When swearing an "Oath",
taking a vassal {as in squires, pages and lessor lords or similar activity the thing to be
considered. Firstly it was done in 3 distinct parts:
the "Homage"
the "Fealty"
the "Kiss" (or similar formal and unmistakable sign of acceptance)
All parts are important for their "visual
impression" as well as necessary to make an enduring mental impression
upon the audience (which serve to witness the occasion).
The Homage had 2 parts to itself.
(watch out here comes another Latin lesson)
First was the "immixtio i
manuum" followed by the "volo". Now the immixtio was preformed by the
vassal (or person of lesser rank) generally kneeling, bare headed, and weaponless.
Typically placing their interlocked hands into the clasped hands of their Lord, who then
enclosed them in his own. (pardon the male form for my ease of comfort). The Higher Lord
demanding (in the form of a question) from the lower ranking person if they would, without
reserve; enter into the service of the lord and become his "man", (with respect
to the type of service).
The other replying, "I do
so wish it" , then their alliance was sealed. In nearly all cases while oaths of
fealty where the norm, the rite was considered invalid without the "immixtio i
manuum". It's performance alone was sufficient to legally bind one person to
another.
In time this oath taking fell by the
wayside to legal precedence and such, the lawyers having made the form something of a
fixed nature. Still while preformed, they where sealed in the volo portion of the rite
through the use of "holy relics" of some type.
It goes without saying that
this part was done to put the "fear of God" into the participants, (obviously a
church ploy). But also to insure the sincerity in keeping the oath. While this
part was not essential to the rites conclusion. It was the way of confirming the
contracted obligations of the 2 parties, with some visible gesture. The kiss became
used to confirm the "contract" nature of the bargain struck. Stressing
some element of equality and or friendship (one does not kiss ones slave or servant).
Also sometimes the kiss came before the oath sometimes after. In places like
France the kiss became something exchanged between the participants rather than upon a
common relic or revered object. Now all this "dog and pony show" flash was one
thing but lets look at what exactly fealty might mean.
Note here the use of the singular form.
This is intentional because the oath was equally binding on all parties involved. What
ever the lessor ranking person promised as a part of their servitude, like and/or kind was
promised of their lord. Unless specific exception was made during the volo. SO each member
into the oath had certain duties that went with the expectations.
Actually the early catholic
church spelled it out. And even many of the "fantasy novels" address the matter.
In a letter to William Aquitaine from a high church official it was written:
"He who swears fealty should always have these 6 words present in their mind;
safe and sound, sure, honest, useful, easy, possible.
Safe and sound because a vassal may cause no injury to the body of their lord.
Sure because they may not injure their lord by giving up their secrets, (which in
turn might guarantee their own security).
Honest, because they must do nothing to injure the rights of justice of their
lord, or such other prerogatives as belong to their mutual well being.
Useful, because they may do no wrong to the possessions of their lord.
Easy and possible, because they must not make impossible anything which their lord
might otherwise accomplish.
But it is not enough to do no wrong; it
is also necessary to do right. It then becomes necessary that in the aforesaid matters,
the vassal shall faithfully give their lord their council and support, if one is to remain
worthy of their lords beneficence and carry out faithfully their fealty. If one should not
do this, they will rightly be accused of bad faith, equal to the vassal who will have been
discovered to have been lacking in their duties, weather by positive action or simple
consent (omission). Therefore becoming subject to the penalties of their guilt in perfidy
and or perjury.
Ok, so much for historic
precedence and background now to the meat of the meal.... some typical forms
use to do fealty or swear loyalty and such:
The most basic come from the English (who else). "a man promises to be
faithful to his lord., Shunning what he shuns and loving what he loves." doesn't get
simpler than that.
From a 12th century document from a order of knighthood came this one:
"...after having done homage publicly. X takes an oath to Y
and promises , as a vassal to his lord, that he will honor Z,
and that he will further support him against and all sundry."
In the 11th century this was found : " I promise by my faith, that from this
day forward I will be faithful to "X" and will maintain toward him my
homage entirely against every man in good faith and without deception."
Care for a more strict military
form? Well, in Germany these where used from around 1034:
"from this hour forward, I , (your name) will be faithful to you, (lords
name) by true faith, without mischievous intent as a true man should be to his lord and
without will to deceive."
Even lords took fealty to the
base form (as if they where a simple vassal) when addressing one of higher rank, like
their king. promising without reserve to be friend to his friends and foe to his foes.
So there you have the grist and
finished product. The promise of service, is meant to be not only solemn, but personal,
and as specific as is warranted. In accepting the oath the Lord (or Lady) in question
should be likewise personal and formal.
Exerpted from an article on
"Oaths & Fealty" from a Society for Creative Anachronism publication called
"Pikestaff Arts and Science Supplement (VolumeXXVI of 1995)
|