Feudal Society, Volume 2: Social Classes and Political Organization

by Marc Bloch

Book Overview

"Few have set themselves to the formidable task of reconstructing and analyzing a whole human environment; fewer still have succeeded. Bloch dared to do this and was successful; therein lies the... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0226059790
• Release Date: August 1964
• Publisher: University of Chicago Press
• Length: 229 Pages
• Weight: 0.55 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.3" x 8.0"

Customer Reviews

A review by a non-historian

I read this book for a contemporary historiography class. As has been told by other reviewers, Marc Bloch is the founder (together with Lucien Febvre) of the Annales school. As a non-historian, I won't comment on its importance for historiography, but as a very valuable read for non-historians who want to understand the history of Western civilization reading the best books that have been written on the subject. This is my first book on the middle-ages and, although it took me quite a while to finish it (about a month) and it is definitively not an easy read, since it is an extraordinarily erudite work, it is a very worthwhile read. It provides a fairly good picture of how the feudal society developed after the Hungarian, Muslim, and Scandinavian invasions, which allowed it to flourish. I would point out two basic concepts that were of particular interest to me (although not explicit in the text). First, the concept of sovereignty. It is particularly interesting visually, since land was divided among an infinite number of lords as a bottom-up chain starting from the lowest peasant through the prince or monarch. So land belonged to everyone and to no one at the same time. This is a very original idea of sovereignty, rather opposite to modern sovereignty. The second concept is that of the "hommage", which I would call contract. The hommage between serf and lord was not that of subordination entirely, but it was neither that of equals--such as the contracts of the bourgoisie were, that we can trace back to the XIIth century, and personally I was moved by Bloch's analyses of this first contract among equals--, and it was originally voluntary. According to Bloch, this hommage influenced many other contracts we know of, namely marriage, courtois love, and even representative parliamentary governments. To conclude with, I would say that my historiography teacher told me this is the best work on the middle-ages, so I decided to read it, and it wasn't easy, it took me a while, but it was very rewarding. I don't recommend it for people who don't read a lot, but if you enjoy history and want to know what the feudal society was all about, this is a very rewading book as an introduction to the middle-ages. I strongly recommend it.

Ian Myles Slater on: A Modern Classic, Not Yet Out-Moded

I suppose I should be of two minds about Marc Bloch's "Feudal Society," a French work from the late 1930s which became available in English in the early 1960s, and was still fresh and exciting back when I was taking a freshman course on "Western Civilization." In theory, the book (and it is one book, although published in paperback in two volumes) has two major drawbacks. In practice, I find it solid, admirable, and well worth reading. One drawback is the author's romantic glorification of the medieval peasant -- Norman Cantor has called attention to this in his "Inventing the Middle Ages," pointing out that Bloch gave it Marxist trappings. I call it romantic because I suspect that Bloch owed at least as much to Jules Michelet's nineteenth-century historiography, initially with a veneer of "science" added. Of course, Bloch actually went out and did fundamental work in the archives, and tried to get a real picture of how, in the long term, life had been lived by ordinary people, instead of relying on Michelet-style suppositions. (Yes, Bloch's "Annales" school is supposed to be the antithesis of the enthusiastic Michelet; but, while Bloch established its methodology in reaction to existing approaches, in Bloch's last book "The Historian's Craft," Michelet is still among "our great forebears.") The second is the concept of "Feudalism" itself, which these days makes anyone with a serious background in medieval studies very uncomfortable. A very good case can be made that "Feudalism" is largely a set of modern constructs, re-invented several times since the sixteenth century to suit different legal, political, and social purposes, and presented as an "Historic Fact" alongside contemporary and later "discoveries" such as "Anglo-Saxon Liberty," "The Norman Yoke," and "Our Ancestors the Gauls." (A short, pointed, introduction to one aspect of the problem is J.G.A. Pocock's "The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century.") If it means anything for modern-day historians, the term applies to how control of land, and its revenue, was linked to social status, political authority, judicial functions, and reciprocal military obligations -- a large, messy, topic. So the feeling is growing that the word is best avoided, as carrying too much baggage, and too likely to be invoked as a substitute for thought. Indeed, as picked up by Karl Marx, Feudalism, equated largely with landlord-tenant agriculture instead of sub-divided political and judicial authority, became a theoretical concept to be applied to a variety of extra-European societies, as a stage in an inevitable social evolution. In this role, it produced, or at least became a part of, bitter, and literally murderous, disputes over the nature of Russian and Chinese society, among others. Even with all this in mind, and many years after first reading it, I find Bloch's emphasis on the material basis of medieval society refreshing, and think t

Feudalism as a social type

This book might be the most widely read among Bloch¡¯s works who is the pioneer of Annal school. This book typifies the methodology of Annal school. History as a science took off in the 19th century. But Bloch argued that it was not history but just chronicles of events and political episodes. Bloch posed the fundamental questions: ¡®What is the history?¡¯ and ¡®What does history serve for?¡¯ To be a science, the object of history should be not the particular but the universal. Bloch did not think the universal law is possible in history. Then, the object of historical research should be the relation which may refer not to the law but to structure. This structure sets the boundary (or in Braudel¡¯s word, the possible and the impossible) on the everyday life, and has the not-so-easily changeable long-term duration (or in Braudel¡¯s term, longue duree). Whereas Braudel¡¯s trilogy, ¡®Civilization and Capitalism¡¯ is about the capitalism as longue duree (for more detail, see my reviews on those volumes), Bloch¡¯s ¡®Feudal Society¡¯ is about the feudalism as longue duree. Marxists and others maintained the feudalism originated from the sudden and violent collision between Roman society and German society. It¡¯s the child born from the violent and coercive marriage. But Bloch argues that resulting form of feudalism had its origin not directly in German invasion but in subsequent invasions of the Moslem, the Norman, and the Hungarian. These added up to the uncontrollable chaos all over Western Europe, and ended in the collapse of effective ruling of the state. Feudal system as we know emerged in this stalemate which Frank empire and other states of the time faced. State apparatus could not be maintained for state could not pay bureaucrats salary. Frank empire pioneered the alternative system which was later known as feudalism. What characterizes feudalism is the unique social type based on the principle of subordination and custody. The principle is similar to the patron/client relationship of Roman age. But feudal one is based on the principle of contract which is premised on reciprocity. Put another way, feudalism is the network of reciprocal relationship of rights and responsibility from king to serf. Ruling class could not wield power over serf in unilateral way. In this vein, feudal system is both social (between classes) and political (among ruling class) relationships. Bloch maintained this relationship should be called as feudalism. It¡¯s a social type which is not limited to the economic terrain as Marxists argued.

On the top ten list for medieval studies

Bloch's work is one of the ten most important and influential books on medieval Europe. Bloch displays true excellence in sholarship and narration. Nothing is stated without factual documentation to support it, and no information is carried beyond its logical conclusions. It is essential to read this two volume work before moving too deeply into medieval studies. Combine this work with Strayer's Feudalism (out of print, unfortunately) and you will have a good understanding of what society was like in a good portion of the Middle Ages.

Lords of the Land: Marc Bloch's Feudalism - Masterful Work

Marc Bloch's Feudal Society is the most informative and by far the best documented treatise one is likely to encounter among all the books and articles ever written on this subject. Bloch cogently remarked, in effect, that a land without a Lord is a land without a history, and that of course is a land without records - records which document and address not only the daily issues and encounters of classes in feudal society, but which also inform readers of the critical changes over time, in the passing of the first and second feudal age and its dissolution in the rise of capitalist social formations. Hardly a line was written without ample documentation. It is a wonderful companion to Carl Stephenson's slender volume, Mediaeval Feudalism, on feudal social and political institutions.