The State: Its History and Development Viewed SociologicallyOppenheimer, Franz
History
The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically
Oppenheimer, Franz
State, The
Among the Fulbe “society is divided into princes, chieftains, commons
and slaves. The slaves of the king play a great rôle as soldiers and
officials, and may hope for the highest offices in the state.”[129]
This nobility of the court’s creation may, in certain cases, be
admitted to the great imperial offices, so that according to the method
stated above, it may achieve the sovereignty over a territory. In the
developed feudal state, it represents the high nobility; and usually
manages to preserve its rank, even when some more powerful neighbor
has mediatized it by incorporating the state. The Frankish higher
nobility certainly contains such elements from the original lower
group;[130] and since from its blood the entire upper nobility of the
European civilized states has been descended at least in direct line by
marriage, we find an ethnic amalgamation, both in the present day group
of subjects and in the highest order of the ruling class. And the same
applies to Egypt: “With the sinking of the royal authority in the time
of the decay, the higher officials abuse their power for personal ends,
to make their offices hereditary in their families, and thereby to call
into existence an official nobility not differentiated from the rest
of the population.”[131]
And finally, the same process, from the same causes, takes hold of
the present middle class, the lower stratum of the master class,
the officials and officers of the great feudatories. At first there
still exists a social difference between, on the one hand, the free
vassals, the subfeudatories of the great landlord, kinsmen, younger
sons of other noble families, impoverished associates from the same
district, in isolated cases freeborn sons of peasants, free refugees
and professional ruffians of free descent; and on the other, if the
term may be allowed, the subalterns of the guards of plebeian descent.
But lack of freedom advances, while freedom sinks in social value; and
here too the ruler places more reliance on his creatures than on his
peers. Here also, sooner or later, the process of amalgamation becomes
complete. In Germany, as late as 1085, the non-free nobility of the
court ranks between “_servi et litones_” while a century afterward
it is placed with the “_liberi et nobiles_.” In the course of the
thirteenth century, it has been completely absorbed, along with the
free vassals, into the nobility by chivalry. The two orders in the
meantime tend to become equal economically; both have subinfeudations,
fiefs on the obligation of service in warfare, and the service feuds of
the bondsmen; while all the fiefs of the “ministerials” or sergeants
have in the meantime become as heritable as are those of the free
vassals, as much so as are the patrimonies of the few surviving smaller
territorial lords belonging to the original nobility, who may still
have escaped the grasp of the great territorial principalities.
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