Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/91

 FEUDALISM

63

FEUDALISM

brought evils in its train. The result was disputed elections; younger sons of nobles were intruded into bishoprics, at times even into the papacy. Secular princes claimed lay investiture of spiritual offices. The cause of this was feudalism, for a system that had its basis on land-tenure was bound at last to enslave a Church that possessed great landed possessions. In Germany, for example, three out of the mystically numbered seven electors of the empire were church- men. There were, besides, several prince-bishops within the empire, and mitred abbots, whose rule was more extended and more powerful than that of many a secular baron. As it was in Germany, so it was in France, England, Scotland, Spain, etc. Naturally there was a growing desire on the part of the king and the princes to force the Church to take her share in the national burdens and duties. Moreover, since by cus- tom the secular rulers had obtained the right of pre- sentation to various benefices or the right of veto, with the title on the Continent of advocates or i^ogl, the numerous claimants for the livings were only too ready to admit every possible demand of their lord, if only he would permit them to possess the bishopric, abbacy, or whatever else it might be. In short, the Church w-as in danger of becoming the annex of the State; the pope, of becoming the chaplain of the emperor. Simony and concul>inage were rife. Then came the Reforms of Cluny and the remedy of the separation of Church and State, in this sense, that the Church would confer the dignity or office, and the State the barony. But even when this concordat had been arranged (in England between Henry I and St. Anselm in 1107; the European settlement did not take place till 1122 at Worms), the Church still lay entangled with feudal- ism. It had to perform its feudal duties. It might owe suit and service to a lord. Certainly, lesser vas- sals owed suit and service to it. So it was brought into the secular fabric of society. A new tenure was in- vented for it, tenure by frankalmoyn. But it had more often than not to provide its knights and war- men, and to do justice to its tenants. The old ideal of a world-monarchy and a world-religion, the pope as spiritual emperor, the emperor as temporal pope, as set out with matchless skill in the fresco of the Domini- can Church in Florence, S. Maria Novella, had ceased to influence public opinion long before Dante penned his "De Monarchia". Feudalism had shattered that ideal (Barry, in Dublin Review, Oct., 1907, 221-243). There was to be not so much a universal Church, as a numljer of national Churches under their territorial princes, so that feudalism in the ecclesiastical sphere prepared the way for the Renaissance principle, Cujus regio ejus religio. For while at the beginning the Church sanctified the State and anointed with sacred chrism the king vested in priestly apparel, in the end the State secularized the Church amid the gilded cap- tivity of Avignon. Royal despotism followed the indignities of Anagni; the Church sank under the weight of her feudal duties.

Rksults. — (1) Enl Results. — (a) The State instead of entering into direct relations with individuals, entered into relation with heads of groups, losing con- tact with the members of those groups. With a weak king or disputed succession, these group-heads made themselves into sovereigns. First of all viewing them- selves as sovereigns they fought with one another as sovereigns, instead of coming to the State as to the true sovereign to have their respective claims adjudi- cated. The result was what the chroniclers call guerra or private war (Coxe, House of Austria, I, London, 1807, 30G-7). This was forbidden in England even under its mock form the tournament. Still it was too much tangled with feudalism to be fully suppressed, breaking out as fiercely here from time to time as it did elsewhere, (b) The group-heads tempted their vassals tn follow them as against their overlords. So Robert of Bellesme obtained the help of his feudatories

against Henry I. So Albert of Austria headed the electors against the Emperor Adolf of Nassau. So Charles of Navarre led his vassals against King John of France. So James of Urgel formed the Privileged Union at Saragossa. (c) These group-heads claimed the rights of private coinage, private castles, full judi- cial authority, full powers of taxation. There was always a struggle between them antl their .so\-ereigns, and between them and their lesser vassals as to the degree of their independence. Each manorial group or honour or fief endeavoured to be self-sufficient and to hold itself apart from its next overlord. Each overlord endeavoured more and more to consolidate his do- mains and force his vassals to appeal to him rather than to their direct superior. This continual struggle, the success and failure of which dependetl on the per- sonal characters of lord and overlord, was the chief cause of the instability of life in medieval times, (d) A last evil may perhaps be added in the power given to the Church. In times of disputed succession the Church claimed the right to defend her.self, then to keep order, and eventually to nominate the ruler. This, however justifiable in itself and however at times beneficial, often drove the ecclesiastical order into the arms of one or other political party; and the cause of the Church often became identified with a particular claimant for other than Church reasons; and the pen- alties of the Church, even excommunication, were at times imposed to defend worldly interests. As a rule, however, the influence of the Church was directed to control antl soften the unjust and cruel elements of the system.

(2) Good Results. — (a) Feudalism supplied a new cohesive force to the nations. At the break-up alike of the Roman Empire and of the Germanic tribal loy- alty to the tribal chief, a distinct need was felt for some territorial organization. As yet the idea of nationality was non-existent, having indeed little op- portunity of expression. How then were the peoples to be made to feel their distinct individuality? I'eu- dalism came with its ready answer, linked Germanic with Roman political systems, built up an inter-con- nected pyramid that rested on the broad basis of popular possession and culminated in the apex of the king, (b) It introduced moreover into social and political life the bond of legalitas. Every war of medieval, or rather feudal, times was based on some legal claim, since other casus belli there was none. Political expediency or national expansion were un- known doctrines. No doubt this legalitas, as ui the English claim to the French throne, often became sheer hypocrisy. Yet on the whole it gave a moral restraint to public opinion in the midst of a passionate age; and the inscription on the simple tomb of Ed- ward I : P.^CTDM Serva, however at times disregarded by the king himself, still sums up the great bulwark raised in medieval days against violence and oppres- sion. To break the feudal bond was felony; and more, it was dishonour. On the side of the king or lord, there was the investiture by banner, lance, or other symbol; on the side of the man or tenant, homage for the land, sworn on bended knees with hands placed between the hands of the lord, the tenant standing upright while taking the fealty, as the sign of a personal obligation, (c) Feudalism gave an armed force to Europe when she lay defenceless at the feet of the old mountains over which so many peoples had wandered to conquer the Western world. The onrush of Turk. Saracen, and Moor was checked by the feudal levj' which substituted a disciplined professional force for the national fyrd or militia (Oman, Art of War, IV, ii. 357-377, London. 1898). (d) From a modern point of view its most interesting advantage was the fact of its being a real, if only temporary, solution of the land- question. It enforced a just distribution of the terri- torial domains included within the geographical limits of the nation, by allowing individuals to carve out