A Source Book of Mediæval History / Documents Illustrative of European Life and Institutions from the German Invasions to the Renaissance

by Unknown

The lord's most effective means of compelling his vassals to discharge their obligations was his right to take back their fiefs for breach of feudal contract. Such a breach, or felony, as it was technically called, might consist in refusal to render military service or the required aids, ignoring the sovereign authority of the lord, levying war against the lord, dishonoring members of the lord's family, or, as in the case below, refusing to obey the lord's summons to appear in court. In practice the lords generally found it difficult to enforce the penalty of forfeiture and after the thirteenth century the tendency was to substitute money fines for dispossession, except in the most aggravated cases. The following is an account of the condemnation of Arnold Atton, a nobleman of south France, by the feudal court of Raymond, count of Toulouse, in the year 1249. The penalty imposed was the loss of the valuable château of Auvillars.

Source—Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Cartes ["Bureau of Treasury Accounts ">[, No. 3778, Vol. III., p. 70. Translated by Edward P. Cheyney in Univ. of Pa. Translations and Reprints, Vol. IV., No. 3. pp. 33-34.

Raymond, by the grace of God count of Toulouse, marquis of Provence, to the nobleman Arnold Atton, viscount of Lomagne, greeting:

Let it be known to your nobility by the tenor of these presents what has been done in the matter of the complaints which we have made about you before the court of Agen; that you have not taken the trouble to keep or fulfill the agreements sworn by you to us, as is more fully contained in the instrument drawn up there, sealed with our seal by the public notary; and that you have refused contemptuously to appear before the said court for the purpose of doing justice, and have otherwise committed multiplied and great delinquencies against us. As your faults The court's sentence upon Arnold Atton have required, the aforesaid court of Agen has unanimously and concordantly pronounced sentence against you, and for these matters have condemned you to hand over and restore to us the château of Auvillars and all that land which you hold from us in fee, to be had and held by us by right of the obligation by which you have bound it to us for fulfilling and keeping the said agreements.

Likewise it has declared that we are to be put into possession of the said land and that it is to be handed over to us, on account of your contumacy, because you have not been willing to appear before the same court on the days which were assigned to you. Moreover, it has declared that you shall be held and required to restore the said land in whatsoever way we wish to receive it, with few or many, in peace or in anger, in our own person, by right of lordship. Likewise it has declared that you shall restore to us all the expenses which we have incurred, or the court itself has incurred, on those days which were assigned to you, or because of those days, and has condemned you to repay these to us.[334]

Moreover, it has declared that the nobleman Gerald d'Armagnac, whom you hold captive, you shall liberate, and deliver him free to us. We demand, moreover, by right of our lordship that you liberate him.

We call, therefore, upon your discretion in this matter, strictly enjoining you and commanding that you obey the aforesaid sentences in all things and fulfill them in all respects and in no way delay the execution of them.

39. The Peace and the Truce of God

War rather than peace was the normal condition of feudal society. Peasants were expected to settle their disputes in the courts of law, but lords and seigneurs possessed a legal right to make war upon their enemies and were usually not loath to exercise it. Private warfare was indeed so common that it all the time threatened seriously the lives and property of the masses of the people and added heavily to the afflictions which flood, drought, famine, and pestilence brought repeatedly upon them. The first determined efforts to limit, if not to abolish, the ravages of private war were made by the Church, partly because the Church itself often suffered by reason of them, partly because its ideal was that of peace and security, and partly because it recognized its duty as the protector of the poor and oppressed. Late in the tenth century, under the influence of the Cluniacs [see [p. 245]], the clergy of France, both secular and regular, began in their councils to promulgate decrees which were intended to establish what was known as the Peace of God. These decrees, which were enacted by so many councils between 989 and 1050 that they came to cover pretty nearly all France, proclaimed generally that any one who should use violence toward women, peasants, merchants, or members of the clergy should be excommunicated. The principle was to exempt certain classes of people from the operations of war and violence, even though the rest of the population should continue to fight among themselves. It must be said that these decrees, though enacted again and again, had often little apparent effect.

Effort was then made in another direction. From about 1027 the councils began to proclaim what was known as the Truce of God, sometimes alone and sometimes in connection with the Peace. The purport of the Truce of God was that all men should abstain from warfare and violence during a certain portion of each week, and during specified church festivals and holy seasons. At first only Sunday was thus designated; then other days, until the time from Wednesday night to Monday morning was all included; then extended periods, as Lent, were added, until finally not more than eighty days remained of the entire year on which private warfare was allowable. As one writer has stated it, "the Peace of God was intended to protect certain classes at all times and the Truce to protect all classes at certain times." It was equally difficult to secure the acquiescence of the lawless nobles in both, and though the efforts of the Church were by no means without result, we are to think of private warfare as continuing quite common until brought gradually to an end by the rise of strong monarchies, by the turning of men to commerce and trade, and by the drawing off of military energies into foreign and international wars.