Difference between revisions of "American Freedom's Feudal Beginning"

Revision as of 21:12, 17 September 2014

Feudalism was the characteristic institution of the Middle Ages. It started around the end of the 11th century about the time of the First Crusade. Though it was a time when freedom was enjoyed only by an elite few, when villeins (serfs) were bound to the land and subject to both the justice and injustice meted out at the whim of the local lord, it also had its bright side. Feudalism, as it developed in England, represented an improvement in the life of the villein and planted the seeds of freedom that, over a period of 580 years, produced the United States.

In the dark time that preceded feudalism, poverty stricken villages were unable to protect themselves against marauders. Feudal society was an arrangement between Baron, knight, the Church, and the serf to bring protection, order, and rude justice to village life. It was far from liberty and equality, but it was a first step and was consistent with basic reasons for a people to submit to government and move away from anarchy. The serf received a large measure of stability and safety. In exchange, the surplus product of serf labor was divided among Baron, knight, Bishop and Abbot, who were, relative to the serf, a leisure class. Wealth accumulated in the hands of this leisure class and this created a demand for luxuries. From this grew trade, arts, crafts, and a middle class of merchants and tradesmen and the cities that grew as the result.

It was neither fair nor just - it was merely better than violent anarchy. Feudalism was a legal and fixed subordination of one class to others who dispensed with the product of the serf as they saw fit. It wasn't liberty, but without it, life was lawless and violent. With it, there were still abuses of power and "law" was both local and variable, but the arc of liberty had begun its upward trajectory.

The Viking Marauders

The Viking raids on England started in the late 8th century. At first they plundered the churches and monasteries that lay unprotected near the coast. The churches had wealth, and they were easy pickings. These early, and rather easy, successes whetted the Viking appetite. They realized that there was no sea power to protect the British Islands. The Anglo-Saxons in England were inland farmers and not warriors. War and plunder became the chief industry of the Norwegians. At first it was strictly for adventure and plunder, but it eventually turned to immigration and settling the land. The English fields were better than the sandy beaches of the fiords back home. So they became farmers, but they were also and always traders. They built fortified towns and markets. They were an energetic mixture of farmer, sea-faring warrior, and merchant traders and were willing to act as any of these as fit the circumstances or advantages of the moment.

Notes

Chapter IV of Book 1 of Trevelyan (an important chapter): Pg 48 of Trevelyan discusses the necessity of a wealthy class as a prerequisite of moving from primitive society to democratic equality. The same arguments can be presented at any stage. And this can be coupled with Gilder's arguments.

And pg 49: Maitland: " . . feudalism means civilization, the separation of employment, the division of labour, the possibility of national defence(sic), the possibility of art, science, literature and learned leisure; the cathedral, the scriptorium, the library are as truly the work of feudalism as the baronial castle."

And: Trevelyan: " . . covering the years between that (Saxon) conquest and the coming of the Vikings, we must attempt the difficult task of appreciating the change of religion oas the first great step forward of the English people on the path of civilized life."

Christianity brought "the beginning, among the barbarians, of a political and legal civilization based on the arts of reading and writing in the practicable Latin alphabet"

and so on . . .

The comparison of Anglo-Saxon worship of Odin and Thor with Christianity is instructive - but not very encouraging. Ponder why there was a great conversion to Christianity with its teaching of humility and charity and submission. There was the promise of a known afterlife - how to attain heaven and avoid hell.

top of pg 62: At the Synod of Whitby in 664, Oswy King of Northumbria gave judgment in favour of the claims of Rome as the inheritor of Peter's commission - rather than to the men of Iona. "The early adhesion of all the English Kingdoms to the Roman system of religion gave a great impetus to the movement towards racial unity, kingly and feudal power, systematic administration, legislation and taxation, and territorial as against tribal politics." The English were already moving from tribalism faster than the Celts.

pg 62: "A greater centralization and unity of system and purpose in ecclesiastical affairs throughout all the English Kingdoms led the way towards political unity under a single King. The administration of the Church became the model for the administration of the State. . . And since the Churchmen, being the only learned men, were the chief advisers of the Crown and its first Secretariate, the new Roman ideas passed all the more easily from the sphere of the church into the sphere of the State. Kingship gained new allies - men as skilled to serve with brain and pen, as the thegns with muscle and sword. Kinship gained also a new sanctity and a higher claim on the loyalty of the subject, through hallowing by the Church and by clerical theories of sovereignty drawn from recollections of the Roman law."

So, this is a marriage of two estates of power. Rivalries would ensue. But the Synod of Whitby was a declaration by a King of a favored religion. Before then, kings were not jealous of religious influence.