Resumen

Economic History Association

The Rise and Fall of the Manorial System: A Critical Comment Author(s): Andrew Jones Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 938-944 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117261 . Accessed: 28/02/2011 19:20
Your use of the JSTOR archiveindicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Economic History Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to The Journal of Economic History.

http://www.jstor.org

Note The Rise and Fall of the ManorialSystem: A CriticalComment
Northand Thomas outlineda model In a recentissue of thisJOURNAL of the rise and fall of the manorial system,with special referenceto theirmodel containsa numberof inaccuracies England.' Unfortunately, which weaken quite seriouslyits applicability.Thepropositionsof the of and an oversight authorities, of model are based upon a confusion terms both of which have led to a questionable factual and theoreticalinterpretation. In the followingparagraphs an attempt will be made to and to suggest an alternativeapproach. elaborate upon these criticisms, of The argument Northand Thomas is underminedfromthe outsetby their failure to make an adequatedistinctionbetween "manorialism" and "feudalism." This is not just a historian'squibble, for what is concepts. As Marc Bloch has involved is a confusionof two different of pointed out, the manor,thoughan essentialingredient feudalism,was that,"in European feudalism.Bloch maintained older than,and outlasted, it the interestsof sound terminology is importantthat the two ideas should be kept clearlyseparate."2 Feudalism was primarilya system which drew its vitalityfrom a a of government, political institution, fusion of militaryand economic power in the hands of a warrior class.3 It disappeared in westernEurope in the face of the increasing importanceof the central authorityof the State, and in the face of an "economic revolution" which brought about a decisive shift in economic power.4 Themanor, however, was primarilyan economic but it could equally well mainIt organization. could maintaina warrior, yield tain a capitalistlandlord.It could be self-sufficient, produce forthe or market, it could yield a moneyrent.The manorpossessed an inherent so flexibility that it continuedto evolve, whereas feudalismdisappeared.
1 D. North and R. Thomas, "The Rise and Fall of the Manorial System: AModel," JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, XXXI (Dec. 1971), 777-803. Theoretical 2 M. Bloch, Feudal Society,II, trans.L. A. Manyon (Paperback edn. London: 1965), p. 442. Routledge, 3 Thesecharacteristics drawn from pp. are Bloch,Feudal Society, 442-3;J.R. Strayer R. Feudalismin History, Coulborn(ed.) "The Idea of Feudalism," and R. Coulborn, "Feudalism University Press,1956), pp. 4-9; J. R. Strayer,...