Advertisement

Abstract

IN one sense feudalism can be described as being a system in which, for the class of men to whom it applied, government, the possession of property and social status were based on personal ties. The king’s relations with the more important of his subjects were circumscribed by the terms of private contracts made with each of them individually; and a landowner’s relations with many of his own tenants were governed by similar compacts. The parties to a feudal contract, like those entering on any formal agreement, were bound by rights and duties and a feudal king or lord claimed certain services from his vassal, who enjoyed in return his protection and a grant of maintenance which, taking the form of land, rents or property, enabled him to live and fulfil his obligations. Since in all feudal societies the rights of both parties were widely interpreted, misdemeanours that in another kind of state might have been seen as offences against public order were regarded as breaches of the contract and as acts of personal disloyalty. And so jurisdiction came to mean for the most powerful section of the community decisions on alleged violations of contracts.

Keywords

Military Service Thirteenth Century Twelfth Century Community Decision Private Contract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    J. S. C. Riley-Snut ‘Some lesser officials in Latin Syria’, English Historical Review, lxxxvii (1972) pp. 18, 24.Google Scholar
  2. 15.
    J. Prawer, ‘Etude de quelques problèmes agraires et sociaux d’une seigneurie croisée au XTIIe siècle’, Byzantion, xxii (1952) pp. 21–4.Google Scholar
  3. 70.
    Phihp of Novara, ‘Livre’, pp. 538–9; ‘Livre au roi,’ p. 633; John of Jaffa, pp. 223–4. See E. Meynial, ‘De quelques particularités des successions féodales dans les Assises de Jérusalem’, RHDFE, xvi (1892), pp. 408–19. As late as the 1180s Humphrey, the heir to the fiefs of Toron and Oultrejourdain, was made to renounce Toron on his marriage to the king’s sister. See below, p. 105.Google Scholar
  4. 87.
    R. R. Reid, ‘Barony and Thanage’, English Historical Review, xxxv (1920) pp. 161–8; R. Boutruche, Seigneurie et Féodalité, ii, pp. 264–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 91.
    Richard, ‘Pairie’, pp. 72–80. See also J. Richard, ‘Les listes des seigneuries clans “Le Livre de Jean d’Ibelin”. Recherches sur l’Assebebe et Mimars’, RHDFE, sér. 4, xxxii (1954) pp. 571–2. Perhaps Philip of Montfort played some part in this: he was believed to have been one of the twelve peers of France. See below, p. 19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jonathan Riley-Smith 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Riley-Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations