attributes of the system that no better terminology could be desired? With the Middle Ages, then, we return to the fundamental division between heroes and slaves, between _"viri"_ or "barons" ("_varones_" is the word still used for men, _"viri"_ in Spanish) and mere "_homines_" as the vassals were called: between _"patres"_ or "patrons" and serfs. The learned students of feudalism who translate _"feudum"_ by _"clientela"_ are really giving something, much more than a good linguistical equivalent; they are unawares giving a historical definition of the feoff. The first feoffs of the Middle Ages were necessarily personal, like the first _clientelae_ of Romulus: a form of vassalage still extant in Vico's time in the north, especially in Poland, where the _"kmet"_ were a kind of slaves who were often used as stakes in their lord's games, and passed with their families into the hands of the winner. Then came rustic feoffs, real in character and consisting in uncultivated land assigned by the victors to the conquered for their sustenance, while they themselves kept the cultivated land: these feoffs were called by the feudalists, with a new elegance of Latinity and an equally sound historical truth, _"beneficia."_ The ancient "_next_" were the new "liege" or bound men, who were compelled to join in all the friendships and quarrels of their lord, and supplied what in Rome was called _"opera militaris,"_ and in the Middle Ages _"militare servitium."_ The feudal bond extended itself to larger political relations, and just as conquered kings became allies or _socii_ of Rome and "upheld the majesty of the Roman people," so there were sovereign feoffs subordinated to higher sovereignties whose representatives, the great kings and lords of large kingdoms and numerous provinces, took the title of "majesty."