"Chastelain," "vavasor," citizens and
villains
are
under others, but all are under the king.
under others, but all are under the king.
Thomas Carlyle
They are important to us on account of their correspon-
dence with the principles of other feudal jurists. The principle
which they represent is the principle of some of the most
important of these. The Assizes of Jerusalem set out very
clearly that the king is subject to the law, and that the court
is the tribunal to which any one who feels himself aggrieved
by the king or lord can appeal, that it is responsible for the
maintenance of the law, if necessary even against the king, and
they cite cases in which this principle had been carried out in
action. 6 The 'Sachsenspiegel' seems definitely to lay down the
doctrine that even the king is answerable to one who can judge
1 Cf. iii. 9, 3, pp. 70, 71.
2 Cf. p. 67.
s Cf. iv. 10, p. 71.
4 Id. , iii. 9. 3: "Tgitur dum facit
iustitiam, vicarius est regis seterni,
minister autem diaboli dum declinet ad
iniuriam. Dicitur enim rex a bene
regendo, et non a regnando, quia rex est
dum bene regit, tyrannus dum populum
sibi creditum violenta opprimit domi-
natione. " Cf. St Isidore of Seville,
Etym. , ix. 3.
6 Cf. Part II. of this volume, chap. v.
<< Cf. pp. 62-59.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 74
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part 1.
him. 1 The ' Etablissements of St Louis' are clear that even in
the case of the King of France the vassal can demand justice
of him in his Court, and that if the king refuses to give this he
can make war upon the king, and can require his sub-vassals to
follow him. 2 And though Beaumanoir does not commit himself
to any definite statement about the coercion of the king, he
does emphatically set out the general principle of the supremacy
of the court as determining the mutual obligation of lord and
vassal. 3
It is, we think, clear that the feudal system was in its essence
a system of contractual relations, and that the contract was
binding upon both parties, on the lord as much as on the
vassal. Whatever else may be said about it, one thing is clear,
and that is that feudalism represents the antithesis to the
conception of an autocratic or absolute government,
1 Cf. p. 61.
2 Cf. pp. 62, 63.
3 Cf. pp. 63-66.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 75
CHAPTER V.
FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
It may be urged that the tendency of feudalism was really
anarchical and disintegrating, that it tended to arrest or retard
the development of the conception of the national society or
state, that the principle of the loyalty which the vassal owed
to his immediate lord was really inconsistent with the concep-
tion of the authority of the whole community and its head.
There is a great amount of truth in such a contention, and we
must therefore consider the matter in some detail, but briefly.
In an earlier chapter attention has been drawn to the
contrast, which finds expression in some of the epic poetry,
between the personal loyalty and devotion which the vassal
owes to his immediate lord and the indifference and even con-
tempt for the overlord or king. 1 There is no doubt that we
have here a forcible expression of an anti-national and dis-
integrating character in feudalism. The truth is that the
feudal system, whatever may have been its remoter origins, took
shape during those years when the dissolution of the Carolingian
empire and the invasions of the Northmen and Magyars reduced
Europe to an extreme confusion, and that its characteristics are
related to the absence of such a well-organised government as
might give the private man adequate protection. In the
absence of strong central or national authorities, men had to
turn for protection to the nearest power which seemed to be
capable of rendering this. At the same time all those juris-
dictions, which had once represented the delegated authority of
the Carolingian emperors and kings, tended to become heredi-
1 Cf. pp. 28, 29.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? ? 76
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part I.
tary. When Europe began to recover from the anarchical con-
fusions of the late ninth century and the early tenth century,
the new conditions were firmly established, and the great
national organisations which gradually formed themselves out of
the ruins of the Carolingian empire were at first rather groups
of semi-independent territories or states than compacted ad-
ministrative unities. It would be outside of our province to
examine the varieties of these conditions as they present them-
selves to us in Germany or Italy, in France or England. We
must bear in mind that the conditions varied greatly in detail;
it is enough for our purpose to recognise that in spite of these
variations the conditions were substantially similar.
- It was the characteristic of feudal society that the local and
personal attachments were strong, while the relations to the
central authorities were comparatively weak and fluctuating.
This is the fact which lies behind the weakness of the overlord
^or king and the power of the immediate lord. The great
feudatories no doubt owed allegiance to the king or emperor,
but the vassals of the great feudatories had at first probably no
very clearly defined relations to the overlord. We have now to
recognise that while this was true, and while in Germany the
process of national consolidation was overpowered by the terri-
torial principle, in England and France, and ultimately in the
other European states, the national unity triumphed over these
disintegrating forces. The truth is that while feudalism was
based primarily upon the relations between a man and his
immediate lord, the principle of the national state was, though
undeveloped, older, and soon began to reassert itself, so that
at least as early as the eleventh and twelfth centuries the
principle of a direct relation between all free men and the
king began to be firmly established. Students of English
constitutional history will remember the significance of the
action of William the Conqueror in requiring all landowners
to take the oath of fidelity to himself, whosesoever men they
were. 1 We have now to observe that this principle is em-
1 The important passages are cited Florence of Worcester: "Nec multo
in Stubbs's ' Constitutional History of post mandavit ut archiepiscopi, epis-
England,' section 96. copi, abbates, comites, barones, et vice-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION. 77
bodied in the feudal law books of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries.
Jean d'Ibelin makes it clear that in the kingdom of Jerusa-
lem it was established as law after the war between Amauri I.
and Girard of Seeste (Sidon) that the sub-vassals as well as
the tenants-in-chief had to take the oath of allegiance (ligece)
to the chief lord, the king, and that he could require the in-
habitants of cities and castles held by his vassals to swear
fealty to himself. 1 In another passage he lays it down that
when any man does homage in the kingdom of Jerusalem to
any one else than the chief lord he must not do " ligece," for no
one can do " ligece" to more than one man, and all the vassals
of the vassals are bound to do " ligece " to the chief lord of the
kingdom. 2 In another place again he describes the mode in
which the sub-vassal makes allegiance to the chief lord of the
kingdom; he is to kneel and, placing his hands between those of
the chief lord, is to say, " Sire, I make you allegiance (ligece)
according to the Assize for such and such a fief, which I hold
of such and such a person, and promise to guard and protect
comites cum. suis militibus, die Kalen-
darum Augustarum sibi occurrerent
Saresberise; quo cum venissent, milites
eorum sibi fidelitatem contra omnes
homines iurare coegit. "
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: "Thser him
comon to his witan and ealle tha
landsittende men the ahtes wseron
ofer eall Engleland, wseron thaes
mannes men the hi wseron, and ealle
hi bugon to him and wseron his menu
and him hold athas sworon thset hi
wolden ongean ealle othre men him
holden beon. "
1 Jean d'Ibelin, 140: "Et fu celle
assise ensi faite et establie, que les
homes des homes dou chief seignor dou
reiaume feisent ligece au chief seignor
dou reiaume, par l'assise, des fie? s quils
tenoient de ces homes, et que toz
ciaus qui avoient fait homage au chief
seignor, fust par l'assise ou autrement,
fucent tenus les uns as autres, et
aussi les homes de ces homes de
chascune court par sei; et que si le
rei voleit aveir la feaute? des gens qui
estoient manant e`s cite? s, et e? s chas-
tiaux, et e? s bors, que ces homes
tenoient de lui, que il li juracent toz
feaute? , et que il li fucent tenus par
cette feaute? de ce que les homes de
ces homes li sont tenus par la ligece
faite par l'assise au chief seignor. "
Cf. id. , 199.
2 Id. , 195: "Et qui fait homage de
chose qui seit ou reiaume a` autre que au
chief seignor il le deit faire en la maniere
dessus devisiee? , mais que tant que il ne
li deit pas faire ligece; por ce que nul
home ne peut faire plus d'une ligece,
et que toz les homes des homes dou
chief seignor dou reiaume li deivent
faire ligece par l'assise; et puisque l'on
li deit la ligece, l'on ne la peut a` autre
faire sanz mesprendre vers lui. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 78
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part 1.
you against any who may live or die, as I am bound to do
by the allegiance (ligece) made according to the Assize. " The
chief lord kisses him and replies, "And I receive you in the
faith of God and in my own, as I ought to do in accordance
with the allegiance (ligece) made according to the Assize. "
When they have thus made allegiance the sub-vassals are
bound to defend and support the chief lord against every
one, and even against their immediate lord under certain
conditions. If the chief lord has a dispute or war with any
one of their lords, the sub-vassals are to remind their lord that
they are the liegemen of the chief lord, and to request him to
demand that the dispute should be submitted to the judgment
of the court. If the chief lord refuses to do justice in his
court, they will follow their lord, but if he refuses to take these
steps within forty days, or if within that time he takes action
against the chief lord, they will forsake him and support the
chief lord. 1 Again, Jean d'Ibelin says that if any lord is doing
wrong to the chief lord, without his knowledge, the sub-vassals
1 Jean d'Ibelin, 197: "Quant les
homes des homes dnu chief seignor dou
reiaume font au chief seignor la ligece
par l'assise, celui qui la fait deit estre a
genoills devant lui et metre ces mains
jointes entre les soes, et dire li: 'Sire,
je voz fais la ligece par l'assise de tel
fie? que je tiens de tel," et nomer celui
de qui il tient le fie? et dire quels est le
fie? ; "et voz promet a` garder et a`
sauver contre totes riens qui vivre et
morir puissent, si come je faire le dei
de ligece faite par l'assise. ' Et le
seignor li deit respondre: 'Et je ensi
voz receis en Dieu fei et en la meie
come je faire le dei de ligece faite par
l'assise. ' Et baisier le en la bouche
en foi. Et quant la ligece est ainsi
faite, les homes qui l'ont faite sont
tenus ou seignor de garder le et de
sauver contre totes riens qui vivre et
morir puissent, mais que encontre leur
seignor de cui il tienent le fie? , por
quei il ont faite la ligece par l'assise;
et en tele maniere que ce il avient que
le chief seignor ait contens ou guerre
a` aucun des seignors de ces homes qui
li ont fait la dite ligece, ciaus homes
deivent venir a` leur seignor et dire
li: 'Sire voz save? s que nous somes
homes liges dou chief seignor dou
reiaume devont voz; por quei noz ne
devonz estre contre lui, si en lui ne
remaint : si voz prions et requerons que
voz adressie? s vers lui, et que voz li
mande? s que il voz maint par l'esgart de
sa court. Et ce vos ce ne faites dedenz
quarante jors, nos vos guerpirons
et irons a` lui aidier et conseillers
contre voz, se en lui ne remaint. Et
se voz faites ce que noz voz requeronz,
et il voz faut de droit faire par sa
court, nos ne voz guerpirons pas. Mais
se voz dedenz ceaus quarante jors
feissie? es chose qui fust contre lui, noz
ne le soufririens pas se nos le poriens
amender ne destorber son mal; et se
noz ne le porieens destorber, nos voz
guerpirieens lors et iriemes a` lui et
? ? feriens vers lui ce que nos deverieens. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
79
must remonstrate with their lord, and if necessary must join
the chief lord against him. 1 Again, the close relation between
the chief lord and the sub-vassal is illustrated by the principle
that the chief lord is bound to protect him against his immedi-
ate lord, if he acts unjustly and without the authority of his
court, and to replace him in his fief if he has been unjustly de-
prived of it. 2 These principles are stated in much the same
terms also by Philip of Novara. 3
It is clear therefore that even in a typical feudal constitution
such as that of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century,
the principle of the supremacy of the central or national organ-
isation over the relations between the vassal and his immediate
lord was already fully recognised. It is perhaps scarcely
necessary to point out that this principle is clearly set out in
Glanvill with regard to England in the twelfth century, but it
is worth while to notice that he makes a distinction between
the homage which a man may make to different lords for differ-
ent fiefs, and the liege obligation (ligancia) which he can only
make to that lord from whom he holds his "capitale tenemen-
tum. " The distinction is not the same as that in the Assizes of
Jerusalem, but it is parallel to it. Glanvill makes it clear that"^
in doing homage to any lord, there must always be reserved the \
faith which he owes to the king, and that the sub-vassal mustj^y
follow the king even against his lord. 4
If we turn to France we find the principle of the reservation
1 Id. , 199. servet, salva fide debita domino Regi
2 Id. , 200. et hseredibus suis. Ex hoc liquet
3 Philip of Novara, 51. quod vasallus non potest Dominum
4 Glanvill, ix. 1: "Potest autem sum infestare, salva fide homagii sui;
quis plura homagia diversis Dominis nisi forte se defeudendo, vel nisi ex
facere de Feodis diversis diversorum pracepto principis cum eo iverit contra
Dominorum: sed unum eorum opertet Dominum suum in exercitum. "
esse prsecipuum, et cum ligancia fac- Cf. 'Summa de legibus,' xiii. 1:
tum: illi scilicet Domino faciendum, "Fidelitatem autum tenentur omnes
a quo tenet suum capitale tenementum residentes in provincia duci facere et
is qui homagium facere debet. Fieri servare . . . Omnes enim in Normannia
autem debet homagium sub hac forma, tenentur fidelitatem principi obser-
scilicet ut is qui homagium facere vare. Unde homagium vel fidelitatem
debet ita fiat homo Domini sui, quod alicuius nullus debet recipere, nisi
fidem illi portet de illo tenemento unde salva principis fidelitate; quod eciam
homagium suum prsestat, et quod est in eorum receptione specialiter
eius in omnibus terrenum honorem exprimendum. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 80 THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [paet I.
of fidelity to the king is clearly stated in the thirteenth
century by the author of the 'Jostice et Plet. ' The king, he
says, must hold of no one: dukes, counts, &c, may hold of
each other, and become each other's men, but always, saving
the dignity of the king, against whom no homage is of any
authority.
"Chastelain," "vavasor," citizens and villains are
under others, but all are under the king. 1 Again, Beaumanoir
sets out very distinctly the principle that the obligation of the
vassal to follow his lord in battle does not extend to the case
when the vassal is called upon to follow against the overlord
or the king. 2
The only writer in whom we have found some suggestion of
ambiguity about the matter is one of the Lombard civilians of
the thirteenth century, who also wrote on feudal law, James of
Ardizoue. He seems indeed to agree himself with the jurists
already cited that the sub-vassal is not bound to follow his
feudal superior against the overlord, and that he is rather to be
rewarded if he refuses to follow his lord against the "prince"
and the "patria," for every man is bound to defend the
"patria," and the "prince" is to be preferred to every other
creature; but he mentions, apparently as a view which was
maintained by some, that a vassal is bound to help his lord
against another superior, and is not to be punished for this.
The phrase is indeed ambiguous, but it leaves upon one's mind
the impression that the "alter superior" is his lord's superior. 3
1 'Jostice et Plet,' i. 16. 1: "Li
rois ne doit tenir de nuiL Duc, conte,
visconte, baron puent tenir li un des
autres et devenir home, sauf la dignite?
le roi, contre qui homage ne vaut
riens. Chastelain, vavasor, citaen,
vilain, sont souzmis a` cels que nous
avons devant nomez. Et tuit sont
soz la main au roi. "
2 Beaumanoir, ii. 65: "Cil qui sont
semont pour aidier leur seigneurs
contre leur anemis ou por aidier leur
seigneurs a` leur mesons defendre, ne
doivent pas contremander ne querre
nul delai. Et s'il contremandent ne
ne quierent delai, il ne gardent pas
bien lor foi vers leur seigneurs. Et
quant il faillent a leur seigneur en tel
besoing, il deservent a` perdre leur fief;
ne il ne se pueent escuser par essoine,
puis qu'il soient ou pais et que la
guerre ne soit contre celi de qui leur
seigneur lienent leur hommage, ou
contre le conte qui est leur souverains,
ou contre le roi qui est par desseur
tous. "
8 Jacobus de Ardizone--'Summa
Feudorum,' 69: "Item excusatur si
dominus vult quod eum adjuvet contra
dominum ipsius domini: nam si eum
offenderet, nisi ei satisfaceret, feudo
privaretur, ut in tit. de feu. &
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
81
It is easy to recognise that the question here raised was a
difficult one, and that it would arise specially under Italian
conditions; but it is important to observe that even in Italy the
principle of the reservation of fidelity to the overlord, or to
the prince, was very definitely maintained. We must, however,
allow for the great influence which the Eoman jurisprudence
would exercise upon the judgment of James of Ardizone.
There is indeed no doubt that in the judgment of the feudal
jurists of the thirteenth century the king has a full jurisdiction
over all persons within his kingdom.
The author of the 'Sachsenspiegel' lays down this doctrine
with great clearness and emphasis. The king, he says, is the
common (ordinary) judge over all men. Every man has his
right (law) before the king, all authority is delegated by him.
Whenever and wherever the king is himself present all other
jurisdictions are superseded, and all prisoners must be brought
before him, any person refusing to do this will be put under
the ban, and any man who is aggrieved by a judgment can
appeal to the king. 1 These phrases are very comprehensive in
benefic ]. imperialem, ? illud, et in
alienando feudum consensus maioris
domini debet intervenire, ut in prse-
dicta consti. primo respon. & ? primo.
Vel dicatur quod bene tenetur vasallus
adiuvare dominum contra alteram
superiorem, et non puniatur, quia in
servitio domini sui facit, argumen. ff.
de iniur. 1. sed unius, ? si Justus--in
fi. de qua materia notavi supra eadem
summa, ? item si vasallus vasalli, et
? ubi vero plures. Item servus vasalli
excusatur, si dominus feudi petat ut
eum adiuvet contra dominum servi,
in cuius est potestate; cum servus
sequendo dominum non puniatur, cum
necessitate potestatis domini excusetur
servus parendo domino (ut ff. ad
legem Cornelian de fal. 1. divus, ?
item senatus) licet dominus debeat
damnari.
Excusandus est vasallus et potius
VOL. III.
prsemio afficiendus, si non servient
domino contra principem vel patriam
suam, ut in titulo de feudis et benefi.
1. imperialem ? ultimo, in titulo de
sacra, et forma fide. 1. illud. . . .
Quilibet enim debet patriam suam
defendere, (ut in Lombar. de his qui
patriam defen. 1. prima et ultima) et
non potest pater iure patrise potestatis
resistere, quominus patrise obsequatur,
(ut ff. de muneribus et honoribus, 1.
honor. ? plebei, in fine) et princeps
omni creaturse praferendus, ut in
titulo, de maioritate et obedient, c
solite. Magna enim servitia ab uni-
versis subditis debentur imperio, ut
C. de operibus publicis 1. quicumque
locus. "
1 'Sachsenspiegel,' iii. 26. 1: "Die
koning is gemene richtere over al. "
Id. , iii. 33. 1: "Iewelk man hevet
sin recht vor'me koninge. "
Id. , iii. 52. 2: "Den koning kiiset
? ? F
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 82
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part L
their nature, and, while this is not the place to discuss their
actual constitutional significance in the administration and
judicial organisation of the empire, they are yet of great
importance as indicating how far at least in theory the national
conception had imposed itself upon the feudal.
The same principle is set out in the ' Summa de legibus,' one
of the Norman law books of the thirteenth century. The prince
alone has "plena iurisdictio" over all disputes brought to him,1
and again in another place, the jurisdiction of the feudal lord is
severely limited to certain cases, for all "iusticiatio personarum"
belongs in Normandy to the Duke, in virtue of the fealty which
all men owe to him; and again, jurisdiction over the bodies of all
men, small or great, belongs in Normandy to the Duke, inasmuch
as they are bound by fidelity and allegiance to him alone. 2
man to richtere over egen unde len
unde over iewelkes mannes lif. Die
keiser ne mach aver in allen landen
nicht sin, unde al ungerichte nicht
richten to aller tiet, dar umme liet he
den vorsten grafscap, unde den greven
scultheitdum. "
Id. , iii. 60. 2: "In svelke stat des
rikes de koning kumt binnen deme
rike, dar is ime ledich monte unde
toln, unde in svelke lant he kumt, dar
is ime ledich dat gerichte, dat he wol
richten mut alle die klage, die vor
gerichte nicht begunt, noch nicht
gelent ne sin. 3. Svenne die koning oc
alrest in dat land kumt, so solen ime
ledich sin alle vangene uppe recht,
unde man sal sie vor ime bringen unde
mit rechte verwinnen oder mit rechte
la ten, so man sie erst besenden mach,
seder der tiet dat sie de koning eschet
to rechte oder sine boden, to dem manne
selven oder to 'me hove oder to 'me
huse, dar sie gevangen sin oder hebbet
gewesen. Weigeret man sie vore to
bringene, sint man sie to rechte geeschet
hevet, unde man des getiich an des
koninges boden hevet, man dut to hant
in de achte alle die sie vengen, unde
hus unde liide, die sie weder recht
halden. "
Id. , ii. 12. 4: "Schilt man en ordel,
des sal man tien an den hogesten
richtere, unde to lest vor den koning;
dar sal die richtere sine boden to geven,
die_ dar horen welk ire vulkome vor
deme koninge. "
Id. , i. 58. 1: " Svenne die greve kumt
to des gogrefen dinge, so sal des
gogreven gerichte neder sin geleget.
Also is des greven, svenne die koning
in sime grafscap kumt, dar se beide
to antwerde sin. Also is jewelkes
richteres, dar die koning to antwerde
is, die klage ne ga denne uppe den
koning. "
1 'Summa de legibus,' ii. 4: "Solus
autem princeps plenam habet iuris-
dictionem de querelis ad ipsum delatis
omnibus laicalem. "
2 Id. , vi. 8: "Preter hoc tamen
sciendum est quod pro debito prin-
cipis, elapso termino solutioni deputato,
? ? solet in debitores iusticiatio fieri cor-
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
83
The author of the 'Jostice et Plet,' and Beaumanoir, main-
tain the same doctrine in France. The author of 'Jostice et
Plet' is indeed so much influenced by the Eoman law that it
may be held that he is to be considered rather as a civilian than
a feudalist, but his treatment of the subject corresponds in
principle with that of the feudal jurists. His phrases are note-
worthy. The king has jurisdiction everywhere and always, he
has plenary authority in everything, while others have it only
in part. 1 Again, the count or duke has "jostice" in his
lands, but under the king who is over him, the king must not
indeed deprive ? him of this, so long as he does right, but the
king can interfere to secure justice. The king holds of no one;
dukes, counts, viscounts, and barons can hold of each other,
and become each other's men, but always, saving the dignity of
the king, against whom homage is of no avail, for all are under
the hand of the king. 2
mannie, quod eciam est in receptione
homagii exprimendum.
Uncle nec aliquis in Normannia
hominis sui corpus potest vel debet
prisonie mancipare, nisi coram eo de
latrociuio fuerit insecutus vel in pre-
senti deprehensus, vel eius serviens
fuerit, ut propositus, molendinarius vel
quoquo modo rerum suarum receptor,
quos arrestare potest quousque compo-
tum debitum et plegios sufficientes
habuerit de eisdem.
9. Ad bosci forisfactum garanne vel
aquarum defensarum, vel costume de-
tente, vel bladorum, seu pratorum vel
aliorum huiusmodi, possunt homines a
dominis feodorum arrestari . . . dum
tamen ad presens forisfactum fuerint
deprehensi, et tan tum detineri quousque
namna, vel vadia, vel plegios habuerint
de damno illato restaurando et emenda,
ubi debeat extorqueri. Si autem aliquo
casu alio pro facto criminoso aliquis
capiatur, justiciario debet reddi indi-
late.
10. Si autem dominus homini suo
feeerit iniuriam feodi ratione, ad ducem
pertinet curia de eodem, nisi dominus,
si quis fuerit interpositus, eam re-
quisierit, qui iurisdictionem habeat
feodalem. "
Id. , cxiii. 1: "Cum in Normannia
omnium iurisdictio corporum ad ducem
tam plebis pertineat quam magnatum,
eo quod fidelitate et ligancia soli
principi teneantur. "
1'Jostice et Plet,' i. 7. 6: "L'en
demande porquoi li rois use par tot et en
toz tens de juridiction, cum aucun soit
en son regne juridiction qui soie est?
et l'en respont que en roi confermee est
le poir de tote la region, s'il ne le done;
et il a plenier poer en tot, c'est a en-
tendre poer de prodome; et li autre si
n'ont que partie de poer, quar il ne
sont apele1 qu'en partie de la cure, non
pas en plenier poer.
Enten que rois conferme? est aussi
comme se chascuns metoit sa bone
volenti en la soie. Enten ci reison,
par que rois use en chascuns leu de
? ? juridicion. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 84
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part I.
Beaumanoir asserts very emphatically that the king is
supreme over all jurisdictions and over all persons. In one
passage of great importance which we have already discussed
he explains the sense in which he uses the word "souverain,"
and says that while every baron is "souverain" in his own
barony, the king is "souverain" over all, and has the charge
of the whole kingdom, and therefore can make "establisse-
ments" which are binding everywhere. No one is so great
that he cannot be called before the king's court, "pour defaute
de droit ou pour faus jugement. " 1
The whole conception is summed up by Bracton in an
emphatic passage in which he lays down the principle that the
king has the "ordinary" jurisdiction and authority over all men
who are in the kingdom, for all laws which belong to the crown
and the lay authority and the temporal sword are in his hand;
it is he who holds justice and judgment, that is jurisdiction,
so that it is by his jurisdiction, as being the minister and
seignories et totes joutices, sauf le roi,
qui est li par desus, a` amender le torfet
qu'il a fet, et sauf ce que li rois a en la
duche? e, et autres par jutes causes. "
Id. , i. 16. 1: "Li rois ne doit tenir
de nuil. Duc, conte, vicomte, baron,
puent tenir li un des autres et devenir
home, sauf la dignite? le roi, contre qui
homage ne vaut riens. . . . Et tuit
sont soz la main au roi. "
1Beaumanoir, xxxiv. 1013: "Pour
ce que nous parlons eu cest livre, en
pluseurs lieus, du souverain, et de ce
qu'il puet et doit fere, li aucun pour-
raient entendre, pour ce que nous ne
nommons conte ne duc, que ce fust
du roi; mais en tous les lieus la ou li
rois n'est pas nomme? s, nous entendons
de ceus qui tienent en baronnie, car
c? hascuns barons est souverain en sa
baronie. Voirs est que le rois est
souverains par dessus tous, et a, de
son droit la general garde de tout son
roiaume, par quoi il puet fere teus
etablissemens comme il li plest pour le
commun pourflt, et ce qu'il establist
doit estre tenu. Et se n'i a nul si
grant dessous li qui ne puist estre tres
en sa court pour defaute de droit ou
pour faus jugement et pour tous les
cas qui touchuent le roi. Et pour ce
qu'il est souverain par desseus tous,
nous le nommons, quant nous parlons
d'aucune souverainete? qui a li apar-
tient. "
Cf. xlviii. 1499: "Mes quant li
Rois fet aucun establissement especi-
aument en son demaine, si baron ne
lessent pas pour ce a user en leur
terres, selonc les anciennes coustumes.
Mes quant li establissemens est gener-
aus, il doit courre par tout le roiaume,
et nous devons croire que tel estab-
lissement sont fet par tres grant conseil
et ppur le commun pourfit. "
Cf. also xi. 322: "Qar toute la laie
juridicion du roiaume est tenue du roi
en fief ou en arriere fief. Et pour ce
puet on venir en sa court, par voie de
defaute de droit ou de faus jugement
? ?
dence with the principles of other feudal jurists. The principle
which they represent is the principle of some of the most
important of these. The Assizes of Jerusalem set out very
clearly that the king is subject to the law, and that the court
is the tribunal to which any one who feels himself aggrieved
by the king or lord can appeal, that it is responsible for the
maintenance of the law, if necessary even against the king, and
they cite cases in which this principle had been carried out in
action. 6 The 'Sachsenspiegel' seems definitely to lay down the
doctrine that even the king is answerable to one who can judge
1 Cf. iii. 9, 3, pp. 70, 71.
2 Cf. p. 67.
s Cf. iv. 10, p. 71.
4 Id. , iii. 9. 3: "Tgitur dum facit
iustitiam, vicarius est regis seterni,
minister autem diaboli dum declinet ad
iniuriam. Dicitur enim rex a bene
regendo, et non a regnando, quia rex est
dum bene regit, tyrannus dum populum
sibi creditum violenta opprimit domi-
natione. " Cf. St Isidore of Seville,
Etym. , ix. 3.
6 Cf. Part II. of this volume, chap. v.
<< Cf. pp. 62-59.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 74
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part 1.
him. 1 The ' Etablissements of St Louis' are clear that even in
the case of the King of France the vassal can demand justice
of him in his Court, and that if the king refuses to give this he
can make war upon the king, and can require his sub-vassals to
follow him. 2 And though Beaumanoir does not commit himself
to any definite statement about the coercion of the king, he
does emphatically set out the general principle of the supremacy
of the court as determining the mutual obligation of lord and
vassal. 3
It is, we think, clear that the feudal system was in its essence
a system of contractual relations, and that the contract was
binding upon both parties, on the lord as much as on the
vassal. Whatever else may be said about it, one thing is clear,
and that is that feudalism represents the antithesis to the
conception of an autocratic or absolute government,
1 Cf. p. 61.
2 Cf. pp. 62, 63.
3 Cf. pp. 63-66.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 75
CHAPTER V.
FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
It may be urged that the tendency of feudalism was really
anarchical and disintegrating, that it tended to arrest or retard
the development of the conception of the national society or
state, that the principle of the loyalty which the vassal owed
to his immediate lord was really inconsistent with the concep-
tion of the authority of the whole community and its head.
There is a great amount of truth in such a contention, and we
must therefore consider the matter in some detail, but briefly.
In an earlier chapter attention has been drawn to the
contrast, which finds expression in some of the epic poetry,
between the personal loyalty and devotion which the vassal
owes to his immediate lord and the indifference and even con-
tempt for the overlord or king. 1 There is no doubt that we
have here a forcible expression of an anti-national and dis-
integrating character in feudalism. The truth is that the
feudal system, whatever may have been its remoter origins, took
shape during those years when the dissolution of the Carolingian
empire and the invasions of the Northmen and Magyars reduced
Europe to an extreme confusion, and that its characteristics are
related to the absence of such a well-organised government as
might give the private man adequate protection. In the
absence of strong central or national authorities, men had to
turn for protection to the nearest power which seemed to be
capable of rendering this. At the same time all those juris-
dictions, which had once represented the delegated authority of
the Carolingian emperors and kings, tended to become heredi-
1 Cf. pp. 28, 29.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? ? 76
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part I.
tary. When Europe began to recover from the anarchical con-
fusions of the late ninth century and the early tenth century,
the new conditions were firmly established, and the great
national organisations which gradually formed themselves out of
the ruins of the Carolingian empire were at first rather groups
of semi-independent territories or states than compacted ad-
ministrative unities. It would be outside of our province to
examine the varieties of these conditions as they present them-
selves to us in Germany or Italy, in France or England. We
must bear in mind that the conditions varied greatly in detail;
it is enough for our purpose to recognise that in spite of these
variations the conditions were substantially similar.
- It was the characteristic of feudal society that the local and
personal attachments were strong, while the relations to the
central authorities were comparatively weak and fluctuating.
This is the fact which lies behind the weakness of the overlord
^or king and the power of the immediate lord. The great
feudatories no doubt owed allegiance to the king or emperor,
but the vassals of the great feudatories had at first probably no
very clearly defined relations to the overlord. We have now to
recognise that while this was true, and while in Germany the
process of national consolidation was overpowered by the terri-
torial principle, in England and France, and ultimately in the
other European states, the national unity triumphed over these
disintegrating forces. The truth is that while feudalism was
based primarily upon the relations between a man and his
immediate lord, the principle of the national state was, though
undeveloped, older, and soon began to reassert itself, so that
at least as early as the eleventh and twelfth centuries the
principle of a direct relation between all free men and the
king began to be firmly established. Students of English
constitutional history will remember the significance of the
action of William the Conqueror in requiring all landowners
to take the oath of fidelity to himself, whosesoever men they
were. 1 We have now to observe that this principle is em-
1 The important passages are cited Florence of Worcester: "Nec multo
in Stubbs's ' Constitutional History of post mandavit ut archiepiscopi, epis-
England,' section 96. copi, abbates, comites, barones, et vice-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION. 77
bodied in the feudal law books of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries.
Jean d'Ibelin makes it clear that in the kingdom of Jerusa-
lem it was established as law after the war between Amauri I.
and Girard of Seeste (Sidon) that the sub-vassals as well as
the tenants-in-chief had to take the oath of allegiance (ligece)
to the chief lord, the king, and that he could require the in-
habitants of cities and castles held by his vassals to swear
fealty to himself. 1 In another passage he lays it down that
when any man does homage in the kingdom of Jerusalem to
any one else than the chief lord he must not do " ligece," for no
one can do " ligece" to more than one man, and all the vassals
of the vassals are bound to do " ligece " to the chief lord of the
kingdom. 2 In another place again he describes the mode in
which the sub-vassal makes allegiance to the chief lord of the
kingdom; he is to kneel and, placing his hands between those of
the chief lord, is to say, " Sire, I make you allegiance (ligece)
according to the Assize for such and such a fief, which I hold
of such and such a person, and promise to guard and protect
comites cum. suis militibus, die Kalen-
darum Augustarum sibi occurrerent
Saresberise; quo cum venissent, milites
eorum sibi fidelitatem contra omnes
homines iurare coegit. "
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: "Thser him
comon to his witan and ealle tha
landsittende men the ahtes wseron
ofer eall Engleland, wseron thaes
mannes men the hi wseron, and ealle
hi bugon to him and wseron his menu
and him hold athas sworon thset hi
wolden ongean ealle othre men him
holden beon. "
1 Jean d'Ibelin, 140: "Et fu celle
assise ensi faite et establie, que les
homes des homes dou chief seignor dou
reiaume feisent ligece au chief seignor
dou reiaume, par l'assise, des fie? s quils
tenoient de ces homes, et que toz
ciaus qui avoient fait homage au chief
seignor, fust par l'assise ou autrement,
fucent tenus les uns as autres, et
aussi les homes de ces homes de
chascune court par sei; et que si le
rei voleit aveir la feaute? des gens qui
estoient manant e`s cite? s, et e? s chas-
tiaux, et e? s bors, que ces homes
tenoient de lui, que il li juracent toz
feaute? , et que il li fucent tenus par
cette feaute? de ce que les homes de
ces homes li sont tenus par la ligece
faite par l'assise au chief seignor. "
Cf. id. , 199.
2 Id. , 195: "Et qui fait homage de
chose qui seit ou reiaume a` autre que au
chief seignor il le deit faire en la maniere
dessus devisiee? , mais que tant que il ne
li deit pas faire ligece; por ce que nul
home ne peut faire plus d'une ligece,
et que toz les homes des homes dou
chief seignor dou reiaume li deivent
faire ligece par l'assise; et puisque l'on
li deit la ligece, l'on ne la peut a` autre
faire sanz mesprendre vers lui. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 78
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part 1.
you against any who may live or die, as I am bound to do
by the allegiance (ligece) made according to the Assize. " The
chief lord kisses him and replies, "And I receive you in the
faith of God and in my own, as I ought to do in accordance
with the allegiance (ligece) made according to the Assize. "
When they have thus made allegiance the sub-vassals are
bound to defend and support the chief lord against every
one, and even against their immediate lord under certain
conditions. If the chief lord has a dispute or war with any
one of their lords, the sub-vassals are to remind their lord that
they are the liegemen of the chief lord, and to request him to
demand that the dispute should be submitted to the judgment
of the court. If the chief lord refuses to do justice in his
court, they will follow their lord, but if he refuses to take these
steps within forty days, or if within that time he takes action
against the chief lord, they will forsake him and support the
chief lord. 1 Again, Jean d'Ibelin says that if any lord is doing
wrong to the chief lord, without his knowledge, the sub-vassals
1 Jean d'Ibelin, 197: "Quant les
homes des homes dnu chief seignor dou
reiaume font au chief seignor la ligece
par l'assise, celui qui la fait deit estre a
genoills devant lui et metre ces mains
jointes entre les soes, et dire li: 'Sire,
je voz fais la ligece par l'assise de tel
fie? que je tiens de tel," et nomer celui
de qui il tient le fie? et dire quels est le
fie? ; "et voz promet a` garder et a`
sauver contre totes riens qui vivre et
morir puissent, si come je faire le dei
de ligece faite par l'assise. ' Et le
seignor li deit respondre: 'Et je ensi
voz receis en Dieu fei et en la meie
come je faire le dei de ligece faite par
l'assise. ' Et baisier le en la bouche
en foi. Et quant la ligece est ainsi
faite, les homes qui l'ont faite sont
tenus ou seignor de garder le et de
sauver contre totes riens qui vivre et
morir puissent, mais que encontre leur
seignor de cui il tienent le fie? , por
quei il ont faite la ligece par l'assise;
et en tele maniere que ce il avient que
le chief seignor ait contens ou guerre
a` aucun des seignors de ces homes qui
li ont fait la dite ligece, ciaus homes
deivent venir a` leur seignor et dire
li: 'Sire voz save? s que nous somes
homes liges dou chief seignor dou
reiaume devont voz; por quei noz ne
devonz estre contre lui, si en lui ne
remaint : si voz prions et requerons que
voz adressie? s vers lui, et que voz li
mande? s que il voz maint par l'esgart de
sa court. Et ce vos ce ne faites dedenz
quarante jors, nos vos guerpirons
et irons a` lui aidier et conseillers
contre voz, se en lui ne remaint. Et
se voz faites ce que noz voz requeronz,
et il voz faut de droit faire par sa
court, nos ne voz guerpirons pas. Mais
se voz dedenz ceaus quarante jors
feissie? es chose qui fust contre lui, noz
ne le soufririens pas se nos le poriens
amender ne destorber son mal; et se
noz ne le porieens destorber, nos voz
guerpirieens lors et iriemes a` lui et
? ? feriens vers lui ce que nos deverieens. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
79
must remonstrate with their lord, and if necessary must join
the chief lord against him. 1 Again, the close relation between
the chief lord and the sub-vassal is illustrated by the principle
that the chief lord is bound to protect him against his immedi-
ate lord, if he acts unjustly and without the authority of his
court, and to replace him in his fief if he has been unjustly de-
prived of it. 2 These principles are stated in much the same
terms also by Philip of Novara. 3
It is clear therefore that even in a typical feudal constitution
such as that of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the twelfth century,
the principle of the supremacy of the central or national organ-
isation over the relations between the vassal and his immediate
lord was already fully recognised. It is perhaps scarcely
necessary to point out that this principle is clearly set out in
Glanvill with regard to England in the twelfth century, but it
is worth while to notice that he makes a distinction between
the homage which a man may make to different lords for differ-
ent fiefs, and the liege obligation (ligancia) which he can only
make to that lord from whom he holds his "capitale tenemen-
tum. " The distinction is not the same as that in the Assizes of
Jerusalem, but it is parallel to it. Glanvill makes it clear that"^
in doing homage to any lord, there must always be reserved the \
faith which he owes to the king, and that the sub-vassal mustj^y
follow the king even against his lord. 4
If we turn to France we find the principle of the reservation
1 Id. , 199. servet, salva fide debita domino Regi
2 Id. , 200. et hseredibus suis. Ex hoc liquet
3 Philip of Novara, 51. quod vasallus non potest Dominum
4 Glanvill, ix. 1: "Potest autem sum infestare, salva fide homagii sui;
quis plura homagia diversis Dominis nisi forte se defeudendo, vel nisi ex
facere de Feodis diversis diversorum pracepto principis cum eo iverit contra
Dominorum: sed unum eorum opertet Dominum suum in exercitum. "
esse prsecipuum, et cum ligancia fac- Cf. 'Summa de legibus,' xiii. 1:
tum: illi scilicet Domino faciendum, "Fidelitatem autum tenentur omnes
a quo tenet suum capitale tenementum residentes in provincia duci facere et
is qui homagium facere debet. Fieri servare . . . Omnes enim in Normannia
autem debet homagium sub hac forma, tenentur fidelitatem principi obser-
scilicet ut is qui homagium facere vare. Unde homagium vel fidelitatem
debet ita fiat homo Domini sui, quod alicuius nullus debet recipere, nisi
fidem illi portet de illo tenemento unde salva principis fidelitate; quod eciam
homagium suum prsestat, et quod est in eorum receptione specialiter
eius in omnibus terrenum honorem exprimendum. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 80 THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [paet I.
of fidelity to the king is clearly stated in the thirteenth
century by the author of the 'Jostice et Plet. ' The king, he
says, must hold of no one: dukes, counts, &c, may hold of
each other, and become each other's men, but always, saving
the dignity of the king, against whom no homage is of any
authority.
"Chastelain," "vavasor," citizens and villains are
under others, but all are under the king. 1 Again, Beaumanoir
sets out very distinctly the principle that the obligation of the
vassal to follow his lord in battle does not extend to the case
when the vassal is called upon to follow against the overlord
or the king. 2
The only writer in whom we have found some suggestion of
ambiguity about the matter is one of the Lombard civilians of
the thirteenth century, who also wrote on feudal law, James of
Ardizoue. He seems indeed to agree himself with the jurists
already cited that the sub-vassal is not bound to follow his
feudal superior against the overlord, and that he is rather to be
rewarded if he refuses to follow his lord against the "prince"
and the "patria," for every man is bound to defend the
"patria," and the "prince" is to be preferred to every other
creature; but he mentions, apparently as a view which was
maintained by some, that a vassal is bound to help his lord
against another superior, and is not to be punished for this.
The phrase is indeed ambiguous, but it leaves upon one's mind
the impression that the "alter superior" is his lord's superior. 3
1 'Jostice et Plet,' i. 16. 1: "Li
rois ne doit tenir de nuiL Duc, conte,
visconte, baron puent tenir li un des
autres et devenir home, sauf la dignite?
le roi, contre qui homage ne vaut
riens. Chastelain, vavasor, citaen,
vilain, sont souzmis a` cels que nous
avons devant nomez. Et tuit sont
soz la main au roi. "
2 Beaumanoir, ii. 65: "Cil qui sont
semont pour aidier leur seigneurs
contre leur anemis ou por aidier leur
seigneurs a` leur mesons defendre, ne
doivent pas contremander ne querre
nul delai. Et s'il contremandent ne
ne quierent delai, il ne gardent pas
bien lor foi vers leur seigneurs. Et
quant il faillent a leur seigneur en tel
besoing, il deservent a` perdre leur fief;
ne il ne se pueent escuser par essoine,
puis qu'il soient ou pais et que la
guerre ne soit contre celi de qui leur
seigneur lienent leur hommage, ou
contre le conte qui est leur souverains,
ou contre le roi qui est par desseur
tous. "
8 Jacobus de Ardizone--'Summa
Feudorum,' 69: "Item excusatur si
dominus vult quod eum adjuvet contra
dominum ipsius domini: nam si eum
offenderet, nisi ei satisfaceret, feudo
privaretur, ut in tit. de feu. &
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
81
It is easy to recognise that the question here raised was a
difficult one, and that it would arise specially under Italian
conditions; but it is important to observe that even in Italy the
principle of the reservation of fidelity to the overlord, or to
the prince, was very definitely maintained. We must, however,
allow for the great influence which the Eoman jurisprudence
would exercise upon the judgment of James of Ardizone.
There is indeed no doubt that in the judgment of the feudal
jurists of the thirteenth century the king has a full jurisdiction
over all persons within his kingdom.
The author of the 'Sachsenspiegel' lays down this doctrine
with great clearness and emphasis. The king, he says, is the
common (ordinary) judge over all men. Every man has his
right (law) before the king, all authority is delegated by him.
Whenever and wherever the king is himself present all other
jurisdictions are superseded, and all prisoners must be brought
before him, any person refusing to do this will be put under
the ban, and any man who is aggrieved by a judgment can
appeal to the king. 1 These phrases are very comprehensive in
benefic ]. imperialem, ? illud, et in
alienando feudum consensus maioris
domini debet intervenire, ut in prse-
dicta consti. primo respon. & ? primo.
Vel dicatur quod bene tenetur vasallus
adiuvare dominum contra alteram
superiorem, et non puniatur, quia in
servitio domini sui facit, argumen. ff.
de iniur. 1. sed unius, ? si Justus--in
fi. de qua materia notavi supra eadem
summa, ? item si vasallus vasalli, et
? ubi vero plures. Item servus vasalli
excusatur, si dominus feudi petat ut
eum adiuvet contra dominum servi,
in cuius est potestate; cum servus
sequendo dominum non puniatur, cum
necessitate potestatis domini excusetur
servus parendo domino (ut ff. ad
legem Cornelian de fal. 1. divus, ?
item senatus) licet dominus debeat
damnari.
Excusandus est vasallus et potius
VOL. III.
prsemio afficiendus, si non servient
domino contra principem vel patriam
suam, ut in titulo de feudis et benefi.
1. imperialem ? ultimo, in titulo de
sacra, et forma fide. 1. illud. . . .
Quilibet enim debet patriam suam
defendere, (ut in Lombar. de his qui
patriam defen. 1. prima et ultima) et
non potest pater iure patrise potestatis
resistere, quominus patrise obsequatur,
(ut ff. de muneribus et honoribus, 1.
honor. ? plebei, in fine) et princeps
omni creaturse praferendus, ut in
titulo, de maioritate et obedient, c
solite. Magna enim servitia ab uni-
versis subditis debentur imperio, ut
C. de operibus publicis 1. quicumque
locus. "
1 'Sachsenspiegel,' iii. 26. 1: "Die
koning is gemene richtere over al. "
Id. , iii. 33. 1: "Iewelk man hevet
sin recht vor'me koninge. "
Id. , iii. 52. 2: "Den koning kiiset
? ? F
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 82
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part L
their nature, and, while this is not the place to discuss their
actual constitutional significance in the administration and
judicial organisation of the empire, they are yet of great
importance as indicating how far at least in theory the national
conception had imposed itself upon the feudal.
The same principle is set out in the ' Summa de legibus,' one
of the Norman law books of the thirteenth century. The prince
alone has "plena iurisdictio" over all disputes brought to him,1
and again in another place, the jurisdiction of the feudal lord is
severely limited to certain cases, for all "iusticiatio personarum"
belongs in Normandy to the Duke, in virtue of the fealty which
all men owe to him; and again, jurisdiction over the bodies of all
men, small or great, belongs in Normandy to the Duke, inasmuch
as they are bound by fidelity and allegiance to him alone. 2
man to richtere over egen unde len
unde over iewelkes mannes lif. Die
keiser ne mach aver in allen landen
nicht sin, unde al ungerichte nicht
richten to aller tiet, dar umme liet he
den vorsten grafscap, unde den greven
scultheitdum. "
Id. , iii. 60. 2: "In svelke stat des
rikes de koning kumt binnen deme
rike, dar is ime ledich monte unde
toln, unde in svelke lant he kumt, dar
is ime ledich dat gerichte, dat he wol
richten mut alle die klage, die vor
gerichte nicht begunt, noch nicht
gelent ne sin. 3. Svenne die koning oc
alrest in dat land kumt, so solen ime
ledich sin alle vangene uppe recht,
unde man sal sie vor ime bringen unde
mit rechte verwinnen oder mit rechte
la ten, so man sie erst besenden mach,
seder der tiet dat sie de koning eschet
to rechte oder sine boden, to dem manne
selven oder to 'me hove oder to 'me
huse, dar sie gevangen sin oder hebbet
gewesen. Weigeret man sie vore to
bringene, sint man sie to rechte geeschet
hevet, unde man des getiich an des
koninges boden hevet, man dut to hant
in de achte alle die sie vengen, unde
hus unde liide, die sie weder recht
halden. "
Id. , ii. 12. 4: "Schilt man en ordel,
des sal man tien an den hogesten
richtere, unde to lest vor den koning;
dar sal die richtere sine boden to geven,
die_ dar horen welk ire vulkome vor
deme koninge. "
Id. , i. 58. 1: " Svenne die greve kumt
to des gogrefen dinge, so sal des
gogreven gerichte neder sin geleget.
Also is des greven, svenne die koning
in sime grafscap kumt, dar se beide
to antwerde sin. Also is jewelkes
richteres, dar die koning to antwerde
is, die klage ne ga denne uppe den
koning. "
1 'Summa de legibus,' ii. 4: "Solus
autem princeps plenam habet iuris-
dictionem de querelis ad ipsum delatis
omnibus laicalem. "
2 Id. , vi. 8: "Preter hoc tamen
sciendum est quod pro debito prin-
cipis, elapso termino solutioni deputato,
? ? solet in debitores iusticiatio fieri cor-
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, v. ] FEUDALISM AND THE NATION.
83
The author of the 'Jostice et Plet,' and Beaumanoir, main-
tain the same doctrine in France. The author of 'Jostice et
Plet' is indeed so much influenced by the Eoman law that it
may be held that he is to be considered rather as a civilian than
a feudalist, but his treatment of the subject corresponds in
principle with that of the feudal jurists. His phrases are note-
worthy. The king has jurisdiction everywhere and always, he
has plenary authority in everything, while others have it only
in part. 1 Again, the count or duke has "jostice" in his
lands, but under the king who is over him, the king must not
indeed deprive ? him of this, so long as he does right, but the
king can interfere to secure justice. The king holds of no one;
dukes, counts, viscounts, and barons can hold of each other,
and become each other's men, but always, saving the dignity of
the king, against whom homage is of no avail, for all are under
the hand of the king. 2
mannie, quod eciam est in receptione
homagii exprimendum.
Uncle nec aliquis in Normannia
hominis sui corpus potest vel debet
prisonie mancipare, nisi coram eo de
latrociuio fuerit insecutus vel in pre-
senti deprehensus, vel eius serviens
fuerit, ut propositus, molendinarius vel
quoquo modo rerum suarum receptor,
quos arrestare potest quousque compo-
tum debitum et plegios sufficientes
habuerit de eisdem.
9. Ad bosci forisfactum garanne vel
aquarum defensarum, vel costume de-
tente, vel bladorum, seu pratorum vel
aliorum huiusmodi, possunt homines a
dominis feodorum arrestari . . . dum
tamen ad presens forisfactum fuerint
deprehensi, et tan tum detineri quousque
namna, vel vadia, vel plegios habuerint
de damno illato restaurando et emenda,
ubi debeat extorqueri. Si autem aliquo
casu alio pro facto criminoso aliquis
capiatur, justiciario debet reddi indi-
late.
10. Si autem dominus homini suo
feeerit iniuriam feodi ratione, ad ducem
pertinet curia de eodem, nisi dominus,
si quis fuerit interpositus, eam re-
quisierit, qui iurisdictionem habeat
feodalem. "
Id. , cxiii. 1: "Cum in Normannia
omnium iurisdictio corporum ad ducem
tam plebis pertineat quam magnatum,
eo quod fidelitate et ligancia soli
principi teneantur. "
1'Jostice et Plet,' i. 7. 6: "L'en
demande porquoi li rois use par tot et en
toz tens de juridiction, cum aucun soit
en son regne juridiction qui soie est?
et l'en respont que en roi confermee est
le poir de tote la region, s'il ne le done;
et il a plenier poer en tot, c'est a en-
tendre poer de prodome; et li autre si
n'ont que partie de poer, quar il ne
sont apele1 qu'en partie de la cure, non
pas en plenier poer.
Enten que rois conferme? est aussi
comme se chascuns metoit sa bone
volenti en la soie. Enten ci reison,
par que rois use en chascuns leu de
? ? juridicion. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 84
THE INFLUENCE OF FEUDALISM. [part I.
Beaumanoir asserts very emphatically that the king is
supreme over all jurisdictions and over all persons. In one
passage of great importance which we have already discussed
he explains the sense in which he uses the word "souverain,"
and says that while every baron is "souverain" in his own
barony, the king is "souverain" over all, and has the charge
of the whole kingdom, and therefore can make "establisse-
ments" which are binding everywhere. No one is so great
that he cannot be called before the king's court, "pour defaute
de droit ou pour faus jugement. " 1
The whole conception is summed up by Bracton in an
emphatic passage in which he lays down the principle that the
king has the "ordinary" jurisdiction and authority over all men
who are in the kingdom, for all laws which belong to the crown
and the lay authority and the temporal sword are in his hand;
it is he who holds justice and judgment, that is jurisdiction,
so that it is by his jurisdiction, as being the minister and
seignories et totes joutices, sauf le roi,
qui est li par desus, a` amender le torfet
qu'il a fet, et sauf ce que li rois a en la
duche? e, et autres par jutes causes. "
Id. , i. 16. 1: "Li rois ne doit tenir
de nuil. Duc, conte, vicomte, baron,
puent tenir li un des autres et devenir
home, sauf la dignite? le roi, contre qui
homage ne vaut riens. . . . Et tuit
sont soz la main au roi. "
1Beaumanoir, xxxiv. 1013: "Pour
ce que nous parlons eu cest livre, en
pluseurs lieus, du souverain, et de ce
qu'il puet et doit fere, li aucun pour-
raient entendre, pour ce que nous ne
nommons conte ne duc, que ce fust
du roi; mais en tous les lieus la ou li
rois n'est pas nomme? s, nous entendons
de ceus qui tienent en baronnie, car
c? hascuns barons est souverain en sa
baronie. Voirs est que le rois est
souverains par dessus tous, et a, de
son droit la general garde de tout son
roiaume, par quoi il puet fere teus
etablissemens comme il li plest pour le
commun pourflt, et ce qu'il establist
doit estre tenu. Et se n'i a nul si
grant dessous li qui ne puist estre tres
en sa court pour defaute de droit ou
pour faus jugement et pour tous les
cas qui touchuent le roi. Et pour ce
qu'il est souverain par desseus tous,
nous le nommons, quant nous parlons
d'aucune souverainete? qui a li apar-
tient. "
Cf. xlviii. 1499: "Mes quant li
Rois fet aucun establissement especi-
aument en son demaine, si baron ne
lessent pas pour ce a user en leur
terres, selonc les anciennes coustumes.
Mes quant li establissemens est gener-
aus, il doit courre par tout le roiaume,
et nous devons croire que tel estab-
lissement sont fet par tres grant conseil
et ppur le commun pourfit. "
Cf. also xi. 322: "Qar toute la laie
juridicion du roiaume est tenue du roi
en fief ou en arriere fief. Et pour ce
puet on venir en sa court, par voie de
defaute de droit ou de faus jugement
? ?
