Latest revision as of 01:28, 22 November 2015

alt text

Feudal Hierarchy

Mediaeval Western Europe was largely governed through feudalism, which was a system substituted for the professional administration and paid military that would have been possible if there had been much of a cash economy, education, or communication. Where there was mostly nothing but subsistence agriculture, and little trade, travel, money, or education, rule through personal loyalty and rents in kind from agriculture was very nearly the only thing possible. The feudal contract between a Lord and a Vassal was then to confer a "living," i.e. land with people and produce, in return for ruling the land and providing military service for the Lord.

The power to rule the land was a loss for the Lord, but in the absence of paid administrators, there wasn't much alternative (although for a while the German Emperors were able to use the Church). Whether the military service was actually provided largely depended on the prestige of the Lord and the loyalty of the Vassal.

The ultimate feudal rank was Emperor, but this was also anomalous. The original Emperor, the Roman Emperor, resided in Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Rome had rejected Kings. Julius Caesar refused a crown.

So Augustus was merely the imperator, i.e. "commander." In Mediaeval Romania, some level of cash economy remained, and the device of conferring land for livings was at first restricted to soldiers who would till the land themselves, not conferred on a nobility that could become disloyal.

The Emperor was the only sovereign -- the

and

. Since basileus had been the Classical Greek word for "king," Latin rex was adopted, as

, for Mediaeval Greek [Note]. The Emperor was the "Equal to the Apostles" (

, isapóstolos) and thus had a traditional role in the governance of the Church ("Caesaro-Papism"). For instance, it was the Emperor who called Church Councils. Members of the Imperial Family are always portrayed with halos, like the Saints. This exalted status for the Emperor was never found in Western Europe, though the Emperor Sigismund did call

the Council of Constance (1414-1418) to end the Great Schism -- which he was able to do since there were three rival Popes; later Popes denied that the Emperors had such a power inherently. This and other innovations in Papal claims, including assertions of secular authority, mean that the term "Caesaro-Papism" might be better applied to the Papacy, which assumed imperial pretentions, rather than to the Emperors, whether in Constantinople or in Germany, who exercised no eccelesiastical authority beyond what Constantine had.

When the Pope crowned the Frankish King Charlemagne Emperor, the claim was still that this was the only Emperor, whose authority was universal, if by leave of the Pope, whose ultimate authority was also universal. The Emperors in Constantinople at times accepted that they had a Western colleague, as in Late Antiquity, but there could have been a subtle and clever spin on it. Since the Tetrarchy, "Caesar" had been used as the title of subordinate Emperors. It was still used in Mediaeval Romania -- in Greek. Well, in German and Russian, the Emperors were called Kaiser and Tsar, respectively, which are obviously the words for "Caesar" in those languages. So the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople could remain the only true "Augustus," (or , Sebastós, the equivalent in Greek), the senior Emperor, with the Germans and Russians (prospectively, since there weren't Russian Tsars yet) regarded as Caesares. However, this sort of distinction does not seem to have been made. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d.959) said that Charlemagne "reigned as emperor," ebasíleuse, over "Great Francia," [De Administrando Imperio, Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 1967, 2008, p.108]. The verb basileuô is based on the noun basileus, , which, as we have seen, was used for the Roman Emperor. The Porphyrogenitus was thus not thinking of Charlemagne as a mere "Caesar."

The universal authority of the Wester Emperor was not always acknowledged in Mediaeval Western Europe -- the Kings of France always denied it -- but there never was more than one duly crowned one -- the Pope would not have stood for it -- despite the occasional king, as in Spain, who thought it might be nice to an emperor. When the customary right to be thus crowned settled on the German Kings,

the institution of the Imperial Electors arose from the traditional electoral nature of the German Kingship. This was then thought to nicely parallel the electoral nature of the Papacy. But an electoral monarchy in Germany, as in Poland, spelled disaster for the power of the Throne.

In time, rivals to the Emperor in Constantinople (and where the writ of the Pope did not run) arose, in Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey,

and in the form of the Latin Emperors who ruled in the Constantinople taken by the Fourth Crusade. Later, after Fall of the city to the Turks, Russia claimed the Imperial legacy. In Western Europe, however, no rivals to the traditional Emperor arose until Napoleon claimed the status in 1804. He at least had the Pope hand him the crown. Soon, however, there were other Empires in Europe (Austria, 1804; France again, 1852; and then Germany, 1871), without even a nod to the Papacy. Other European sovereigns found foreign Empires, like Brazil for Portugal in 1822, Mexico for France/Austria in 1864, India for Britain in 1876, and Ethiopia for Italy in 1936.

Feudalism, however, was not basically a matter of the Emperors. It began with the Germanic Kings who replaced the Western Roman Empire.

The Kingdom became the basic unit of rule in Western Europe. The words for King in Latin (rex) and Gothic (reiks) were from the Old Indo-European root of sacred kingship (e.g. Sanskrit raja).

In later Germanic languages, king (German könig) was the ruler of the kin, the leader of the tribe or people. In Eastern Europe the word for "king" is noteworthy. In Czech it is král, in Polish król, and in Hungarian király. For comparison, the same word in Croatian is

kralj, in Slovakian král', in Russian kor´l, and in Lithuanian karalius. Just as the Latin name Caesar gives us the word for "emperor" in many of these languages (and in German), here it looks like Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne, has given us the word for "king." Kings, however, were also Princes (Latin princeps, "first, foremost"); and the term "prince" came to mean a basic, independent sovereign. There are still sovereign Princes in Europe, of Monaco and of Liechtenstein.

Feudalism, then, meant that the King divided his realm between trusted retainers. Latin comes meant "companion" (literally, "go with"), and they were originally the retainers of the Emperor in the Late Roman Empire

, who were then often entrusted with the adminstration of dioceses, major divisions of the Empire, like Britain or Spain, or sometimes important provinces (Africa, Egypt).

During the Middle Ages, the Latin comes continues in Greek, as

, right through to the end of Romania. In the Latin West, the comes palatii or palatinus, Count Palatine or Pfalzgraf, could have, like the original official, various legal, judicial, administrative, or gubernatorial functions. In Germany, a comes urbanus, Burggraf, was a Royal official in episcopal or imperial cities, and a comes provinciae, Landgraf (Landgrave), was a new Royal agent created by the Emperor Lothar II (1125-1137) -- eventually becoming a low level of

landed authority, as in the Landgravate of Hesse-Homburg, which survived as a German state until 1866.

The classic Mediaeval meaning of comes, however, is in the sense that companions of a King received the basic territorial division of the Kingdom, a County (like Flanders or Holland -- comitas in Latin). England still consists of Counties. In English a comes is a "Count," but English counts are always called "Earls" (Old English eorl, "warrior, nobleman"). The wife of an Earl, however, is still a "Countess." In German, "count" is Graf. There is no more striking contrast between Roman and later usage of the title than that there should have been a "Count of Britain" (Comes Britanniae) in the former, while "Britain" today combines the Kingship of England and Scotland (with Wales as a Principality more or less within the Kingdom of England).

Some Counts are more important than others. Counties at the edge of a Kingdom may be threatened with invaders, or may be expanding into outside territories.

These are the "Marches" (Mark in German, marca in Latin) and the Count of a March is a "Margrave," from German Markgraf, or "Marquess" (in English, "Marquis" in French) -- comes marcae, marchicomes, or marchio in Latin.

The wife of a Marquis is a "Marchioness" (in English, "Marquise" in French, marchionissa in Latin), which preseves the origin of the word more clearly. The most famous Margravate was Brandenburg, which became the Kingdom of Prussia. A Marquis thus has a higher noble rank than a Count. True feudal Counts and Margraves have sovereign powers over their own subjects, entitled to "meet justice," bear arms, and collect taxes; but they are also vassals, of their sovereign Lord. Their vassalage, of course, is in terms of a feudal contract, i.e. they owe military service for a certain part of the year. Usually this does not extend to furnishing any tax revenues to their Lord, which, as produce, could hardly be transported or stored well in the early days; but appeals of justice might be made over their heads to the King or Prince.

In Germany a higher level of noble rank developed. Latin dux meant "leader," and this was the Late Roman title for a frontier military commander,

which we then see in Greek, as

, until the end of Romania. There was thus a Duke

of Britain as well as a Count of Britain. The Count, as a Companion of the Emperor, and as commander of one of the comitatenses (the mobile field armies), had the higher rank. As the East Frankish, German Kingdom formed in the 9th century, the leaders of the old German tribal regions (Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, etc.) and some comparable territories (Lorraine) came to be called dux (German Herzog). Their domains are known as the "Stem Duchies" (where there is more discussion of the derivation of Herzog).

This elevated the title well above its Roman status, so that Dukes came to be regarded as superior to Counts and Margraves. Soon, other domains adopted the title Duke. In France these were sometimes ethnic areas on analogy with the German tribes, like Gascony or Brittany, and later were large, semi-independent realms (e.g. Burgundy) often entrusted to Royal brothers (e.g. Charles of Anjou).

Originally, both marchio and dux were seen more as functions or offices than as titles, and a Count (comes) might claim temporarily and alternatively either or both of the higher titles. The higher title might stick in some places, like Gascony, which became a Duchy, but not in others, like Barcelona, which remained a County, although clearly a March in function. In Eastern Europe, a rank comprable to dux developed, "voivode," which is discussed with the rulers there.

In Eastern Europe, the rulers of Kiev, Vladimir, and Lithuania have traditionally been called "Grand Dukes," while newer treatments call them "Grand Princes." The word is Knyaz in Russian, Kunigaikshtis in Lithuanian, kníze in Czech, knez in Croatian, ksiaze in Polish, and knieza in Slovakian. In all these languages, a word for "duke" is also often borrowed from German, like Russian gertsog (i.e. herzog) and from Latin for "prince," Russian prints. All the originally Slavic (or Baltic, for Lithuanian) terms can be translated either "duke" or "prince." The preference for "duke" seems to come from the circumstance that in modern times a brother of the Russian Tsar was always a Velikii Knyaz, and this was always translated "Grand Duke" by analogy to the tradition of giving the title Duke to the brothers of the Kings of England and France. Merely calling them "princes" would have made them sound less significant (even like children). "Prince," however, is more of a sovereign title than "duke" (see above); and, with the Romanov Grand Dukes mostly gone from the scene, the tendency seems to be to dignify the rulers of Kiev and Vladimir, if not Lithuania, early Poland, etc., with that translation.

The title of Duke was not introduced in England until 1337, used by Edward III for his sons, and never went with such semi-independent domains as the French Duchies. No Duchies were originally in principle independent (except in Eastern Europe); but as the Holy Roman Empire declined, the Stem Duchies, multiplied by division among brothers, became more and more independent. English "Duchies," although consisting of estates from which rents were collected, never came anywhere near to being organized, let alone independent, states. The French Duchy of Burgundy for a while was a rival to the French Throne itself, but it reverted to the Monarchy when the male line of Dukes died out in 1477. Fully independent German Duchies and Grand Duchies (like Baden) emerged when Napoleon abolished the Empire (1806). After the Congess of Vienna, they remained independent, subject only to the meagre powers of the German Confederation. German Duchies, Grand Duchies, Kingdoms, and Principalities all lost most of their sovereignty to the new German Empire in 1871. There is one remaining independent Grand Duchy in Europe, Luxembourg. Elsewhere, brothers of the sovereign King or Emperor were made Dukes (England) and Grand Dukes (Russia), without the traditional kind of sovereign feudal domain. The brother of the Prince of Wales in England, therefore, is traditionally dubbed the Duke of York; but this did not confer an independent sovereign status, and Yorkshire remains a County. Other English titles, like that of the Duke of Marlborough (or, for that matter, Earl Mountbatten of Burma), employ purely honorific place names.

In Italy, the direct descendants of the original Roman dux title could be seen in the Doges of independent cities like Venice and Genoa. Dux also came down in Italian with its original meaning, "leader," as duce, which was used as a title by Mussolini.

There was exactly one Arch-Duchy, which is what the Hapsburgs promoted Austria to, before they promoted it to an Empire. Later the title was used for heirs, like the Arch-Duke Francis Ferdinand, whose assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 touched off World War I.

The children of independent sovereigns are usually called "princes" and "princesses." This is would not be used for the children of Counts, Margraves, or of vassal Dukes -- who in England can be called "lords" (or "ladies"). The children of independent and sovereign Dukes, however, in Germany, were also "princes" and "princesses." The title of Prince of Wales in Britain did have a sovereign territorial association, with the Principality of Wales, but it is not clear that any practical sovereignty and independence ever went with it.

The lowest ranks of landed feudal nobility, of "Peers" in Britain, are that of "Viscount" (vicecomes, i.e. "vice-count") and "Baron." Viscounts and Barons are not "of" anything, like higher nobility (e.g. "Count of Toulouse"). Viscounts and Barons could hold estates within Counties, but there is no traditional formal feudal division of a County, Duchy, Prinicpality, or anything else associated with them. They are simply addressed by their names, e.g. "Viscount Palmerston." "Baron" is rarely used in address or reference in Britain -- "Lord" alone is used (e.g. "Lord Byron," the 6th Baron Byron). "Baron" itself thus tends to sound like a German title, as it is (Old High German baro, into Mediaeval Latin as baro, baronis), although in German Herr is often used for basic noble rank -- as Seigneur is in French. The "Barons" in general can mean all the landed feudal nobility up to and including Dukes. The "Barons" are thus to be contrasted with the "Princes."

Under the Barons is non-landed gentle status. A "gentleman" traditionally was anyone with no regular trade or occupation (but, of course, an income or living). Since gentlemen by definition didn't work, below them would be the "working class" -- those with a regular trade or occupation. The term "working class," however, came in Marxist discourse to exclude capitalists or industrialists, not just gentlemen, even though such people definitely are "in trade" and were looked down upon by true gentlemen, gentry, or noblity. The Marxist idea was that capitalists were unnecessary parasites who thus did no work themselves. Although even Lenin realized quickly that "the workers" could not manage factories on their own, this absurd falsehood spelled stagnation and tyranny for the Soviet Union and for command or socialist economies. But the rhetoric about the "working class" (or "working families") continues as a regular part of political discourse in the United States, and anti-capitalist propaganda is generally required reading at American universities -- presented, not as historical retrospective, but as gospel truth. It is worth noting well who uses the term "working class" -- such language betrays their ideology and purposes, which otherwise may not candidly be stated -- or, if they are not actually anti-capitalist themselves, it means that they are confusedly using a tendentious terminology whose origin they do not understand.

The "gentry" had a bit more status than the mere gentleman (and usually their own land), consisting of the titles of "Baronet," "Knight," and "Esquire." Knights originally fought for the Barons, had the power to "meet justice" and bear arms, but did not collect taxes off of landed estates, except as employed by their Lords. They might, however, own land and so collect rents; but this was a private matter, not a function of rule. Esquires (squires, scutaria, "shield bearer") were apprentices and attendants of Knights. The title of "Baronet" was created by James I in 1611 simply to sell and raise money. Both Baronets and Knights are addressed as "Sir," usually using their first names, or both first and last names (e.g. Sir Karl Popper). The equivalent of Knighthood for women uses the title "Dame" (e.g. Dame Agatha Christie). The most famous Baronet may be the fictional Sir Henry Baskerville, of the Sherlock Holmes novel The Hound of the Baskervilles. The title of a Baronet is hereditary, while that of a Knight is not.

A basic Knight is a "Bachelor," but Knighthoods could also belong to Chivalric Orders, like the Bath or Garter. Chivalric Orders could be a large, independent, even sovereign military organizations, like the Hospitalers, Templars, or the Teutonic Knights. The Hospitalers remain a sovereign entity, although with no sovereign territory since the loss of Malta. Or, Orders could be restricted to nobility, or contain Ranks that didn't even involve Knighthood. Thus, the highest Japanese Order, of the Chrysanthemum (1876), was restricted to "sovereigns and members of princely families." The British Order of the Garter (1348) contains only one Rank, like the Chrysanthemum, and actually has a limited number of positions, intended to be like Arthur's Round Table. The British Orders of the Bath (1725) and of St. Michael and St. George (1818) have three Ranks, the Grand Cross, the Knight (or Dame) Commander, and the Companion. Companions, however, are not Knights. More elaborate is the Order of the British Empire (1917), with a Grand Cross (GBE), Knight (or Dame) Commander (KBE or DBE), Commander (CBE), Officer (OBE), and Member (MBE). Only possessors of the GBE or KBE/DBE are Knights.

At times, 19th century British Chivalric Orders might strike people, even those claiming them, as silly. Thus, the Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, a CMG, might be read as "Call Me God," the Knight Commander, KCMB, as "Kindly Call Me God," and the Grand Cross, GCMB, as "God Calls Me God."

The title of "Esquire" is somewhat informal, traditionally used by some, like Barristers (and all American lawyers), to indicate a certain respectability, and otherwise to indicate something more than mere gentle status. In Britain, a Barrister is a lawyer who actually argues cases in Court, as opposed to a Solicitor, who is hired by clients and who arranges for the services of a Barrister. Barrister's fees were honoraria and thus not really wages, which would be demeaning. Thus, a Barrister was a gentleman, while a Solicitor, a professional, was not. The fiction that a Barrister was not a professional was shared by others whose occupation would originally have been regarded as clerical, i.e. actual Clergy or any kind of Academic. Calling a physician a "Doctor" is an extension of this, since doctor literally means "teacher" and is an academic title. In the Middle Ages, Doctors, whether medical or otherwise, did not perform professional services for clients -- the practice of mediaeval medicine was often in the hands of barbers and other casual practitioners. Among the first professional physicians were surgeons, who long retained the title "Mr." Before anesthesia and antisepsis, surgeons could not perform anything like modern surgery. They were specialists who did what now would count as minor surgery, e.g. "cutting for stone."

Below gentry and gentlemen were the non-gentle commoners, the villains, the peasants, the serfs -- all those who were expected to till the land and pay the taxes but did not have the right to bear arms. This used to be a very significant difference. For instance, English press gangs, who seized men for naval service, were supposed to leave "gentlemen" alone. Dress and speech would ordinarily serve to distinguish gentlemen, but presence in the wrong kinds of establishments could compromise this. Now, however, even though the Peerage still exists in Britain, all honest citizens would be regarded as "gentle"; and the term "lady" has tended to substitute for the earlier "gentlewoman." The "good man" and "good woman" used to politely address peasants and laborers have passed out of use, except to deliberately sound somewhat condescending.

What didn't fit into the original system very well were the inhabitants of the cities that began to grow with the end of the isolation of Western Europe and the advent of trade and money, mainly starting in the 11th Century. These were the "Burgers," the "Bourgeoisie," who outrageously acted like nobility, ruling and defending themselves, sometimes even welcoming peasants into their protection ("City air makes free"). Cities generated cash wealth that could be taxed, usually in exchange for charters and privileges, enabling Kings, or whoever, to acquire a cash income, with which professional bureaucrats and professional armies could be hired, avoiding the circumstances that necessititated feudalism in the first place. With a professional army, and no need for a feudal levy, Kings could even expect the nobility to buy their military commissions. This domesticated the Barons in England and, with a little more difficulty, in France. In Germany, however, as we've seen, many feudal vassals became independent sovereigns -- until scooped up, mostly, by Prussia.

The table at left summarizes the feudal hierarchy. "Arch-Duke," since it is unique and anomalous, has been left out. "Grand Duke" straddles the boundary between Princes and Barons since we do have cases of independent Grand Duchies, as in Germany or with Lithuania -- where the alternative is to call them "Grand Princes." The complication of Orders of Knighthood that extend to persons who are not knights has been avoided, and alternative versions of the titles are not given.

"Hierarchy" is itself a curious word, since it literally means "sacred (hierós) rule (arkhé)." Feudal hierarchies are not particularly sacred, but of course the term has been borrowed from something that was regarded as sacred, the (Christian/Roman) Church. The structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, with the Pope later claiming complete supremacy, was the original and proper "hierarchy," as the Church became an organized institution that actually was ruled. Judaism originally had authoritative priests, and so a real hierarchy; but in the Middle Ages this had been lost, and Jewish religious authorities were only influential to the extent of their reputation for learning and holiness. Something similar was the case in Islâm, where the Caliphate was a religious office but basically a secular authority with religious duties. The Islâmic state was based on the establishment of the Islâmic religion, but rulers did not themselves have much religious authority and, over the centuries, became increasingly merely military. True religious authorities might exercise power as judges, but the real influence of either judges or non-judges depended, again, on their reputation for learning and holiness. This reflected the principle of (Orthodox) Islâmic Law that religious authority was ultimately by Consensus. The Caliph was not even a priest, much less a Pope.

The full elaboration of European feudalism thus, one suspects, developed by deliberate analogy to the Church. The analogy was maintained in the doctrine of the "Three Estates," by which society was seen as consisting of three parts, the Nobility, the Churchmen, and the Commoners. Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals might, significantly, be called "Princes" of the Church. But while feudalism has come and gone, taking most of the nobility with it, the Church still exists, with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, especially, now extending right around the world, with Popes still elected as they have been for centuries.

Note: "Three Estates" is to be expanded and include Medieval Society: The Three Orders

Feudal Hierarchy, Note 1

As became the standard term for "Emperor" in Mediaeval Greek, we would expect that "Empress" would reflect the older word for "queen." It did, but with some shifting. In Classical Greek, "queen" could be , basíleia, , basilís, or , basílissa. The first differs from "royalty" or "kingdom," , only in accent. The last becomes more current in the Middle Ages for "Empress," but now is the standard term in Modern Greek for "queen." Because of this, we see Modern Greek use , Autokráteira, for "Empress"; but I don't know if that word was used in Mediaeval Greek. Like Queen Hatshepsut of the XVIII Dynasty in Egypt using "King" for herself, the Empress Irene sometimes used , i.e. "Emperor," after assuming sole rule.

The adoption of for "king" in Mediaeval Greek survives into Modern Greek usage. However, the Modern form, , régas, has shifted from a third declension noun to a first declension masculine (first declensions were usually, but not always, feminine; but those forms were always distinguished by the final sigma in the nominative, as we see), which is very common in Modern Greek.

The titles

and

were used for the Emperors so consistently that I began to wonder if

was really ever used at all. Indeed, it was used far less frequently than

was used for the Empress. But it was used. A good example is from De Ceremoniis, by the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959), in a section "The forms of address used in writing to foreign nations" [Book II, Chapter 48]. We find the "emir of Egypt," which in Constantine's day would mean the Ikhshîdids, addressed by "the great and sublime augoustoi, emperors of the Romans" [Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies, translated by Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall, with the Greek edition of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829), Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Byzantina Australiensia 18, Canberra, 2012, Volume II, p.689].

Feudal Hierarchy, Note 2 Monarchical Acclamations

In the history of monarchy, we find distinctive acclamations, cheers, shouts, or "wish formulae" used to greet, proclaim, or celebrate rulers. The most familiar of these may be the term banzai, part of Tennô heika banzai, , used for the Japanese Emperors (with Tennô heika no more than reduplicative terms for "emperor"). This is based on the expression used for the Chinese Emperors, which means "10,000 years," i.e. as long as we would like the Present Emperor to reign. The formula in its modern form was officially adopted in Japan in the Meiji Period. Much, much older is the formula for the Kings of Egypt, , "Life, Prosperity, Health!"

With the Roman Emperors in Constantinople, we get a similar tradition, which we know about from De Ceremoniis again, as in the previous note. In Mediaeval Greek an acclamation is the

, euphemía (cf. "euphemism"), with the opposite, of disapprobation,

, dysphemía, which was used to call for the overthrow of Emperors who are judged "unworthy,"

, anáxios. We see at the Coronation of an Emperor [Book I, Chapter 38, p.195] and elsewhere, this has two parts, with a "call-and-response" format. A "cheerleader" or kráktês begins with

, pollà, pollà, pollá, "many, many, many," and then the "people," laós, answer,

, pollà étê eis pollá, "many years upon many." The Japanese banzai is also often given with a "cheerleader" who initiates the acclamation with Tennô heika, "The Emperor," followed by the people, the crowd, or the soldiers shouting, with arms raised, Banzai.

In the English language tradition, about the best we can do is, "Hip, hip, horray!" or the obsolete "Huzzah!" which have no discernible cognitive content. Mercifully, the American President is never greeted with the wish that he govern for many years. With the Queen of England, on the other hand, we express more concern for her soul than her reign, with "God Save the Queen." Since this is the title of the national anthem (which does express a desire for a long reign), it is not clear how often the Queen is actually greeted with "God Save the Queen." Toasts at banquets are liable to feature a "call" of "The Queen," and then a response of "The Queen" and/or "Here, here!"

The old Roman acclamation survives in the liturgy of the Greek and other Orthodox Churches as the polychronion, "much time" or "long lived," which consists of verses that express a wish for long life for Church prelates and/or secular authorities. This ends with File:Greek-13.gif, eis pollà étê, "unto many years," which is recognizable from the acclamations in De Ceremoniis. It is also said to translate Latin in multo annos, or ad multo annos.

Ranks of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire was never governed in terms of a feudal system, with fiefs and vassals, as in Europe. Nevertheless, Hagopian's Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-Grammar [Julius Groos, Heidelberg, 1907] defines the word , beyzade, to mean "nobleman" [p.201], literally "son of a Bey," with the Persian patronymic on the title Bey/Be. What might be regarded as noble rank, however, was never an independent feudal office but an honorary and ex officio status for other offices, civil, military, and religious.

Thus, holders of General military rank were entitled to be addressed as , Pasha, with the title following the name, as in "Gordon Pasha," who held Khartoum against the Mahdî. Holders of Command rank would be addressed as , Bey; but below the rank of a full Colonel or ship Captain, this might alternate with , Efendi. Hagopian does not explain why both would be used, or if one is appropriate in some circumstances but not the other. So there is an ambiguity that we would not have with proper, independent noble rank. In turn, basic Officer rank entitles one to be addressed as Efendi, but this also alternates with , Agha, below the rank of army Captain or naval Lieutenant. In Ottoman Turkish Efendi was also a common term of respect for civilians, just as in Modern Persian Agha is merely the equivalent of "Mr."

The most curious thing here may be that Efendi, which seems so Turkish and Muslim, derives from Greek. In Classical Greek it was , authéntês, "one who does anything himself; master, autocrat," the actual source of the word "authentic" in English. As the pronunciation of the diphthong au changed to av or aph, this assimilated the th so that the word became , aphéntês, "lord, master, proprietor," in Mediaeval and Modern Greek. From there it passed into Turkish.

Varieties of Kingship

Over the course of history there are various conceptions of the nature of the relationship between a ruler and, on the one hand, his people and, on the other hand, the land over which he rules and upon which they live. There are also different conceptions about the source of the authority of the rulers, although the explanation of the former may also provide an explanation of the latter.

Nowhere is this relationship clearer than in one of the earliest conceptions of Kingship. Theogenetic Kingship means that the ruler is of divine origin, inheriting acts of creation by which the gods made the land and made the people to live on it. The justification of rule is consequently a particularly strong form of Hieratic Kingship, where the ruler possesses sacred and numinous authority. The relationship of the people to the land is thus indirect and mediated, but by a very strong paranormal connection through the gods. It is because of them that the people and the land have literally been brought together. We see this form of monarchy in an exemplary way in Ancient Egypt, but also quite recently in modern Japan. In both cases, not only are the rulers descended from the gods, but they are gods themselves -- although the Emperor of Japan was un-deified after World War II. Characteristic of this kind of Kingship are various ritual prohibitions. People may be discouraged or prohibited from even looking at the King (or Emperor), let alone touching him -- which might cause instant death (struck down by the power of the King, or more likely by his bodyguards). We also find forms of this in Polynesia, where there are degrees of sacrality among the nobility, the ali'i (in Hawaiian, ariki in Mâori), the most sacred of whom cannot be looked at -- on pain of death. A herald announces the approach of such a personage. Polynesia is also an interesting case for theogenetic kingship in a migratory people. Hawaiians and Tahitians knew that they had come from elsewhere, yet their connection to the lands they found, which of course had been created by their gods, was signified by a common name: Hawai'i in Hawaiian, Havai'i in Tahitian, Savai'i in Sâmoan, and Hawaiki in Mâori. Thus, the mythic land of their divine origin is found again in each new destination, with the connection mediated by the gods. A native of Hawai'i is a kama'âina, "child of the land," which already suggests the next category:

Where in hierogentic kingship the connection of the people to the land is mediated through the divine, in Autochthonous Kingship the relationship is much more direct, with the role of the ruler subject to various explanations. Although today we may speak of an autochthonous people as being the original inhabitants of a land as far back as we can trace (such as the Basques in Spain and France), the mythic meaning of the term is far more literal: An autochthonous people have literally been grown and born out of the land. A paradigmatic version of this is the story of Cadmus growing a crop of people by sowing the dragon's teeth on the site of Thebes. Cadmus, who has migrated from Phoenicia, has no essential link to the land at all, although the gods have directed him there, but he does then have nearly as intimate connection to the people, whom he has brought about, as the people do to the land. Since Cadmus is then appointed king by the gods, we do have a case of hieratic kingship; but it is also possible to have an autochthonous people whose rulers have other sanctions. Thus, while many American Indians believe that they are literally autochthonous, and have sprung from the land rather than migrated in from Asia, their leaders may have merely Customary authority, i.e. their authority has its source in tradition, either from an ancient family or from some customary means of choosing a leader.

More variables can be found in Feudal Kingship. Here the key idea is of a contractual relationship, that the King distributes the land among those who will possess and rule it (perhaps temporarily) on the basis of an agreement that there is a quid pro quo of services owed for the benefits bestowed. The ruling class may be distinct from the bulk of the people, who may be regarded as autochthonous or who belong to the land and go with it, whatever their origin. The justification of rule in these cases may be hieratic, with divine (even theogenetic) sanction, customary, or even merely Fiduciary, that the ruler performs this function as an office for the purpose of good government. The implication of all feudal kingship, however, is the ownership of the land by the sovereign, while the nobility, who become vassals of the ruler, have a moral relationship more nearly of equality to the ruler than do the people who otherwise live on the land and go with it. This means that it may be relatively accidental who has become the king and who has become his vassal, and the relationship may change. That is what we see both in Mediaeval Europe and in Polynesia. It is also much like the feudal structure of China of the Chou Dynasty. But in China, no permanent barrier solidified between nobility and people, and it was soon the understanding that anyone, even a peasant, could become Emperor, or rise through merit, by way of the Civil Service Examinations, to obtain any other office in the land.

Finally, we have a conception of rule where the land itself simply drops out of the equation. In Tribal Kingship, the ruler has a direct relationship to the people, but the people may be nomadic or migratory, with no essential connection to the land they (perhaps temporarily) occupy. This is something we see in the word for "king" in English (cognate to other Germanic terms, such as könig in German), which derved from "kin," i.e. relatives (cynn in Old English). "King" is in form a contraction for "kin-ing" (cyning in Old English), with what is now the active participle suffix. But we know that the older Indo-European word for "king" -- such as rex in Latin or râja in Sanskrit -- existed in Germanic languages. We see reiks in Gothic and the element ric that turns up in multiple Germanic names (from "Roderic" to "Richard"). We may opine that as Germanic tribes became migratory, their sense of being a unit of people became detached from any sense of relationship to the lands through which they passed. This may attend or be reinforced by certain usages. Thus, when Napoleon was styled "Emperor of the French," this goes back to the common Mediaeval locution that predicated rule on the people rather than the land. The newly elected Holy Rome Emperor was "King of the Romans," while even the Emperor in Constantinople was the Rhômaiôn Basileús, "Emperor of the Romans." It is now all but forgotten that he might as easily have been the Rhômanías Basileús, "Emperor of Romania."

The office of Roman Emperor is an interesting case for the nature and justification of rule. Rome as a City bore with it little sense of autochthonous possession. The "People of Rome" were generally the basis of Roman existence. Offices were customary, and their responsibilities were mainly fiduciary. The secularism that seems to attend all of this may go back to the tradition that began among the Greeks of overthrowing kings, who can have been of hieratic or theogenetic origin, and then replacing them with artificial constitutions. This difference was strongly felt even by Augustus, who created the office of Emperor in explicitly fiduciary terms. Over time, however, the fiduciary beocmes customary, and then finally hieratic. Thus, Christian Roman Emperors, beginning with Constantine, become Isoapostolos, "Equal to the Apostles," and are portrayed with halos. Nevertheless, they definitely do not have theogenetic authority and may be deposed and replaced at the will of the people or the army. Divine sanction is ex officio and revocable. Something of the sort also clings to the Holy Roman Emperors, who possess the office courtesy of the Electors of the Empire, and whose divine sanction is entirely contingent on coronation by the Pope.

Elsewhere in Europe, stronger conceptions developed. Thus, the French Monarchy, original elective, became in time hereditary and customary. Its divine sanction was directly from God, bolstered by the legend of a vial of coronation oil that descended from heaven to sanctify the first Christian King of the Franks, Clovis. Ideologically, this grew into the "Divine Right of Kings," a doctrine that cost at least two kings their heads, Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. Thus, John Locke described English Kingship in Fiduciary terms, while today, with few significant duties remaining to the British Throne, the office has mainly become Customary. Both France and England, however, beginning with Tribal conceptions of Kingship, gradually drifted into a stronger relationship with the Land. Napoleon may have been the Empereur des Français, but Louis was the Roi de France. In That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis played with the idea that, underlying the tribal "England" of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Normans, there was the sacred "Logres" (Welsh Lloegr) of the originally Celtic land, which was the true source of legitimacy and sanctity. Similarly, in John Boorman's 1981 movie Excalibur, we find Merlin telling Arthur, "You and the land are one." This expresses some kind of autochthonous kingship, with a more intimate relationship between king and land than we see in Cadmus. Indeed, Arthur's divine sanction is made mysteriously evident in his ability to draw the Sword from the Stone -- symbols simultaneously of Rule and the Land.

Today, of course, we know that politicians, with little but fiduciary authority, are generally venal and egotistical careerists. We tend to think that there is no, and ought not be, any real majestas of rule; and unfortunately most modern rulers live down to this standard. The dignity of Republican governments depends on the personal character of the office holders, and this has decayed drastically from Washington and Jefferson.

Chinese Feudal Hierarchy

With the discussion of European feudal hierarchy, I have been including the corresponding Chinese characters. The origin of these is entirely independent of European feudalism. Indeed, it is much earlier, during the Chou Dynasty (1027-256 BC) of China, which broke up into a patchwork of feudal domains during the Eastern Chou (771-256). The title of Emperor was only formulated during the Ch'in Dynasty (256-207), by the "First Emperor," . Since the Emperor was the "Son of Heaven," , and ruled all "Under Heaven," , the ideology of universal rule was comparable to that of Rome and Europe.

Under the Chou King there were originally the "Five Ranks,"

. These are conventionally matched up with European feudal rank from Duke to Baron, although the history of the different ranks is unlikely to correspond to their history in Europe. When Chinese government changed, and feudal rank was replaced by Court rank, the feudal hierarchy became of only historical interest and honorary usage.

The term can mean "judge" (as with Judge Dee) or just "official," as well as "duke." Thus, we see different translations of the institution of the illustrated at left. These are the "Three Dukes" or "Three Senior Lords," each respectfully holding their tablet of office, , in the folds of their sleeves (the Emperor probably should not be shown in the same way, although the Emperor himself does have a commission, as the Mandate of Heaven). They are the highest officials of the realm under the Chou, Ch'in, and Han Dynasties. Their particular identities changed in the different eras. At left are titles from the Former and Later Han Dyansties. The first form of the "Great Commander" title and those as given of the other Ministers are versions of the titles from the Former Han. In the Later Han, the second verison of "Great Commander" and the other titles without the Da ("Great") are found. These continued to be used, though perhaps for offices with less authority, through the T'ang and Sung. The original forms of the Chou, the "Great Preceptor" (or Grand Tutor), the "Great Mentor" (or Assistant Grand Tutor), and the "Grand Guardian," may be examined in (at right) titles from the Chou Dyansties. The later versions take on more of the tone of cabinet officers rather than the Chou implication of teachers. The "Three Dukes" were also called the , "Exalted Tripod," i.e. the legs upon which the Realm stands note.

Subsequently, European and Chinese feudal rank were formally equated in Meiji Japan (1868-1912), when a system of European nobility replaced Chinese Court rank and the previous Japanese feudal system of the samurai. Thus, at right, we see the Japanese pronunciation of the characters below the Chinese pronunciation. These are often coupled with , pronounced shaku in Japanese, giving us or , both actually pronounced Kôshaku in Japanese. Japanese nobility and all these ranks were abolished after World War II in the project to democratize Japanese society. The Emperor of Japan, however, survives, and is the last person with any form of the title "Emperor" on earth.

Chinese Feudal Hierarchy, Note

I have taken some liberties in the presentation of the Three Senior Lords, placing them with associations drawn from the theory of Yin and Yang and the five Chinese Elements. I base this on a footnote in an edition of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms [ , Three Kingdoms, attributed to Luo Guanzhong, Foreign Language Press, Beijing, 1995, 2007, Volume I]. There it says, "the sangong, the Emperor's closest confidants...were also identified with Heaven, earth, and man" [Note 2 to Chapter 2, p.548]. Now, Heaven, Earth, and Man are traditionally the "Three Powers," , but they also match up with three of the four "Spirit Gates" that figure in Yin-Yang theory and Chinese geomancy. This seems past coincidence, and also that a Minister of the Emperor would not be identified with the fourth Spirit Gate, the "Demon Gate" (and where Demons do not figure as a "power," ). So I have added these associations, with their Trigrams, to the diagram above. The Demon Gate, associated with the North-East and the Mountain Trigram, is something that needs guarding, as we find the old Japanese capital of Kyoto guarded by the temples to the North-East on the "Sacred Mountain," Mt. Hiei. Now, I don't think it is an accident that the Three Senior Lords should be associated with the Spirit Gates. The liberty I have taken is with the colors. Yellow is indeed the color of the Center and the Emperor. Green, red, and white, however, are not otherwise associated with Spirit Gates, but with the elements of the cardinal directions, wood to the East, fire to the South, and metal to the West, respectively. I have simply rotated these, beginning with green for the South-East, where, after all, the Trigram actually is associated with wood. The fifth color, black for water and North, would rotate to the Demon Gate, where, indeed, demons might traditionally be portrayed in black.

Notes

Military Ranks taken from this website

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[File:basileus.gif|200px|thumb|left|alt text]]
 =[[Military_Ranks_Feudal_Hierarchy|Feudal Hierarchy]]=
-Mediaeval Western Europe was largely governed through '''feudalism''', which was a system substituted for the professional administration and paid military that would have been possible if there had been much of a cash economy, education, or communication. Where there was mostly nothing but subsistence agriculture, and little trade, travel, money, or education, rule through personal loyalty and rents in kind from agriculture was very nearly the only thing possible. The feudal '''contract''' between a Lord and a Vassal was then to confer a "living," i.e. land with people and produce, in return for ruling the land and providing military service for the Lord. The power to rule the land was a loss for the Lord, but in the absence of paid administrators, there wasn't much alternative (although for a while the [[German Emperors]] were able to use the Church). Whether the military service was actually provided largely depended on the prestige of the Lord and the loyalty of the Vassal.
+Mediaeval Western Europe was largely governed through '''feudalism''', which was a system substituted for the professional administration and paid military that would have been possible if there had been much of a cash economy, education, or communication. Where there was mostly nothing but subsistence agriculture, and little trade, travel, money, or education, rule through personal loyalty and rents in kind from agriculture was very nearly the only thing possible. The feudal '''contract''' between a Lord and a Vassal was then to confer a "living," i.e. land with people and produce, in return for ruling the land and providing military service for the Lord. [[File:rank.gif|right|rank]]The power to rule the land was a loss for the Lord, but in the absence of paid administrators, there wasn't much alternative (although for a while the [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#saxon German Emperors] were able to use the Church). Whether the military service was actually provided largely depended on the prestige of the Lord and the loyalty of the Vassal.
-The ultimate feudal rank was '''Emperor''', but this was also anomalous. The original Emperor, the [[Roman Emperor]], resided in Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Rome had rejected Kings. Julius Caesar refused a crown. So Augustus was merely the ''imperator'', i.e. "commander." In Mediaeval [[Romania]], some level of cash economy remained, and the device of conferring land for livings was at first restricted to soldiers who would till the land themselves, not conferred on a nobility that could become disloyal. The Emperor was the only sovereign -- the [[File:Example.png]] and [[File:Example.png]]. Since ''basileus'' had been the Classical Greek word for "king," Latin ''rex'' was adopted, as [[File:Example.png]], for Mediaeval Greek [[[note]]]. The Emperor was the "Equal to the Apostles" ([[File:Example.png]], ''isapóstolos'') and thus had a traditional role in the governance of the Church ("Caesaro-Papism"). For instance, it was the Emperor who called Church Councils. Members of the Imperial Family are always portrayed with halos, like the Saints. This exalted status for the Emperor was never found in Western Europe, though the Emperor Sigismund did call the Council of Constance (1414-1418) to end the Great Schism -- which he was able to do since there were three rival Popes; later Popes denied that the Emperors had such a power inherently. This and other innovations in Papal claims, including assertions of secular authority, mean that the term "Caesaro-Papism" might be better applied to the Papacy, which assumed imperial pretentions, rather than to the Emperors, whether in Constantinople or in Germany, who exercised no eccelesiastical authority beyond what Constantine had.
+The ultimate feudal rank was '''Emperor''', but this was also anomalous. The original Emperor, the [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm Roman Emperor], resided in Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Rome had rejected Kings. Julius Caesar refused a crown. [[File:crowns-0.gif|right|Sanctified Emperor Augustus World]]So Augustus was merely the ''imperator'', i.e. "commander." In Mediaeval [http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm Romania], some level of cash economy remained, and the device of conferring land for livings was at first restricted to soldiers who would till the land themselves, not conferred on a nobility that could become disloyal. [[File:emperor.gif|left|emperor]]The Emperor was the only sovereign -- the [[File:basileus.gif|link= |basileus]] and [[File:autokrat.gif|autokrat]]. Since ''basileus'' had been the Classical Greek word for "king," Latin ''rex'' was adopted, as [[File:rex.gif|rex]], for Mediaeval Greek [[#Feudal Hierarchy, Note|[Note]]]. The Emperor was the "Equal to the Apostles" ([[File:isapostl.gif|isapostl]], ''isapóstolos'') and thus had a traditional role in the governance of the Church ("Caesaro-Papism"). For instance, it was the Emperor who called Church Councils. Members of the Imperial Family are always portrayed with halos, like the Saints. This exalted status for the Emperor was never found in Western Europe, though the Emperor Sigismund did call [[File:empress.gif|right|Empress]]the Council of Constance (1414-1418) to end the Great Schism -- which he was able to do since there were three rival Popes; later Popes denied that the Emperors had such a power inherently. This and other innovations in Papal claims, including assertions of secular authority, mean that the term "Caesaro-Papism" might be better applied to the Papacy, which assumed imperial pretentions, rather than to the Emperors, whether in Constantinople or in Germany, who exercised no eccelesiastical authority beyond what Constantine had.[[File:crowns-1.gif|left|Sanctified Caesar Tsar Kaiser "World"]]
-When the Pope crowned the [[Frankish King]] Charlemagne Emperor, the claim was still that this was the ''only'' Emperor, whose authority was universal, if by leave of the Pope, whose ultimate authority was also universal. The Emperors in Constantinople at times accepted that they had a Western colleague, as in [[Late Antiquity]], but there could have been a subtle and clever spin on it. Since the [[Tetrarchy]], "Caesar" had been used as the title of subordinate Emperors. It was still used in Mediaeval Romania -- [[File:Example.png]] in Greek. Well, in German and Russian, the Emperors were called ''Kaiser'' and ''Tsar'', respectively, which are obviously the words for "Caesar" in those languages. So the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople could remain the only true "Augustus," [[File:Example.png]] (or [[File:Example.png]], ''Sebastós'', the equivalent in Greek), the senior Emperor, with the Germans and Russians (prospectively, since there weren't Russian Tsars yet) regarded as ''Caesares''. However, this sort of distinction does not seem to have been made. [[Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus]] (d.959) said that Charlemagne "reigned as emperor," ''ebasíleuse'', over "Great Francia," [[File:Example.png]] [''De Administrando Imperio'', Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 1967, 2008, p.108]. The verb ''basileuô'' is based on the noun ''basileus'', [[File:Example.png]], which, as we have seen, was used for the Roman Emperor. The Porphyrogenitus was thus not thinking of Charlemagne as a mere "Caesar."
+When the Pope crowned the [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#caroling Frankish King] Charlemagne Emperor, the claim was still that this was the ''only'' Emperor, whose authority was universal, if by leave of the Pope, whose ultimate authority was also universal. The Emperors in Constantinople at times accepted that they had a Western colleague, as in [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#second Late Antiquity], but there could have been a subtle and clever spin on it. Since the [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#tetrarch Tetrarchy], "Caesar" had been used as the title of subordinate Emperors. It was still used in Mediaeval Romania -- [[File:caesar.gif|caesar]] in Greek. Well, in German and Russian, the Emperors were called ''Kaiser'' and ''Tsar'', respectively, which are obviously the words for "Caesar" in those languages. So the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople could remain the only true "Augustus," [[File:augustus.gif|augustus]] (or [[File:sebastos.gif|sebastos]], ''Sebastós'', the equivalent in Greek), the senior Emperor, with the Germans and Russians (prospectively, since there weren't Russian Tsars yet) regarded as ''Caesares''. However, this sort of distinction does not seem to have been made. [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#macedon Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus] (d.959) said that Charlemagne "reigned as emperor," ''ebasíleuse'', over "Great Francia," [[File:great.gif|great]] [[File:phrangia.gif|phrangia]] [''De Administrando Imperio'', Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 1967, 2008, p.108]. The verb ''basileuô'' is based on the noun ''basileus'', [[File:basileus.gif|basileus]], which, as we have seen, was used for the Roman Emperor. The Porphyrogenitus was thus not thinking of Charlemagne as a mere "Caesar."
-The universal authority of the Wester Emperor was not always acknowledged in Mediaeval Western Europe -- the Kings of France always denied it -- but there never was more than one duly crowned one -- the Pope would not have stood for it -- despite the occasional king, as in Spain, who thought it might be nice to an emperor. When the customary right to be thus crowned settled on the German Kings, the institution of the Imperial Electors arose from the traditional electoral nature of the German Kingship. This was then thought to nicely parallel the electoral nature of the Papacy. But an electoral monarchy in Germany, as in Poland, spelled disaster for the power of the Throne.
+The universal authority of the Wester Emperor was not always acknowledged in Mediaeval Western Europe -- the Kings of France always denied it -- but there never was more than one duly crowned one -- the Pope would not have stood for it -- despite the occasional king, as in Spain, who thought it might be nice to an emperor. When the customary right to be thus crowned settled on the [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#saxon| German Kings], [[File:crowns-e.gif|right|Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, 1356]]the institution of the Imperial Electors arose from the traditional electoral nature of the German Kingship. This was then thought to nicely parallel the electoral nature of the Papacy. But an electoral monarchy in Germany, as in Poland, spelled disaster for the power of the Throne.
-In time, rivals to the Emperor in Constantinople (and where the writ of the Pope did not run) arose, in Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey, and in the form of the Latin Emperors who ruled in the Constantinople taken by the Fourth Crusade. Later, after Fall of the city to the Turks, Russia claimed the Imperial legacy. In Western Europe, however, no rivals to the traditional Emperor arose until Napoleon claimed the status in 1804. He at least had the Pope hand him the crown. Soon, however, there were other Empires in Europe (Austria, 1804; France again, 1852; and then Germany, 1871), without even a nod to the Papacy. Other European sovereigns found foreign Empires, like Brazil for Portugal in 1822, Mexico for France/Austria in 1864, India for Britain in 1876, and Ethiopia for Italy in 1936.
+In time, rivals to the Emperor in Constantinople (and where the writ of the Pope did not run) arose, in [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#bulgar-1 Bulgaria], [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#serbs Serbia], [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#rum Turkey], [[File:crowns-7.gif|left|Emperor]]and in the form of the [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#latins Latin] Emperors who ruled in the Constantinople taken by the Fourth Crusade. Later, after Fall of the city to the Turks, [http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#moscow Russia] claimed the Imperial legacy. In Western Europe, however, no rivals to the traditional Emperor arose until Napoleon claimed the status in 1804. He at least had the Pope hand him the crown. Soon, however, there were other Empires in Europe (Austria, 1804; France again, 1852; and then Germany, 1871), without even a nod to the Papacy. Other European sovereigns found foreign Empires, like Brazil for Portugal in 1822, Mexico for France/Austria in 1864, India for Britain in 1876, and Ethiopia for Italy in 1936.
-Feudalism, however, was not basically a matter of the Emperors. It began with the Germanic Kings who replaced the Western Roman Empire. The Kingdom became the basic unit of rule in Western Europe. The words for King in Latin (rex) and Gothic (reiks) were from the Old Indo-European root of sacred kingship (e.g. Sanskrit raja). In later Germanic languages, king (German könig) was the ruler of the kin, the leader of the tribe or people. In Eastern Europe the word for "king" is noteworthy. In Czech it is král, in Polish król, and in Hungarian király. For comparison, the same word in Croatian is kralj, in Slovakian král', in Russian kor´l, and in Lithuanian karalius. Just as the Latin name Caesar gives us the word for "emperor" in many of these languages (and in German), here it looks like Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne, has given us the word for "king." Kings, however, were also Princes (Latin princeps, "first, foremost"); and the term "prince" came to mean a basic, independent sovereign. There are still sovereign Princes in Europe, of Monaco and of Liechtenstein.
+Feudalism, however, was not basically a matter of the Emperors. It began with the [http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm Germanic Kings] who replaced the Western Roman Empire. [[File:crowns-2.gif|left|King]]The Kingdom became the basic unit of rule in Western Europe. The words for King in Latin (''rex'') and Gothic (''reiks'') were from the Old [http://www.friesian.com/cognates.htm Indo-European] root of [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#kingship sacred kingship] (e.g. Sanskrit ''raja''). [[File:crowns-p.gif|right|Prince]]In later Germanic languages, ''king'' (German ''könig'') was the ruler of the ''kin'', the leader of the tribe or people. In Eastern Europe the word for "king" is noteworthy. In Czech it is ''král'', in Polish ''król'', and in Hungarian ''király''. For comparison, the same word in Croatian is [[File:king.gif|left|King]]''kralj'', in Slovakian ''král''', in Russian ''kor´l'', and in Lithuanian ''karalius''. Just as the Latin name Caesar gives us the word for "emperor" in many of these languages (and in German), here it looks like Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne, has given us the word for "king." Kings, however, were also ''Princes'' (Latin ''princeps'', "first, foremost"); and the term "prince" came to mean a basic, independent sovereign. There are still sovereign Princes in Europe, of [http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#monaco Monaco] and of [http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#wurttemberg Liechtenstein].
-Feudalism, then, meant that the King divided his realm between trusted retainers. Latin comes meant "companion" (literally, "go with"), and they were originally the retainers of the Emperor in the Late Roman Empire, who were then often entrusted with the adminstration of dioceses, major divisions of the Empire, like Britain or Spain, or sometimes important provinces (Africa, Egypt). During the Middle Ages, the Latin comes continues in Greek, as , right through to the end of Romania. In the Latin West, the comes palatii or palatinus, Count Palatine or Pfalzgraf, could have, like the original official, various legal, judicial, administrative, or gubernatorial functions. In Germany, a comes urbanus, Burggraf, was a Royal official in episcopal or imperial cities, and a comes provinciae, Landgraf (Landgrave), was a new Royal agent created by the Emperor Lothar II (1125-1137) -- eventually becoming a low level of landed authority, as in the Landgravate of Hesse-Homburg, which survived as a German state until 1866. The classic Mediaeval meaning of comes, however, is in the sense that companions of a King received the basic territorial division of the Kingdom, a County (like Flanders or Holland -- comitas in Latin). England still consists of Counties. In English a comes is a "Count," but English counts are always called "Earls" (Old English eorl, "warrior, nobleman"). The wife of an Earl, however, is still a "Countess." In German, "count" is Graf. There is no more striking contrast between Roman and later usage of the title than that there should have been a "Count of Britain" (Comes Britanniae) in the former, while "Britain" today combines the Kingship of England and Scotland (with Wales as a Principality more or less within the Kingdom of England).
+Feudalism, then, meant that the King divided his realm between trusted retainers. Latin ''comes'' meant "companion" (literally, "go with"), and they were originally the '''retainers of the Emperor''' in the [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#second Late Roman Empire][[File:crowns-q.gif|right|retainers of the Emperor]], who were then often entrusted with the adminstration of ''dioceses'', major divisions of the Empire, like Britain or Spain, or sometimes important provinces (Africa, Egypt). [[File:crowns-3.gif|left|Count]]During the Middle Ages, the Latin ''comes'' continues in Greek, as [[File:count.gif|count]], right through to the end of Romania. In the Latin West, the ''comes palatii'' or ''palatinus'', Count Palatine or ''Pfalzgraf'', could have, like the original official, various legal, judicial, administrative, or gubernatorial functions. In Germany, a ''comes urbanus'', ''Burggraf'', was a Royal official in episcopal or imperial cities, and a ''comes provinciae'', ''Landgraf'' (Landgrave), was a new Royal agent created by the Emperor [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#frank-2 Lothar II] (1125-1137) -- eventually becoming a low level of [[File:count_001.gif|right|Count]]landed authority, as in the Landgravate of [http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#homburg Hesse-Homburg], which survived as a German state until 1866. [[File:crowns-r.gif|left|companions of a King]]The classic Mediaeval meaning of ''comes'', however, is in the sense that '''companions of a King''' received the basic territorial division of the Kingdom, a '''County''' (like [http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm Flanders] or [http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#holland Holland] -- ''comitas'' in Latin). England still consists of Counties. In English a ''comes'' is a "Count," but English counts are always called "Earls" (Old English ''eorl'', "warrior, nobleman"). The wife of an Earl, however, is still a "Countess." In German, "count" is ''Graf''. There is no more striking contrast between Roman and later usage of the title than that there should have been a "Count of Britain" (''Comes Britanniae'') in the former, while "Britain" today combines the Kingship of England and Scotland (with Wales as a Principality more or less within the Kingdom of England).
-Some Counts are more important than others. Counties at the edge of a Kingdom may be threatened with invaders, or may be expanding into outside territories. These are the "Marches" (Mark in German, marca in Latin) and the Count of a March is a "Margrave," from German Markgraf, or "Marquess" (in English, "Marquis" in French) -- comes marcae, marchicomes, or marchio in Latin. The wife of a Marquis is a "Marchioness" (in English, "Marquise" in French, marchionissa in Latin), which preseves the origin of the word more clearly. The most famous Margravate was Brandenburg, which became the Kingdom of Prussia. A Marquis thus has a higher noble rank than a Count. True feudal Counts and Margraves have sovereign powers over their own subjects, entitled to "meet justice," bear arms, and collect taxes; but they are also vassals, of their sovereign Lord. Their vassalage, of course, is in terms of a feudal contract, i.e. they owe military service for a certain part of the year. Usually this does not extend to furnishing any tax revenues to their Lord, which, as produce, could hardly be transported or stored well in the early days; but appeals of justice might be made over their heads to the King or Prince.
+Some Counts are more important than others. Counties at the edge of a Kingdom may be threatened with invaders, or may be expanding into outside territories. [[File:crowns-m.gif|right|Margrave]]These are the "Marches" (''Mark'' in German, ''marca'' in Latin) and the Count of a March is a "Margrave," from German ''Markgraf'', or "Marquess" (in English, "Marquis" in French) -- ''comes marcae'', ''marchicomes'', or ''marchio'' in Latin. [[File:marquis.gif|left|Marquis]]The wife of a Marquis is a "Marchioness" (in English, "Marquise" in French, ''marchionissa'' in Latin), which preseves the origin of the word more clearly. The most famous Margravate was [http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#prussia Brandenburg], which became the Kingdom of Prussia. A Marquis thus has a higher noble rank than a Count. True feudal Counts and Margraves have sovereign powers over their own subjects, entitled to "meet justice," bear arms, and collect taxes; but they are also vassals, of their sovereign Lord. Their vassalage, of course, is in terms of a feudal contract, i.e. they owe military service for a certain part of the year. Usually this does not extend to furnishing any tax revenues to their Lord, which, as produce, could hardly be transported or stored well in the early days; but appeals of justice might be made over their heads to the King or Prince.
-In Germany a higher level of noble rank developed. Latin dux meant "leader," and this was the Late Roman title for a frontier military commander, which we then see in Greek, as , until the end of Romania. There was thus a Duke of Britain as well as a Count of Britain. The Count, as a Companion of the Emperor, and as commander of one of the comitatenses (the mobile field armies), had the higher rank. As the East Frankish, German Kingdom formed in the 9th century, the leaders of the old German tribal regions (Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, etc.) and some comparable territories (Lorraine) came to be called dux (German Herzog). Their domains are known as the "Stem Duchies" (where there is more discussion of the derivation of Herzog). This elevated the title well above its Roman status, so that Dukes came to be regarded as superior to Counts and Margraves. Soon, other domains adopted the title Duke. In France these were sometimes ethnic areas on analogy with the German tribes, like Gascony or Brittany, and later were large, semi-independent realms (e.g. Burgundy) often entrusted to Royal brothers (e.g. Charles of Anjou). Originally, both marchio and dux were seen more as functions or offices than as titles, and a Count (comes) might claim temporarily and alternatively either or both of the higher titles. The higher title might stick in some places, like Gascony, which became a Duchy, but not in others, like Barcelona, which remained a County, although clearly a March in function. In Eastern Europe, a rank comprable to dux developed, "voivode," which is discussed with the rulers there.
+In Germany a higher level of noble rank developed. Latin ''dux'' meant "leader," and this was the Late Roman title for a [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#army-5 frontier military commander], [[File:crowns-s.gif|right|?]]which we then see in Greek, as [[File:duke.gif|duke]], until the end of Romania. There was thus a Duke [[File:crowns-4.gif|left|Duke]]of Britain as well as a Count of Britain. The Count, as a Companion of the Emperor, and as commander of one of the ''comitatenses'' (the mobile field armies), had the higher rank. As the East Frankish, German Kingdom formed in the 9th century, the leaders of the old German tribal regions ([http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#saxony Saxony], [http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#franconia Franconia], [http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#bavaria Bavaria], etc.) and some comparable territories ([http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#dukeslorraine Lorraine]) came to be called ''dux'' (German ''Herzog''). Their domains are known as the "[http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm Stem Duchies]" (where there is more discussion of the derivation of ''Herzog''). [[File:crowns-t.gif|left|?]]This elevated the title well above its Roman status, so that Dukes came to be regarded as superior to Counts and Margraves. Soon, other domains adopted the title Duke. In France these were sometimes ethnic areas on analogy with the German tribes, like Gascony or [http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#brittany Brittany], and later were large, semi-independent realms (e.g. [http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#burgundy Burgundy]) often entrusted to Royal brothers (e.g. [http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#anjou-2 Charles of Anjou]). [[File:duke_001.gif|right|Duke]]Originally, both ''marchio'' and ''dux'' were seen more as functions or offices than as titles, and a Count (''comes'') might claim temporarily and alternatively either or both of the higher titles. The higher title might stick in some places, like [http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#gascony Gascony], which became a Duchy, but not in others, like [http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#provence Barcelona], which remained a County, although clearly a March in function. In Eastern Europe, a rank comprable to ''dux'' developed, "voivode," which is discussed with the rulers [http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#words there].
-In Eastern Europe, the rulers of Kiev, Vladimir, and Lithuania have traditionally been called "Grand Dukes," while newer treatments call them "Grand Princes." The word is Knyaz in Russian, Kunigaikshtis in Lithuanian, kníze in Czech, knez in Croatian, ksiaze in Polish, and knieza in Slovakian. In all these languages, a word for "duke" is also often borrowed from German, like Russian gertsog (i.e. herzog) and from Latin for "prince," Russian prints. All the originally Slavic (or Baltic, for Lithuanian) terms can be translated either "duke" or "prince." The preference for "duke" seems to come from the circumstance that in modern times a brother of the Russian Tsar was always a Velikii Knyaz, and this was always translated "Grand Duke" by analogy to the tradition of giving the title Duke to the brothers of the Kings of England and France. Merely calling them "princes" would have made them sound less significant (even like children). "Prince," however, is more of a sovereign title than "duke" (see above); and, with the Romanov Grand Dukes mostly gone from the scene, the tendency seems to be to dignify the rulers of Kiev and Vladimir, if not Lithuania, early Poland, etc., with that translation.
+In Eastern Europe, the rulers of [http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#kiev Kiev], [http://www.friesian.com/russia.htm#vladimir Vladimir], and [http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#lith Lithuania] have traditionally been called "Grand Dukes," while newer treatments call them "Grand Princes." The word is ''Knyaz'' in Russian, ''Kunigaikshtis'' in Lithuanian, ''kníze'' in Czech, ''knez'' in Croatian, ''ksiaze'' in Polish, and ''knieza'' in Slovakian. In all these languages, a word for "duke" is also often borrowed from German, like Russian ''gertsog'' (i.e. ''herzog'') and from Latin for "prince," Russian ''prints''. All the originally Slavic (or Baltic, for Lithuanian) terms can be translated either "duke" or "prince." The preference for "duke" seems to come from the circumstance that in modern times a brother of the Russian Tsar was always a ''Velikii Knyaz'', and this was always translated "Grand Duke" by analogy to the tradition of giving the title Duke to the brothers of the Kings of England and France. Merely calling them "princes" would have made them sound less significant (even like children). "Prince," however, is more of a sovereign title than "duke" (see above); and, with the Romanov Grand Dukes mostly gone from the scene, the tendency seems to be to dignify the rulers of Kiev and Vladimir, if not Lithuania, early Poland, etc., with that translation.
-The title of Duke was not introduced in England until 1337, used by Edward III for his sons, and never went with such semi-independent domains as the French Duchies. No Duchies were originally in principle independent (except in Eastern Europe); but as the Holy Roman Empire declined, the Stem Duchies, multiplied by division among brothers, became more and more independent. English "Duchies," although consisting of estates from which rents were collected, never came anywhere near to being organized, let alone independent, states. The French Duchy of Burgundy for a while was a rival to the French Throne itself, but it reverted to the Monarchy when the male line of Dukes died out in 1477. Fully independent German Duchies and Grand Duchies (like Baden) emerged when Napoleon abolished the Empire (1806). After the Congess of Vienna, they remained independent, subject only to the meagre powers of the German Confederation. German Duchies, Grand Duchies, Kingdoms, and Principalities all lost most of their sovereignty to the new German Empire in 1871. There is one remaining independent Grand Duchy in Europe, Luxembourg. Elsewhere, brothers of the sovereign King or Emperor were made Dukes (England) and Grand Dukes (Russia), without the traditional kind of sovereign feudal domain. The brother of the Prince of Wales in England, therefore, is traditionally dubbed the Duke of York; but this did not confer an independent sovereign status, and Yorkshire remains a County. Other English titles, like that of the Duke of Marlborough (or, for that matter, Earl Mountbatten of Burma), employ purely honorific place names.
+The title of Duke was not introduced in [http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#england England] until 1337, used by Edward III for his sons, and never went with such semi-independent domains as the French Duchies. No Duchies were originally in principle independent (except in Eastern Europe); but as the Holy Roman Empire declined, the Stem Duchies, multiplied by division among brothers, became more and more independent. English "Duchies," although consisting of estates from which rents were collected, never came anywhere near to being organized, let alone independent, states. The French Duchy of [http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#burgundy Burgundy] for a while was a rival to the French Throne itself, but it reverted to the Monarchy when the male line of Dukes died out in 1477. Fully independent German Duchies and Grand Duchies (like [http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm#baden Baden]) emerged when Napoleon abolished the Empire (1806). After the Congess of Vienna, they remained independent, subject only to the meagre powers of the [http://www.friesian.com/deutsch.htm German Confederation]. German Duchies, Grand Duchies, Kingdoms, and Principalities all lost most of their sovereignty to the new German Empire in 1871. There is one remaining independent Grand Duchy in Europe, [http://www.friesian.com/lorraine.htm#luxem Luxembourg]. Elsewhere, brothers of the sovereign King or Emperor were made Dukes (England) and Grand Dukes (Russia), without the traditional kind of sovereign feudal domain. The brother of the Prince of Wales in England, therefore, is traditionally dubbed the Duke of York; but this did not confer an independent sovereign status, and Yorkshire remains a County. Other English titles, like that of the Duke of [http://www.friesian.com/flanders.htm#marl Marlborough] (or, for that matter, Earl Mountbatten of Burma), employ purely honorific place names.
-In Italy, the direct descendants of the original Roman dux title could be seen in the Doges of independent cities like Venice and Genoa. Dux also came down in Italian with its original meaning, "leader," as duce, which was used as a title by Mussolini.
+In Italy, the direct descendants of the original Roman ''dux'' title could be seen in the '''''Doges''''' of independent cities like [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#doges Venice] and [http://www.friesian.com/italia.htm#genoa Genoa]. ''Dux'' also came down in Italian with its original meaning, "leader," as ''duce'', which was used as a title by Mussolini.
-There was exactly one Arch-Duchy, which is what the Hapsburgs promoted Austria to, before they promoted it to an Empire. Later the title was used for heirs, like the Arch-Duke Francis Ferdinand, whose assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 touched off World War I.
+There was exactly one '''Arch-Duchy''', which is what the Hapsburgs promoted [http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm#austria Austria] to, before they promoted it to an [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#orient-A Empire]. Later the title was used for heirs, like the Arch-Duke Francis Ferdinand, whose assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 touched off World War I.
@@ Line 42: / Line 45: @@
-The lowest ranks of landed feudal nobility, of "Peers" in Britain, are that of "Viscount" (vicecomes, i.e. "vice-count") and "Baron." Viscounts and Barons are not "of" anything, like higher nobility (e.g. "Count of Toulouse"). Viscounts and Barons could hold estates within Counties, but there is no traditional formal feudal division of a County, Duchy, Prinicpality, or anything else associated with them. They are simply addressed by their names, e.g. "Viscount Palmerston." "Baron" is rarely used in address or reference in Britain -- "Lord" alone is used (e.g. "Lord Byron," the 6th Baron Byron). "Baron" itself thus tends to sound like a German title, as it is (Old High German baro, into Mediaeval Latin as baro, baronis), although in German Herr is often used for basic noble rank -- as Seigneur is in French. The "Barons" in general can mean all the landed feudal nobility up to and including Dukes. The "Barons" are thus to be contrasted with the "Princes."
+The lowest ranks of landed feudal nobility, of "Peers" in Britain, are that of "Viscount" (''vicecomes'', i.e. "vice-count") and "Baron." Viscounts and Barons are not "of" anything, like higher nobility (e.g. "Count ''of'' Toulouse"). Viscounts and Barons could hold estates within Counties, but there is no traditional formal feudal division of a County, Duchy, Prinicpality, or anything else associated with them. They are simply addressed by their names, e.g. "Viscount Palmerston." "Baron" is rarely used in address or reference in Britain -- "Lord" alone is used (e.g. "Lord Byron," the 6th Baron Byron). "Baron" itself thus tends to sound like a German title, as it is (Old High German ''baro'', into Mediaeval Latin as ''baro'', ''baronis''), although in German ''Herr'' is often used for basic noble rank -- as ''Seigneur'' is in French. The "Barons" in general can mean all the landed feudal nobility up to and including Dukes. The "Barons" are thus to be contrasted with the "Princes."
-Under the Barons is non-landed gentle status. A "gentleman" traditionally was anyone with no regular trade or occupation (but, of course, an income or living). Since gentlemen by definition didn't work, below them would be the "working class" -- those with a regular trade or occupation. The term "working class," however, came in Marxist discourse to exclude capitalists or industrialists, not just gentlemen, even though such people definitely are "in trade" and were looked down upon by true gentlemen, gentry, or noblity. The Marxist idea was that capitalists were unnecessary parasites who thus did no work themselves. Although even Lenin realized quickly that "the workers" could not manage factories on their own, this absurd falsehood spelled stagnation and tyranny for the Soviet Union and for command or socialist economies. But the rhetoric about the "working class" (or "working families") continues as a regular part of political discourse in the United States, and anti-capitalist propaganda is generally required reading at American universities -- presented, not as historical retrospective, but as gospel truth. It is worth noting well who uses the term "working class" -- such language betrays their ideology and purposes, which otherwise may not candidly be stated -- or, if they are not actually anti-capitalist themselves, it means that they are confusedly using a tendentious terminology whose origin they do not understand.
+Under the Barons is non-landed gentle status. A "gentleman" traditionally was anyone with no regular trade or occupation (but, of course, an income or living). Since gentlemen by definition didn't work, below them would be the "working class" -- those ''with'' a regular trade or occupation. The term "working class," however, came in [http://www.friesian.com/marx.htm Marxist] discourse to exclude ''capitalists'' or industrialists, not just gentlemen, even though such people definitely are "in trade" and were looked down upon by true gentlemen, gentry, or noblity. The Marxist idea was that capitalists were unnecessary parasites who thus did no work themselves. Although even Lenin realized quickly that "the workers" could not manage factories on their own, this absurd falsehood spelled stagnation and tyranny for the Soviet Union and for command or socialist economies. But the rhetoric about the "working class" (or "working families") continues as a regular part of political discourse in the United States, and anti-capitalist propaganda is generally required reading at American universities -- presented, not as historical retrospective, but as gospel truth. It is worth noting well who uses the term "working class" -- such language betrays their ideology and purposes, which otherwise may not candidly be stated -- or, if they are not actually anti-capitalist themselves, it means that they are confusedly using a tendentious terminology whose origin they do not understand.
-The "gentry" had a bit more status than the mere gentleman (and usually their own land), consisting of the titles of "Baronet," "Knight," and "Esquire." Knights originally fought for the Barons, had the power to "meet justice" and bear arms, but did not collect taxes off of landed estates, except as employed by their Lords. They might, however, own land and so collect rents; but this was a private matter, not a function of rule. Esquires (squires, scutaria, "shield bearer") were apprentices and attendants of Knights. The title of "Baronet" was created by James I in 1611 simply to sell and raise money. Both Baronets and Knights are addressed as "Sir," usually using their first names, or both first and last names (e.g. Sir Karl Popper). The equivalent of Knighthood for women uses the title "Dame" (e.g. Dame Agatha Christie). The most famous Baronet may be the fictional Sir Henry Baskerville, of the Sherlock Holmes novel The Hound of the Baskervilles. The title of a Baronet is hereditary, while that of a Knight is not.
+The "gentry" had a bit more status than the mere gentleman (and usually their own land), consisting of the titles of "Baronet," "Knight," and "Esquire." Knights originally fought for the Barons, had the power to "meet justice" and bear arms, but did not collect taxes off of landed estates, except as employed by their Lords. They might, however, ''own'' land and so collect rents; but this was a private matter, not a function of rule. Esquires (squires, ''scutaria'', "shield bearer") were apprentices and attendants of Knights. The title of "Baronet" was created by James I in 1611 simply to sell and raise money. Both Baronets and Knights are addressed as "Sir," usually using their first names, or both first and last names (e.g. [http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm Sir Karl Popper]). The equivalent of Knighthood for women uses the title "Dame" (e.g. Dame Agatha Christie). The most famous Baronet may be the fictional Sir Henry Baskerville, of the Sherlock Holmes novel ''The Hound of the Baskervilles''. The title of a Baronet is hereditary, while that of a Knight is not.
-A basic Knight is a "Bachelor," but Knighthoods could also belong to Chivalric Orders, like the Bath or Garter. Chivalric Orders could be a large, independent, even sovereign military organizations, like the Hospitalers, Templars, or the Teutonic Knights. The Hospitalers remain a sovereign entity, although with no sovereign territory since the loss of Malta. Or, Orders could be restricted to nobility, or contain Ranks that didn't even involve Knighthood. Thus, the highest Japanese Order, of the Chrysanthemum (1876), was restricted to "sovereigns and members of princely families." The British Order of the Garter (1348) contains only one Rank, like the Chrysanthemum, and actually has a limited number of positions, intended to be like Arthur's Round Table. The British Orders of the Bath (1725) and of St. Michael and St. George (1818) have three Ranks, the Grand Cross, the Knight (or Dame) Commander, and the Companion. Companions, however, are not Knights. More elaborate is the Order of the British Empire (1917), with a Grand Cross (GBE), Knight (or Dame) Commander (KBE or DBE), Commander (CBE), Officer (OBE), and Member (MBE). Only possessors of the GBE or KBE/DBE are Knights.
+A basic Knight is a "Bachelor," but Knighthoods could also belong to Chivalric Orders, like the Bath or Garter. Chivalric Orders could be a large, independent, even sovereign military organizations, like the [http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#malta Hospitalers], [http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#templars Templars], or the [http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#teutonic Teutonic Knights]. The Hospitalers remain a sovereign entity, although with no sovereign territory since the loss of Malta. Or, Orders could be restricted to nobility, or contain Ranks that didn't even involve Knighthood. Thus, the highest Japanese Order, of the Chrysanthemum (1876), was restricted to "sovereigns and members of princely families." The British Order of the Garter (1348) contains only one Rank, like the Chrysanthemum, and actually has a limited number of positions, intended to be like Arthur's Round Table. The British Orders of the Bath (1725) and of St. Michael and St. George (1818) have three Ranks, the Grand Cross, the Knight (or Dame) Commander, and the Companion. Companions, however, are not Knights. More elaborate is the Order of the British Empire (1917), with a Grand Cross (GBE), Knight (or Dame) Commander (KBE or DBE), Commander (CBE), Officer (OBE), and Member (MBE). Only possessors of the GBE or KBE/DBE are Knights.
@@ Line 57: / Line 60: @@
-The title of "Esquire" is somewhat informal, traditionally used by some, like Barristers (and all American lawyers), to indicate a certain respectability, and otherwise to indicate something more than mere gentle status. In Britain, a Barrister is a lawyer who actually argues cases in Court, as opposed to a Solicitor, who is hired by clients and who arranges for the services of a Barrister. Barrister's fees were honoraria and thus not really wages, which would be demeaning. Thus, a Barrister was a gentleman, while a Solicitor, a professional, was not. The fiction that a Barrister was not a professional was shared by others whose occupation would originally have been regarded as clerical, i.e. actual Clergy or any kind of Academic. Calling a physician a "Doctor" is an extension of this, since doctor literally means "teacher" and is an academic title. In the Middle Ages, Doctors, whether medical or otherwise, did not perform professional services for clients -- the practice of mediaeval medicine was often in the hands of barbers and other casual practitioners. Among the first professional physicians were surgeons, who long retained the title "Mr." Before anesthesia and antisepsis, surgeons could not perform anything like modern surgery. They were specialists who did what now would count as minor surgery, e.g. "cutting for stone."
+The title of "Esquire" is somewhat informal, traditionally used by some, like Barristers (and all American lawyers), to indicate a certain respectability, and otherwise to indicate something more than mere gentle status. In Britain, a Barrister is a lawyer who actually argues cases in Court, as opposed to a Solicitor, who is hired by clients and who arranges for the services of a Barrister. Barrister's fees were ''honoraria'' and thus not really wages, which would be demeaning. Thus, a Barrister was a gentleman, while a Solicitor, a professional, was not. The fiction that a Barrister was not a professional was shared by others whose occupation would originally have been regarded as clerical, i.e. actual Clergy or any kind of Academic. Calling a physician a "Doctor" is an extension of this, since ''doctor'' literally means "teacher" and is an academic title. In the Middle Ages, Doctors, whether medical or otherwise, did not perform professional services for clients -- the practice of mediaeval medicine was often in the hands of barbers and other casual practitioners. Among the first professional physicians were surgeons, who long retained the title "Mr." Before anesthesia and antisepsis, surgeons could not perform anything like modern surgery. They were specialists who did what now would count as minor surgery, e.g. "cutting for stone."
@@ Line 69: / Line 72: @@
-"Hierarchy" is itself a curious word, since it literally means "sacred (hierós) rule (arkhé)." Feudal hierarchies are not particularly sacred, but of course the term has been borrowed from something that was regarded as sacred, the (Christian/Roman) Church. The structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, with the Pope later claiming complete supremacy, was the original and proper "hierarchy," as the Church became an organized institution that actually was ruled. Judaism originally had authoritative priests, and so a real hierarchy; but in the Middle Ages this had been lost, and Jewish religious authorities were only influential to the extent of their reputation for learning and holiness. Something similar was the case in Islâm, where the Caliphate was a religious office but basically a secular authority with religious duties. The Islâmic state was based on the establishment of the Islâmic religion, but rulers did not themselves have much religious authority and, over the centuries, became increasingly merely military. True religious authorities might exercise power as judges, but the real influence of either judges or non-judges depended, again, on their reputation for learning and holiness. This reflected the principle of (Orthodox) Islâmic Law that religious authority was ultimately by Consensus. The Caliph was not even a priest, much less a Pope.
+"Hierarchy" is itself a curious word, since it literally means "'''sacred''' (''hierós'') rule (''arkhé'')." Feudal hierarchies are not particularly sacred, but of course the term has been borrowed from something that ''was'' regarded as sacred, the (Christian/Roman) Church. The structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, with the Pope later claiming complete supremacy, was the original and proper "hierarchy," as the Church became an organized institution that actually was ruled. Judaism originally had authoritative priests, and so a real hierarchy; but in the Middle Ages this had been lost, and Jewish religious authorities were only influential to the extent of their reputation for learning and holiness. Something similar was the case in Islâm, where the Caliphate was a religious office but basically a secular authority with religious duties. The Islâmic state was based on the establishment of the Islâmic religion, but rulers did not themselves have much religious authority and, over the centuries, became increasingly merely military. True religious authorities might exercise power as judges, but the real influence of either judges or non-judges depended, again, on their reputation for learning and holiness. This reflected the principle of (Orthodox) Islâmic Law that religious authority was ultimately by Consensus. The Caliph was not even a priest, much less a Pope.
+The full elaboration of European feudalism thus, one suspects, developed by deliberate analogy to the Church. The analogy was maintained in the doctrine of the "[[Medieval Society: The Three Orders |Three Estates]]," by which society was seen as consisting of three parts, the Nobility, the Churchmen, and the Commoners. Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals might, significantly, be called "Princes" of the Church. But while feudalism has come and gone, taking most of the nobility with it, the Church still exists, with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, especially, now extending right around the world, with Popes still elected as they have been for centuries.
+* '''Note:''' "Three Estates" is to be expanded and include [http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture23b.html Medieval Society: The Three Orders]
+==Feudal Hierarchy, Note 1==
+As [[File:basileus.gif|link= ]] became the standard term for "Emperor" in Mediaeval Greek, we would expect that "Empress" would reflect the older word for "queen." It did, but with some shifting. In Classical Greek, "queen" could be [[File:queen.gif|link= ]], ''basíleia'', [[File:queen3.gif|link= ]], ''basilís'', or [[File:queen2.gif|link= ]], ''basílissa''. The first differs from "royalty" or "kingdom," [[File:royalty.gif|link= ]], only in accent. The last becomes more current in the Middle Ages for "Empress," but now is the standard term in Modern Greek for "queen." Because of this, we see Modern Greek use [[File:empress_Gr.gif|link= ]], ''Autokráteira'', for "Empress"; but I don't know if that word was used in Mediaeval Greek. Like Queen Hatshepsut of the [http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#18 XVIII Dynasty] in Egypt using "King" for herself, the Empress [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#siege-2 Irene] sometimes used [[File:basileus.gif|link= ]], i.e. "Emperor," after assuming sole rule.
+The adoption of [[File:rex.gif|link= ]] for "king" in Mediaeval Greek survives into Modern Greek usage. However, the Modern form, [[File:rex2.gif|link= ]], ''régas'', has shifted from a third declension noun to a first declension masculine (first declensions were usually, but not always, feminine; but those forms were always distinguished by the final ''sigma'' in the nominative, as we see), which is very common in Modern Greek.
+[[File:crowns-0.gif|right|Sanctified Emperor Augustus World]]The titles [[File:basileus.gif|link= ]] and [[File:autokrat.gif|link= ]] were used for the Emperors so consistently that I began to wonder if [[File:augustus.gif|link= ]] was really ever used at all. Indeed, it was used far less frequently than [[File:augusta.gif|link= ]] was used for the Empress. But it ''was'' used. A good example is from ''De Ceremoniis'', by the Emperor [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#macedon Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus] (913-959), in a section "The forms of address used in writing to foreign nations" [Book II, Chapter 48]. We find the "emir of Egypt," which in Constantine's day would mean the [http://www.friesian.com/islam.htm#ikhshid Ikhshîdids], addressed by "the great and sublime ''augoustoi'', emperors of the Romans" [Constantine Porphyrogennetos, ''The Book of Ceremonies'', translated by Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall, with the Greek edition of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829), Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Byzantina Australiensia 18, Canberra, 2012, Volume II, p.689].
+==Feudal Hierarchy, Note 2 Monarchical Acclamations==
+In the history of monarchy, we find distinctive acclamations, cheers, shouts, or "wish formulae" used to greet, proclaim, or celebrate rulers. The most familiar of these may be the term ''banzai'', part of ''Tennô heika banzai'', [[File:emperor2.gif|link= ]] [[File:steps.gif|link= ]] [[File:low.gif|link= ]] [[File:banzai.gif|link= ]], used for the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#japan Japanese Emperors] (with ''Tennô heika'' no more than reduplicative terms for "emperor"). This is based on the expression [[File:banzai.gif|link= ]] used for the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ch'in Chinese Emperors], which means "10,000 years," i.e. as long as we would like the Present Emperor to reign. The formula in its modern form was officially adopted in Japan in the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#modern Meiji Period]. Much, much older is the formula for the [http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#pharaoh Kings of Egypt], [[File:LHP.gif|link= ]], "Life, Prosperity, Health!"
+[[File:crowns-0.gif|right|Sanctified Emperor Augustus World]]With the Roman Emperors in Constantinople, we get a similar tradition, which we know about from ''De Ceremoniis'' again, as in the [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#note-4 previous note]. In Mediaeval Greek an acclamation is the [[File:acclaim.gif|link= ]], ''euphemía'' (cf. "euphemism"), with the opposite, of disapprobation, [[File:disaprob.gif|link= ]], ''dysphemía'', which was used to call for the overthrow of Emperors who are judged "unworthy," [[File:unworthy.gif|link= ]], ''anáxios''. We see at the Coronation of an Emperor [Book I, Chapter 38, p.195] and elsewhere, this has two parts, with a "call-and-response" format. A "cheerleader" or ''kráktês'' begins with [[File:greek-11.gif|link= ]], ''pollà, pollà, pollá'', "many, many, many," and then the "people," ''laós'', answer, [[File:greek-12.gif|link= ]], ''pollà étê eis pollá'', "many years upon many." The Japanese ''banzai'' is also often given with a "cheerleader" who initiates the acclamation with ''Tennô heika'', "The Emperor," followed by the people, the crowd, or the soldiers shouting, with arms raised, ''Banzai''.
+In the English language tradition, about the best we can do is, "Hip, hip, horray!" or the obsolete "Huzzah!" which have no discernible cognitive content. Mercifully, the American [http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm President] is never greeted with the wish that he govern for many years. With the [http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#hanover Queen of England], on the other hand, we express more concern for her soul than her reign, with "God Save the Queen." Since this is the title of the [http://www.friesian.com/history/anthems.htm#godsave national anthem] (which does express a desire for a long reign), it is not clear how often the Queen is actually greeted with "God Save the Queen." Toasts at banquets are liable to feature a "call" of "The Queen," and then a response of "The Queen" and/or "Here, here!"
+The old Roman acclamation survives in the liturgy of the Greek and other Orthodox Churches as the ''polychronion'', "much time" or "long lived," which consists of verses that express a wish for long life for Church prelates and/or secular authorities. This ends with [[File:greek-13.gif|link= ]], ''eis pollà étê'', "unto many years," which is recognizable from the acclamations in ''De Ceremoniis''. It is also said to translate Latin ''in multo annos'', or ''ad multo annos''.
+=Ranks of the Ottoman Empire=
+The [http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm Ottoman Empire] was never governed in terms of a feudal system, with fiefs and vassals, as in Europe. Nevertheless, Hagopian's ''Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-Grammar'' [Julius Groos, Heidelberg, 1907] defines the word [[File:beyzade.gif|link= ]], ''beyzade'', to mean "nobleman" [p.201], literally "son of a Bey," with the Persian [http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#note-22 patronymic] on the title ''Bey/Be[[File:turk-g.gif|link= ]]''. What might be regarded as noble rank, however, was never an independent feudal office but an honorary and ''ex officio'' status for other offices, civil, military, and religious.
+Thus, holders of [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#general General] military rank were entitled to be addressed as [[File:pasha.gif|link= ]], ''Pasha'', with the title following the name, as in "[http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#gordon Gordon Pasha]," who held Khartoum against the Mahdî. Holders of [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#command Command] rank would be addressed as [[File:bey.gif|link= ]], ''Bey''; but below the rank of a full Colonel or ship Captain, this might alternate with [[File:efendi.gif|link= ]], ''Efendi''. Hagopian does not explain why both would be used, or if one is appropriate in some circumstances but not the other. So there is an ambiguity that we would not have with proper, independent noble rank. In turn, basic [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#officer Officer] rank entitles one to be addressed as Efendi, but this also alternates with [[File:agha.gif|link= ]], ''Agha'', below the rank of army Captain or naval Lieutenant. In [http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm#turkish Ottoman Turkish] ''Efendi'' was also a common term of respect for civilians, just as in Modern Persian ''Agha'' is merely the equivalent of "Mr."
+The most curious thing here may be that ''Efendi'', which seems so Turkish and Muslim, derives from Greek. In Classical Greek it was [[File:authente.gif|link= ]], ''authéntês'', "one who does anything himself; master, autocrat," the actual source of the word "authentic" in English. As the [http://www.friesian.com/archon.htm#pronounce pronunciation] of the diphthong ''au'' changed to ''av'' or ''aph'', this assimilated the ''th'' so that the word became [[File:aphentes.gif|link= ]], ''aphéntês'', "lord, master, proprietor," in Mediaeval and Modern Greek. From there it passed into Turkish.
+=Varieties of Kingship=
+Over the course of history there are various conceptions of the nature of the relationship between a '''ruler''' and, on the one hand, his '''people''' and, on the other hand, the '''land''' over which he rules and upon which they live. There are also different conceptions about the ''source'' of the authority of the rulers, although the explanation of the former ''may'' also provide an explanation of the latter.
+* Nowhere is this relationship clearer than in one of the earliest conceptions of Kingship. '''Theogenetic Kingship''' means that the ruler is of divine origin, inheriting acts of creation by which the gods made the land and made the people to live on it. The justification of rule is consequently a particularly strong form of '''Hieratic Kingship''', where the ruler possesses sacred and [http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm numinous] authority. The relationship of the people to the land is thus indirect and mediated, but by a very strong paranormal connection through the gods. It is because of them that the people and the land have literally been brought together. We see this form of monarchy in an exemplary way in [http://www.friesian.com/notes/oldking.htm Ancient Egypt], but also quite recently in modern [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#japan Japan]. In both cases, not only are the rulers descended from the gods, but they are gods themselves -- although the Emperor of Japan was un-deified after World War II. Characteristic of this kind of Kingship are various ritual prohibitions. People may be discouraged or prohibited from even looking at the King (or Emperor), let alone touching him -- which might cause instant death (struck down by the power of the King, or more likely by his bodyguards). We also find forms of this in [http://www.friesian.com/hawaii.htm#languages Polynesia], where there are degrees of sacrality among the nobility, the ''ali'i'' (in Hawaiian, ''ariki'' in Mâori), the most sacred of whom cannot be looked at -- on pain of death. A herald announces the approach of such a personage. Polynesia is also an interesting case for theogenetic kingship in a migratory people. [http://www.friesian.com/hawaii.htm Hawaiians] and Tahitians knew that they had come from elsewhere, yet their connection to the lands they found, which of course had been created by their gods, was signified by a common name:  ''Hawai'i'' in Hawaiian, ''Havai'i'' in Tahitian, ''Savai'i'' in Sâmoan, and ''Hawaiki'' in Mâori. Thus, the mythic land of their divine origin is found again in each new destination, with the connection mediated by the gods. A native of Hawai'i is a ''kama'âina'', "child of the land," which already suggests the next category:
+* Where in hierogentic kingship the connection of the people to the land is mediated through the divine, in '''Autochthonous Kingship''' the relationship is much more direct, with the role of the ruler subject to various explanations. Although today we may speak of an autochthonous people as being the original inhabitants of a land as far back as we can trace (such as the [http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#basque Basques] in Spain and France), the mythic meaning of the term is far more literal:  An autochthonous people have literally been grown and born out of the land. A paradigmatic version of this is the story of Cadmus ''growing'' a crop of people by sowing the dragon's teeth on the site of Thebes. Cadmus, who has migrated from Phoenicia, has no essential link to the land at all, although the gods have directed him there, but he does then have nearly as intimate connection to the people, whom he has brought about, as the people do to the land. Since Cadmus is then appointed king by the gods, we do have a case of hieratic kingship; but it is also possible to have an autochthonous people whose rulers have other sanctions. Thus, while many American Indians believe that they are literally autochthonous, and have sprung from the land rather than migrated in from Asia, their leaders may have merely '''Customary''' authority, i.e. their authority has its source in tradition, either from an ancient family or from some customary means of choosing a leader.
+* More variables can be found in '''Feudal Kingship'''. Here the key idea is of a ''contractual'' relationship, that the King distributes the land among those who will possess and rule it (perhaps temporarily) on the basis of an agreement that there is a ''quid pro quo'' of services owed for the benefits bestowed. The ruling class may be distinct from the bulk of the people, who may be regarded as autochthonous or who belong to the land and go with it, whatever their origin. The justification of rule in these cases may be hieratic, with divine (even theogenetic) sanction, customary, or even merely '''Fiduciary''', that the ruler performs this function as an office for the purpose of good government. The implication of all feudal kingship, however, is the ''ownership'' of the land by the sovereign, while the nobility, who become vassals of the ruler, have a moral relationship more nearly of equality to the ruler than do the people who otherwise live on the land and go with it. This means that it may be relatively accidental who has become the king and who has become his vassal, and the relationship may change. That is what we see both in Mediaeval Europe and in Polynesia. It is also much like the feudal structure of China of the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#chou Chou Dynasty]. But in China, no permanent barrier solidified between nobility and people, and it was soon the understanding that anyone, even a peasant, could become Emperor, or rise through merit, by way of the Civil Service [http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm#note-8 Examinations], to obtain any other office in the land.
+* Finally, we have a conception of rule where the land itself simply drops out of the equation. In '''Tribal Kingship''', the ruler has a direct relationship to the people, but the people may be nomadic or migratory, with no essential connection to the land they (perhaps temporarily) occupy. This is something we see in the ''word'' for "king" in English (cognate to other Germanic terms, such as ''könig'' in German), which derved from "kin," i.e. relatives (''cynn'' in Old English). "King" is in form a contraction for "kin-ing" (''cyning'' in Old English), with what is now the active participle suffix. But we know that the older Indo-European word for "king" -- such as ''rex'' in Latin or ''râja'' in [http://www.friesian.com/cognates.htm#sanskrit Sanskrit] -- existed in Germanic languages. We see ''reiks'' in Gothic and the element ''ric'' that turns up in multiple Germanic names (from "Roderic" to "Richard"). We may opine that as Germanic tribes became migratory, their sense of being a unit of people became detached from any sense of relationship to the lands through which they passed. This may attend or be reinforced by certain usages. Thus, when [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#bonaparte Napoleon] was styled "Emperor of the French," this goes back to the common Mediaeval locution that predicated rule on the people rather than the land. The newly elected [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#swabia Holy Rome Emperor] was "King of the Romans," while even the Emperor in [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#second Constantinople] was the ''Rhômaiôn Basileús'', "Emperor of the Romans." It is now all but forgotten that he might as easily have been the ''Rhômanías Basileús'', "Emperor of Romania."
+The office of Roman Emperor is an interesting case for the nature and justification of rule. Rome as a ''City'' bore with it little sense of autochthonous possession. The "People of Rome" were generally the basis of Roman existence. Offices were customary, and their responsibilities were mainly fiduciary. The secularism that seems to attend all of this may go back to the tradition that began among the [http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#why Greeks] of overthrowing kings, who can have been of hieratic or theogenetic origin, and then replacing them with artificial constitutions. This difference was strongly felt even by Augustus, who created the office of Emperor in explicitly fiduciary terms. Over time, however, the fiduciary beocmes customary, and then finally hieratic. Thus, Christian Roman Emperors, beginning with Constantine, become ''Isoapostolos'', "Equal to the Apostles," and are portrayed with halos. Nevertheless, they definitely do not have theogenetic authority and may be deposed and replaced at the will of the people or the army. Divine sanction is ''ex officio'' and revocable. Something of the sort also clings to the Holy Roman Emperors, who possess the office courtesy of the Electors of the Empire, and whose divine sanction is entirely contingent on coronation by the Pope.
-The full elaboration of European feudalism thus, one suspects, developed by deliberate analogy to the Church. The analogy was maintained in the doctrine of the "Three Estates," by which society was seen as consisting of three parts, the Nobility, the Churchmen, and the Commoners. Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals might, significantly, be called "Princes" of the Church. But while feudalism has come and gone, taking most of the nobility with it, the Church still exists, with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, especially, now extending right around the world, with Popes still elected as they have been for centuries.
+Elsewhere in Europe, stronger conceptions developed. Thus, the French Monarchy, original elective, became in time hereditary and customary. Its divine sanction was directly from God, bolstered by the legend of a vial of coronation oil that descended from heaven to sanctify the first Christian King of the Franks, [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#clovis Clovis]. Ideologically, this grew into the "Divine Right of Kings," a doctrine that cost at least two kings their heads, Charles I of [http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#protect England] and Louis XVI of [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm#bourbon France]. Thus, [http://www.friesian.com/locke.htm John Locke] described English Kingship in Fiduciary terms, while today, with few significant duties remaining to the British Throne, the office has mainly become Customary. Both France and England, however, beginning with Tribal conceptions of Kingship, gradually drifted into a stronger relationship with the Land. Napoleon may have been the ''Empereur des Français'', but Louis was the ''Roi de France''. In ''That Hideous Strength'', C.S. Lewis played with the idea that, underlying the tribal "England" of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Normans, there was the sacred "Logres" (Welsh ''Lloegr'') of the originally [http://www.friesian.com/scotia.htm#celtic Celtic] land, which was the true source of legitimacy and sanctity. Similarly, in John Boorman's 1981 movie ''Excalibur'', we find Merlin telling Arthur, "You and the land are one." This expresses some kind of autochthonous kingship, with a more intimate relationship between king and land than we see in Cadmus. Indeed, Arthur's divine sanction is made mysteriously evident in his ability to draw the Sword from the Stone -- symbols simultaneously of Rule and the Land.
-*
+Today, of course, we know that politicians, with little but fiduciary authority, are generally venal and egotistical careerists. We tend to think that there is no, and ought not be, any real ''majestas'' of rule; and unfortunately most modern rulers live ''down'' to this standard. The dignity of Republican governments depends on the personal character of the office holders, and this has decayed drastically from Washington and Jefferson.
-*
-==Ranks of the Ottoman Empire==
+=Chinese Feudal Hierarchy=
-*
+With the discussion of European [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#feudal feudal hierarchy], I have been including the corresponding Chinese characters. The origin of these is entirely independent of European feudalism. Indeed, it is much earlier, during the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#chou Chou Dynasty] (1027-256 BC) of China, which broke up into a patchwork of feudal domains during the [http://www.friesian.com/choustat.htm Eastern Chou] (771-256). The title of Emperor was only formulated during the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#ch'in Ch'in Dynasty] (256-207), by the "First Emperor," [[File:emperor4.gif|link= ]]. Since the Emperor was the "Son of Heaven," [[File:emperor3.gif|link= ]], and ruled all "Under Heaven," [[File:tianxia.gif|link= ]], the ideology of universal rule was comparable to that of [http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm Rome] and [http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm Europe].
-*
-==Varieties of Kingship==
+[[File:sangong2.gif|left|Three Dukes Han Dynasty]] [[File:sangong.gif|right|Three Dukes Chou Dynasty]]Under the Chou King there were originally the "Five Ranks," [[File:5ranks.gif|link= ]]. These are conventionally matched up with European feudal rank from Duke to Baron, although the history of the different ranks is unlikely to correspond to their history in Europe. When Chinese government changed, and feudal rank was replaced by Court rank, the feudal hierarchy became of only historical interest and honorary usage.
-*
-*
-==Chinese Feudal Hierarchy==
+The term [[File:gong.gif|link= ]] can mean "judge" (as with [http://www.friesian.com/ross/dee.htm Judge Dee]) or just "official," as well as "duke." Thus, we see different translations of the institution of the [[File:three.gif|link= ]] [[File:gong.gif|link= ]] illustrated at left. These are the "Three Dukes" or "Three Senior Lords," each respectfully holding their tablet of office, [[File:tablet.gif|link= ]], in the folds of their sleeves (the Emperor probably should not be shown in the same way, although the Emperor himself does have a commission, as the [http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm#six Mandate of Heaven]). They are the highest officials of the realm under the Chou, Ch'in, and Han Dynasties. Their particular identities changed in the different eras. At left are titles from the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#han Former and Later Han Dyansties]. The first form of the "Great Commander" title and those as given of the other Ministers are versions of the titles from the Former Han. In the Later Han, the second verison of "Great Commander" and the other titles without the ''Da'' ("Great") are found. These continued to be used, though perhaps for offices with less authority, through the T'ang and Sung. The original forms of the Chou, the "Great Preceptor" (or Grand Tutor), the "Great Mentor" (or Assistant Grand Tutor), and the "Grand Guardian," may be examined in (at right) titles from the Chou Dyansties. The later versions take on more of the tone of cabinet officers rather than the Chou implication of teachers. The "Three Dukes" were also called the [[File:exalted.gif|link= ]][[File:tripod.gif|link= ]], "Exalted Tripod," i.e. the legs upon which the Realm stands [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm#note-5 note].
-*
-*
-==Feudal Hierarchy, Note==
+Subsequently, European and Chinese feudal rank were formally ''equated'' in [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#modern Meiji Japan] (1868-1912), when a system of European nobility replaced Chinese Court rank and the previous Japanese feudal system of the samurai. Thus, at right, we see the Japanese pronunciation of the characters below the Chinese pronunciation. These are often coupled with [[File:rank.gif|link= ]], pronounced '''shaku''' in Japanese, giving us [[File:duke_hiero.gif|link= ]][[File:rank.gif|link= ]] or [[File:marquis.gif|link= ]][[File:rank.gif|link= ]], both actually pronounced '''Kôshaku''' in Japanese. Japanese nobility and all these ranks were abolished after World War II in the project to democratize Japanese society. The Emperor of Japan, however, survives, and is the last person with any form of the title "Emperor" on earth.
-*
-*
 ==Chinese Feudal Hierarchy, Note==
-*
+I have taken some liberties in the presentation of the Three Senior Lords, placing them with associations drawn from the theory of [http://www.friesian.com/yinyang.htm Yin and Yang] and the five [http://www.friesian.com/elements.htm#china Chinese Elements]. I base this on a footnote in an edition of ''The Romance of the [http://www.friesian.com/sangoku.htm#three Three Kingdoms]'' [ [[File:three.gif|link= ]][[File:kingdom.gif|link= ]][[File:practice.gif|link= ]][[File:yi2.gif|link= ]], ''Three Kingdoms'', attributed to Luo Guanzhong, Foreign Language Press, Beijing, 1995, 2007, Volume I]. There it says, "the ''sangong'', the Emperor's closest confidants...were also identified with Heaven, earth, and man" [Note 2 to Chapter 2, p.548]. Now, Heaven, Earth, and Man are traditionally the "Three Powers," [[File:three.gif|link= ]][[File:power.gif|link= ]], but they also match up with three of the four "Spirit Gates" that figure in Yin-Yang theory and Chinese geomancy. This seems past coincidence, and also that a Minister of the Emperor would ''not'' be identified with the fourth Spirit Gate, the "Demon Gate" (and where Demons do not figure as a "power," [[File:power.gif|link= ]]). So I have added these associations, with their Trigrams, to the diagram above. The Demon Gate, associated with the North-East and the Mountain Trigram, is something that needs guarding, as we find the old Japanese capital of Kyoto guarded by the temples to the North-East on the "Sacred Mountain," [http://www.friesian.com/six.htm#tendai Mt. Hiei]. Now, I don't think it is an accident that the Three Senior Lords should be associated with the Spirit Gates. The liberty I have taken is with the colors. Yellow is indeed the color of the Center and the Emperor. Green, red, and white, however, are not otherwise associated with Spirit Gates, but with the elements of the cardinal directions, wood to the East, fire to the South, and metal to the West, respectively. I have simply rotated these, beginning with green for the South-East, where, after all, the Trigram actually is associated with wood. The fifth color, black for water and North, would rotate to the Demon Gate, where, indeed, demons might traditionally be portrayed in black.
-*
-==Notes==
+=Notes=
 * Military Ranks taken from [http://www.friesian.com/rank.htm this website]
 *
-[[Category:Military Ranks]] [[Category:Feudal Hierarchy]]
+[[Category:Military Ranks]] [[Category:Feudal Hierarchy]] [[Category:Varieties of Kingship]] [[Category:Chinese Feudal Hierarchy]]

Difference between revisions of "Military Ranks Feudal Hierarchy"

Latest revision as of 01:28, 22 November 2015

Contents

Feudal Hierarchy

Feudal Hierarchy, Note 1

Feudal Hierarchy, Note 2 Monarchical Acclamations

Ranks of the Ottoman Empire

Varieties of Kingship

Chinese Feudal Hierarchy

Chinese Feudal Hierarchy, Note

Notes

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools