The Agreement Between Lord And Vassal Summary

The Agreement between Lord and Vassal is an account of a relationship between Hugh of Lusignan and William V of Aquitaine (who was also Count of Poitiers ). This account is seen through the perspective of Hugh, and provides examples of different powers, actions, and decisions of lords and vassals. According to the introduction of the Agreement, this account was "wrote or dictated " between 1020 and 1025 . Through criticism and analysis of this source, I hope to determine what information historians can gather from a first-person document and how/if this document has a place in the milieu of history.

Because the account is through the viewpoint of the vassal, who feels he has been slighted, we must take what he says about his lords and treatment

with care. Hugh feels he has been cheated out of lands that belonged to his ancestors. While Hugh felt cheated, one must keep in mind that inheritance laws may not have been in his favor. While readers do not learn what the inheritance laws are from the agreement itself, according to Saul's text that inheritance laws to bequeath lands were not formally established in England until around the 12th century, one hundred years after the life of Hugh . (Origin of inheritance laws in the 12th century can also be found in the law codes of the Cuenca-Teruel, further supporting the claim that they did not exist to aid Hugh) Feudalism-the blanket term used to describe the lord/vassal relationships- was not the same in all areas, but one can surmise that laws were similar due to England's acquisition of Aquitaine when Henry II took over in 1152. When William finally does concede to give Hugh the lands and "honors" of his uncle, he is not doing so because of any inheriting right, but so he can regain the trust of Hugh. Had inheritance laws been in place, Hugh may have been entitled to the lands and honors of his father and other relatives (which William denies him). So while, Hugh may have felt cheated by the denial of his ancestor's lands, he probably would not have been legally entitled to them.
Another thought to take into question, was who Hugh was when he was presenting his argument.

Because he had knights and men of his own, according to the Agreement, it can be assumed that he was not some lowly peasant, but rather a lower level noble . We can assume that if Hugh did write this document himself, he could not have been a peasant, because as a whole peasants were illiterate, and their histories are written by those above them. Beech refers to Hugh as a castellan, or castle governor, which would be an accurate term to describe Hugh's state of power. Because of his inferior status to the Count, Hugh would have had to surrender his own men to the Count whenever the Count demanded. This would add to the slightness that Hugh felt. How could he be respected in his position, when he was denied (in his eyes) of his rights, and still had to concede to the will of his lord? To Hugh, this would not be fair, because the Count was not holding up his end of the deal. As a reader, one would be led to side with Hugh, without getting a proper account from the Count. The reader must keep in mind that they are only getting one viewpoint. In From Reliable Sources, the authors talk "suppression and shading" of information. What is Hugh not telling us or hiding from us? We can never really know because of lack of the Count's point of view. The absence of the viewpoint of the lord leads to a very much biased source. What we also do not know is how long after the transgressions done by the Count to Hugh did Hugh choose to document the information? We know that is was documented between 1020 and 1025 (estimated), but is Hugh remembering this at the end of his life? The end of the Agreement states that he did receive the "honor of his uncle Joscelin" one year before he died, and history assumes his death to be no later than 1032. If Hugh is recalling the events mentioned as late as seven to twelve years later, one must take into consideration the loss of memory that

people can have, and how memories can often be faulty and warped to suit the needs of the author. Just because it is a biased document, does mean that we should throw it out completely. It does accurately represent some aspects of the lord/vassal relationship.
Some things that this source does seem to accurately present is the loyalty of a vassal to a lord and the power that a lord had over his vassal. It appears that no matter what his lord does, be if confiscating men and lands or sending him into battle, Hugh remains loyal to him . On page 378 of the Agreement, Hugh questions why the lord treats him the way he does and denies him so much to which the Count replied "I do not ask you them in order to do you wrong but because your are mine." This power of a lord is further supported by the actions of another lord of Hugh's, Count Fulk, when he says to Hugh, "How can you, my vassal, hold something which I did not give, against my will?" The only thing that Hugh could do with the latter situation was go to the Count of Poitiers for help, he could openly defy his lord. While the Agreement is only one document, this display of power is supported by Saul's text, in that the oath of fidelity was taken seriously. The Agreement begins with the ceremony of Roho the Bishop witnessing the deal between Hugh and William, and Roho sealed the deal by "kiss(ing) the arm of the count." This signifies that the deal was not only between the two men, but also with God, and therefore your eternal soul could be in danger if you did not hold up your end of the deal. This explains the loyalty of Hugh. What is does not explain is how the Count could go back on his end of the deal, if the relationship between vassal and lord was so sacred. This could imply that the lord was not as held to his end of the bargain, or that the Count perhaps did not go back on his promise, as Hugh says. This ceremonial aspect is further detailed by Saul, describing the ceremony of "homage," with the vassals kneeling before lord, and taking the "oath of fidelity." This public and religious displays of the establishment of the feudal relationship explain the legitimacy and formality of these agreements. These deals and relationships were not just two people verbally exchanging promises; they were lifelong promises, almost a marriage of sorts.
While we no longer have feudal relationships today, there are a few modern concepts that can help us relate to the feudal relationships of that era. Earlier the term "marriage" was brought up. Often these relationships were lifelong commitments, such as a marriage is. And while very rare, vassals would swear allegiance to other lords to get out of original dealing, almost like a divorce in today's sense. There is also the modern employer/employee relationship, where in exchange for labor, the employer grants the employee money. The combination of the marriage commitment and the exchange of labor, can give a modern-day insight into this 11th century relationship. This comparison should be seen as completely equivalent to the feudal relationship, because we do not have a true modern concept of the relationship (even back then, no two feudal relationships were the same), but rather as an aid to understanding the complex relationship.
This document deserves a place in the milieu of history. As mentioned, it does present some accurate facts involving the lord/vassal relationship, and just because it is biased, does not necessarily mean that it is false. To Huge, what he was arguing was the truth. It was his truth. While the Agreement does not state why he dictated or wrote out this agreement, historians can come up with a few theories. Perhaps it was an airing of grievances, like he wanted to just get his message out there and express his frustrations. Perhaps it was for his own personal records or for legal reasons. We cannot assume that he was doing this for the benefit of historical study over one thousand years later. What we can agree upon is that this is a document that shows how one vassal felt about his relationship with his lord.