Feudal England

Abstract

John Horace Round (1854–1928) published Feudal England in 1895. The volume is a collection of Round's articles on feudalism, most of which had been previously published in the English Historical Review. The essays cover the period 1050–1200. They are linked by Round's overarching argument that it was the Norman Conquest that transplanted feudalism to England and that during the Anglo-Saxon period England had no real feudal institutions. The volume includes Round's groundbreaking article 'The Introduction of Knight Service into England', first published in the English Historical Review for 1891–1892; a number of his important essays on the Domesday Book, a topic on which he was long regarded as the leading expert; and several essays challenging the historical methods of Professor Freeman, the main opponent of Round's ideas. Feudal England was highly influential in medieval scholarship, and is still an important resource for researchers.

Feudalism in Literature and Society

“…Part of his argument was that the basic features of the English system were preexistent in Anglo-Saxon aspects of commendation, as opposed to Round (1895), who believed the Norman invasion of 1066 essentially transformed the English system into an idealized version of Norman tenure and accompanying institutions. Part of his argument was that the basic features of the English system were preexistent in Anglo-Saxon aspects of commendation, as opposed to Round (1895), who believed the Norman invasion of 1066 essentially transformed the English system into an idealized version of Norman tenure and accompanying institutions.…”

TheRed Book of the Exchequer: a curious affair revisited

“…Any real expert, such as Mr. Hubert Hall, who is editing “The Red Book of the Exchequer” would tell him so’. Their correspondence continued sporadically until late spring 1896 with no suggestion that their relationship was anything other than amiable; indeed Round appears to have been looking over page proofs at this time. However, in his retrospective account published in 1898, Hall was to interpret their association as deeply and inherently flawed: rather than engaging in scholarly collaboration, Round had plagiarized Hall's work, and, worse, had deliberately withheld information in order to discredit him within the scholarly community.…”