The Normans; told chiefly in relation to their conquest of EnglandJewett, Sarah Orne
History
The Normans; told chiefly in relation to their conquest of England
Jewett, Sarah Orne
Great Britain -- History -- Norman period, 1066-1154; Normans
There were causes enough for trouble in the state of feudalism itself
to account for most of the uproar and disorder, let alone the claim
of the unwelcome young heir to the dukedom. It is very interesting
to see how, in public sentiment, there was always an undertone of
resentment to the feudal system, and of loyalty to the idea, at least,
of hereditary monarchy. Even Hugh the Great, of France, was governed
by it in his indifference to his good chances for seizing the crown
years before this time; and though the great empire of Charlemagne had
long since tottered to its fall and dismemberment, there [Pg154] was
still much respect for the stability and order of an ideal monarchical
government.
The French people had already endured some terrible trials, but it was
not because of war and trouble alone that they hated their rulers,
for these sometimes leave better things behind them; war and trouble
are often the only way to peace and quietness. They feared the very
nature of feudalism and its political power. It seemed to hold them
fast, and make them slaves and prisoners with its tangled network and
clogging weights. The feudal lords were petty sovereigns and minor
despots, who had certain bonds and allegiances among themselves and
with each other, but they were, at the same time, absolute masters of
their own domain, and their subjects, whether few or many, were under
direct control and surveillance. Under the great absolute monarchies,
the very extent of the population and of the country would give a
greater security and less disturbance of the middle and lower classes,
for a large army could be drafted, and still there would be a certain
lack of responsibility for a large percentage of the subjects. Under
the feudal system there were no such chances; the lords were always
at war, and kept a painfully strict account of their resources. Every
field and every family must play a part in the enterprises of their
master, and a continual racking and robbing went on. Even if the lord
of a domain had no personal quarrel to settle, he was likely to be
called upon by his upholder and ally to take part with him against
another. In the government of a senate or an ecclesiastical council,
the common people [Pg155] were governed less capriciously; their
favor was often sought, even in those days, by the different factions
who had ends to gain, and were willing to grant favors in return; but
the feudal lords were quite independent, and could do as they pleased
without asking anybody's advice or consent.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account