$Unique_ID{bob00848}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Part V}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Hallam, Henry}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{footnote
feudal
de
france
nobility
tenure
du
cange
crown
et}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Book:        Book II: The Feudal System
Author:      Hallam, Henry

Part V

     Analysis of the Feudal System - Its local Extent - View of the different
Orders of Society during the Feudal Ages - Nobility - Their Ranks and
Privileges - Clergy - Freemen - Serfs or Villeins - Comparative State of
France and Germany - Privileges enjoyed by the French Vassals - Right of
Coining Money - And of private War - Immunity from Taxation - Historical View
of the Royal Revenue in France - Methods Adopted to Augment it by Depreciation
of the Coin, etc. - Legislative Power - Its State under the Merovingian Kings
and Charlemagne - His Councils - Suspension of any General Legislative
Authority during the Prevalence of Feudal Principles - The King's Council -
Means adopted to supply the Want of a National Assembly - Gradual Progress of
the King's Legislative Power - Philip IV. assembles the States-General - Their
Powers limited to Taxation - States under the Sons of Philip IV. - States of
1355 and 1356 - They nearly effect an entire Revolution - The Crown recovers
its Vigor - States of 1380, under Charles VI. - Subsequent Assemblies under
Charles VI. and Charles becomes more and more absolute - Louis XI. - States of
Tours in 1484 - Historical View of Jurisdiction in France - Its earliest Stage
under the first Race of Kings and Charlemagne - Territorial Jurisdiction -
Feudal Courts of Justice - Trial by Combat - Code of St. Louis - The
Territorial Jurisdictions give way - Progress of the Judicial Power of the
Crown - Parliament of Paris - Peers of France - Increased Authority of the
Parliament - Registration of Edicts - Causes of the Decline of the Feudal
System - Acquisitions of Domain by the Crown - Charters of Incorporation
granted to Towns - Their previous Condition - First Charters in the Twelfth
Century - Privileges contained in them - Military Service of Feudal Tenants
commuted for Money - Hired Troops - Change in the Military System of Europe -
General View of the Advantages and Disadvantages attending the Feudal System.

     The advocates of a Roman origin for most of the institutions which we
find in the kingdoms erected on the ruins of the empire are naturally prone to
magnify the analogies to feudal tenure which Rome presents to us, and even to
deduce it either from the ancient relation of patron and client, and that of
personal commendation, which was its representative in a later age, or from
the frontier lands granted in the third century to the Laeti, or barbarian
soldiers, who held them, doubtless, subject to a condition of military
service.  The usage of commendation especially, so frequent in the fifth
century, before the conquest of Gaul, as well as afterwards, does certainly
bear a strong analogy to vassalage, and I have already pointed it out as one
of its sources.  It wanted, however, that definite relation to the tenure of
land which distinguished the latter. The royal Antrustio (whether the word
commendatus were applied to him or not) stood bound by gratitude and loyalty
to his sovereign, and in a very different degree from a common subject; but he
was not perhaps strictly a vassal till he had received a territorial benefice.
^a The complexity of subinfeudation could have no analogy in commendation.

[Footnote a: This word "vassal" is used very indefinitely; it means, in its
original sense, only a servant or dependant. But in the continental records of
histories we commonly find it applied to feudal tenants.]

     The grants to veterans and to the Laeti are so far only analogous to
fiefs that they established the principle of holding lands on a condition of
military service.  But this service was no more than what, both under
Charlemagne and in England, if not in other times and places, the allodial
freeholder was bound to render for the defence of the realm; it was more
commonly required, because the lands were on a barbarian frontier; but the
duty was not even very analogous to that of a feudal tenant. ^b The essence of
a fief seems to be, that its tenant owed fealty to a lord, and not to the
state or the sovereign; the lord might be the latter, but it was not, feudally
speaking, as a sovereign that he was obeyed.  This is, therefore, sufficient
to warrant us in tracing the real theory of feuds no higher than the
Merovingian history in France; their full establishment, as has been seen, is
considerably later.  But the preparatory steps in the constitutions of the
declining empire are of considerable importance, not merely as analogies, but
as predisposing circumstances, and even germs to be subsequently developed.
The beneficiary tenure of lands could not well be brought by the conquerors
from Germany; but the donatives of arms or precious metals bestowed by the
chiefs on their followers were also analogous to fiefs; and, as the Roman
institutions were one source of the law of tenure, so these were another.

[Footnote b: If Gothofred is right in his construction of the tenure of these
Laeti, they were not even generally liable to this part of our trinoda
necessitas, but only to conscription for the legions.  Et ea tamen conditione
terras illis excolendas Laeti consequebantur, ut delectibus quoque ob noxii
essent et legionibus insererentur (Not. ad Cod. Theod. l. vii. tit. 20, c.
12).  Sir Francis Palgrave, however, says, - "The duty of bearing arms was
inseparably connected with the property." (English Commonwealth, i. 354.) This
is too equivocal; but he certainly means more than Gothofred; he supposes a
permanent universal obligation to render service in all public warfare.]

     It is of great importance to be on our guard against seeming analogies
which vanish when they are closely observed.  We should speak inaccurately if
we were to use the word feudal for the service of the Irish or Highland clans
to their chieftain; their tie was that of imagined kindred and respect for
birth, not the spontaneous compact of vassalage. Much less can we extend the
name of feud, though it is sometimes strangely misapplied, to the polity of
Poland and Russia.  All the Polish nobles were equal in rights, and
independent of each other; all who were less than noble were in servitude.  No
government can be more opposite to the long gradations and mutual duties of
the feudal system. ^c

[Footnote c: In civil history many instances might be found of feudal
ceremonies in countries not regulated by the feudal law.  Thus Selden has
published an infeudation of a vayvod of Moldavia by the King of Poland, A.D.
1485, in the regular forms, vol. iii. p. 514.  But these political fiefs have
hardly any connection with the general system, and merely denote the
subordination of one prince or people to another.]

     The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds, in fact, may
be considered as almost confined to the dominions of Charlemagne, and to those
countries which afterwards derived it from thence.  In England it can hardly
be thought to have existed in a complete state before the Conquest.  Scotland,
it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her neighbor.  The Lombards of
Benevento had introduced feudal customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which
the Norman conquerors afterwards perfected.  Feudal tenures were so general in
the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the monarchies which were
founded upon that basis. ^d Charlemagne's empire, it must be remembered,
extended as far as the Ebro. But in Castile ^e and Portugal they were very
rare, and certainly could produce no political effect.  Benefices for life
were sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia. ^f Neither of
these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under the description of
countries influenced by the feudal system. ^g That system, however, after all
these limitations, was so extensively diffused, that it might produce
confusion as well as prolixity to pursue collateral branches of its history in
all the countries where it prevailed.  But this embarrassment may be avoided
without any loss, I trust, of important information.  The English constitution
will find its place in another portion of these volumes; and the political
condition of Italy, after the eleventh century, was not much affected, except
in the kingdom of Naples, by the laws of feudal tenure. I shall confine
myself, therefore, chiefly to France and Germany; and far more to the former
than the latter country.  But it may be expedient first to contemplate the
state of society in its various classes during the prevalence of feudal
principles, before we trace their influence upon the national government.

[Footnote d: It is probable that feudal tenure was as ancient in the north of
Spain as in the contiguous provinces of France.  But it seems to have chiefly
prevailed in Aragon about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the Moors
south of the Ebro were subdued by the enterprise of private nobles, who, after
conquering estates for themselves, did homage for them to the king.  James I.,
upon the reduction of Valencia, granted lands by way of fief, on condition of
defending that kingdom against the Moors, and residing personally upon the
estate.  Many did not perform this engagement, and were deprived of the lands
in consequence.  It appears by the testament of this monarch that feudal
tenures subsisted in every part of his dominions. - Martenne, Thesaurus
Anecdotorum, t. i. p. 1141, 1155. An edict of Peter II. in 1210 prohibits the
alienation of emphyteuses without the lord's consent.  It is hard to say
whether regular fiefs are meant by this word. - De Marca, Marca Hispanica, p.
1396.  This author says that there were no arriere-fiefs in Catalonia.

     The Aragonese fiefs appear, however, to have differed from those of other
countries in some respects.  Zurita mentions fiefs according to the custom of
Italy, which he explains to be such as were liable to the usual feudal aids
for marrying the lord's daughter, and other occasions.  We may infer,
therefore, that these prestations were not customary in Aragon. - Anales de
Aragon, t. ii. p. 62.]

[Footnote e: What is said of vassalage in Alfonzo X.'s code, Las siete
partidas, is short and obscure; nor am I certain that it meant anything more
than voluntary commendation, the custom mentioned in the former part of this
chapter, from which the vassal might depart at pleasure.  See, however, Du
Cange, v. Honor, where authorities are given for the existence of Castilian
fiefs; and I have met with occasional mention of them in history.  I believe
that tenures of this kind were introduced in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries; but not to any great extent. - Marina, Teoria de las Cortes, t.
iii. p. 14. Tenures of a feudal nature, as I collect from Freirii Institut.
Juris Lusitani, tom. ii. t. 1 and 3, existed in Portugal, though the jealousy
of the crown prevented the system from being established.  There were even
territorial jurisdictions in that kingdom, though not, at least originally, in
Castile.]

[Footnote f: Daniae regni politicus status.  Elzevir, 1629.  Stransky,
Respublica Bohemica, ib.  In one of the oldest Danish historians, Sweno, I
have noticed this expression: Waldemarus, patris tunc potitus feodo. Langebek,
Scrip. Rerum Danic. t. i. p. 62.  By this he means the duchy of Sleswic, not a
fief, but an honor or government possessed by Waldemar. Saxo Grammaticus calls
it more classically, paternae praefecturae dignitas.  Sleswic was, in later
times, sometimes held as a fief; but this does not in the least imply that
lands in Denmark proper were feudal, of which I find no evidence.]

[Footnote g: Though there were no feudal tenures in Sweden, yet the nobility
and others were exempt from taxes on condition of serving the king with a
horse and arms at their own expense; and a distinction was taken between liber
and tributarius.  But any one of the latter might become of the former class,
or vice versa. - Sueciae descriptio.  Elzevir, 1631, p. 92.]

     It has been laid down already was most probable that no proper
aristocracy, except that of wealth, was known under the early kings of France;
and it was hinted that hereditary benefices, or, in other words, fiefs, might
supply the link that was wanting between personal privileges and those of
descent.  The possessors of beneficiary estates were usually the richest and
most conspicuous individuals in the state.  They were immediately connected
with the crown, and partakers in the exercise of justice and royal counsels.
Their sons now came to inherit this eminence; and, as fiefs were either
inalienable, or at least not very frequently alienated, rich families were
kept long in sight; and, whether engaged in public affairs or living with
magnificence and hospitality at home, naturally drew to themselves popular
estimation.  The dukes and counts, who had changed their quality of governors
into that of lords over the provinces intrusted to them, were at the head of
this noble class.  And in imitation of them, their own vassals, as well as
those of the crown, and even rich allodialists, assumed titles from their
towns or castles, and thus arose a number of petty counts, barons, and
viscounts.  This distinct class of nobility became coextensive with the feudal
tenures. ^h For the military tenant, however poor, was subject to no tribute;
no prestation, but service in the field; he was the companion of his lord in
the sports and feasting of his castle, the peer of his court; he fought on
horseback, he was clad in the coat of mail, while the commonalty, if summoned
at all to war, came on foot, and with no armor of defence.  As everything in
the habits of society conspired with that prejudice which, in spite of moral
philosophers, will constantly raise the profession of arms above all others,
it was a natural consequence that a new species of aristocracy, founded upon
the mixed considerations of birth, tenure, and occupation, sprang out of the
feudal system.  Every possessor of a fief was a gentleman, though he owned but
a few acres of land, and furnished his slender contribution towards the
equipment of a knight.  In the Libri Feudorum, indeed, those who were three
degrees removed from the emperor in order to tenancy are considered as
ignoble; ^i but this is restrained to modern investitures; and in France,
where subinfeudation was carried the farthest, no such distinction has met my
observation. ^j

[Footnote h: M. Guerard observes that in the Chartulary of Chartres,
exhibiting the usages of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries,
"La noblesse s'y montre completement constitutee; c'est a dire, privilegiee et
hereditaire.  Elle peut etre divisee en haute, moyenne, et basse." By the
first he understands those who held immediately of the crown; the middle
nobility were mediate vassals, but had rights of jurisdiction, which the lower
had not.  (Prolegomenes a la Cartulaire de Chartres, p. 30.)]

[Footnote i: L. ii. t. 10.]

[Footnote j: The nobility of an allodial possession, in France, depended upon
its right to territorial jurisdiction.  Hence there were franc-aleux nobles
and franc-aleux roturiers; the latter of which were subject to the
jurisdiction of the neighboring lord.  Loiseau, Traite des Seigneuries, p. 76.
Denisart, Dictionnaire des Decisions, art. Franc-aleu.]

     There still, however, wanted something to ascertain gentility of blood
where it was not marked by the actual tenure of land.  This was supplied by
two innovations devised in the eleventh and twelfth centuries - the adoption
of surnames and of armorial bearings.  The first are commonly referred to the
former age, when the nobility began to add the names of their estates to their
own, or, having any way acquired a distinctive appellation, transmitted it to
their posterity. ^k As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems
somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and peace.  The
shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins or seals, bear no distant
resemblance to modern blazonry.  But the general introduction of such
bearings, as hereditary distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to
tournaments, wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;
sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations and languages
stood in need of some visible token to denote the banners of their respective
chiefs. In fact, the peculiar symbols of heraldry point to both these sources,
and have been borrowed in part from each. ^l Hereditary arms were perhaps
scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the thirteenth
century. ^m From that time, however, they became very general, and have
contributed to elucidate that branch of history which regards the descent of
illustrious families.

[Footnote k: Mabillon, Traite de Diplomatique, l. ii. c. 7.  The authors of
the Nouveau Traite de Diplomatique, t. ii. p. 563, trace the use of surnames
in a few instances even to the beginning of the tenth century; but they did
not become general, according to them, till the thirteenth.

     M. Guerard finds a few hereditary surnames in the eleventh century and
many that were personal.  (Cartulaire de Chartres, p. 93.) The latter are not
surnames at all, in our usual sense.  A good many may be found in Domesday, as
that of Burdet in Leicestershire, Malet in Suffolk, Corbet in Shropshire,
Colville in Yorkshire, besides those with de, which of course is a local
designation, but became hereditary.]

[Footnote l: Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscriptions, t. xx. p. 579.]

[Footnote m: I should be unwilling to make a negative assertion peremptorily
in a matter of mere antiquarian research; but I am not aware of any decisive
evidence that hereditary arms were borne in the twelfth century, except by a
very few royal or almost royal families.  Mabillon, Traite de Diplomatique, l.
ii. c. 18.  Those of Geoffrey the Fair, Count of Anjou, who died in 1150, are
extant on his shield; azure, four lions rampant or.  Hist. Litteraire de la
France, t. ix. p. 165.  If arms had been considered as hereditary at that
time, this should be the bearing of England, which, as we all know, differs
considerably.  Louis VII. sprinkled his seal and coin with fleurs-de-lys, a
very ancient device, or rather ornament, and the same as what are sometimes
called bees.  The golden ornaments found in the tomb of Childeric I. at
Tournay, which may be seen in the library of Paris, may pass either for
fleurs-de-lys or bees.  Charles V. reduced the number to three, and thus fixed
the arms of France.  The counts of Toulouse used their cross in the twelfth
age; but no other arms, Vaissette tells us, can be traced in Languedoc so far
back. T. iii. p. 514.

     Armorial bearings were in use among the Saracens during the later
crusades; as appears by a passage in Joinville, t. i. p. 88 (Collect. des
Memoires), and Du Cange's note upon it.  Perhaps, however, they may have been
adopted in imitation of the Franks, like the ceremonies of knighthood.
Villaret ingeniously conjectures that the separation of different branches of
the same family by their settlements in Palestine led to the use of hereditary
arms, in order to preserve the connection. T. xi. p. 113.

     M. Sismondi, I observe, seems to entertain no doubt that the noble
families of Pisa, including that whose name he bears, had their armorial
distinctions in the beginning of the twelfth century.  Hist. des Repub. Ital.
t. i. p. 373.  It is at least probable that the heraldic devices were as
ancient in Italy as in any part of Europe.  And the authors of Nouveau Traite
de Diplomatique, t. iv. p. 388, incline to refer hereditary arms even in
France to the beginning of the twelfth century, though without producing any
evidence for this.]

     When the privileges of birth had thus been rendered capable of legitimate
proof, they were enhanced in a great degree, and a line drawn between the
high-born and ignoble classes, almost as broad as that which separated liberty
from servitude.  All offices of trust and power were conferred on the former;
those excepted which appertain to the legal profession.  A plebeian could not
possess a fief. ^n Such at least was the original strictness; but as the
aristocratic principle grew weaker, an indulgence was extended to heirs, and
afterwards to purchasers. ^o They were even permitted to become noble by the
acquisition, or at least by its possession for three generations. ^p But
notwithstanding this ennobling quality of the land, which seems rather of an
equivocal description, it became an established right of the crown to take,
every twenty years, and on every change of the vassal, a fine, known by the
name of franc-fief, from plebeians in possession of land held by a noble
tenure. ^q A gentleman in France or Germany could not exercise any trade
without derogating, that is, losing, the advantages of his rank.  A few
exceptions were made, at least in the former country, in favor of some liberal
arts, and of foreign commerce. ^r But in nothing does the feudal haughtiness
of birth more show itself than in the disgrace which attended unequal
marriages.  No children could inherit a territory held immediately of the
empire unless both their parents belonged to the higher class of nobility. In
France the offspring of a gentleman by a plebeian mother were reputed noble
for the purposes of inheritance and of exemption from tribute. ^s But they
could not be received into any order of chivalry, though capable of simple
knighthood; nor were they considered as any better than a bastard class deeply
tainted with the alloy of their maternal extraction. Many instances occur
where letters of nobility have been granted to reinstate them in their rank.
^t For several purposes it was necessary to prove four, eight, sixteen, or a
greater number of quarters, that is, of coats borne by paternal and maternal
ancestors, and the same practice still subsists in Germany. ^u

[Footnote n: We have no English word that conveys the full sense of roturier.
How glorious is this deficiency in our political language, and how different
are the ideas suggested by commoner!  Roturier according to Du Cange, is
derived from rupturarius, a peasant, ab agrum rumpendo.]

[Footnote o: The Establishements of St. Louis forbid this innovation, but
Beaumanoir contends that the prohibition does not extend to descent of
marraige, c. 48.  The roturier who acquired a fief, if he challenged any one,
fought with ignoble arms; but in all other respects was treated as a
gentleman.  Ibid.  Yet a knight was not obliged to do homage to the roturier
who became his superior by the acquisition of a fief on which he depended.
Carpentier, Supplement. ad Du Cange, voc. Homagium.]

[Footnote p. Establissemens de St. Louis, c. 143, and note, in Ordonnances des
Rois, t. i.  See also preface to the same volume, p. xii.  According to Mably,
the possession of a fief did not cease to confer nobility (analogous to our
barony by tenure) till the Ordonnances des Blois in 1579.  Observations sur
l'Hist. de France, l. iii. c. 1 note 6.  But Lauriere, author of the preface
above cited, refers to Bouteiller, a writer of the fourteenth century, to
prove that no one could become noble without the king's authority.  The
contradiction will not much perplex us, when we reflect on the disposition of
lawyers to ascribe all prerogatives to the crown, at the expense of
territorial proprietors and of ancient customary law.]

[Footnote q: The right, originally perhaps usurpation, called franc-fief,
began under Philip the Fair.  Ordonnances de Rois, t. i. p. 324; Denisart,
art. Franc-fief.]

[Footnote r: Houard, Dict. du Droit Normand Encyclopedie, art. Noblesse,
Argou, l. ii. c. 2.]

[Footnote s: Nobility, to a certain degree, was communicated through the
mother alone, not only by the custom of Champagne, but in all parts of France;
that is, the issue were "gentilhommes du fait de leur corps." and could
possess fiefs; but, says Beaumanoir, "la gentilesse par laquelle on devient
chevalier doit venir de par le pere," c. 45.  There was a proverbial maxim in
French law, rather emphatic than decent, to express the derivation of
gentility from the father, and of freedom from the mother.]

[Footnote t: Beaumanoir, c. 45; Du Cange, Dissert. 10, sur Joinville;
Carpentier voc. Nobilitatio.]

[Footnote u: [Note Note XII.]]

     It appears, therefore, that the original nobility of the Continent were
what we may call self-created, and did not derive their rank from any such
concessions of their respective sovereigns as have been necessary in
subsequent ages.  In England the baronies by tenure might belong to the same
class, if the lands upon which they depended had not been granted by the
crown.  But the kings of France, before the end of the thirteenth century,
began to assume a privilege of creating nobles by their own authority, and
without regard to the tenure of land.  Philip the Hardy, in 1271, was the
first French king who granted letters of nobility; under the reigns of Philip
the Fair and his children they gradually became frequent. ^v This effected a
change in the character of nobility, and had as obvious a moral, as other
events of the same age had a political, influence in diminishing the power and
independence of the territorial aristocracy. The privileges originally
connected with ancient lineage and extensive domains became common to the
low-born creatures of a court, and lost consequently part of their title to
respect.  The lawyers, as I have observed above, pretended that nobility could
not exist without a royal concession.  They acquired themselves, in return for
their exaltation of prerogative, an official nobility by the exercise of
magistracy.  The institutions of chivalry again gave rise to a vast increase
of gentlemen, knighthood, on whomsoever conferred by the sovereign, being a
sufficient passport to noble privileges.  It was usual, perhaps, to grant
previous letters of nobility to a plebeian for whom the honor of knighthood
was designed.

[Footnote v: Velly, t. vi. p. 432; Du Cange and Carpentier, voce Nobilitaire,
&c.; Boulainvilliers, Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement de France, t. i. p. 317.]

     In this noble or gentle class there were several gradations.  All those
in France who held lands immediately depending upon the crown, whatever titles
they might bear, were comprised in the order of barons. These were originally
the peers of the king's court; they possessed the higher territorial
jurisdiction, and had the right of carrying their own banner into the field.
^w To these corresponded the Valvassores majores and Capitanei of the empire.
In a subordinate class were the vassals of this high nobility, who, upon the
Continent, were usually termed Vavassors - an appellation not unknown, though
rare, in England. ^x The Chatelains belonged to the order of Vavassors, as
they held only arriere fiefs; but, having fortified houses, from which they
derived their name (a distinction very important in those times), and
possessing ampler rights of territorial justice, they rose above the level of
their fellows in the scale of tenure. ^y But after the personal nobility of
chivalry became the object of pride, the Vavassors who obtained knighthood
were commonly styled bachelors; those who had not received that honor fell
into the class of squires, ^z or damoiseaux.

[Footnote w: Beaumanoir, c. 34; Du Cange, v. Baro; Etablissemens de St. Louis,
l. i. c. 24, l. ii. c. 36.  The vassals of inferior lords were, however,
called, improperly, Barons, both in France and England.  Recueil des
Historiens, t. xi. p. 300; Madox, Baronia Anglica, p. 133.  In perfect
strictness, those only whose immediate tenure of the crown was older than the
accession of Hugh Capet were barons of France; namely, Bourbon, Coucy, and
Beaujeu, or Beaujolois.  It appears, however, by a register in the reign of
Philip Augustus, that fifty-nine were reckoned in that class; the feudatories
of the Capetian fiefs, Paris and Orleans being confounded with the original
vassals of the crown.  Du Cange, voc. Baro.]

[Footnote x: Du Cange, v. Vavassor; Velly, t. vi. p. 151; Madox, Baronia
Anglica, p. 135.  There is, perhaps, hardly any word more loosely used than
Vavassor.  Bracton says, Sunt etiam Vavassores, magnae dignitatis viri.  In
France and Germany they are sometimes named with much less honor.  Je suis un
chevalier ne de cest part, de vavasseurs et de basse gent, says a romance.
This is to be explained by the poverty to which the subdivision of fiefs
reduced idle gentlemen.

     Chaucer concludes his picturesque description of the franklin, in the
prologue to the Canterbury Tales, thus: - "Was never such a worthy vavassor."
This has perplexed some of our commentators, who, not knowing well what was
meant by a franklin or by a vavassor, fancied the latter to be of much higher
quality than the former.  The poet, however, was strictly correct; his
acquaintance with French manners showed him that the country squire, for his
franklin is no other, precisely corresponded to the vavassor in France.  Those
who, having been deceived, by comparatively modern law-books, into a notion
that the word franklin denoted but a stout yeoman, in spite of the wealth and
rank which Chaucer assigns to him, and believing also, on the authority of the
loose phrase in Bracton, that all vavassors were "magnae dignitatis viri,"
might well be puzzled at seeing the words employed as synonyms.  See Todd's
Illustrations of Gower and Chaucer for an instance.]

[Footnote y: Du Cange, v. Castellanus; Coutumes de Poitou, tit. iii.; Loiseau
Traite des Seigneuries, p. 160.  Whoever had a right to a castle had la haute
justice; this being so incident to the castle that it was transferred along
with it.  There might, however, be a Seigneur haut-justicier below the
Chatelain; and a ridiculous distinction was made as to the number of posts by
which their gallows might be supported.  A baron's instrument of execution
stood on four posts; a chatelain's on three; while the inferior lord who
happened to possess la haute justice was forced to hang his subjects on a
two-legged machine.  Coutumes de Poitou; Du Cange, v. Furca.

     Lauriere quotes from an old manuscript the following short scale of
ranks: Duc est la premiere dignite, puis comtes, puis viscomtes, et puis
baron, et puis chatelain, et puis vavasseur, et puis citaen, et puis villain.
l Ordonnances des Rois, t. i. p. 277.]

[Footnote z: The sons of knights, and gentlemen not yet knighted, took the
appellation of squires in the twelfth century.  Vaissette, Hist. de Lang. t.
ii. p. 513.  That of Damoiseau came into use in the thirteenth.  Id. t. iii.
p. 529.  The latter was, I think, more usual in France.  Du Cange gives little
information as to the word squire.  (Scutifer.) "Apud Anglos," he says,
"penultima est nobilitatis descriptio, inter Equitem et Generosum.  Quod et
alibi in usu fuit." Squire was not used as a title of distinction in England
till the reign of Edward III., and then but sparingly.  Though by Henry VI.'s
time it was grown more common, yet none assumed it but the sons and heirs of
knights and some military men; except officers in courts of justice, who, by
patent or prescription, had obtained that addition.  Spelman's Posthumous
Works, p. 234.]

     It will be needless to dwell upon the condition of the inferior clergy,
whether secular or professed, as it bears little upon the general scheme of
polity.  The prelates and abbots, however, it must be understood, were
completely feudal nobles.  They swore fealty for their lands to the king or
other superior, received the homage of their vassals, enjoyed the same
immunities, exercised the same jurisdiction, maintained the same authority, as
the lay lords among whom they dwelt.  l Military service does not appear to
have been reserved in the beneficiary grants made to cathedrals and
monasteries.  But when other vassals of the crown were called upon to repay
the bounty of their sovereign by personal attendance in war, the
ecclesiastical tenants were supposed to fall within the scope of this feudal
duty, which men little less uneducated and violent than their compatriots were
not reluctant to fulfil.  Charlemagne exempted or rather prohibited them from
personal service by several capitularies. ^a The practice, however, as
everyone who has some knowledge of history will be aware, prevailed in
succeeding ages.  Both in national and private warfare we find very frequent
mention of martial prelates. ^b But, contrary as this actual service might be
to the civil as well as ecclesiastical laws, the clergy who held military
fiefs were of course bound to fulfil the chief obligation of that tenure and
send their vassals into the field.  We have many instances of their
accompanying the army, though not mixing in the conflict; and even the parish
priests headed the militia of their villages. ^c The prelates, however,
sometimes contrived to avoid this military service, and the payments
introduced in commutation for it, by holding lands in frank-almoigne, a tenure
which exempted them from every species of obligation except that of saying
masses for the benefit of the grantor's family. ^d But, notwithstanding the
warlike disposition of some ecclesiastics, their more usual inability to
protect the estates of their churches against rapacious neighbors suggested a
new species of feudal relation and tenure.  The rich abbeys elected an
advocate, whose business it was to defend their interests both in secular
courts and, if necessary, in the field.  Pepin and Charlemagne are styled
Advocates of the Roman church.  This, indeed, was on a magnificent scale; but
in ordinary practice the advocate of a monastery was some neighboring lord,
who, in return for his protection, possessed many lucrative privileges, and
very frequently considerable estates by way of fief from his ecclesiastical
clients.  Some of these advocates are reproached with violating their
obligation, and becoming the plunderers of those whom they had been retained
to defend. ^e

[Footnote a: Mably, l. i. c. 5; Baluze, t. i. pp. 410, 932, 987.  Any bishop,
priest, deacon, or subdeacon bearing arms was to be degraded and not even
admitted to lay communion.  Id. p. 932.]

[Footnote b: One of the latest instances probably of a fighting bishop is Jean
Montaigu, archbishop of Sens, who was killed at Azincourt. Monstrelet says
that he was "non pas en estat pontifical, car au lieu de mitre il portoit une
bacinet, pour dalmatique portoit un haubergeon, pour chasuble la piece
d'acier; et au lieu de crosse, portoit une hache." Fol. 132.] [Footnote c:
Daniel, Hist. de la Milice Francoise, t. i. p. 88.]

[Footnote d: Du Cange, Eleesmosyna Libera; Madox, Baronia Angl. p. 115; Coke
on Littleton, and other English law-books.]

[Footnote e: Du Cange, v. Advocatus; a full and useful article.  Recueil des
Historiens, t. xi. preface, p. 184.]

     The classes below the gentry may be divided into freemen and villeins.
Of the first were the inhabitants of chartered towns, the citizens and
burghers, of whom more will be said presently.  As to those who dwelt in the
country, we can have no difficulty in recognizing, so far as England is
concerned, the socagers, whose tenure was free, though not so noble as
knight's service, and a numerous body of tenants for term of life, who formed
that ancient basis of our strength, the English yeomanry. But the mere freemen
are not at first sight so distinguishable in other countries.  In French
records and law-books of feudal times, all besides the gentry are usually
confounded under the names of villeins or hommes de pooste (gens potestatis).
^f This proves the slight estimation in which all persons of ignoble birth
were considered.  For undoubtedly there existed a great many proprietors of
land and others, as free, though not as privileged, as the nobility.  In the
south of France, and especially Provence, the number of freemen is remarked to
have been greater than in the parts on the right bank of the Loire, where the
feudal tenures were almost universal. ^g I shall quote part of a passage in
Beaumanoir which points out this distinction of ranks pretty fully.  "It
should be known," he says, ^h "that there are three conditions of men in this
world; the first is that of gentlemen; and the second is that of such as are
naturally free, being born of a free mother.  All who have a right to be
called gentlemen are free, but all who are free are not gentlemen. Gentility
comes by the father, and not by the mother; but freedom is derived from the
mother only; and whoever is born of a free mother is himself free, and has
free power to do anything that is lawful." ^i

[Footnote f: Homo potestatis, non nobilis - Ita nuncupantur, quod in potestate
domini sunt - Opponuntur viris nobilibus; apud Butilerium Consuetudinarii
vocantur, Coustumiers, prestationibus scilicet obnoxii et operis.  Du Cange,
v. Potestas.  As all these freemen were obliged, by the ancient laws of
France, to live under the protection of some particular lord, and found great
difficulty in choosing a new place of residence, as they were subject to many
tributes and oppressive claims on the part of their territorial superiors, we
cannot be surprised that they are confounded, at this distance, with men in
actual servitude.]

[Footnote g: Heeren, Essai sur les Croisades, p. 122.]

[Footnote h: Coutumes de Beauvoisis, c. 45, p. 256. 45. p.256.]

[Footnote i: [Note XIII.]]