English History in the Secondary School

C. B. NEWTON, Editor.

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH NATION; TO EDWARD I.

Feudalism: One Way to Get at It.

It seems to me better not to grapple with feudalism until the rage of the Conquest is fairly passed, and we come to the actual reign of William I, partly because we have our hands full before this in trying to instil a reasonably clear idea of the Saxon forms of government, and partly because it is not very clear just how early feudal forms and customs began to be disseminated throughout England. So we may as well merely mention their existence before the Norman régime, and not explain them fully till we are called on to show what modification in the continental system was made by the Conqueror.

The feudal system is so difficult to define briefly that most text-books evade the attempt to do so. I believe, however, in introducing even so large a subject as this with a terse definition, such, for example, as: “Feudalism was a method of land ownership and government common throughout Europe during the middle ages.” It does a boy or girl no harm to learn a short statement like this, even though it means little to him or her at first. It serves as a rallying point for explanation; its terms are pegs on which to hang further details in orderly fashion. To explain more concretely just what I mean, suppose we take the above definition (any other would do), and see how we may proceed with it in the class room so as to light it up with real meaning.

A, let us say, has recited the definition glibly, having taken it down in his note-book the day before, with instructions to learn it by heart. “Now, A,” says the astute teacher, “do you understand what that means?” “Not exactly,” hesitates A, if he is ingenuous (if he isn’t, he may easily be confounded). “Good!” you reply, in one stroke commending his honesty and showing that you do not expect bricks without straw. “Let’s see if we can’t get at its meaning. Does your father own any land?” (A surprised look and pricking up of ears in the class). “No? Well, he rents your home, then? Yes? But somebody owns it, of course, and how did he get it? Bought it? Probably. Do you know of any way of getting land except by buying or renting it?” Voice from an excited hand across the room, “How about wills?” “Yes, land may be inherited, but it had to be bought once, didn’t it?” “Well,” you continue, to A and the class, “this buying or renting for money is our ‘method of land ownership,’ do you see? Now, did you ever hear of a man’s being in Congress, or the legislature, or being a judge simply because he owned or rented a certain amount of land? Certainly not. Men are elected or appointed to places in our government. Land ownership and government are separate matters. Just think how different it was in old England (and throughout Europe, for that matter) in feudal times. Men held high position in the nation largely because of their great estates together with their prowess in war. Now, instead of buying or renting land, how would your landlord or your father have got it, say in the reign of William I, A?” “From the king or from some big noble.” “Right you are—but how, for nothing?” “No, in return for fighting for him.” “Yes, and on a few other conditions; they are given in your book. What were they, X? What! asleep? Forgotten? C, tell us.” So you proceed to draw out the details of homage, fealty, and service, the theory of royal ownership, the terms suzerain, vassal, fief, etc., drilling in the unfamiliar words by frequent use, comparing them as far as possible with present terms and usages, and bringing out, by contrast and comparison, the essentials of the whole system. Finally you show that the system was universal throughout Christendom, explain what the middle ages were (if A, C or X can’t), and point out the adaptability of feudalism to the time. When you have finished this, your period will have flown (lucky if the bell does not ring too soon!), and your mere definition will mean something to all but your dullest pupils. On pp. 131-136 of Cheyney’s “Readings,” are some excellent practical details of feudal procedure which will be found useful for examples.

A Logical Approach to the Origins of the Jury.

Did you ever stop to think how little your intelligent pupil understands about some present-day institutions the origins of which interest us because we appreciate their modern practice and significance? Take, for example, the jury. A little questioning will bring out whether or not your class knows the difference between a trial jury and a grand jury, either in make-up or in functions. Unless you are more fortunate than I have been, you will find they know very little. Now, does it not seem an illogical absurdity to wade right into the beginnings of the jury system in the days of Henry II when our class has little or no notion of what the system is now, or what it stands for? When we come to this point, therefore, in the epoch-making reign of King Henry II, it is pertinent and profitable to digress into a clear discussion of the jury of to-day, bringing out what knowledge we can find in the class, and adding to it by some such Socratic method of question and answer as we may have used in connection with feudalism, rather than by giving a “talk” on the subject. After paving the way in this fashion, we may start in with the Assize of Clarendon. (Cheyney’s “Readings” pp. 141-142) and the distinction between recognitors and presentment, so we shall emphasize the essential facts, and also bring out both the similarity and the difference between the germ and the present fruit of this ancient method of arriving at justice.

Some Great Personalities.

I think it is helpful to the memory, and useful, because of the great influence of the crown throughout English History, to bring out the personality of every sovereign, so that the names of each dynasty will not be a list of names and nothing more. But in every century we shall find certain great personalities, either on the throne or off it, which should be made as vivid as may be. To this rule the eleventh and twelfth are no exception. There are five men in these centuries which seem to me particularly worth dwelling on: William I and Henry II,—surely two of the really great kings of England; Becket and Langton, types of great churchmen and exemplars of the enormous power of the Church; and Simon de Montfort, highest type among the early nobility. Vivid word pictures of the Conqueror may be found in Freeman’s “Norman Conquest,” Vol. II, pp. 106-113, and (shorter) in Green’s “Short History,” pp. 74-76. Henry II is portrayed by a contemporary, Cheyney’s “Readings,” pp. 137-139, and in Green, pp. 104-105. Becket is described by Green, p. 106, and a good story of his relation to Henry II is told in Cheyney, p. 144. For Langton see Green, pp. 126-127; for Simon de Montfort see Green, 152-153, or Cheyney, pp. 221-224.

Further Notes and References.

There is a good brief account of general conditions—Church and State, development of learning, town and country life, architecture, etc., pp. 165-171 of Gardiner’s “Student’s History.” If one can get the time, a reading, or re-reading, as the case may be, of Green’s “Short History” on the towns, pp. 92-94; literature, pp. 117-121, and the universities, pp. 132-141, is exceedingly refreshing. Cheyney’s “Readings” also contain interesting quotations on the universities, pp. 188-195.

In bringing out the causes of the controversy over the Constitutions of Clarendon, it is appropriate to quote William the Conqueror’s Edict (Cheyney, pp. 109-110) in support of Becket’s contention, as well as to read from the Constitutions themselves (Cheyney, pp. 146-150). If one has time for a little touch of humor and human nature in the class-room, not strictly important in itself, the account of the bishop’s speeches before the pope, in connection with the quarrel with Becket, is most amusing (Cheyney, pp. 151-154).

For a very full and interesting account of feudalism, see Beard’s “Introduction to English Historians,” pp. 73-96. Shorter quotations giving some interesting detail have already been referred to (Cheyney, pp. 131-136.)

A clear account of the Government of England as established under the Normans is contained in Chapter XVII of “The Normans in Europe,” in the Epochs of History series, pp. 234-248. “The Early Plantagenets” in the same series, is concise and useful for “side-lights” on John’s and Henry III’s reigns.

On the Magna Charta, and on the Origin of Parliament, Beard’s “Introduction,” pp. 110-123 and 124-138, respectively, contains a mine of valuable comment. In connection with the famous parliament of 1265 the fact that parliament was not really a legislative body at this time should be strongly emphasized.

For realism, I know nothing better than the graphic account in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” of the evils of Stephen’s reign (Cheyney, pp. 128-130, or, more briefly, Green, p. 103). The only good novel which I know of in this period (I should be glad to hear of others) is Maurice Hewlett’s “Richard Yea and Nay,” a wonderfully vivid book, but hardly suitable to put in the hands of young folk in general.