The F-Word, continued

(Continued from Page 5)

The uncomfortable limbo persisted for about 20 years, with few historians of the Middle Ages addressing the feudalism problem indirectly and even fewer doing so directly. Then, in 1994, another medievalist dared to step forward and present evidence -- heaps and heaps of evidence -- against the feudalism construct.

In her colossal work Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted, Susan Reynolds took on the very core of the premise of feudalism: the vassalage that supposedly held medieval society together, and the fiefs that were supposedly given to vassals as part of that social glue.

Both the terms "fiefs" and "vassals" were just as much constructs as feudalism itself; neither of them, Reynolds maintained, was used in the way those 16th-century French lawyers thought they were.

In fact, just about everything that historians thought they knew about the origins of both the feudalism construct and all feudal terms related to it was subject to reinterpretation. The assumptions the legal scholars made in the 16th century concerning the Libri Feudorum were completely wrong:

The fiefs under discussion in the texts were not necessarily lands belonging to nobles;
The Libri Feudorum was not addressing actual legal practices of the 11th century, but was simply expounding on an academic concept; and
The explanation of the origins of fiefs contained in the Libri Feudorum (concerning an initially limited use of lands that was later extended) was not a reliable history, but was little more than conjecture.

The conclusions that Cujas and Hotman had drawn from the Libri Feudorum were therefore inaccurate.

Actual "feudal" relationships were few and far between, because most grants of land were not based on an agreement of military service. Some were bestowed as rewards for past service, or as payment for continued or future service without the specific oaths of fidelity or any understanding that the land was held on condition of service to the lord. The land didn't necessarily belong to nobles to begin with; the authority of a nobleman might have come into play in confirming that the free man had the right to occupy the land, but that didn't mean the nobleman or the king owned it. It wasn't at all uncommon for the land to be owned outright by a free man or knight.

Furthermore, vassalage was not a common relationship. Oaths of fidelity did take place, but the holding of the land by the free man was not necessarily contingent upon his upholding that oath to a lord. And society was by no means dependent on feudal relationships for stability; even when the monarch was weak, there was an expectation that all men were subject to the king and should therefore follow the king's laws. Historians were already aware that the general perception of lawless noblemen and renegade knights holding sway over a fearful populace in their accumulation of personal power was yet another myth about medieval times. But it wasn't the feudal relationship that kept lawlessness to a minimum; it was respect for the monarchy and rule of law.

Where Brown had made general, if pointed, observations on the historiography of feudalism and its academic usage, Reynolds traced back the source of the model and examined its very heart. She made a point of separating the medieval discussion over the feudalism construct from the use of the word "feudalism" in Marxist economic history, and she stressed the importance of recognizing the difference among phenomena, words and concepts, but for the most part she dealt with the specifics of "fiefs" and "vassals" and associated ideas. In the process, she cast doubt on many related constructs and long-accepted theories of feudal societies. So extensive were her arguments that one reviewer noted "It will take years to unpack the holds Reynolds has filled with her catch to see how much is really fit to be served up and how much had best be thrown back in the sea."⁶

It's 14 years later and the holds still aren't unpacked. While there have been a few criticisms and dissenting opinions on specific aspects of Fiefs and Vassals, on the whole, most medievalists agree with Reynolds. She has succeeded very well in shaking loose the hold the feudalism construct had on the academic community. Now, some who are aware of her work refrain from including the archaic F-word in their medieval histories, or offer some explanation as to how it either no longer applies or should be taken with a grain of salt.

But there are still publications that include feudalism with no explanation of or reference to the recent reevaluation. Why? Publishing a book can take years, and delaying production long enough to reevaluate a chapter is usually not feasible. And when it comes to high-school textbooks, no one ever asks medievalists what they think. Perhaps the key reason the old model still persists is that there have been no major works to counter or support Reynolds, and thus no new raw material for the synthesizers of history to process and turn into general texts.

And so the emperor is still running around naked. It might be a good idea for someone to give him some clothes. Or maybe we should just chop off his head.

Continued on page seven: Off with His Head!

The F-Word
Page One: The Problem with Feudalism
Page Two: Where's the Fief?
Page Three: The Model is Constructed
Page Four: Medieval History Comes of Age
Page Five: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Page Six: What Fief? Where? I didn't see any Fief . . .
Page Seven: Off with His Head!
Page Eight: Sources and Suggested Reading

Note

⁶ The review of Fiefs and Vassals by Fred Cheyette appeared in Speculum in 1996.

The text of this document is copyright ©2008-2014 Melissa Snell. You may download or print this document for personal or school use, as long as the URL below is included. Permission is not granted to reproduce this document on another website. For publication permission, please visit About's Reprint Permissions page.