Although several historians expressed concerns over the indefinite nature of the well-worn model and the term's many imprecise meanings, it wasn't until 1974 that anyone thought to stand up and point out the most basic, fundamental problems with feudalism. In a ground-breaking article entitled "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,"5 Elizabeth A. R. Brown leveled an unwavering finger at the academic community and roundly denounced the term feudalism and its continued use.
Clearly feudalism was a construct that was developed after the Middle Ages, Brown maintained, and the system it described bore little resemblance to actual medieval society. Its many differing, even contradictory definitions had so muddied the waters that it had lost any useful meaning. The construct was actually interfering with the proper examination of evidence concerning medieval law and society; scholars viewed land agreements and social relationships through the warped lens of the feudalism construct, and either disregarded or dismissed anything that didn't fit into their chosen version of the model. Brown asserted that, considering how difficult it is to unlearn what one has learned, to continue to include feudalism in introductory texts would do readers of those texts a grave injustice.
Brown's article was very well-received in academic circles. Virtually no American or British medievalists objected to any part of it, and almost everyone who read it agreed: Feudalism was not a useful term, and really should go.
And yet, feudalism stuck around.
There were improvements. Some new publications in medieval studies avoided using the term altogether; others used it only sparingly, and focused on actual laws, land tenures, and legal agreements instead of on the model. Some books on medieval society refrained from characterizing that society as "feudal." Others, while acknowledging that the term was in dispute, continued to use it as a "useful shorthand" for lack of a better term, but only as far as it was necessary.
But there were still authors that included descriptions of feudalism as a valid model of medieval society with little or no caveat. Why? For one thing, not every medievalist had read Brown's article, or had a chance to consider its implications or discuss it with his colleagues. For another, revising work that had been conducted on the premise that feudalism was a valid construct would require the kind of reassessment that few historians were prepared to engage in, especially when deadlines were drawing near.
Perhaps most significantly, no one had presented a reasonable model or explanation to use in place of feudalism. Some historians and authors felt they had to provide their readers with a handle by which to grasp the general ideas of medieval government and society. If not feudalism, then what?
Yes, the emperor had no clothes; but for now, he would just have to run around naked.
Continued on page six: What Fief? Where? I didn't see any Fief . . .
