We have seen how the Church emerged from this welter of barbarism. Let us now trace the emergence of feudalism. This system is proverbially difficult to define; and many writers escape from the difficulty by denying that there is any system at all. Yet at least feudalism is a collection of customs which, however much they may differ from time to time and from place to place, have certain main characteristics in common; and to that extent we may certainly speak of it as a system. We must therefore consider it fully, detail by detail. First, let us glance briefly at its growth from a mingling of Roman and Germanic ideas. Then we can come to a rough definition; and thence we can pass to a fuller view of its development step by step.

As a general description of its growth we may say that it sprang from composite Romano-Germanic society: let us therefore look at these two elements separately. We cannot say that it is only necessary to take Germanism and Romanism and shake them together, and that the mixture will produce feudalism; but at least feudalism did grow naturally out of those two separate roots.

The German, as described by Tacitus, was an individualist. He was a peasant, herdsman or agriculturist or hunter, and inclined to say, as the Mongols said: “We are all kings in our own country.” He was dimly conscious of duties to his village: more vaguely of certain duties to his tribe.