This organization of society, with the corresponding tenure of land, is so essential to the maintenance of any degree of social order or public safety in certain conditions of society, that it has presented itself, in some form or other, in analogous circumstances, in widely separated ages and countries. So frequent and so striking is this recurrence, that it suggested to Sir Walter Scott in 1789 an essay, in which he under- took to prove that the feudal system "proceeds upon principles common to all nations when placed in a cer- tain situation." Sir Walter was delighted in his old age by finding this view illustrated and enforced in colonel Tod's History cf Rajahstan (Lockhart, Life of Scott, ch. vi). It contains a considerable amount of truth, but is far from expressing the whole trnth.
There are distinct indications of something very like feudalism in ancient Egypt. Ajiijroximations to it are found in the early history of China, India, and Persia. Analogies of the same sort may be discovered among
the Jews in their early occupation of the Holy Land. They may be suspected in the Spartan constitution ; ' they are very evident in the institutions of Macedon. The principles of feudalism are involved in Plato's ideal state {De Ler/rj.). The relation of patron and client at Home was essentialh' feudal. A semi-feudal organization was adopted by the Saracens in Spain, and exhibited \>y the Timariots, or mounted militia, among the Ottoman Turks. It may still be detected among the warlike tribes of Afghanistan, and among the ^Mongolian tributaries of the Chinese empire. Humboldt recognised it among the Guanchcs of Ten- eriHe, and among some of the South-Sea Islanders (Personal Narrative, ch. ii). Other instances might be noted. All show how some arrangement of the ivind is inspired or necessitated Lj- appropriate social requirements ; they explain the facility with which feudalism was adopted, and its vitality when adojjted ; but the}' do not interpret its special forms in mediwval Europe, nor supplj' any testimony to the historical or- igin of the feudal system.
In regard to this origin a wide divergence of opin- ion has existed. jMontesquieu, Guizot, and the gener- ality of recent writers refer feudalism to the voluntary followers and companions — roniites — of the Germanic chieftains, who invaded the Konian empire in the 5th and succeeding centuries ; but it was never found among those Northern races in their original abodes. Some juridical antiquaries of the IGth century traced it to the 2Uit7'onaiiis and clitntelce of ancient Home ; but these resembled much more nearly the elans of the Scotch Highlands and the septs of Ireland. '1 he bet- ter opinion appears to be that the principles and gen- eral framework of the system were of later Iloman or- igin, whatever modifications and developments they may have received in the Teutonic kintidcms. This is the view espoused bj^ Franciscus Balduinus (ad I.er/es liomuli, apud Heineccii Juiispr. Rom. et Att. i, 50), the profound but inconstant jurist of the IGtli cen- tury. It was entertained bj' his rival, the greater ju- rist Cujacius, and favored bj' Can;den in his Rritiinnia, and by I)u Cange in his wondrous Laliti Glossary. It has been reaffirmed, with suitable rectifications, by Sir Francis Palgrave, Lehuerou, Ozanam, and a few re- cent students of medieval arclucology. T his view does not cenflict with the distinct acknowledgment of Teutonic influences in animating, sustaining, and moulding the feudal elements.
It is impossible to introduce here either the argu- ments or the evidences by which this conclusion may be confirmed ; but it is scarcely necessary to do more than examine the titles Benejiciarivs, Emj.hytextsis, J\/ilit(S Limifanei, Lati, Culoni, Adscrijilifii^ luqmlini, in the Corpus Juris Civilis, and the same titles, with the addition of Commcndiitio, Feudum, and its deriva- tives, in Du Cange, in order to be assured of its sub- stantial correctness. It may be expedient to corrob- orate this position by citing the earliest distinct notice in a Latin author of such an organization: ^^ Sola, qum de hostihus capta stint, limitaneis ducibus et militi- bus donavit, ita ut eorum ita essent, si heredes illorum militarent, nee nnquam ad privates pertinercnt; di- ccns, attenlins eos militarent, si etiam sva rura defende- rimt'" (Lamprid. Alex. Severus, c. Iviii ; Cod. 'I head. vii, XV, ii ; Novell. Theod. xxxiv ; Cod. Just, xi, Ix [lix], 3; Hocking, Notit. Dlejn. i, 292; ii, ICCS*). To this may be added a significant exposition of the man- ner in which like arrangements sprung up in the inte- rior (jf the Koman empire. . . . "Tradunt se ad tuen- dum protogendumque nnijoribus, dedititios se divitum faciunt, et quasi in jus eorum ditionemque transcend- unt : nee Uimen fjrave hoc out indignum ai-bitrorer, immo potius ijratularer hanc poteutum mar/nitudinem qui- hi/s se pavperes dedimt ; si patrocinia iata non vender ent, si quad se humiles d'cnnt defensare, humanitati iribue- rent, non cupiditati'" (Salvianus, IJe Gvhernni. I)ei, v. viii). The class technically designated dedititii ulti-
FIEF
549
FIEF
mately merged into serfdom, it is true, but only by Justinian's edict of 530 (JJod. vii, v) ; and the term is plainly metaphorical in Salvian.
Wherever the Teutonic hordes passed the frontiers of the Roman empire, they found the presence or the memorj' of the Milites Limitanei, whose constitution, traceable beyond the reign of Augustus, accorded with all the essential characteristics of undeveloped feudal- ism. These military borderers were, indeed, of kin- dred blood and race, and when they were supplanted or overlaid b}' new trilies, the institutions were retain- ed, wliicli had been designed as a protection against incursion. This was only the observance of the ha- bitual policy of the barbarians in regard to the Itoman civilization.