Bloch's French Feudal Society - the Golden Age

While reading Bloch, I was struck by quite a few things.  On the positive side, I was very impressed with the scope and range of topics he covered.  In particular I enjoyed his discussion of the epic poem and folk memory as well as his mapping of language development across various cultures.  I would expect to find topics like these covered by folklorists and social scientists, so I was pleasantly surprised to find them addressed by Bloch.  I also truly enjoyed reading the content. I am particularly interested in Britain directly prior and post the Norman Invasion of 1066, so seeing the French perspective was a new point of view for me to consider.

I did however have a few concerns when I considered Bloch critically.  For example, as a work covering a feudal society, I was expecting a lot more about the serfs!  They hardly make an appearance! I thought Bloch presented an extremely rosy, romantic, and optimistic view of feudal conditions.  In addition to the epic poetry, Bloch discusses implementation of laws based on sage Roman precedent (and no upper class Roman ever passed a law which benefited the elite politically or economically at the expense of the lower classes) and he also romanticizes the mighty brotherhood experienced communally among all men who pledged themselves in service and loyalty.   I felt as if I were reading about a Golden Age or Camelot and not a violent and brutal Feudal Age!

Bloch also seemed to take a very strong Eurocentric and specifically even a Franco-centric perspective placing a supremacy on upper class European Christian men.  I interpreted Bloch as viewing France as a nucleus in Europe because, in his opinion, France was the least tainted ethnically, linguistically, judicially, and socially. In particular he traces how Britain, Germany, and Spain were more heavily influenced (corrupted) by invading foreign-speaking pagan barbarians and how France felt these effects to a lesser degree than her neighbors.  We discussed several times in class the connection between the present and the past in terms of the historian and his/her perspective. I don’t know if Bloch had a specific agenda presenting such a strong national bias, particularly considering the time he was writing, but I do think he could have presented a more balanced view of French Feudalism by including more from the perspectives of the poor and women.  I also think that he could have presented a fairer few of feudalism in Europe in general if he didn’t try to elevate French feudalism over the feudal societies in Britain and Germany; of course each area had differences unique to that culture, but that doesn’t make one better than the other.  Additionally, while discussing the different feudal practices in each culture, Bloch often questioned and insulted the intelligence of the other cultures saying that they were not intelligent enough to do things differently or come up with different solutions (p30, 67, 71).  I think this is lazy and irresponsible on the part of the historian.  There could be a myriad of reasons why a culture decides to pursue one option or course of action over others and none of them have to do with the innate intelligence of the people of the time.  Bloch should have considered other social, political and economic reasons for why a culture might chose a certain action (or inaction) without insulting their basic intelligence.