Re: Homage and Fealty

[clevin@rci.ripco.com (Craig Levin)]

Poster: clevin@rci.ripco.com (Craig Levin)

Aileen:

> Ah ha! From Craig Levin's post, taken largely from Littleton, in swearing
> homage the one doing the swearing kneels, places his hands between those of
> the one being sworn to, and the oath reads much like one we would use in a
> Knighting or a squiring ceremony.  In particular, I have heard things to the
> effect of "I am your man..."  The King (in the case of a Knighting) or Knight
> (in case of a squiring) responds with his oath in turn.   
> So what we do in the SCA is closer to homage than fealty? 

If you're referring to the stuff peers do when they're at a
coronation, then neither. No fief is rendered for the oath. It's
an oath of loyalty, more than anything else.

> Now, how do the differences between homage and fealty affect historical lines
> of allegiance and other political problems?  i.e.: English & Welsh.

Allegiance was personal in nature. One did not swear fealty or
homage to the king as an institution, but simply to the person
sitting at that time under the crown. Littleton says that if a
lord dies, and his son inherits, the vassal must swear fealty to
the son. However...

Littleton is all well and good, but there's plenty of evidence
(see Susan Reynold's work, which I praised earlier) that, aside
from England, most of the people who were doing fealty or homage
were the descendants of people who held that land allodially-free
of ties, just as we do when we purchase land-who were forced into
the oaths through the superior military force of the lord, or
entered into the oaths because it was the only way to get help
against people seeking to boot them out (Northmen, Hungarians,
what-have-you). If that's the case, then these oaths, made in
adversity, could be considered canonically invalid (because of
the use of "so help me God" in oaths, the Courts Christian
claimed the right to determine an oath's validity), as oaths made
in duress were usually considered so, esp. in marriage law.

The pre-Edwardian Welsh nobility held the land allodially, in the
form of familial common title, which was common on the Continent
until the 1000's. Edward came upon them with superior forces,
sword and fire, all that, and browbeat them or out and out beat
them into swearing one or both of the oaths. This would be
considered swearing under duress, and an _impartial_ court would
have to recognize that. Of course, you'd have to find an impartial
court. 

One also notes that Littleton doesn't mention that the lord was
bound by those oaths to uphold and protect his man's rights. The
moment the lord acted in such a way to damage the man's rights or
property, the man had a right to back out of the contract, and
seek another lord to serve.

> Aileen 
> (I'm sworn fealty to Syr Forgal, in a ceremony more resembling the paying of
> homage.  As I could be no one's "man", would you then call it "dammage?")

Women swore homage; Littleton gives a formula for them. Also, the
word derives from the Latin word _homo_, which means person;
_vir_ is the word for a human male.
-- 
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~clevin/index.html 
clevin@ripco.com
Craig Levin
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org