Feudalism (part 2)
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. The indented material is hers, the
other material is either footnotes or mine.
One might have hoped that after a word had been used in
such highly discrepant social, legal, and economic senses
(to say nothing of its applications to institutions that
developed a millenium or more apart), it could be jettisoned
as no longer useful. Instead, in the twentieth
century there have been repeated attemps to retain the
term while adding more layers of meaning to it. "Feudalism"
has sometimes taken on political signficance, describing
a system in which power is decentralized, held by many
different people acting essentially independently, so that
the wealthy became the de facto political leaders. More
weakly, but even more pervasively, "feudal" is sometimes
used as a synonym for "noble," so that every castle
becomes a "feudal" castle, the Crusades become an exercise
in "feudal" warfare, and monasteries that buried their noble
patrons become "feudal" churches. In the extreme version,
"feudal" is simply a synonym for "medieval," on the assumption
that we need a single word (_other_ than "medieval") to
describe a society that included both fief holding and
landlord-peasant relationships. Thus we read of "feudal
times" or "feudal society."[13]
Footnote [13] reads: "This is the sense in which it is used
by Poly and Bournazel in an otherwise thoughtful work,
_The Feudal Transformation_, pp. 1-3, 351-57. Susan Reynolds
has sought to replace the sterotype of medieval "feudalism"
with the concept of "community." _Kingdoms and Communities_.
Clearly, if the term can mean a form of political organization,
a model of economic exploitation, a form of social institution,
legal privileges, or even very vaguely, "the way things were
back then," its continued use can only obscure meaning.
Many medievalists, especially in the United States, have dropped
the term entirely, leaving it to scholars of the French
Revolution or Marxist thought (since at least they seem to
know what they mean by it), while trying to remind them
that the characteristics of the ancien regime were not
those of medieval society. French scholars, while recognizing
the problem, have tried to cling to the term "feodalite"
(usually) in the narrow sense of fief holding and "feodalisme"
to mean everything else.[14]
Footnote [14] reads: "This is the distinction made, for example,
by Dominique Barthelemy, "Dominations chatelains de l'an mil,"
in Delort and Iogna-Prat, eds., _La France de l'an mil_, pp.
101-13. See also Pierre Tourbert, "Les feodalities mediterraneen:
Un probleme d'histore comparee", in _Structures feodales et
feodalisme dans l'Occident mediterraneen_, pp. 1-14." Bouchard
then continues:
But the "everything else" remains problematic, and English
does not even have the luxury of two terms.
The only unifying feature of this diverse usage is that
"feudalism" has virtually always been used pejoratively.
It is _bad_ that some people have special privileges,
that landlords exploit workers, that power is decentralized,
or whatever. Hidden in every description of medieval
society as an age of feudalism is that an a priori moral
judgement that the Middle Ages were not as good as modern
times. Believing, then, that the term is a clear hinderance
to genuine understanding and analysis of the past, I avoid
"feudalism" in my discussion. (The adjective "feudal,"
however, seems unavoidable. In using it I refer specifically
to fiefs.
I note in passing that "medieval" also has this connotation.
This next paragraph is important to understand the limitations
of fief-giving and the associated assumptions that often surround
it.
With these obfuscations cleared away, it is now possible
to examine the medieval social pattern of fief holding.
Certainly, it was an element of aristocratic society in
the High Middle Ages, and certainly, it must be stressed
again, it was a very narrow phenomenon. Not even all the
elite were involved in it. Indeed, while fiefs became
increasingly common during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, French nobles continued to own a great deal
of land outright, property they held in fief from no one.
These "allods" were made up of land which, it was sometimes
said, the nobles held only from God. The practice of swearing
oneself to the service of a political leader was much older
than fiefs and continued in the High Middle Ages with or
without them.
I must interrupt here to stress this last sentence. Joining
service and fiefs into some sort of a "feudal" construct is
a modern invention, NOT supported by what actually happened
in this period of time. Bouchard continues:
Originally fief holding was quite ad hoc. When it first
appeared it usually involved neighbors, such as two
castellans or a castellan and a knight, and it might be
used to resolve a quarrel or formalize an alliance.[15]
Footnote 15 reads: "Pierre Bonnassie, "Les conventions
feodales dans la Catalogne du XIe siecle," in _Les
structures sociales de l'Aquitaine, du Languedoc, et de
l'Espagne au premier age feodal_, pp 187-208. Dominique
Barthelmy, _La societe dans le compte de Vendome_, pp. 615-18."
Bouchard continues:
At first it did not involve the kings; rather it was a series
of relations between aristocrats, in which one lord might be
in a position of social or political power over his vassal,
but when a different fief was involved the same lord and
vassal might switch positions, the lord becoming the
vassal and vice versa.
It's important to pay close attention to this last sentence.
It destroys the common notion that the vassal was always
inferior to the lord.
Vassal homage and fiefs began to appear in the records
fairly abruptly in the early decades of the eleventh
century in France. This was a period of major social
transition, when the counts in many parts of France
were threatened by the rise of the new castellans,
knights first appeared in large numbers, the last of the
old judicial courts based on Carolingian models disappeared,
the Peace of God was formed to try to deal with endemic
violence, and banal lordship (a new form of castellan
authority over peasants) began to spread. Marc Bloch,
noting these transformations two generations ago, said
they marked the beginning of a "second feudal age."[16]
Footnote 16 reads: "Marc Bloch, _Feudal Society_, pp. 59-71.
Bouchard goes on:
Even though it is now clear that the period before the
eleventh century, Bloch's "first age" was not in any
definable sense "feudal," scholars in the last fifty
years have been in remarkable agreement that the early
eleventh century marked a real turning point in French
social and political history.[17]
Footnote 17 reads: "Modern models of a turning point in the
generation centered on the year 1000 grow especially from the
work of Georges Duby, _La societe aux Xie and XIIe siecles
dans la region maconnaise_, and Jean-Francois Lemaringnier,
"Political and Monastic Structures in France at the End of
the Tenth and Beginning of the Eleventh Century." For
the historiography, see Dominique Barthelemy, "La mutation
feodale a-t-elle eu lieu?" Although overly enthusiastic
emphasis on the decisiveness of the break has led, in reaction,
to greater emphasis on continuities, T. N. Bisson has recently
defended the idea of a radical transformation. "The Feudal
Revolution."
So what are we left with? A misunderstanding of the actual
state of affairs at the start of the High Middle Ages led
later jurists to coin the word "feudalism". That term, as
used by them, at least had a certain definition, even though
the situation described by the word was neither universal
or regular in any way.
The revolutionary zeal of the French Assembly led to the
use of the term "feudalism" to refer to a social system that
(supposedly) held down the ordinary man in favor of all sorts
of special rights and privileges for the aristocrat. Such
rights and privileges existed, but were not medieval in any
sense. Thus the word "feudalism" picked up a social meaning
in a political context.
Marx "helped" by giving the term an economic meaning.
In this confusion, the popular image of the Middle Ages gave
rise to many other meanings for the term "feudalism".
The conclusion that Bouchard (who is a very highly respected
scholar in this area) reaches is that the term is overworked
to the degree that it is rendered useless as a medieval
term.
While not everyone agrees with this, it does seem that no
group of people can easily come to a common definition of
"feudalism".
If we agree that the term is not useful in describing western
Europe, it is then fair to ask: "Of what use is the term
`feudalism' in describing other societies?" This seems to
me to be a fair question with an obvious answer. It can't
be of any use.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
that he is certainly not a Historian.
He wants to jettison the word _Feudalism_ from the English language.
He has also made it clear that he wishes to jettison the words
_Democracy_ and _Socialism_ from the English language.
Yet, he does not wish to jettison the word "Victorian" from the English
language, which is subject to many of the same criticisms of rampant and
pejorative over-usage.
Further, he wants to prevent us from describing any OTHER social system
as _Feudalistic_, such as the Japanese.
Where DO we get these FLAKEY academics who worry about such hot-house
trivia instead of the more important issues in History? No wonder so
many talented youngsters today have absolutely NO INTEREST in becoming
professors and teachers. They see that so many of them are FLAKES,
particularly in the Humanities.
Also, Gans has absolutely NO understanding of the development of LAW in
England and in France.
He obviously sees the lawyers [attorneys] [the "jurists" Bouchard calls
them] as the evil manipulators of language in this entire matter of
_Feudalism_. The truth is far more complex, but to try to explain it to
Gans, given his Taurean stubbornness and intransigent mindset, would be
like trying to explain it to a BULL, or a cocker spaniel, or a GOOSE.
There is no future in it.
Finally, why IS it that Liberal Democrats and their Socialist and
Communist Brethren [the Big Brothers and Sisters of 'The Movement'] are
SO set on changing our vocabularies ---- removing certain supposedly
_offensive_ words from the English language? It is a FIXATION for them.
Could it be because they want to make it impossible for us to hold
certain thoughts and express certain concepts? The World Wonders.
George Orwell, a socialist, was wise enough to tag this phenomenon over
50 years ago:
"'You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,' he said almost
sadly. 'Even when you write it you're still thinking in Oldspeak.
I've read some of those pieces that you write in The Times occasionally.
They're good enough, but they're translations. In your heart you'd
prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless
shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of
words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world
whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?'"
George Orwell [Eric Arthur Blair], _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ [1949]
-----------------------
Deus Vult.
Verbum Sat Sapienti Est.
Fortem Posce Animum.
Stultus Disarmatus Defunctus.
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
> Gans proves, once again ---- as if additional proof were needed ----
> that he is certainly not a Historian.
> He wants to jettison the word _Feudalism_ from the English language.
> He has also made it clear that he wishes to jettison the words
> _Democracy_ and _Socialism_ from the English language.
> Yet, he does not wish to jettison the word "Victorian" from the English
> language, which is subject to many of the same criticisms of rampant and
> pejorative over-usage.
> Further, he wants to prevent us from describing any OTHER social system
> as _Feudalistic_, such as the Japanese.
Not going to say what you mean by "feudalistic", though
I take that as a backing off from "feudalism"?
Overworked words lose meaning. Typical examples are "riiiight",
and "bad". "Democracy" and "socialism" are other examples.
The correct way to argue that I am wrong is to give definitions
of these words that a large number of folks will agree to.
Words that do not have agreed meanings are not useful. I claim
that "democracy" and "socialism" fall into that class, and I
am not the first, by a long shot, to think so. But that is not
the point here. The point here is "feudalism". I have given
a long extract explaining the situation. If you do not
agree, you must argue your case, not just call names.
You have often invoked the "free market of ideas". Here's
your chance to do so.
----- Paul J. Gans
DeborahBrentDML
becoming professors and teachers. They see that so many of them are FLAKES,
particularly in the Humanities.>
Actually, no. They want to make a living wage and support their families.
Most of the teachers and professors I know work more than one job. The husband
and wife must work to keep their heads above water.
Young people today expect to be paid for sharing their knowledge. They are not
greedy just realistic in their expectations. Why should they take a job
teaching, and putting up with the bureaucracy, when they can make at least
twice the money and perks in the private sector?
DML
D. Spencer Hines
Social phenomena are often Multi-Causal rather than Uni-Causal.
I talk with many young folks. An astounding number of the most talented
ones are also turned off by the knee-jerk leftism and brainless
conformity to the dictates of "political correctness" they see in so
many of their teachers and professors.
As you note, the academic bureaucracy, which has a congealed philosophy
and epistemology is also another principal demotivating factor.
--
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.
"DeborahBrentDML" <deborah...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010107000851...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
Raymond Spada
oxymoron! To Quote 2 esteemed colleagues on SHM: "Social Phenomena are
OFTEN Multi-causal rather then Uni-causal"--D. Spencer. Hines . And to
quote Paul.J.Gans--If we agree that the term is NOT USEFUL in
describing"Western Europe",It is then fair to ask: "Of what use is the
term "Feudalism" in describing OTHER societies?--The answer is
obvious---It cant be of any use! Indeed, The Social Construct of "Feudal
"obligations existed long before the "Medieval" period. ANCIENT
societies such as Egypt(middle kingdom),Hurrians,Hittites,China,
Myceneaen, and Parthian Cultures all had "Feudal" structures. Quite
Possibly, "Feudalism" had distinct regional variations WITHIN Western
Europe itself. This is not even including Eastern European / Byzantine /
Slavic Proto-Feudal systems that flourished because of their OWN
cultural environments. Or of Islam, Who used Sassanian Persia as a
model. Japan had a PARALLEL development to W.Europe but it too molded it
to it's unique culture. I'm NOT saying that "Feudalism" is a obsolete
definition---Only that it's too limited in context(Medieval Western
Europe)to describe a galaxy of variations that have flourished
throughout history.
rspada@web tv.net
Brian M. Scott
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>(continued from "Feudalism (part 1)")
>
>The material below is taken from Constance Brittain Bouchard's
>_Strong of Body, Brave & Noble: Chivalry & Society in Medieval
>France_, Cornell, 1998. The indented material is hers, the
>other material is either footnotes or mine.
[...]
> "Feudalism"
> has sometimes taken on political signficance, describing
> a system in which power is decentralized, held by many
> different people acting essentially independently, so that
> the wealthy became the de facto political leaders.
Oddly enough, I first encountered this sense in science fiction; the
author, possibly Poul Anderson, used the word to describe a future
society organized along such lines (and one, I might add, that was far
from medieval technologically).
[...]
Brian M. Scott
tiglath
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:ZJP56.6$RF1...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
>
> While not everyone agrees with this, it does seem that no
> group of people can easily come to a common definition of
> "feudalism".
>
Not so. Pick several well-educated history lovers, preferably living in
western Europe, perhaps people you may have met in Madrid,
and ask them, and see for yourself.
I keep in touch with about a dozen of my old school mates, we all bear old
Jesuitical scars. That is one group from which you would get a consistent
view of feudalism, and they are not the only ones.
Paul J. Gans
> rspada@web tv.net
While I agree with you, you've got to let go of it. You say
that:
> I'm NOT saying that "Feudalism" is a obsolete
> definition---Only that it's too limited in context(Medieval Western
> Europe)to describe a galaxy of variations that have flourished
> throughout history.
but what do you mean by that "feudalism?".
No, I'm not in any way trying to be difficult. It is *hard*
to let go of that word. But if you want to use it these days
you have to define what you mean by it. Certainly it can be
used then.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Frank Barlow
Stephen Morillo
Michael Prestwich
On Feudalism:
As a Requisite Counterweight to:
The Harpy Trio:
Elizabeth Brown
Susan Reynolds
Constance Brittain Bouchard
This entire:
"The Tyranny of a [Male-Dominated] Construct" [Feudalism, Patriarchy,
Primogeniture, Chivalry, Warrior Code] is a favorite scapegoat of
feminist medieval historians. It comes through very strongly in
Reynolds' chunk of congealed prose _Fiefs and Vassals_.
Gans, "the lesbian trapped inside a male body" ---- has fallen for
it ---- hook, line and sinker.
One needs to know that from the get-go.
Perspective.
Focus.
Bias.
--
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:93ag3s$a4h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Paul J. Gans
Could you let us know what their definition of "feudalism" is?
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
"Raymond Spada" <rsp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29621-3A...@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> "Medieval Western European Feudalism"-What a inaccurate historical
> oxymoron!
There is a different be redundant and contradictory terms (oxymoron).
tiglath
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93ahs5$lqh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
There is a difference between redundant and contradictory terms (oxymoron).
tiglath
Remarkably close to the one I provided in a previous summary. Expressed in
different words, different detail, but every one meaning the same. As I
said before not one reply portrayed a notion that differed in substance with
the definition I gave, which is what feudalism means to me. Let us not
fall into the trap of requiring a PRECISE definition that will fit every
variation of lord-vassal relationship. Few words would be of any use if
that was the job we require of them. That's why we use additional clauses
in speech to refine the meaning single words and general concepts fail to
convey.
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:93ar75$f75$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
D. Spencer Hines
cases "definition" is just a cheap high-school debating trick.
Kids' Stuff.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:uv666.5716$fj6.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
jeff wiel
[snip]
: > "Feudalism"
: > has sometimes taken on political signficance, describing
: > a system in which power is decentralized, held by many
: > different people acting essentially independently, so that
: > the wealthy became the de facto political leaders.
: Oddly enough, I first encountered this sense in science fiction; the
: author, possibly Poul Anderson, used the word to describe a future
: society organized along such lines (and one, I might add, that was far
: from medieval technologically).
Bingo! I think that's where I got it from, too.
And I would be happy to swear fealty to Freeman van Rijn.
Anderson has also written a number of fantasies in medieval settings; some
of his best work IMHO.
jeff wiel
: One can, and should, also read:
: Frank Barlow
: Stephen Morillo
: Michael Prestwich
Why? Can you summarize their points?
: On Feudalism:
: As a Requisite Counterweight to:
: The Harpy Trio:
: Elizabeth Brown
: Susan Reynolds
: Constance Brittain Bouchard
: This entire:
: "The Tyranny of a [Male-Dominated] Construct" [Feudalism, Patriarchy,
: Primogeniture, Chivalry, Warrior Code] is a favorite scapegoat of
: feminist medieval historians. It comes through very strongly in
: Reynolds' chunk of congealed prose _Fiefs and Vassals_.
: Gans, "the lesbian trapped inside a male body" ---- has fallen for
: it ---- hook, line and sinker.
Alas that a sense of humor can not yet be purchased or installed as an
upgrade.
: One needs to know that from the get-go.
Paul J Gans
I agree that we are not looking for such precision. What I
am trying to point out is the major shift slowly occuring
among medieval historians. It is becoming more and more
recognized that there are several conflicting definitions
of feudalism out there. And it is becoming more and more
clear that the traditional very neat definition, which is
close to yours) does not really describe any real system.
Instead it describes an idealized system, but one invented
post Middle Ages. In that early modern period little was
known of actual practice. Almost nothing in the way of
charters had been read and guessing had to fill in large
areas of uncertainty.
As an example, take the word "benefice". This is sometimes
used to describe giving a man the income from a chunk of
land. The term was originally Latin and it referred to
land set aside for the support of the clergy. In time
the word's meaning changed in ways we can only guess about.
In more time it became more clear that the word was now
being used to describe gifts to non-clerical folks. But
during the intermediate period it is difficult to tell
*what* was meant by the term.
Similarly the term "vassal". Originally it was a term
of derision, denoting a servile or near-servile status.
However, when one's supporters, one's vassals, were
being given land and told to find their own living
(instead of being fed, furnished, and armed by their
lord), vassalhood was seen as an entry point into the
landed aristocracy.
Eventually a vassal became a landowner and an aristocrat.
This however was not the original meaning of the term
and during the 10th-12the centuries we cannot always tell
what was meant by the term. All one can do is look at
what these vassals actually did.
And what they did originally was live at the beck and
call of their lord. And what they did later was to
be almost independent of their lord.
It is the re-examination of all of this, the breaking
away from the early legalisms attached to "feudalism"
that has caused the rethinking.
"Feudalism" is a concept that often drives the way we
look at the Middle Ages. It should be the other way
around. E.A.R. Brown made that point in her very famous
paper over 20 years ago.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In truth, the demand/request for an iron-clad, comprehensive, covers all
>cases "definition" is just a cheap high-school debating trick.
>Kids' Stuff.
Aha! I agree. But nobody has asked for that. All I've
asked folks for is what *they* think feudalism means. Their
own definition. You know, the one I'm waiting for from you.
Scared to say? I guess you've not got the balls that Tiglath
has.
----- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:93ba4i$dpe$1...@news.panix.com...
> I agree that we are not looking for such precision. What I
> am trying to point out is the major shift slowly occuring
> among medieval historians.
There seems to be a number of medieval sources (like the capitulary of
Charles II, of which I wrote an excerpt) that negate the need for any
historian to tell us what the state of affairs was. It is plain to
see. I am sure there are a few such sources that indicate that
feudalism (roughly as I define it) did exist.
> And it is becoming more and more
> clear that the traditional very neat definition, which is
> close to yours) does not really describe any real system.
But how? The medieval sources clear show that their was a
lord-vassal relationship as described by the notion of feudalism.
> Instead it describes an idealized system, but one invented
> post Middle Ages.
??
> As an example, take the word "benefice". [...]
> Similarly the term "vassal". [...]
Whether the term was "miles" or "vassal" or that we call the whole
arrangement "feudalism" or "fief holding," we have apart from the
nomenclature a clear indication that a certain master-server
relationship existed, call it what you will. The details of this
relationship show that the server had obligations, call them what you
will, for which, upon fulfillment, the master gave retribution, again
call it what you will.
This obligations and retributions probably run the gamut but they can
be narrowed down to those we have more frequently enumerated here.
The problem is that I don't see the problem. Where is the scoop?
The major shift? What I see being said amounts to a minor revision
not a major one. A major revision would provide clinching evidence
that feudalism never was, that we got it all wrong about benefices,
that we read the sources the wrong way. The fact that some people
have used feudalism the wrong way shouldn't touch the traditional mean
ing of it. It's like saying that "panem et circenses" is devoid of
meaning because some modern politicians refer to low food prices and
the proliferation of spectator sports as bread and circus.
It is not new to see a scholar attacking an established view to gain a
reputation of iconoclast, but apart from the unnamed scholars you
mention who cast doubts on the notion of feudalism, is there a wide
consensus, or a revolutionary conclusive change on the issue, or is it
just a few agitators making waves to win visibility?
Paul J. Gans
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:93ba4i$dpe$1...@news.panix.com...
>> I agree that we are not looking for such precision. What I
>> am trying to point out is the major shift slowly occuring
>> among medieval historians.
> There seems to be a number of medieval sources (like the capitulary of
> Charles II, of which I wrote an excerpt) that negate the need for any
> historian to tell us what the state of affairs was. It is plain to
> see. I am sure there are a few such sources that indicate that
> feudalism (roughly as I define it) did exist.
But there aren't such sources. They *have* been looked at.
>> And it is becoming more and more
>> clear that the traditional very neat definition, which is
>> close to yours) does not really describe any real system.
> But how? The medieval sources clear show that their was a
> lord-vassal relationship as described by the notion of feudalism.
That's circular. You can't define feudalism in terms of
a relationship described by feudalism.
There is no doubt that there were relationships between
men. That can't be what feudalism is about, since such
relationships have existed since the year 2 and still do.
>> Instead it describes an idealized system, but one invented
>> post Middle Ages.
> ??
Oh my. Ask Renia.
>> As an example, take the word "benefice". [...]
>> Similarly the term "vassal". [...]
> Whether the term was "miles" or "vassal" or that we call the whole
> arrangement "feudalism" or "fief holding," we have apart from the
> nomenclature a clear indication that a certain master-server
> relationship existed, call it what you will. The details of this
> relationship show that the server had obligations, call them what you
> will, for which, upon fulfillment, the master gave retribution, again
> call it what you will.
No. We do NOT have such information. We do have the first
part, that there were relations between men that involved
obligations. (I reject master-server since these relations
were at times between equals.) But the "retribution" was
something else again. Land, if given, or income, if given
was not given universally. And there is little evidence
that the giving of the land incurred a *new* obligation.
Ever tipped a delivery person? Does that make him or her
your vassal?
> This obligations and retributions probably run the gamut but they can
> be narrowed down to those we have more frequently enumerated here.
But they can't.
> The problem is that I don't see the problem. Where is the scoop?
> The major shift? What I see being said amounts to a minor revision
> not a major one. A major revision would provide clinching evidence
> that feudalism never was, that we got it all wrong about benefices,
> that we read the sources the wrong way. The fact that some people
> have used feudalism the wrong way shouldn't touch the traditional mean
> ing of it. It's like saying that "panem et circenses" is devoid of
> meaning because some modern politicians refer to low food prices and
> the proliferation of spectator sports as bread and circus.
Tiglath, go back and reread what I posted. The problem is
not that these things did not exist. They did. But they
were not universal and cannot be used to typify a society.
Further, *your* definition does not agree with the definitions
given by other people. That isw probably the moswt important
problem.
It is perfectly OK to use the term IF everyone knows what you
mean by it. That is often not the case.
> It is not new to see a scholar attacking an established view to gain a
> reputation of iconoclast, but apart from the unnamed scholars you
> mention who cast doubts on the notion of feudalism, is there a wide
> consensus, or a revolutionary conclusive change on the issue, or is it
> just a few agitators making waves to win visibility?
What un-named scholars? Brown, Reynolds, and Bouchard are
world famous. And none of them is trying to establish a
reputation. They already *have* reputations. What they
have done is point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Like all new ideas, Brown's original paper was ignored
for a while, but little by little began to gain converts
as more and more folks found that what she wrote was
true.
Things reached a head with Reynolds. By this time therer
were a significant number of medieval historians who were
"nervous" about the term. People who still used it took
pains to define *exactly* what they meant by it. Reynoldsw
undertook a MASSIVE re-examination of the evidence and
turned out a long and rather difficult book. Difficult
because it goes into detail.
Rob Helmerichs has collected extracts from all the reviews
of Reynolds he could find. The full review is referenced
in each case. They are in several languages and it is
interesting how views often differ by nationality.
The publication of Reynolds book tended to solidify feelings
both pro and con. Since then many medieval historians have
come to accept her views -- in general if not in detail.
Among those who have done so is Bouchard, who is among the
leading English-writing historians dealing with the
medieval French aristocracy, if not *the* leading historian
in that area. Her own work in the field led her to accept
the notion that the *term* feudalism meant too many different
things to too many different people *and* that in any case
the "classic" definition (the one you more or less present)
is very flawed. I quoted a part of her argument. There is
much more.
Please understand that while I believe that Brown, Reynolds,
and Bouchard (and many others) are right, I am not the
one with the facts at my fingertips. I've pointed at the
mountain. Each will have to make up their own mind.
---- Paul J. Gans
tiglath
> Please understand that while I believe that Brown, Reynolds,
> and Bouchard (and many others) are right, I am not the
> one with the facts at my fingertips. I've pointed at the
> mountain. Each will have to make up their own mind.
>
I am curious to know if non-English historians agree. Do you know of
French, Italian, German, or Spanish historians who think feudalism is such a
problem?
I wish I had time to check books in those languages and see. Maybe...
Renia
My father was researching the "Origins of State" (as he termed it) before he
died. He certainly understood feudalism, and saw parallels between England and
Poland in this regard. (Unfortunately, I do not have his research papers. The
she-wolf has them, and I have no access.)
Renia
Renia
I'll be responding to feudalism later this week when I have time. Back at
work now.
Renia
> >> As an example, take the word "benefice". [...]
> >> Similarly the term "vassal". [...]
>
> > Whether the term was "miles" or "vassal" or that we call the whole
> > arrangement "feudalism" or "fief holding," we have apart from the
> > nomenclature a clear indication that a certain master-server
> > relationship existed, call it what you will. The details of this
> > relationship show that the server had obligations, call them what you
> > will, for which, upon fulfillment, the master gave retribution, again
> > call it what you will.
>
> No. We do NOT have such information. We do have the first
> part, that there were relations between men that involved
> obligations. (I reject master-server since these relations
> were at times between equals.) But the "retribution" was
> something else again. Land, if given, or income, if given
> was not given universally. And there is little evidence
> that the giving of the land incurred a *new* obligation.
>
> Ever tipped a delivery person? Does that make him or her
> your vassal?
You have totally missed the point.
> > This obligations and retributions probably run the gamut but they can
> > be narrowed down to those we have more frequently enumerated here.
>
> But they can't.
>
> > The problem is that I don't see the problem. Where is the scoop?
> > The major shift? What I see being said amounts to a minor revision
> > not a major one. A major revision would provide clinching evidence
> > that feudalism never was, that we got it all wrong about benefices,
> > that we read the sources the wrong way. The fact that some people
> > have used feudalism the wrong way shouldn't touch the traditional mean
> > ing of it. It's like saying that "panem et circenses" is devoid of
> > meaning because some modern politicians refer to low food prices and
> > the proliferation of spectator sports as bread and circus.
>
> Tiglath, go back and reread what I posted. The problem is
> not that these things did not exist. They did. But they
> were not universal and cannot be used to typify a society.
Feudalism wasn't "typical".
Ah!
> I've pointed at the
> mountain. Each will have to make up their own mind.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Renia
tiglath
Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3A5AD126...@cwcom.net...
(Unfortunately, I do not have his research papers. The
> she-wolf has them, and I have no access.)
???
tiglath
> tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:93ba4i$dpe$1...@news.panix.com...
>
> >> I agree that we are not looking for such precision. What I
> >> am trying to point out is the major shift slowly occuring
> >> among medieval historians.
>
> > There seems to be a number of medieval sources (like the
capitulary of
> > Charles II, of which I wrote an excerpt) that negate the need for
any
> > historian to tell us what the state of affairs was. It is plain
to
> > see. I am sure there are a few such sources that indicate that
> > feudalism (roughly as I define it) did exist.
>
> But there aren't such sources. They *have* been looked at.
Paul. I am not writing a book on Feudalism I in the last past days I
found two sources, one medieval, one modern that shows feudal
relationships existed. How can you say there are no such sources.
What would I find if I made an earnest effort?
> >> And it is becoming more and more
> >> clear that the traditional very neat definition, which is
> >> close to yours) does not really describe any real system.
>
> > But how? The medieval sources clear show that their was a
> > lord-vassal relationship as described by the notion of feudalism.
>
> That's circular. You can't define feudalism in terms of
> a relationship described by feudalism.
Read the paragraph again.
>
> >> As an example, take the word "benefice". [...]
> >> Similarly the term "vassal". [...]
>
> > Whether the term was "miles" or "vassal" or that we call the
whole
> > arrangement "feudalism" or "fief holding," we have apart from the
> > nomenclature a clear indication that a certain master-server
> > relationship existed, call it what you will. The details of this
> > relationship show that the server had obligations, call them what
you
> > will, for which, upon fulfillment, the master gave retribution,
again
> > call it what you will.
>
> No. We do NOT have such information. We do have the first
> part, that there were relations between men that involved
> obligations.
Two sources I provided contradict that notion.
> (I reject master-server since these relations
> were at times between equals.)
Then you cannot call it feudalism. A private pact between peers is
clearly not a lord-vassal relationship. This is part of the problem.
Trying to shoehorn into feudalism relationships among men that don't
belong there. An essential element of feudalism is that it is not a
contract between equals, but between between a man who lords over
others and those others. It is only to be expected to find degrees
of lordship, variation in the benefices and in other elements like
hereditary privileges. Different folks different strokes. But the
essence is there. I mean by essence my idea of feudalism.
>
> Ever tipped a delivery person? Does that make him or her
> your vassal?
>
Hmmmm.
Paul J. Gans
Check the web site I gave. It has reviews by some of those
folks. It is at:
http://www1.minn.net/~rob/Reynolds.html
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:l2v66.4$Sz4...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
>> tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> > news:93ba4i$dpe$1...@news.panix.com...
>>
>> >> I agree that we are not looking for such precision. What I
>> >> am trying to point out is the major shift slowly occuring
>> >> among medieval historians.
>>
>> > There seems to be a number of medieval sources (like the
> capitulary of
>> > Charles II, of which I wrote an excerpt) that negate the need for
> any
>> > historian to tell us what the state of affairs was. It is plain
> to
>> > see. I am sure there are a few such sources that indicate that
>> > feudalism (roughly as I define it) did exist.
>>
>> But there aren't such sources. They *have* been looked at.
> Paul. I am not writing a book on Feudalism I in the last past days I
> found two sources, one medieval, one modern that shows feudal
> relationships existed. How can you say there are no such sources.
> What would I find if I made an earnest effort?
Tiggy, PLEASE. I said "fedualism", you said "feudal". These
are two different words.
Go look at the URLs I've posted.
---- Paul J. Gans
Tilmann Chladek
[...]
>
> I am curious to know if non-English historians agree. Do you know of
> French, Italian, German, or Spanish historians who think feudalism is such a
> problem?
Well, Karl Ferdinand Werner for example does not consider the
Carolingian empire to be "feudal", he sees a shift only around the year
thousand, when the "lesser dynasties" (counts and so on) began to claim
a divine origin for their family and their land. This led to a division
of powers between the kings and the nobles. The vassals claimed
"inalienable rights", even in respect to the king.
In France the kings finally won and started a "roll-back", a process of
centralization, which culminated in Louis XIV (OT here :) ). In Germany,
however, the emperor became separated form the "Reich", the Reich became
an entity made up of other entities with inalienable rights: from the
large territories of the "principes" (the secular and the spiritual (?)
ones), the smaller, but still "reichsunmittelbar" (immediate?)
territories of smaller nobles, of the "Reichsstädte" and the
"reichsunmittelbar" monasteries (with "prince abbots": Fürstäbte) down
to the very small territories of the lesser knights, who organized
themselves in the "Reichsritterschaft" (with its own bureaucracy and
everything ...)
This is a _very_ simplified overview of _some_ points made by Werner in
his book:
Karl Ferdinand Werner, Naissance de la Noblesse. L'éssor des élites
politiques en Europe, Fayard, « Nouvelles études historiques », Paris,
1998, 588 p., 180 F, ISBN 2-213-02148-1.
>
> I wish I had time to check books in those languages and see. Maybe...
Well, Werner's book is only one single book. It would indeed be
interesting to compare it to some other "continental" (French, German,
Polish, you name it) books about "feudalism".
It would also be interesting to compare, e.g., the German and the French
political system (in order not to use the f... word) during the years,
let's say, from 1200 to 1500. What are the similarities? What are the
differences? Can one reasonably call both systems "feudal" systems?
--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter bloss erfunden?
Infos dazu ueber <http://home.snafu.de/tilmann.chladek>
tiglath
Tilmann Chladek <tilmann...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:1emzq7u.1q8e2hceifp7oN%tilmann...@snafu.de...
> tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > I am curious to know if non-English historians agree. Do you
know of
> > French, Italian, German, or Spanish historians who think feudalism
is such a
> > problem?
>
> Well, Karl Ferdinand Werner for example does not consider the
> Carolingian empire to be "feudal", he sees a shift only around the
year
> thousand, when the "lesser dynasties" (counts and so on) began to
claim
> a divine origin for their family and their land.
Most authors I am checking, think of Catalonia's counts as vassals of
the Carolingian and Capetian Kings, and the arrangements between them
seem to fit the traditional feudalism (TF). At most, they make a
distinction between embryonic feudalism 800-1000 and full-blossomed
feudalism 1000-1200. (La Civilisation de l'Occident Médieval" Jacques
Le Goff)
tiglath
>
> Tiggy, PLEASE. I said "fedualism", you said "feudal". These
> are two different words.
Yep.
Paul J. Gans
Ah Tilman, you illustrate my point well. From your post
I see that you take feudalism to have something to do with
a political system. That's different than Renia's definition
and different again from Tiglaths.
See how many different meanings there are?
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
I've seen 10th Grade, High-School Debaters with more savvy and subtlety
than this.
Kids' Stuff.
--
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:D_976.7$5W6...@typhoon.nyu.edu...