[Illustration:  Fig. 17.—­King Charlemagne receiving the Oath of Fidelity and Homage from one of his great Feudatories or High Barons.—­Fac-simile of a Miniature in Cameo, of the “Chronicles of St. Denis.”  Manuscript of the Fourteenth Century (Library of the Arsenal).]

Vassals emanating directly from the King, were then generally designated by the title of barons, and mostly possessed strongholds.  The other nobles indiscriminately ranked as chevaliers or cnights, a generic title, to which was added that of banneret, The fiefs of hauberk were bound to supply the sovereign with a certain number of knights covered with coats of mail, and completely armed.  All knights were mounted in war (Fig. 16); but knights who were made so in consequence of their high birth must not be confounded with those who became knights by some great feat in arms in the house of a prince or high noble, nor with the members of the different orders of chivalry which were successively instituted, such as the Knights of the Star, the Genet, the Golden Fleece, Saint-Esprit, St. John of Jerusalem, &c.  Originally, the possession of a benefice or fief meant no more than the privilege of enjoying the profits derived from the land, a concession which made the holder dependent upon the proprietor.  He was in fact his “man,” to whom he owed homage (Fig. 17), service in case of war, and assistance in any suit the proprietor might have before the King’s tribunal.  The chiefs of German bands at first recompensed their companions in arms by giving them fiefs of parts of the territory which they had conquered; but later on, everything was equally given to be held in fief, namely, dignities, offices, rights, and incomes or titles.

It is important to remark (and it is in this alone that feudalism shows its social bearing), that if the vassal owed obedience and devotion to his lord, the lord in exchange owed protection to the vassal.  The rank of “free man” did not necessarily require the possession of land; but the position of free men who did not hold fiefs was extremely delicate and often painful, for they were by natural right dependent upon those on whose domain they resided.  In fact, the greater part of these nobles without lands became by choice the King’s men, and remained attached to his service.  If this failed them, they took lands on lease, so as to support themselves and their families, and to avoid falling into absolute servitude.  In the event of a change of proprietor, they changed with the land into new hands.  Nevertheless, it was not uncommon for them to be so reduced as to sell their freedom; but in such cases, they reserved the right, should better times come, of re-purchasing their liberty by paying one-fifth more than the sum for which they had sold it.

We thus see that in olden times, as also later, freedom was more or less the natural consequence of the possession of wealth or power on the part of individuals or families who considered themselves free in the midst of general dependence.  During the tenth century, indeed, if not impossible, it was at least difficult to find a single inhabitant of the kingdom of France who was not “the man” of some one, and who was either tied by rules of a liberal order, or else was under the most servile obligations.