Online Education Blog

Eighteenth century is remarkable in the history of Europe because it ushered in a new era. Significant developments could be seen in the field of art, architecture and literature. Renaissance brought a new vision in man’s life. It emphasizes on the creative power of man as an architect of his own destiny. Established dogmas and notions began to be questioned under scientific advancement. Renaissance is an Italian word meaning re-birth. It is associated with major social and cultural developments in Europe between and the 15th centuries. Renaissance contributed greatly to the creation of modern Europe. It laid the foundation stone on which modern Europe has been built, the features of renaissance includes formation of new ideologies, procures and discoveries, debates But some of the critics are of the opinion that renaissance provided essential ingredients or raw materials for the modern Europe. It was the enlightenment that laid the foundation of the modern world. According the turn of 18th and 19th centuries, it became obvious that the western societies were undergoing a radical structural change. In different fields like science, technology and production enormous growth could be seen that initiated a radical change of the western European society. Renaissance is immediately followed by reformation. It also contributed enormously to the spirit of self consciousness by privatizing religious practice and Protestantism. The major socio-cultural developments in Europe during the 13th-15th centuries were codified as renaissance. The new vision glorified individual .the new secular and individualistic values which were somewhat incompatible with Christian beliefs, constituted a new worldly philosophy of life known as humanism, drawing its main ideas and inspiration from ancient times. It is the only moral basis which inspired questioning about the feudal and Christian inheritances in Europe. New groups were emerged known as lawyers and notaries. They drew up and interpreted the rules and written agreement without which trade on a large scale was not possible with the growing development of commerce and trade there was a acute need for men skilled in drafting, recording and authenticating contract and letters. There were the notaries and specialists to do this work. During this period a new culture also emerged known as humanism renaissance .humanism was a new philosophy of life which glorified human nature in secular terms. The humanist self-image as free agents of civilization was sharpened by a new historical consciousness which enabled them to distinguish their time as an age of light in comparison with the preceding age. The humanists belonging to different generation thought themselves as a part of new generation. The renaissance had important implications for education. Petrarch’s dream of a cultural and moral generation of Christian society, based on the union of eloquence and philosophy, had important implications for education. Humanism also gained dominance with the evolution of a new art called printing. By 1500, many classical texts had been printed in Italy, mostly in Latin. But the most important development could be seen in the field of religion. One of the most important features of the renaissance is a beginning of a loosening control of religion over human life. Renaissance created conditions for the emergence of secular ideology. Apart from pursuit of glory, the self development of individual personality emerged as another social ideal. Eighteenth century Europe witnessed very wide sweeping changes in all spheres of life. After came the renaissance the age of reason which was popularly known as the age of enlightenment. The enlightenment men were not irreligious but they were bitterly against the institutions of Christianity. The age of reason of enlightenment generally used the scientific method of enquiry to launch a systematic attack or established religious norms and traditions.  Enlightenment theorists were emphasized on liberty, freedom and happiness for all. Enlightenment advocates twin belief that a) the present was better and more advanced than the past, and b) this advancement has resulted in the happiness of man. The growth in scientific knowledge had given the enlightenment grounds for being optimistic.

What do you understand by participatory research?
The key features of participatory research are:
People are the subjects of research: the dichotomy between subject and object is broken People themselves collect the data and then process and analyze the information using methods easily understood by them The knowledge generated is used to promote actions for change or to improve existing local actions The knowledge belongs to the people and they are the primary beneficiaries of the knowledge creation
Research and action are inseparable – they represent a unity research is a praxis rhythm of action-reflection where knowledge creation supports action People function as organic intellectuals there is an built-in mechanism to ensure authenticity and genuineness of the information that is generated because people themselves use the information for life improvement.
Such participatory research may not get written up. Oral and visual methods characterize this process of knowledge creation. If people can be stimulated to write them up in their own idiom then such research could be an important source of a people’s literature, and reading materials for a wider public.
Some of the material could be translated into pictures, cartoons, graphics, posters and slogans which may be a more effective method of communication. Such documentation may be carried out by community activists who are well placed to articulate the community’s way of thinking. The key processes of Participatory Research
The promotion of participatory research is basically an exercise in stimulating the people to: Collect information reflect and analyse it Use the results as a knowledge base for life improvement, and whenever possible, to document the results for wider dissemination ie for the creation of a people’s literature.

Grass hoods history, history seen from below or the history of the common people, people’s history, and even ‘history of everyday life. The conventional history about the great deeds of the ruling classes received further boost from the great tradition of political and administrative historiography developed by Ranke and his followers. The history from below was an attempt to write the history of the common people. It is history concerned with the activities and thoughts of those people and regions that were neglected by the earlier historians. Peasants and working classes, women and minority groups, unknown faces in the crowd, and the people lost in the past became the central concern of this historiographical tradition.

According to Raphael Samuel, the term “people’s history” has had a long career, and covers and ensemble of different writing. The beginning of the history from below may be traced to the late 18^th century. In the classical western tradition, history-writing involved the narration of the deeds of great men. The common people were considered to be beyond the boundaries of history and it was beneath the dignity of the historian to write about them. Peter burke points out, ‘until the middle of the eighteenth century, the word “society” in its modern sense did not exist in any European language, and without the word it is very difficult to have any conception of that network of relationships we call “society” or “the social structure”.

In India, most of members of the subordinate classes, including the industrial classes, are not literate, therefore, direct sources coming from them are extremely rare, if not completely absent. Given this scenario, the historian trying to write history from below have to rely on indirect sources. As sabyasachi bhattacharjee points out, given the low level of literacy we have to depend on interferences from behavior pattern. Report on opinions and sentiments, on oral testimonies etc. oral traditions also have their problems. They cannot be stretched back too far and one has to work within living memory. These problems are outlined by one of the great practitioner of history from below, Ranjit Guha,the founder of the subaltern studies . Above all “history from below” has to face problem of the ultimate relative failure of mass initiative in colonial India,

Most talk about elitist origins of the evidences which the historians use for understanding the mentalities behind the peasant rebellions. This has come down to us in the form of official records of one kind or another –police reports, army dispatches, administrative accounts, minutes and resolutions of governmental departments, and so on. Non-official sources of our information on the subject, such as newspapers or the private correspondence between persons of authority, too speak in the same elitist voice, even if it is that of the indigenous elite or of non-Indians outside officialdom.

History from the below,  As the perspective of the common people in the process of history- writing. It is in against that concept of historiography, which believes I Disraeli’s dictum that history is the biography of great men. Instead the history from below endeavors to take into accounts the lives and activities of masses who are otherwise ignored by the conventional historians. Moreover it attempts to take their point of view into accounts as far possible. It is venture; the historians face a lot of problems because the sources are biased in favor of the rulers, administrators and the dominant classes in general.

Homo sapiens, our own species, are distinct from other mammals: great apes such as chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans and from early hominids. At some point between 8 and 4 million years ago gorillas and then chimpanzees split off from the evolutionary line that would lead to humans. As Michael H. Hart explains in his fine book Understanding Human History, Australopithecus afarensis, our likely hominid forefather, lived in East Africa about 3.5 million years ago. The Australian anthropologist Raymond Dart (1893-1988) discovered the first fossil of an Australopithecus Africans, a slightly more evolved version of A. aphaeresis, in 1924 in southern Africa. It was neither ape nor human and caused a stir at the time. Prior to this find, most Western scholars had believed that humans evolved in Eurasia. Louis Leakey (1903-1972), the son of British missionaries, was an archaeologist and naturalist working in British-ruled East Africa. He went to school at Cambridge University in England, majoring in anthropology and graduating in 1926. From the very start Louis felt that our species arose in Africa, a concept which is now widely held but was controversial at that time. Through their tireless exploration and research, Louis and his English wife, the archaeologist and anthropologist Mary Leakey (1913-1996), made the Olduvai Gorge in the Serengeti region in northern Tanzania, famous for its wildlife, their domain. They made a series of spectacular pale anthropological and archaeological discoveries in East Africa and founded a Leakey family dynasty of leading scientists that is currently in its third generation. Lucy, the skeleton of an Australopithecus aphaeresis that lived 3.2 million years ago, was discovered in Ethiopia in 1974 by the American pale anthropologist Donald Johnson (born 1943) along with the French anthropologist Yves Coppens (born 1934). The genus Homo diverged from Australopithecines more than two million years ago with Homo habilis, which made very crude stone tools called Oldowan after the Olduvai Gorge. About 1.8 million years ago a new species, Homo erectus, arose in East Africa, the first hominid to spread out of Africa. The earliest fossil of Homo erectus (“human that stands upright”), the Java man, was discovered by Dutch physician and pale anthropologist Eugene Dubois (1858-1940) in 1891 on the island of Java, then under Dutch colonial rule. H. erectus existed not just in Africa but in parts of Eurasia as far as Java in Southeast Asia, but apparently never settled in Australia or the Americas; this was achieved by early modern Homo sapiens during the past 40,000 years.

It is an unavoidable truth that the advents of British rule had brought peace and good government to the subcontinent of India. Prior to that India was a country subdivided on the basis of different norms like race, religion, caste etc. it was emphatically the British rule which laid the foundation of united India. The negative impact of colonial rule was sharply criticized by Indian nationalists in the 19^th and 20^th century from Dadabhai naoroji to Mahatma Gandhi. Even Marxists like Ramakrishna Mukherjee and R.P.Dutta expressed their grave concern about the transformation of India into a colonial economy. During the British rule the dominion of Indian states saw a trend of continuous changes in different fields which had brought peace and good government to the subcontinent. Huge public investment in the country brought about the development of a modern transport and communications network. The railway network and irrigation system introduced by the British in the then India was a foundation on which a modern Indian economy took birth. The blessings of western science and the benefits of education was showered upon the Indians. As a result Indians got a new perspective and a new outlook to prepare them for attaining freedom from colonial rule. Eventually self government was formed which was acknowledged by scholars like Vera Antsy and Theodore Morison. The theory of drain of wealth was strongly proposed by nationalists like Dadabhai Naoroji, Mahadeb Govinda Ranade, and J.V.Joshi. They were of the opinion that during the British rule the Indians economy was impoverished and subordinated to meet the need of the British economy. Several new policies were introduced like free trade policies, highland revenues etc. policies like free trade led to the growth of landless agricultural labor De-industrialization resulted in the decline of employment in the secondary sector of the economy. Commercialization of agriculture led to the formation of landless, formation of different classes of peasants and growth of sharecropping and tenancy. Both merchants and money Landers wanted to reap the benefit of the situation. As a result exploitation of poor peasants in their lands increased considerably. With the ill desire of colonial expansion policy of free trade was given utmost importance. British industries like Lancashire cotton textile industry flooded the markets in India. Nationalists were of the opinion that the British were tried to transform India into a valuable source of raw materials and an important consumer of British manufactured products. Scientific and technical education was neglected and investment in irrigation and agriculture was almost nil. Through a comparatively good railway network was build up. But that was also to drain of wealth from this country more speedily and effectively and to send the British manufactured products to every nook and corner of the country. Colonial economy was perceived by the Marxists as a foundation on the basis of which broad changes were brought in British economy. Indians resources contributed substantially in the creation of huge capital which paved the way of British industrial revolution in its primary stages. Karl Marx himself opined that first phase of colonialism would be destructive and it would be followed by a regenerative phase. The nationalists and majority of Marxists agreed that impact of colonial rule in India was basically negative. The emergence of liberal and neo-liberal-interpretation gave new ideas about British imperialism. Scholars like Cain and Hopkins opined that the British exploitation of the colonies did not benefit the British people as a whole. As British industrial goods got a good market in the colonial world and due to overseas investment domestic investment was discouraged and new industries did not come up substantially in Britain. The study of ecology environment was considered important by scholars. During the British rule production of poppy and indigo was encouraged which had a negative impact on Indian ecology and environment. Elizabeth whitecombe had drawn attention to the harmful effects of overuse of irrigation water by peasants and the blocking of drainage channels by rail and road development. The devastating famine of the 19^th century was also attributed to the cause of British colonial exploitation. Though women had an undeniable role in agriculture their involvement in the industrial sector was very little.

Protestantism is often eradiated with creation of a new ethic that encouraged capitalist development. It is claimed that the inherited medieval theology had hampered its growth. St. Jerome, the compiler of bible in Latin had declared in fourth century that “a rich man is either a thief or the son of a thief”. This declaration in no way stood in the way of church to amass wealth and landed estates. The reformation censured the riches of pope, the bishops and the monasteries, but at the same time, sanctioned the right of every man to the fruits of his labours and his moderate ways of life. Usury was discouraged and legally forbidden to catholic Christians in the medieval societies. The new protestant spirit allowed amassing of wealth from production and credit. The new economic role of Calvinism and Protestantism in the rise of capitalist entrepreneurs has been the subject of a prolonged controversy among social scientists. The protestant spirit engulfed most of the modern Europe as it became associated with interests and aspirations that were not entirely theological. It led to profound changes in Europe life and society. Magisterial reformation:- the anti-clergy feeling in Europe got crystallised broadly into two streams one was of the radical reformers while the other was of Influential moderate, theologian like Haldreych Zwingli in Switzerland, martin Bucer in Strasbourg and john Calvin of France. These moderate theologians used the services of secular state authorities in spreading their beliefs. They came to be known as ‘magisterial’ reformers, because of reliance they placed on magistrates in furthering the independent, divine mission of moral discipline through church. In other words, they stressed the role of reformed church as an independent power standing side by side the secular state. The reformation, though primarily due to religious schism, also grew due to symbiosis of moderate protestant reformers with the secular need, of the state. The exigencies of strong absolutist monarchies, relying on incipient nationalism, made it necessary for them to restrict the interference of pope in their affair.

Calvinism: – john Calvin born in north western France embraced Protestantism in 1533 and was invited to assist in the reformation of city of Geneva in 1541. Calvin worked to establish a reformed charge and Christian community through city magistrates and reformed ministers. Calvin’s ideas are embodied in the institutes of Christian religion. The basic element in his theology was his belief in the absolute sovereignty and omnipotence of god and total weakness of humanity. Calvin did not ascribe free will to human beings. He believed in the law of predestination the eternal decree of god. It means that human beings cannot actively work through ‘good works’ for their salvation because god decided at the beginning of time who would achieve salvation and who would be demand. However, Calvinism became a prominent force in Protestantism. The Calvinist ethic of the ‘calling’ dignified all work. It also provided Protestantism with a systematic theology and well-organised administrative machinery. Calvin’s theology and reformed church influenced the French Protestants called Huguenots and Scottish Presbyterians. In France, spread of Calvinism, as the city bourgeoisie and power knights joined the ranks of Huguenots, led to the war of religions. Many Huguenots were massacred at st. Bartholomew night on august 29, 1572.

John Knox, a passionate Calvinist preacher, tried to restructure the Scottish church after the model of Calvin’s Geneva. In 1560 Knox persuaded the Scottish parliament to enact legislation ending papal authority. The mass was abolished and attendance at mass forbidden under penalty of death. The Church of Scotland came to be known as Presbyterians church because presbyters or ministers not bishops governed it. Calvin while upholding the sanctity of legitimate secular authority as a direct instrument of divine-will also gave a qualified support to rebellions against tyrannical absolute rule. The political implications of this meant that Calvinists tried to break the power of the catholic and aristocratic minorities.

Anglicanism or the English reformation: – the origin of reformation in English in England can be traced to a number of social, economic and political causes. Demand for reform of the church was voiced in the fourteenth century by the landlords. Although suppressed, they survived in London, East Anglia, Kent and southern England especially among the workers. Their anti-clergy ideals led to a personal, scriptural, non sacramental and lay centred religion. The English humanists also stimulated such cries for reforms. The reformation in England, however, was a state-initiated reform programme and got entangled in the growth of absolutist monarchy. In 1538, instructions were issued that church services were to be compulsorily conducted in English instead of Latin. The English reformation, however, was a gradual and piecemeal process as the majority of believers in England still clung to their catholic faith. The Tudor state lacked the necessary bureaucratic and policing institutions to enforce religious changes. However, the religious reforms brought about profound changes in the English society.

Anabaptists:-the name of Anabaptist is derived from a Greek word meaning ‘to baptise again’. Anabaptists, the radical reformers, believed in adult baptism or entry into the Christian community, thus providing free choice about religious faith, Scriptural basis for baptising children and infants. They were opposed to ecclesiastical hierarchy and wanted to make the church a voluntary association of believers who had experienced a spiritual illumination. The Anabaptists organised an uprising at monster (1534-35), where they introduced their secular ideals. The princes of Germany along with the protestant thinkers-Zwingli, Luther, Calvin as well as the Catholics all combined to track down and persecute there radical elements. However, traces of their ideas survived. Later the Quakers with their stress on inner spiritual awakening and the Congregationalists with their democratic church organisation represented the continuity with Anabaptist ideals.

Tools in Paleolithic period: copper was the first metal to be used in most parts of the world, followed by bronze. The later one is an alloy of copper with a low percentage of arsenic, lead or tin. The advantage of these metals is not necessarily that they can be melted and cast into a wide range of shapes and sizes of tools and weapons. Their working edges or point in the desired form made them more convenient to use. Some of tools made with copper were beveled-edge (bevel-an instrument for measuring angles.konmapak jantra) chisels (batali) in a range of sizes, toothed saws, adzes (bais) with sharp edges and heavy.-duty axes, in additional, copper is malleable (that may be beaten out by hammering). So it can be beaten into thin sheets or vessels (boat,ship, ferry, pot) of the desired shape. Metallurgy (datubidya) in the Paleolithic period came into its own when specialists produced objects for royal ancestor rituals as in china, or tools for unban workshops of the Mesopotamian temple and palace establishment or for mortuary cults as in Egypt. The infrastructure such as fuel, raw material and the day to day needs of metallurgists could be provided. For casting copper it melts at 1084*C- a higher temperature is required though for a short time, and the molten metal is quickly poured into a mould to set in the required shape. The ancient Egyptians are known to have used blow pipes and bellows to increase the oxygen supply in the kiln, thereafter the ore is melted by raising the temperature. Complex casting, with the use of closed mould and lost wax techniques, came into use in early dynastic Mesopotamia for temple statuary, for shaft holo axes used as weapons etc. beaten copper helmets were worn by warriors. Copper was acquired from the peninsula of Oman, and from several places in upland Anatolia and Iran. Egypt acquired copper from the peninsula of Sinai, a blue stone containing copper and aluminum phosphate. In south Asia excavated material of the period preceding the cities of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa has produced very little metal. A few crucible fragments, and some pieces of rods and bangles, are the main finds. There were metal fishing hooks and razors for everyday use. Weighing scale pans were made of metal, for accuracy. Metal weapon included arrows, daggers, and sword blades; as elsewhere, there was weaponry both in bronze/ copper and in stone. The advent of metallurgy itself has been far speedier in china tha in western Asia. Stone tools are first attested around 2.6 Ma, When H.Habilis in Eastern Africa used so-called pebble tools, choppers made out of round pebbles that had been split by simple strikes. This marks the beginning of the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age; it end is taken to be the end of the last Ice age around 10000 years ago. The Paleolithic is sub divided into the lower Paleolithic, the middle Paleolithic and the upper Paleolithic. the period from 700,000-300000 years ago is also known as the acheulean, when H.Ergaster made large stone hand axes out of flint and quartzite, at first quite rough, later retouched by additional more subtle strikes at the sides of the flakes. After 350,000 the more refined so-called levallois technique was developed. It consisted of a series of consecutive strikes, by which scrapers, slices, needles and flattened needles were made. At this way stone tools of Paleolithic period was developed.

History From below means, Grass hoods history, history seen from below or the history of the common people, people’s history, and even ‘history of everyday life. The conventional history about the great deeds of the ruling classes received further boost from the great tradition of political and administrative historiography developed by Ranke and his followers. The history from below was an attempt to write the history of the common people. It is history concerned with the activities and thoughts of those people and regions that were neglected by the earlier historians. Peasants and working classes, women and minority groups, unknown faces in the crowd, and the people lost in the past became the central concern of this historiographical tradition.

According to Raphael Samuel, the term “people’s history” has had a long career, and covers and ensemble of different writing. The beginning of the history from below may be traced to the late 18^th century. In the classical western tradition, history-writing involved the narration of the deeds of great men. The common people were considered to be beyond the boundaries of history and it was beneath the dignity of the historian to write about them. Peter burke points out, ‘until the middle of the eighteenth century, the word “society” in its modern sense did not exist in any European language, and without the word it is very difficult to have any conception of that network of relationships we call “society” or “the social structure”.

In India, most of members of the subordinate classes, including the industrial classes, are not literate, therefore, direct sources coming from them are extremely rare, if not completely absent. Given this scenario, the historian trying to write history from below have to rely on indirect sources. As sabyasachi bhattacharjee points out, given the low level of literacy we have to depend on interferences from behavior pattern. Report on opinions and sentiments, on oral testimonies etc. oral traditions also have their problems. They cannot be stretched back too far and one has to work within living memory. These problems are outlined by one of the great practitioner of history from below, Ranjit Guha,the founder of the subaltern studies . Above all “history from below” has to face problem of the ultimate relative failure of mass initiative in colonial India,

Most talk about elitist origins of the evidences which the historians use for understanding the mentalities behind the peasant rebellions. This has come down to us in the form of official records of one kind or another –police reports, army dispatches, administrative accounts, minutes and resolutions of governmental departments, and so on. Non-official sources of our information on the subject, such as newspapers or the private correspondence between persons of authority, too speak in the same elitist voice, even if it is that of the indigenous elite or of non-Indians outside officialdom.

History from the below,  As the perspective of the common people in the process of history- writing. It is in against that concept of historiography, which believes I Disraeli’s dictum that history is the biography of great men. Instead the history from below endeavors to take into accounts the lives and activities of masses who are otherwise ignored by the conventional historians. Moreover it attempts to take their point of view into accounts as far possible. It is venture; the historians face a lot of problems because the sources are biased in favor of the rulers, administrators and the dominant classes in general.

This article is under construction

Feudal society had a hierarchical structure in which individuals had their designated positions. King was at the top of this structure who bestowed fiefs or estates on a number of lords. The lords distributed fiefs to a number of vassals who had their specified duties and obligations. The knights were at the bottom of this hierarchy and performed military duties. The whole system worked on strong bonds of personal loyalty and allegiance.

The feudal system had its own specific forms and structures. The feudal ties involved a series of obligations binding on lords, vassals and peasants. Homage and the acknowledgment of obligation of fidelity to lord was the governing principle. The fief in the form of a landed estate was of varying size. It was also in the form of public authority or a duty or right. Elaborate rules governed the inheritance of fiefs where lords had their defined powers. The peasantry within a manor had a sort of stratification some enjoying rights and others completely subjugated. The cultivators were subjected to heavy land tax and various chesses. The institution of knights evolved out of the   need for armed power to protect the manors and suppress dissent inside it. While going through this unit you must have noticed that the form and structure of feudalism was not uniform in the whole of Europe and there were significant variations in different regions which were pointed out during our discussion.

Forms and structure of the feudaral society.

The legal complex of acts by which one free man placed himself in the protection of another was known as commendation. The primary rite of commendation was known as homage, which all classes performed during the Merovingian period but came to be limited under the Carolingian kings to the members of the aristocratic class. Reflecting the improvement of the status of vassalage in the middle of the eight century, the Carolingian added to the ceremony an oath of fealty (vassal’s acknowledgment of fidelity to his lord) to emphasize the fact that the vassals, now comprising the members of aristocracy, served as free men. In principle at least the contract of vassalage was regarded as one freely concluded between the two parties. The doing of homage and the taking an oath of fealty were fairly frequently accompanied, especially in France, by a ceremonial kiss (osculum,0, which was not only a spectacular way of confirming the obligations contracted by the two parties, but also lent dignity to the status of the vassal.

The lord or the chief of a group of vassals could both keep the vassal in his own house and feed, cloth and equip him at his own expense, or he could endow him with an estate or regular incomes derived from land and leave him to provide for his own maintenance. When a lord died without a certain heir, his vassals were regarded as the vassals of his lord until an heir to the decreased was legally established. In other words, the rights of a lord in the fiefs of his vassals necessarily reverted on his death without heirs to the lord of whom he ultimately held those fiefs. A fief normally consisted of a landed estate, which could very greatly in size. But a fief might also be some form of public authority, or a duty or right, including the right to tolls and market dues, the rights of minting and justice, the functions of advocate, mayor, provost, receiver, and so on. These fiefs which had no territorial basis consist or in the right. To certain payment made at regular intervals were known as ‘money fiefs’ inheritance of fiefs:- as long as the inheritance of fiefs had not become an established custom, the lord could demand some recompense from the aspiring candidate before admitting him as a vassal. To fealty and homage and investing him with the fief. The payment which the lord exacted on, this account was commonly known as relief, which could vary depending upon the importance of the particular fief in question-from a horse and the equipment of a knight to one year’s revenue of the fief.

Allods:-while feudal tenure – the villain tenements and the fiefs – was certainly the most common mode of holding land, it was not the only form of real property rights. There was the ‘allods’which remained independent to a significant degree owing to the porous and limited nature of the feudal network of dependent ties. The allodial right was one of complete ownership, not subject to any conditions of service or payment.

Manors:- The fundamental unit of economic production as well as social life in the feudal order was the manor. A manor was first and foremost an agglomeration of small dependent farms directly subjected to the authority of a lord and farmed by serfs or peasant cultivators bound to the soul. In a characteristic manor the village was composed of peasant households clustered together in crude homes around the nucleus of a church, grist and stone mill, blacksmith shop, wine press, bakery and other facilities. Though the manorial village was not entirely self-sufficient since certain essential commodities like salt or metal – were had to be obtained from outside sources, most of the daily needs of the peasants could be met with the goods produced within the manor. The majority of the manorial population was a vast body of servile peasantry of diverse origins, although over the course of the centuries the traces of the distinction mostly disappeared for all practical purposes.

Knights, tournaments and chivalry:-a knight was essentially a mounted warrior in the service of his liege – lord using the speed and momentum of a charge, the horse could trample his rider’s enemies and the rider could use the long lance to injure his foes while he remained out of reach of their weapons. The true knight also disdained all tricks in battle and was not supposed to strike an unarmed or unprepared enemy. Although it was held that a knight ought to help all ladies to the utmost of his power, especially if they had been deprived of their rights, or was in distress of any kind, he was expected to choose one as the special object of his attraction. To win her grace, or to enhance her reputation, he sought adventures, and fought for her both in war and tournaments. However, chivalry might be understood more as a normative guide of knight’s behavior than as a true reflection of what the knights actually did.