Dictionary and Thesaurus
We are accustomed to a capitalist economy, good communication and
transportation, and to solving our problems at the state or national
level, so we tend to think that decentralized authority is primitive and
ineffective. This is not necessarily so, and feudalism is not completely
foreign to American society. Let me try to discuss feudalism from three
different aspects. The paragraphs in bold will provide the sort of
discussion that you are likely to find in the average college
textbook; those in regular print will provide some idea of the
historical conditions under which the feudal organization of society
arose; and those in red will discuss the growth of an
example of American feudalism with which most of you are familiar, if only
through films and TV.
Before we begin, we should note that the men and women of the middle ages
never talked about feudalism. Feudalism is a term invented in the
sixteenth century by royal lawyers - primarily in England - to describe
the decentralized and complex social, political, and economic society out
of which the modern state was emerging. The term "feudalism" came from the
German vieh, or "cow," the measure of wealth among the early
Germans, a term that gave rise to the medieval word fief. "Fief"
simply meant "something of value." In the agricultural world of the time,
"something of value" was usually land. But the sixteenth-century lawyers
pictured this land as having been under the control of a powerful king who
distributed much of it to his followers, men of distinction whose breeding
and upbringing particularly fitted them for governing and giving
battle.
It has been argued that historians have interpreted medieval documents and
histories in terms of this view, and that, when we examine the documents
more closely, there is actually very little evidence that society was
really organized in such a fashion. This may very well be true, but a new
and different picture of medieval society in the ninth through the
fourteenth centuries has yet to be developed. Lacking anything possible
better, it is only reasonable that we should turn our attention to the
traditional portrayal of feudal society.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FEUDALISM
ineffective central government
Let us first consider the characteristics of feudalism.
Feudalism is a decentralized organization that arises when central
authority cannot perform its functions and when it cannot prevent the rise
of local powers.
In the isolation and chaos of the 9th and 10th centuries, European leaders
no longer attempted to restore Roman institutions, but adopted whatever
would work. The result was that Europe developed a relatively new and
effective set of institutions, adapted to a moneyless economy, inadequate
transportation and communication facilities, an ineffective central
government, and a constant threat of armed attack by raiders such as the
Vikings, Magyars, and Saracens. The most well-known of the institutions
were manorialism (the organization of the peasants), monasticism (the
organization of the churchmen), and feudalism (the institution of the
aristocracy).
At the close of the First World War, hundreds of thousands of young
men, trained to fight and laden with "war souvenirs" such as Luger
pistols, hand grenades, Thompson submachine guns and the like, returned to
an America in which there were not enough good jobs for them to fill, and
in which the government was busily engaged in cutting expenditures (for
such things as policemen) and was bending every effort in a constant (and
fruitless) struggle to stop people from drinking alcoholic beverages
(Prohibition)
In a feudal society, civil and military powers at the local level are
assumed by great landowners or other people of similar wealth and
prestige.
Much as churchmen assumed governmental authority with the fall of the
Roman Empire in the West, local leaders, such as Count Robert of Paris,
assumed the role previously exercised by government officials at the local
level. Other individuals in other areas gathered retinues of fighting men
and took over the role of the government in those territories they could
control. Often enough these were imperial officials whom the imperial
government could no longer keep in check, but others also emerged as local
leaders.
In American cities in the 1920's, neighborhood gangs often arose. Since
the neighborhoods were often ethnic, the gangs tended to be dominated by
Italians, Irish, Germans, or whatever group was dominant in the district.
The leaders of these gangs claimed jurisdiction over their neighborhood -
"territory" or "turf" - and collected taxes in the form of "protection
money" for the services they performed.
These local leaders and their retinues begin to form a warrior class
distinct from the people of their territory.
The local leaders who emerged during the decay of the Carolingian Empire
were generally armed men, particularly armed men mounted on horseback and
possessing a fortified residence. As the Frankish empire conquered their
neighbors, the Carolingian monarchs had to develop a means of holding and
governing these new territories. They accomplished this by entrusting
aspects of local government to favored followers and paying them with
grants of land and revenues in the territories they were expected to
fortify, garrison, defend and govern.
When the empire ceased to expand, these "class" of fighting men still
needed new lands. They had been accustomed to raising large families so
that, if one son were to die, there would be another to inherit the
father's position. Consequently, their numbers steadily increased, and
they found themselves forced to seize the lands of others to provide for
their second and third sons. They first took control of the lands on which
they were resident and, by doing so, weakened the monarch still further.
They then took whatever lands they could from the imperial estates and,
finally, began to seize nearby church lands. For the most part, the people
of these lands welcomed the change, since they were trading a distant and
ineffectual imperial government for a local and effective one.
Municipal governments at first tried to curb the growth of the
gangsters, but their police soon found that they were outclassed. The
gangsters drew from the trained fighting men of the demobilized army and
built and used fast armored cars, submachine guns, hand grenades, and were
often highly disciplined. The city governments were no more able to keep
them from organizing their territories, than the highway patrols were able
to overtake their supercharged cars. Moreover, local residents were not
averse to paying protection money to someone in their own neighborhood who
would actually provide protection, instead of paying taxes to fuel the
graft and bribery of corrupt city governments.
The distinction between private rights and public authority disappears,
and local control tends to become a personal and even hereditary
matter.
Perhaps the "aristocracy" that emerged as the local leaders in the feudal
age were doing no more than the Merovingian and Carolingian monarchs had
done by considering their "territory" their private possession. This was
not unusual during the middle ages; Various kings named Louis frequently
signed their names as FRANCE. In any event, the feudal leaders
began to treat governmental functions as private property that they could
loan, give, away, or pass on to their children. It should be noted that
money -- silver or gold coins -- had gradually vanished from use and that
Europe and had adopted a barter system to meet their basic economic needs.
Without legal tender, however, it was impossible to hire someone to
provide needed services. The fact that the feudal leaders could
lend someone a territory from which he could derive rents and
renders in kind and services was an important factor in the new
organization of Western Europe. The feudal structure of society emerged as
local leaders gave their followers the income from the dues owed by the
residents of a given territory in payment for their services -- which
could vary considerably.
Perhaps the gangs simply followed the pattern set by city governments
of the time, which put their political workers on salary by giving them a
position in the city government where they could enjoy a regular income
while still devoting their full time to advancing the political fortunes
of their bosses. In any event, the gang leaders, or "bosses," who emerged
from the mass of neighborhood gang leaders began to divide up their
territories, giving their followers, or "boys," the right to a share of
the income from a given district.
The feudal leaders often take over responsibility for the economic
security of their territories, and dictate how resources are to be used,
while at the same time establishing monopolies over some activities. This
strengthens their presence at the local level and also makes their
possessions even more valuable.
The feudal lords of Western Europe, through the men to whom they had
distributed fiefs, began to exert economic control over the villages and
districts under their control. The woods became the lord's possession, and
hardwoods -- useful for building and weapons -- could not be cut except
with the lord's express permission. All fuel had to be used sparingly, and
the lord was paid for wood taken from the woodlands, game caught there,
pigs put to pasture there, and so on. The lords also build ovens, baths,
grain mills and the like as monopolies. Villagers had to patronize the
lord's monopolies and pay for the privilege. This gave the lords the
opportunity of granting fiefs other than land, such as the income from a
mill in a certain village, or the revenue from fishing rights in a certain
stream.
The gangs were soon aware that people wanted things that the government
did not want them to have -- primarily alcohol, gambling, and prostitution
-- and that the government could not prevent the gangs from providing
those amenities. They were soon "licensing" or actually establishing
illegal activities within their territories -- brothels, the numbers game,
casinos, and, most of all, saloons ("speakeasies"). The gangs grew wealthy
enough so that they could purchase the services of underpaid local
officials, increase their own full- time personnel, and still have
considerable income left over to invest in "legitimate" businesses
The feudal aristocracies are usually organized on the basis of private
agreements, contracts between individuals
By the 900's, some local lords -- the duke of Aquitaine, the count of
Toulouse, the count of Flanders, and other -- had become powerful enough
that they began to absorb the lesser lords and territories around them.
Sometimes this was a simple matter of conquest, but more often the result
of a feudal war was an agreement between the two opponents in which one
turned his lands over to the other and received them back as a fief in
exchange for service.
In many cities of America, various territorial gangs absorbed their
lesser neighbors, and began to take over the turf of their more formidable
adversaries. This process, known as "muscling-in," usually took the form
of attempting to infringe on one or more of one's neighbor's monopolies,
such as the sale of whiskey, but it often led to open warfare. The war in
Chicago between the Italian and Polish gangs of the South Side under the
leadership of Al Capone against the North Side Irish-German mob of Dion
O'Banion and his successor, Bugsy Moran, were particularly bloody and
famous, ending with the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 14 February 1927.
Within a few years, each major city was under the control of a single
individual -- the "Godfather" -- who managed the boys in his "family" and
conferred with the Godfathers of the families of other cities to keep the
peace and work together effectively. It was in this fashion that the
"syndicate" emerged.
HOMAGE AND FEALTY
The private agreements that formed the network of mutual services were
called contracts of homage and fealty, "homage" because one of the
contractants agreed to become the servant (homme, or "man" of the
other, and fealty, because he promised to be "feal,
faithful" to him. Homage and fealty became formalized, romanticized, and
overlaid with symbolism, but it is most easily understood as a simple
contract.
The Party of the First Part - the dominus, often translated as
"lord," but just as easily (and accurately) translated as "boss" - made an
arrangement with the Party of the Second Part - the vassal, a word
derived from the Celtic word for "boy," or miles, a word meaning
"soldier". The Party of the First Part gave the Party of the Second Part
"something of value" (a fief, something that would produce an
income in services and kind over a long time), and promised him "respect"
(meaning that he would not interfere with his enjoyment of the fief except
for a very good reason) and justice (meaning that he would protect him
against both other lords and, if necessary, other vassals of his.
The Party of the Second Part promised a number of things in return. The
three main items were "relief," a payment of some sort that he gave the
Party of the First Part for having agreed to take him on; "aid and
counsel," which obligated him to attend the court of the Party of the
First Part whenever he was called upon to do so, and to support and advise
him; and "vassalage," which was usually but not always a period of
military service when called. Some men got fiefs for service as
accountants at the Treasury, or for acting as diplomats, or even for some
rather silly things. It is said that one English noble held a nice fief on
condition that he appear before the king each year at the royal Christmas
court and simultaneously whistle, hop, and break wind. English kings were
not noted for the subtlety of their humor.
The Party of the Second Part might additionally pledge to render one or
more of a number of traditional services: to give the lord and his retinue
three nights hospitality if they were in the neighborhood; to help ransom
the Party of the First Part if he were captured and held prisoner; to
contribute presents for the wedding of the Party of the First Part's
eldest daughter and the knighting of his eldest son, and to contribute
money to help defray the cost of the festivities.
There was frequently a ritual of bonding once the contract had been agreed
upon by both sides. The Party of the Second Part would kneel before the
Party of the First Part, who would take both the vassal's hands between
his own as the vassal promised to love and respect the lord. The lord, in
turn, would promise to honor and protect the vassal. They would then both
rise, kiss, and exchange gifts, the Party of the Second Part giving the
Party of the First Part the relief payment, and the Party of the First
Part giving the Party of the Second Part a sword or some similarly
"honorable" gift. The vassal then became a member of the lord's "familia"
(family).
This was a powerful bond. Many of the medieval legends and tales turned
upon the relationship between the lord and vassal; Lancelot's tragedy was
that his love for Guenevere conflicted with his love for Arthur, while
king Alfonso, the Cid's lord, consistently failed to keep his promises to
love, respect and protect his outstanding vassal. Indeed, the feudal
tie was so powerful that the rituals have persisted in many Western
societies. The rituals of homage and fealty, for instance, have
persisted in the traditional manner of proposing marriage.
Many people think of feudalism as a primitive and inefficient system,
but it did not appear to be so. Organized in this fashion, the Western
Europeans succeeded in holding off the raiders and restoring a measure of
peace that permitted a revival of trade and commerce about 1000. Besides,
the Mafia uses the same organization (and even the same customs and terms)
and are not considered either primitive or inefficient. Note also that
most franchise enterprises, such as MacDonald's, uses essentially the same
system.
|
