Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:29:36.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Irony of English Feudalism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

C. Warren Hollister
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Everyone is familiar with the story of how William the Conqueror brought feudalism to England. Despite some recent voices to the contrary, medievalists are for the most part inclined to agree that the Norman Conquest introduced the fief into a previously non-feudal land. Moreover, since feudalism did not arise in England gradually and of its own accord but instead was imposed from above by an all-powerful conqueror, it is usually described as more symmetrical — more “perfect” — than the feudalism of the Continent. One historian, reflecting the views of many others, asserted recently that in the years after 1066 “England became the most perfectly feudal kingdom in the West.”

It is well to be wary, however, of too much perfection in an institution such as feudalism. It is always possible that in identifying an institution at a particular point in time and space as “perfect” or “nearly perfect” one is being misled by the surface appearances which usually accompany decay. As institutions become less and less relevant to their societies, they are apt, for a while at least, to assume the appearance of increasing orderliness, increasing selfconscious coherence, increasing formalism. These tendencies have been noted by a number of sociologists and have by no means escaped the attention of Professor Parkinson. To determine whether they apply to the so-called model feudalism of Norman England is both hazardous and difficult, but the effort must be made. So much has been written on the question of whether any real traces of feudalism can be detected in England before the Conquest that it may prove refreshing to scrutinize critically the “ideal” feudal state of post-Conquest times, particularly if it can be shown that Anglo-Norman feudalism was not so perfect after all.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , May 1963 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The preparation of this paper was facilitated by a Grant-in-Aid from the Social Science Research Council.

References

1. See Hollister, C. Warren, “The Norman Conquest and the Genesis of English Feudalism,” A.H.R., LXVI (1961), 641–63.Google Scholar

2. Barlow, Frank, The Feudal Kingdom of England (London, 1955), p. 437 .Google Scholar But Professor Barlow qualifies his remark immediately. Cf. ibid., p. 440. See also Bloch, Marc, La Société féodale (2nd ed.; Paris, 1949), II, 227 Google Scholar: “L'État anglo-normand … dut à cette origine une structure beaucoup plus régulière que celle des principautés édifiées par pièces et morceaux ou des monarchies chargées d'une longue et parfois confuse tradition.” Ibid., p. 229: “Féodal, cependant, nul État, à certains égards, ne le fut plus parfaitement.”

3. On this question see Stephenson, Carl, “The Origin and Significance of Feudalism,” A.H.R., XLVI (1941), 788–812 Google Scholar and the authorities cited therein.

4. See Coulborn, Rushton (ed.), Feudalism in History (Princeton, 1956)Google Scholar; Boutruche, Robert, Seigneurie et féodalité (Paris, 1959), pp. 217-34, 250–91.Google Scholar

5. Bloch, , Société féodale, II, 243 .Google Scholar

6. Ibid., II, 245.

7. Ibid., II, 244. It is evident however that feudalism was later to prove compatible with strong monarchy. Ibid., II, 250; Olivier-Martin, F., “Les Liens de vassalité dans la France médiévale,” in Société Jean Bodin, I, Les Liens de vassalité et les immunités (Brussels, 1936), p. 79 .Google Scholar

8. von Mangoldt-Gaudlitz, Hans, Die Reiterei in den germanischen und fränkischen Heeren bis zum Ausgang der deutschen Karolinger (Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar; Verbruggen, J. F., De Krijgskunst in West-Europa in de Middeleeuwen (Brussels, 1954), p. 197 Google Scholar; Guilhiermoz, Paul, Essai sur l'origine de la noblesse en France (Paris, 1902), pp. 450 ff.Google Scholar On the theory that these developments are connected with the Saracen threat of the earlier eighth century, see Krawinkel, Hermann, Untersuchungen zum fränkischen Benefizialrecht (Weimar, 1937), pp. 11ffGoogle Scholar; and Mitteis, Heinrich, Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt (Weimar, 1933), pp. 124ff.Google Scholar But see White, Lynn Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford, 1962), pp. 1–38 .Google Scholar The Franks may have used calvary long before the eighth century, and they continued to use infantry long afterward, but the eighth century witnessed the appearance of cavalry as an élite force in the Frankish army. See Mangoldt-Gaudlitz, Die Reiteri, and Cronne, H.A., “The Origins of Feudalism,” History, XXIV (1939), 256–57.Google Scholar

9. Bloch, , Société féodale, II, 246 Google Scholar; Brunner, Heinrich, Forschungen zur Geschichte des deutschen und franzosischen Rechtes (Stuttgart, 1894), pp. 39ff.Google Scholar

10. Stephenson, , “Origin and Significance of Feudalism,” A.H.R., XLVI (1941), 798 .Google Scholar

11. McFarlane, K. B., “‘Bastard Feudalism,’” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XX (1945), 161 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Ibid., 161-80.

13. Powicke, Michael R., “Distraint of Knighthood and Military Obligation under Henry III,” Speculum, XXV (1950), 465 Google Scholar; Book of Fees, I, 27 .Google Scholar

14. Stubbs, W. (ed.), Select Charters (9th ed.; rev. Davis, H. W. C., Oxford, 1913), p. 183 Google Scholar, clauses 1 and 2. It is possible, of course, that holders of knights' fees were expected to have equipment above and beyond that listed in the Assize—horses, for example, are not mentioned at all—but from the Assize itself we are left with the conclusion that military tenants and freemen possessing 16 marks had identical arms (clauses 1 and 2), and that both groups were to answer the royal military summons ad fidem domini regis et regni sui (clause 4). The recruitment system established here seems to short-circuit the feudal hierarchy and to erase the distinction between enfeoffed knights and wealthy laymen. Cf. King John's writ of 1213 ordering his sheriffs to summon all barons, knights, sergeants, and freemen who ought to have arms, whoever they were and under whomever they held, to appear for service in their lords' contingents: Wendover, Roger, Chronica, ed. Coxe, H. O. [English Historical Society] (London, 1841–1844), III, 245 .Google Scholar

15. Johnson, C. (ed.), Dialogus de Scaccario (London, 1950), pp. 2, 52 .Google Scholar See also Verbruggen, , Krijgskunst, pp. 216–40Google Scholar; Boussard, J., “Les Mercenaires au XIIe siècle. Henri II Plantagenet et les origines de l'armée de métier,” Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, CVI (1946), 189–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grundmann, H., “Rotten und Brabanzonen. Söldner-Heere im 12. Jahrhundert,” Deutsches Archiz für Geschichte des Mittelalters, V (1942), 419–92.Google Scholar

16. See Lyon, Bryce D., From Fief to Indenture (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), pp. 198ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim; Verbruggen, , Krijgskunst, pp. 217–18Google Scholar, and “Le Problème des effectifs et de la tactique à la bataille de Bouvines en 1214,” Revue du Nord, XXXI (1949), 185–86Google Scholar; Kienast, W., Die deutschen Fursten im Dienste der Westmachte (Utrecht, 1924–1931), I, 68–71 Google Scholar, and passim.

17. Knight quotas of tenants-in-chief were reduced sharply in the early thirteenth century. See Sanders, I. J., Feudal Military Service in England (Oxford, 1956), pp. 29–90 Google Scholar, and the authorities cited therein.

18. SirPowicke, Maurice, The Loss of Normandy (2nd ed.; New York, 1961), pp. 218, 223 .Google Scholar

19. Painter, Sidney, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), p. 353 .Google Scholar

20. Sayles, G. O., Medieval Foundations of England (Philadelphia, 1950), p. 402 .Google Scholar

21. Warren, W. L., King John (New York, 1961), p. 92 .Google Scholar Cf. ibid., pp. 21-23.

22. Ibid., pp. 122, 147.

23. Jolliffe, J. E. A., Angevin Kingship (London, 1955).Google Scholar

24. Postan, M. M., “The Rise of a Money Economy,” Econ. Hist. Rev., XIV (1944), 123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Ibid., Postan believes that the tendency to commute peasant services which characterized the twelfth century was reversed in the thirteenth. Ibid., and “The Chronology of Labour Services,” Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fourth series, XX (1937), 169–93.Google Scholar This view is challenged, however, by Kosminsky, E. A., Studies in the Agrarian History of England (Oxford, 1956), pp. 152–96.Google Scholar

26. Bloch, , Société féodale, II, 230 Google Scholar, writes on the subject of the Danegeld, “Dans cette étonnante survivance, qui semble bien supposer dans l'île une circulation monétaire moins qu'ailleurs anémiée, les rois normands devaient trouver un instrument singulièrement efficace.” But by Henry I's reign the Danegeld represented only a small percentage of the Monarchy's total income.

27. Prestwich, J. O., “War and Finance in the Anglo-Norman State,” Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fifth series, IV (1954), 22ff.Google Scholar Prestwich quotes Stubbs' calculations of the total sum accounted for in the Pipe Roll of 1130, i.e., £66,593, compared with a little over £22,000 in 1156 and £48,781 in 1189 ( Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi [Rolls Series] II, pp. xciv, xcix Google Scholar). This information, Prestwich observes, “cannot be taken as giving an accurate and complete account of the revenues of Henry I, Henry II and Richard I, but it at least indicates the formidable severity of Henry I's financial demands.” On the remarkable prosperity and flourishing money economy of late Anglo-Saxon England see Lewis, Archibald R., The Northern Seas (Princeton, 1958), pp. 325ff.Google Scholar, 424ff. Professor Lewis concludes that the Norman Conquest was followed by a generation of commercial decline ending around 1100 (ibid., pp. 470ff.), and suggests that the Conqueror's “introduction into England of the Continental feudal and manorial systems was more than political. Was it not perhaps the reflection of a certain new economic localism in the land, like that which we have seen in France in the early ninth and tenth centuries, where feudalism also took root?” Ibid., p. 472.

28. Johnson, , Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 52 .Google Scholar

29. Round, John Horace, Feudal England (London, 1895), p. 271 .Google Scholar

30. Hollister, C. Warren, “The Significance of Scutage Rates in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century England,” E.H.R., LXXV (1960), 577–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar These conclusions were challenged by Holt, J. C., “Feudalism Revisited,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XIV (1961), 333–40.Google Scholar But see Hollister, C. Warren, “Scutage, Servitia Debita, and the Theory of Continuity,” Econ. Hist. Rev. Google Scholar, forthcoming.

31. Hollister, , “Scutage Rates,” E.H.R., LXXV (1960), 585 .Google Scholar It is also noteworthy that Henry I's scutage rate was higher than any of the rates set by Henry II. Ibid., LXXV, 581-82.

32. Ibid., LXXV, 584-85.

33. Morris, , “A Mention of Scutage in 1100” E.H.R., XXXVI (1921), 45–46 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Calendar of Charter Rolls, I, 257 Google Scholar; Davis, H. W. C. et al (eds.), Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum (Oxford, 1913- ), II .Google Scholar No. 831.

35. Ibid., II, No. 1882; Bigelow, M. M. (ed.), Placita Anglo-Normannica, (London, 1879), p. 127 .Google Scholar

36. Caley, Ellis, and Bandinell, (eds.), Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1846), III, 547 Google Scholar; Davis, , Regesta Regum, I Google Scholar, No. 313.

37. See Round, , Feudal England, pp. 269–70Google Scholar; Davis, , Regesta Regum, II Google Scholar, Nos. 1276 (of doubtful authenticity), 1401, 1499, 1654; Stenton, Frank Jr., The First Century of English Feudalism, (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1961), pp. 180 Google Scholar note 3, 184-85, and App., No. 37.

38. Davis, , Regesta Regum, II Google Scholar, No. 1473. Scutage in this letter is rendered auxilium militum. A similar phrase, auxilium exercitus, was used later on in Normandy as a synonym for scutage: Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp. 216–19.Google Scholar

39. Davis, , Regesta Regum, II Google Scholar, No. 1499; Round, , Feudal England, p. 268 .Google Scholar

40. Hunter, Joseph (ed.), Pipe Roll 31 Henry I [Record Commission] (London, 1833), p. 49 .Google Scholar

41. Ibid., p. 47.

42. There may be added to the evidence adduced above the existence during Henry I's reign of feudal holdings amounting to only small fractions of a knight's fee, most of which must have commuted their service: Stenton, F. M. (ed.), Danelaw Charters (London, 1920)Google Scholar, No. 507; Loyd, L. C. and Stenton, D. M. (eds.), Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, (Oxford, 1950)Google Scholar, No. 528, A.D. C. 1125, 1/3 knight's fee renders service by paying 20s. a year); Stenton, English Feudalism, App., Nos. 38 (1/16), 39 (1/20). The foundation charter of Revesby Abbey (A.D. 1142), in Stenton, F. M. (ed.), Facsimilies of Early Charters from Northamptonshire Collections [Northamptonshire Record Society] (Lincoln and London, 1930), pp. 2–3 Google Scholar, mentions a fee of ½ knight, two of ¼, and one of 1/32.

43. Evidence from the Pipe Roll of 1130 (pp. 44, 47) proves that the crown was assessing its tenants-in-chiefs on any surplus enfeoffments that they may have made over and above their established quotas. The implication of this fact is that the tenants-in-chief were in the habit of passing scutage assessments down to their own tenants, probably at the same rate per fee as the royal assessment; cf. de Brakelond, Jocelin, Chronica, ed. Rokewode, J. G. [Camden Society] (London, 1840), p. 49 Google Scholar: “Superatis ergo omnibus militibus, ex tali victoria tale lucrum poterit abbati, nisi abbas voluerit aliquibus parcere; quociens xx solidi ponentur super scutum, remanebunt abbati xij libre, et si plus vel minus ponatur, plus vel minus ei remanebit secundum debitam porcionem.” The fractional fees (see note 42) bear the same implication, i.e., that their holders paid scutage to their lords. Evidence for baronial scutage is fuller in Stephen's reign; see Stenton, , English Feudalism, pp. 183 ff.Google Scholar; Warner, G. F. and Ellis, H. J. (eds.), Facsimilies of Royal and other Charters in the British Museum (London, 1903), I Google Scholar, No. 17; a private charter from early in Henry II's reign (Danelaw Charters, No. 245) frees an estate of Newhouse Abbey a scutagio exercitu equitatu tam regis quam comitis…

44. Richardson, Helen, “A Twelfth-Century Anglo-Norman Charter,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXIV (1940), 168–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for evidence from a later period, see Neilson, N., Customary Rents [Oxford Studies] (Oxford, 1910), p. 87 Google Scholar, note 7.

45. See above, note 43. The Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 40, attests that in the early Norman period sources other than scutage were also exploited to obtain money for knights' wages.

46. Facsimilies of Royal Charters, No. 17, dated 1138-48, perhaps 1138-40. See Round, J. H., Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer (London, 1898), p. 8 Google Scholar; and Stenton, , English Feudalism, pp. 183–84.Google Scholar

47. This is Stenton's translation, ibid., p. 184.

48. Hunter, , Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 49 .Google Scholar

49. “sive in nummis, sive in exercitu, sive in guarda”: Round, , Feudal England, p. 270 .Google Scholar

50. Ibid., p. 273; cf. Chew, H. M., The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service (Oxford, 1932), p. 38 .Google Scholar For the details of Henry II's first scutage see Hunter, Joseph (ed.) Pipe Roll 2 Henry II [Record Commission] (London, 1844).Google Scholar Miss Chew mistakenly dates this roll 1165 (rede, 1156).

51. Domesday Book, I, 64b, 154, 238; Hollister, , “Significance of Scutage Rates,” E.H.R., LXXV (1960), 584–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Stubbs, William, Constitutional History (6th ed.; Oxford, 1897), I, 470 .Google Scholar

53. Prestwich, , “War and Finance”, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fifth series, IV (1954), (pp. 19–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see above, note 27.

54. For example, Sanders, , Feudal Military Service, p. 51 Google Scholar; Verbruggen, , Krijgskunst, p. 31 .Google Scholar

55. William of Poitiers, Gesta Willelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum, ed. Giles, T. A. (London, 1845), p. 146 .Google Scholar

56. Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Le Prévost, A. (Paris, 1838–1855), II, 187, 199 .Google Scholar

57. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, W. [Rolls Series] (London, 1889), II, 320 Google Scholar; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Thorpe, B. (London, 1848–1849), II, 18 Google Scholar; Plummer, C. (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel (Oxford, 1892), I, 215–16Google Scholar, A.D. 1085; Stevenson, J. (ed.), Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon [Rolls Series] (London, 1858), II, 11 Google Scholar; Verlinden, Charles, Robert Ier le Prison (Antwerp and Paris, 1935), p. 110 .Google Scholar

58. For example, William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A. [Rolls Series] (London, 1870), p. 281 Google Scholar; Douglas, D. C. (ed.), Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, [British Academy Records] (London, 1932), p. cvi Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A., Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911), p. 41 Google Scholar; Stewart, D. J. (ed.), Liber Eliensis (London, 1848), p. 275 Google Scholar; Simeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, in Opera Omnia [Rolls Series] (London, 1882–1885), I, 116 .Google Scholar See Prestwich, , “War and Finance,” Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fifth series, IV (1954)Google Scholar; Stenton, , English Feudalism, pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar; and, on the general subject, Verbruggen, , Krijgskunst, pp. 142 ff.Google Scholar

59. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Kegum, II, 368 Google Scholar; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, II, 34 Google Scholar; Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 218 Google Scholar; Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica IV, 40, 44–45 Google Scholar; Prestwich, , “War and Finance”, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fifth series, IV (1954), 26ff.Google Scholar

60. Gaimar, Geoffrey, Lestorie des Engles, ed. Hardy, T.D. and Martin, C. T. [Rolls Series] (London, 1888–1889), I, 267 Google Scholar; II, 198.

61. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum, II, 379 .Google Scholar

62. Ibid., II, 478. On the use of mercenaries during Henry I's reign, see also Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 172-75, 457–58Google Scholar; V, 50; Simeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, II, 274 Google Scholar; Marx, J. (ed.), Gesta Normannorum Ducum, (Paris, 1914), p. 297 Google Scholar; Prestwich, “War and Finance”, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fifth series, IV (1954), 32–34 .Google Scholar

63. Marx, , Gesta Normannorum Ducum, p. 296 .Google Scholar

64. Prestwich, , Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., fifth series, IV (1954), 37–42 .Google Scholar

65. See Lyon, Bryce D., “The Money Fief under the English Kings, 1066-1485,” E.H.R., LXVI (1951), 161–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; From Fief to Indenture, pp. 186 ff., 201 ff., and passim. See above, note 16.

66. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum, II, 478 .Google Scholar

67. Ibid., II, 478-79.

68. Davis, , Regesta Regum, I Google Scholar, No. 360.

69. On the dates of these two treaties, see Hollister, , “Significence of Scutage Rates,” E.H.R., LXXV (1960), 587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, note 4, and Davis, , Regesta Regum, II Google Scholar, Nos. 515, 941, 948.

70. Vercauteren, F. (ed.), Actes des comtes de Flandre, 1071-1128 (Brussels, 1938)Google Scholar, No. 30; Lyon, , From Fief to Indenture, p. 34 Google Scholar, and the bibliographical discussion in ibid., note 85.

71. Vercauteren, Actes des comtes de Flandre, No. 41; Lyon, , From Fief to Indenture, pp. 34-35, and p. 35 Google Scholar, note 86. There is no direct evidence of additional money fiefs with Flanders until 1163, ibid., p. 36, but we do encounter a reference to a money fief between Henry I and Count Baldwin IV of Hainaut which was probably executed in 1127-28. Ibid., p. 35; Kienast, , Deutschen Fursten, I, 59–60 .Google Scholar

72. McFarlane, , “‘Bastard Feudalism,’” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XX (1945), 162 .Google Scholar The money fief, however, was based on a vassal-lord relationship which was alien to the contractual nature of the later “bastard feudalism.”

73. Bloch, , Société féodale, I, 95–115 Google Scholar, and passim.

74. Ganshof, F. L., Feudalism, tr. Grierson, Philip (London, etc., 1952), p. 151 .Google Scholar M. Ganshof's quotation is from Olivier-Martin, , “Les Liens de vassalité dans la France médiévale,” p. 79 .Google Scholar See also Mitteis, , Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt, pp. 4–5 .Google Scholar

75. See, for example, Fawtier, Robert, The Capetian Kings of France, tr. Butler, Lionel (London, 1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, passim.

77. Bloch, , Société féodale, II, 249–50.Google Scholar

78. It is widely assumed that England was not a feudal state until after 1066. The development of German feudalism occurred during the chaotic half-century following the opening of the investiture controversy in 1075: Barraclough, Geoffrey, The Origins of Modern Germany (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1947), pp. 136 ff.Google Scholar Nor did the Kingdom of Sicily arise out of a feudal past. At the comital level, however, strong feudal states existed in Normandy, Anjou, and elsewhere.

79. For example, Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 440 .Google Scholar

80. Johnson, , Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 53 .Google Scholar

81. Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 180 .Google Scholar

82. Ibid., IV, 174.

83. Ibid.

84. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum, II, 471–72Google Scholar; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, II, 48–49 .Google Scholar

85. Ibid., II, 21-22.

86. SirStenton, Frank, Anglo-Saxon England (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1947), pp. 616 ff.Google Scholar

87. See Douglas, Feudal Documents, No. 1.

88. Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 616–17.Google Scholar

89. Ibid., p. 617.

90. Ibid., p. 618.

91. William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum, II, 312 .Google Scholar

92. Paris, Matthew, Historia Anglorum, ed. Madden, F. [Rolls Series] (London, 1866–1869), I, 13 .Google Scholar

93. Round, , Feudal England, p. 304 .Google Scholar

94. Beeler, John H., “Castles and Strategy in Norman and Early Angevin England,” Speculum, XXXI (1956), 585–86.Google Scholar

95. See Hoyt, Robert S., The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History: 1066-1272 (Ithaca, 1950), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar The royal demesne had been diminishing gradually under the late-Saxon kings, and would again shrink slowly during the post-Conquest decades due to royal grants. Actually, the Conquest not only increased the crown lands but also sharpened the very meaning or “royal demesne”, a term that is, strictly speaking, “intelligible only for the period following the Conquest. The phrase expresses a feudal concept.” Ibid., p. 6.

96. The power of the earls, however, had been radically reduced by the coronation of Harold Godwinson, the greatest of them, in January, 1066. This event is somewhat analogous to the neutralization of Saxon opposition to the German monarchy by the election of Henry the Fowler, Duke of Saxony, as German king in 919.

97. See Hollister, C. Warren, “The Annual Term of Military Service in Medieval England,” Medievalia et Humanistica, XIII (1960), 40–47 .Google Scholar

98. The one feudal summons of the period (see above, note 93) appears to be connected with the Scottish campaign of 1072. Cf. Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, II, 9 Google Scholar; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 1072.

99. Scutage seems to have come late to the marches: see Tait, James, “Knight-Service in Cheshire,” E.H.R., LVII (1942), 453–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

100. Bloch, , Société féodale, II, 246 .Google Scholar

101. Hollister, , “Norman Conquest and the Genesis of English Feudalism,” A.H.R., LXVI (1961), 654ff.Google Scholar

102. Ibid., p. 656.

103. Stubbs, , Constitutional History, I, 630 .Google Scholar

104. Round, , Feudal England, pp. 242 ff.Google Scholar

105. Powicke, “Distraint of Knighthood,” Speculum, XXV (1950), 458 .Google Scholar

106. Round, , Feudal England, p. 304 Google Scholar; Hall, Hubert (ed.), Red Book of the Exchequer [Rolls Series] (London, 1896), I, 301–02.Google Scholar

107. Round, , Feudal England, p. 305 .Google Scholar

108. The passage is from the Abingdon Chronicle, II, 128 Google Scholar: “Rex Henricus contra fratrem suum Robertum, Normanniae comitem, super se in Anglia cum exercitu venientem, totius regni sui expeditionem dirigit.” The terms exercitus and expeditio can refer to any army, not necessarily the feudal host. Other chroniclers report, as we have seen, that in 1101 few nobles rallied to Henry's side, but that his chief support came from the English.

109. Barons who play an important role in a battle will usually be mentioned in chronicles. They also appear among the witnesses to royal charters issued around the time and place of a military engagement. William of Braose issued a charter in 1073 “when he crossed the sea and went to Maine in the army with William, king of the English,” Davis, , Regesta Regum, I Google Scholar, No. 71.

110. Stevenson, , Abingdon Chronicle, II, 10 .Google Scholar

111. Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 315–17.Google Scholar The full quota based on figures from the Cartae Baronum and the pipe rolls, was approximately 5,000 knights.

112. Plummer, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 1091; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, II, 28 Google Scholar; Simeon of Durham, Historia Regum, II, 218 Google Scholar; Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 394 .Google Scholar

113. Eadmer of Canterbury, Historia Novarum, ed. Rule, M. [Rolls Series] (London, 1884), p. 78 .Google Scholar

114. Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 80 .Google Scholar

115. See Hollister, , “Norman Conquest and Genesis of English Feudalism”, A.H.R., LXVI (1961), 644 .Google Scholar

116. Douglas, , Feudal Documents, p. 151 Google Scholar; see also ibid., pp. lxxxix-xciii.

117. This may be inferred from the fact that the charter goes into considerable detail on the subject of the three or four knights serving at their own expense, i.e., in return for their fees, but says nothing on this matter in connection with the single knight. The inference is strengthened by the reference to the knight as being required by the Abbot ut suum proprium militum.

118. de Diceto, Ralph, Opera Historica, ed. Stubbs, William [Rolls Series] (London, 1876), II, lxxix–lxxx Google Scholar: letter of Richard I to the Archbishop of Canterbury, April 15, 1196.

119. “… quod ita serviant nobis in militibus quod eos inde laudare et gratias agere debeamus.” See Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

120. de Brakelond, Jocelin, Chronica, p. 63 .Google Scholar After considerable royal persuasion, the Abbot submitted to the extent of sending four mercenaries. See Round, , Feudal England, pp. 531 ff.Google Scholar The servicium debitum of Bury was forty knights, of which the King demanded one tenth. Somewhat analagous arrangements are recorded for 1157, 1191, and 1205 (ibid.), and in 1197, perhaps in connection with the very summons to which Abbot Samson objected, St. Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, refused to send his knights to the Continent on the grounds that it was contrary to custom. Ibid., pp. 528 ff.; Stubbs, , Select Charters, pp. 248–49.Google Scholar See also Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp. 213 ff.Google Scholar

121. Galbraith, V. H., “The Making of Domesday Book,” E.H.R., LVII (1942), 177 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122. Barlow, , Feudal Kingdom of England, p. 440 .Google Scholar Barlow adds that in 1087 the Norman barons and knights were still living precariously in a conquered land and therefore, presumably, feudalism was still vigorous at that time. We have seen however, that the conquered land hypothesis is to be viewed with skepticism.

123. Bloch, , Société féodale, II, 254 .Google Scholar

124. McFarlane, , “‘Bastard Feudalism,’” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XX (1945), 162 .Google Scholar See above, note 72.