Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ence 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 relation 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 acknowledgment 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 hos

pitality. In this custom, we have a further prototype of the lord; this warlike band were 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

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

in such matters are equally admirable, questions this, and believes that hereditary fiefs obtained in many instances, from the beginning. Subinfeudation, or the parcelling out a territory to a number of under-tenants, was an early result, proceeding from the possession of hereditary benefices. Traces of this practice are found in the times of Pepin, king of France; they are more numerous under Charlemagne; and in later times they are so general as to prove that the custom was nearly universal. Thus two classes of fiefs arose- -the royal, or principal fiefs, held immediately from the crown; and the arrière, or subordinate fiefs, which were dependent upon the nobility. The parties who had received their fiefs from the king swore allegiance to him as their lord; and they, in their turn, exacted a similar oath of fidelity from their own tenants.

Still, only some part of the property of a country was held on the feudal tenure; a considerable part remained allodial, or free. But what guarantee had the proprietor for quiet possession? A number of small landholders found themselves surrounded by mighty chieftains, whose estates were extensive, and whose power was increased by the number of vassals they gathered about them through the practice of subinfeudation. In an age when the spirit of justice was scarcely known-when law furnished no shield of protection-the freeholder was constantly exposed to the oppression of his haughty neighbours. If some feudal baron cast his eye

upon the field of the allodialist, as Ahab did on Naboth's vineyard, it was in vain for the proprietor to resist. It was better to yield it up to him at once, as a feudal estate, and to occupy it as a fief incident to certain services, than to have it taken away altogether, or even subjected to depredation and pillage. Beside, in seasons of anarchy and war, when foreign enemies invaded a kingdom, or rapacious lords issued from their castles to gather a harvest of spoil, the possessor of an independent estate felt that if he would keep what he had, it would be better for him to put himself and his estate under the wing of feudalism, and thus secure the only kind of protection which the times afforded.

The incipient forms of the feudal relation arose at a very early period; but to suppose that what is called the "feudal system" existed then, is a great mistake. The state of things, designated by that appellation, did not reach its definite form, nor did its ramifications branch out to their full extent, till the tenth century. In France, feudalism had the deepest root, and arrived earliest at maturity; but during the ninth century, even there, we see it but gradually rising amidst the storms of anarchy which ensued upon the dissolution of the empire founded by Charlemagne. Feudalism was not, as some seem to imagine, a system introduced, at once, by the barbarian invaders, wherever they established their sway, but a form of social existence and power, which,

« AnteriorContinuar »