Page:Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3.pdf/503

460 allodial rights are often recorded. But the tendency of the inquest is to impose the burden of services as widely as possible. The circumstances in which the process of feudalisation was going on may be illustrated by the following tale of a Flemish chronicle (Lambert d'Ardre, quoted by Luchaire, Manuel, 151). In the beginning of the eleventh century two brothers, Herred and Hacket, possessed considerable allodial estates in Poperinghe, but were persecuted by the Count of Guines and the Count of Boulogne, powerful neighbours, each of whom wanted to obtain feudal suzerainty over these lands. The elder Herred, in order to put an end to these vexations, surrendered his estates to the Bishop of Terouanne and received them back as a hereditary fief (perpetuum et hereditarium recepit in feodum), while the junior brother effected a similar release of his part of the estates to the Count of Boulogne.

The dangers of keeping outside the feudal nexus were self-evident: in a time of fierce struggles for bare existence it was necessary for everyone to look about for support, and the protection of the central authority in the State was, even at its best, not sufficient to provide for the needs of individuals. Even in England, where the Conquest had given rise to a royal power possessed of very real authority, and the "king's peace" was by no means a mere word, the maintenance afforded by powerful lords was an important factor in obtaining security.

In any case the feudal nexus originated by such conditions involved reciprocity. The vassal expected gifts and at least efficient protection and sometimes the duty of the suzerain in this respect is insisted on in as many words; as the French jurist Beaumanoir has it, "the lord is quite as much bound to be faithful to his man as the latter is bound in regard to the lord" (Coutumes de Beauvaisis, §58). If the tenant thought that he was not treated properly, feudal theory allowed him to sever the connexion. He might leave the estate (déguerpissement) without any further claim on the part of the lord, but according to French notions he might even do more, namely disavow the subjection to the lord while retaining the estate (désaveu). The Assizes of Jerusalem are careful to state the cases of denial of right, in which a vassal may rightfully renounce his obligations in regard to his immediate lord with the natural consequence that henceforth such duties are transferred to the overlord of the one at fault (Assises de Jérusalem, "gager le fief"). This implied a proof on his part that the lord had not fulfilled his part of the agreement. Though as a matter of fact such a désaveu led more often to war than to a judicial process, it was derived from a juridical conception, and expressed the view that the man, vassal or tenant, had definite rights as against his lord. Some of the famous assertions of feudal independence on the part of barons opposed to royal lords are based on this very doctrine of désaveu for breach of agreement. Thus the barons of Aragon swore to their king that they would obey and serve him if he maintained the rights, customs