[Getabspath-users] Ing on the judgment in matters of historical criticism. For, on the one hand, we

[Torchio N. <beg...@pi...>]

------------------------+ | | | +-------------------+ | | |
+-----------+ | | | | | | | | ARIMANNI | | | | MASNADA | | | ALDII | |
SERFS | SLAVES The above table, while its divisions must not be taken
too literally, will, I think, give some indication of the estimation in
which the various classes of society were held. It is too early yet in
the development of the feudal system to say that the derivation lines
show the course of an absolute feudal tenure, and they are not meant for
that purpose, but simply to indicate the succession of the inequalities
of rank. Turning now to the territorial divisions of the country at this
period, we find them practically unchanged. The _civitas_ still stands
as the sectional unit; the territory with its city still represents the
administrative division of the state. It is fundamental to a correct
understanding of the early development of communal institutions that we
should have a thorough knowledge of the meaning of this term _civitas_;
of the extent of its application and of its limitations. I used the
words "territory with its city" in defining the administrative division
of the state, and perhaps this term describes the _civitas_ better than
any single word would do. In the Roman municipal system we have the city
with its surrounding territory, over which extends the jurisdiction of
the _curia_; in the Lombard system we have the territory, the land, in
some part of which is located a city, a fortified place. This is to my
mind th