Feudal Institutions Research Articles

Les «droits sociaux»: De la divine providence à l'État Providence

RésuméLe discours sur les droits sociaux n'intègre pas la prise en charge par l'Église des besoins sociaux à l'époque féodale, car cette prise en charge relève de l'obligation morale. Le présent article a pour but de montrer qu'il y a lieu de rechercher les fondements des droits sociaux actuels dans les institutions sociales féodales. Pour ce faire, l'auteur aborde le discours religieux qui a conduit à l'institutionnalisation de l'entraide et propose un regard sur les institutions féodales qui ne découle pas de la conception moderne du droit.

Uneven Development in the Nineteenth Century: A Comparison of the Habsburg Empire and the United States

Unlike most studies of uneven development before World War I, this paper uses the region (not the nation) as the unit of study. Weak market links with the national market partially explain persisting relative backwardness in the Habsburg Empire's eastern hinterland and in the American South. Even if product and factor markets had been perfectly integrated, institutional rigidities would have greatly retarded development. In the Empire, growth emerged in the west where serfdom was weakening and spread slowly as feudal institutions decayed. In America, capitalistic institutions promoted development in the North more thoroughly than did slavery and postbellum institutions in the South.

Recent Trends In Anglo-Norman Scholarship: The New Political History

The articles that follow employ quantitative and prosopographical approaches that, although not new to historical investigation, are new to the field of royal-baronial relations in Norman England. Traditionally, English medieval politics have been treated with a strongly constitutional emphasis. Barons have been viewed as a largely undifferentiated group whose relations with the monarchy were seen as a reaction against the advance of rational central government, or as a defense of traditional liberties against oppressive kings.The better historians, over the past century and more, have resisted such simplifications. John Horace Round, for example, attacked and ridiculed the anachronistic constitutional generalizations of some of his predecessors by producing a mass of detailed information on individual Anglo-Norman aristocratic families. Sir Frank Stenton, in a tribute to Round written soon after Round's death in 1928, summarized his contribution in these apt words: Round's work forms an essential part of the very remarkable movement which rather more than thirty years ago created the modern study of feudal institutions.… No one had yet expressed, as Round was to express, the truth that the fabric of feudal history is composed of genealogical detail, that innumerable events which are unintelligible as realted by contemporary writers presuppose an elaborate nexus of family alliances and rivalries.Stenton, too, was an expert in aristocratic genealogy and family history; and with the sources of Saxon and Norman England at his fingertips, he was a master of the apt illustration.

Peace never established: the case of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

No historian of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is likely to ignore the hostile environment in which the western settlers found themselves and the effects of military needs on their politics, government and society. The Latins’ war establishment has long been the subject of study, with historians naturally concentrating upon the actual manifestations of conflict: invasions and defence, feudal institutions and the use of mercenaries, castle-building and tactics in the field. Other less tangible factors, quite as important in contributing to the stresses to which society in Palestine was subjected, are rarely considered. The Latins believed themselves to be engaged in a sacred task in maintaining Christian presence on the holiest soil in Christendom; others believed this too, and military reverses in the East aroused in the West bitter criticism of them. They found themselves, moreover, in a situation in which, for reasons outside their control, permanant peace with their Muslim neighbours was impossible. It is this ideological background to the history of the defence of the kingdom that is discussed in this paper.

The Death of Communal Liberty: A History of Freedom in a Swiss Mountain Canton

Switzerland today is faced with a profound dilemma--its village life is dying, a casualty of the collision between communal norms and the need for national survival in an industrial, urbanizing world. Benjamin Barber traces the origins and evolution of communal liberty in the group of alpine villages that make up modern Canton Graubunden, and recreates their poignant thousand-year struggle to maintain this tradition in the face of a hostile environment, hierarchical feudal institutions, and European power polities.Originally published in 1974.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

The Generation Gap of 1173-74: the War between the Two Henrys

Revolts against English monarchs, varying in scope and intensity, marked every reign from 1100 to 1272. After that, if we consider what happened to Edward II and Richard II, and the Wars of the Roses and the troubles of the first Tudor, we see pattern emerging in the shape of constitutional change induced through revolt. Even in the context of that centuries-long pattern, there was something special in the revolt of 1173-4, when three sons of Henry II united with an array of anti Plantagenet barons and continental neighbors to try to unseat the powerful king of England, who also held Normandy, Maine, Anjou, and the feudal conglomeration that comprised Aquitaine.For reasons that I shall attempt to develop, the complex events of those two years constituted a watershed for mediaeval England, separating an age of feudal institutions from an age of royal bureaucracy that bore hints and suggestions of the modern era. The generational gap between sons and father added drama to the conflict, and psychological forces were inextricably bound to political forces as the revolt developed.

Firearms in the Central Sudan: A Revaluation

The recent thesis propounded by Fisher and Rowland regarding the role of firearms in the Central Sudan requires considerable modification. While one must concede that the observable effects of firearms in the nineteenth century were not profound, this statement must be qualified to account for the incipient revolution in military technology, army organization, and political structure that occurred in many of the Central Sudanese states in the last quarter of the century. The relative ease with which European imperial powers conquered these states has tended to obscure from historians the dynamics of internal change that became manifest during the last decades of their independent existence.It is clear from the evidence presented in this article that the increasing use of firearms intensified the tendencies toward bureaucratization and the centralization of power in the states of the Central Sudan. The creation of regular standing armies, the formation of slave musketeer units commanded by slave officers, and the progressive devaluation of feudal institutions in favour of bureaucratized political and military structures, were the distinguishing characteristics of this period. Although history is irreversible, it is interesting to ponder the possible alternative outcomes of this nascent revolution. Its directions were clear, its destination unknown. In this article we have argued that these developments in politico-military organization did in fact represent a new departure which, if permitted to run its course, would have radically affected the subsequent history of the Central Sudan. It is our contention that the Fisher-Rowland thesis underestimates and misinterprets the nature of these changes.

A Prolegomenon to Latin American Urban History

Ma /[ UCH OF THE CONTEMPORARY interest in the urban history of Third World countries attaches to the role of cities as agents, or as arenas, for the transition to industrial societies. Usually, this evolution involves transactions and accommodations between a non-Western civilization and certain ideological and organizational imperatives of Western origin. The Latin American case is different, for here European conquest terminated or violently redirected the of Amerindian societies. The new societies of the sixteenth century were at once colonial and Western. The drama occurring in contemporary Latin America is therefore an encounter between two fragments, or successive moments, of Western experience. Oddly enough, this encounter is yielding an outcome less conclusively modern than that produced by the impingement of Western capitalism and technology on the alien cultural and feudal institutions of Japan. Until recently, the development mania has focused analysis of Third World urban societies on the supersession of archaic or traditional features as they enter the era of the industrializing, mass-based polity. More cursory attention is paid to the preservation and reworking of preindustrial features. Typical of this propensity is Gideon Sjoberg's widely read The Preindustrial City, which dichotomizes the world's cities by two primary categories, preindustrial and industrial.' Though claiming, unconvincingly, to avoid determinism, Sjoberg isolates industrial technology as a key variable that conditions social structure, allocation of political power, criteria for social mobility, division of labor, standardization of means of exchange, and man's relation to nature. By his reckoning all the world's cities before the nineteenth century as well as contemporary cities in parts of Asia, Africa, southern

Feudal Aspects of National Socialism

Attempts to establish a “morphology of civilizations” seem to continue in spite of dire warnings from scholars. Indeed, while rejecting Toynbee and Sorokin with one hand, many a scholar has beckoned with the other to adventurous young men to leave the barren tracts of specialization and re-enter the broad panoramic fields of Weltgeschichte. Current interest in “comparative feudal institutions” illustrates the case in point.The notion that “feudalism” is a “form of society,” especially a “stage in development,” can be traced back to Marxist historiography, and from there back to eighteenth century French thinkers. But instead of becoming thoroughly discredited, the notion has recently led to new thinking on the subject which may turn out to be fruitful. In Feudalism in History for example, Rushton Coulborn, has combined eight separate papers on feudalism in various parts of the world by different historians, with his own critical and synthetic studies. Though he fails to find even one “fully developed” feudal society according to his own definition—a not unexpected result—his study contains an amazing amount of suggestive analysis.His suggestions are particularly valuable in the construction of “working models” or “ideal types” as research tools. Even when we remain safely within our own “fields,” if we are to go beyond highly specialized fact-gathering and at the same time avoid “presentisi subjectivism,” we will need such tools.

Feudal Aspects of National Socialism

Attempts to establish a “morphology of civilizations” seem to continue in spite of dire warnings from scholars. Indeed, while rejecting Toynbee and Sorokin with one hand, many a scholar has beckoned with the other to adventurous young men to leave the barren tracts of specialization and re-enter the broad panoramic fields of Weltgeschichte. Current interest in “comparative feudal institutions” illustrates the case in point.The notion that “feudalism” is a “form of society,” especially a “stage in development,” can be traced back to Marxist historiography, and from there back to eighteenth century French thinkers. But instead of becoming thoroughly discredited, the notion has recently led to new thinking on the subject which may turn out to be fruitful. In Feudalism in History for example, Rushton Coulborn, has combined eight separate papers on feudalism in various parts of the world by different historians, with his own critical and synthetic studies. Though he fails to find even one “fully developed” feudal society according to his own definition—a not unexpected result—his study contains an amazing amount of suggestive analysis.His suggestions are particularly valuable in the construction of “working models” or “ideal types” as research tools. Even when we remain safely within our own “fields,” if we are to go beyond highly specialized fact-gathering and at the same time avoid “presentisi subjectivism,” we will need such tools.

The Yugoslav Lands in the Ottoman Period: Postwar Marxist Interpretations of Indigenous and Ottoman Institutions

IN CONTEMPORARY Yugoslav historiography the principal stress is laid upon socio-economic developments-class struggle, feudal institutions, and revolutionary movements. The much neglected social and economic history of the Ottoman period offers a broad field for historical inquiry, especially in view of the fact that Yugoslav mosques and various religious and local institutions contain many old manuscripts. Although only a few significant works on the Ottoman period have appeared since the end of World War II, Yugoslav historians have produced an impressive list of shorter treatises and studies, novel both for their content and interpretations. Contemporary Marxian historians stress the fact that before a final synthesis of the Ottoman period of Yugoslav history can be undertaken it is necessary to collect fresh source materials and investigate more fully a number of specific and fundamental topics. It is refreshing to see that, despite a rigid application of the Marxian formula to all historical developments, Yugoslav historians do reach opposite conclusions and hold divergent views. Leadership in the field of Ottoman studies is shared by the Glasnik zemraljskog muzeja (GZM) [Bulletin of the Territorial Museum], published by the Museum of Bosnia-Herzegovina at Sarajevo since 1889, and the Godisnjak istoriskog drustva Bosne i Hercegovina (GID) [Annual of the Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina], published by the Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The GZM publishes not only separate studies but also from time to time fresh documentary materials uncovered in various long-forgotten depositories and kiutiubhane. Of considerable importance for the Ottoman studies are also the Istorisko-pravni zbornik (IPZ) [Historical-legal Bulletin], a periodical devoted to the legal history of Bosnia and Herzegovina and published under the auspices of the Faculty of Law of the Sarajevo University, and the Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju i istoriju Jugoslovenskik naroda pod Turskom vladavinom (P) [Contributions to the oriental philology and history of the Yugoslav peoples under Turkish rule], a periodic publication by the Oriental of Sarajevo. Outside Bosnia-Herzegovina the most important journal on the study of the Ottoman period of Yugoslav history is the Istoriski casopis (IC), which, among other things, publishes papers read before the Historical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and is the organ of the of the Academy. The organs of the Society of Serbia (Istoriski glasnik [IG]), the Society of Croatia (Historijski zbornik [HZ]), and Society of Montenegro (Istoriski zapisi [IZ]) also publish materials dealing with Yugoslav lands in the Ottoman period and report on the historiographic developments and papers read at the periodic meetings of their respective societies. Nastava istorije u srednjoj gkoli [Teaching of history in secondary schools] is a journal for instructors in history; it discusses the historical method, source materials, and the interpretation of controversial historical periods and institutions. The Nastava has published several items that deal with Ottoman history.

Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assizes of Romania, the Law Code of Frankish Greece. Peter W. Topping

<i>Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assizes of Romania, the Law Code of Frankish Greece</i>. Peter W. Topping

REVIEWS

Reviews in this ArticleWilliam Linn Westermann. Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt.Norman S. B. Gras and Ethel C. Gras. The Economic and Social History of an English Village (Crawley, Hampshire) 909–1928. Curia Regis Rolls of the Reigns of Richard I. and John preserved in the Public Record Office A. H. Thomas. Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 1364–1381. Year Books of Richard II.: 13 Richard II., 1389–1390. The Documents of Iriki, Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan.T. S. Ashton and J. Sykes. The Coal Industry in the Eighteenth Century.D. G. Barnes. A History of the English Corn Laws from 1660–1846.A. L. Dunham. The Anglo‐French Treaty of Commerce of 1860 and the Progress of the Industrial Revolution in France.G. C. Allen. The Industrial Development of Birmingham and the Black Country, 1860–1927. The Economic Development of the British Overseas Empire.

Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assizes of Romania

Feudal Institutions as Revealed in the Assizes of Romania

Poland and Czechoslovakia on the Road to Socialism

Transitions from one economic system to another have always been painful, long-drawn-out periods in history. Those of which we have definite knowledge occupied hundreds of years. Feudalism, which preceded capitalism, took centuries to die; and even at a time when the new system was so well developed that it had all the main characteristics of capitalist enterprise and production, feudal institutions and remnants continued to exist for many years.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Feudalism and Its Antecedents in England

IN a previous article I reviewed the opinions of various historians on the origin and significance of feudalism and ventured to state some of my own.' Feudalism proper, I concluded, was essentially political, being a phase of government developed by the Frankish kings through the granting of benefices to their vassals. Originally the fief was not any benefice, but a military benefice; the vassal was not any man of a lord, but a military retainer. Vassalage, whatever the derivation of the word, was directly descended from the Germanic custom that Tacitus called the comitatus. Although the benefice was the outgrowth of the Roman precarium, feudal tenure was wholly medieval in that the fief was a benefice held by a vassal. By rewarding their vassals with fiefs, the Carolingians sought to provide themselves with a force of heavy-armed cavalry; by insisting that all great officials should be their vassals, they hoped to strengthen the royal administration; and by extending the privilege of immunity to all fief-holders, they deliberately gave numerous powers of local government to the feudal aristocracy. The disintegration of the Carolingian Empire resulted from its inherent weakness, not from the feudalizing policy of its rulers. Feudal institutions worked effectively in many of the small states that had emerged by the middle of the tenth century. The usefulness of feudal tenures, feudal armies, feudal castles, and the like is evinced by the fact that they came to be adopted throughout medieval Europe. To misunderstand feudalism is to misunderstand the political life of the Middle Ages. The purpose of the present article2 is to apply these conclusions to the feudalism of England, a subject on which a formidable mass of writing has already accumulated. Happily for the reviewer, however, a good part of the mass may be disregarded as too antiquated to require discussion. None of the old constitutional histories of England need even be mentioned except that by William Stubbs.' His views on the feudal development of England may be cited because they show how confused the whole matter remained until J. H. Round had clearly stated and effectively solved the central prob-

Feudalism in Russia

IN approaching the problem of feudalism, the student of Russian history is in a much more difficult position than those of his colleagues who deal with feudalism in the countries of Central and Western Europe. While the student of the history of Romano-Germanic countries has to deal with a definite complex of social phenomena and institutions, the student of Russian history has first to clear the ground in order to be able to ascertain whether the same complex of social trends did exist in Russia at all. The study of feudalism in Romano-Germanic countries has age-long traditions behind it; the study of Russian feudalism began but recently. Until the close of the nineteenth century, students of Russian history were not so much interested in historical parallels with Western Europe; moreover, most of them were apt to discard the possibility of the existence in Russia of feudalism as an organized system of institutions. Such an attitude can be partly explained by the fact that the attention of the leading Russian historians of the second half of the nineteenth century (Solovyov, Klyuchevski) concentrated round the history of Eastern (Muscovite) Russia. It was only when some of them started studying the social history of Western (Lithuanian) Russia in more detail that they were confronted with social trends, the similarity of which to the institutions of RomanoGermanic Europe was so obvious that some comparison between mediaeval Russia and the west became essential. The publication of M. K. Lyubavski's monograph on the provincial administration of the Lithuanian-Russian State (1892) was an important landmark in this connection. This was followed by his second monograph on the LithuanianRussian Seim (1900).2 But the first scholar who discussed the problem of Russian feudalism on more general lines was N. P. Pavlov-Silvanski, in his study 'Feudal Relations in Mediaeval Russia' (1901). He set forth the thesis of a complete similarity between the feudal institutions of mediaeval Russia and those of mediaeval Europe. The ideas suggested in his first study were later elaborated by him in detail in his main work, Feudalism in Russia of the Appanage Period (1910).8 After the appearance of Pavlov-Silvanski's works more attention was devoted

The Documents of Iriki: Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan. Translated and edited by K. Asakawa. (Yale Historical Publications.) 10 × 7, pp. xvi + 441 + 140. London: Oxford University Press, 1929. £1 15s.

The Documents of Iriki: Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan. Translated and edited by K. Asakawa. (Yale Historical Publications.) 10 × 7, pp. xvi + 441 + 140. London: Oxford University Press, 1929. £1 15s.

The Documents of Iriki, Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan.

The Documents of Iriki, Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan.

REVIEWS

Reviews in this ArticleWilliam Linn Westermann. Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt.Norman S. B. Gras and Ethel C. Gras. The Economic and Social History of an English Village (Crawley, Hampshire) 909–1928. Curia Regis Rolls of the Reigns of Richard I. and John preserved in the Public Record Office A. H. Thomas. Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 1364–1381. Year Books of Richard II.: 13 Richard II., 1389–1390. The Documents of Iriki, Illustrative of the Development of the Feudal Institutions of Japan.T. S. Ashton and J. Sykes. The Coal Industry in the Eighteenth Century.D. G. Barnes. A History of the English Corn Laws from 1660–1846.A. L. Dunham. The Anglo‐French Treaty of Commerce of 1860 and the Progress of the Industrial Revolution in France.G. C. Allen. The Industrial Development of Birmingham and the Black Country, 1860–1927. The Economic Development of the British Overseas Empire.