large-heartedness will make him a father to you all. Who has ever
   fled to him for protection without receiving it? Who that has been
   deserted by his friends has he ever failed to restore to his
   rights?"

     [Sidenote: The beginning of his reign]

   This speech was applauded and concurred in by all, and by unanimous
   consent the duke was raised to the throne. He was crowned at
   Noyon[254] on the first of June[255] by the archbishop and the
   other bishops as king of the Gauls, the Bretons, the Normans, the
   Aquitanians, the Goths, the Spaniards and the Gascons.[256]
   Surrounded by the nobles of the king, he issued decrees and made
   laws according to royal custom, judging and disposing of all
   matters with success.

FOOTNOTES:

[197] After the battle of Fontenay, June 25, 841, Charles and Louis
had separated and Lothair had formed the design of attacking and
conquering first one and then the other. He made an expedition against
Charles, but was unable to accomplish anything before his two enemies
again drew together at Strassburg.

[198] The name "Francia" was as yet confined to the country lying
between the Loire and the Scheldt.

[199] This Pepin was a son of Pepin, the brother of Charles, Louis,
and Lothair. Upon the death of the elder Pepin in 838 his part of the
empire--the great region between the Loire and the Pyrenees, known as
Aquitaine--had been taken possession of by Charles, without regard for
the two surviving sons. It was natural, therefore, that in the
struggle which ensued between Charles and Louis on the one side and
Lothair on the other, young Pepin should have given such aid as he
could to the latter.

[200] On the upper Moselle.

[201] This refers to the battle of Fontenay.

[202] The translation of this oath is as follows: "For the love of
God, and for the sake as well of our peoples as of ourselves, I
promise that from this day forth, as God shall grant me wisdom and
strength, I will treat this my brother as one's brother ought to be
treated, provided that he shall do the same by me. And with Lothair I
will not willingly enter into any dealings which may injure this my
brother."

[203] This oath, taken by the followers of the two kings, may be thus
translated: "If Louis [or Charles] shall observe the oath which he has
sworn to his brother Charles [or Louis], and Charles [or Louis], our
lord, on his side, should be untrue to his oath, and we should be
unable to hold him to it, neither we nor any whom we can deter, shall
give him any support." The oath taken by the two armies was the same,
with only the names of the kings interchanged.

[204] This name in the course of time became simply "Francia," then
"France." In the eastern kingdom, "Francia" gradually became
restricted to the region about the Main, or "Franconia."

[205] It was commonly known as "Lotharii regnum," later as
"Lotharingia," and eventually (a fragment of the kingdom only) as
"Lorraine."

[206] Emerton, _Mediæval Europe_ (Boston, 1903), p. 30.

[207] This statement is only approximately true. In reality Friesland
(Frisia) and a strip up the east bank of the Rhine almost to the mouth
of the Moselle went to Lothair.

[208] See p. 152, note 2.

[209] Gregory IV. (827-844) was succeeded in the papal office by
Sergius II. (844-847).

[210] By the treaty of Verdun in 843 Charles the Bald had been given
Aquitaine, along with the other distinctively Frankish regions of
western Europe. His nephew Pepin, however, who had never been
reconciled to Charles's taking possession of Aquitaine in 838, called
himself king of that country and made stubborn resistance to his
uncle's claims of sovereignty [see p. 156].

[211] The Wends were a Slavonic people living in the lower valley of
the Oder.

[212] By "the heathen" are meant the Norse pirates from Denmark and
the Scandinavian peninsula. On their invasions see p. 163.

[213] This Saracen attack upon Rome was made by some Arab pirates who
in the Mediterranean were playing much the same rôle of destruction as
were the Northmen on the Atlantic coasts. A league of Naples, Gaeta,
and Amalfi defeated the pirates in 849, and delivered Rome from her
oppressors long enough for new fortifications to be constructed. Walls
were built at this time to include the quarter of St. Peter's--a
district known to this day as the "Leonine City" in memory of Leo IV.,
who in 847 succeeded Sergius as pope [see above text under date 850].

[214] Fulda was an important monastery on one of the upper branches of
the Weser, northeast of Mainz.

[215] An octave, in the sense here meant, is the week (strictly eight
days) following a church festival; in this case, the eight days
following the anniversary of Christ's birth, or Christmas.

[216] The isle of Rhé, near Rochelle, north of the mouth of the
Garonne.

[217] Galicia was a province in the extreme northwest of the Spanish
peninsula.

[218] Charles the Bald, who by the treaty of Verdun in 843, had
obtained the western part of the empire built up by Charlemagne [see
p. 154].

[219] Louis, a half-brother of Charles the Bald, who had received the
eastern portion of Charlemagne's empire by the settlement of 843.

[220] Frisia, or Friesland, was the northernmost part of the kingdom
of Lothair.

[221] That is, in Brittany.

[222] Noménoé was a native chief of the Britons. Charles the Bald made
many efforts to reduce him to obedience, but with little success. In
848 or 849 he took the title of king. During his brief reign (which
ended in 851) he invaded Charles's dominions and wrought almost as
much destruction as did the Northmen themselves.

[223] Tours, Blois, and Orleans were all situated within a range of a
hundred miles along the lower Loire.

[224] Chartres was some eighty miles northwest of Orleans.

[225] About midway between Nantes and Tours.

[226] Poitiers was about seventy miles southwest of Tours.

[227] Valence was on the Rhone, nearly a hundred and fifty miles back
from the Mediterranean coast.

[228] The Northmen who ravaged France really had no kings, but only
military chieftains.

[229] Odo, or Eudes, was chosen king by the Frankish nobles and clergy
in 888, to succeed the deposed Charles the Fat. He was not of the
Carolingian family but a Robertian (son of Robert the Strong), and
hence a forerunner of the Capetian line of kings regularly established
on the French throne in 987 [see p. 177]. His election to the kingship
was due in a large measure to his heroic conduct during the siege of
Paris by the Northmen.

[230] The tower blocked access to the city by the so-called "Great
Bridge," which connected the right bank of the Seine with the island
on which the city was built. The tower stood on the present site of
the Châtelet.

[231] In time Robert also became king. He reigned only from 922 to
923.

[232] Abbot Ebolus was head of the monastery of St. Germain des Prés.

[233] The Northmen were finally compelled to abandon their efforts
against the tower. They then retired to the bank of the Seine near the
abbey of Saint-Denys and from that place as a center ravaged all the
country lying about Paris. In a short time they renewed the attack
upon the city itself.

[234] Charles the Fat, under whom during the years 885-887 the old
empire of Charlemagne was for the last time united under a single
sovereign. When Odo went to find him in 886 he was at Metz in Germany.
German and Italian affairs interested him more than did those of the
Franks.

[235] Sens was about a hundred miles southeast of Paris. Charles
abandoned the region about Sens to the Northmen to plunder during the
winter of 886-887. His very lame excuse for doing this was that the
people of the district did not properly recognize his authority and
were deserving of such punishment.

[236] The twelve month siege of Paris thus brought to an end had many
noteworthy results. Chief among these was the increased prestige of
Odo as a national leader and of Paris as a national stronghold. Prior
to this time Paris had not been a place of importance, even though
Clovis had made it his capital. In the period of Charlemagne it was
distinctly a minor city and it gained little in prominence under Louis
the Pious and Charles the Bald. The great Carolingian capitals were
Laon and Compiègne. The siege of 885-886, however, made it apparent
that Paris occupied a strategic position, commanding the valley of the
Seine, and that the inland city was one of the true bulwarks of the
kingdom. Thereafter the place grew rapidly in population and prestige,
and when Odo became king (in 888) it was made his capital. As time
went on it grew to be the heart of the French kingdom and came to
guide the destinies of France as no other city of modern times has
guided a nation.

[237] He was deposed in 887, largely because of his utter failure to
take any active measures to defend the Franks against their Danish
enemies. From Paris he went to Germany where he died, January 13, 888,
at a small town on the Danube.

[238] After the famous siege of Paris in 885-886 the Northmen, or
Normans as they may now be called, continued to ravage France just as
they had done before that event. In 910 one of their greatest
chieftains, Rollo, appeared before Paris and prepared to take the
city. In this project he was unsuccessful, but his warriors caused so
much devastation in the surrounding country that Charles the Simple,
who was now king, decided to try negotiations. A meeting was held at
Saint-Clair-sur-Epte where, in the presence of the Norman warriors and
the Frankish magnates, Charles and Rollo entered into the first treaty
looking toward a permanent settlement of Northmen on Frankish
territory. Rollo promised to desist from his attacks upon Frankland
and to become a Christian. Charles agreed to give over to the Normans
a region which they in fact already held, with Rouen as its center,
and extending from the Epte River on the east to the sea on the west.
The arrangement was dictated by good sense and proved a fortunate one
for all parties concerned.

[239] Robert was Odo's brother. "Duke of the Franks" was a title, at
first purely military, but fast developing to the point where it was
to culminate in its bearer becoming the first Capetian king [see p.
177].

[240] See p. 138, note 4.

[241] If the offender had a lord, this lord would be expected to
produce his accused vassal at court.

[242] That is, the old blood-feud of the Germans.

[243] The office of _missus_ had by this time fallen pretty much into
decay. Many of the _missi_ were at the same time counts--a combination
of authority directly opposed to the earlier theory of the
administrative system. The _missus_ had been supposed to supervise the
counts and restrain them from disloyalty to the king and from
indulgence in arbitrary or oppressive measures of local government.

[244] The viscount (_vicecomes_) was the count's deputy. By Carloman's
time there were sometimes several of these in a county. They were at
first appointed by the count, but toward the end of the ninth century
they became hereditary.

[245] The _vicarii_ and _centenarii_ were local assistants of the
count in administrative and judicial affairs. In Merovingian times
their precise duties are not clear, but under the Carolingians the two
terms tended to become synonyms. The _centenarius_, or hundredman, was
charged mainly with the administration of justice in the smallest
local division, i.e., the hundred. In theory he was elected by the
people of the hundred, but in practice he was usually appointed by the
count.

[246] Hugh Capet, whose title prior to 987 was "Duke of the Franks."

[247] Adalbero, archbishop of Rheims.

[248] We are not to suppose that Richer here gives a literal
reproduction of Adalbero's speech, but so far as we can tell the main
points are carefully stated.

[249] At the funeral of Louis.

[250] Charles of Lower Lorraine, uncle of Louis V.

[251] The elective principle here asserted had prevailed in the choice
of French and German kings for nearly a century. The kings chosen,
however, usually came from one family, as the Carolingians in France.

[252] Almost exactly a century earlier there had been such a case
among the Franks, when Charles the Fat was deposed and Odo, the
defender of Paris, elevated to the throne (888).

[253] Charles had been made duke of Lower Lorraine by the German
emperor. This passage in Adalbero's speech looks like something of an
appeal to Frankish pride, or as we would say in these days, to
national sentiment. Still it must be remembered that while a sense of
common interest was undoubtedly beginning to develop among the peoples
represented in the assembly at Senlis, these peoples were still far
too diverse to be spoken of accurately as making up a unified
nationality. Adalbero was indulging in a political harangue and piling
up arguments for effect, without much regard for their real weight.

[254] Noyon was a church center about fifty miles north of Paris. That
the coronation really occurred at this place has been questioned by
some, but there seems to be small reason for doubting Richer's
statement in the matter.

[255] M. Pfister in Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, Vol. II., p. 412,
asserts that the coronation occurred July 3, 987.

[256] This method of describing the extent of the new king's dominion
shows how far from consolidated the so-called Frankish kingdom really
was. The royal domain proper, that is, the land over which the king
had immediate control, was limited to a long fertile strip extending
from the Somme to a point south of Orléans, including the important
towns of Paris, Orléans, Étampes, Senlis, and Compiègne. Even this was
not continuous, but was cut into here and there by the estates of
practically independent feudal lords. By far the greater portion of
modern France (the name in 987 was only beginning to be applied to the
whole country) consisted of great counties and duchies, owing
comparatively little allegiance to the king and usually rendering even
less than they owed. Of these the most important was the county (later
duchy) of Normandy, the county of Bretagne (Brittany), the county of
Flanders, the county of Anjou, the county of Blois, the duchy of
Burgundy, the duchy of Aquitaine, the county of Toulouse, the county
of Gascony, and the county of Barcelona (south of the Pyrenees). The
"Goths" referred to by Richer were the inhabitants of the "march," or
border county, of Gothia along the Mediterranean coast between the
lower Rhone and the Pyrenees (old Septimania).

CHAPTER XI.

ALFRED THE GREAT IN WAR AND IN PEACE

30. The Danes in England

The earliest recorded visit of the Danes, or Northmen, to England
somewhat antedates the appearance of these peoples on the Frankish
coast in the year 800. In 787 three Danish vessels came to shore at
Warham in Dorset and their sailors slew the unfortunate reeve who
mistook them for ordinary foreign merchants and tried to collect port
dues from them. Thereafter the British coasts were never free for many
years at a time from the depredations of the marauders. In 793 the
famous church at Lindisfarne, in Northumberland, was plundered; in 795
the Irish coasts began to suffer; in 833 a fleet of twenty-five
vessels appeared at the mouth of the Thames; in 834 twelve hundred
pillagers landed in Dorset; in 842 London and Rochester were sacked
and their population scattered; in 850 a fleet of 350 ships carrying
perhaps ten or twelve thousand men, wintered at the mouth of the
Thames and in the spring caused London again to suffer; and from then
on until the accession of King Alfred, in 871, destructive raids
followed one another with distressing frequency.

The account of the Danish invasions given below is taken from a
biography of King Alfred commonly attributed to Asser, a monk of Welsh
origin connected with the monastery of St. David (later bishop of
Sherborne) and a close friend and adviser of the great king. It gives
us some idea of the way in which Alfred led his people through the
darkest days in their history, and of the settlement known as the
"Peace of Alfred and Guthrum" by which the Danish leader became a
Christian and the way was prepared for the later division of the
English country between the two contending peoples.

     Source--Johannes Menevensis Asserius, _De rebus gestis Ælfredi
     Magni_ [Asser, "The Deeds of Alfred the Great"], Chaps. 42-55
     _passim_. Adapted from translation by J. A. Giles in _Six Old
     English Chronicles_ (London, 1866), pp. 56-63.

     [Sidenote: Alfred becomes king (871)]

     [Sidenote: The struggle with the Danes]

   In the year 871 Alfred, who up to that time had been of only
   secondary rank, while his brothers were alive, by God's permission,
   undertook the government of the whole kingdom, welcomed by all the
   people. Indeed, if he had cared to, he might have done so earlier,
   even while his brother was still alive;[257] for in wisdom and
   other qualities he excelled all of his brothers, and, moreover, he
   was courageous and victorious in all his wars. He became king
   almost against his will, for he did not think that he could alone
   withstand the numbers and the fierceness of the pagans, though even
   during the lifetime of his brothers he had carried burdens enough
   for many men. And when he had ruled one month, with a small band of
   followers and on very unequal terms, he fought a battle with the
   entire army of the pagans. This was at a hill called Wilton, on the
   south bank of the River Wily, from which river the whole of that
   district is named.[258] And after a long and fierce engagement the
   pagans, seeing the danger they were in, and no longer able to meet
   the attacks of their enemies, turned their backs and fled. But, oh,
   shame to say, they deceived the English, who pursued them too
   boldly, and, turning swiftly about, gained the victory. Let no one
   be surprised to learn that the Christians had only a small number
   of men, for the Saxons had been worn out by eight battles with the
   pagans in one year. In these they had slain one king, nine dukes,
   and innumerable troops of soldiers. There had also been numberless
   skirmishes, both by day and by night, in which Alfred, with his
   ministers and chieftains and their men, were engaged without rest
   or relief against the pagans. How many thousands of pagans fell in
   these skirmishes God only knows, over and above the numbers slain
   in the eight battles before mentioned. In the same year the Saxons
   made peace with the invaders, on condition that they should take
   their departure, and they did so.

     [Sidenote: Alfred's plan to meet the pagans on the sea]

   In the year 877 the pagans, on the approach of autumn, partly
   settled in Exeter[259] and partly marched for plunder into
   Mercia.[260] The number of that disorderly horde increased every
   day, so that, if thirty thousand of them were slain in one battle,
   others took their places to double the number. Then King Alfred
   commanded boats and galleys, i.e., long ships, to be built
   throughout the kingdom, in order to offer battle by sea to the
   enemy as they were coming.[261] On board these he placed sailors,
   whom he commanded to keep watch on the seas. Meanwhile he went
   himself to Exeter, where the pagans were wintering and, having shut
   them up within the walls, laid siege to the town. He also gave
   orders to his sailors to prevent the enemy from obtaining any
   supplies by sea. In a short time the sailors were encountered by a
   fleet of a hundred and twenty ships full of armed soldiers, who
   were on their way to the relief of their countrymen. As soon as the
   king's men knew that the ships were manned by pagan soldiers they
   leaped to their arms and bravely attacked those barbaric tribes.
   The pagans, who had now for almost a month been tossed and almost
   wrecked among the waves of the sea, fought vainly against them.
   Their bands were thrown into confusion in a very short time, and
   all were sunk and drowned in the sea, at a place called
   Swanwich.[262]

   In 878, which was the thirtieth year of King Alfred's life, the
   pagan army left Exeter and went to Chippenham. This latter place
   was a royal residence situated in the west of Wiltshire, on the
   eastern bank of the river which the Britons called the Avon. They
   spent the winter there and drove many of the inhabitants of the
   surrounding country beyond the sea by the force of their arms, and
   by the want of the necessities of life. They reduced almost
   entirely to subjection all the people of that country.

     [Sidenote: Alfred in refuge at Athelney]

     [Sidenote: The battle of Ethandune and the establishment of peace
   (878)]

   The same year, after Easter, King Alfred, with a few followers,
   made for himself a stronghold in a place called Athelney,[263] and
   from thence sallied, with his companions and the nobles of
   Somersetshire, to make frequent assaults upon the pagans. Also, in
   the seventh week after Easter, he rode to Egbert's stone, which is
   in the eastern part of the wood that is called Selwood.[264] Here
   he was met by all the folk of Somersetshire and Wiltshire and
   Hampshire, who had not fled beyond the sea for fear of the pagans;
   and when they saw the king alive after such great tribulation they
   received him, as he deserved, with shouts of joy, and encamped
   there for one night. At dawn on the following day the king broke
   camp and went to Okely, where he encamped for one night. The next
   morning he moved to Ethandune[265] and there fought bravely and
   persistently against the whole army of the pagans. By the help of
   God he defeated them with great slaughter and pursued them flying
   to their fortification. He at once slew all the men and carried off
   all the booty that he could find outside the fortress, which he
   immediately laid siege to with his entire army. And when he had
   been there fourteen days the pagans, driven by famine, cold, fear,
   and finally by despair, asked for peace on the condition that they
   should give the king as many hostages as he should ask, but should
   receive none from him in return. Never before had they made a
   treaty with any one on such terms. The king, hearing this, took
   pity upon them and received such hostages as he chose. Then the
   pagans swore that they would immediately leave the kingdom, and
   their king, Guthrum, promised to embrace Christianity and receive
   baptism at Alfred's hands. All of these pledges he and his men
   fulfilled as they had promised.[266]

31. Alfred's Interest in Education

As an epoch of literary and educational advancement the reign of
Alfred in England (871-901) was in many respects like that of
Charlemagne among the Franks (768-814). Like Charlemagne, Alfred grew
up with very slight education, at least of a literary sort; but both
sovereigns were strongly dissatisfied with their ignorance, and both
made earnest efforts to overcome their own defects and at the same
time to raise the standard of intelligence among their people at
large. When one considers how crowded were the reigns of both with
wars and the pressing business of administration, such devotion to the
interests of learning appears the more deserving of praise.

In the first passage below, taken from Asser's life of Alfred, the
anxiety of the king for the promotion of his own education and that of
his children is clearly and strongly stated. We find him following
Charlemagne's plan of bringing scholars from foreign countries. He
brought them, too, from parts of Britain not under his direct control,
and used them at the court, or in bishoprics, to perform the work of
instruction. Curiously enough, whereas Charlemagne had found the chief
of his Palace School, Alcuin, in England, Alfred was glad to secure
the services of two men (Grimbald and John) who had made their
reputations in monasteries situated within the bounds of the old
Frankish empire.

Aside from some native songs and epic poems, all the literature known
to the Saxon people was in Latin, and but few persons in the kingdom
knew Latin well enough to read it. The king himself did not, until
about 887. It was supposed, of course, that the clergy were able to
use the Latin Bible and the Latin ritual of the Church, but when
Alfred came to investigate he found that even these men were often
pretty nearly as ignorant as the people they were charged to instruct.
What the king did, then, was to urge more study on the part of the
clergy, under the direction of such men as Plegmund, Asser, Grimbald,
John, and Werfrith. The people in general could not be expected to
master a foreign language; hence, in order that they might not be shut
off entirely from the first-hand use of books, Alfred undertook the
translation of certain standard works from the Latin into the Saxon.
Those thus translated were Boethius's _Consolations of Philosophy_,
Orosius's _Universal History of the World_, Bede's _Ecclesiastical
History of England_, and Pope Gregory the Great's _Pastoral Rule_. The
second passage given below is Alfred's preface to his Saxon edition of
the last-named book, taking the form of a letter to the scholarly
Bishop Werfrith of Worcester. The _Pastoral Rule_ [see p. 90] was
written by Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) as a body of instructions
in doctrine and conduct for the clergy. Alfred's preface, as a picture
of the ruin wrought by the long series of Danish wars, is of the
utmost importance in the study of ninth and tenth century England, as
well as a most interesting revelation of the character of the great
king.

     Sources--(a) Asser, _De rebus gestis Ælfredi Magni_, Chaps.
     75-78. Adapted from translation by J. A. Giles in _Six Old
     English Chronicles_ (London, 1866), pp. 68-70.

     (b) King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Pope Gregory's
     _Pastoral Rule_. Edited by Henry Sweet in the Publications of
     the Early English Text Society (London, 1871), p. 2.

     [Sidenote: The education of Alfred's children]

   (a)

   Ethelwerd, the youngest [of Alfred's children],[267] by the divine
   counsels and the admirable prudence of the king, was consigned to
   the schools of learning, where, with the children of almost all the
   nobility of the country, and many also who were not noble, he
   prospered under the diligent care of his teachers. Books in both
   languages, namely, Latin and Saxon, were read in the school.[268]
   They also learned to write, so that before they were of an age to
   practice manly arts, namely, hunting and such pursuits as befit
   noblemen, they became studious and clever in the liberal arts.
   Edward[269] and Ælfthryth[270] were reared in the king's court and
   received great attention from their attendants and nurses; nay,
   they continue to this day with the love of all about them, and
   showing friendliness, and even gentleness, towards all, both
   natives and foreigners, and in complete subjection to their father.
   Nor, among their other studies which pertain to this life and are
   fit for noble youths, are they suffered to pass their time idly and
   unprofitably without learning the liberal arts; for they have
   carefully learned the Psalms and Saxon books, especially the Saxon
   poems, and are continually in the habit of making use of books.

     [Sidenote: The varied activities of the king]

     [Sidenote: His devout character]

   In the meantime the king, during the frequent wars and other
   hindrances of this present life, the invasions of the pagans, and
   his own infirmities of body, continued to carry on the government,
   and to practice hunting in all its branches; to teach his workers
   in gold and artificers of all kinds, his falconers, hawkers and
   dog-keepers; to build houses, majestic and splendid, beyond all the
   precedents of his ancestors, by his new mechanical inventions; to
   recite the Saxon books, and especially to learn by heart the Saxon
   poems, and to make others learn them.[271] And he alone never
   desisted from studying most diligently to the best of his ability.
   He attended the Mass and other daily services of religion. He was
   diligent in psalm-singing and prayer, at the hours both of the day
   and of the night. He also went to the churches, as we have already
   said, in the night-time to pray, secretly and unknown to his
   courtiers. He bestowed alms and gifts on both natives and
   foreigners of all countries. He was affable and pleasant to all,
   and curiously eager to investigate things unknown. Many Franks,
   Frisians, Gauls, pagans, Britons, Scots, and Armoricans,[272] noble
   and low-born, came voluntarily to his domain; and all of them,
   according to their nation and deserving, were ruled, loved, honored
   and enriched with money and power.[273] Moreover, the king was in
   the habit of hearing the divine Scriptures read by his own
   countrymen, or, if by any chance it so happened, in company with
   foreigners, and he attended to it with care and solicitude. His
   bishops, too, and all ecclesiastics, his earls and nobles,
   ministers[274] and friends, were loved by him with wonderful
   affection, and their sons, who were reared in the royal household,
   were no less dear to him than his own. He had them instructed in
   all kinds of good morals, and, among other things, never ceased to
   teach them letters night and day.

     [Sidenote: Regret at his lack of education]

   But, as if he had no consolation in all these things, and though
   he suffered no other annoyance, either from within or without, he
   was harassed by daily and nightly affliction, so that he complained
   to God and to all who were admitted to his intimate fondness, that
   Almighty God had made him ignorant of divine wisdom, and of the
   liberal arts--in this emulating the pious, the wise, and wealthy
   Solomon, king of the Hebrews, who at first, despising all present
   glory and riches, asked wisdom of God and found both, namely,
   wisdom and worldly glory; as it is written: "Seek first the kingdom
   of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added
   unto you." But God, who is always the observer of the thoughts of
   the mind within and the author of all good intentions, and a most
   plentiful helper that good desires may be formed (for He would not
   prompt a man to good intentions, unless He also amply supplied that
   which the man justly and properly wishes to have) stimulated the
   king's mind within: as it is written, "I will hearken what the Lord
   God will say concerning me." He would avail himself of every
   opportunity to procure co-workers in his good designs, to aid him
   in his strivings after wisdom that he might attain to what he aimed
   at. And, like a prudent bee, which, going forth in summer with the
   early morning from its cell, steers its rapid flight through the
   uncertain tracks of ether and descends on the manifold and varied
   flowers of grasses, herbs, and shrubs, discovering that which
   pleases most, that it may bear it home, so did he direct his eyes
   afar and seek without that which he had not within, that is, in his
   own kingdom.[275]

     [Sidenote: Learned men from Mercia brought to the English court]

   But God at that time, as some relief to the king's anxiety,
   yielding to his complaint, sent certain lights to illuminate him,
   namely, Werfrith, bishop of the church of Worcester, a man well
   versed in divine Scripture, who, by the king's command, first
   turned the books of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory and Peter, his
   disciple, from Latin into Saxon, and sometimes putting sense for
   sense, interpreted them with clearness and elegance. After him was
   Plegmund,[276] a Mercian by birth, archbishop of the church of
   Canterbury, a venerable man, and endowed with wisdom; Ethelstan
   also,[277] and Werwulf,[278] his priests and chaplains,[279]
   Mercians by birth and learned. These four had been invited from
   Mercia by King Alfred, who exalted them with many honors and powers
   in the kingdom of the West Saxons, besides the privileges which
   Archbishop Plegmund and Bishop Werfrith enjoyed in Mercia. By their
   teaching and wisdom the king's desires increased unceasingly, and
   were gratified. Night and day, whenever he had leisure, he
   commanded such men as these to read books to him, for he never
   suffered himself to be without one of them; wherefore he possessed
   a knowledge of every book, though of himself he could not yet
   understand anything of books, for he had not yet learned to read
   anything.[280]

     [Sidenote: Grimbald and John brought from the continent]

   But the king's commendable desire could not be gratified even in
   this; wherefore he sent messengers beyond the sea to Gaul, to
   procure teachers, and he invited from thence Grimbald,[281] priest
   and monk, a venerable man and good singer, adorned with every kind
   of ecclesiastical training and good morals, and most learned in
   holy Scripture. He also obtained from thence John,[282] also priest
   and monk, a man of most energetic talents, and learned in all kinds
   of literary science, and skilled in many other arts. By the
   teaching of these men the king's mind was much enlarged, and he
   enriched and honored them with much influence.

     [Sidenote: Alfred writes to Bishop Werfrith on the state of
   learning in England]

   (b)

   King Alfred greets Bishop Werfrith with loving words and with
   friendship.

   I let it be known to thee that it has very often come into my mind
   what wise men there formerly were throughout England, both within
   the Church and without it; also what happy times there were then
   and how the kings who had power over the nation in those days
   obeyed God and His ministers; how they cherished peace, morality,
   and order at home, and at the same time enlarged their territory
   abroad; and how they prospered both in war and in wisdom. Often
   have I thought, also, of the sacred orders, how zealous they were
   both in teaching and learning, and in all the services they owed to
   God; and how foreigners came to this land in search of wisdom and
   instruction, which things we should now have to get from abroad if
   we were to have them at all.

   So general became the decay of learning in England that there were
   very few on this side of the Humber[283] who could understand the
   rituals[284] in English, or translate a letter from Latin into
   English; and I believe that there were not many beyond the Humber
   who could do these things. There were so few, in fact, that I
   cannot remember a single person south of the Thames when I came to
   the throne. Thanks be to Almighty God that we now have some
   teachers among us. And therefore I enjoin thee to free thyself, as
   I believe thou art ready to do, from worldly matters, that thou
   mayst apply the wisdom which God has given thee wherever thou
   canst. Consider what punishments would come upon us if we neither
   loved wisdom ourselves nor allowed other men to obtain it. We
   should then care for the name only of Christian, and have regard
   for very few of the Christian virtues.

     [Sidenote: Learning in the days before the Danish invasions]

   When I thought of all this I remembered also how I saw the country
   before it had been all ravaged and burned; how the churches
   throughout the whole of England stood filled with treasures and
   books. There was also a great multitude of God's servants, but they
   had very little knowledge of books, for they could not understand
   anything in them because they were not written in their own
   language.[285] When I remembered all this I wondered extremely that
   the good and wise men who were formerly all over England and had
   learned perfectly all the books, did not wish to translate them
   into their own language. But again I soon answered myself and said:
   "Their own desire for learning was so great that they did not
   suppose that men would ever become so indifferent and that learning
   would ever so decay; and they wished, moreover, that wisdom in this
   land might increase with our knowledge of languages." Then I
   remembered how the law was first known in Hebrew and when the
   Greeks had learned it how they translated the whole of it into
   their own tongue,[286] and all other books besides. And again the
   Romans, when they had learned it, translated the whole of it into
   their own language.[287] And also all other Christian nations
   translated a part of it into their languages.

     [Sidenote: Plan to translate Latin books into English]

   Therefore it seems better to me, if you agree, for us also to
   translate some of the books which are most needful for all men to
   know into the language which we can all understand. It shall be
   your duty to see to it, as can easily be done if we have
   tranquility enough,[288] that all the free-born youth now in
   England, who are rich enough to be able to devote themselves to it,
   be set to learn as long as they are not fit for any other
   occupation, until they are well able to read English writing. And
   let those afterwards be taught more in the Latin language who are
   to continue learning and be promoted to a higher rank.

     [Sidenote: The translation of Pope Gregory's Pastoral Care]

   When I remembered how the knowledge of Latin had decayed through
   England, and yet that many could read English writing, I began,
   among other various and manifold troubles of this kingdom, to
   translate into English the book which is called in Latin
   _Pastoralis_, and in English _The Shepherd's Book_, sometimes word
   for word, and sometimes according to the sense, as I had learned it
   from Plegmund, my archbishop, and Asser, my bishop, and Grimbald,
   my mass-priest, and John, my mass-priest. And when I had learned
   it, as I could best understand it and most clearly interpret it, I
   translated it into English.

   I will send a copy of this book to every bishopric in my kingdom,
   and on each copy there shall be a clasp worth fifty mancuses.[289]
   And I command in God's name that no man take the clasp from the
   book, or the book from the minster.[290] It is uncertain how long
   there may be such learned bishops as, thanks be to God, there now
   are almost everywhere; therefore, I wish these copies always to
   remain in their places, unless the bishop desires to take them with
   him, or they be loaned out anywhere, or any one wishes to make a
   copy of them.

32. Alfred's Laws

Here are a few characteristic laws included by Alfred in the code
which he drew up on the basis of old customs and the laws of some of
the earlier Saxon kings. On the nature of the law of the early
Germanic peoples, see p. 59.

     Source--Text in Benjamin Thorpe, _The Ancient Laws and
     Institutes of England_ (London, 1840), pp. 20-44 _passim_.

   If any one smite his neighbor with a stone, or with his fist, and
   he nevertheless can go out with a staff, let him get him a
   physician and do his work as long as he himself cannot.

   If an ox gore a man or a woman, so that they die, let it be stoned,
   and let not its flesh be eaten. The owner shall not be liable if
   the ox were wont to push with its horns for two or three days
   before, and he knew it not; but if he knew it, and would not shut
   it in, and it then shall have slain a man or a woman, let it be
   stoned; and let the master be slain, or the person killed be paid
   for, as the "witan"[291] shall decree to be right.

   Injure ye not the widows and the stepchildren, nor hurt them
   anywhere; for if ye do otherwise they will cry unto me and I will
   hear them, and I will slay you with my sword; and I will cause that
   your own wives shall be widows, and your children shall be
   stepchildren.

   If a man strike out another's eye, let him pay sixty shillings,
   and six shillings, and six pennies, and a third part of a penny, as
   'bot.'[292] If it remain in the head, and he cannot see anything
   with it, let one-third of the 'bot' be remitted.

     [Sidenote: Penalties for various crimes of violence]

   If a man strike out another's tooth in the front of his head, let
   him make 'bot' for it with eight shillings; if it be the canine
   tooth, let four shillings be paid as 'bot.' A man's grinder is
   worth fifteen shillings.

   If the shooting finger be struck off, the 'bot' is fifteen
   shillings; for its nail it is four shillings.

   If a man maim another's hand outwardly, let twenty shillings be
   paid him as 'bot,' if he can be healed; if it half fly off, then
   shall forty shillings be paid as 'bot.'

FOOTNOTES:

[257] That is, Ethelred I., whom Alfred succeeded.

[258] Wiltshire, on the southern coast, west of the Isle of Wight.

[259] The same as the modern city of the name.

[260] Mercia was one of the seven old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. It lay
east of Wales.

[261] This marked a radical departure in methods of fighting the
invaders. On the continent, and hitherto in England, there had been no
effort to prevent the enemy from getting into the country they
proposed to plunder. Alfred's creation of a navy was one of his wisest
acts. Although the English had by this time grown comparatively
unaccustomed to seafaring life they contrived to win their first naval
encounter with the enemy.

[262] In Dorsetshire.

[263] Athelney was in Somersetshire, northeast of Exeter, in the
marshes at the junction of the Tone and the Parret.

[264] The modern Brixton Deverill, in Wiltshire, near Warminster.

[265] In Wiltshire, a little east of Westbury. In January the Danes
had removed from Exeter to Chippenham. Edington (or Ethandune) was
eight miles from the camp at the latter place. The Danes were first
defeated in an open battle at Edington, and then forced to surrender
after a fourteen days' siege at Chippenham.

[266] This so-called "Peace of Alfred and Guthrum" in 878 provided
only for the acceptance of Christianity by the Danish leader. It is
sometimes known as the treaty of Chippenham and is not to be confused
with the treaty of Wedmore, of a few weeks later, by which Alfred and
Guthrum divided the English country between them. The text of this
second treaty will be found in Lee's _Source-Book of English History_
(pp. 98-99), though the introductory statement there given is somewhat
misleading. This assignment of the Danelaw to Guthrum's people may
well be compared with the yielding of Normandy to Rollo by Charles the
Simple in 911 [see p. 172].

[267] Ethelwerd was Alfred's fifth living child.

[268] This was, of course, not a school in the modern sense of the
word. All that is meant is simply that young Ethelwerd, along with
sons of nobles and non-nobles, received instruction from the learned
men at the court. It had been customary before Alfred's day for the
young princes and sons of nobles to receive training at the court, but
not in letters.

[269] This was Edward the Elder who succeeded Alfred as king and
reigned from 901 to 925. He was Alfred's eldest son.

[270] Ælfthryth was Alfred's fourth child. She became the wife of
Baldwin II. of Flanders.

[271] Among other labors in behalf of learning, Alfred made a
collection of the ancient epics and lyrics of the Saxon people.
Unfortunately, except in the case of the epic Beowulf, only fragments
of these have survived. Beowulf was, so far as we know, the earliest
of the Saxon poems, having originated before the migration to Britain,
though it was probably put in its present form by a Christian monk of
the eighth century.

[272] Armorica was the name applied in Alfred's time to the region
southward from the mouth of the Seine to Brittany.

[273] There is a good deal of independent evidence that Alfred was
peculiarly hospitable to foreigners. He delighted in learning from
them about their peoples and experiences.

[274] The word in the original is _ministeriales_. It is not Saxon but
Franco-Latin and is an instance of the Frankish element in Asser's
vocabulary. Here, as among the Franks, the _ministeriales_ were the
officials of second-rate importance surrounding the king, the highest
being known as the _ministri_.

[275] This comparison of the gathering of learning to the operations
of a bee in collecting honey is very common among classical writers
and also among those of the Carolingian renaissance. It occurs in
Lucretius, Seneca, Macrobius, Alcuin, and the poet Candidus.

[276] Plegmund became archbishop of Canterbury in 890, but it is
probable that he was with Alfred some time before his election to the
primacy.

[277] This Ethelstan was probably the person of that name who was
consecrated bishop of Ramsbury in 909.

[278] From another document it appears that Werwulf was a friend of
Bishop Werfrith in Mercia before either took up residence at Alfred's
court.

[279] In Chap. 104 of Asser's biography the _capellani_ are described
as supplying the king with candles, by whose burning he measured time.
The word _capellanus_ is of pure Frankish origin and was originally
applied to the clerks (_clerici capellani_) who were charged with the
custody of the cope (_cappa_) of St. Martin, which was kept in the
_capella_. From this the term _capella_ came to mean a room especially
devoted to religious uses, that is, a chapel. It was used in this
sense as early as 829 in Frankland. Whether by _capellanus_ Asser
meant mere clerks, or veritable "chaplains" in the later sense, cannot
be known, though his usage was probably the latter.

[280] Chapter 87 of Asser informs us that Alfred mastered the art of
reading in the year 887.

[281] Grimbald came from the Flemish monastery of St. Bertin at St.
Omer. He was recommended to Alfred by Fulco, archbishop of Rheims, who
had once been abbot of St. Bertin. We do not know in what year
Grimbald went to England, though there is some evidence that it was
not far from 887.

[282] John the Old Saxon is mentioned by Alfred as his mass-priest. It
is probable that he came from the abbey of Corbei on the upper Weser.
Not much is known about the man, but if he was as learned as Asser
says he was, he must have been a welcome addition to Alfred's group of
scholars particularly as the language which he used was very similar
to that of the West Saxons in England.

[283] That is, south of the Humber.

[284] The service of the Church.

[285] They were written, of course, in Latin.

[286] By the middle of the third century A.D. as many as three
different translations of the Old Testament into Greek had been
made--those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmochus. These eventually
took fixed shape in the so-called Septuagint version of the Old
Testament.

[287] About the year 385 St. Jerome revised the older Latin
translation of the New Testament and translated the Old Testament
directly from the Hebrew. This complete version gradually superseded
all others for the whole Latin-reading Church, being known as the
"Vulgate," that is, the version commonly accepted. It was in the form
of the Vulgate that the Scriptures were known to the Saxons and all
other peoples of western Europe.

[288] In other words, sufficient relief from the Danish incursions.

[289] The _mancus_ was a Saxon money value equivalent to a mark.

[290] A minster was a church attached to a monastery.

[291] The witan was the gathering of "wisemen"--members of the royal
family, high officials in the Church, and leading nobles--about the
Anglo-Saxon king to assist in making ordinances and supervising the
affairs of state.

[292] Compensation rendered to an injured person.

CHAPTER XII.

THE ORDEAL

33. Tests by Hot Water, Cold Water, and Fire

Among the early Germans the settling of disputes and the testing of
the guilt or innocence of an accused person were generally
accomplished through the employment of one or both of two very
interesting judicial practices--compurgation and the ordeal. According
to the German conception of justice, when one person was accused of
wrongdoing by another and chose to defend himself, he was not under
obligation to prove directly that he did not commit the alleged
misdeed; rather it was his business to produce, if he could, a
sufficient number of persons who would take oath that they believed
the accused to be a trustworthy man and that he was telling the truth
when he denied that he was guilty. The persons brought forward to take
this oath were known as compurgators, or "co-swearers," and the legal
act thus performed was called compurgation. The number of compurgators
required to free a man was usually from seven to twelve, though it
varied greatly among different tribes and according to the rank of the
parties involved. Naturally they were likely to be relatives or
friends of the accused man, though it was not essential that they be
such. It was in no wise expected that they be able to give facts or
evidence regarding the case; in other words, they were not to serve at
all as witnesses, such as are called in our courts to-day.

If the accused succeeded in producing the required number of
compurgators, and they took the oath in a satisfactory manner, the
defendant was usually declared to be innocent and the case was
dropped. If, however, the compurgators were not forthcoming, or there
appeared some irregularity in their part of the procedure, resort
would ordinarily be had to the ordeal. The ordeal was essentially an
appeal to the gods for decision between two contending parties. It
was based on the belief that the gods would not permit an innocent
person to suffer by reason of an unjust accusation and that when the
opportunity was offered under certain prescribed conditions the divine
power would indicate who was in the right and who in the wrong. The
ordeal, having its origin far back in the times when the Germans were
pagans and before their settlements in the Roman Empire, was retained
in common usage after the Christianizing and civilizing of the
barbarian tribes. The administering of it simply passed from the old
pagan priests to the Christian clergy, and the appeals were directed
to the Christian's God instead of to Woden and Thor. Under Christian
influence, the wager of battle (or personal combat to settle judicial
questions), which had been exceedingly common, was discouraged as much
as possible, and certain new modes of appeal to divine authority were
introduced. Throughout the earlier Middle Ages the chief forms of the
ordeal were: (1) the ordeal by walking through fire; (2) the ordeal by
hot iron, in which the accused either carried a piece of hot iron a
certain distance in his hands or walked barefoot over pieces of the
same material; (3) the ordeal by hot water, in which the accused was
required to plunge his bared arm into boiling water and bring forth a
stone or other object from the bottom; (4) the ordeal by cold water,
in which the accused was thrown, bound hand and foot, into a pond or
stream, to sink if he were innocent, to float if he were guilty; (5)
the ordeal of the cross, in which the accuser and accused stood with
arms outstretched in the form of a cross until one of them could
endure the strain of the unnatural attitude no longer; (6) the ordeal
of the sacrament, in which the accused partook of the sacrament, the
idea being that divine vengeance would certainly fall upon him in so
doing if he were guilty; (7) the ordeal of the bread and cheese, in
which the accused, made to swallow morsels of bread and cheese, was
expected to choke if he were guilty; and (8) the judicial combat,
which was generally reserved for freemen, and which, despite the
opposition of the Church, did not die out until the end of the
mediæval period.

The three passages quoted below illustrate, respectively, the ordeal
by hot water, by cold water, and by fire. The first (a) is a story
told by the Frankish historian Gregory of Tours [see p. 46]. The
second (b) is an explanation of the cold water ordeal written by
Hincmar, an archbishop of Rheims in the ninth century. The third (c)
is an account, by Raymond of Agiles, of how Peter Bartholomew was put
to the test by the ordeal of fire. This incident occurred at Antioch
during the first crusade. Peter Bartholomew had just discovered a
lance which he claimed was the one thrust into the side of Christ at
the crucifixion and, some of the crusaders being skeptical as to the
genuineness of the relic, the discoverer was submitted to the ordeal
by fire to test the matter.

     Sources--(a) Gregorius Episcopus Turonensis, _Libri
     Miraculorum_ [Gregory of Tours, "Books of Miracles"], Chap.
     80. Text in _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Scriptores
     Merovingicarum_, Vol. I., p. 542. Translated by Arthur C.
     Howland in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV.,
     No. 4, pp. 10-11.

     (b) Hincmari Archiepiscopi Rhemensis, _De divortio Lotharii
     regis et Tetbergæ reginæ_ [Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, "The
     Divorce of King Lothair and Queen Teutberga"], Chap. 6. Text
     in Migne, _Patroligiæ Cursus Completus_, Second Series, Vol.
     CXXV., cols. 668-669. Translated by Arthur C. Howland, _ibid_.

     (c) Raimundus de Agiles, _Historia Francorum qui ceperunt
     Jerusalem_ [Raimond of Agiles, "History of the Franks who
     captured Jerusalem"], Chap. 18. Text in Migne, _Patrologiæ
     Cursus Completus_, Second Series, Vol. CLV., cols. 619-621.

     [Sidenote: A challenge to the ordeal by hot water]

     [Sidenote: Preparations for the ordeal]

     [Sidenote: Result of the ordeal]

   An Arian presbyter, disputing with a deacon of our religion, made
   venomous assertions against the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, as
   is the habit of that sect.[293] But when the deacon had discoursed
   a long time concerning the reasonableness of our faith, and the
   heretic, blinded by the fog of unbelief, continued to reject the
   truth (according as it is written, "Wisdom shall not enter the
   mind of the wicked") the former said: "Why weary ourselves with
   long discussions? Let acts demonstrate the truth. Let a kettle be
   heated over the fire and some one's ring be thrown into the boiling
   water. Let him who shall take it from the heated liquid be approved
   as a follower of the truth, and afterwards let the other party be
   converted to the knowledge of this truth. And do thou understand, O
   heretic, that this our party will fulfill the conditions with the
   aid of the Holy Ghost; thou shalt confess that there is no
   inequality, no dissimilarity, in the Holy Trinity." The heretic
   consented to the proposition and they separated, after appointing
   the next morning for the trial. But the fervor of faith in which
   the deacon had first made this suggestion began to cool through the
   instigation of the enemy [i.e., Satan]. Rising with the dawn, he
   bathed his arm in oil and smeared it with ointment. But
   nevertheless he made the round of the sacred places and called in
   prayer on the Lord. What more shall I say? About the third hour
   they met in the market place. The people came together to see the
   show. A fire was lighted, the kettle was placed upon it, and when
   it grew very hot the ring was thrown into the boiling water. The
   deacon invited the heretic to take it out of the water first. But
   he promptly refused, saying, "Thou who didst propose this trial art
   the one to take it out." The deacon, all of a tremble, bared his
   arm. And when the heretic presbyter saw it besmeared with ointment
   he cried out: "With magic arts thou hast thought to protect
   thyself, that thou hast made use of these salves, but what thou
   hast done will not avail." While they were thus quarreling, there
   came up a deacon from Ravenna named Iacinthus, who inquired what
   the trouble was about. When he learned the truth, he drew his arm
   out from under his robe at once and plunged his right hand into the
   kettle. Now the ring that had been thrown in was a little thing and
   very light, so that it was tossed about by the water as chaff would
   be blown about by the wind; and, searching for it a long time, he
   found it after about an hour. Meanwhile the flame beneath the
   kettle blazed up mightily, so that the greater heat might make it
   difficult for the ring to be followed by the hand; but the deacon
   extracted it at length and suffered no harm, protesting rather that
   at the bottom the kettle was cold while at the top it was just
   pleasantly warm. When the heretic beheld this, he was greatly
   confused and audaciously thrust his hand into the kettle saying,
   "My faith will aid me." As soon as his hand had been thrust in, all
   the flesh was boiled off the bones clear up to the elbow. And so
   the dispute ended.

     [Sidenote: How the ordeal of cold water is to be conducted]

   (b)

   Now the one about to be examined is bound by a rope and cast into
   the water because, as it is written, "each one shall be holden with
   the cords of his iniquity." And it is manifest that he is bound for
   two reasons, namely, that he may not be able to practice any fraud
   in connection with the judgment, and that he may be drawn out at
   the right time if the water should receive him as innocent, so that
   he perish not. For as we read that Lazarus, who had been dead four
   days (by whom is signified each one buried under a load of crimes),
   was buried wrapped in bandages and, bound by the same bands, came
   forth from the sepulchre at the word of the Lord and was loosed by
   the disciples at His command; so he who is to be examined by this
   judgment is cast into the water bound, and is drawn forth again
   bound, and is either immediately set free by the decree of the
   judges, being purged, or remains bound until the time of his
   purgation and is then examined by the court.... And in this ordeal
   of cold water whoever, after the invocation of God, who is the
   Truth, seeks to hide the truth by a lie, cannot be submerged in the
   waters above which the voice of the Lord God has thundered; for the
   pure nature of the water recognizes as impure, and therefore
   rejects as inconsistent with itself, such human nature as has once
   been regenerated by the waters of baptism and is again infected by
   falsehood.

     [Sidenote: Preparations for the ordeal by fire]

   (c)

   All these things were pleasing to us and, having enjoined on him a
   fast, we declared that a fire should be prepared upon the day on
   which the Lord was beaten with stripes and put upon the cross for
   our salvation. And the fourth day thereafter was the day before the
   Sabbath. So when the appointed day came round, a fire was prepared
   after the noon hour. The leaders and the people to the number of
   60,000 came together. The priests were there also with bare feet,
   clothed in ecclesiastical garments. The fire was made of dry olive
   branches, covering a space thirteen feet long; and there were two
   piles, with a space about a foot wide between them. The height of
   these piles was four feet. Now when the fire had been kindled so
   that it burned fiercely, I, Raimond, in the presence of the whole
   multitude, said: "If Omnipotent God has spoken to this man face to
   face, and the blessed Andrew has shown him our Lord's lance while
   he was keeping his vigil,[294] let him go through the fire
   unharmed. But if it is false, let him be burned, together with the
   lance, which he is to carry in his hand." And all responded on
   bended knees, "Amen."

     [Sidenote: Peter Bartholomew passes through the flames]

   The fire was growing so hot that the flames shot up thirty cubits
   high into the air and scarcely any one dared approach it. Then
   Peter Bartholomew, clothed only in his tunic and kneeling before
   the bishop of Albar,[295] called God to witness that "he had seen
   Him face to face on the cross, and that he had heard from Him those
   things above written."... Then, when the bishop had placed the
   lance in his hand, he knelt and made the sign of the cross and
   entered the fire with the lance, firm and unterrified. For an
   instant's time he paused in the midst of the flames, and then by
   the grace of God passed through.... But when Peter emerged from the
   fire so that neither his tunic was burned nor even the thin cloth
   with which the lance was wrapped up had shown any sign of damage,
   the whole people received him, after he had made over them the sign
   of the cross with the lance in his hand and had cried, "God help
   us!" All the people, I say, threw themselves upon him and dragged
   him to the ground and trampled on him, each one wishing to touch
   him, or to get a piece of his garment, and each thinking him near
   some one else. And so he received three or four wounds in the legs
   where the flesh was torn away, his back was injured, and his sides
   bruised. Peter had died on the spot, as we believe, had not Raimond
   Pelet, a brave and noble soldier, broken through the wild crowd
   with a band of friends and rescued him at the peril of their
   lives.... After this, Peter died in peace at the hour appointed to
   him by God, and journeyed to the Lord; and he was buried in the
   place where he had carried the lance of the Lord through the
   fire.[296]

FOOTNOTES:

[293] The principal difference between Arian and orthodox Christians
arose out of the much discussed problem as to whether Jesus was of the
same substance as God and co-eternal with Him. The Arians maintained
that while Jesus was truly the Son of God, He must necessarily have
been inferior to the Father, else there would be two gods. Arianism
was formally condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325, but it
continued to be the prevalent belief in many parts of the Roman
Empire; and when the Germans became Christians, it was Christianity of
the Arian type (except in the case of the Franks) that they
adopted--because it happened to be this creed that the missionaries
carried to them. The Franks became orthodox Christians, which in part
explains their close relations with the papacy in the earlier Middle
Ages [see p. 50]. Of course Gregory of Tours, who relates the story of
the Arian presbyter, as a Frank, was a hater of Arianism, and
therefore we need not be surprised at the expressions of contempt
which he employs in referring to "the heretic."

[294] The story as told by Raimond of Agiles was that Peter
Bartholomew had been visited by Andrew the Apostle, who had revealed
to him the spot where the lance lay buried beneath the Church of St.
Peter in Antioch.

[295] Albar, or Albara, was a town southeast of Antioch, beyond the
Orontes.

[296] Owing to Peter's early death after undergoing the ordeal, a
serious controversy arose as to whether he had really passed through
it without injury from the fire. His friends ascribed his death to the
wounds he had received from the enthusiastic crowd, but his enemies
declared that he died from burns.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM

34. Older Institutions Involving Elements of Feudalism

The history of the feudal system in Europe makes up a very large part
of the history of the Middle Ages, particularly of the period between
the ninth and the fourteenth centuries. This is true because
feudalism, in one way or another, touched almost every phase of the
life of western Europe during this long era. More than anything else,
it molded the conditions of government, the character and course of
war, the administration of justice, the tenure of land, the manner of
everyday life, and even the relations of the Church with sovereigns
and people. "Coming into existence," says a French historian, "in the
obscure period that followed the dissolution of the Carolingian
empire, the feudal régime developed slowly, without the intervention
of a government, without the aid of a written law, without any general
understanding among individuals; rather only by a gradual
transformation of customs, which took place sooner or later, but in
about the same way, in France, Italy, Christian Spain, and Germany.
Then, toward the end of the eleventh century, it was transplanted into
England and into southern Italy, in the twelfth and thirteenth into
the Latin states of the East, and beginning with the fourteenth into
the Scandinavian countries. This régime, established thus not
according to a general plan but by a sort of natural growth, never had
forms and usages that were everywhere the same. It is impossible to
gather it up into a perfectly exact picture, which would not be in
contradiction to several cases."[297]

The country in which feudalism reached its fullest perfection was
France and most of the passages here given to illustrate the subject
have to do with French life and institutions. In France, speaking
generally, feudalism took shape during the ninth and tenth centuries,
developed steadily until the thirteenth, and then slowly declined,
leaving influences on society which have not yet all disappeared. When
the system was complete--say by the tenth century--we can see in it
three essential elements which may be described as the personal, the
territorial, and the governmental. The personal element, in brief, was
the relation between lord and vassal under which the former gave
protection in return for the latter's fidelity. The territorial
element was the benefice, or fief, granted to the vassal by the lord
to be used on certain conditions by the former while the title to it
remained with the latter. The governmental element was the rights of
jurisdiction over his fief usually given by a lord to his vassal,
especially if the fief were an important one. At one time it was
customary to trace back all these features of the feudal system to the
institutions of Rome. Later it became almost as customary to trace
them to the institutions of the early Germans. But recent scholarship
shows that it is quite unnecessary, in fact very misleading, to
attempt to ascribe them wholly to either Roman or German sources, or
even to both together. All that we can say is that in the centuries
preceding the ninth these elements all existed in the society of
western Europe and that, while something very like them ran far back
into old Roman and German times, they existed in sixth and seventh
century Europe primarily because conditions were then such as to
_demand_ their existence. Short extracts to illustrate the most
important of these old feudal elements are given below. It should
constantly be borne in mind that no one of these things--whether
vassalage, the benefice, or the immunity--was in itself feudalism.
Most of them could, and did, exist separately, and it was only when
they were united, as commonly became the case in the ninth and tenth
centuries, that the word feudalism can properly be brought into use,
and then only as applied to the complete product.

(1) VASSALAGE

For the personal element in feudalism it is possible to find two
prototypes, one Roman and the other German. The first was the
institution of the later Empire known as the _patrocinium_--the
relation established between a powerful man (patron) and a weak one
(client) when the latter pledged himself to perform certain services
for the former in return for protection. The second was the German
_comitatus_--a band of young warriors who lived with a prince or noble
and went on campaigns under his leadership. The _patrocinium_
doubtless survived in Roman Gaul long after the time of the Frankish
invasion, but it is not likely that the _comitatus_ ever played much
part in that country. It seems that, with the exception of the king,
the Frankish men of influence did not have bands of personal followers
after the settlement on Roman soil. But, wholly aside from earlier
practices, the conditions which the conquest, and the later struggles
of the rival kings, brought about made it still necessary for many men
who could not protect themselves or their property to seek the favor
of some one who was strong enough to give them aid. The name which
came to be applied to the act of establishing this personal relation
was _commendation_. The man who promised the protection was the lord,
and the man who pledged himself to serve the lord and be faithful to
him was the _homo_, after the eighth century known as the vassal
(_vassus_). In the eighth century, when the power of the Merovingian
kings was ebbing away and the people were left to look out for
themselves, large numbers entered into the vassal relation; and in the
ninth century, when Carolingian power was likewise running low and the
Northmen, Hungarians, and Saracens were ravaging the country, scarcely
a free man was left who did not secure for himself the protection of a
lord. The relation of vassalage was first recognized as legal in the
capitularies of Charlemagne. Here is a Frankish formula of
commendation dating from the seventh century--practically a blank
application in which the names of the prospective lord and vassal
could be inserted as required.

     Source--Eugene de Rozière, _Recueil Général des Formules
     usitées dans l'Empire des Francs du Ve au Xe siècle_
     ["General Collection of Formulae employed in the Frankish
     Empire from the Fifth to the Tenth Century"], Vol. I., p. 69.
     Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations
     and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, pp. 3-4.

   To that magnificent lord ----, I, ----. Since it is well known to
   all how little I have wherewith to feed and clothe myself, I have
   therefore petitioned your piety, and your good-will has decreed to
   me, that I should hand myself over, or commend myself, to your
   guardianship, which I have thereupon done; that is to say, in this
   way, that you should aid and succor me, as well with food as with
   clothing, according as I shall be able to serve you and deserve it.

   And so long as I shall live I ought to provide service and honor to
   you, compatible with my free condition;[298] and I shall not,
   during the time of my life, have the right to withdraw from your
   control or guardianship; but must remain during the days of my life
   under your power or defense. Wherefore it is proper that if either
   of us shall wish to withdraw himself from these agreements, he
   shall pay ---- shillings to the other party, and this agreement
   shall remain unbroken.[299]

   (Wherefore it is fitting that they should make or confirm between
   themselves two letters drawn up in the same form on this matter;
   which they have thus done.)

(2) THE BENEFICE

The benefice, or grant of land to a vassal by a lord, by the Church,
or by the king, had its origin among the Franks in what were known as
the _precaria_ of the Church. At the time of the Frankish settlement
in Gaul, it was quite customary for the Church to grant land to men in
answer to _preces_ ("prayers," or requests), on condition that it
might be recalled at any time and that the temporary holder should be
unable to enforce any claims as against the owner. For the use of such
land a small rent in money, in produce, or in service was usually
paid. This form of tenure among the Franks was at first restricted to
church lands, but by the eighth century lay owners, even the king
himself, had come to employ it. The term _precarium_ dropped out of
use and all such grants, by whomsoever made, came to be known as
benefices ("benefits," or "favors"). The ordinary vassal might or
might not once have had land in his own name, but if he had such he
was expected to give over the ownership of it to his lord and receive
it back as a benefice to be used on certain prescribed conditions. In
time it became common, too, for lords to grant benefices out of their
own lands to landless vassals. A man could be a vassal without having
a benefice, but rarely, at least after the eighth century, could he
have a benefice without entering into the obligations of vassalage.
Benefices were at first granted by the Church with the understanding
that they might be recalled at any time; later they were granted by
Church, kings, and seigniors for life, or for a certain term of years;
and finally, in the ninth and tenth centuries, they came generally to
be regarded as hereditary. By the time the hereditary principle had
been established, the name "fief" (_feodum_, _feudum_--whence our word
feudal) had supplanted the older term "benefice." The tendency of the
personal element of vassalage and the territorial element of the
benefice, or fief, to merge was very strong, and by the tenth century
nearly every vassal was also a fief-holder. The following formulæ
belong to the seventh century. The first (a) is for the grant of lands
to a church or monastery; the second (b) for their return to the
grantor as a _precarium_--or what was known a century later as a
benefice.

     Source--Eugène de Rozière, _Recueil Général des Formules_,
     Vol. I., p. 473. Translated by E. P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa.
     Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, pp. 6-8.

     [Sidenote: Description of property yielded to a church or
   monastery]

     [Sidenote: Terms of the contract]

     [Sidenote: Penalty for faithlessness]

   (a)

   I, ----, in the name of God. I have settled in my mind that I
   ought, for the good of my soul, to make a gift of something from my
   possessions, which I have therefore done. And this is what I hand
   over, in the district named ----, in the place of which the name is
   ----, all those possessions of mine which there my father left me
   at his death, and which, as against my brothers, or as against my
   co-heirs, the lot legitimately brought me in the division,[300] or
   those which I was able afterward to add to them in any way, in
   their whole completeness, that is to say, the courtyard with its
   buildings, with slaves, houses, lands (cultivated and
   uncultivated), meadows, woods, waters, mills, etc. These, as I have
   said before, with all the things adjacent or belonging to them, I
   hand over to the church, which was built in honor of Saint ----, to
   the monastery which is called ----, where the Abbot ---- is
   acknowledged to rule regularly over God's flock. On these
   conditions: that so long as life remains in my body, I shall
   receive from you as a benefice for usufruct the possessions above
   described, and the due payment I will make to you and your
   successors each year, that is ---- [amount named]. And my son shall
   have the same possessions for the days of his life, and shall make
   the above-named payment; and if my children should survive me, they
   shall have the same possessions during the days of their lives and
   shall make the same payment; and if God shall give me a son from a
   legitimate wife, he shall have the same possessions for the days of
   his life only, after the death of whom the same possessions, with
   all their improvements, shall return to your hands to be held
   forever; and if it should be my chance to beget sons from a
   legitimate marriage, these shall hold the same possessions after my
   death, making the above-named payment, during the time of their
   lives. If not, however, after my death, without subterfuge of any
   kind, by right of your authority, the same possessions shall revert
   to you, to be retained forever. If any one, however (which I do not
   believe will ever occur)--if I myself, or any other person--shall
   wish to violate the firmness and validity of this grant, the order
   of truth opposing him, may his falsity in no degree succeed; and
   for his bold attempt may he pay to the aforesaid monastery double
   the amount which his ill-ordered cupidity has been prevented from
   abstracting; and moreover let him be indebted to the royal
   authority for ---- solidi of gold; and, nevertheless, let the
   present charter remain inviolate with all that it contains, with
   the witnesses placed below.

   Done in ----, publicly, those who are noted below being present, or
   the remaining innumerable multitude of people.

     [Sidenote: The property again described]

     [Sidenote: Returned to the original owner to be used by him]

   (b)

   In the name of God, I, Abbot ----, with our commissioned brethren.
   Since it is not unknown how you, ----, by the suggestion of divine
   exhortation, did grant to ---- [monastery named], to the church
   which is known to be constructed in honor of Saint ----, where we
   by God's authority exercise our pastoral care, all your possessions
   which you seemed to have in the district named, in the vill
   [village] named, which your father on his death bequeathed to you
   there, or which by your own labor you were able to gain there, or
   which, as against your brother or against ----, a co-heir, a just
   division gave you, with courtyard and buildings, gardens and
   orchards, with various slaves, ---- by name, houses, lands,
   meadows, woods (cultivated and uncultivated), or with all the
   dependencies and appurtenances belonging to it, which it would be
   extremely long to enumerate, in all their completeness; but
   afterwards, at your request, it has seemed proper to us to cede to
   you the same possessions to be held for usufruct; and you will not
   neglect to pay at annual periods the due _census_ [i.e., the
   rental] hence, that is ---- [amount named]. And if God should give
   you a son by your legal wife, he shall have the same possessions
   for the days of his life only, and shall not presume to neglect the
   above payment, and similarly your sons which you are seen to have
   at present, shall do for the days of their lives; after the death
   of whom, all the possessions above-named shall revert to us and
   our successors perpetually. Moreover, if no sons shall have been
   begotten by you, immediately after your death, without any harmful
   contention, the possessions shall revert to the rulers or guardians
   of the above-named church, forever. Nor may any one, either
   ourselves or our successors, be successful in a rash attempt
   inordinately to destroy these agreements, but just as the time has
   demanded in the present _precaria_, may that be sure to endure
   unchanged which we, with the consent of our brothers, have decided
   to confirm.

   Done in ----, in the presence of ---- and of others whom it is not
   worth while to enumerate. [Seal of the same abbot who has ordered
   this _precaria_ to be made.]

(3) THE IMMUNITY

The most important element in the governmental phase of feudalism was
what was known as the immunity. In Roman law immunity meant exemption
from taxes and public services and belonged especially to the lands
owned personally by the emperors. Such exemptions were, however,
sometimes allowed to the lands of imperial officers and of men in
certain professions, and in later times to the lands held by the
Church. How closely this Roman immunity was connected with the feudal
immunity of the Middle Ages is not clear. Doubtless the institution
survived in Gaul, especially on church lands, long after the Frankish
conquest. It is best, however, to look upon the typical Frankish
immunity as of essentially independent origin. From the time of
Clovis, the kings were accustomed to make grants of the sort to
land-holding abbots and bishops, and by the time of Charlemagne nearly
all such prelates had been thus favored. But such grants were not
confined to ecclesiastics. Even in the seventh and eighth centuries
lay holders of royal benefices often received the privileges of the
immunity also. Speaking generally, the immunity exempted the lands to
which it applied from the jurisdiction of the local royal officials,
especially of the counts. The lands were supposed to be none the less
ultimately subject to the royal authority, but by the grant of
immunity the sovereign took their financial and judicial
administration from the counts, who would ordinarily have charge, and
gave it to the holders of the lands. The counts were forbidden to
enter the specified territories to collect taxes or fines, hold
courts, and sometimes even to arrange for military service. The
layman, or the bishop, or the abbot, who held the lands performed
these services and was responsible only to the crown for them. The
king's chief object in granting the immunity was to reward or win the
support of the grantees and to curtail the authority of his local
representatives, who in many cases threatened to become too powerful
for the good of the state; but by every such grant the sovereign
really lost some of his own power, and this practice came to be in no
small measure responsible for the weakness of monarchy in feudal
times.

The first of the extracts below (a) is a seventh-century formula for
the grant of an immunity by the king to a bishop. The second (b) is a
grant made by Charlemagne, in 779, confirming an old immunity enjoyed
by the monastery at Châlons-sur-Saône.

     Sources--(a) Text in _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Legum
     Sectio V., Formulæ_, Part I., pp. 43-44.

     (b) Text in _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Leges_ (Pertz ed.),
     Vol. II., p. 287. Adapted from translation in Ephraim Emerton,
     _Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages_ (new ed.,
     Boston, 1903), p. 246.

     [Sidenote: A formula for a grant of immunity]

   (a)

   We believe that we give our royal authority its full splendor if,
   with benevolent intentions, we bestow upon churches--or upon any
   persons--the favors which they merit, and if, with the aid of God,
   we give a written assurance of the continuance of these favors. We
   wish, then, to make known that at the request of a prelate, lord of
   ---- [the estate named] and bishop of ---- [the church named], we
   have accorded to him, for the sake of our eternal salvation, the
   following benefits: that in the domains of the bishop's church,
   both those which it possesses to-day and those which by God's grace
   it may later acquire, no public official shall be permitted to
   enter, either to hold courts or to exact fines, on any account; but
   let these prerogatives be vested in full in the bishop and his
   successors. We ordain therefore that neither you nor your
   subordinates,[301] nor those who come after you, nor any person
   endowed with a public office, shall ever enter the domains of that
   church, in whatever part of our kingdom they may be situated,
   either to hold trials or to collect fines. All the taxes and other
   revenues which the royal treasury has a right to demand from the
   people on the lands of the said church, whether they be freemen or
   slaves, Romans or barbarians, we now bestow on the said church for
   our future salvation, to be used by the officials of the church
   forever for the best interests of the church.

   (b)

   Charles, by the grace of God King of the Franks and Lombards and
   Patrician of the Romans, to all having charge of our affairs, both
   present and to come:

   By the help of the Lord, who has raised us to the throne of this
   kingdom, it is the chief duty of our clemency to lend a gracious
   ear to the need of all, and especially ought we devoutly to regard
   that which we are persuaded has been granted by preceding kings to
   church foundations for the saving of souls, and not to deny fitting
   benefits, in order that we may deserve to be partakers of the
   reward, but to confirm them in still greater security.

     [Sidenote: The old immunity enjoyed by the monastery at Châlons]

   Now the illustrious Hubert, bishop and ruler of the church of St.
   Marcellus, which lies below the citadel of Châlons,[302] where the
   precious martyr of the Lord himself rests in the body, has brought
   it to the attention of our Highness that the kings who preceded us,
   or our lord and father of blessed memory, Pepin, the preceding
   king, had by their charters granted complete immunities to that
   monastery, so that in the towns or on the lands belonging to it no
   public judge, nor any one with power of hearing cases or exacting
   fines, or raising sureties, or obtaining lodging or entertainment,
   or making requisitions of any kind, should enter.

   Moreover, the aforesaid bishop, Hubert, has presented the original
   charters of former kings, together with the confirmations of them,
   to be read by us, and declares the same favors to be preserved to
   the present day; but desiring the confirmation of our clemency, he
   prays that our authority may confirm this grant anew to the
   monastery.

     [Sidenote: =The immunity confirmed=]

   Wherefore, having inspected the said charters of former kings, we
   command that neither you, nor your subordinates, nor your
   successors, nor any person having judicial powers, shall presume to
   enter into the villages which may at the present time be in
   possession of that monastery, or which hereafter may have been
   bestowed by God-fearing men [or may be about to be so
   bestowed].[303] Let no public officer enter for the hearing of
   cases, or for exacting fines, or procuring sureties, or obtaining
   lodging or entertainment, or making any requisitions; but in full
   immunity, even as the favor of former kings has been continued down
   to the present day, so in the future also shall it, through our
   authority, remain undiminished. And if in times past, through any
   negligence of abbots, or luke-warmness of rulers, or the
   presumption of public officers, anything has been changed or taken
   away, removed or withdrawn, from these immunities, let it, by our
   authority and favor, be restored. And, further, let neither you nor
   your subordinates presume to infringe upon or violate what we have
   granted.

     [Sidenote: Penalties for its violation]

   But if there be any one, _dominus_,[304] _comes_ [count],
   _domesticus_,[305] _vicarius_,[306] or one vested with any judicial
   power whatsoever, by the indulgence of the good or by the favor of
   pious Christians or kings, who shall have presumed to infringe upon
   or violate these immunities, let him be punished with a fine of six
   hundred _solidi_,[307] two parts to go to the library of this
   monastery, and the third part to be paid into our treasury, so that
   impious men may not rejoice in violating that which our ancestors,
   or good Christians, may have conceded or granted. And whatever our
   treasury may have had a right to expect from this source shall go
   to the profit of the men of this church of St. Marcellus the
   martyr, to the better establishment of our kingdom and the good of
   those who shall succeed us.

   And that this decree may firmly endure we have ordered it to be
   confirmed with our own hand under our seal.

35. The Granting of Fiefs

The most obvious feature of feudalism was a peculiar divided tenure of
land under which the title was vested in one person and the use in
another. The territorial unit was the fief, which in extent might be
but a few acres, a whole county, or even a vast region like Normandy
or Burgundy. Fiefs were granted to vassals by contracts which bound
both grantor and grantee to certain specific obligations. The two
extracts below are examples of the records of such feudal grants,
bearing the dates 1167 and 1200 respectively. It should be remembered,
however, that fiefs need not necessarily be land. Offices, payments of
money, rights to collect tolls, and many other valuable things might
be given by one man to another as fiefs in just the same way that land
was given. Du Cange, in his _Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis_,
mentions eighty-eight different kinds of fiefs, and it has been said
that this does not represent more than one-fourth of the total number.
Nevertheless, the typical fief consisted of land. The term might
therefore be defined in general as the land for which the vassal, or
hereditary possessor, rendered to the lord, or hereditary proprietor,
services of a special character which were considered honorable, such
as military aid and attendance at courts.

     Sources--(a) Nicolas Brussel, _Nouvel Examen de l'Usage
     général des Fiefs en France pendant le XI, le XII, le XIII, et
     le XIVe Siècle_ ["New Examination of the Customs of Fiefs in
     the 11th, the 12th, the 13th, and the 14th Century"], Paris,
     1727, Vol. I., p. 3, note. Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in
     _Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, pp.
     15-16.

     (b) Maximilien Quantin, _Recueil de Pièces du XIIIe Siècle_
     ["Collection of Documents of the Thirteenth Century"],
     Auxerre, 1873, No. 2, pp. 1-2. Translated by Cheyney, _ibid._

     [Sidenote: The count of Champagne grants a fief to the bishop of
   Beauvais]

   (a)

   In the name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Amen. I, Louis,[308]
   by the grace of God king of the French, make known to all present
   as well as to come, that at Mante in our presence, Count Henry of
   Champagne[309] conceded the fief of Savigny to Bartholomew, bishop
   of Beauvais,[310] and his successors. And for that fief the said
   bishop has made promise and engagement for one knight and justice
   and service to Count Henry;[311] and he also agreed that the
   bishops who shall come after him will do likewise. In order that
   this may be understood and known to posterity we have caused the
   present charter to be attested by our seal. Done at Mante, in the
   year of the Incarnate Word, 1167; present in our palace those whose
   names and seals are appended: seal of Thiebault, our steward; seal
   of Guy, the butler; seal of Matthew, the chamberlain; seal of
   Ralph, the constable. Given by the hand of Hugh, the chancellor.

     [Sidenote: A grant by Count Thiebault]

   (b)

   I, Thiebault, count palatine of Troyes,[312] make known to those
   present and to come that I have given in fee[313] to Jocelyn
   d'Avalon and his heirs the manor which is called Gillencourt,[314]
   which is of the castellanerie[315] of La Ferté-sur-Aube; and
   whatever the same Jocelyn shall be able to acquire in the same
   manor I have granted to him and his heirs in enlargement of that
   fief. I have granted, moreover, to him that in no free manor of
   mine will I retain men who are of this gift.[316] The same Jocelyn,
   moreover, on account of this has become my liege man, saving,
   however, his allegiance to Gerad d'Arcy, and to the lord duke of
   Burgundy, and to Peter, count of Auxerre.[317] Done at Chouaude, by
   my own witness, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1200, in
   the month of January. Given by the hand of Walter, my chancellor.

36. The Ceremonies of Homage and Fealty

The personal relation between lord and vassal was established by the
double ceremony of homage and fealty. Homage was the act by which the
vassal made himself the man (_homo_) of the lord, while fealty was the
oath of fidelity to the obligations which must ordinarily be assumed
by such a man. The two were really distinct, though because they
almost invariably went together they finally became confounded in the
popular mind. The details of the ceremonies varied much in different
times and places, but, in general, when homage was to be performed,
the prospective vassal presented himself before his future seigneur
bareheaded and without arms; knelt, placed his hands in those of the
seigneur, and declared himself his man; then he was kissed by the
seigneur and lifted to his feet. In the act of fealty, the vassal
placed his hand upon sacred relics, or upon the Bible, and swore
eternal faithfulness to his seigneur. The so-called "act of
investiture" generally followed, the seigneur handing over to the
vassal a bit of turf, a stick, or some other object symbolizing the
transfer of the usufruct of the property in question. The whole
process was merely a mode of establishing a binding contract between
the two parties. Below we have: (_a_) a mediæval definition of homage,
taken from the customary law of Normandy; (_b_) an explanation of
fealty, given in an old English law-book; (_c_) a French chronicler's
account of the rendering of homage and fealty to the count of Flanders
in the year 1127; and (_d_) a set of laws governing homage and fealty,
written down in a compilation of the ordinances of Saint Louis (king
of France, 1226-1270), but doubtless showing substantially the
practice in France for a long time before King Louis's day.

     Sources--(a) _L'Ancienne Coutume de Normandie_ ["The Old
     Custom of Normandy"], Chap. 29.

     (b) Sir Thomas Lyttleton, _Treatise of Tenures in French and
     English_ (London, 1841), Bk. II., Chap. 2, p. 123.

     (c) Galbert de Bruges, _De Multro, Traditione, et Occisione
     gloriosi Karoli comitis Flandriarum_ ["Concerning the Murder,
     Betrayal, and Death of the glorious Charles, Count of
     Flanders"]. Text in Henri Pirenne, _Histoire du Meurtre de
     Charles le Bon, comte de Flandre, par Galbert de Bruges_
     (Paris, 1891). Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of
     Pa. Translations and Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3, p. 18.

     (d) _Les Établissements de Saint Louis_ ["The Ordinances of
     St. Louis"], Bk. II., Chap. 19. Text in Paul Viollet's edition
     (Paris, 1881), Vol. II., pp. 395-398.

     [Sidenote: A Norman definition of homage]

   (a)

   Homage is a pledge to keep faith in respect to matters that are
   right and necessary, and to give counsel and aid. He who would do
   homage ought to place his hands between those of the man who is to
   be his lord, and speak these words: "I become your man, to keep
   faith with you against all others, saving my allegiance to the duke
   of Normandy."

     [Sidenote: The oath of fealty]

   (b)

   And when a free tenant shall swear fealty to his lord, let him
   place his right hand on the book[318] and speak thus: "Hear thou
   this, my lord, that I will be faithful and loyal to you and will
   keep my pledges to you for the lands which I claim to hold of you,
   and that I will loyally perform for you the services specified, so
   help me God and the saints." Then he shall kiss the book; but he
   shall not kneel when he swears fealty, nor take so humble a posture
   as is required in homage.

   (c)

   Through the whole remaining part of the day those who had been
   previously enfeoffed by the most pious count Charles, did homage to
   the count,[319] taking up now again their fiefs and offices and
   whatever they had before rightfully and legitimately obtained. On
   Thursday, the seventh of April, homages were again made to the
   count, being completed in the following order of faith and
   security:

     [Sidenote: The rendering of homage and fealty to the count of
   Flanders]

   First they did their homage thus. The count asked if he was willing
   to become completely his man, and the other replied, "I am
   willing"; and with clasped hands, surrounded by the hands of the
   count, they were bound together by a kiss. Secondly, he who had
   done homage gave his fealty to the representative of the count in
   these words, "I promise on my faith that I will in future be
   faithful to Count William, and will observe my homage to him
   completely, against all persons, in good faith and without deceit."
   Thirdly, he took his oath to this upon the relics of the saints.
   Afterwards, with a little rod which the count held in his hand, he
   gave investitures to all who by this agreement had given their
   security and homage and accompanying oath.

     [Sidenote: An ordinance of St. Louis on homage and fealty]

   (d)

   If any one would hold from a lord in fee, he ought to seek his lord
   within forty days. And if he does not do it within forty days, the
   lord may and ought to seize his fief for default of homage, and the
   things which are found there he should seize without compensation;
   and yet the vassal should be obliged to pay to his lord the
   redemption.[320] When any one wishes to enter into the fealty of a
   lord, he ought to seek him, as we have said above, and should speak
   as follows: "Sir, I request you, as my lord, to put me in your
   fealty and in your homage for such and such a thing situated in
   your fief, which I have bought." And he ought to say from what man,
   and this one ought to be present and in the fealty of the
   lord;[321] and whether it is by purchase or by escheat[322] or by
   inheritance he ought to explain; and with his hands joined, to
   speak as follows: "Sir, I become your man and promise to you fealty
   for the future as my lord, towards all men who may live or die,
   rendering to you such service as the fief requires, making to you
   your relief as you are the lord." And he ought to say whether for
   guardianship,[323] or as an escheat, or as an inheritance, or as a
   purchase.

   The lord should immediately reply to him: "And I receive you and
   take you as my man, and give you this kiss as a sign of faith,
   saving my right and that of others," according to the usage of the
   various districts.

37. The Mutual Obligations of Lords and Vassals

The feudal relation was essentially one of contract involving
reciprocal relations between lord and vassal. In the following letter,
written in the year 1020 by Bishop Fulbert of Chartres[324] to the
duke of Aquitaine, we find laid down the general principles which
ought to govern the discharge of these mutual obligations. It is
affirmed that there were six things that no loyal vassal could do, and
these are enumerated and explained. Then comes the significant
statement that these negative duties must be supplemented with
positive acts for the service and support of the lord. What some of
these acts were will appear in the extracts in §38. Bishop Fulbert
points out also that the lord is himself bound by feudal law not to do
things detrimental to the safety, honor, or prosperity of his vassal.
The letter is an admirable statement of the spirit of the feudal
system at its best. Already by 1020 a considerable body of feudal
customs having the force of law had come into existence and it appears
that Fulbert had made these customs the subject of some special study
before answering the questions addressed to him by Duke William.

     Source--Text in Martin Bouquet, _Recueil des Historiens des
     Gaules et de la France_ ["Collection of the Historians of Gaul
     and of France"], Vol. X., p. 463.

   To William, most illustrious duke of the Aquitanians, Bishop
   Fulbert, the favor of his prayers:

     [Sidenote: What the vassal owes the lord]

   Requested to write something regarding the character of fealty, I
   have set down briefly for you, on the authority of the books, the
   following things. He who takes the oath of fealty to his lord ought
   always to keep in mind these six things: what is harmless, safe,
   honorable, useful, easy, and practicable.[325] _Harmless_, which
   means that he ought not to injure his lord in his body; _safe_,
   that he should not injure him by betraying his confidence or the
   defenses upon which he depends for security; _honorable_, that he
   should not injure him in his justice, or in other matters that
   relate to his honor; _useful_, that he should not injure him in his
   property; _easy_, that he should not make difficult that which his
   lord can do easily; and _practicable_, that he should not make
   impossible for the lord that which is possible.

   However, while it is proper that the faithful vassal avoid these
   injuries, it is not for doing this alone that he deserves his
   holding: for it is not enough to refrain from wrongdoing, unless
   that which is good is done also. It remains, therefore, that in the
   same six things referred to above he should faithfully advise and
   aid his lord, if he wishes to be regarded as worthy of his benefice
   and to be safe concerning the fealty which he has sworn.

     [Sidenote: The obligations of the lord]

   The lord also ought to act toward his faithful vassal in the same
   manner in all these things. And if he fails to do this, he will be
   rightfully regarded as guilty of bad faith, just as the former, if
   he should be found shirking, or willing to shirk, his obligations
   would be perfidious and perjured.[326]

   I should have written to you at greater length had I not been busy
   with many other matters, including the rebuilding of our city and
   church, which were recently completely destroyed by a terrible
   fire. Though for a time we could not think of anything but this
   disaster, yet now, by the hope of God's comfort, and of yours also,
   we breathe more freely again.

38. Some of the More Important Rights of the Lord

The obligations of vassals to lords outlined in the preceding
selection were mainly of a moral character--such as naturally grew out
of the general idea of loyalty and fidelity to a benefactor. They were
largely negative and were rather vague and indefinite. So far as they
went, they were binding upon lords and vassals alike. There were,
however, several very definite and practical rights which the lords
possessed with respect to the property and persons of their
dependents. Some of these were of a financial character, some were
judicial, and others were military. Five of the most important are
illustrated by the passages given below.

(_a_) AIDS

Under the feudal system the idea prevailed that the vassal's purse as
well as his body was to be at the lord's service. Originally the right
to draw upon his vassals for money was exercised by the lord whenever
he desired, but by custom this ill-defined power gradually became
limited to three sorts of occasions when the need of money was likely
to be especially urgent, i.e., when the eldest son was knighted, when
the eldest daughter was married, and when the lord was to be ransomed
from captivity. In the era of the crusades, the starting of the lord
on an expedition to the Holy Land was generally regarded as another
emergency in which an aid might rightfully be demanded. The following
extract from the old customary law of Normandy represents the practice
in nearly all feudal Europe.

     Source--_L'Ancienne Coutume de Normandie_, Chap. 35.

     [Sidenote: The three aids]

   In Normandy there are three chief aids. The first is to help make
   the lord's eldest son a knight; the second is to marry his eldest
   daughter; the third is to ransom the body of the lord from prison
   when he shall be taken captive during a war for the duke.[327] By
   this it appears that the _aide de chevalerie_ [knighthood-aid] is
   due when the eldest son of the lord is made a knight. The eldest
   son is he who has the dignity of primogeniture.[328] The _aide de
   mariage_ [marriage-aid] is due when the eldest daughter is
   married. The _aide de rançon_ [ransom-aid] is due when it is
   necessary to deliver the lord from the prisons of the enemies of
   the duke. These aids are paid in some fiefs at the rate of half a
   relief, and in some at the rate of a third.[329]

(_b_) MILITARY SERVICE

From whatever point of view feudalism is regarded--whether as a system
of land tenure, as a form of social organization, or as a type of
government--the military element in it appears everywhere important.
The feudal period was the greatest era of war the civilized world has
ever known. Few people between the tenth and fourteenth centuries,
except in the peasant classes, were able to live out their lives
entirely in peace. Of greatest value to kings and feudal magnates,
greater even than money itself, was a goodly following of soldiers;
hence the almost universal requirement of military service by lords
from their vassals. Fiefs were not infrequently granted out for no
other purpose than to get the military service which their holders
would owe. The amount of such service varied greatly in different
times and places, but the following arrangement represents the most
common practice.

     Source--_Les Établissements de Saint Louis_, Bk. I., Chap. 65.
     Text in Paul Viollet's edition (Paris, 1881), Vol. II., pp.
     95-96.

     [Sidenote: The conditions of military service]

   The baron and the vassals of the king ought to appear in his army
   when they shall be summoned, and ought to serve at their own
   expense for forty days and forty nights, with whatever number of
   knights they owe.[330] And he possesses the right to exact from
   them these services when he wishes and when he has need of them.
   If, however, the king shall wish to keep them more than forty days
   and forty nights at their own expense, they need not remain unless
   they desire.[331] But if he shall wish to retain them at his cost
   for the defense of the kingdom, they ought lawfully to remain. But
   if he shall propose to lead them outside of the kingdom, they need
   not go unless they are willing, for they have already served their
   forty days and forty nights.

(_c_) WARDSHIP AND MARRIAGE

Very important among the special prerogatives of the feudal lord was
his right to manage, and enjoy the profits of, fiefs inherited by
minors. When a vassal died, leaving an heir who was under age, the
lord was charged with the care of the fief until the heir reached his
or her majority. On becoming of age, a young man was expected to take
control of his fief at once. But a young woman remained under wardship
until her marriage, though if she married under age she could get
possession of her fief immediately, just as she would had she waited
until older. The control of the marriage of heiresses was largely in
the hands of their lords, for obviously it was to the lord's interest
that no enemy of his, nor any shiftless person, should become the
husband of his ward. The lord could compel a female ward to marry and
could oblige her to accept as a husband one of the candidates whom he
offered her; but it was usually possible for the woman to purchase
exemption from this phase of his jurisdiction. After the thirteenth
century the right of wardship gradually declined in France, though it
long continued in England. The following extract from the customs of
Normandy sets forth the typical feudal law on the subject.

     Source--_L'Ancienne Coutume de Normandie_, Chap. 33.

   Heirs should be placed in guardianship until they reach the age of
   twenty years; and those who hold them as wards should give over to
   them all the fiefs which came under their control by reason of
   wardship, provided they have not lost anything by judicial
   process.... When the heirs pass out of the condition of wardship,
   their lords shall not impose upon them any reliefs for their fiefs,
   for the profits of wardship shall be reckoned in place of the
   relief.

     [Sidenote: The marriage of a female ward]

   When a female ward reaches the proper age to marry, she should be
   married by the advice and consent of her lord, and by the advice
   and consent of her relatives and friends, according as the nobility
   of her ancestry and the value of her fief may require; and upon her
   marriage the fief which has been held in guardianship should be
   given over to her. A woman cannot be freed from wardship except by
   marriage; and let it not be said that she is of age until she is
   twenty years old. But if she be married at the age at which it is
   allowable for a woman to marry, the fact of her marriage makes her
   of age and delivers her fief from wardship.

     [Sidenote: The lord's obligation to care for the fief of his ward]

   The fiefs of those who are under wardship should be cared for
   attentively by their lords, who are entitled to receive the produce
   and profits.[332] And in this connection let it be known that the
   lord ought to preserve in their former condition the buildings, the
   manor-houses, the forests and meadows, the gardens, the ponds, the
   mills, the fisheries, and the other things of which he has the
   profits. And he should not sell, destroy, or remove the woods, the
   houses, or the trees.

(_d_) RELIEFS

A relief was a payment made to the lord by an heir before entering
upon possession of his fief. The history of reliefs goes back to the
time when benefices were not hereditary and when, if a son succeeded
his father in the usufruct of a piece of property, it was regarded as
an unusual thing--a special favor on the part of the owner to be paid
for by the new tenant. Later, when fiefs had become almost everywhere
hereditary, the custom of requiring reliefs still survived. The amount
was at first arbitrary, being arranged by individual bargains; but in
every community, especially in France, the tendency was toward a fixed
custom regarding it. Below are given some brief extracts from English
Treasury records which show how men in England between the years 1140
and 1230 paid the king for the privilege of retaining the fiefs held
by their fathers.

     Source--Thomas Madox, _History and Antiquities of the
     Exchequer of the Kings of England_ (London, 1769), Vol. I.,
     pp. 312-322 _passim_.

   Walter Hait renders an account of 5 marks of silver for the relief
   of the land of his father.

   Walter Brito renders an account of £66, 13s. and 4d. for the relief
   of his land.

   Richard of Estre renders an account of £15 for the relief for 3
   knights' fees which he holds from the honor of Mortain.

   Walter Fitz Thomas, of Newington, owes 28s. 4d. for having a fourth
   part of one knight's fee which had been seized into the hand of the
   king for default of relief.

   John of Venetia renders an account of 300 marks for the fine of his
   land and for the relief of the land which was his father's which he
   held from the king _in capite_.[333]

   John de Balliol owes £150 for the relief of 30 knights' fees which
   Hugh de Balliol, his father, held from the king _in capite_, that
   is 100s. for each fee.

   Peter de Bruce renders an account of £100 for his relief for the
   barony which was of Peter his father.

(_e_) FORFEITURE

The lord's most effective means of compelling his vassals to discharge
their obligations was his right to take back their fiefs for breach of
feudal contract. Such a breach, or felony, as it was technically
called, might consist in refusal to render military service or the
required aids, ignoring the sovereign authority of the lord, levying
war against the lord, dishonoring members of the lord's family, or, as
in the case below, refusing to obey the lord's summons to appear in
court. In practice the lords generally found it difficult to enforce
the penalty of forfeiture and after the thirteenth century the
tendency was to substitute money fines for dispossession, except in
the most aggravated cases. The following is an account of the
condemnation of Arnold Atton, a nobleman of south France, by the
feudal court of Raymond, count of Toulouse, in the year 1249. The
penalty imposed was the loss of the valuable château of Auvillars.

     Source--Teulet, _Layettes du Trésor des Cartes_ ["Bureau of
     Treasury Accounts "], No. 3778, Vol. III., p. 70. Translated
     by Edward P. Cheyney in _Univ. of Pa. Translations and
     Reprints_, Vol. IV., No. 3. pp. 33-34.

   Raymond, by the grace of God count of Toulouse, marquis of
   Provence, to the nobleman Arnold Atton, viscount of Lomagne,
   greeting:

     [Sidenote: The court's sentence upon Arnold Atton]

   Let it be known to your nobility by the tenor of these presents
   what has been done in the matter of the complaints which we have
   made about you before the court of Agen; that you have not taken
   the trouble to keep or fulfill the agreements sworn by you to us,
   as is more fully contained in the instrument drawn up there, sealed
   with our seal by the public notary; and that you have refused
   contemptuously to appear before the said court for the purpose of
   doing justice, and have otherwise committed multiplied and great
   delinquencies against us. As your faults have required, the
   aforesaid court of Agen has unanimously and concordantly pronounced
   sentence against you, and for these matters have condemned you to
   hand over and restore to us the château of Auvillars and all that
   land which you hold from us in fee, to be had and held by us by
   right of the obligation by which you have bound it to us for
   fulfilling and keeping the said agreements.

   Likewise it has declared that we are to be put into possession of
   the said land and that it is to be handed over to us, on account of
   your contumacy, because you have not been willing to appear before
   the same court on the days which were assigned to you. Moreover, it
   has declared that you shall be held and required to restore the
   said land in whatsoever way we wish to receive it, with few or
   many, in peace or in anger, in our own person, by right of
   lordship. Likewise it has declared that you shall restore to us all
   the expenses which we have incurred, or the court itself has
   incurred, on those days which were assigned to you, or because of
   those days, and has condemned you to repay these to us.[334]

   Moreover, it has declared that the nobleman Gerald d'Armagnac, whom
   you hold captive, you shall liberate, and deliver him free to us.
   We demand, moreover, by right of our lordship that you liberate
   him.

   We call, therefore, upon your discretion in this matter, strictly
   enjoining you and commanding that you obey the aforesaid sentences
   in all things and fulfill them in all respects and in no way delay
   the execution of them.

39. The Peace and the Truce of God

War rather than peace was the normal condition of feudal society.
Peasants were expected to settle their disputes in the courts of law,
but lords and seigneurs possessed a legal right to make war upon their
enemies and were usually not loath to exercise it. Private warfare was
indeed so common that it all the time threatened seriously the lives
and property of the masses of the people and added heavily to the
afflictions which flood, drought, famine, and pestilence brought
repeatedly upon them. The first determined efforts to limit, if not to
abolish, the ravages of private war were made by the Church, partly
because the Church itself often suffered by reason of them, partly
because its ideal was that of peace and security, and partly because
it recognized its duty as the protector of the poor and oppressed.
Late in the tenth century, under the influence of the Cluniacs [see p.
245], the clergy of France, both secular and regular, began in their
councils to promulgate decrees which were intended to establish what
was known as the Peace of God. These decrees, which were enacted by so
many councils between 989 and 1050 that they came to cover pretty
nearly all France, proclaimed generally that any one who should use
violence toward women, peasants, merchants, or members of the clergy
should be excommunicated. The principle was to exempt certain classes
of people from the operations of war and violence, even though the
rest of the population should continue to fight among themselves. It
must be said that these decrees, though enacted again and again, had
often little apparent effect.

Effort was then made in another direction. From about 1027 the
councils began to proclaim what was known as the Truce of God,
sometimes alone and sometimes in connection with the Peace. The
purport of the Truce of God was that all men should abstain from
warfare and violence during a certain portion of each week, and during
specified church festivals and holy seasons. At first only Sunday was
thus designated; then other days, until the time from Wednesday night
to Monday morning was all included; then extended periods, as Lent,
were added, until finally not more than eighty days remained of the
entire year on which private warfare was allowable. As one writer has
stated it, "the Peace of God was intended to protect certain classes
at all times and the Truce to protect all classes at certain times."
It was equally difficult to secure the acquiescence of the lawless
nobles in both, and though the efforts of the Church were by no means
without result, we are to think of private warfare as continuing quite
common until brought gradually to an end by the rise of strong
monarchies, by the turning of men to commerce and trade, and by the
drawing off of military energies into foreign and international wars.

The decree given below, which combines features of both the Peace and
the Truce, was issued by the Council of Toulouges (near Perpignan) in
1041, or, as some scholars think, in 1065. Its substance was many
times reënacted, notably by the Council of Clermont, in 1095, upon the
occasion of the proclamation of the first Crusade. It should have
procured about 240 days of peace in every year and reduced war to
about 120 days, but, like the others, it was only indifferently
observed.

     Source--Text in Martin Bouquet, _Recueil des Historiens des
     Gaules et de la France_ ["Collection of the Historians of Gaul
     and of France"], Paris, 1876, Vol. XI., pp. 510-511.

     [Sidenote: Acts of violence forbidden in or near churches]

   =1.= This Peace has been confirmed by the bishops, by the abbots,
   by the counts and viscounts and the other God-fearing nobles in
   this bishopric, to the effect that in the future, beginning with
   this day, no man may commit an act of violence in a church, or in
   the space which surrounds it and which is covered by its
   privileges, or in the burying-ground, or in the dwelling-houses
   which are, or may be, within thirty paces of it.

   =2.= We do not include in this measure the churches which have
   been, or which shall be, fortified as châteaux, or those in which
   plunderers and thieves are accustomed to store their ill-gotten
   booty, or which give them a place of refuge. Nevertheless we desire
   that such churches be under this protection until complaint of them
   shall be made to the bishop, or to the chapter. If the bishop or
   chapter[335] act upon such information and lay hold of the
   malefactors, and if the latter refuse to give themselves up to the
   justice of the bishop or chapter, the malefactors and all their
   possessions shall not be immune, even within the church. A man who
   breaks into a church, or into the space within thirty paces around
   it, must pay a fine for sacrilege, and double this amount to the
   person wronged.

     [Sidenote: Attacks upon the clergy prohibited]

   =3.= Furthermore, it is forbidden that any one attack the clergy,
   who do not bear arms, or the monks and religious persons, or do
   them any wrong; likewise it is forbidden to despoil or pillage the
   communities of canons, monks, and religious persons, the
   ecclesiastical lands which are under the protection of the Church,
   or the clergy, who do not bear arms; and if any one shall do such
   a thing, let him pay a double composition.[336]

     [Sidenote: Protection extended to the peasantry]

   =5.= Let no one burn or destroy the dwellings of the peasants and
   the clergy, the dove-cotes and the granaries. Let no man dare to
   kill, to beat, or to wound a peasant or serf, or the wife of
   either, or to seize them and carry them off, except for
   misdemeanors which they may have committed; but it is not forbidden
   to lay hold of them in order to bring them to justice, and it is
   allowable to do this even before they shall have been summoned to
   appear. Let not the raiment of the peasants be stolen; let not
   their ploughs, or their hoes, or their olive-fields be burned.

   =6.= ... Let any one who has broken the peace, and has not paid his
   fines within a fortnight, make amends to him whom he has injured by
   paying a double amount, which shall go to the bishop and to the
   count who shall have had charge of the case.

     [Sidenote: The Truce of God confirmed]

     [Sidenote: Penalties for violations of the Truce]

   =7.= The bishops of whom we have spoken have solemnly confirmed the
   Truce of God, which has been enjoined upon all Christians, from the
   setting of the sun of the fourth day of the week, that is to say,
   Wednesday, until the rising of the sun on Monday, the second
   day.... If any one during the Truce shall violate it, let him pay a
   double composition and subsequently undergo the ordeal of cold
   water.[337] When any one during the Truce shall kill a man, it has
   been ordained, with the approval of all Christians, that if the
   crime was committed intentionally the murderer shall be condemned
   to perpetual exile, but if it occurred by accident the slayer shall
   be banished for a period of time to be fixed by the bishops and
   the canons. If any one during the Truce shall attempt to seize a
   man or to carry him off from his château, and does not succeed in
   his purpose, let him pay a fine to the bishop and to the chapter,
   just as if he had succeeded. It is likewise forbidden during the
   Truce, in Advent and Lent, to build any château or fortification,
   unless it was begun a fortnight before the time of the Truce. It
   has been ordained also that at all times disputes and suits on the
   subject of the Peace and Truce of God shall be settled before the
   bishop and his chapter, and likewise for the peace of the churches
   which have before been enumerated. When the bishop and the chapter
   shall have pronounced sentences to recall men to the observance of
   the Peace and the Truce of God, the sureties and hostages who show
   themselves hostile to the bishop and the chapter shall be
   excommunicated by the chapter and the bishop, with their protectors
   and partisans, as guilty of violating the Peace and the Truce of
   the Lord; they and their possessions shall be excluded from the
   Peace and the Truce of the Lord.

FOOTNOTES:

[297] Charles Seignobos, _The Feudal Régime_ (translated in
"Historical Miscellany" series), New York, 1904, p. 1.

[298] A man was not supposed in any way to sacrifice his freedom by
becoming a vassal and the lord's right to his service would be
forfeited if this principle were violated.

[299] The relation of lord and vassal was, at this early time, limited
to the lifetime of the two parties. When one died, the other was
liberated from his contract. But in the ninth and tenth centuries
vassalage became generally hereditary.

[300] Casting lots for the property of a deceased father was not
uncommon among the Franks. All sons shared in the inheritance, but
particular parts of the property were often assigned by lot.

[301] The grant of immunity was thus brought to the attention of the
count in whose jurisdiction the exempted lands lay.

[302] Châlons-sur-Saône was about eighty miles north of the junction
of the Saône with the Rhone. It should not be confused with
Châlons-sur-Marne where the battle was fought with Attila's Huns in
451.

[303] There is some doubt at this point as to the correct translation.
That given seems best warranted.

[304] _Dominus_ was a common name for a lord.

[305] A member of the king's official household.

[306] A subordinate officer under the count [see p. 176, note 3].

[307] See p. 61. note 2.

[308] Louis VII., king of France, 1137-1180.

[309] The county of Champagne lay to the east of Paris. It was
established by Charlemagne and, while at first insignificant, grew
until by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it was one of the most
important in France.

[310] Beauvais was about sixty miles northwest of Paris.

[311] That is, the bishop of Beauvais was bound to furnish his lord,
the count of Champagne, the service of one knight for his army,
besides ordinary feudal obligations.

[312] The county of Troyes centered about the city of that name on the
upper Seine. It was eventually absorbed by Champagne.

[313] As a fief.

[314] A manor, in the general sense, was a feudal estate.

[315] A castellanerie was a feudal holding centering about a castle.

[316] That is, Count Thiebault promises Jocelyn not to deprive him of
the services of men who rightfully belong on the manor which is being
granted.

[317] Here is an illustration of the complexity of the feudal system.
Count Thiebault is Jocelyn's _fourth_ lord, and loyalty and service
are owed to all of the four at the same time. Accordingly, Thiebault
must be content with only such allegiance of his new vassal as will
not involve a breach of the contracts which Jocelyn has already
entered into with his other lords. For example, Thiebault could not
expect Jocelyn to aid him in war against the duke of Burgundy, for
Jocelyn is pledged to fidelity to that duke. In general, when a man
had only one lord he owed him full and unconditional allegiance
(_liege homage_), but when he became vassal to other lords he could
promise them allegiance only so far as would not conflict with
contracts already entered into. It was by no means unusual for a man
to have several lords, and it often happened that A was B's vassal for
a certain piece of land while at the same time B was A's vassal for
another piece. Not infrequently the king himself was thus a vassal of
one or more of his own vassals.

[318] The Bible. Sometimes only the Gospels were used.

[319] Charles, count of Flanders, had just died and had been succeeded
by his son William. All persons who had received fiefs from the
deceased count were now brought together to renew their homage and
fealty to the new count.

[320] Such a case as this would be most apt to arise when a lord died
and a vassal failed to renew his homage to the successor; or when a
vassal died and his heir failed to do homage as was required.

[321] This law would apply also to a case where a man who is already a
vassal of a lord should acquire from another vassal of the same lord
some additional land and so become indebted to the lord for a new
measure of fealty.

[322] Reversion to the original proprietor because of failure of
heirs.

[323] Such land might be acquired for temporary use only i.e., for
guardianship, during the absence or disability of its proprietor.

[324] Chartres was somewhat less than twenty miles southwest of Paris.

[325] The terms used in the original are _incolume_, _tutum_,
_honestum_, _utile_, _facile_, _et possibile_.

[326] In the English customary law of the twelfth century we read
that, "it is allowable to any one, without punishment, to support his
lord if any one assails him, and to obey him in all legitimate ways,
except in theft, murder, and in all such things as are not conceded to
any one to do and are reckoned infamous by the laws;" also that, "the
lord ought to do likewise equally with counsel and aid, and he may
come to his man's assistance in his vicissitudes in all
ways."--Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Institutes_, Vol. I., p. 590.

[327] The duke of Normandy. Outside of Normandy, of course, other
feudal princes would be substituted.

[328] It was the feudal system that first gave the eldest son in
France a real superiority over his brothers. This may be seen most
clearly in the change wrought by feudalism whereby the old Frankish
custom of allowing all the sons to inherit their father's property
equally was replaced by the mediæval rule of primogeniture
(established by the eleventh century) under which the younger sons
were entirely, or almost entirely, excluded from the inheritance.

[329] Relief is the term used to designate the payment made to the
lord by the son of the deceased vassal before taking up the