Another circumstance tended to undermine the ancient agrarian institution and to destroy the primitive equality. We knowthat a member of the commune could only dispose of his share with the consent of his associates, who had a right ofresumption: but this right could not be exercised against the Church. Accordingly, in these days of religious fervour, .thefaithful frequently left to the Church all that they possessed, not only their house and its enclosure, but the undivided share inthe mark, attached to it. Thus the abbeys and bishoprics became co-proprietors in the communal property. This conditionbeing in complete discord with primitive agrarian organization, the Church withdrew from the community the portionsbelonging to it; enclosed them, endeavoured to extend them, and had them cultivated by tenants or serfs. Already, by the endof the ninth century, one-third of the whole soil of Gaul belonged to the clergy. (3)When the population increased, the large primitive marks were subdivided; and the subdivisions, having less and lessimportance and power in proportion as they became smaller, had no longer sufficient strength to withstand theencroachments and usurpations of feudalism and royalty. Almost everywhere, a large portion of the common territorybecame the domain of the Sovereigns. Switzerland, Alsace, and the Palatinate, are the countries where documents give usthe best opportunity of following the successive subdivisions of the mark .
From the moment when agricultural labour was executed by settlers and serfs, the cultivation of the soil was regarded as aservile occupation. The rich and powerful families stood completely aloof from it; and the free cultivators gradually lost indignity and consideration, even in their own eyes. In consequence of the introduction of Christianity and the establishment ofmonarchies, about the fourth and fifth centuries, the mode of life of free men was completely changed. The wars of tribewith tribe, incessant in former times, became more rare: a certain order was established in society. The inhabitants of thevillages no longer lived with arms constantly in their hands; and the German warrior was insensibly transformed into theGerman peasant. Those who had lands cultivated by tenants could live without working. They continued to practise the useof arms; and lived by war and the chase like the ancient German. They thus acquired the preeminence given by strength.
Although Germany was never conquered, they attained to the same supremacy over their fellow-countrymen as theconquerors of Gaul obtained over the Gallo-Romans. It is not yet known precisely how the free cultivator of the secondcentury became the serf of the thirteenth: but when one part continued the use of arms, which those who were exclusivelydevoted to agricultural labour had discontinued, the former succeeded in gradually enslaving the latter. Nevertheless, thisprofound change was not accomplished everywhere at the same time nor in the same manner: there are some districts, wherethe ancient organization and liberty have been maintained to our own times.
The clergy and the nobles, being owners of several domains, did not have them cultivated on their own account: theygranted them on lease to free cultivators or families of serfs. Properties tilled by the former were called mansi ingenuiles :
those tilled by the latter mansi serviles . The lease was frequently hereditary; the peasants paid the proprietor rent in kind orin labour; and free men also had in addition to render military service.
There is another question also which has not been decided very clearly. How did the feudal system, with its hierarchy ofclass subordinated to class, come to replace in Germany a system in which equality was guaranteed by the periodic partitionof the soil? The characteristic of the feudal system is the fief, the feod or beneficium , that is to say, land granted to ausufructuary as recompense for certain services to be rendered. The suzerain granted the life-possession of a domain, oncondition that he whom he invested with it should follow him to the war or administer a portion of territory. Originally, ofcourse, there was no question of administration or granting benefices, for the villages governed themselves in an independentmanner, and the sovereign was merely a military chief elected by his warriors. Sir H. Maine, however, agreeing in this pointwith M. Laferrière, thinks that the origin of the feudal system was already disclosing itself in the juridical customs of the lastdays of the Roman Empire.
In the feudal system, there are two distinct sorts of tenure; military tenure, and censive tenure. Military tenure was that ofthe noble carrying arms: he had to follow his suzerain m war, assist him in his pleas, administer justice in his name, and, infact, perform acts of government and administration. "Censive" tenure was that of the cultivator, who owed his superiorpayments in kind or in labour. It was an economic relation of the civil order.
