126 MEDIEVAL HISTORY 



scopic care from various points of view and with mutually correcting 

 natural bias. We may, I think, say with truth that there is no other 

 considerable portion of history, ancient or modern, that has been 

 as yet investigated with such minuteness as that which embraces 

 the history of Europe from the beginning of the fifth century to the 

 end of the ninth, and we may add that, as a natural result, regarding 

 all questions of importance in this field there is now a nearly or 

 quite general consensus of opinion among scholars. 



In saying this I do not mean to assert, of course, anything like 

 absolute agreement. Probably it would be difficult to find any 

 single point of importance on which some scholar of reputation does 

 not stand for an opinion of his own. But I do mean to say that there 

 has now been formed a definite body of opinion on all the essential 

 facts of both political and institutional history during that period 

 in which the great body of scholars are agreed. Nor do I mean that 

 these conclusions will not be attacked in the future. Aberrations 

 from them, heretical attacks on them we might perhaps call them, 

 will occur now and again, and their effect will be to correct matters 

 of detail, to rearrange emphasis on particular points, or to bring into 

 the field some minor force or circumstance overlooked; but it is 

 hardly likely now that this body of conclusion can be seriously 

 called in question; it is more likely that dissenting opinions will in 

 the future find even less support than they do at present. Nor is it 

 probable that those lines of work of which I shall speak later as 

 likely to lead to the largest new results can modify our present 

 conclusions in any revolutionary way. 



A concrete example may show more clearly exactly what and how 

 much I mean. At first sight there would seem to be no topic of history 

 in regard to which opinion is less settled than that of the origin and 

 formation of feudalism. It would seem to be a subject on which the 

 greatest diversity of view prevails, and in which there is an almost 

 inextricable confusion of theories and even of statements of fact. 

 But this would be a superficial view only. A careful comparative 

 examination of the whole field would show that in the last twenty 

 years the opinion of those who have most carefully studied the 

 subject has practically settled down on a certain line of explanation 

 which may now be definitely called the orthodox doctrine of the 

 origin and formation of feudalism. The long controversy between 

 the first scientific students of the subject, Waitz and Roth, which 

 once seriously divided opinion, is practically settled in so far as it 

 concerns fundamentals. Individual students whose opinions are 

 entitled to the greatest respect may hold peculiar views on a single 

 point, like the view of Professor Brunner on the origin of vassalage, 

 but they influence the prevailing opinion very little or not at all. 

 Professor Flach is searching the whole field with great care, and 



