As has been already observed, the feudal scheme, like all other imperial forms, was contracted or extend- ed, weakened or strengthened, according to the changes of fortune and social condition which checkered the agitated and anxious periods attending the overthrow of the Western empire. At times it was as much dis- guised and obscured, as largelj- recompounded with Teutonic associations, as was the ever-subsisting Eo- man jurisprudence during the same ages. But it sur- vived in spirit and in outline, ready always to multi- ply its ramifications, and to attain such proportions as contemporaneous necessities might induce. It is thus that its existence and operation so frequently elude regard during the earlier centuries of its growth, and that its origin is so often referred to the late era when it became predominant and universal as the sole cor- rective of returning anarch}' under the feeble success- ors of Charlemagne.
It is impracticable, within the space at command, to recount and explain the successive transformations of feudalism which culminated in the perfect tjpe of the feudal system in the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries. Its development accompanied and was due to the pro- gressive dissolution and increasing inaptitude of the complex administrative organization of imperial Rome. A distinction of ages and a contradistinction of insti- tutions have been suspected in the succession of the terms munera, beneficia, andjeiida; and feudalism has been restricted to the period w'hen the last of these designations prevailed. Munera is supposed to repre- sent estates at will ; benejicia, estates for life ; and feuda, estates of inheritance. It has been assumed that feudalism could not properlj' be said to exist un- til benefices became hereditary. But the essence of feudalism does not reside in'the duration of the estate, but in the nature, and especially in the obligation of the tenure. Moreover, the contrasted terms may be in some measure concurrent with, but thej^ do not de- note, such diversities of duration. Munera is a ge- neric term applied to all honors, dignities, offices, and donations. There was no such clear line of demarca- tion, in meaning or in time, as Montesquieu and oth- ers imagine, Ijetween estates for life and estates herita- ble. Such precision was entirely foreign to the habits and the dispositions of those troubled but practical ages. Life estates were conceded in Germany as late as 1378. The commencement of hereditary feuds is often referred to Hugh Capet, in 917. Montesquieu assigns it to the reign of ('harles the Bald, in 877. But such tenures are found under Louis le Debonnaire in 811 ; and in the form of henrjina thej' were custom- ary under the Roman empire. Estates in perpetuity are mentioned under the name of be7iefiria as early as 709 (Ratport, Casus S. Galli, § 2, apud Pertz, ifo)i. Germ. Hist, ii, G3 ; comp. S. Anskarii Vita 8. Willeha- di, § 8 ; Ibid. p. 382). But, in order to ascribe a pure- ly Germanic origin to feuds, benejicia andfcnda have been represented as diverse institutions. They are used as convertible terms throughout the Book of Feuds. " Feudum idem cmn benejicio" says Du Cange (s. v., p. 258, col. 1). King Alfonso the Wise, of Cas- tile, declares in Las Siete Partidas: '•^ Feudo es bene-
! ftcldo que di el senor a alyunhmne, porque se torna su casallo, ct le fece homenage de serle leal. E tonio este
I nombre d'fe que debt siempre giiardar el vasallo alseiior.'" The term feudum is a barbarous, and probably hybrid comiwund, whose first employment Ilallam assigns to
; a constitution of Robert I of France in 1008, though it is found in a constitution, of somewhat doubtful au- thenticity, of Charles the Fat, in 884. Were there no flefs antecedent to the introduction of this name ? If there were, then benejicia are fiefs. If there were not, then fiefs are the same things as benejicia. The con- fusion has proceeded from the fantastic derivation of Feod, from the supposed Teutonic word Fe, represent- ed by the Anglo-Saxon Fea, Feoh, fee, and the Scan- dinavian od, odh, property. Unfortunatelj', feudal- ism was a late and very partial innovation among both Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians, while the term Feudum springs up along the Rhine ; and the Anglo- Saxon Feoh is congenerous to the Latin pecus — pecor- is — if not borrowed from it. The /e in Fe-od, the Spanish and Proven(;'al_/>, the modern French /bi, the Scotch Jeu, are apparently nothing but contractions of the Latin Jide or Italian ftde. " Feudum, credo, a fide, quia vox ex Italia in Germaniam venit. Ft ante sceculum aiiftuda in Germania et apud omnes Francos beneficia appellabanticr" (Leibnitz, Collect. Etymolog. 0pp. ed. Dutens, tom. vi, pt. ii, p. 58, 59). '■^ Nulla au- iem ini-estitura debet ei fieri, qui Jidelitatem J'acere recu- saf, quum a fidelitate feudum dicatur rel a fide" {Lihb. Feud, ii, iii, 3 ; compare vii). This derivation of the term Feod is singularly corroborated by the use of the word '^tuine/e" in Sir Thomas Malory's Morte d'Ar- tur: "And thus Sir jMarhans every day sent unto king Marke for to pay the truage which was behind of seven j'ears, or else to find a knight to fight with him for the truage'''' (pt. ii, ch. iv, Romance of Sir Tristrem'). It is indubitable that feudal tenures long existed in the midst of T\oma.\\ fundi and possessiones, and of (jler- manic allodial estates ; it is also unquestionable that these were gradually absorbed or transmuted into feu- dal tenements, for the conversion of allodial into feu- dal holdings is illustrated by ample documentary evi- dence; and it is also certain that this feudalization of the land was not completed till the times when the ^Yordf^uda comes into use. But this will not justify the juridical distinctions which have been proposed, nor sanction the alleged derivation of Feod, nor sus- tain the Germanic origination of the tenure. The des- ignation of Feod maj' well have been devised as a counterpart to allodh ; but the generally received ety- mology of allodh is very unrelial:)le, and strong argu- ments may be adduced for referring it to the same source as the common English word lot. This ques- tion, however, cannot be examined here. (Compare Kenible, The Sa.rons in England, bk. i, ch. iv, vol. i, p. 90, 91, with Procopius, De Bell. Vandal, i, v, in regard to the K-AT/ooi Baj'ciAw)'.)