FEUDAL SYSTEM

that system by which land (a fief) is held by a va al on condition of fidelity, that is, in consideration of services to be rendered to his superior or feudal lord. The nature of the feudal system is to be explained by its origin amongst the Germanic tribes. In the earliest times the relation of superior and va al did not exist in connection with the ownership of land. Hach freeman had his share of the tribe lands, which were held simply on condition of his fulfilling his public duties of attendance at the councils of the mark or township and performing his share of military service in the wars or musters decreed at such councils. The noble had, of course, more land and more’ influence than the simple free man, but there need be no tie of va alage between them. This seems to have been the primitive social organization of the Anglo-Saxons and other German tribes. The lands held by all freemen, whether noble or ordinary freemen, under this system, are said to be alulodial, as distinguished from feudal lands, which imply service to a superior lord. By the close of the tenth century, however, this system had undergone considerable modifications. The ma es of Teutonic invaders who overran Gaul and England had nece arily to confer exceptional powers on their leaders; and as they were for long very much in the position of military in an enemy’s country, these powers were naturally continued. Thus it was that kings, before unknown to the Anglo-Saxons, mako their appearance immediately after their descent upon Britian. It was common for a chief or great man to have a retinue or body-guard composed of yaliant youths, who were furnished by the chief with arms and provisions, and who in return devoted themselves to his service. These companions (O.K. Gesithas; Ger. Gesellen) originally received no pay except their arms, horses, and provisions, and the portion of the spoils which remained after the chieftain had taken his own share. But when conquered lands came to be apportioned and large dis~ tricts fell into the hands of kings or dukes and their subordinates, they sexs certain portions of the territory o their attendants to enjoy for life, The so estates were called benejsicia or fiefs, because they were only lent to their po e ors, to revert after their death to the grantor, who immediately gave them to another of his servants on the same terms. As the son commonly esteomed it his duty, or was forced by nece ity, to devote his arm to the lord in whose service his father had lived, he also peceived his father’s fief; or rather, he was invested with if anew. By the usage of centuries this custom became a right and the fief became hereditary. <A fief rendered vacant by the death of the holder was at once taken po e ion of by his son, on the sole condition of paying homage to the feudal superior. Thus a feudal nobility and a feudal system arose and for a time existed alongside of the old allodial system. But gradnally the greater security to be got by putting one’s self under the rotection of some powerful ruler or cader gave the feudal system the pre 422 FEUDAL SYSTEM dominance. The free proprietor of Janded property, oppre ed by powerful neighbours, sought refuge in submitting to some more poweriul nobleman, to whom he surrendered his land, reeciving it back asa va al. Even the inferior nobility found it to be to their advantage to have themselves recognized as feudatories of the nearest duke or earl; and as the royal power steadily advanced, the offices of duke, ealdorman, gerefa, ., were always bestowed by the king. Thus the Crown became the source of all authority and po e ion in the country. The land which had once been ‘folcland,’ or the land of the people, became the land of the king, from whom all titles to it were held to be derived. Such at least was the development of feudalism in England, where its centralizing tendencies, especially in the matter of holding land from the Crown, were strongly reinforced by the circumstances of the conquest under William the Norman. Under him and his immediate sncce ors there was a struggle between royalty and the nobility, which ended jn the power of the latter sinking before that of the kings. On the other hand, in Germany, France, and elsewhere on the Continent the disintegrating tendencies of feudalism as a system of government had full play. In these countries the weakening of the kingly authority encouraged the great feudal dukes and counts to set up in an almost absolute independence, which in France was afterwards gradually lost as the monarchy grew stronger, but in Germany continued to divide the land down almost to our own times into a number of petty principalities. Among the chief agencies that overthrew the feudai system were the rise of cities, the change in modes of warfare, and the spread of knowledge and civilization. The spirit of the feudal system, grounded on the prevalence of landed property, was nece arily foreign to cities which owed _ their origin to industry and personal property, and founded thereon a new sort of power. The growth of this new cla , with its wealth and industrial importance, has_ contributed more than anything else to a social and political development before which the old feudal relations of society have almost totally disappeared, Even yet, however, the laws relating to land still bear the stamp of feudalism in various countries. In England, for instance, all land-owners are theoretically regarded as tenants holding from some superior or lord, though the lord may be quite unknown. See MIDDLE AGus. —Bripii0GRaPHy:C.Seignobos, Zégime fioda en Bourgogne; Pollock and Maitland, History of Hnglish Law; J. T. Abdy, Meudatlism: its Rise, Progre , and Consequences; J. H. Round, feud a England; J. Flack, Les origines de lancienne France; H. B. King, A Short History of Heudalism in Scotland.