this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant." It was held also that the two swords of which Christ said "It is enough," were both given to St. Peter, signifying that he was girded with both civil and spiritual authority. The conception was further illustrated by such comparisons as the following. As God has set in the heavens two lights, the sun and the moon, so has he established on earth two powers, the spiritual and the temporal; but as the moon is inferior to the sun and receives its light from it, so is the Emperor inferior to the Pope and receives all power from him. Again, the two authorities were likened to the soul and the body; as the former rules over the latter, so is it ordered that the spiritual power shall rule over and subject the temporal. In opposition to the arguments of the Imperialists founded upon the gifts of Pepin and Charlemagne, was quoted the donation of Constantine, and instanced the fact that Charlemagne actually received the Imperial crown from the hands of the Pope.

The first theory was the impracticable dream of lofty souls who forgot that men are human. Christendom was virtually divided into two hostile camps, the members of which were respectively supporters of the Imperial and the Papal theory. The most interesting and instructive chapters of mediaval history after the tenth century are those that record the struggles between Pope and Emperor, springing from their efforts to reduce to practice and fact these irreconcilable theories. The story of this memorable strife cannot be told here, but in a following chapter, when we come to tell of the culmination and decline of the temporal power of the Popes, we shall say something of it.2

1 Jer. 1: 10.

2 For a most admirable presentation of this whole subject, consult Bryce's Le Holy Roman Empire.

SECOND PERIOD. — THE AGE OF REVIVAL.

(FROM THE OPENING OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY TO THE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY COLUMBUS IN 1492.)

CHAPTER I.

FEUDALISM AND CHIVALRY.

I. FEUDALISM.

Feudalism defined. Feudalism is the name given to a special form of society and government, based upon a peculiar tenure of land, which prevailed in Europe during the latter half of the Middle Ages, attaining, however, its most perfect development in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries.

The three most essential features of the system were: 1. The beneficiary 1 nature of property in land; 2. The existence of a close personal bond between the grantor of an estate and the receiver of it; 3. The rights of sovereignty which the holder of an estate had over those living upon it.

An estate of this nature-it might embrace a few acres or an entire kingdom-was called a fief or feud, whence the term Feudalism. The person granting a fief was called the suzerain, liege, or lord; the one receiving it, his vassal, liegeman, or retainer.

A person receiving a large fief might parcel it out in tracts to others on terms similar to those on which he himself had received it. This regranting of feudal lands was known as subinfeudation. The process of subinfeudation might be carried on to almost any degree. Practically it was seldom carried beyond the fifth or sixth stage.

1 Meaning technically a dependent and conditional title.

The Ideal System. The few definitions given above will render intelligible the following explanation of the theory of the Feudal System. We take the theory first for the reason that the theory of the system is infinitely simpler than the thing itself. In fact, Feudalism, as we find it in actual practice, was one of the most complex institutions that the medieval ages produced.

In theory, all the soil of the country was held by the king as a fief from God (in practice, the king's title was his good sword), granted on conditions of fealty to right and justice. Should the king be unjust or wicked, he forfeited the fief, and it might be taken from him and given to another. According to papal theorists it was the Pope who, as God's vicar on earth, had the right to pronounce judgment against a king, depose him, and put another in his place.

In the same way as the king received his fief from God, so he might grant it out in parcels to his chief men, they, in return for it, promising, in general, to be faithful to him as their lord, and to serve and aid him. Should these men, now vassals, be in any way untrue to their engagement, they forfeited their fiefs, and these might be resumed by their suzerain and bestowed upon others.

In like manner these immediate vassals of the king or suzerain might parcel out their domains in smaller tracts to others, on the same conditions as those upon which they had themselves received theirs; and so on down through any number of stages.

We have thus far dealt only with the soil of a country. We must next notice what disposition was made of the people under this system.

The king in receiving his fief was intrusted with sovereignty over all persons living upon it: he became their commander, their lawmaker, and their judge-in a word, their absolute and irresponsible ruler. Then, when he parcelled out his fief among his great men, he invested them, within the limits of the fiefs granted, with all his own sovereign rights. Each vassal became a virtual sovereign in his own domain. And when these great vassals divided their fiefs and granted them to others, they in turn invested their vassals

ROMAN AND TEUTONIC ELEMENTS.

149

with those powers of sovereignty with which they themselves had been clothed. Thus every holder of a fief becomes "monarch of all he surveys."

To illustrate the workings of the system, we will suppose the king or suzerain to be in need of an army. He calls upon his own immediate vassals for aid; these in turn call upon their vassals; and so the order runs down through the various stages of the hierarchy. Each lord commands only his own vassals. The retainers in the lowest rank rally around their respective lords, who, with their bands, gather about their lords, and so on up through the rising tiers of the hierarchy, until the immediate vassals of the suzerain or lord paramount present themselves before him with their graduated trains of followers. The array constitutes a feudal army, splendidly organized body in theory, but in fact an extremely poor instrument for warfare.

a

Such was the ideal feudal state. It is needless to say that the ideal was never perfectly realized. The system simply made more or less distant approaches to it in the several European countries. But this general idea which we have tried to give of the theory of the system will help to an understanding of it as we find it in actual existence.

Like many

Roman and Teutonic Elements in the System. another institution that grew up on the conquered soil of the Empire, Feudalism was of a composite character; that is, it contained both Roman and Teutonic elements. The very name itself is, according to some, a compound of the Latin fides, trust, and the Teutonic od, an estate in land. This is very doubtful; but whatever may have been the origin of the word, the thing it represents was certainly compounded of classical and barbarian elements. The warp was Teutonic, but the woof was Roman. The spirit of the institution was barbarian, but the form was classical. We might illustrate the idea we are trying to convey, by referring to the medieval papal church. It, while Hebrew in spirit, was Roman in form. It had shaped itself upon the model of the Empire, and was thoroughly imperial in its organization. Thus

was it with Feudalism. Beneath the Roman garb it assumed, beat a German life.

Just what ideas and customs among the Teutons, and what principles and practices among the Romans, constituted the germs out of which Feudalism was actually developed, it would be very difficult to say. In some countries, as in England and Scandinavia, there grew up a form of feudal society which was almost entirely uninfluenced by Roman institutions; while in France a very different and much more perfect feudal system was developed, whose forms were determined largely by Gallo-Roman influences. We will now in three distinct paragraphs say a word about the probable origin of those three prominent features of the system which have already been mentioned, — namely, the fief, the patronage, and the sovereignty.

The Origin of Fiefs. In the sixth century probably the greater part of the soil of the different countries of Europe was held by what was called an allodial or freehold tenure. The landed proprietor owned his domain absolutely, held it just as a man among us holds his estate. He enjoyed it free from any rent or service due to a superior, save of course public taxes and duties. But by the beginning of the eleventh century probably the largest part of the land was held by a beneficiary or feudal tenure. We must now see how this great change came about.

The fief grew out of the beneficium, a form of estate well known among the Romans. When the barbarians overran the soil of the Empire, they appropriated, as we have seen, a good part of it to their own use. The king or leader of the invading tribe naturally had allotted to him a large share. Following his custom of bestowing gifts of arms and other articles upon his companions, he granted to his followers and friends parcels of his domains, upon the simple condition of faithfulness. At first these estates were bestowed simply for life, and were called by the Latin name of benefices, but in the course of time they became hereditary, and then they began to be called fiefs or feuds. They took this latter

'Under the name, however, of emphyteusis.