Glimpses of the dark ages : $b or, Sketches of the social condition of Europe, from the fifth to the twelfth centuryAnonymous
History
Glimpses of the dark ages : $b or, Sketches of the social condition of Europe, from the fifth to the twelfth century
Anonymous
Civilization, Medieval
benefices by the crown, alone remained.
The noble, or aristocratic class, was not limited by the rank of
secondary barons, who had the privilege of establishing themselves in
their own castles. There were other persons deemed to be possessors
of noble or gentle blood. Every knightly dependent belonged to the
privileged order. "The distinct class of nobility became coextensive
with the feudal tenures. For the military tenant, however poor, was
subject to no tribute, no prestation, but service in the field;--he
was the companion of his lord in the sports and feasting of his
castle--the peer of his court: he fought on horseback--he was clad in
a coat of mail--while the commonalty, if summoned at all to war, came
on foot, and with no armour of defence. Every possessor of a fief
was a gentleman, though he owned but a few acres of land, and
furnished his slender contribution towards the equipment of a
knight."[1] Members of all these noble classes were eligible to hold
offices of state; but none beside them had this privilege, except the
clergy. These advantages being hereditary, all marriages between the
noble and the plebeian class were forbidden. Thus an immense
aristocracy was formed, having no sympathies with the lower classes.
Such of the latter who retained the name of freemen were chiefly the
inhabitants of towns; beside these, were a few scattered allodialists
and rural tenants, subject to certain pecuniary payments. The
inhabitants of towns, were least dependent, and suffered least from
feudal oppression; freemen in the country were quite at the mercy of
their powerful military neighbours. Next to these were the villeins,
or cultivators of the land, who were attached to the soil, but yet
were permitted to hold property of their own; and below them came the
serfs, who were in a state of abject slavery. The power of the lord
over them was so absolute, that, in the language of a feudal
law-book,[2] "he might take all they had, alive or dead, and imprison
them when he pleased, being accountable to none but God." In this
degraded class, slavery existed, in a form quite as revolting as we
ever find it in the worst days of the Roman republic; though,
perhaps, the power of the master was less severely exercised by the
feudal lord than by the ancient patrician.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account