Part 15

The other great influence which counteracted the feudal spirit from an earlier period, and mitigated its severities, was religion, or the Church. This was natural and inevitable; for the overwhelming influence of religion over the human mind in all ages and nations is the universal deduction of history. It appears to strike its root even the deeper, in proportion to the strength and ruggedness of the mind on which it operates, as plants are more luxuriant from the rankness of the soil where they grow. The fulminations of Sinai or the dulcet harps of Zion have seldom failed in moving the heart of man, and exciting its tenderest and best emotions. We find this verified even in the darkest times, and among the most ferocious nations. Clovis, Charlemange, and William of Normandy are magnificent illustrations. The first, from being one of the most ruthless and savage warriors and conquerors at the head of the Franks ever known in history, no sooner heard the preaching of the Gospel through the instrumentality of his wife Clotilda, than he immediately embraced its truths, and by the most abject humility and self-denying sacrifices for the remainder of his life endeavored to atone for his past cruelties. His great successor, Charlemange, less barbarous and with higher capabilities, at the head of his Germans vanquished continental Europe after innumerable and ferocious wars; yet succumbed his lofty spirit to the influence of Christianity, and prepared by his sword a way for its missionaries. We also find that William the Conqueror, by the deepest penitence and remorse, and by large munificence to the Church, sought to make recompense for the cruelties and excesses of his reign.

It was therefore inevitable that in the middle ages the influence of the Church should operate on the feudal Barons, and soften the rigors of their power. In the vicinity of the Baronial castle arose a village, whose inhabitants were generally dependent on the Lord. In the village sprung up a church and a pastor. The village Priest generally ministered to the inmates of the castle, as well as to the inhabitants of the hamlet; and as learning, or even the rudiments of scholarship, were then confined to the clergy, the religious minister was also the secretary, teacher, and counsellor of the Baronial family. He thus acquired influence and mastery over the youth and age of the circle, and seldom failed to seize the advantage in imbuing them with his benign creed. Hence the contrast presented in those ages between the chieftain in the camp and field, where he was all vigor and ferocity, and in his own hall, where he displayed many virtues of the Christian life. Hence also the generally milder character of the heir apparent and future wielder of the Baronial power, than of the sire. To this source we may also in a great measure ascribe the diminishing severity of each succeeding Baron, and the much more humane and improved conduct and manners of the late than early chieftains.

But this is regarding religion in its private and spontaneous, yet in its best influence, in subduing the rigors of the feudal chiefs. It had a separate, more worldly, but yet powerful influence in the Church. Constantine the Great made the Church (which was previously a voluntary and spontaneous association of Christian people) a national and compulsory institution, and a fundamental part of the imperial fabric: he added it to the Roman Empire; succeeding Emperors maintained it; and it became a preponderating influence in the State. It was feared that after the irruption of the Barbarians and their conquest of the Empire, although private belief and individual creeds might remain and be preserved, yet the Church as a political element and fabric would inevitably fall and perish in the imperial ruin. But in this the anticipations of men failed; for we find that the Goths, Vandals, and Scythians were equally susceptible of the influence of the religion of Christ, which many of them and especially their chieftains embraced, and often aided its progress with the sword. We also find that as soon as the barbarian conquest of Rome settled into distinct nationalities and governments, the powers followed the example of the great Constantine, and added religion to the State, and constituted the Church a political fabric. In this manner, before and at the commencement of the middle ages, every European state had its National Church. This polity existed equally in Britain, where the Church became a rich and powerful corporation, often rivalling and occasionally transcending the feudal Barons in wealth, dignities, and influence. The Prelates of the Church were by law Barons of the realm. Anselm, in the reigns of William Rufus and the first Henry,--Thomas a Becket, in that of the second,--both Archbishops of Canterbury, and Cardinal Wolsey, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, are illustrations of the great wealth, power, and dignity which the ecclesiastical hierarchy from time to time enjoyed in this country.

The extensive wealth and influence of the Church excited the jealousy and enmity of the feudal Barons, between whom were continual disputes, which sometimes led to violence and war. In their progress we find the Bishops and dignitaries of the Church occasionally substitute the mitre by the helmet, and the crosier for the sword, and rivalling the feudal chieftains in their military exploits. We also find the Church generally allied with Royalty or the sovereign power in their differences with the feudal Barons; but occasionally with the latter in curbing the royal prerogative and power. The Church generally cast its influence into the scale of either power which might happen to be weakest, and for the purpose of counterbalancing the opposite power from which there was greatest apprehension and dread of usurpation and wrong. The ecclesiastical influence and power were also much courted and cherished in general by the Kings and Queens of Britain, as a support to themselves, and a restraint on the feudal chiefs; and they often, when practicable, seized opportunities of enriching the ecclesiastical order, and adding to their power. The Church also sometimes lent its aid and influence to the popular triumph and cause. It is, therefore, evident that the feudal system met with much antagonism and counteraction from the Church, and that its rigors were much diminished in consequence. The beneficial effects which followed were not always owing to the purest motives, or the benevolence of the Church; but more frequently from the desire of maintaining its own privileges and wealth. But the results to the nation and its liberties were the same as if the ecclesiastical hierarchy had been actuated by higher motives and a purer spirit; and the well-being of the community, was equally promoted.

The Church and the boroughs, in conjunction with the royal power, therefore served to subdue the feudal spirit, and restrain and diminish the powers and privileges of its chiefs.

The effects of the Commonwealth under Cromwell must also have struck fatally at the rigors of the feudal system, in common with many other oppressions, from which they never revived. The spirit of the Commonwealth was deeply hostile to all kinds of ancient tyrrany; and as the feudal law was one of the greatest, it received a serious check. The genius of Puritanism rebelled against the feudal distinctions, as the spirit of liberty which was then triumphant overcame its oppressions. The Baron could no longer at the sound of his horn assemble his ferocious retinue of vassals and retainers, to march to the conquest of political foes, or the suppression of uprising liberty. The Knight could no more ride abroad in his panoply of steel, feared and unopposed by a rabble of villeins and serfs. The spirit of the nation was aroused to its inmost depths in the great struggle for emancipation, and statesmen and warriors arose from its lowest estates. The popular Fairfax overcame the princely Rupert; while the great Commoner--Cromwell--overthrew Royalty itself. Chivalry had to surrender its crest at Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, to popular bravery and religious zeal. The ancient order of things was entirely changed, and new institutions everywhere took its place, founded on the democratic power. Brewers and butchers now occupied the seats in the Senate formerly held by Barons and Knights; while Fleetwood and Harrison commanded the army of Manchester and Essex. No greater contrast existed than that of the Puritan captain with his skull cap, buff coat, and leather buskins, and the Cavalier with plumed hat, velvet cloak, and silk hose. Not more opposite were they in character than attire: the former a grave, stern, austere, gloomy, and religious democrat; the latter a gay, lively, free-thinking, licentious, and haughty aristocrat: the first was the impersonation of religious faith and prowess; the last of feudal pride. It was therefore inevitable, that in the course of that great struggle between the two elements which ended in the triumph of the popular cause and the establishment of the Commonwealth, feudal arrogance and oppression received a fatal shock.

The leading principle or idea embodied in the feudal system was that of a head, or chief, with dependence by the vassals and retainers. The same principle pervades our laws and institutions, and is in a great measure the fruit or effect of the feudal polity. Among other instances of its operation we may mention the law of primogeniture, the object being to create a family chief. The property qualifications necessary for parliamentary rights and representation, for the magistracy, and other stations of power and dignity, are illustrations of the same effect. The Peers sit and vote in the Upper House of Parliament as Barons of the Realm; while the Members for counties in the other House are returned as Knights of the Shire; and the Judges of the land are designated Barons of the Exchequer, or Knights' Justices; and the parliamentary Members for boroughs are styled Burgesses,--thus still retaining their feudal distinctions. The preponderance everywhere given to property in land, over wealth in money, trade, or other moveable goods, is a result of the same policy. Indeed it may be said, that the leading principles which govern property in this Kingdom, have their main origin and foundation in the feudal system; although the legislation of the last half century has done much to abolish the enormities with which it was theretofore disfigured.

But it may be asked, what were the effects of the system which we have briefly sketched? Were they good or evil? Did they advance or retard human society and civilization? These are difficult and important questions, in the solution of which probably few will entirely agree.

That the feudal state was rendered necessary by the circumstances of the period, we have, we think, sufficiently shown. That its influence has been in some respects beneficial is also incontestible. The predominant feature of the feudal dominion was force--physical force; and this was the only one suited and practicable for the barbarian population of Europe in the middle centuries. Reason and right were terms unknown and foreign to the masses then emerging from uncivilized life. Force was their own law, and by this must they themselves have been ruled. The Baron or Lord, in enforcing the severities of the feudal code, therefore instructed his vassals in a vocabulary which they understood; he governed them by the only suitable rod. To have addressed them as citizens, and moral and accountable beings, and to have explained to them their duties and rights from a description of the nature, condition, and destinies of man, would have been to have spoken to them in an unknown tongue--in a language they could not have understood.

Moreover the very relation in which the vassals stood to their Lord, and the services and duties which they were compelled to perform, taught them obedience--trained them to docility and submission. It induced them to reflect on others than themselves,--to regard the wants and rights of others beside their own. This was a great point gained in subduing and training the barbarian just leaving his roving life in the forest or on the mountain. This was a step to further improvement, and to a milder and more rational rule; by this he was trained for a gentler government, and better laws.

The feudal institutions gave birth to chivalry, which exercised so predominant a sway through the middle ages, and in what light soever it is regarded, was beneficial in its influences. It conjures up to our mind the brilliant scenes and magnificent achievements of the period, whether viewed in the enchanting pages of romance, or the more sober records of history. It brings before our minds the mail-clad warrior dispensing refined hospitality in his armor-hung hall, to a princely retinue of retainers and guests, or mounted on his fiery steed, pressing forward to the mortal encounters of honor. The Knight is equally interesting, whether we look at him armed to avenge in single combat the maiden's dishonor or orphan's wrong, or we follow him into the stately tournament, there to encounter in the perilous and sometimes fatal lists. In either case we see displayed the highest qualities of man--courage, honor, dignity, fidelity, skill, and manly strength. We find the same characteristics accompany him into the tented field, where amidst hills of carnage, and at the close of a doubtful day, the bleeding knight contends bravely under the shadow of the red-cross banner. The crusades were a magnificent effect of the religious aspiration of chivalry, whatsoever opinion may now be formed of the policy of those great contests. No sight more glorious can be imagined than the chivalry of the West marching triumphantly through the heart of Europe to avenge the wrongs and indignities of the Cross upon the Infidel, and contend against four-fold odds under the walls of Antioch and Jerusalem, to recover the Holy Sepulchre from the pollution of Moslem hands. Whatsoever opinion the sober philosophy of history may now pronounce on these great wars, they were dictated by the highest aspirations, and ennobled by the most heroic actions, and they stand out nobly on the headlands of the past as monuments of human grandeur.

Although we have only viewed the institution of chivalry in its outward and more attractive aspects, yet it inculcated a high code of personal morality, very beneficial in the feudal ages. In this era the law was feeble, and its administration so often fruitless, that the greatest restraint on power, and the best security for the rights of individuals, and more especially of the weak, was personal honor; and this in its highest sense was generally characteristic of the barons and knights. They as frequently armed to redress the wrongs of the weak as to avenge their own personal injuries. The maiden's wail, the orphan's cry, were to them the most potent spring of action for the most fatal rencontres. The faithless knight who might happen to injure virgin purity, or oppress unarmed and defenceless people, roused the resentment of the whole order of chivalry, and was pursued from castle to cloister, and from land to land, till his blood atoned for his lust or cruelty. Chivalry inculcated upon its members the highest honor, fidelity, truth, and justice; and in the absence of strong public law, administered equally with a powerful and impartial hand, formed the best code of law and morals in the feudal times. We find examples of faithless barons and recreant knights, as there are exceptions to every rule, and blots upon every picture; yet in the main the very code in which they were instructed, and the habits which they acquired had a most beneficial influence in the formation of their characters, and furnished many illustrious examples of human virtue, and public renown.

The feudal system was, moreover, fertile of the military spirit, and this in its fullest vigor was necessary for the defence of the nation, as well as of individuals, in the dark ages. The feudal polity was first established by the sagacious Conqueror, as a military structure to overawe the vanquished Saxon; and though its rigor became relaxed in after reigns, yet its very existence rested on military organization, and the education of the soldier was its chief aim; the cultivation of the soil and the pursuits of commerce, being regarded as secondary and inferior occupations, and were treated with disdain by the feudal chiefs. Hence the universal predominance of military power and rank in the middle ages, and their monopoly of distinction and wealth. Hence also the paucity of mercantile greatness in those times.

As the martial discipline and organization of his retainers and vassals was necessary to the supremacy of the Baron, so the co-operative forces of the Barons were necessary for the maintenance of the throne, and the safety of the kingdom. The former was in continual peril from domestic ambition and discord, and the latter from foreign foes. A Montfort and a Neville, a Percy and a Douglas, were only restrained from subverting the royal power, and grasping the sceptre in their own hands, by the support given by the other Barons to the sovereign,--evinced on many a well-fought field. The invasion of the kingdom by continental armies, was only prevented by the confederate array of the King and his Barons.

In the absence of that division of employment which in modern times produced a standing army, the feudal organization with its martial aspect alone supplied the nation with its defence. No sooner did the Frank or Northman display his banner on the wave, for the conquest of Britain, than hill signalled hill, from Devon to the Orkneys, to summon the united Barons to the defence of the realm. With such alacrity was the alarm obeyed, that before a hostile flag could be planted on the headlands of the island, the enemy was driven into the sea, or to the refuge of his ships; leaving full many behind to attest the folly of the expedition. Not less ready were the feudal chiefs to follow the British ensign into foreign wars, there to sustain the glory of its fame. Poietiers and Azincour, Steinkirk and Landen, Ramilies and Blenheim, witnessed the heroic prowess of English chivalry on their hard-fought fields, while the terrible charge of the British infantry passed into the proverbs of those lands. From this system sprang an Essex and a Raleigh, a Chandos and a Churchill, with other great captains of the British hosts, who, by the military organization and discipline which it afforded to the nation, were enabled during the reigns of the Plantagenets, the Tudors, and the Stuarts to preserve our soil inviolate from a foreign foe, and to force entire Europe into respect and homage of the British name.

It is also true that the Baron, his family, domestics, and retainers, were in this era the only persons who possessed any scholarship, learning, or even good manners. The interior of the castle was graced with beauty, order, and comparative refinement. There letters and learning were sought after, if not largely acquired. Good manners and regularity prevailed. The Baron himself spent much of his time in the bosom of his family, and must have been improved in the gentler circle which there assembled. He for a time lost the bluntness and ferocity of his warlike life. A priest, or minister of religion, was also generally an appendage of the castle; and his profession, being an improving, learned, and pacific one, must have acted beneficially on those with whom he associated. The instruction and example of the inmates of the castle must therefore have been beneficial to the whole feudal society around: to which may be added the historical fact that after the introduction of the feudal system, and by the sanction and encouragement of the Barons, were compiled the only literary works of the period of which we have any account. In the solitudes of the baronial castle were composed the only chronicles of that era which have descended to us. Within the walls of the castellated abode generally dwelt the priests, bards, and other literati of the time; where they had leisure and encouragement to pursue their avocations; and thence issued forth their chronicles, poems, and productions. These influences must, therefore, have tended greatly to the civilization and improvement of the whole feudal society.

On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that the feudal state was decidedly hostile to general freedom--its very nature militated against general liberty--its existence was inconsistent with progress and the spread of freedom and intelligence. The continuance and influence of the feudal dominion depended on the passive submission of all the inhabitants of the domain. Every manifestation of discontent or uneasiness on the part of the latter was, therefore, watched by the chief with a jealous eye; every attempt at disobedience was punished with severity. The chief warded off all principles dangerous to his own monopoly of power. All struggles for general liberty were crushed with an unrelenting hand. The great and only desire of the Baron was to perpetuate the then existing system. Every attempt at amelioration was alike inimical to his wishes and power.

The feudal dominion was also extremely prejudicial to the nation in the inveterate hostility which it manifested to commerce, agriculture, and productive industry. Military power and strength being its chief aim, all pursuits which tended to divert the people from martial exercises and display were discouraged by the feudal chiefs. Hence the cultivation and improvement of the soil was but feebly prosecuted, while the pursuits of commerce and mercantile enterprise were opposed and repressed, from a suspicion of their antagonism to the feudal dominion. The Baron delighted in extensive chases, and parks studded with trees, and covered with brushwood, where game might take refuge; and in vast forests and barren uplands, where the deer and the hare might wander undisturbed; while the furrow of the corn-field and the hedge-row were restricted to the smallest dimensions consistent with the necessities of the population of the manor. The hound was more valued than the sheep-dog; the fowling-piece than the sickle; while herds of wild deer browsing the slopes were more estimated than the oxen on the plain. The huntsman and gamekeeper held higher rank than the ploughman and reaper; while all the prizes of ambition lay open to martial enterprise alone.

But to none was the hostility of the feudal chiefs more rancorous than to the pursuits of commerce. The most odious of sights was the tall chimney of a manufactory peering through the oak and elm of the chase; while the pollution of mills and workshops on the banks of pellucid streams was not to be borne. The mines of the mountain were closed, lest their produce might destroy the salmon and trout of the rivers; while houses and ships were left unbuilt, that the forests be not denuded of their stately timber.

The hostility of the feudal chiefs to mercantile progress was the more inveterate, from a feeling and knowledge of its antagonism to their own irresponsible power. Every manufactory which was set up bore a brow of hostility to the castle; while every town was in feud with the manor. In every war or tumult the towns and commercial villages ranged their forces in opposition to the Baron and his clan; and whensoever an opportunity offered for suppressing and subverting the feudal dominion and privileges, the mercantile community never failed to raise the axe and strike at their root.