The theme of this reading is the nature of feudalism in regards to lords, vassals, and fiefs. It seems that Lord Bernard Atton is a great lord over many things, but he is expressing that lord Leo is lord over him. Lord Leo will be lord over all Bernard Atton has, and Bernard Atton will be loyal and faithful to lord Leo in all things. This was written in a company of witnesses by a monk named John. St. Mary of Grasse is the monastery that Leo is abbot of, and so he expresses that St. Mary is in a way lord as well.
This is how feudalism worked. Lords owned property and had vassals under them. Lords gave vassals fiefs, or land, and expected loyalty and service in return. This structure was supposed to form a hierarchy of power starting with the king and going down, but it became a very complex system of power. Many lords had just as much land if not more than the king, so this did not work out for the king to have the absolute power. Some were lords over some, but were vassals to others. A person might be a vassal to more than one person, which made loyalty a sticky situation. In this reading, Bernard Atton is a lord over much, but he is recognizing Leo as lord over him. Bernard Atton is a vassal to Leo, but a lord over others.
The small fourth paragraph stood out to me. "And if I or my sons or their successors do not observe to thee or to thy successors each and all the things declared above, and should come against these things, we wish that all the aforesaid fiefs should be that very fact be handled over to thee and to the said monastery of St. Mary of Grasse and to thy successors." This is the penalty for breaking the agreement. If Bernard Atton and his successors do not provide proper honor and loyalty, then the monastery gets to keep everything mentioned above, which is a lot. They must have been serious about their loyalty and honor, because this was no light agreement.
This made me think about what would happen if things went wrong. What if some other lord came and overtook all that Bernard Atton had? What if he was left with nothing? He would not be able to hold up his end of the agreement, and the monastery would not be able to claim his land and property because it would have already been taken over by another lord. He would have nothing to offer lord Leo or the monastery. It seems like lots of agreements like this were probably made, but I wonder if changing economy, changing weather patterns, or unexpected disaster or raids ever brought an unforeseen tragedy where these agreements could not be carried out.
This network of loyalties from the past reminds me of current networks of friends. I was in a situation recently where there was a conflict between a friend of mine and two other friends of mine. I was caught in the middle, not wanting to be disloyal to either party. I had to be honest with both parties involved and thankfully it all worked out. But in these situations in 1110 AD, it was likely matters of war. It is unlikely a vassal could be a mediator between two fighting lords. The vassal would have to choose which lord to be loyal to, and hope that lord won. Otherwise who knows what the other lord would do to the treacherous vassal. It also reminds of current legal systems. This seems to be comparable to a legal document of a will and agreement. It is somewhat complex in its language, just as current legal documents are.
Source: Text Book
No comments:
Post a Comment