Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

Бирюч коммунистов

Информация о пользователе

Привет, Гость! Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.


Вы здесь » Бирюч коммунистов » Теория » Собственность. Сканы с источников, размещённые на ЦФК


Собственность. Сканы с источников, размещённые на ЦФК

Сообщений 1 страница 10 из 56

1

По предложению товарищей, активно наблюдающих за моей «самокомандировкой на ЦФК», буду складировать сюда сканы с источников, которые я размещал там по ходу дискуссий в темах о собственности, в том числе:

* Что такое "собственность"? (http://com-forum.ru/forum/index.php?topic=190.0)
* Была ли в феодализме частная собственность? (http://com-forum.ru/forum/index.php?topic=17705.0)

Как известно, картинки с бесплатных хостингов рано или поздно исчезают. Спасибо Йорику за то, что всё это время он помогал и помогает мне переливать эти изображения в стабильные архивы!

2

Начну не со сканов, а с таблички, которую несколько раз перекомпоновывал, доводя до ума

Классическая традиция
(Кодекс Наполеона, Россия)

Англосаксонская
традиция

ВЛА
ДЕ
НИЕ

|
|
|

возможность удержания вещи
в собственном владении
(обладания вещью)

|
|
|

завещание, владение
дарение, продажа
разрушение

РАС
ПО
РЯ
ЖЕ
НИЕ

|
|
|
|
|

управление,
возможность изменять,
отчуждать,
сдавать в аренду,
обременять вещь залогом

|
|
|
|
|

предоставление как залога
сдача в аренду
видоизменение
управление

ПОЛЬ
ЗОВА
НИЕ

|
|
|

эксплуатация полезных свойств
(присвоение потребительной стоимости)
извлечение доходов от использования

|
|
|

потребление
использование
получение дохода

http://com-forum.ru/forum/index.php?top … #msg473154

3

Из темы  Была ли в феодализме частная собственность?



Основу феодальной частной собственности составляет собственность на землю и эксплуатация лично зависимых, крепостных крестьян. В отличие от раба, крепостной был участником отношений собственности, поскольку владел мелким земельным участком и средствами производства, необходимыми для его обработки. Для феодализма характерна такая форма собственности, при которой земля не принадлежала исключительно отдельному лицу. Взаимные отношения как внутри класса феодалов (сеньоров, вассалов), так и его связи с непосредственными производителями строились на личном господстве и подчинении. Это была не свободная и полная частная собственность на землю, а условная, ограниченная отношениями личного господства и подчинения земельная собственность, с которой непосредственно связывалась политическая и военная впасть класса феодалов.

В недрах феодализма возникли и отношения собственности, не связанные с прикреплением производителей к земле. Кроме мелкой частной собственности свободных крестьян, существовала отделившаяся от земельной собственности и свободная от крепостной зависимости собственность городских ремесленников, изготовлявших продукты для продажи. С развитием производительных сил и товарного производства возникает капиталистическая, или буржуазная, собственность, которая существенно отличается от предшествовавших форм собственности: она основана на полном отделении непосредственных производителей от материальных условий их труда. Возникновение её связано с экспроприацией сельского населения.

« Ответ #1 : 01-03-2018, 18:59:11 »

4

Из темы  Была ли в феодализме частная собственность?


Paul Lafargue
The Evolution of Property
CHAPTER IV
Feudal Property

I

FEUDAL property presents itself under two forms: immovable property, called corporeal by the French feudists, consisting of a castle or manor with its appurtenances and surrounding lands, “as far as a capon can fly;” and movable or incorporeal property, consisting of military service, aids, reliefs, fines, tithes, etc.

Feudal property, of which ecclesiastical property is but a variety, springs up in the midst of village communities based on collective property, and evolves at their expense; after a long series of transformations it is resolved into bourgeois or capitalist property, the adequate form of private property.

Feudal property, and the social organisation which corresponds thereto, serve as a bridge from family, or, more correctly, consanguine collectivism to bourgeois individualism.

Under the feudal system the landlord has obligations and is far from enjoying the liberty of the capitalist – the right to use and abuse. The land is not marketable; it is burdened with conditions, and is transmitted according to traditionary customs which the proprietor dares not infringe; he is bound to discharge certain defined duties towards his hierarchical superiors and inferiors.

The system, in its essence, is a compact of reciprocal services; the feudal lord only holds his land and possesses a claim on the labour and harvests of his tenants and vassals on condition of doing suit and service to his superiors and lending aid to his dependants. On accepting the oath of fealty and homage the lord engaged to protect his vassal against all and sundry by all the means at his command; in return for which support the vassal was bound to render military and personal service and make certain payments to his lord. The latter, in his turn, for the sake of protection, commended himself to a more puissant feudal lord, who himself stood in the relation of vassalage to a suzerain, to the king or emperor.

........

The bourgeois historians and Merlin, the terrible jurist of the convention and destroyer of the communal lands, solicitous to trace the private form of property to the feudal period, adopted the interested thesis of the aristocrats. The history of the genesis and evolution of feudal property will prove the unsoundness of the feudists’ theory and show that seignorial property was built up by fraud and violence.

« Ответ #21 : 01-03-2018, 21:37:02 »

5

Из темы  Была ли в феодализме частная собственность?


Understanding the Feudal Order
by David S. D’Amato

Feudalism was, in a significant sense, private and contractual rather than public; that doesn’t make it libertarian.

As libertarians, our enemy is, Albert Jay Nock said, the state: the institution whose defining feature is its use of force to achieve its goals. It is this—the initiation of force—that libertarians reject, and the state is its embodiment, different not really because it employs violent means (certainly other groups and individuals do too), but because when it does so, its actions are thought to be morally legitimate. Yet the modern nation-state, the political form we are most likely to encounter today, is not the only “state” as Nock and most libertarians use that term. We have (or perhaps have had) other enemies: great empires that spanned thousands of miles and dozens of linguistically defined nations, city-states, and still other types of government. The point here is that political authority, as such, long predates the advent of the modern state, which is only one instantiation of it, called forth by certain historical and social currents.

The modern state is specifically defined in geographic terms, the sovereign person (whether individual or corporate) having jurisdiction over the people and activities that take place within its borders. This is in contrast to pre-modern, feudal government, in which the relationships of vassalage placed people in positions of authority over other people, not entire territories. Power, then, was geographically fragmented and decentralized, determined by discrete relationships, personal and contractual in nature. “Feudalism,” writes John Snape, “was about persons, rather than purposes.” The modern state represents a different kind of control, the completeness of which was not achievable in the feudal period.1 It consolidated the scattered elements now associated with the concept of sovereignty. The Weberian state’s characteristic “monopoly of legitimate physical violence” was previously nowhere to be found, impossible in an age of such convoluted and overlapping powers. Feudalism was a complex reticulated system in which the power of law as conceived at present did not follow a straight line from government to citizen. Government was a private enterprise, the feudal estate the private property of the lord. Baronies were not administrative regions of a “public” government—one owned, at least in theory, by the people—but ancestral lands of particular families. The modern state, by contrast, is premised on an abstract, hypothetical contract, the social contract, the terms of which very specifically eschew such discrete, individualized relationships between the individual and the individual or individuals in power. Laws are to be applied, in theory, equally and uniformly, with justice blind to the differences of citizens standing before it.

If the Magna Carta represents, in part, the barons’ recognition of their own relative power (and the assertion thereof), then the modern democratic state seems to follow by subjecting political power itself to the will of the people......

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/u … udal-order

« Ответ #24 : 01-03-2018, 21:44:05 »

6

Из темы  Была ли в феодализме частная собственность?


Вот в последней реплике тов. ispev'а я вновь увидел ссылку на т. 3 стр. 20

ispev написал(а):
7777 написал(а):

Термины "собственность" и "владение" связаны отношением соподчинённости, а не причинно-следственной (управляющей) связи:

-* связаны, но не совсем
Поскольку, "собсвтенность" - это общественное отношение, которое выражает условия производства, распределения и потребления!
В первом сообщении воспроизведена цитата ти дан адрес и точная ссылка. Воспроизвожу еще раз:
-...Первая форма собственности, это племенная собственность...
т. 3 стр. 20
А после того как "тов.София вновь определила "собственность" от владения, ей была представлена Цитата  и задан вопрос:
-...Можно представить себе единичного дикаря владеющим. Но тогда владение не есть правоотношение...
т.12 стр. 728


Но ведь это "Немецкая идеология!" Это ранние Маркс+Энгельс! Эту рукопись они вообще отказались публиковать, оставив её "грызущей критике мышей"! ИМЭЛС при издании этого тома специально сделал оговорку в предисловии:

Однако некоторые основные понятия вырабатываемой Марксом и Энгельсом теории выражены в «Немецкой идеологии» еще такими терминами, которые впоследствии были ими заменены другими терминами, более чётко выражающими содержание этих новых понятий. Так, понятие производственных отношений выражено здесь терминами «способ общения», «форма общения», «отношения общения»; термин «форма собственности» охватывает фактически понятие общественно-экономической формации.


http://archive.fo/MpHIU/3bfd2b369aa62ae8b444a31cf9578b091431f8f0.jpg

Как видите, в отношении категорий собственности это как раз тот случай, когда в качестве источника цитат лучше взять поздние работы классиков. Позже я дам ссылку на богатейший 'компендий', которым пользуюсь сам, и закачать который советую каждому.

« Ответ #44 : 05-03-2018, 08:45:18 »

7

Из темы  Была ли в феодализме частная собственность?


ispev написал(а):

Вы можете дать названия тех трудов, в которых были изменены термины?


Я полагаю, что этот вопрос уже освещён в специальных научных работах. Но применительно к данной теме — собственность вообще, и при феодализме в частности — достаточно лишь общего предостережения ИМЭЛ: терминология и вообще концепция "Немецкой идеологии" неустоявшаяся, и поэтому возможны нюансы. Маркс в 1844 ещё младогегельянец. Он ещё находится под влиянием гегелевской "Философии права". Как пишут исследователи (А.Баллаев. Карл Маркс о «Философии права» Гегеля):

…в этой рукописи Маркс подробно, по параграфам, комментирует тексты Гегеля по проблемам отношений государства и гражданского общества, монархической власти и демократии, представительного и сословного строя, частной собственности и суверенитета государства.


при этом

У Гегеля реально действующие сословия получают обобщенное  истолкование,  далекое  от  конкретики,  причем  он  старается,
чтобы сословия в гражданском обществе и законодательных органах политического государства были одни и те же. В «Философии права»  упоминается  «всеобщее  сословие»,  оно  же  «среднее  сословие» т. е. административные работники, чиновничество, бюрократия.
...
«Образованная часть» землевладельцев  сводится  у  Гегеля  к  владельцам  майоратов,  неотчуждаемой собственности, переходящей по прямой от отца к сыну. Он полагал, что данная форма земельной собственности как бы сама собой призывает ее владельцев к служению государству, в чем и состоит ее «природная нравственность».


Однако

юный Маркс в работе над гегелевским текстом далек от стандартного философского комментирования и ищет истины в словах своего учителя. Критические подходы в таком анализе, подсказанные Б.Бауером и Л.Фейербахом, А.Руге и М.Гессом, остаются на уровне рабочих приемов, технологии и не влияют на  общий  уровень  марксовского  суждения  о  Гегеле.  Это  суждение  крайне позитивное. В тексте рукописей налицо много «отличных  отметок», которые ученик выставляет своему учителю.


Поэтому, уважаемый Испев, если нет крайней необходимости, то от ранних работ Маркса (в т.ч. от "Немецкой философии") лучше держаться "от греха подальше". Особенно, когда по теме имеется вагон материалов из позднейших, зрелых, классических работ.
« Ответ #47 : 05-03-2018, 16:40:52 »

8

Из темы  Была ли в феодализме частная собственность?


ispev написал(а):
7777 написал(а):

Вас заинтересовал тот источник, из которого я уже выложил два скана, и который, как я обещал, будет лучшим для изучения творческого наследия Маркса по проблематике собственности?

Вам дать его название и линк для скачивания? Вы им будете пользоваться?

Ели-пали!!! Набрал ответ и.....
теперь, только одним словом -  Поддерживаю!


Держите: Шкредов В.П. Метод исследования собственности в «Капитале» К. Маркса.

http://archive.fo/mSvTw/5167bb8ab5af5a7cb8177f66d8ab055c11829bbb.jpg

Линк для скачивания загрузка начинается сразу по щелчку:

http://politazbuka.info/downloads/Knigi … .1973.djvu


« Ответ #51 : 05-03-2018, 22:21:11 »

9

Была ли в феодализме частная собственность? (ЦФК)

Список архивных линков

* стр. 1 (текущий оригинал)
* стр. 2 (текущий оригинал)
* стр. 3 (текущий оригинал)
* стр. 4 (текущий оригинал)

10

Из темы  Feudalism


FEUDALISM

The U. S. Naval Academy history department
www.usna.edu

Richard Abels, the U. S. Naval Academy history department chair.
Professor, Medieval Europe, Medieval Warfare
    Ph.D. — Columbia University
    M.A. — Columbia University
    B.A. — Columbia University
abels@usna.edu 410—293—6294


Feudalism is NOT a medieval term or concept. It has no one, agreed upon definition. The 'feudal system,' as most British and American medievalists use the term, describes a complex network or web or personal loyalties and (sometimes) tenure that defined how the nobility of the High Middle Ages were connected to one another and gave shape to how they ruled over each other and the peasantry. BUT this is not the way that all historians have or do use this word. When Adam Smith coined the term “feudal system” he meant by it a social and economic system defined by inherited social ranks, each of which possessed inherent social and economic privileges and obligations. In Smith’s feudal system wealth derived from agriculture, which was organized not according to market forces but on the basis of customary labor services owed by serfs to landowning nobles. This is what Marxist historians and economists mean by feudalism. Some historians, indeed, would expunge the word 'feudalism' from all textbooks — and there is a very good case to be made for this, since the 'system' I described above is a historical construct derived from a mass of disparate sources from different times and places (though based, in large part, on legal treatises of the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the period that 'feudalism' was supposed to be waning!).

I. THE TRADITIONAL FEUDAL PARADIGM

Traditionally, American and British historians have used the term "feudalism" to describe a political, military, and social system that bound together the warrior aristocracy of western Europe between ca. 1000 and ca. 1300. This "system," it is asserted, only gradually took shape, and differed in detail from region to region. The elements of this system were 1) the personal bond of mutual loyalty and military service between nobles of different rank known as vassalage/lordship (see below for fuller definitions of these institutions, section VI A); 2) 'fiefs' (land or moveable wealth) held by vassals/men from their lords, whose property, in theory, the tenements remained, in return for specified service, which was usually a combination of military and social duties (e.g. attendance at the lord's court, hospitality to the lord and his men) and miscellaneous payments that reflected the lord's continued rights over the property (see below section VI B); 3) jurisdictional and political power in the hands of 'private' individuals, that is, of nobles who held franchises, immunities or banal rights, which meant 4) decentralized rule under a weak king who was, nonetheless, defined (in theory) as the apex of this network of personal loyalty and land tenure (i.e. the lord of lords and the ultimate source of all rights over land). In this feudal paradigm the king possessed more authority than actual power. “Classical feudalism” (before the rise of strong feudal monarchies in which kings claimed the role of liege lords, see section VI A below) is characterized by the fragmentation of political authority and the passage of public power into many different private hands.
   In this paradigm, "feudalism" is essentially a military recruitment system, in which land tenure is exchanged for knight service.

II. HISTORIOGRAPHY OF 'FEUDALISM' AND ITS VARIETY OF DEFINITIONS

A. "Feudalism" as a political, military, and social system connecting the warrior aristocracy of medieval Europe through bonds of vassalage and by the granting and holding of fiefs. (Anglo—American usage)

The term 'feudal' was invented by Renaissance Italian jurists to describe what they took to be the common customary law of property. Giacomo Alvarotto's (1385—1453) treatise De feudis ("Concerning Fiefs") posited that despite regional differences the regulations governing the descent of aristocratic land tenure were derived from common legal principles, a customary shared 'feudal law.' This juridic concept of 'feudalism' was subsequently extended to cover the aggregate of institutions connected with the support and service of knights and with the descent of their tenures ("fiefs").

Historians who define 'feudalism' as the "political and social relations within the free, ruling, and preeminently fighting classes" of the Middle Ages are heirs to this juridic view. The leading exponent of this approach was F.L. Ganshof (Feudalism, trans. P. Grierson, London, 1964) who saw "feudalism" as:

a body of institutions creating and regulating the obligations of obedience and service — mainly military service — on the part of a free man (the vassal) towards another free man (the lord), and the obligations of protection and maintenance on the part of the lord with regard to his vassal. The obligation of maintenance had usually as on its effects the grant by the lord to his vassal of a unit of real property [actually the grant of tenure] known as a fief.


For Ganshof "feudal society" was characterized by the fragmentation of political authority and the passage of public power into private hands (PRIVATE JURISDICTION).

B. "Feudalism" defined as a socio—economic system whose basic characteristic is the exploitation of peasant labor by lords. (View most associated with French annalistes and Marxist historians.)

An alternative definition of "feudalism" that emphasizes economic production derives from the 18th century Enlightenment. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations (1776) used the term 'feudal system' (a phrase he coined) to describe a form of production governed not by market forces but by coercion and force. For Smith the 'feudal system' was the economic exploitation of peasants by their lords, which led to an economy and society marked by poverty, brutality, exploitation, and wide gaps between rich and poor. This economic definition of 'feudalism' found its way into the writings of Karl Marx. Across the channel Enlightenment philosophes, notably Montesquieu, also saw the 'feudal law' as a system of exploitation. For them 'feudalism' meant the aggregate of seigneurial privileges and prerogatives, which could be justified neither by reason or justice. When the National Constituent Assembly abolished the 'feudal regime' in August 1789 this is what they meant.

I would prefer to term Smith's/Marx's "feudalism" either "manorialism" or "the seignorial system" and distinguish it from what I call "feudalism" (see above).

III. TYRANNY OF A CONSTRUCT? ATTACKS ON THE FEUDAL PARADIGM

The point is that such definitions are arbitrary.

Lordship, dependent tenures (the feudum/fief of thirteenth—century charters and legal sources), and manors were real twelfth/thirteenth—century institutions, even if the precise meaning of the words used to describe lords, their retainers/dependents, fiefs, etc., differed from region to region. "Feudalism," on the other hand, is a historical construct that one must define before using.

More than thirty years ago Elizabeth Brown in an article in the American Historical Review 79 (1974) entitled, "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe," contended that it would be best to discard entirely the term “feudalism” because it is fundamentally misleading. "As far as pedagogy is concerned," Brown declared, "students should certainly be spared an approach that inevitably gives an unwaranted impression of unity and systematization. … To advocate teaching what is acknowledged to be deceptive and what must later be untaught reflects an unsettling attitude of condescension toward younger students" (1078). Brown's criticism is far—reaching. She regards not only feudalism but all isms — 'abstract analytic constructs formulated and defined as a shorthand means of designating the characteristics that the observers consider essential to various time periods, modes of organization, movements, and doctrines' — as artificialities that distort through simplification and which are fraught with the unstated assumptions of those who coined these terms. As Brown concludes: "The tyrant feudalism must be declared once and for all deposed and its influence over students of the Middle Ages finally ended. Perhaps in its downfall it will carry with it those other obdurate isms — manorial, scholastic, and human — that have dominated for far too long the investigation of medieval life and thought."

Brown's criticisms were developed further by Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994). Reynolds surveyed the documentary evidence for dependent military tenures—'fiefs'—in England, France, Germany and Italy, and concluded that terms such as 'fief', 'benefice', 'vassal' lacked any technical meaning until the late twelfth century when they were given legal definition by the Italian lawyers who produced the Liber Feodorum. In essence, Reynolds argued that in the early middle ages custom rather than law ruled, and that this custom was both highly localized and mutable. There is no evidence, to her mind, for precise 'feudal' institutions or obligations in the tenth or eleventh centuries. If anything, dependent tenures were less important than family lands (allod is another technical term that she claims lacks a specific definition), and horizontal bonds of association more important than the vertical bonds (lordship) that historians have traditionally emphasized. Reynolds argues for the persistence of public power and the centrality of communities in the eleventh century.

I wouldn't go as far as either Brown or Reynolds in rejecting 'feudalism'. If defined narrowly (and, again, I prefer Ganshof's definition with its emphasis on vassalage, maintenance of retainers by their lords through service tenements, and the wielding of what is usually thought of as 'public' powers by private individuals), 'feudalism' is a useful short—hand term to describe vertical social and political relations among the medieval aristocracy of England and France from the mid 11th through 13th centuries (and of Germany in the 13th century). In this respect it seems telling that Norman England and the Crusader principalities, two political societies created by conquest, were the most “feudalized” societies of the twelfth century. William the Conqueror’s distribution of lands to his followers was on the basis of fiefs, i.e. lands held de rege (from the king) with military obligations attached to them. Whether Normandy (or Anglo—Saxon England) was “feudal” or not in 1066, it is indisputable that William structured the Norman settlement of his newly acquired kingdom upon the principle of dependent military tenure.

One must, however, always be aware that an ideal construct only APPROXIMATES reality; the danger is MISTAKING THE IDEAL MODEL for reality, and either interpreting source evidence through the construct or judging the actual social, political, and tenurial relationship among a particular medieval aristocracy against this ideal. The question, was this society 'feudal'? is less important than understanding the institutions and relationship of that society within its own context.

IV. MARC BLOCH'S 'SNAPSHOT' OF 'FEUDAL SOCIETY'

In 1939, Marc Bloch, one of the fathers of the "Annales" school and arguably the most prominent modern medievalist after Henri Pirenne, decided to give up trying to define "feudalism" and settled for describing "feudal society" (Feudal Society [1939], trans. L. A. Manyon, London, 1965):

  A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary, which was out of the question; the supremacy of a class of specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind man to man and, whithin the warrior class, assume the distinctive form called vassalage; fragmentation of authority — leading inevitably to disorder; and, in the midst of all this, the survival of other forms of association, family and State, of which the latter, during the second feudal age, was to acquire renewed strength.

Bloch's description has the merit of avoiding the almost Nominalist/Realist arguments over the existence of "feudalism."

A. Bloch also identified TWO FEUDAL AGES.

i. The FIRST FEUDAL AGE, lasting from the late 9th to the mid eleventh century, was characterized by the breakdown of central authority, in part because of the viking raids. In theory the feudal pyramid extended from the lowest knight of the kingdom to the king at its apex; in reality each castellan, a noble possessed of a castle (motte—and—bailey castle: man made hill with a wooden tower called a donjon on top of it, and a ditch and pallisade at the base of the hill creating a defended enclosure), was essentially autonomous politically. Kings were simply one lord among many, though IN THEORY each king was the ultimate feudal overlord as THE CHOSEN OF GOD (KINGS BY GRACE OF GOD). Authority devolved upon the localities. The economy was primitively agrarian; the little trade that there was largely long—distance luxury trade, in which the west exchanged slaves and raw materials for the luxuries of the east).

ii. SECOND AGE OF FEUDALISM: c. 1050 to c. 1300. Doubling of population in western Europe, agricultural revolution (three field rotation, heavy plough, horse harness, windmills); expansion of commerce leading to the growth of towns and rebirth of cash economy; creation of new industries (TEXTILES), especially in Flanders and northern Italy; interconnected European economy with specialized production of commodities and raw materials for export (e.g. English wool to Flanders; Bordeaux wines to England); emergence of merchant class, etc. This is the age of the GOTHIC CATHEDRAL, SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY, CRUSADES, PAPAL MONARCHY, UNIVERSITIES (not to mention the great concentric castles that figure in all those popular movies about the middle ages) The economic changes also helped kings and the great princes of Europe to consolidate power, as feudal monarchies arose that were to be the basis of the modern European nation states.

These economic changes also led to a transformation of feudal relations and the definition of nobility. The knightly class became a hereditary nobility by the year 1000. The influx of wealth led to an increasing emphasis upon expenditure and conspicuous consumption as a reflection of nobility. Since this was also an age of rampant inflation, the aristocracy found itself continually pressed for money, which led, in many instances, to attempts to increase the economic exploitation of manorial resources through the use of professional bureaucratic staff in noble households and on manors. By the 13th century aristocrats in England, France, Germany, and Italy tended to be literate, at least in the vernacular, and all great landowners had professional administrators to look after their affairs. (Here is where the universities became especially important in the secular history of medieval Europe).

The aristocracy, faced by the emergence of the merchant class, began to define itself as a special order (with the help of the Church). This led to CHIVALRY and to the rituals of knighthood (e.g., dubbing ceremony, courtly love, etc). Though still defining itself as a warrior class, the military value of feudal knights declined due to the rigid customary limitations on service. By the middle of the 12th century English and French kings were relying on mercenaries (many of them poor or landless knights). The aristocracy, however, continued to display its martial prowess in games (tournaments) as well as in war. Though its a bit of an exaggeration, feudal incidents displaced military service as the most important render owed by a feudal tenant to his lord.


« : 02-03-2018, 09:10:42 »


Вы здесь » Бирюч коммунистов » Теория » Собственность. Сканы с источников, размещённые на ЦФК


Рейтинг форумов | Создать форум бесплатно © 2007–2017 «QuadroSystems» LLC