What do you think?
Rate this book
Feudal Society #2
Feudal Society, Volume 2: Social Classes and Political Organization
"Few have set themselves to the formidable task of reconstructing and analyzing a whole human environment; fewer still have succeeded. Bloch dared to do this and was successful; therein lies the enduring achievement of Feudal Society."—Charles Garside, Yale Review
229 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1939
12 people are currently reading
1140 people want to read
About the author
Marc Bloch
61 books184 followersMarc Léopold Benjamin Bloch (6 July 1886 in Lyon – 16 June 1944 in Saint-Didier-de-Formans) was a medieval historian, University Professor and French Army officer. Bloch was a founder of the Annales School, best known for his pioneering studies French Rural History and Feudal Society and his posthumously-published unfinished meditation on the writing of history, The Historian's Craft. He was captured and shot by the Gestapo during the German occupation of France for his work in the French Resistance.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Read
April 21, 2019First there was Feudal Society, volume 1 which unsurprisingly flows in to the second volume were we get the shifting social classes and the development of polities.
Despite the age of Bloch's work it provides along with Ganshof's Feudalism one of the basic or fundamental definitions of Feudalism, the great thing is that although both men developed distinctly different views of what Feudalism was they might both be right. For Bloch a Feudal Society was one in which one provided service in return for land, by this definitions there have been many feudal societies in various parts of the world. While for Ganshof feudalism was a precise question of law it was distinguished by certain legal acts and oaths and was something which existed mostly between the Rhine and the Seine, for perhaps a couple of hundred years.
Bloch's vision is expansive and energetic, his viewpoint is of Feudal society as a culture, while Ganshof saw Feudalism as a legal framework both seems to me to be valid and useful pairs of spectacles. From a non-technical point of view Bloch's account is also rich in detail.
Despite the age of Bloch's work it provides along with Ganshof's Feudalism one of the basic or fundamental definitions of Feudalism, the great thing is that although both men developed distinctly different views of what Feudalism was they might both be right. For Bloch a Feudal Society was one in which one provided service in return for land, by this definitions there have been many feudal societies in various parts of the world. While for Ganshof feudalism was a precise question of law it was distinguished by certain legal acts and oaths and was something which existed mostly between the Rhine and the Seine, for perhaps a couple of hundred years.
Bloch's vision is expansive and energetic, his viewpoint is of Feudal society as a culture, while Ganshof saw Feudalism as a legal framework both seems to me to be valid and useful pairs of spectacles. From a non-technical point of view Bloch's account is also rich in detail.
July 9, 2013
While I didn't like this one quite as much as Volume 1 - it lost a bit of its clarity and momentum, I think - it's still a great read. This section deals a bit more with how the feudal society laid out in the first volume, based on a weak state and the inadequacy of traditional ties of kinship, interacted with broader structures of power like kingship, empire, and a little bit on the Church.
I think Bloch is a better cultural historian than a socio-economic one. His sections on chivalry, knighthood, and sacred kingship are the highlights of this half, and tend to overshadow his discussion of principalties or castellanies. The latter are fine, but I think they remain a bit too weighed down in abstraction to be really effective. Because Bloch is covering so much information, he has to leave out concrete examples or case studies in a lot of these sections. It can leave them feeling a bit like they're mired in details but simultaneously like the reader has nothing solid to hold onto, which can be frustrating. Of course, it's also possible that I just think cultural history is more fun.
On the whole, a great initial overview of medieval society. I think it's a classic for a reason.
I think Bloch is a better cultural historian than a socio-economic one. His sections on chivalry, knighthood, and sacred kingship are the highlights of this half, and tend to overshadow his discussion of principalties or castellanies. The latter are fine, but I think they remain a bit too weighed down in abstraction to be really effective. Because Bloch is covering so much information, he has to leave out concrete examples or case studies in a lot of these sections. It can leave them feeling a bit like they're mired in details but simultaneously like the reader has nothing solid to hold onto, which can be frustrating. Of course, it's also possible that I just think cultural history is more fun.
On the whole, a great initial overview of medieval society. I think it's a classic for a reason.
December 5, 2021
Some topics discussed:
1. the way that personal ties of dependence between lords and vassals evolved into a hereditary nobility (the knights)
2. codes of chivalry and the church's attempts to influence the morals of the nobility
3. the general weakness of the kings, the farcical nature of the Holy Roman Empire (a delusion of a clerical class which identified Universal Empire with the victory of Christianity)
Like the first volume, very weak on the topic of towns: it has a few pages that essentially say "the bourgeoisie has their own interests separate from feudal hierarchies and developed a class solidarity", but without much cited evidence. This seems in tension with its claims that rich townsmen might be able to enter the nobility, have their own serfs, aspired to make their sons into knights, etc.
Also, little discussion of mass social movements like the Crusades or the Albigensian heresies. One movement which was briefly covered was the "peace movement", a Church-led movement to organize the people in moral reform against their culture of violence and for self-defense against brigandage. This peace movement did have some more radical spinoffs which were crushed by the Church and State.
Perhaps these complaints are not fair - the book is remarkably short for the vast time period it covers, and I should judge the book by its aims, not by the aims I wish it had. Its goal was to try to understand the social structures inherent to "feudalism", not to discuss all aspects of medieval society. A bit too structuralist for my tastes? I would have found a social analysis of the Crusades much more enlightening than, say, the transition from "principalities" to "castellanies".
1. the way that personal ties of dependence between lords and vassals evolved into a hereditary nobility (the knights)
2. codes of chivalry and the church's attempts to influence the morals of the nobility
3. the general weakness of the kings, the farcical nature of the Holy Roman Empire (a delusion of a clerical class which identified Universal Empire with the victory of Christianity)
Like the first volume, very weak on the topic of towns: it has a few pages that essentially say "the bourgeoisie has their own interests separate from feudal hierarchies and developed a class solidarity", but without much cited evidence. This seems in tension with its claims that rich townsmen might be able to enter the nobility, have their own serfs, aspired to make their sons into knights, etc.
Also, little discussion of mass social movements like the Crusades or the Albigensian heresies. One movement which was briefly covered was the "peace movement", a Church-led movement to organize the people in moral reform against their culture of violence and for self-defense against brigandage. This peace movement did have some more radical spinoffs which were crushed by the Church and State.
Perhaps these complaints are not fair - the book is remarkably short for the vast time period it covers, and I should judge the book by its aims, not by the aims I wish it had. Its goal was to try to understand the social structures inherent to "feudalism", not to discuss all aspects of medieval society. A bit too structuralist for my tastes? I would have found a social analysis of the Crusades much more enlightening than, say, the transition from "principalities" to "castellanies".
April 2, 2016
A well-known milestone in medieval historiography and one of the easiest five stars I've ever given. To sum up, Bloch starts off with the internal breakdown of state power in early medieval Europe and the numerous external threats it faced, setting the stage for a society where power was increasingly local and based on personal bonds of allegiance - in other words a feudal society. He then proceeds to analyse in-depth the nitty-gritty workings of these personal bonds and how they shaped both the workings of power and the mentality of the people, and this is where the book really shines. I can hardly think of a better book if one wants to understand the nuts and bolts of how feudalism worked in medieval Europe and how it impacted European culture, or at least parts of it: It's heavily focused on France, particularly northern France which provides the standard model of European feudalism for Bloch, as well as Germany and England, with occasional asides to Spain, Italy and Scandinavia. To finish off, he explains how the growth of the power of the kings through increasingly effective state bureaucracies began to reduce the feudal character of these regions during the high middle ages. It's not however what I'd call an "entertaining" book as the subject matter can be dense, but it's highly informative and thus never boring if one has an interest in the subject.
January 10, 2019
In terms of reconstructing societies and mentalities from limited sources and a lot of deep thinking, there are few works better than this one. Dated, I suppose, and some claims have been proven incorrect with deeper reach, but the persistence of Bloch's work is proof of its tremendous value. I'd hesitate to call anything "magisterial," but this two-volume set warrants the adjective.
June 10, 2022
I held off on rating Vol I because Vol II was just a continuation, it picked up on the next page so I felt they should be reviewed together, I'm not even sure why they are separate books. I loved these. I love Bloch's style. He has this need to explain and contextualize every single thing, so Vol I was basically setting the scene for talking about feudalism. I can see where this might confuse or bore some people, there isn't a timeline that he adheres to, and as he talks about each area he jumps around in time a lot. But I loved it, you get the pre and post story as much as the actual situation.
Bloch also goes into a ton of detail about the etymology of everything, which I loved! Like counties are from the Counts. That's a super simple one that should have been obvious to me, but was not for some reason? Whatever, I loved it.
The one thing I wasn't too much into was the translator used the word "henceforth" CONSTANTLY. After a while it began weirdly distracting. This translation had some quirks, there were a lot of sentences that I had to read aloud to understand.
Bloch also goes into a ton of detail about the etymology of everything, which I loved! Like counties are from the Counts. That's a super simple one that should have been obvious to me, but was not for some reason? Whatever, I loved it.
The one thing I wasn't too much into was the translator used the word "henceforth" CONSTANTLY. After a while it began weirdly distracting. This translation had some quirks, there were a lot of sentences that I had to read aloud to understand.
August 5, 2022
Bok 6b of a short reading course recommended by Norman F Cantor.
Not much more to add to my review of Volume 1, except to note Bloch's concentration on the nobility of the time, as well as a more general discourse on political institutions in this second part, rounding off a detailed overview of medieval society and the ties that bound people of all classes and the often inept systems that kept people together or, more often, drove them apart. Although, to be fair to Bloch, his emphasis was more on how political institutions failed to do to keep people together, rather than driving them apart. One fears our problems are more deep rooted and persistent than any system or era can adequately define, as Bloch himself tragically found out first hand.
Quality content, if not entirely matched by a very readable presentation, again, possibly a translation issue. Essential reading nonetheless.
Not much more to add to my review of Volume 1, except to note Bloch's concentration on the nobility of the time, as well as a more general discourse on political institutions in this second part, rounding off a detailed overview of medieval society and the ties that bound people of all classes and the often inept systems that kept people together or, more often, drove them apart. Although, to be fair to Bloch, his emphasis was more on how political institutions failed to do to keep people together, rather than driving them apart. One fears our problems are more deep rooted and persistent than any system or era can adequately define, as Bloch himself tragically found out first hand.
Quality content, if not entirely matched by a very readable presentation, again, possibly a translation issue. Essential reading nonetheless.
March 14, 2017
Academic, dry at times, but overall a very interesting account of European society between the Roman Empire and the late renaissance.
November 12, 2024
"A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (i.e. the fief) instead of a salary, which was out of the question; the supremacy of a class of specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind man to man and, within the warrior class, assume the distinctive form called vassalage; fragmentation of authority-leading inevitably to disorder; and, in the midst of all this, the survival of other forms of association, family and State, of which the latter, during the second feudal age, was to acquire renewed strength-such then seem to be the fundamental features of European feudalism."
June 9, 2009
Insightful and pleasant to read, Bloch's analysis of the development and maintenance of feudal structures and societies is one of the best I have read. Succinct but still rich in detail, highly recommended work from a premier medieval scholar.
April 12, 2008
I didn't like this one as much as the first one, and he's extremely detailed, so sometimes I got lost in that.
February 17, 2009
See the review for the first volume.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews