medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
your question is somewhat complex, Laura, and i'm certainly no expert on what
was going on in N. Italy in c. 13 (or any other time, for that matter) but, in
a N. French context, the answer would probably be, Yes, the _honore_ of the
_comitatus_ was indeed hereditary, but it was not absolute "ownership" but
rather was held from an overlord, and swearing fealty to the overlord would
have been part of the "price" which would have had to have been paid whenever
some new guy took over the fief --in this case even as heir to the previous
holder of the fief.
it's rather like purchasing a lease on a place --one with a clause in it which
gives your heirs the right to renew the lease (for an agreed upon price) in
perpetuity.
(in France, today, there is even the right to purchase the "walls" on a piece
of property, while the actual land is held by someone else. and doesn't the
Queen own a huge percentage of the land which London sits on, without owning
the buildings sitting on it? such arrangements are rather rare in the U.S., i
believe.)
you have the leasehold on the land (and, in this case the _honore_ of the
_comitatus_), but that leasehold has to be renewed every generation, subject
to the agreed upon conditions.
you might even be able to sell the house on the land --but not the land
itself, unless of course, your land lord agreed to the sale.
the same might have been true (in France at least) if the Bishop held his fief
(i.e., his secular --not his ecclesiastical-- property) from the King.
the latter would have been the _capitalis dominus_ and would have had the
right to demand fealty from his vassal (relative to this particular fief held
from him).
where it gets *really* sticky, of course, is when this theoretical
overlordship conflicts with RealPolitic at the highest level --as was the
case, say, in the king of France's overlordship over the Duke of Normandy (or,
indeed, any other Dukedom or County in "France").
sure, the weak 10th c. Carolingian king "agreed" to give Normandy to Rollo,
but only on condition that the latter (and his heirs) acknowledged the king as
his overlord --though why Rollo did that (if, indeed, he did) i've never quite
understood, since Rollo seems to have held pretty much all the cards.
when the Dukes of Normandy also became the Kings of that island on the
Northwest Fringe after Bill the Bastard's conquest of the hapless Brits, the
situation became a *really* Sticky Wicket --but (i assume) it was, ultimately,
theoretically, August Phil's "rights" as overlord which "justified" his
wresting the Dukedom from John Lackland.
(that, and a good right arm, backed by a few thousand well armed thugs on
Phil's payroll.)
anyway, that's my Take on your Italian situation --blissfully unencumbered by
any actual knowledge of the historical Reality at all.
if it don't satisfy, axe for your money back and float the question on the
Mediev-L history list --there are over 1,000 folks on that, one of whom might
even know something about things Eyetalian.
From: John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
> Medieval historians have tended not to use the "f-word" since Susan
Reynolds's 1994 book "Fiefs and Vassals: the Medieval Evidence
Reinterpreted". [The writing had been on the wall since Elizabeth A. R.
Brown's article "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of
Medieval Europe," The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct
1974), pp. 1063-1088.]
I’m not sure that Reynold’s (and Brown’s) basic objections apply here
-–their main point was (as I dimly recall) that the idea of “feudalism”
as a consistent and rigidly applied “system” was a dangerous and
tyrannical “construct” which should be handled with great care, like
infected yellow fever bedding.
in any case Brother John is certainly correct and, if you do post something on
Mediev-L, do NOT use the F-word as those guys will gleefully burn you at the
stake, drive another stake through your heart and bury you under a crossroads
--they play for Keeps, over there.
btw, Brown’s classic article is available on JSTOR:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1869563’
(copy sent on request to any non-subscriber who needs one)
c
From: Laura Jacobus <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [M-R] question about feudal titles
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
> Sorry this isn't strictly religion, but feudalism isn't my thing. I'm
trying to make sense of the fact that someone is recorded as being granted or
having purchased the *comitatus* of a place (which I take to be the title and
lands of a Count) which was in the fief of a bishop- and some
forty years later his great-grandson is also recorded as being granted the
same *comitatus* by a later bishop. I'd assumed that being a count was
hereditary, but this instance would seem to suggest that it was some sort
of renewable vassallage and that the land reverted to the feudal overlord
(ie the bishop) either on a periodic basis or on the death of the holder of
the title. In this case, maybe the title was heredity in practice- as
several generations had been and gone without leaving much trace in the
record- but still the feudal formalities were being observed. We're talking
13thC northern Italy here- does this sound right?
>
> Laura
>
> --
> Dr. Laura Jacobus
> Senior Lecturer in History of Art
> Birkbeck College, University of London
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|