Reading Guide (Week Ten): Lordship
The readings for this week attempt to uncover the reality of aristocratic lordship in the 11th and 12th centuries. “Aristocratic lordship” may require some explication; it is sometimes referred to as ‘feudal lordship’ (from the practice by which some aristocrats gave others ‘fiefs’ [feuda], or lands, in return for some sort of service), but historians currently don’t like the term ‘feudal’ or ‘feudalism’ because they feel that lordship between aristocrats involved much more than the exchange of land for service. Still, regardless of what one calls it, aristocratic lordship involved two sides - one with more power or authority and one with less. The more powerful person in the relationship was called the lord, and was expected to give certain things to the inferior and act in certain ways towards him. The less powerful person in any lordship relationship was called the man (and sometimes the vassal) of his lord; he owed certain obligations, both in terms of actual actions and also in terms of moral behavior, to the lord. Remember that these ‘vassals’ were still aristocrats, not peasants. We will see how peasants fit into the notion of lordship next week.
A. Fulbert of Chartres: on the mutual duties of vassals and lords
(1020)
Fulbert was a bishop of Chartres who was known for his knowledge of
church law and secular custom. This letter, from Fulbert to Count
William of Aquitaine, was written in response to a request by William for
information on how a lord and his men should behave towards each other.
1. What were the obligations of a vassal towards his lord? What
should he do? What shouldn’t he do?
2. What were the obligations of a lord towards his vassal?
3. Fulbert speaks of the reciprocal nature of the relationship - what
does this mean?
4. What bonds tie the lord and vassal together? What do they do to
formalize the arrangement?
B. Agreement between Count William V of Aquitaine and Hugh IV, lord
of Lusignan (early 11th century)
This highly unusual text was written from the perspective of Hugh IV
of Lusignan (here called ‘the chiliarch’). It is entirely concerned
with Hugh’s relationship to his putative lord, Count William of Aquitaine
(the same man from Fulbert’s letter), and reads as a list of complaints.
Read carefully so that you keep track of who is doing what to whom. We
are concerned to use this text to look for the messy, unsystematic ways
in which lords AND vassals manipulated each other for their own benefit.
In essence we want to uncover the mentality of lordship from this text.
notes: “commendation” is the act by which a lord gave a fief to a person
and accepted homage and fealty in return; another phrase for this action
is “to become the man of [someone]”.
1. Since the Count William of this document is the same as the Count
William of document A, is there anything in this agreement that might have
sparked William to ask Fulbert for advice on the duties of lords and vassals?
2. This “agreement” is told from the perspective of Hugh. What
are his complaints about Count William?
3. How well do the relationships described in this document agree with
the theory outlined in document A? Why do they differ?
4. Castles are new to the 10th - 11th centuries. What role do
fortresses and castles play in this story?
5. How are disputes settled in the world of William and Hugh? By law?
By force? By agreement? What enforcement powers exist in this world?
6. What general rules for the obligations of lords and vassals can
be drawn from this text?
7. One of the major sticking points between Hugh and William is the
fact that Hugh has several lords. Find an example of this.
Why might multiple lords pose a problem or threat?
C. The Song of Roland
The earliest manuscript of the Song of Roland dates to around
1100, but most scholars think that the story had been current for several
generations prior to this date. The plot of the story is derived
from a real event - the massacre of Charlemagne’s rear-guard at Roncesvaux
by Christian Basques during the Spanish campaign of 778. We know
from Carolingian sources that an obscure ‘Count Roland’ was among those
killed in this battle. By 1100, however, the facts of the episode
had been changed a bit - Roland had become Charlemagne’s favorite and the
epitome of knightly heroism, and the enemy had shifted from Basque Christians
to Spanish Muslims.
1. Roland is a work of literature - we read it not for historical fact,
but because we assume that to be relevant to a 12th century audience it
had to reflect the values and ideals of that 12th century audience.
2. What character traits and actions made Roland such a great hero?
3. What is the relationship between Ganelon and Roland? What causes
the dispute between them?
4. Think about Ganelon. Is he a villain? In what ways? In what ways
isn’t he a villain? What do his actions tell us about the important values
that these aristocrats held dear?
5. What role does honor play in this story?
6. Some scholars boil this story down to a lengthy discussion of loyalty
and betrayal. Is this a fair assessment? What does the author think about
loyalty? To whom or to what ought one be loyal? Why?
7. Examine the role of the king (Charlemagne) in this story.
How active is he? How powerful? From the descriptions of Charlemagne, do
you think the story was written for a royal audience? Why or why not?
8. Other scholars see this work as reflecting the tension between centralized
government and aristocratic independence. Can you see evidence of this
at work? Look particularly at the Trial of Ganelon (l. 3734 to the end).
9. Does Roland present a tension between the notions of duty to one’s
lord and individual honor?
10. The Trial of Ganelon is an extremely useful episode to examine.
What does it tell us about judicial practice? How was justice executed?
What arguments does Ganelon give on his behalf? What do the other lords
(and the author) think about his speech)? What motivates Thierry? Try to
view Ganelon and Thierry as symbols of different aristocratic values -
of what are they symbols? Think, also, of G and T as reflecting different
ends of the spectrum of loyalty to lord/king - what does such an interpretation
tell us about politics and lordship in actual 12th century France?
11. What is the literary function of Oliver in the story? Look
particularly at his debate with Roland over whether Roland should blow
the Olifant (horn). Is Oliver a hero? Why? Why isn’t he the hero
of the story? To answer this last question, you may need to think
again about the tensions between duty and honor.
12. How does the story depict Muslims? Think carefully, for the
image of Muslims is a fairly schizophrenic one. Compare, for instance,
the depictions of some of the Muslim heroes (lines 3155-3166) with the
overall message of the story. Do you think it a coincidence that
this poem appears at almost the same time as the First Crusade?