A General History for Colleges and High Schools

P >> P. V. N. Myers >> A General History for Colleges and High Schools

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35

The first theory was the impracticable dream of lofty souls who forgot
that men are human. Christendom was virtually divided into two hostile
camps, the members of which were respectively supporters of the Imperial
and the Papal theory. The most interesting and instructive chapters of
mediaeval history after the tenth century are those that record the
struggles between Pope and Emperor, springing from their efforts to reduce
to practice these irreconcilable theories. [Footnote: For a most admirable
presentation of this whole subject, consult Bryce's _The Holy Roman
Empire._]

SECOND PERIOD.--THE AGE OF REVIVAL.
(FROM THE OPENING OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY
COLUMBUS IN 1492.)

CHAPTER XL.

FEUDALISM AND CHIVALRY.

1. FEUDALISM.

FEUDALISM DEFINED.--Feudalism is the name given to a special form of
society and government, based upon a peculiar military tenure of land
which prevailed in Europe during the latter half of the Middle Ages,
attaining, however, its most perfect development in the eleventh, twelfth,
and thirteenth centuries.

A feudal estate, which might embrace a few acres or an entire province,
was called a _fief_, or _feud_, whence the term Feudalism. The person
granting a fief was called the _suzerain_, _liege_, or _lord;_ the one
receiving it, his _vassal_, _liegeman_, or _retainer_.

THE IDEAL SYSTEM.--The few definitions given above will render
intelligible the following explanation of the theory of the Feudal System.

In theory, all the soil of the country was held by the king as a fief from
God (in practice, the king's title was his good sword), granted on
conditions of fealty to right and justice. Should the king be unjust or
wicked, he forfeited the kingdom, and it might be taken from him and given
to another. According to Papal theorists it was the Pope who, as God's
vicar on earth, had the right to pronounce judgment against a king, depose
him, and put another in his place.

In the same way that the king received his fief from God, so he might
grant it out in parcels to his chief men, they, in return for it,
promising, in general, to be faithful to him as their lord, and to serve
and aid him. Should these men, now vassals, be in any way untrue to their
engagement, they forfeited their fiefs, and these might be resumed by
their suzerain and bestowed upon others.

In like manner these immediate vassals of the king or suzerain might
parcel out their domains in smaller tracts to others, on the same
conditions as those upon which they had themselves received theirs; and so
on down through any number of stages.

We have thus far dealt only with the soil of a country. We must next
notice what disposition was made of the people under this system.

The king in receiving his fief was intrusted with sovereignty over all
persons living upon it: he became their commander, their lawmaker, and
their judge--in a word, their absolute and irresponsible ruler. Then, when
he parcelled out his fief among his great men, he invested them, within
the limits of the fiefs granted, with all his own sovereign rights. Each
vassal became a virtual sovereign in his own domain. And when these great
vassals divided their fiefs and granted them to others, they in turn
invested their vassals with those powers of sovereignty with which they
themselves had been clothed. Thus every holder of a fief became "monarch
of all he surveyed."

To illustrate the workings of the system, we will suppose the king or
suzerain to be in need of an army. He calls upon his own immediate vassals
for aid; these in turn call upon their vassals; and so the order runs down
through the various ranks of retainers. The retainers in the lowest rank
rally around their respective lords, who, with their bands, gather about
their lords, and so on up through the rising tiers of the system, until
the immediate vassals of the suzerain, or chief lord, present themselves
before him with their graduated trains of followers. The array constitutes
a feudal army,--a splendidly organized body in theory, but in fact an
extremely poor instrument for warfare.

Such was the ideal feudal state. It is needless to say that the ideal was
never perfectly realized. The system simply made more or less distant
approaches to it in the several European countries.

ROMAN AND TEUTONIC ELEMENTS IN THE SYSTEM.--Like many another institution
that grew up on the conquered soil of the empire. Feudalism was of a
composite character; that is, it contained both Roman and Teutonic
elements. The spirit of the institution was barbarian, but the form was
classical. We might illustrate the idea we are trying to convey, by
referring to the mediaeval papal church. It, while Hebrew in spirit, was
Roman in form. It had shaped itself upon the model of the empire, and was
thoroughly imperial in its organization. Thus was it with Feudalism.
Beneath the Roman garb it assumed, beat a German life.

THE CEREMONY OF HOMAGE.--A fief was conferred by a very solemn and
peculiar ceremony called homage. The person about to become a vassal,
kneeling with uncovered head, placed his hands in those of his future
lord, and solemnly vowed to be henceforth his man (Latin _homo_, whence
"homage"), and to serve him faithfully even with his life. This part of
the ceremony, sealed with a kiss, was what properly constituted the
ceremony of homage. It was accompanied by an oath of fealty, and the
whole was concluded by the act of investiture, whereby the lord put his
vassal in actual possession of the land, or by placing in his hand a clod
of earth or a twig, symbolized the delivery to him of the estate for which
he had just now done homage and sworn fealty.

THE RELATIONS OF LORD AND VASSAL.--In general terms the duty of the vassal
was service; that of the lord, protection. The most honorable service
required of the vassal, and the one most willingly rendered in a martial
age, was military aid. The liegeman must always be ready to follow his
lord upon his military expeditions; he must defend his lord in battle; if
he should be unhorsed, must give him his own animal; and, if he should be
made a prisoner, must offer himself as a hostage for his release.

Among other incidents attaching to a fief were _escheat_, _forfeiture_,
and _aids_. By Escheat was meant the falling back of the fief into the
hands of the lord through failure of heirs. If the fief lapsed through
disloyalty or other misdemeanor on the part of the vassal, this was known
as Forfeiture. Aids were sums of money which the lord had a right to
demand, in order to defray the expense of knighting his eldest son, of
marrying his eldest daughter, or for ransoming his own person in case of
captivity.

The chief return that the lord was bound to make to the vassal as a
compensation for these various services, was counsel and protection--by no
means a small return in an age of turmoil and insecurity.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.--After the death of Charlemagne and the
partition of his great empire among his feeble successors, it seemed as
though the world was again falling back into chaos. The bonds of society
seemed entirely broken. The strong oppressed the weak; the nobles became
highway-robbers and marauders.

It was this distracted state of things that, during the ninth and tenth
centuries, caused the rapid development of the Feudal System. It was the
only form of social organization, the only form of government that it was
practicable to maintain in that rude, transitional age. All classes of
society, therefore, hastened to enter the system, in order to secure the
protection which it alone could afford. Kings, princes, and wealthy
persons who had large landed possessions which they had never parcelled
out as fiefs, were now led to do so, that their estates might be held by
tenants bound to protect them by all the sacred obligations of homage and
fealty. Again, the smaller proprietors who held their estates by allodial
tenure voluntarily surrendered them into the hands of some neighboring
lord, and then received them again from him as fiefs, that they might
claim protection as vassals. They deemed this better than being robbed of
their property altogether. Thus it came that almost all the allodial lands
of France, Germany, Italy, and Northern Spain were, during the ninth,
tenth, and eleventh centuries, converted into feudal estates, or fiefs.

Moreover, for like reasons and in like manner, churches, monasteries, and
cities became members of the Feudal System. They granted out their vast
possessions as fiefs, and thus became suzerains and lords. Bishops and
abbots became the heads of great bands of retainers, and led military
expeditions, like temporal chiefs. On the other hand, these same
monasteries and towns, as a means of security and protection, did homage
to some powerful lord, and thus came in vassalage to him.

In this way were Church and State, all classes of society from the
wealthiest suzerain to the humblest tenant, bound together by feudal ties.
Everything was impressed with the stamp of Feudalism.

CLASSES OF FEUDAL SOCIETY.--Besides the nobility, or the landed class,
there were under the Feudal System three other classes, namely,
_freemen_, _serfs_ or _villeins_, and _slaves._ These lower classes made
up the great bulk of the population of a feudal state. The freemen were
the inhabitants of chartered towns, and in some countries the yeomanry, or
small farmers, who did not hold their lands by a regular feudal tenure.
The serfs, or villeins, were the laborers who cultivated the ground. The
peculiarity of their condition was that they were not allowed to move from
the estate where they lived, and when the land was sold they passed with
it just like any fixture. The slaves constituted a still lower class made
up of captives in war or of persons condemned to bondage as a penalty for
crime. These chattel slaves, however, almost disappeared before the
thirteenth century, being converted into the lowest order of serfs, which
was a step toward freedom.

CASTLES OF THE NOBLES.--The lawless and violent character of the times
during which Feudalism prevailed is well shown by the nature of the
residences of the nobles. These were strong stone fortresses, usually
perched upon some rocky eminence, and defended by moats and towers.
France, Germany, Italy, Northern Spain, England, and Scotland, in which
countries the Feudal System became most thoroughly developed, fairly
bristled with these fortified residences of the nobility. One of the most
striking and picturesque features of the scenery of many districts of
Europe at the present time is the ivy-mantled towers and walls of these
feudal castles, now falling into ruins.

CAUSES OF THE DECAY OF FEUDALISM.--Chief among the various causes which
undermined and at length overthrew Feudalism, were the hostility to the
system of the kings and the common people, the Crusades, the revolt of the
cities, and the introduction of fire-arms in the art of war.

[Illustration: FEUDAL CASTLE AT ROUEN.]

The Feudal System was hated and opposed by both the royal power and the
people. Kings opposed it and sought to break it down, because it left them
only the semblance of power. The people always hated it for the reason
that under it they were regarded as of less value than the game in the
lord's hunting-park.

The Crusades, or Holy Wars, that agitated all Europe during the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries did much to weaken the power of the nobles; for
in order to raise money for their expeditions, they frequently sold or
mortgaged their estates, and in this way power and influence passed into
the hands of the kings or of the wealthy merchants of the cities. Many of
the great nobles also perished in battle with the Infidels, and their
lands escheated to their suzerain, whose domains were thus augmented. The
growth of the towns also tended to the same end. As they increased in
wealth and influence, they became able to resist the exactions and tyranny
of the lord in whose fief they happened to be, and eventually were able to
secede, as it were, from his authority, and to make of themselves little
republics (see p. 464).

Again, the use of gunpowder in war hastened the downfall of Feudalism, by
rendering the yeoman foot-soldier equal to the armor-clad knight. "It made
all men of the same height." as Carlyle puts it.

But it is to be noted that, though Feudalism as a system of government
virtually disappeared during the latter part of the mediaeval age, it still
continued to exist as a social organization. The nobles lost their power
and authority as rulers and magistrates, as petty sovereigns, but retained
generally their titles, privileges, and social distinctions.

DEFECTS OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.--Feudalism was perhaps the best form of
social organization that it was possible to maintain in Europe during the
mediaeval period; yet it had many and serious defects, which rendered it
very far from being a perfect social or political system. Among its chief
faults may be pointed out the two following. First, it rendered impossible
the formation of strong national governments. Every country was divided
and subdivided into a vast number of practically independent
principalities. Thus, in the tenth century France was partitioned among
nearly two hundred overlords, all exercising equal and coordinate powers
of sovereignty. The enormous estates of these great lords were again
divided into about 70,000 smaller fiefs.

In theory, as we have seen, the holders of these petty estates were bound
to serve and obey their overlords, and these great nobles were in turn the
sworn vassals of the French king. But many of these lords were richer and
stronger than the king himself, and if they chose to cast off their
allegiance to him, he found it impossible to reduce them to obedience.

A second evil of the institution was its exclusiveness. It was, in theory,
only the person of noble birth that could become the holder of a fief. The
feudal lords constituted a proud and oppressive aristocracy. It was only
as the lower classes in the different countries gradually wrested from the
feudal nobility their special and unfair privileges, that a better form of
society arose, and civilization began to make more rapid progress.

GOOD RESULTS OF THE SYSTEM.--The most noteworthy of the good results
springing from the Feudal System was the development among its privileged
members of that individualism, that love of personal independence, which
we have seen to be a marked trait of the Teutonic character (see p. 369).
Turbulent, violent, and refractory as was the feudal aristocracy of
Europe, it performed the grand service of keeping alive during the later
mediaeval period the spirit of liberty. It prevented Royalty from becoming
as despotic as it would otherwise have become. Thus in England, for
instance, the feudal lords held such tyrannical rulers as King John in
check, until such time as the yeomen and the burghers were bold enough and
strong enough alone to resist their despotically inclined sovereigns. In
France, where, unfortunately, the power of the feudal nobles was broken
too soon,--before the common people, the Third Estate, were prepared to
take up the struggle for liberty,--the result was the growth of that
autocratic, despotic Royalty which led the French people to the Revolution
and the Reign of Terror.

Another of the good effects of Feudalism was the impulse it gave to
certain forms of polite literature. Just as learning and philosophy were
fostered by the seclusion of the cloister, so were poetry and romance
fostered by the open and joyous hospitalities of the baronial hall. The
castle door was always open to the wandering singer and story-teller, and
it was amidst the scenes of festivity within that the ballads and romances
of mediaeval minstrelsy and literature had their birth.

Still another service which Feudalism rendered to civilization was the
development within the baronial castle of those ideas and sentiments--
among others, a nice sense of honor and an exalted consideration for the
female sex--which found their noblest expression in Chivalry, of which
institution and its good effects upon the social life of Europe we shall
now proceed to speak.

2. CHIVALRY.

CHIVALRY DEFINED: ORIGIN OF THE INSTITUTION.--Chivalry has been, aptly
defined as the "Flower of Feudalism." It was a military institution, or
order, the members of which, called _knights_, were pledged to the
protection of the church, and to the defence of the weak and the
oppressed. Although the germs of the system may be found in society before
the age of Charlemagne, still Chivalry did not assume its distinctive
character until the eleventh century, and died out during the fifteenth.

[Illustration: A KNIGHT IN FULL ARMOR. (Drawing by Alphonse de Neuville.)]

Chivalry seems to have had France for its cradle. That country at least
was its true home. There it was that it exhibited its most complete and
romantic development. Yet its influence was felt everywhere and in
everything. It colored all the events and enterprises of the latter half
of the Middle Ages. The literature of the period is instinct with its
spirit. The Crusades, or Holy Wars, the greatest undertakings of the
mediaeval ages, were predominantly enterprises of the Christian chivalry of
Europe.

TRAINING OF THE KNIGHT.--When Chivalry had once become established, all
the sons of the nobility, save such as were to enter the holy orders of
the Church, were set apart and disciplined for its service. The sons of
the poorer nobles were usually placed in the family of some superior lord
of renown and wealth, whose castle became a sort of school, where they
were trained in the duties and exercises of knighthood.

This education began at the early age of seven, the youth bearing the name
of page or varlet until he attained the age of fourteen, when he acquired
the title of squire or esquire. At the age of twenty-one the squire became
a knight, being then introduced to the order of knighthood by a peculiar
and impressive service. After a long fast and vigil, the candidate
listened to a lengthy sermon on his duties as a knight. Then kneeling, as
in the feudal ceremony of homage, before the lord conducting the services,
he vowed to defend religion and the ladies, to succor the distressed, and
ever to be faithful to his companion knights. His arms were now given to
him, and his sword was girded on, when the lord, striking him with the
flat of his sword on the shoulders or the neck, said, "In the name of God,
of St. Michael, and of St. George, I dub thee knight: be brave, bold, and
loyal."

[Illustration: CONFERRING KNIGHTHOOD ON THE FIELD OF BATTLE.]

Sometimes knighthood was conferred with less ceremony upon the battle-
field, as the reward of signal bravery or address.

THE TOURNAMENT.--The tournament was the favorite amusement of the age of
Chivalry. It was a mimic battle between two companies of noble knights,
armed usually with pointless swords or blunted lances. In the universal
esteem in which the participants were held, it reminds us of the Sacred
Games of the Greeks; while in the fierce and sanguinary character it
sometimes assumed, especially before it was brought fully under the spirit
of Chivalry, it recalls the gladiatorial combats of the Roman
amphitheatre.

[Illustration: A TOURNAMENT.]

DECLINE OF CHIVALRY.--The fifteenth century was the evening of Chivalry.
The decline of the system resulted from the operation of the same causes
that effected the overthrow of Feudalism. The changes in the mode of
warfare which helped to do away with the feudal baron and his mail-clad
retainers, likewise tended to destroy knight errantry. And then as
civilization advanced, new feelings and sentiments began to claim the
attention, and to work upon the imagination of men. Governments, too,
became more regular, and the increased order and security of society
rendered less needful the services of the gallant knight in behalf of
distressed maidens.

INFLUENCE OF CHIVALRY.--The system of Chivalry had many vices, chief among
which were its exclusive, aristocratic tendencies. An indignant writer
declares that "it is not probable that the knights supposed they could be
guilty of injustice to the lower classes." These were regarded with
indifference or contempt, and considered as destitute of any claims upon
those of noble birth as were beasts of burden or the game of the chase. It
is always the young and beautiful lady of gentle birth whose wrongs the
valiant knight is risking his life to avenge, always the smiles of the
"queen of love and beauty" for which he is splintering his lance in the
fierce tournament. The fostering of this aristocratic spirit was one of
the most serious faults of Chivalry.

But to speak of the beneficial, refining influences of Chivalry, we should
say that it undoubtedly contributed powerfully to lift that sentiment of
respect for the gentler sex that characterized all the Northern nations,
into that reverence for womanhood which forms one of the distinguishing
characteristics of the present age.

Again, Chivalry did much towards producing that type of manhood among us
which we rightly think to surpass any ever formed under the influences of
antiquity. Just as Christianity gave to the world an ideal manhood which
it was to strive to realize, so did Chivalry hold up an ideal to which men
were to conform their lives. Men, indeed, have never perfectly realized
either the ideal of Christianity or that of Chivalry; but the influence
which these two ideals have had in shaping and giving character to the
lives of men cannot be overestimated. Together, through the enthusiasm and
effort awakened for their realization, they produced a new type of
manhood, which we indicate by the phrase "a knightly and Christian
character."

[Illustration: LANDING IN ENGLAND OF WILLIAM OF NORMANDY. (From the Bayeux
Tapestry.) ]

CHAPTER XLI.

THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.

INTRODUCTORY.--The history of the Normans--the name, it will be recalled,
of the transformed Scandinavians who settled in Northern Gaul (see p.
4l3)--is simply a continuation of the story of the Northmen. The most
important of the enterprises of the Normans, and one followed by
consequences of the greatest magnitude not only to the conquered people,
but indirectly to the world, was their conquest of England. [Footnote: Not
long before the Normans conquered England, they succeeded in gaining a
foothold in the south of Italy, where they established a sort of republic,
which ultimately included the island of Sicily. The fourth president of
the commonwealth was the celebrated Robert Guiscard (d. 1085), who spread
the renown of the Norman name throughout the Mediterranean lands. This
Norman state, converted finally into a kingdom, lasted until late in the
twelfth century (1194).]

EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CONQUEST.--In the year 1066 Edward the Confessor
died, in whose person, it will be recalled, the old English line was
restored after the Danish usurpation (see p. 412). Immediately the Witan,
that is, the assembly of the chief men of the nation, in accordance with
the dying wish of the king, chose Harold, Earl of the West Saxons, son of
the famous Godwin, and the best and strongest man in all England, to be
his successor.

When the news of the action of the Witan and of Harold's acceptance of the
English crown was carried across the channel to William, Duke of Normandy,
he was really or feignedly transported with rage. He declared that Edward,
who was his cousin, had during his lifetime promised the throne to him,
and that Harold had assented to this, and by solemn oath engaged to
sustain him. He now demanded of Harold that he surrender to him the
usurped throne, threatening the immediate invasion of the island in case
he refused. King Harold answered the demand by expelling from the country
the Normans who had followed Edward into the kingdom, and by collecting
fleets and armies for the defence of his dominions.

While Harold was watching the southern coasts against the Normans, a
Danish host appeared in the north, led by Tostig, the traitor brother of
the English king, and Harold Hardrada, king of Norway. The English army in
that quarter, attempting to withstand the invaders, was cut to pieces; and
the important city of York fell into the hands of the Northmen. As soon as
news of this disaster was borne to King Harold in the south, he instantly
marched northward with his army, and at Stamford Bridge met the invaders,
and there gained a decisive victory over them.

THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS (1066).--The festivities that followed the victory
of Stamford Bridge were not yet ended, when a messenger from the south
brought to Harold intelligence of the landing of the Normans. Hurrying
southward with his army, Harold came face to face with the forces of
William at Senlac, a short distance from the port of Hastings.

The battle soon opened--the battle that was to determine the fate of
England. It was begun by a horseman riding out from the Norman lines and
advancing alone toward the English army, tossing up his sword and
skilfully catching it as it fell, and singing all the while the stirring
battle-song of Charlemagne and Roland (see p. 405). The English watched
with astonishment this exhibition of "careless dexterity," and if they did
not contrast the vivacity and nimbleness of the Norman foe with their own
heavy and clumsy manners, others at least have not failed to do so for
them.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35