or
series of counties, an arch-bishopric, a bishopric, or an abbey given
to an individual by a Carolingian monarch; for it the individual did
homage personally in a regular ceremony, and it therefore established
between him and this ruler the special bond or tie of fidelitas.
Honores of a secular nature could be revoked and often were at the
pleasure of the ruler, either because of disloyalty or incompetence or
both.
Somewhat different were the benefices which Charlemagne and Louis the
Pious gave to important supporters. Like honores such benefices were
grants of land which established, through the personal ceremony of
homage the bond of fidelitas, and those who received them were called
fideles and sometimes vassi. But, in the Midi during this period, a
benefice seems to have consisted essentially of a grant of land rather
than an office. The royal fisc, consisting as it did of confiscated,
conquered, and vacant land, seems to have been the source from which
benefices were given, as it was for aprisiones which much resemble
them. Unlike the honor, however, the beneficia seem to have been
lifetime grants, unless disloyalty forced their withdrawal from the
recipient. Sometimes, however, they were even given for longer periods
of time.
Counts in addition to their honores often received from the
Carolingian monarchs grants of beneficia, a fact which shows that an
individual could hold an honor as an official and a benefice as a
fidelis at the same time. The villa which Count Robert had held "in
beneficium" from Louis the Pious and which this emperor gave to the
bishop of Maguelonne in 819 is a case in point.
-- The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society, 718-1050.
Archibald R. Lewis
------
[...]
> As a result I strongly doubt that what Charles the Bald
> was saying is what you mean by feudalism.
I don't think so. My definition of feudalism is not far off from what
Lewis describes above. We see that details varied for place to place
and time to time, but those details do not represent a MAJOR shift in
the broad notion of feudalism.
tiglath
>
> The Reynolds line is that the benefice was a reward for *past*
> service. Any future service would be based on something else, but
not
> a contractual obligation arising by the benefice.
But...
That assumes that the service was given by landless and office-less
men who received land or office after performing a service. Again,
there might be cases in which this might have been the sequence. But
there is too much that indicates that a contractual obligation
existed. Take the case of land. It is clear that the lord in some
cases was entitled to part of the harvest. That alone indicates that
there was a contractual obligation paid after the granting of the
benefice.
D. Spencer Hines
incomplete and pot-boiler book _Fiefs and Vassals_ ---- a thick wedge of
congealed academic prose ---- because it's outside her Personal Bermuda
Triangle [PBT].
She also has a deep animus towards lawyers and jurists in general ----
perhaps for personal reasons ---- and blames them for "Feudalism." An
"over-bearing" -- "patriarchal" -- "chauvinist" -- father or brother,
who was an attorney? A messy divorce, whereby she came out on the short
end of the stick? Settlement of an estate that didn't give her
everything she wanted? Apposite questions.
_Fiefs and Vassals_ is really a quite unconvincing book ---- on all
counts. But Gans continues to swoon and moon over it.
Further, several centuries from now, lawyers and historians may have a
different view of what we call "Democracy" today. They may even give it
a different name. They may see a "system" where we do not. That is to
be expected. Lawyers and Academics both have taxonomic minds ---- they
like to regularise, codify and classify things in neat little boxes,
circumscribed by "definitions".
Historical Reality simply IS and always WAS much more complex than their
little minds can comprehend. Within the edifice of "Feudalism" many
folks cut their own "special deals" ---- looking to their own
self-interest. What's news about that? Nada.
But that does not mean that words such as Capitalism, Democracy,
Feudalism, Imperialism, Socialism, Watergate and Whitewater do not serve
quite useful purposes ---- quite the contrary.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93d59l$fod$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
D. Spencer Hines
of the package is certainly not rocket science.
It is quite childish to think otherwise.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93d5om$i9t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
tiglath
>
> First, just as an example, the great lords of France were NOT
> vassals of the king at all prior to about the 11th century.
The Catalan counts were. Ironically, they stopped being vassals by
the tenth century, although they still recognized the sovereignty of
the French king.
> >In the case of Catalan counts there was subinfeudation. Viscounts
pledged
> >homage and fealty to the counts and received investiture of their
offices
> >held by hereditary right. The characteristic customs and
institutions of
> >French feudalism were found in Catalonia and reached their fullest
> >development in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
>
> I think not.
Let me be sure what your "think not" refers to.
> Please re-read what I posted. What you are
> repeating is the nicely tidied up version often presented
> in texts.
What's wrong with my texts? What is so great with your texts?
> It does not correspond with actuallity.
Defined by? Who?
> As you have noted yourself, in Spain Christians at times
> fought against each other, in *spite* of these supposed rules.
> And when they fought *for* the Muslims, they were certainly
> violating these rules.
That's something else. Catalonia was the exception. Feudalism made
little inroads in the rest of Spain. The kingdom of Leon-Asturias
manage to do well without feudal lords. The king had the direct
homage and fealty of his subjects, due to his leading role in the
constant state of war with the Arabs.
> You might also check the wars between the Dukes of Normandy
> and the King of France, between Normandy and Anjou, between
> Normandy and Anjou and Blois, etc. etc. The kings "vassals"
> pissed on him all the time -- the best known example is when
> the son of the Count of Anjou took the king's woman *and*
> her lands, amounting to at least a quarter of France, and
> told the French king to like it or lump it.
It is a well known consequence of feudalim that the strength of the
monarchy depended on the king-lord ties. Nothing new here.
> I have no doubt that one can find a relationship between
> a group of lords that fits your definition. I can think
> of several myself. That's not enough. It has to be
> the general thing.
It doesn't. Wherever and whenever it happened we had feudalism,
wherever and whenever most of the elements in the notion of feudalism
weren't present then we didn't have feudalism. You might say then
that feudalism was less widespread than we think, rather than saying
that feudalism is devoid of meaning because it doesn't encompass an
arbitrary number of king-vassal relationships you or some historian
thinks belong together under a single denomination.
D. Spencer Hines
because that where Reynolds and Bouchard concentrate their efforts.
Elsewhere he's blind.
Catalonia is totally off his Radar Screen.
It's far outside the Gans Bermuda Triangle [GBT] (which actually
compresses to England ---- 1066-1347 ---- the temporal termini of his
little two-credit sociology course at NYU.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93d77s$qgb$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Gans argues ONLY from the platform of FRENCH historical phenomena ----
because that where Reynolds and Bouchard concentrate their efforts.
Elsewhere he's blind.
Catalonia is totally off his Radar Screen.
It's far outside the Gans Bermuda Triangle [GBT] (which actually
compresses to England ---- 1066-1347 ---- the temporal termini of his
little two-credit sociology course at NYU.)
Bryn Fraser
writes
Feudalism
The Boss's pigeons get to eat your seed corn and you can't kill them...
>
>
>
Bryn Fraser
Issues? You think *You* have issues?
Curt Emanuel
Service was clearly expected - but not simply because they received
land. Service was expected whether you had land or not because you were
presumed to be a loyal subject.
It's been about three years since I've read this so I hope I summarize
this part of Reynolds' argument correctly. People served because they
were loyal and faithful. The land was given to reward this. Now I have
no doubt that they were expected to provide _more_ service after
receiving land.
I agree with some parts of Reynolds and disagree with others. In reality
I think there is probably enough evidence to support either case -
sometimes it was a reward, sometimes a trade. The one area where I think
Reynolds is on fairly solid ground is arguing against the terms
"feudalism" and "feudal system." There's simply too much variation
regarding how things were done depending on where and when for "isms"
and "systems."
For those with more knowledge of the MA I think the systems and isms may
have some utility. Frex, if you were specifically discussing society of
southern France you could say, "The feudal system in Aquitaine during
the early 13th century was characterized by ...." The problem comes with
the use of the terms in introductory works and general surveys where
it's impossible to determine what they really mean, or where things
varied tremendously even in a locality at approximately the same time.
So it may be that the terms could be resurrected through very strict
usage, but it's probably better to do away with them altogether - there
are a bunch of books that use the terms inappropriately.
BTW - I don't consider Ganshof to be one of those examples of misuse. He
is very careful to discuss the times and places where his
characteristics of society were present. It's the use made of Ganshof by
later writers that is the problem.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
D. Spencer Hines
reality
| I think there is probably enough evidence to support either case -
| sometimes it was a reward, sometimes a trade. The one area where I
think
| Reynolds is on fairly solid ground is arguing against the terms
| "feudalism" and "feudal system." There's simply too much variation
| regarding how things were done depending on where and when for "isms"
| and "systems."
[...]
| So it may be that the terms could be resurrected through very strict
| usage, but it's probably better to do away with them altogether -
there
| are a bunch of books that use the terms inappropriately.
Curt Emanuel ---- 8 January 2001
-----------------------------------------
Hmmmmmm.
So, by this strange and convoluted logic, we'll have to terminate the
words "Communism" ---- "Socialism" ---- and "Imperialism" with extreme
prejudice ---- ASAP. They CANNOT be allowed to remain in the English
language.
There's not a moment to lose ---- they MUST be stuffed down the
Orwellian Memory Hole, RIGHT away.
P.S. Of course we MIGHT be able to set up a Committee of Strict Usage
[CSU], staffed with True Believer Newspeakers all, of course, [and
chaired by Curt Emanuel] ---- to determine how these dangerous,
insidious words may be carefully used ---- under VERY STRICT conditions.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
tiglath
"Curt Emanuel" <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
news:3A5A5A...@accs.net...
>
> It's been about three years since I've read this so I hope I summarize
> this part of Reynolds' argument correctly. People served because they
> were loyal and faithful. The land was given to reward this. Now I have
> no doubt that they were expected to provide _more_ service after
> receiving land.
>
> I agree with some parts of Reynolds and disagree with others. In reality
> I think there is probably enough evidence to support either case -
> sometimes it was a reward, sometimes a trade.
I see nothing wrong in calling feudalism the private contracts between lords
and vassals in which service and benecifes were provided to each other.
When such a contract did not exist we can then call it something else. My
point is that there are enough clear examples of feudalism, as I understand
it, to say that the word has a clear meaning. Small variations would still
come into the same heading, whereas substantially different arrangements
would be called something else. This is what I see most historians I've
read do. Obviously not the historians some of you are reading.
In the long citation I provided there several types of land-holding
benefits, known by different names. Feudalism as it is encompasses the
honores and the benefices contracts. It is fairly general. But not general
enough, for some, to encompass even more types of master-server
relationships. It doen't need to be. It is when pushed into that direction
that the word loses meaning for it refers to situations with too little in
common.
Paul J. Gans
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:93b9gb$dhr$1...@news.panix.com...
>> tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
>> > [...] -- Charles the Bald's capitulary of 844 addressed
>> > to the inhabitants of
>> > the county of Barcelona.
>>
>> Sure. And what were the customary services? Please don't
>> guess or suppose.
> Long answer. Sorry.
I'm sorry too. It is excellent. And I have what I
hope is an excellent discussion of it. But it will
have to wait. Right now I'm on the tail end of a
very slow telephone line. I'll try to deal with
it tomorrow, but it might have to wait until I get
back to New York.
No, I'm not ducking it. Damned real-life often comes
up right when I was enjoying myself...
---- Paul J. (posting from Cleveland, Ohio) Gans
Paul J. Gans
> David C. Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:gIg66.12611$v46.3...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
>>
>> The Reynolds line is that the benefice was a reward for *past*
>> service. Any future service would be based on something else, but
> not
>> a contractual obligation arising by the benefice.
> But...
> That assumes that the service was given by landless and office-less
> men who received land or office after performing a service. Again,
> there might be cases in which this might have been the sequence.
This one's easy. Ganshof has written an entire book about
this, called _Feudalism_. It is likely the best single
argument *for* the classic definition around. It's old, but
good. He points out that benefices and land (not always the
same thing) were given as rewards for service to selected
(not everyone) vassals (who were usually landless men) in
return for services rendered. The gift was supposed to be
for life, but was quickly turned into something hereditary.
Ganshof turns out to be wrong about some of this, but not
about the landless part.
> But
> there is too much that indicates that a contractual obligation
> existed. Take the case of land. It is clear that the lord in some
> cases was entitled to part of the harvest. That alone indicates that
> there was a contractual obligation paid after the granting of the
> benefice.
This is part of the problem. The "customary" obligations
seem to have varied in time and place from *nothing* to
*lots*.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:93b8t8$dau$1...@news.panix.com...
>>
>> First, just as an example, the great lords of France were NOT
>> vassals of the king at all prior to about the 11th century.
> The Catalan counts were. Ironically, they stopped being vassals by
> the tenth century, although they still recognized the sovereignty of
> the French king.
The office of Count was originally not hereditary. It
is an officfe traceable back to the Romans. Charlemagne
use "counts" as his personal representatives in governing
his lands. They were *his* people and served at his will.
Over time (I can't go into all the details here) the Counts
asserted their independence from the king, although as you
say, the recognized a certain tenuous relationship.
This is what you are describing above. It was quite common
in Charlemagne's lands. And, by 100 AD they were independent.
Don't let the fiction of "recognizing the king" lead you to
think that they were anything but independent. A typical
example are the Counts of Anjou. Another arethe Counts of
Flanders.
>> >In the case of Catalan counts there was subinfeudation. Viscounts
> pledged
>> >homage and fealty to the counts and received investiture of their
> offices
>> >held by hereditary right. The characteristic customs and
> institutions of
>> >French feudalism were found in Catalonia and reached their fullest
>> >development in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
>>
>> I think not.
> Let me be sure what your "think not" refers to.
>> Please re-read what I posted. What you are
>> repeating is the nicely tidied up version often presented
>> in texts.
> What's wrong with my texts? What is so great with your texts?
Oh Tiglath. Time marches on. Material gets re-examined.
Read Bouchard, it's a fun book.
>> It does not correspond with actuallity.
> Defined by? Who?
Those who, in the last 20 years, have looked at it in
detail. It wasn't me. I didn't do it. I just read the
results.
>> As you have noted yourself, in Spain Christians at times
>> fought against each other, in *spite* of these supposed rules.
>> And when they fought *for* the Muslims, they were certainly
>> violating these rules.
> That's something else. Catalonia was the exception. Feudalism made
> little inroads in the rest of Spain. The kingdom of Leon-Asturias
> manage to do well without feudal lords. The king had the direct
> homage and fealty of his subjects, due to his leading role in the
> constant state of war with the Arabs.
That's not feudal? You've just knocked England out of the feudal
ranks. See the problems one gets into?
Please don't misundrestand what I'm saying. All I'm saying
that there is no single agreed-upon definition of feudalism.
Thus the word "feudalism" should not be used to describe
the medieval period or part of it.
---- Paul
Paul J. Gans
> In article <93b5md$c4e$1...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> writes
>>tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:iX366.7$%N2....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
>>>> What *are* the "usual elements" of feudalism?
>>
>>>I did provide a ten-line summary of them.
>>
>>Got it! I'll do a reply.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
> Feudalism
> The Boss's pigeons get to eat your seed corn and you can't kill them...
That's tenant farming. It was common here in the US in
the south. Just as you say. And it was often called
"feudal"... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
I'll not disagree with most of that. I will make one
small point. Bachrach once pointed out in my hearing
(I feel a Boswell coming on) that one can almost always
drop the term "feudal" without changing the meanng of
a sentence. For example:`
"The feudal system in Aquitaine during
the early 13th century was characterized by ...."
would then read:
"The system in Aquitaine during the early 13th
century was characterized by ...."
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> "Curt Emanuel" <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
> news:3A5A5A...@accs.net...
>>
>> It's been about three years since I've read this so I hope I summarize
>> this part of Reynolds' argument correctly. People served because they
>> were loyal and faithful. The land was given to reward this. Now I have
>> no doubt that they were expected to provide _more_ service after
>> receiving land.
>>
>> I agree with some parts of Reynolds and disagree with others. In reality
>> I think there is probably enough evidence to support either case -
>> sometimes it was a reward, sometimes a trade.
> I see nothing wrong in calling feudalism the private contracts between lords
> and vassals in which service and benecifes were provided to each other.
> When such a contract did not exist we can then call it something else. My
> point is that there are enough clear examples of feudalism, as I understand
> it, to say that the word has a clear meaning.
[...]
But Tiglath, other people have other definitions. The standard
English interpretation lies in land ownership, not in service.
What you are missing here is that yours is just one of a half
dozen or more equally useful definitions, each firmly held
by its users.
That's a major problem.
----- Paul J. Gans
David C. Pugh
>
> David C. Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:gIg66.12611$v46.3...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> >
> > The Reynolds line is that the benefice was a reward for *past*
> > service. Any future service would be based on something else, but
> not a contractual obligation arising by the benefice.
>
> But...
>
> That assumes that the service was given by landless and office-less
> men who received land or office after performing a service.
More likely landless men who received the land after performing their
office.
Again,> there might be cases in which this might have been the
sequence. But
> there is too much that indicates that a contractual obligation
> existed.
I agree, I'm not happy with what seems to be her equally sweeping
generalisation the other way.
David
David C. Pugh
Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
(...)
> Service was clearly expected - but not simply because they received
> land. Service was expected whether you had land or not because you
were
> presumed to be a loyal subject.
For tenants of the King, I think she makes a good case. For knights
commended to and holding from a lord as in Tiglath's capitulary, I'm
not so sure. Surely the public power, whose death is according to her
greatly exaggerated, should not motivate Sir Thug to be loyal to Earl
Meanie, but only to his king.
> It's been about three years since I've read this so I hope I
summarize
> this part of Reynolds' argument correctly. People served because
they
> were loyal and faithful. The land was given to reward this. Now I
have
> no doubt that they were expected to provide _more_ service after
> receiving land.
A point I don't remember her going into, though I could be wrong.
> I agree with some parts of Reynolds and disagree with others. In
reality
> I think there is probably enough evidence to support either case -
> sometimes it was a reward, sometimes a trade.
That would be what one should expect from such untidy creatures as
human societies, no?
David
Renia
One of the problems with the "feudal system", is that it was not a "system".
Renia
Raymond Spada
"system" but a process and the cultural framework in which the
"feudalisation" played itself out. When you add humans in their
societies, It's a evolution---Not a blueprint.
rspada@web tv.net
tiglath
>
> But Tiglath, other people have other definitions. The standard
> English interpretation lies in land ownership, not in service.
What? Land ownership is the benefit to the vassal service is the
obligation to the lord. Looking at my definition I see land (estate)
as a benefit.
tiglath
> I'll not disagree with most of that. I will make one
> small point. Bachrach once pointed out in my hearing
> (I feel a Boswell coming on) that one can almost always
> drop the term "feudal" without changing the meanng of
> a sentence. For example:`
>
> "The feudal system in Aquitaine during
> the early 13th century was characterized by ...."
>
> would then read:
>
> "The system in Aquitaine during the early 13th
> century was characterized by ...."
>
This is unworthy.
"System" is such a generic word that there is no way you can know what
you are talking about in the second sentence; you do in the first.
"System" alone could refer to anything. "irrigation system," "system
or weights and measures," etc. On the other hand "feudal system" is
quite clear, at least to me.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> The standard
> English interpretation lies in land ownership, not in service.
And also the English system was not only not the same as the
continental system, there was no way it could be. The situation in
England was new and not handicapped by hangovers from previous
practice (at least not to nearly the same extent as the continent).
William needed both to fulfill the promises he had made for support
and set up a system that could rule the conquered land. He had also a
large amount of experience with over mighty subordinates hence the way
he fragmented holdings.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Paul J. Gans
> Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
> (...)
>> Service was clearly expected - but not simply because they received
>> land. Service was expected whether you had land or not because you
> were
>> presumed to be a loyal subject.
> For tenants of the King, I think she makes a good case. For knights
> commended to and holding from a lord as in Tiglath's capitulary, I'm
> not so sure. Surely the public power, whose death is according to her
> greatly exaggerated, should not motivate Sir Thug to be loyal to Earl
> Meanie, but only to his king.
[...]
Depends. I'm currently reading Keen's _Medieval Warfare_
(no, I don't know if Hines has smelled it yet.) In the first
chapter, whose subject is Carolingian and Ottonian warfare
(written by Timothy Reuter) this very point is discussed.
The "Germanic" custom was that the free men of the "tribe"
or grouping gathered at the call of the king in order to
wage war. Men came out of loyalty to the king. Not all
came by any means -- indeed quite a few did not as war-
making had become quite expensive. The Magnates came
both out of loyalty and because it did not pay to annoy
the king. They brought their household men with them.
And they also brought, often via subsidy, men who looked
to them for leadership.
Did they expect to share the loot? Certainly. Did they
expect land? No. Some got it anyway for loyal service,
but that did not mean that they were more or less likely
to show up the next time.
It was the expense of warfare that led to that famous
Carolingian edict calling on the poorer free men to
band together and together finance one to fight. The
others stayed home.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
that did not mean that they were more or less likely to show up the next
-------------------Cordon Sanitaire--------
That's not History.
No names, no dates, no specific examples ---- just the impersonal
"sociological they" ---- heavily reinforced by personal opinion. The
throwaway phrase "more or less likely" is a giveaway, as to the lack of
substance.
It's just Rampant Sociological Opining [RSO] ---- seventh-grade-level,
at best ---- lecture material.
Fit to entertain not-too-smart undergraduates, I suppose ---- but not
fit for adult consumption.
Dangerous to your Historical Health.
Deus Vult.
Fortem Posce Animum.
Roger le Fleur
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:20:13 GMT, "D. Spencer Hines"
<D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>"Did they expect land? No. Some got it anyway for loyal service, but
>that did not mean that they were more or less likely to show up the next
>time." [pjg]
>
>-------------------Cordon Sanitaire--------
>
>That's not History.
>
>No names, no dates, no specific examples ---- just the impersonal
>"sociological they" ---- heavily reinforced by personal opinion. The
>throwaway phrase "more or less likely" is a giveaway, as to the lack of
>substance.
>
Is it not enough that Paul Gans, a chemistry professor, has said that?
Roger.
Efithimia T. Leonardi
D. Spencer Hines
historical substance.
All she flings are whining one-liners.
Sad. Particularly for her students, I reckon.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Efithimia T. Leonardi" <eqk...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:WdR66.31$m35...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Paul J. Gans
> In article <ABv66.14$Sz4...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>> The standard
>> English interpretation lies in land ownership, not in service.
> And also the English system was not only not the same as the
> continental system, there was no way it could be. The situation in
> England was new and not handicapped by hangovers from previous
> practice (at least not to nearly the same extent as the continent).
> William needed both to fulfill the promises he had made for support
> and set up a system that could rule the conquered land. He had also a
> large amount of experience with over mighty subordinates hence the way
> he fragmented holdings.
Agreed. And a good point.
---- Paul J. Gans
Efithimia T. Leonardi
looking for three years now.
Unlike you, old chap, I know when to keep quiet
and learn something.
I speak out on subjects on which I have some knowledge.
I'll leave it to you to figure out what they are.
Since you are so clever, I am certain you will.
What, if any, are your interests, besides
hurling insults at people and behaving like a
a human (?) spell check program?
Roger le Fleur
<D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>This college professor, "Effy" is completely unable to post anything of
>historical substance.
>
>All she flings are whining one-liners.
A female version of B. Scott.
Roger.
D. Spencer Hines
Although she posts even less of substance than does the Armoured
Crustacean, out of acute fear of Disastrous Egregious Pratfall [DEP] and
Loss of Self-Esteem [LSE] and consequent Damaged Academic Reputation
[DAR].
It's good to see you back, Roger.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Roger le Fleur" <Rogerl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s4rp5t4e078hn5mqb...@4ax.com...
D. Spencer Hines
risibus.
What do you wager she's smoking?
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Efithimia T. Leonardi" <eqk...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:aV676.2$5W6...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
|
| Oh, yes. I am terrified of what you might think of me as an
| academic and scientist. I stand before you trembling
| and penitent, knowing that you shall show me the
| wau [sic] of truth.
Efithimia T. Leonardi
Oh, yes. I am terrified of what you might think of me as an
academic and scientist. I stand before you trembling
and penitent, knowing that you shall show me the
> D. Spencer Hines
> Vires et Honor.
--
Efthimia Kokotos Leonardi
eqk...@is2.nyu.edu
Efithimia T. Leonardi
D. Spencer Hines
"I DO declare."
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Efithimia T. Leonardi" <eqk...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:cy876.5$5W6...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Efithimia T. Leonardi
Didn't say that. You did. I just said whatever it is must be
better than what you're drinking. Learn to read, darling.
It's a useful skill.
tiglath
"Roger le Fleur" <Rogerl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s4rp5t4e078hn5mqb...@4ax.com...
Here we go with the ventriloquistic act again.
D. Spencer Hines
The LOL is obviously a pothead ---- and an angry one too.
All these flakey academics have secret pasts and kinky desires.
"Darling?"
I reckon not.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Efithimia T. Leonardi" <eqk...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Ww976.6$5W6...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Roger le Fleur
Typically, it was started by one of Gans' newly recruited stooges,
Efithimia. I guess it was only a matter of minutes before you'd show
up.
Roger.
Efithimia T. Leonardi
noble of you, Mr. Hines.
tiglath
Show up? I never left.
D. Spencer Hines
She wasn't amused at all.
Good for her. The girl knows that a little jealousy is good for a man's
ego ---- and romance.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Efithimia T. Leonardi" <eqk...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:dMi76.1$j....@typhoon.nyu.edu...
El Hombre
Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> My innamorata saw your post.
Ah, Mr. Hines also reads braille.
:-)))
Raymond Spada
Recriminations going around. Whats the TOPIC of THIS THREAD again?
---- "Entrepsa"---.
rspada@web tv.net
Keith Marzullo
yes, i agree with the spirit of your rhetorical question.
i think of DSH like that occasional air passenger who, due to the
rich diet and change of air pressure, suffers from a bad case of
flatulence. our trapped passenger sits there polluting the recycled air.
it doesn't help pointing this out to him. it's best to try to ignore
the situation. but, occasionally air rage sets in and his suffering
seatmates gets angry.
for some reason it appears that the rich intellectual diet and changing
pressures of s.h.m causes DSH to post off-topic and ad hominem attacks
on this newsgroup. i don't think that he can help it. most of us
try to ignore such postings and read only those of his that have some
on-topic value. but, some of his newgroupmates occasionally get angry.
too bad killfiles don't work on recycled airplane air...
cheers,
keith
Obj. on-topic posting: i recently visited the uncovered roman imperial
villa near piazza armerina in sicily. these are from the mid-fourth
century. i was surprised to see that the clothing some of the people
are shown wearing looked so modern. the costumes appeared to my untrained
eye to look much like that you see people wearing in early renaissance
paintings. not all, though - i've never seen a painting showing a woman
dressed like the famous roman woman in what looks like a bikini. anyway,
it would be interesting to read something on how clothing fashion changed
in, say, italy, from the late imperial time through the medieval period.
can anyone make a recommendation?
--
___________________________________________________
Keith Marzullo University of California, San Diego
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
---------------------------------------------------
Lblanch001
>
>Typically, it was started by one of Gans' newly recruited stooges,
>Efithimia.
Roger, you're an idiot. Efy has been around for years.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
D. Spencer Hines
oozed by Doubtfire.
Effy lurks ---- and fires off whining little one-liners.
She contributes zip point nada to SHM.
Advantage Roger.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Lblanch001" <lblan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010112120238...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Paul J. Gans
> oozed by Doubtfire.
> Effy lurks ---- and fires off whining little one-liners.
> She contributes zip point nada to SHM.
> Advantage Roger.
Hines is Illiterate. I've several times pointed out that
he has Mis-spelled Efy's Name. Yet he persists in
Pratfalls. I must conclude that he is also Unteachable (U).
How dry it is!
Pox vobiscum.
E pluribus unam.
Excelsior.
All material in this post is in the public domain provided
only that a copy of all derivative material be e-mailed to
the Unteachable Illiterater of Your Choice (UIoYC).
"Once, while going to St. Ives, I changed my mind and
turned around and went home." [PJG 1/12/01]
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: I shall be traveling in Mufti over the next several
days. If you folks living in Mufti see me, a Contribution
dropped in my Cup will be Most Welcome.
Renia
Where's Mufti?
Ren the Ignorant
Brant Gibbard
>"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>
>> PS: I shall be traveling in Mufti over the next several
>> days. If you folks living in Mufti see me, a Contribution
>> dropped in my Cup will be Most Welcome.
>
>Where's Mufti?
>
Presumably somewhere in the vicinity of Communicado and Cognito.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, Ont.
Brian M. Scott
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>the Unteachable Illiterater of Your Choice (UIoYC).
UIoYC? UIoYC?? Tallyho! ('There goes the ...)
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
>"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>> > Advantage Roger.
>> How dry it is!
>> Pox vobiscum.
>> E pluribus unam.
>> Excelsior.
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>Where's Mufti?
At Pomona College, Claremont, California. (If it still exists.)
Brian
Roger le Fleur
>Roger Le Fleur writes:
>
>>
>>Typically, it was started by one of Gans' newly recruited stooges,
>>Efithimia.
>
>Roger, you're an idiot. Efy has been around for years.
>
>Regards,
>Laura Blanchard
Ah, its you, Laura. Speaking of being around, it has been a while
since I've seen one of your naive posts on Richard III. I've got some
news for you Laura. Richard III was NOT a nice guy.
Roger.
P.S.
My neighbor's Maltese is named Efy.
Roger le Fleur
>days. If you folks living in Mufti see me, a Contribution
>dropped in my Cup will be Most Welcome.
Let us hope you take the wrong turn in Mufti. :-)))))
Roger.
MARTIN REBOUL
tiglath wrote...
>
> "Roger le Fleur" wrote in message
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:38 GMT, "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> >
> > >This college professor, "Effy" is completely unable to post anything of
> > >historical substance.
> > >
> > >All she flings are whining one-liners.
> >
> > A female version of B. Scott.
> >
> > Roger.
>
> Here we go with the ventriloquistic act again.
Are you implying that Commander Hines has his hand up Roger le
Fleur's........how utterly revolting! Utterly revolting, but absolutely
believable.
"It's always *bottoms* with you people, isnt it!" (Basil Fawlty)
tiglath
"MARTIN REBOUL" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:RZU76.3135$Ed4....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Sir Martin, you have a way with words.
God bless.
Heather Rose Jones
>
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:14:32 +0000, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
> >
>
> >> PS: I shall be traveling in Mufti over the next several
> >> days. If you folks living in Mufti see me, a Contribution
> >> dropped in my Cup will be Most Welcome.
> >
> >Where's Mufti?
> >
>
> Presumably somewhere in the vicinity of Communicado and Cognito.
And the most common method of transportation in that region is the Huff
(available in both four-door and hatchback models).
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Brant Gibbard
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>And the most common method of transportation in that region is the Huff
>(available in both four-door and hatchback models).
Snits are also popular.
Sharon L. Krossa
> David C. Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
>
> > (...)
> >> Service was clearly expected - but not simply because they received
> >> land. Service was expected whether you had land or not because you
> > were
> >> presumed to be a loyal subject.
>
> > For tenants of the King, I think she makes a good case. For knights
> > commended to and holding from a lord as in Tiglath's capitulary, I'm
> > not so sure. Surely the public power, whose death is according to her
> > greatly exaggerated, should not motivate Sir Thug to be loyal to Earl
> > Meanie, but only to his king.
>
> [...]
>
> Depends. I'm currently reading Keen's _Medieval Warfare_
> (no, I don't know if Hines has smelled it yet.) In the first
> chapter, whose subject is Carolingian and Ottonian warfare
> (written by Timothy Reuter) this very point is discussed.
>
> The "Germanic" custom was that the free men of the "tribe"
> or grouping gathered at the call of the king in order to
> wage war. Men came out of loyalty to the king. Not all
> came by any means -- indeed quite a few did not as war-
> making had become quite expensive. The Magnates came
> both out of loyalty and because it did not pay to annoy
> the king. They brought their household men with them.
> And they also brought, often via subsidy, men who looked
> to them for leadership.
In Scotland, armies were raised by "Scottish service", that is, the
military service owed to the King by all able bodied men (which was
unconnected to land holding -- everybody owed it, landed or no). The
tradition of Scottish service pre-dates the mania for written charters
and particular land holding terminology introduced by the Anglo-Normans
and continued through the Middle Ages.
Sharon, sero sed serio
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
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/
jeff wiel
: MARTIN REBOUL <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
: >D. Spencer Hines wrote...
: >>
: >> 2. He should issue a Full-Bore Apology.
: >Isn't one Full Bore quite enough on here? Where is the Nutty Arithmetic
: >Professor anyway?
: My experience is that he does not often post over the weekend.
: And when he comes back on Monday, he'll likely not read the
: accumulated material, at least not all of it.
: But he will read one post, fire from the hip, and be amazed
: that folks will think that he did not understand the situation.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone with the relevant background read the
Professor's papers in his own field? Is he any better writing about
something he nomially knows about?