A Source Book for Mediæval History / Selected Documents illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Age

by Oliver J. Thatcher; Edgar Holmes McNeal

The king by virtue of his royal power could confer nobility on all whom he wished. The document of Charles IV is especially interesting as showing the degree of honor attaching to learning. The learned man was, because of his learning, the equal of the noble. He who had taken the Master’s degree in both laws was thereby raised to the same social plane as the knight, but, of course, was not thereby knighted. Charles IV recognized this principle and conferred knighthood on his friend, the professor, who had received this degree.

Charles IV, by divine clemency emperor of the Romans, Augustus, and king of Bohemia, sends his favor and wishes all good to the honorable Wycker, scholasticus[{123}] of the church of St. Stephen of Mainz, his [that is, the emperor’s] chaplain, intimate table companion, and devoted and beloved member of his household.

Beloved and devoted: Although, according to your birth and to the standards of the world, you were not born of a noble family and are not reckoned as a knight, nevertheless, because you are adorned with so great and remarkable knowledge of both the civil and canon law, that it supplies what you lack by birth [that is, nobility], in imitation of our predecessors, the emperors of great and renowned memory, we regard your knowledge and ability as the equivalent of nobility, and out of the fulness of our imperial power we decree that you are noble and knightly, and of the same rank, honor, and condition as any other noble and knight. Therefore we strictly command all princes, ecclesiastical and secular, counts, chiefs, nobles, and all our other faithful subjects, to whom this letter may come, under threat of the loss of imperial favor, to regard, hold, and treat you as such [that is, as a knight], in all places; and out of reverence for the holy empire to admit you to all the rights, privileges, etc., which noblemen are accustomed to enjoy....

{123} That is, he was a professor in the school connected with that church.

296. The Law of the Family of the Bishop of Worms, 1023.

Altmann und Bernheim, no. 62; M. G. LL. 4to, I. pp. 640 ff.

The bishop of Worms was a large landholder, possessing a great deal of the land in the city as well as in the country. This land may be divided into two groups according to the way in which it was held and tilled. Some of it was let out as fiefs, and from this the bishop received only the regular feudal dues according to the terms on which he let it out. The rest of his land was called the domain, and was tilled by serfs who lived on it and were attached to it. There was great variety in the condition of the serfs. Some of them had little or no right to the products of their labors, except to what they needed to eat and wear. It would of course be impossible for such to acquire property. Others had a right to a greater or less share of the products of their labors, and hence they could amass property. Through their wealth all such could, in the course of time, improve their condition and rise in the social scale. All those of this servile group were unfree; they were bondmen of the church. All of them taken together were called the family of St. Peter. They were attached to the soil which they tilled, paid a tax in money or in kind, or rendered services, and were under the protection of the church and the jurisdiction of the bishop.

From paragraphs 9, 13, 16, etc., we learn that there were two classes of these serfs, the fisgilini, and the dagewardi. Of these the fisgilini were the higher in the social scale. According to paragraphs 9 and 29 they had a share in the wergeld of members of their family and they were not compelled to render services except of a certain kind or in certain departments of the bishop’s household. The services which they were bound to render were considered less servile, less ignoble, than those required of the dagewardi. From these facts it is inferred that their ancestors had at one time been free, but had surrendered their lands and their freedom and become bondmen of the church for the sake of securing protection. Bishops and abbots were generally regarded as lenient lords in comparison with secular princes, and many preferred to become bondmen of the church rather than of secular lords. The lands which they held they passed on from father to son (par. 2 and 3), and they could amass property and dispose of it (par. 1 and 4). From paragraphs 26, 27, and 28 there seems to have been some difference between the fisgilini who lived in the city and those who lived in the country. The former were no doubt artisans, the latter, peasants. But it is not clear what other differences existed between them.

Besides these bondmen, mention is made in the introduction and par. 14 of knights and freemen. These were the vassals of the bishop, holding the lands of the church as fiefs. They were not included in the "family of St. Peter."

Three officials are mentioned. (1) The advocate was a layman who represented the bishop and the church in all secular matters, held the three regular courts of the year, collected the fines which fell to the bishop, etc. In theory he was the protector of the church against all violence and oppression, but not infrequently he took advantage of his position, and by threats and other unjust measures oppressed the church and extorted money from it. (2) The vidame was the aid or representative of the advocate and assisted him in the administration of his office. (3) The "official" of the introduction is the same as the "local official" in paragraphs 2, 12, and 24. As the people on these lands lived in villages, he was probably the official whom the bishop entrusted with the government of the village. He held the local or village court. (See note to par. 13.) There were scabini or Schoeffen who assisted all these officials in administering justice (see Glossary).