Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

If Moses had received a command, that rod which fetched water from the rock, could as well have fetched

the blood of the Amalekites out of their bodies.

Bp. Hall's Contemplations. So have we seen a hawk, cast off at a hernshaw, to look and fly a quite other way; and, after many careless and overly fetches, to tour up unto the prey intended. Bp. Hall. General terms may sufficiently convey to the people what our intentions are, and yet not fetch us within the compass of the ordinance, Sanderson.

These ways, if there were any secret excellence among them, would fetch it out, and give it fair opportunities to advance itself by.

Milton.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

mate is salubrious, and the soil a rich black loam with some sand, producing barley, oats, and kitchen roots. There is a considerable quantity there are also some veins of copper. of bog iron ore of a good quality in this island;

FET LOCK, n. s. Feet and lock. A tuft of hair that grows behind the pastern joint of many horses.

Their wounded steeds

Fret fetlock deep in gore, and with wild rage Yerk out their armed heels at their dead masters. Shakspeare. Henry V. White were the fetlocks of his feet before, And on his front a snowy star he bore. Dryden. Stamping like Bucephall, whose slackened raynes, And bloody fet-locks fry with seven men's braines. Bp. Hall's Satires. FETOR, n. s. Lat. fator. A stench; a strong and offensive smell.

The fetor may discover itself by sweat and humour. Browne.

When the symptoms are attended with a fetor of any kind, such a disease will be cured by acescent substances, and none better than whey. Arbuthnot.

FETTER, n. s., and commonly used in the plural, fetters, from feet; Sax. Fettene. Chains for the feet; chains by which walking is hiudered; to bind with such chains; to shackle. Doctrine unto fools is as fetters on the feet; and like manacles on the right hand. Eccles. xxi. 19. Fetter strong madness in a silken thread; Charm ach with air, and agony with words. Shakspeare. Drawing after me the chains and fetters whereunto I have been tied, I have by other men's errours failed. Raleigh.

Doth a master chide his servant because he doth not come, yet knows that the servant is chained and fettered, so as he cannot move? Bramhall. Neither her great worthiness, nor his own suffering for her, could fetter his fickleness. Sidney.

It is no wonder, then, that learning has been so little advanced since it grew to be mercenary, and the progress of it has been fettered by the cares of the world, and disturbed by the desires of being rich, and the fears of being poor. Sir W. Temple.

Passion's too fierce to be in fetters bound,
And nature flies him like enchanted ground.

Dryden. Pleasure arose in those very parts of his leg that just before had been so much pained by the fetter.

Addison.

[blocks in formation]

She bids in dreams tormenting shapes appear,
With shrieks that shock Imagination's ear. Darwin.
FETTI (Dominico), an eminent painter in the
style of Julio Romano, born at Rome, in 1589,
and educated under Ludovico Civoli of Flo-
rence. He excelled in historical pieces; his pic-
tures are much sought after, and are scarce. He
shortened his days by excess, and died in his
thirty-fifth year.
FÉTTLË, v. n. A diminutive of fet, proba-
bly. Dr. Johnson says, 'a cant word from feel.'
Grose, that to fettle is to set or go about any
thing; to dress, prepare, or put in order.' It is a
word still used in this last sense in the North of
England. To do or prepare trifling business;
to bustle; to arrange household furniture.

Now doth he inly scorne his Kendall-Greene,
And his patcht cockers now despised beene.
Nor list he now go whistling to the carre
But sells his teme and fetleth to the warre.

Bp. Hall's Satires.

When your master is most busy in company, come in and pretend to fettle about the room; and if he chides, say you thought he rung the bell. Swift.

FETU, or AFFETU, a small kingdom of Africa, on the Gold Coast, east of Commendo, extending 160 miles in length, or into the interior, according to some geographers; but not above fifteen or sixteen miles in breadth along the coast: here is situated Cape Coast Castle, the capital of the English settlements. It was formerly governed by a chief, assuming the title of dey, and belong ing to the class of fetishmen, or priests; but he was subdued by the Fantees, who are now, or were lately, in this town, subjugated by the Ashantees, See FANTEES. It was formerly very populous and powerful, but is now almost ruined, the inhabitants not being sufficient to till the ground; effects which Walker ascribes to war and the slave trade. It is naturally fertile, abounding in corn, fruits, trees, palm wine, oil, and cattle. The Dutch have a fort in it.

FETUS, n. s. Lat. fatus. Properly therefore written fœtus. Any animal in embryo; any thing yet in the womb; unborn; young.

That paradox of Hippocrates some learned physicians have of late revived, that the fetus respires in Boyle. Quarrel;

the womb.

FEUD, n. s. Sax. Feah, enmity. contention; opposition; war.

Almighty Jove in wrathful mood,

To wreak the guilt of mortal sins is bent;
Hurls forth his thundering dart with deadly feud,
Inrolled in flames and smouldring dreariment.

Faerie Queene.

[blocks in formation]

with the death of the enemy; and thence usually called deadly feud. Feud, called also feida, and faida, in the original German signifies guerram, i. e. war. Lambert writes it feeth, and says, 'it signifies capitales inimicitias, implacable hatred. In Scotland and the north of England, feud is particularly used for a combination of kindred, to revenge the death of any of their blood, against the killer and all his race, or any other great enemy.

FEUD, Feoda, in law, the same with fief or fee. See FEUDAL SYSTEM.

FEU'DAL, adj. & n. s. Fr. (old) feudal; FEU'DATORY, n. s. & adj. Lat. feudalis. See FEODATORY. Pertaining to fees, feus, or tenures by which lands are held of a superior lord. A dependence; something held by tenure; a fee. A feudatory is one who holds lands by some conditional tenure from a superior. As an adjective it means, held by such tenure.

The duke of Parma was tempted to be true to that enterprize, by no less promise than to be made feudatory, or beneficiary king of England, under the seignory in chief of the pope, and the protection of Spain. Bacon.

Wales, that was not always the feudal territory of England, having been governed by a prince of their own, had laws utterly strange to the laws of England. Hale.

Nothing is more suitable to feudal ideas, than that the same person should be both a lord and a vassal, independent in one capacity, and dependent in ano

ther.

Robertson's History of Scotland.

If the one crown had been considered not as imperial and independent, but as feudatory to the other, a treaty of union could not have been concluded on equal terms.

Id.

FEUDAL SYSTEM. About twelve centuries ago, this system was so universally received in law of nations in our western world.' Europe, that Sir Henry Spelman calls it the Hence it deserves our attention in a particular manner; a knowledge of the different feuds being indispensably requisite for a proper understanding either of the civil government of our own country, or the laws by which its landed property is regulated.

The military policy of the Celtic, or northern nations, known by the names of Goths, Vandals, Franks, Huns, and Lombards, furnished the original constitution or system of feuds. These people, pouring out in vast multitudes from the same officina gentium, or store-house of nations, over-ran all the European countries on the declension of the Roman empire. They brought the feudal system along with them from the countries out of which they emigrated; and, supposing it to be the most proper method of securing their new conquests, they introduced it into their more southerly colonies. According to this system, the victorious general allotted considerable tracts of land to his principal officers; while they, in like manner, divided their possessions among the inferior officers, and the common soldiers who were thought to be the most deserving. Allotments of this kind were named feoda, fiefs, fees, or feuds, from a combination of words, in the language of these barbarians, signifying a reward or stipend bestowed on certain conditions. See FEOD. The conditior upon which these rewards were given, was, that the

possessors should faithfully serve the person from whom they were received, both at home and abroad, in the military way. To this they engaged themselves by a juramentum fidelitatis, or oath of fealty, in the event of a breach of which, either by not performing the service agreed upon, or by deserting their lord in time of battle, &c., the lands were to return to their original pos

sessor.

The possessors of feudal allotments thus became interested in the defence of them; and not only the receivers, but those who gave them, were equally and mutually bound to defend their possessions, none of them being able to pretend any right but that of conquest. For this purpose, government and subordination were absolutely necessary; it being impossible to conduct any system of defence where every thing was tumultuous and irregular. Every person, therefore, who was a feudatory, i.e. who had received lands, was bound to do every thing in his power to defend the lord of his fee; while, on the other hand, the latter was no less subordinate to his immediate superior; and so up to the prince himself. In like manner a reciprocal bond of defence existed down from the prince to the lowest feudists. Such were the foundations on which the feudal system was properly established; and the natural consequence was, a military subjection throughout the whole community. The prince could always collect an army of feudatories ready to defend not only the kingdom in general, but the particular possessions of each person; and the propriety of this constitution was soon apparent in the strength which these newly erected kingdoms acquired, and the valor with which their conquests were defended. Europe owed to it, in after ages, as Mr. Hallam has observed, the free constitution of England, the firm monarchy of France, and the federal union of Germany. Besides these feudal grants, however, which were held only on the terms of military service above mentioned, there were others called allodial, which were given upon more enlarged principles. To these every free man had a title; and could not only claim his territory as well as the rest, but dispose of it at his pleasure; and this freedom was denominated allodiality. These allodials, however, were not exempted from military service. A part of their freedom consisted in liberty to go to the wars; for this, in the barbarous times we speak of, was the only way to acquire any degree of renown. Only the serfs or villeins were destined to follow the arts of peace; while every free person was not only at liberty to defend his country, but under an obligation to do it in case of any urgent necessity. Thus there was a feudal and a national militia. The free people only were allowed to possess property; the feudal vassals constituted the army, properly so called; while the national militia was composed of the allodial proprietors. This allodiality, however, was not confined to landed property, but included likewise moveable estates or money; so that proprietors of the latter kind were obliged also in times of danger to bear arms and appear in the field. Between the feudal and allodial proprietors, however, there was this farther difference, that the latter had no concern with any private quarrels

which might take place among the lords themselves; so that they were never obliged to ap pear in the field unless when called forth by the sovereign against the enemies of the nation at large. This circumstance we might suppose to be an advantage, but it ultimately operated otherwise; becoming the means of changing the allodial right into a feudal tenure.

The holders of fiefs had for some time an eminent advantage over the allodial proprietors. This was owing to the imperfection of the existing public governments; so that the nobles had it in their power to revenge their own quarrels, while the weak were equally exposed to the insults of both parties. The lord and his vassals therefore were always formidable; but the allodial proprietors had scarcely any means of defending themselves. The reasons of this were, first, that the law did not allow them to commit any hostilities: and secondly, they were too distant and unconnected to form any proper league for mutual defence; and hence proceeded the necessity of converting allodial property into feudal tenure. This was indeed owing in a great measure to the absurdity and violence of the times, by which gifts of property, burdened with service, and which might return to the person who granted them, were rendered superior in value to the absolute and unconditional possession of a subject. Other considerations likewise contributed to produce the same effect. As in those dark ages no right existed but what had its origin in conquest, it thence followed, that the greatest conqueror was the most honorable person. The king, in whom the whole exploits of the community centered, as being their head, was the most honorable person; all others derived from him that portion of honor which they enjoyed, and which was most nicely adjusted in proportion as they approached him. Allodial proprietors, therefore, having no pretensions of this kind, were treated with contempt as a kind of poltroons. From this disagreeable situation they wished to free themselves, by converting their allodial property into feudal tenures; while the princes, supposing it their interest to extend those tenures as much as possible, discouraged the allodial possessions. As the feudists supported the importance of the nation, and dignity of the monarch, it was not thought proper to allow the allodial proprietors any greater compensations than what were given to vassals in similar cases. Thus they were exposed to continual mortifications in courts of justice; they were neglected by the king; denied sufficient protection from the laws; exposed not only to continual insults, but to have their property on all occasions destroyed by the great; so that they were without resource except from the feudal tenures, and were obliged even to solicit the privileges which were bestowed in other cases on vassals. In these unhappy circumstances, they were glad to yield up their lands to any superior whom they thought most agreeable, and to receive them back from him as a feudal gift. Thus the landed property was every where changed into feudal tenures, and fiefs became almost universal. See TENURE.

For some time the feudal system was not only

useful in itself, but honorable in its principles; but this continued no longer than while the importers of it into Europe adhered to their original simple and noble maxims. During that period, the lord exercised his bounty to the vassal, which the latter repaid by acts of gratitude; so that the intercourse between them was of the most affectionate kind; and this gave rise to what are called the feudal incidents. The expectants of fiefs were educated in the hall of the superior, while the tenures were precarious or only for life: and, even when they became hereditary, the lord took care of the son and estate of his deceased vassal; not only protecting his person, but taking charge of his education, and directing the management of his affairs. He took pleasure in observing his approach to maturity; and when he came of age never failed to deliver to him the lands, with the care of which he had been entrusted, and which he had been careful to improve. This was called the incident of wardship. The incident of relief was founded upon the gratitude of the vassal; who, upon entering on his fief, brought a present to his lord, as an acknowledgment of his care of him during the early part of his life, and in order to conciliate his future regard. The incident of marriage proceeded also upon the principle of gratitude on the part of the vassal. The latter, conscious of the favors he had received, did not choose to ally himself with a family inimical to his chief: while the superior himself, ambitious to aggrandise and augment the importance of his family, sought the most advantageous match for his vassal. Sometimes the superior himself was reduced in his circumstances by war or other accidents: but from whatever cause his distress proceeded, even though it had arisen from his own extravagance or prodigality, or when only destitute of means to support his ambition cr grandeur, his vassals were bound to support and relieve him according to their circumstances; and this was called the incident of aid. The incident of escheat took place on the part of the vassal, when, through cowardice, treachery, or any remarkable misbehaviour, he rendered himself unworthy of his fief. In that case, the taking it from him, and giving it to one more worthy, was called an escheat. While the lords and vassals thus vied with one another in mutual acts of friendship and benevolence, universal happiness, liberty, and activity, were diffused through the society. The vassals behaved courteously towards the retainers, who were immediately below them; while they again were courted by the lords as constituting their importance and strength; the lords, lastly, giving a like importance and dignity to the sovereign himself. Thus a regular, powerful, and compact system of government took place; a unanimity and attention pervaded the various departments of the state; so that while the subjects were free, the nation at large was formidable. During this state of affairs, the members of the national assembly in every country in Europe appeared there in arms, whether they came personally or by their representatives. Such particularly was the case under the Anglo-Saxon government; and the happiness they at that time enjoyed made the oppression

and tyranny of the Normans appear the more intolerable.

In process of time, the state of society began to suffer a remarkable alteration. The high and disinterested notions, from which the happiness above mentioned took its origin, declined; the romantic ideas of chivalry ceased (see CHIVALRY,) and much more interested notions of property came in their stead. The separation of the interests of the lords from their vassals was the first step towards the destruction of the feudal system. Then the incidents, which had hitherto promoted their happiness, now had a reverse tendency. Property being looked upon as a distinction superior to personal merit, introduced the most mercenary views. In consequence of these, the infant ward, the care of whom was wont to be considered as a sacred and honorary trust, was now only looked upon as a mean of procuring emolument to the superior. The latter regarded the profits of his vassals as so many diminutions of his own wealth. Instead of taking care to improve the state of his ward as formerly, he impoverished it; not only neglecting the education of the heir, but offering insults to himself: insomuch that the relations of the unfortunate vassal were often obliged to ransom from the avaricious superior both his person and effects. By merchandise of this kind the coffers of princes were filled, and wardships let out to strangers, who might exercise their rapacity with greater freedom. When the vassal at last attained the years of maturity, he came to the possession of his lands without any of that joy and festivity which usually took place on the occasion. He received an inheritance wasted and impoverished, while new grievances daily occurred, to augment the horrors of his situation. Áll the incidents, which formerly were so many expressions of gratitude on the part of the vassal, were now changed into taxes exacted at the pleasure of the lord. Before the vassal was invested in his land, the superior exacted from him a certain sum or gift, to be measured only by his own rapacity; and in case of delay or inability to pay this demand, the superior continued in possession of the estate. Such scandalous oppression could not but produce the greatest discontent and clamor. Applications were made to the law without success; nor were even the laws regarded which were fabricated on purpose for their relief. The incident of marriage now proved a source of the most dreadful oppression. The lord assumed a right of marrying his vassal to whom he pleased; and he not only exerted this right himself, but would sell it to a stranger, or allow the vassal to buy it himself; while the penalty annexed to a marriage without the consent of the superior involved no less punishment than the loss of the estate itself, or some such grievous infliction as for a crime of the first magnitude. The case was still worse with a female ward; whose beauty and accomplishments became a source of gain to the superior, or were sacrificed to please his whim or caprice: so that her relations were frequently obliged to buy from him the privilege of marrying her to the person she or they thought most proper. In like manner the aid, which was formerly a voluntary gift

from the vassal in cases of distress happening to his lord, now became an unavoidable tax. An aid formerly was demanded when the superior's eldest daughter was married, when his eldest son was knighted, or when he himself was taken prisoner in battle. These were the only legal causes of making a demand of this kind: but in the subsequent times of degeneracy, the most frivolous pretences were made use of by the prince to oppress the lords, and by the lords to oppress their vassals; demanding subsidies at pleasure, which their inferiors were always obliged to comply with. Lastly, the escheat, which in former times, took place only in cases of cowardice, treachery, or some other heinous crime, was now inflicted on the most trifling occasions. If the vassal happened to be too long in attending the court of his superior to take the oath of fealty; if he committed any action which could in the least be construed an infringement of the oath; if he neglected to give his lord warning of any misfortune which he might suppose was about to befal him; revealed any thing concerning him; made love to his sister or daughter, &c.; or even if he should grant a tenure of land to another person in form different from that in which he held his own; all these, nay others still more ridiculous, were judged sufficient reasons for the superior to seize on the estate of the vassal, and involve him and his family in ruin. Notwithstanding these oppressions, however, the vassal was still obliged to submit to his lord; to own him as his superior; and even, in appearance, to pay him the same respect as formerly, when the greatest unanimity and cordial affection subsisted between them. Still he was obliged to perform the same military service; because failure in that respect would have subjected him to a forfeiture of lands according to the original agreement. A vast difference, however, now took place in the valor and activity which inspired the army. The vassals, forced into the field with desponding hearts, were indifferent as to the success of the cause in which they were engaged, and frequently obstructed instead of forwarding the operations of the field. Hence the sovereign found himself embarrassed; and, though nominally at the head of a martial and powerful people, was frequently unable to effect any thing by reason of the mutual hatred and dissension which every where prevailed.

Thus the feudal states of Europe became unnaturally weak a remedy was necessary; and it is remarkable, that the same remedy was applied all over the continent. This was, the making fiefs hereditary, which till now had only been granted for a long term of years; and, in return, burdening the lands with a certain number of soldiers, which were not to be refused upon any pretence whatever. Hence was derived the tenure of knight-service. A certain portion of land, burdened with the service of one soldier or knight, was called a knight's fee; and thus an estate, furnishing any number of soldiers, was said to contain as many knight's fees; so that now the manors, baronies, &c., became powerful according to the number of soldiers they were bound to furnish. In the grants from the crown, the nobility were obliged to

furnish a certain number for the service of the sovereign; and in those from the nobility to their vassals, the like service was required. Even the commons who had grants from the crown furnished a certain proportion of knights. The force of the nation was called into action by grants in capite, or from the sovereign and nobility. A numerous and powerful army was instantly assembled, and at once ready for action. Of this army the king was the general, the nobility the officers, and the vassals soldiers; the whole being exactly arranged, and capable of entering upon any expedition without the least delay. Thus a remedy was found in some measure for the weakness of the feudal sovereigns; but though the knight's tenure could accomplish this, it could not bring back the former affection and cordiality, which had subsisted between the various ranks of people. On the contrary, by uniting them more firmly to one another by legalities, it rendered matters rather worse. But the oppression originating from the operation of the feudal incidents, still continued with unremitting violence. The grants of knight's tenure were attended with the same oaths of homage and fealty; the same incidents of relief, wardship, marriage, aid, and escheat, with the feudal tenures. The princes promised to abate somewhat of their rigor in demanding the feudal perquisites, but did not keep their word. Laws were occasionally promulgated, and for some time had an effect; but palliatives soon became ineffectual, and a new state of weakness began to commence. The two remarkable eras in the feudal history are, the time before the invention of knight-service (See KNIGHT), and that during which it continued. Fiefs were in a state of fluctuation from the destruction of the Roman empire till the ninth century; but they were rendered perpetual in France about A. D. 877, and were generally become so in every country of Europe about the beginning of the tenth. Du Cange, voce Militia, gives us an example of a knight-fee in A. D. 880. By the year 987, when Hugh Capet was raised to the throne of France, knight service was become general all over Europe, and was introduced into England after having made its appearance in other countries. Dr. Stuart informs us, that it appears from the records of Malcolm IV. in 1153, that knight-service was known in Scotland, and that it was a novelty at that time. He thinks it even probable that it was known in the time of David I. In England, however, there have been several doubts and enquiries among the learned concerning the introduction of the feudal laws. Many are of opinion that they were first introduced by William the Conqueror; and, consequently, that they were entirely unknown to the Anglo-Saxons: but others think, that they existed among the latter in the same form under which they were continued by the Normans. Dr. Stuart is of opinion that the Saxons who settled in England could not be strangers to fiefs. He supposes the conformity of manners, which undoubtedly prevailed between the Saxons and other barbarians, a sufficient proof that the hereditary grant of land, as well as the fluctuating state of feudal tenures which preceded it, was known to the former.

« ZurückWeiter »