CHAPTER IV.

THE FEUDAL CASTLE.

FEUDALISM is a leading fact in the history of the middle ages. It is characteristic of the social condition of Europe at that time. We cannot at all understand the state of things which then prevailed, unless we have a distinct conception of feudalism. It was a system which wrought most extensively and vigorously. It produced an immense effect in the hour of its zenith; it created an influence which lingered long after its decline, and which has not yet spent all its force.

We shall attempt to trace the rise and progress of feudalism out of the mingled elements of Roman and barbarian society.

SECTION I.

RISE OF FEUDALISM.

When the northern warriors subdued Europe, they divided the lands in the conquered territories between the vanquished and themselves; not forgetting, however, to retain in most cases the lion's share. The Vandals seized upon all the best lands

in Africa. The Visigoths and Burgundians, who settled in Spain and Gaul, took two-thirds of the territorial property; but the Lombards, who descended upon Italy, more moderate in their desires, were content with a third part of the produce of the soil.

In the distribution of land among the victorious Franks, unequal shares were received by different parties, according to their rank or merit; but the chief, or leader of the army, had not the power of supreme disposal, and did not, as some seem to suppose, divide among his followers the conquered lands, to be held on condition of their rendering him service. Too proud a spirit of independence reigned among those fierce warriors to admit of any such arrangement. Each soldier felt his individual importance, and, when an enemy was subdued, looked for the share of the spoil that might fall to him, not as a gift from his leader, but as his own indefeasible right. Nay, he watched with the greatest jealousy the claims of his sovereign, of which a proof is given in the following well-known story. Clovis, king of the Franks, when plundering a church of Soissons of its rich utensils, appropriated to himself a splendid vase, over and above what fell to his share; but one of his soldiers, dashing it in pieces with his battle-axe, exclaimed, “You shall have nothing here but what falls to you by lot." The existence of a spirit like this was quite inconsistent with the supposition that the leaders of

the army established themselves at once, as the paramount lords of the soil, in the countries they conquered, and divided it among their followers, as among so many beneficiaries, who were bound to render service in return. The property acquired in the first instance by the followers, as well as the chief, was allodial, that is, independent-absolute. It was, to all intents and purposes a freehold, burdened with no other obligation than the duty of the owner to appear in defence of the commonwealth.

But though the barbarian kings were not the sovereign lords of the whole soil, yet they received a much larger share than any of their officers. Fiscal lands, or royal demesnes, were appropriated to them for their own use, and for the maintenance of their proper dignity. These were, in many cases, granted to their favourites, to be held under certain conditions. It is said that no obligations of military service were expressly annexed to these grants; but there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that some substantial return of that kind was expected from the persons thus favoured by their chieftain. Indeed, a positive proof that such was the case, is found in the fact, that under Charlemagne, the possessors of these estates were required to take the field in person, while the holders of allodial property were only required to furnish soldiers, at the rate of one for every three farms.

These estates thus bestowed by the barbarian kings were called BENEFICES, and were the germs

of the feuds, or fiefs, which constituted the foundation, and which gave the name to the feudal system. Much antiquarian research has been expended on the origin both of the arrangement and the name. We are inclined to believe that the parent principles are to be found in the emphyteusis of the Romans, and the comitatus of the Germans. The word emphyteusis signifies engrafting or planting, and was applied to property granted for cultivation. The property of the estate was vested in one party, and the usufruct in a second, who held it on condition of certain payments, and retained the use of it so long as the stipulated rent was paid. The rela tion between the parties seems to have been something more than the common one between landlord and tenant, even when the latter is secured in possession by the covenant of a' lease, for a term of years. It approaches nearer to a copyhold tenure. In this arrangement, we see the prototype of the feudal lord and his tenant, permanently holding lands upon condition of rendering some acknow. ledgment of dependence. The comitatus of the Germans was different from this. The word signifies a band of retainers who accompanied their chief in war. The union was voluntarily formed, but, when once formed, it was deemed disgraceful to break it. The favour of these martial adherents was gained or preserved by presents of horses and arms, and by rude and profuse hospitality. In this custom, we have a further prototype of the lord;

this warlike band was attached to his person, shared in his quarrels, and fought under his banner; and, as the ground of their services, received from him certain benefits, chiefly the possession and use of landed estates. Sir Francis Palgrave is of opinion that the word fief is a contraction of fitef, which he further supposes to be a colloquial abbreviation of emphyteusis, usually pronounced emphytefsis. "The essential and fundamental principle of a territorial fief, or feud," he observes, " is, that the land is held by a limited or conditional estate, the property being in the lord, the usufruct in the tenant.”* And other antiquarians have derived the term vassal from the German gesell, which signifies a subordinate associate, or helper. The feudal principles and usages certainly sprung from the intermingling of Roman and Gothic society, amidst the convulsions of the fifth and the following centuries; and it is therefore by no means unreasonable to look for the seeds of them among the institutions of both parties.

Some have maintained that the benefices granted, in the way described, were originally revocable by the lord at pleasure, and that it was not till some time afterwards that an hereditary interest was possessed by the tenant; but Mr. Hallam, whose learning and judgment in such matters are equally admirable, questions this, and believes that heredi

* Proofs and Illustrations of the Origin of English Commonwealth, vol. i. p 208.