Bisson’s view that “the historical study of nobility is little else but a matter of perspective,”[1] is problematic in the sense that, at its core, Bisson appears to believe that there can be no historical consensus on the nature of medieval nobility. The articulation of his paper is centered on the two major schools of thought, the French and the German, and their intellectual offspring. Inherent to the problem, initially set up by Bloch and Tellenbach are the questions of origin of this medieval nobility: are the nobles a new cast of people, or do they trace their origins back to an older group of privileged people?
To Bisson, the answer to this question is a matter of perspective. Bloch was a social historian, and, Bisson states, Bloch viewed the nobility as a creation of the 11th century, when, essentially bloodlines are institutionalized by means of a juridical process.[2] That is, the nobiles are essentially a legal institution of the landowners of the eleventh century. Contra Bloch are the studies of the German school, put forward by Tellenbach and Karl Schmid. Using a prosopographical survey of the major families, Tellenbach attempted to demonstrate that the families traced their origins back to Late Antiquity, while Schmid identified the difficulties with tracing the origins to the difference of perception of families in the Frankish realm and in the 12th century. Both of these studies were based on the German libri memoriales of monasteries.[3] Thus for the Germans, there is no “revolution”, but rather an evolution.
The harmonization of the two views is taken up by Georges Duby. The milites were magnates, whose origins can be traced to the Carolingians. But these magnates increasingly became interested in land-ownership, eventually managing their own wives’ property. Therein lies what Bisson calls the transformation of familial structures, from a large kin based system of horizontal allegiances (that is to say, the gens of the Romans), to a vertical familial system of inheritance by the direct bloodlines.[4]
It is from Duby’s studies (from the original Mâconnais study to its revision after the publication of Schmid’s work), that, according to an approbating Bisson, the study of nobility shifted to family ties. First, the American Andrew W. Lewis argued that such a pattern can already be seen in the succession of the Capetian nobles, and that this practice was developed between 860 and 960.[5] Applying this model to the nobles was tricky. While the Bouchard study appears to show that the high nobility (people “flying dangerously close to the sun”) used similar naming strategies to indicate dynastic continuity.[6]
In sum, Bisson, in what can only be described as a historiographical survey,[7] argues that the nobility essentially evolved out of a magnate class (which may or may not go back to the Merovingians), which essentially reformed the way it conducted its inheritance policies.
The criticism comes from Barthélémy. Barthélémy, in The Serf, the Knight and the Historian, does not criticize Bisson himself, but rather the foundational work on the Mâconnais of Georges Duby. For Duby, Barthélémy argues (at length), there is a revolution around the year 1000 in terms of the system that governed France. Indeed, from the year 1000 onward, the knighthood becomes a class in itself, evolving from the nobility.[8] Barthélémy views this particular problem in different terms, more in the juridical tradition of Bloch, looking primarily at legal documents. For Barthélémy Carolingian diplomatic documents denote two things, nobility and vassality, and that nobiles and milites are not substitute for one another. In a sense, the use of nobiles and miles is a way for a society to define itself in Roman terms.[9]
I would take this even further. The continuity between Merovingians and Capetians (in terms of nobility) can be linked to the fact that at its base, Frankish society did develop around Roman institutions. Michael Kulikowski, in Rome’s Gothic Wars,[10] does argue that the barbarian “tribes” are a product of the frontier. The inherent problem that this interpretation poses is that there is a lack of a “native” tradition in reality. But most importantly, the sources for the barbarians are profoundly Roman in their outlook; therefore, these early-medieval authors are explaining the Merovingian phenomenon in Roman/Christian terms (for instance, Theodoric was a protector Urbis, a consul etc…). Thus, the reality represented by the terms, Nobiles and especially milites are inherently Roman terms, used by “Roman” historians/chroniclers in order to show continuity with the Roman past.
Barthélémy’s most persuasive point does not necessarily relate to the absence of revolution in or around the year 1000 (though this is the main point of his book), but rather, and especially for the case of the Knights and the Nobles, that being a Knight is an activity-and to engage in this activity, one must go through the initiation Onorare Militum- while being a noble is a matter of birth.[11] The most important demonstration comes from the use of milites and nobiles. Here, Barthélémy argues, nobiles and milites can be used interchangeably, unlike what, Tellenbach et al. propose, namely that the synonyms of nobiles were potentes, illustrissimi, optimates and milites.[12] This particular point is relatively clearly expressed in the charters from Champagne. In 1190, Hagan can be both Lord of Evry and a knight (doc 51). Even as late as 1249, a testament shows that Lord Hugh is both noble-born AND a knight (doc 54). Thus, it does appear as though the words are not interchangeable, and that knight does not mean either noble or lord.
Thus, it appears that Barthélémy is correct, at least in expressing concern for the development of the knighthood, as evolving out of a nobility. The gradients of nobility are shown in a charter from 1249 or 1250, where Count Thibault IV writes to “all barons, castellans, knights and other feudal tenants ” (doc 10). This document would at least tend to imply that there are numerous layers to that “feudal” society.
[1] T.N. Bisson, ‘Nobility and Family in Medieval France: A Review Essay’, French Historical Studies 16.3 (1990), p.597-613, p.599.
[2] Ibid, pp.597-99.
[3] Ibid: It is, however, worth noting that the perspective of Tellenbach and Schmid may yield erroneous results. Indeed, it would not be surprising IF nobles claimed an older ancestry to enhance their prestige. After all, the myth of continuity between the Merovingians and the Carolingians was “invented” by the Carolingian biographers of Charlemagne. Then, can’t this attitude be generalized? What other records are there that attest the continuity of the lines?
[4] Ibid, p.600-602.
[5] Ibid, p.603-604.
[6] Ibid, p.605-606. This is, after all, Philippe Buc’s argument, that an emphasis on continuity is very likely to represent an actual discontinuity.
[7] He unabashedly believes that this study of nobility is a study of perception, see above, note 1.
[8] Dominique Barthélémy, The Knight, the Serf and the Historian (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p.640). T.N. Bisson, ‘Nobility and Family’, p.602.
[9] This goes well with the spirit of the Carolingian Renaissance. Dominique Barthélémy, The Knight, the Serf and the Historian, see esp. chapter 5.
[10] Michael Kulikowski, Rome’s Gothic Wars (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007)
[11] Dominique Barthélémy, The Knight, the Serf and the Historian, esp. Chapter 6-7.
[12] T.N. Bisson, ‘Nobility and Family’, p.598.
