Historical sources on the medieval European feudal system

Extract A

"In the kingdoms which sprang from the ruins of the Roman empire, every king, baron, and person of estate was a knight; and therefore the whole face of Europe was overspread with cavalry. Considered in this aspect, the knighthood and the feudalism of Europe were synonymous [closely connected] and coexistent [existed at the same time]. But there was a chivalry [a code of knightly behaviour] within this chivalry; a moral and personal knighthood; not the well-ordered assemblage of the instruments of ambition, but a military barrier against oppression and tyranny [cruel and unjust rule], a corrective of feudal despotism [the harsh rule of lords over their people] and injustice." 

Extract B

"A general qualification for knighthood was noble or gentle birth, which, in its widest signification [meaning], expressed a state of independence. Noblemen and gentlemen were words originally synonymous, describing the owners of fiefs [pieces of land granted by a lord]. In countries where there were other forms of tenure [land-holding arrangements], some military merit in the occupiers of land seems to have been necessary for elevation [promotion] to the class of gentlemen." 

Extract C

"Though a man, says Froissart, be never so rich, men of arms and war waste all; for he that will have service of men of war, they must be paid truly their wages, or else they will do nothing available [useful]." 

Contextual information:

Charles Mills was a British historian and legal writer who published The History of Chivalry in 1825. He drew on chronicles and legal records to reconstruct how the feudal order actually operated. These extracts come from his opening chapter, in which he describes how land-holding and military obligation were built into the same system. 

Bibliographical reference:

Mills, C. (1825). The history of chivalry; or, knighthood and its times (Vol. I, pp. 3, 19, 22). Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green. 

Copyright: Public domain. 

Extract A

"A great proof that in the tenth century the feudal system was necessary, and the only social system practicable, is the universality of its adoption. Wherever barbarism [the state of disorder and violence that followed the fall of Rome] ceased, feudalism became general. This at first struck men as the triumph of chaos. All unity, all general civilization seemed gone; society on all sides seemed dismembered [broken apart]; a multitude of petty [small], obscure, isolated, incoherent [disorganised] societies arose. This appeared, to those who lived and saw it, universal anarchy—the dissolution of all things." 

Extract B

"Having fixed upon an elevated solitary spot, strong by nature, and which he takes care to render secure, the lordly proprietor [owner] of the domain builds his castle. Here he settles himself, with his wife and children, and perhaps some few freemen, who, not having obtained fiefs [pieces of land granted by a lord], not having themselves become proprietors, have attached themselves to his fortunes, and continued to live with him and form a part of his household. These are the inhabitants of the interior of the castle. At the foot of the hill on which this castle stands we find huddled together a little population of peasants, of serfs, who cultivate the lands of the possessor of the fief. In the midst of this group of cottages religion soon planted a church and a priest." 

Extract C

"Quitting the baronial dwelling, let us now descend to the little population that surrounds it. Everything here wears a different aspect. The disposition of man is so kindly and good, that it is almost impossible for a number of individuals to be placed for any length of time in a social situation without giving birth to a certain moral tie between them: sentiments of protection, of benevolence [goodwill], of affection, spring up naturally. Thus it happened in the feudal system. There can be no doubt, but that after a certain time, kind and friendly feelings would grow up between the feudal lord and his serfs. This, however, took place in spite of their relative situation, and by no means through its influence. Considered in itself, this situation was radically vicious [fundamentally wrong]. There was nothing morally common between the holder of the fief and his serfs. They formed part of his estate; they were his property; and under this word property are comprised, not only all the rights which we delegate to the public magistrate [government official] to exercise in the name of the state, but likewise all those which we possess over private property: the right of making laws, of levying [collecting] taxes, of inflicting punishment, as well as that of disposing of them—or selling them. There existed not, in fact, between the lord of the domain and its cultivators [farmers], so far as we consider the latter as men, either rights, guarantee, or society." 

Extract D

"Without doubt the possessors of fiefs were not all equal among themselves. There were some much more powerful than others; and very many sufficiently powerful to oppress the weaker. But there was none, from the king, the first of the proprietors, downward, who was in a condition to impose law upon all the others; in a condition to make himself obeyed. Call to mind that none of the permanent means of power and influence at this time existed—no standing army—no regular taxes—no fixed tribunals [courts]." 

Contextual information: 

François Guizot was a French historian who delivered this work as a series of public lectures at the University of Paris in 1828. He was Professor of Modern History at the Sorbonne and later became Prime Minister of France under King Louis-Philippe. These extracts come from his fourth lecture, in which he analyses the structure of feudal society and describes what it was like to live within it. 

Bibliographical reference: 

Guizot, F. (1896). General history of civilisation in Europe (G. W. Knight, Ed.; W. Hazlitt, Trans.; Lecture IV, "The Feudal System"). D. Appleton and Co. 

Copyright: Public domain.

Extract A

"We habitually classify the agricultural population into the landlord who owns the land and buildings and receives rent, the farmer who supplies the capital and superintends and looks for profit, and the labourer who does the work and is paid a weekly wage. In all probability the landlord has very little, if any, land in his own hands, and though he may sink capital in permanent improvements, he does not feel called upon to provide the stock on the farms. In the thirteenth century, however, there were only two economic classes, not three, and the lord had a large home farm or domain land which was his chief source of income." 

Extract B

"The bailiff was appointed by the lord to look after the whole estate in detail; his duties closely resembled the occupations of a modern farmer, as he was responsible for all the stock on the home farm, as well as for seeing that the labourers paid their proper services; he was directly responsible to the lord for everything connected with the prosperity of the estate, and had to account in great detail for everything under his charge. The two minor but very important officials were the prepositus [reeve or provost] and the hayward (messor) [an official who supervised the harvest and fieldwork], who were somewhat like foremen labourers; the former seems to have been the official representative of the villans [serfs], who was responsible for them; the latter had to supply their contributions of seed, and to be present to superintend their work." 

Extract C

"This, then, was a fundamental principle which underlay the whole scheme of rural management, that the persons of the labourers should be retained on the estate, and that their progeny [children and descendants] should not be permitted to avoid becoming liable to the same obligations in turn. The whole of the social restrictions on villans [serfs] putting their children to school, or allowing them to be ordained [to become a priest], or to be apprenticed [trained to work] in a town, had this as their economic justification—that there must be available labour for the home farm." 

Contextual information:

William Cunningham was a British economic historian who wrote this Introduction for the 1890 publication of a collection of medieval estate management treatises. The translation was prepared by Elizabeth Lamond for the Royal Historical Society. These extracts come from Cunningham's analysis of how lords managed their estates through officials and kept their serfs bound to the land. 

Bibliographical reference:

Cunningham, W. (1890). Introduction. In E. Lamond (Trans.), Walter of Henley's husbandry, together with an anonymous husbandry, Seneschaucie, and Robert Grosseteste's rules (pp. x, xii). Longmans, Green, and Co. 

Copyright: Public domain.