Feudalism: European History and the New Approaches

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 47, 39 - 64, 01.05.2010

T. Tolga Gümüş

https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarar_0000000455

Cited By: 1

Öz

The social historians of Western Europe have been using the term ‘feudalism’ for a number of reasons in defining various aspects of the European societies of different historical periods, especially by the beginning of the twentieth century. The very definition of the term as it were, has covered a relatively large historical period and has referred to miscellanea of social situations sometimes with no apparent connection. This in turn, brought about a number of problems. This study investigates the development of the term feudalism and the problems that arose in applying this term to various social institutions of Western Europe. The classical conceptual framework regarding the concept has been analyzed. The new meaning(s) attributed to the term has been accordingly asserted. First, different definitions of the term feudalism, each underlying different aspects of it, have been discussed. How the meaning of the term has evolved through time has been demonstrated. Then the problems of each definition in particular and the problem of the term feudalism in general have been determined. Lastly, new historical approaches regarding why the term is presently insufficient and the current discussions of the term feudalism have been reviewed

Anahtar Kelimeler

Feudalism, Western European History, Social History

Feodalizm: Avrupa Tarihinde Yeni Yaklaşımlar

Öz

Batı Avrupa sosyal tarihinde ‘feodalizm’ kavramı özellikle yirminci yüzyılın başından itibaren Avrupa tarihçileri tarafından çeşitli amaçlarla, Avrupa tarihinin çok çeşitli dönem ve sosyal unsurlarını tanımlamak için kullanılmıştır. Kavramın oldukça geniş bir sosyal coğrafyadaki farklı toplumların çok uzun zaman dilimlerindeki sosyal unsurlarını tanımlaması, zaman içerisinde beraberinde çeşitli sorunları da getirmiştir. Bu çalışmada feodalizm kavramının tarih içindeki gelişim süreci incelenmekte ve kavramın bugün Avrupa tarihçileri açısından kazandığı yeni anlamlar değerlendirilmektedir. İlk olarak feodalizm kavramının Avrupa tarihi literatüründe ne şekilde hangi sosyal yapıları betimlemek için kullanıldığı, Klasik görüşün nasıl şekillendiği ve zaman içerisinde anlamının nasıl değiştiği değerlendirilmektedir. Daha sonra tarihçilerin çeşitli sosyal unsurları ön plana çıkararak yaptıkları çeşitli ‘feodalizm’ tanımları ve bu tanımların neden olduğu sorunlar irdelenmektedir. Son olarak kavramın bugün özellikle ortaçağ tarihçileri için neden yetersiz kaldığı üzerinde durulmakta ve mevcut ‘feodalizm’ tartışmalarının sorunları ortaya konmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Feodalizm, Feodalite, Batı Avrupa Tarihi, Sosyal Tarih

Kaynakça

• Adams, George Burton, ‘Anglo-Saxon Feudalism’, American Historical Review, 7/1, (Ekim, 1901), s. 11-35.
• Alfonso, Isabel, ‘Cistercians and Feudalism’, Past and Present, 133, (Kasım, 1991), s. 3-30.
• Bachrach, Bernard S., Eleştiri: Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 27/3, (Sonbahar, 1995), s. 466-67.
• Bisson, Thomas N., ‘Medieval Lordship’, Speculum, 70/4, (Ekim, 1995), s. 743-759.
• Boulainvillier, Henri (Comte de), Histoire des Anciens Parlements de France (1737).
• Britnell, R. H., ‘Feudal Reaction after the Black Death in the Palatinate of Durham’, Past and Present, 128, (Ağustos., 1990), s. 28-47
• Brown, Elizabeth A. R., ‘The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe’, American Historical Review, 79/4, (Ekim, 1974).
• Capua, J. V., ‘Feudal and Royal Justice in Thirteenth-Century England: The Forms and the Impact of Royal Review’, American Journal of Legal History, 27/1, (Ocak, 1983), s. 54-84.
• Carpenter, D. A., ‘The Second Century of English Feudalism’, Past and Present, 168, (Ağustos, 2000), s. 30-71.
• Charusheela, S., ‘Transition, Telos, and Taxonomy’, Rethinking Marxism, A Journal of Economics, Culture and Society, 19/1, (Ocak 2007), s. 8-17.
• Cheyette, Fredric, ‘Some Notations on Mr. Hollister’s “Irony”’, Journal of British Studies, 5/1. (Kasım, 1965), s. 1-14.
• Coss, P. R., ‘Bastard Feudalism Revised’, Past and Present, 125, (Kasım, 1989), s. 27-64.
• Coulborn, Rushton, (ed.), Feudalism and Asian Societies, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956).
• Crouch, David; Carpenter, D. A., ‘Bastard Feudalism Revised’, Past and Present, 131, (Mayıs, 1991), s. 165-189.
• Davidson, Andrew P., ve Grant, Bligh, ‘Rural Australia: Neo-Liberalism or A “New Feudalism”?’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, (Ocak 2001), 31/3, s. 289-305.
• Douglas, David C., ‘The Norman Conquest and English Feudalism’, Economic History Review, 9/2, (Mayıs, 1939), s. 128-143.
• Dubos, Jean-Baptiste (L'abbé), Histoire Critique de L'établissement de la Monarchie Françoise dans les Gaules (1734).
• Duvall, Tim, ‘The New Feudalism: Globalization, the Market, and the Great Chain of Consumption’, New Political Science, 25/1, (2003), s. 81-97.
• Franz, Barbara, ‘Guest Workers and Immigration Reform: The Rise of a New Feudalism in America?’, New Political Science, 29/3, (Kasım 2007), s. 349-68.
• Ganshof, François Louis, Feudalism çev. Philip Grierson (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964).
• Hajdu, Robert, ‘Family and Feudal Ties in Poitou, 1100-1300’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 8/1, (1977), s. 117-139.
• Halphen, Louis, Charlemagne et l'empire Carolingien (Paris: Albin Michel, 1968).
• Hilton, R. H., ‘A Crisis of Feudalism’, Past and Present, 80, (Ağustos, 1978), s. 3-19.
• Hollister, C. Warren, ‘1066: The “Feudal Revolution”’, American Historical Review, 73/3, (Şubat, 1968), s. 708-723.
• Hollister, C. Warren, ‘Reflections on the Unicorn’s Head’, Journal of British Studies, 5/1. (Kasım, 1965), s. 15-18.
• Hollister, C. Warren, ‘The Norman Conquest and the Genesis of English Feudalism’, American Historical Review, 66/3, (Nisan, 1961), s. 641-63.
• Holt, J. C., ‘Politics and Property in Early Medieval England’, Past and Present, 57, (Kasım 1972), s. 3-52.
• Holton, Robert J., ‘Marxist Theories of Social Change and the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism’, Theory and Society, 10/6, (Ekim, 1981), s. 833-867.
• Hoyt, Robert S. ve Hollister, C. Warren, ‘The Iron Age of English Feudalism’, Journal of British Studies, 2/2. (Mayıs, 1963),s. 27-32.
• Kaiser, Thomas E., ‘Feudalism and the French Revolution’, History Teacher, 12/2. (Şubat, 1979), s. 203-216
• Kosminsky, E. A., ‘The Evolution of Feudal Rent in England from the XIth to the XVth Centuries’, Past and Present, 7, (Nisan, 1955), s. 12-36.
• Lawrence Krader, ‘Feudalism and the Tatar Polity of the Middle Ages’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1/1, (Ekim, 1958), s. 76-99.
• Lyon, Bryce D., ‘The Feudal Antecedent of the Indenture System’, Speculum, 29/3, (Haziran, 1954), s. 503-5.
• Lyon, Bryce D., ‘The Money Fief under the English Kings, 1066-1485’, English Historical Review, 66/259, (Nisan, 1951), s. 161-193.
• Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, (Baron de), De l'Esprit des Lois (Anonim baskı: 1748).
• Murray, Warwick E., ‘Neo-feudalism in Latin America? Globalisation, Agribusiness, and Land Re-concentration in Chile’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 33/4, (Ekim 2006), s. 646- 77.
• Painter, Sidney, ‘The Family and the Feudal System in Twelfth Century England’, Speculum, 35/1, (Ocak, 1960), s. 1-16.
• Poggi, Gianfranco, ‘Max Weber’s Conceptual Portrait of Feudalism’, British Journal of Sociology, 39/2. (Temmuz, 1988), s. 211-227.
• Romano, Ruggiero; Stein, Stanley J., ‘American Feudalism’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 64/1, (Şubat, 1984), s. 121-134.
• Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations (1776).
• Stephenson, Carl, ‘Feudalism and Its Antecedents in England’, American Historical Review, 48/2, (Ocak, 1943), s. 245-265.
• Stephenson, Carl, ‘The Origin and Significance of Feudalism’, American Historical Review, 46/4. (1941), s. 788-812.
• Thompson, James Westfall, ‘German Feudalism’, American Historical Review, 28/3, (Nisan, 1923), s. 440-474.
• Thompson, James Westfall, ‘German Feudalism’, American Historical Review, 28/3, (Nisan, 1923), s. 440-474.
• Tonsor, Stephen J., ‘Feudalism, Revolution and Neo-Feudalism: A Review Article’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 21/1. (Ocak, 1979), s. 131-138.
• Vernadsky, George, ‘Feudalism in Russia’, Speculum, 14/3, (Temmuz, 1939), s. 300-323.
• Vernadsky, George, ‘On Feudalism in Kievan Russia’, American Slavic and East European Review, 7/1, (Şubat, 1948), s. 3-14.
• Walker, Sue Sheridan, ‘Widow and Ward: The Feudal Law of Child Custody in Medieval England’, Feminist Studies, 3, No. 3/4, (Bahar - Yaz, 1976), s. 104-116.
• Wallerstein, Immanuel, ‘From Feudalism to Capitalism: Transition or Transitions?’, Social Forces, 55/2, (Aralık, 1976), s. 273-283.
• White, Stephen D., ‘Succession to Fiefs in Early Medieval England’, Past and Present, 65, (Kasım, 1974), s. 118-127.
• White, Stephen D., Eleştiri: ‘English Feudalism and Its Origins’, Eleştirilen çalışma: R. Allen Brown, ‘Origins of English Feudalism’ American Journal of Legal History, 19/2. (Nisan, 1975), s. 138-155.
• Zafirovski, Milan, ‘Neo-Feudalism’ in America? Conservatism in Relation to European Feudalism’, International Review of Sociology, 17/3, (Eylül 2007), s. 393-427.