33 1 ] THE PLEBISCITE IN ANCIENT AND FEUDAL TIMES 33 



de St. Louis to the effect that the rights and duties of seig- 

 neur and vassal are reciprocal and are based on contractual 

 relations, whether the contract "exist in the form of an 

 authentic charter or merely is supposed to exist as the result 

 of a situation dating from time immemorial." Luchaire 

 continues : 



The feudal situation, resulting from a tie which unites the suzerain 

 and the vassal, cannot be modified except by the consent of both 

 parties, [and] just as the vassal has not the right to alienate the fief 

 without the consent of the suzerain . . . thus the suzerain would be 

 ladcing in his duties if he would alienate the fief or the seigneurie 

 without the agreement of his vassals. . . . The vassals are thus con- 

 sidered as having a real right over the seigneurie of which they 

 form a part. The seigneur cannot dispose of their allegiance [honi- 

 mage] in favor of his creature. ^^ 



It must then be admitted that during the prime of feu- 

 dalism no transfer of feudal territory could be made with- 

 out the consent of the vassals. A number of cases where 

 the vassals made actual use of their right of consent or 

 refusal in such changes during the eleventh century are 

 given by Molinier in his Administration feodale dans le 

 Languedoc}^ The admission, however, does not concede 

 Soliere's claim, that "in the 12th and 13th centuries no an- 

 nexation can be pronounced without the assent of the people 

 and the notables." Feudal society consisted of more cate- 

 gories than seigneur and vassal. 



To make matters clear we have to consider the feudal 

 politico-social system a little more closely. Let us move 

 down from the top: the king is the suscraiyi of both the 

 grands seigneurs and the smaller vassals. The grands 

 seigneurs, or grands vassaux, are the holders of the seig- 

 neuries, the great fiefs. These grands vassaux in turn have 

 around or under them a host of smaller vassals who have 

 received from them their smaller fiefs for personal services 

 rendered in the past or to be rendered in the future and 

 hold them as personal gifts. Above their feudal attachment 

 to their seigneur these smaller vassals owe at the same time 



•^ A. Lucliaire, Manuel des institutions frangaises. Periode des 

 Capeticns directs, Paris, ii**)j, pp. 214-J18. 

 ** Cited by Luchaire, p. .217, note 2. 



3 



