2 TERRITORY, AUTHORITY, AND RIGHTS IN THE FRAMING OF THE NATIONAL Way THe Nanion-srare eMERcED out of feudalism is the subject of ily research and many debates, Revisiting these is not my purpose here. It is rather to engage particular issues and interpretations in this devel A so as to register its complexity. This should help in generating an an useful for understanding other foundational transitions, including current processes of denationalization, lysis is the medieval political weography with its plural logies for the valuing of territory, authority, and rights. Three forms of political organization mark this period—feudalism, church, and em Pite.! The inereasingly decentered geography of feudalism interacted with the distinet centralizing tendencies of ehureh and empire. Yet the gendered, mobilized, and refined by each of these organizational logics in turn fed or accommodated yet other fo neluding the explosion in the growth of towns that took place over a short period of ninety years or the ‘A crucial feature in che "Feudalism is an ambiguus contested concept (see Bloch 1961 fora genet tea rent). The cer was unknown to ns medieval practitioners: twas fst coined in the seven- teenth century. It hasbeen sujet to enormiom itepetation and theoration because i ets at foundational sus such 3s the orgs of cataisn, the nature of consutionalism and the quence of political evolution. Soe historians ange that the term should no anger be wa. (Foe cuss of different ivemweatons, see Stayer 1965: Cheyeue 1975: and Berman 1983; ot Toad unertandings, se Bloch 1961, Atchiball Lovie 1974; and Sakiman 1987.) Foe Duby (1978), faa proper originates fcr 1000, 35 es for Stayer (1965) who see fagmenty tion crmpetd by 1000. Foe Weber (1958), che at that miltary power pivate staat ‘ali, coming it di afer a"state"—the Roman Emp, the Holy Epice—tal hei hat power (Gerth and Mills 1946:47). Fo a vaable eal spe to tue tore ged stem of political ergancation bas defen Feudal aa mode of pl ‘Wester Eup ate a fragmentation of poltial author, public power in private hands, an a mult system in which an esentil part of the armed forces i secured through private con trac" (1965: 1).32 CHAPTER TWO amene patria that arose inthe medieval period and is perhaps. ist experience of urope.”® ‘This chapter examines whether and how the shift toward the ter torial state as a dominant logic for assembling TAR partly entailed a dy namie of reorienting existing capabilities, inthis case medieval capabilities, rather than the more common interpretation that the latter had to be over- come and destroyed. The decomposition of the feudal order happened in a context in which a new order could be shaped, and this new order did not ply fall from the sky nor did ic necessarily get created ex nim, even when the intense processes we describe 2s revolutions were part of the change. Wars and alliances, intermarriages, trade, and other types of eco nomic transactions that helped shape and constitute the feudal order be- came instruments for its decomposition. Wars, alliances, and trade could, in this changed context, also become constitutive of a logic geared toward different assembling of teritory, authority, and rights—terrtorial kingship tnd towns. For the change in outcomes to happen, however, there had to be powerful dynamics reorienting processes toward new subst ties or logics. I argue that contemporary denationalisation similarly regears rational capabilities toward the implementation of global projects. Exai stare illuminates the ing the shift from feudalism to the national territori complexities and possibly multiple modes of major historical transitions, in this case one fully executed, DECIPHERING MEDIEVAL TERRITORY, AUTHORITY, AND RIGHTS Each mode of politico-economie organization embodies specific fe ‘tures when it comes to territory, authority, and rights. In Europe the Middle ‘Ages was a period of complex interactions among particula forms of tertito rial fixity, the absence of exclusive territorial authority, the existence of multi pile erisscrossing jurisdictions, and the embedding of rights in clases of people rather than in terrtorially exclusive units. In classic times, cercitoriality in tended tothe north beyond Greece by 500. ‘not mean that exchaive retort and the ystems of boty aad rights thar come wth tin the moder tate are the outcome ofan evolthnary developaent 1 the West that hegins with the absence of terior exciivty I fet thee al Feo os of ferntorial pies, mos notably the Greek city-states and the Roman Ente. Gott (1973: 2) notes tha dhe clse sociation between the notion of pobiical onanation and the geo sraphically defined concep ofa teritoral bate begin very etl in hiory, lang before Aro Inthe Ol Testoment ventory is presented asa necessary condition oe freedom,3B TAR IN FRAMING THE NATIONAL the sense of exclusive terricorial rule belonged to cities; ancient city states were not only territorial but had exclusive authority over that teritory* The Roman Empire had territorial insertions and centralized authority but no fixed borders. The prevalent pattern in medieval times was one of erssross ing jurisdictions, thus keeping territorial fixity from becoming exclusive terri- torial rule. Polanyi (1971) suceinetly defines feudalise as marked by its multi ple units, its economy in kind, and the emergence of personal ties. Of all conceivable origins, itis out ofthis configuration that the national territorial state emerged. But, then, feudalisin had evolved out of a political geography shaped by what was once a centralized empi ‘There was a kind’of central authority during feudal the church and the empire. Bue it was not based on territoriality —exclusive ter- onial authority. Their respective forins of authority could coexist with feulal lictions, and with each other, albeit with frequent conflicts. Given theit claims to universalism, church and empire could not adit any rival authority arising out of in their respective domains, but these domains were not centered in te ity There was thus ultimately no single source of overriding authority in feud ism, Yer there was, emphasize discourse and a project about central author ity in both the empice and the church, one that was eventually reconfigured by the Capetian kings asa foundational element in constructing the ational teri= torial state and its sovereign authority Although exclusive territorial authority was not the defining trait ‘of the political logic, social and political organizational forms had ter insertions. Key actors controlled geographic spaces, such as the fi ecclesia, and in that regard we could describe the landscape scattered de facto mini-sovereignties in a vast system of often loose overlap ping jurisdictions. But even where lords had jurisdiction over manors and lands granted them, they lacked exclusive territorial authority. In terms of political organization, when rewards were given in kind, notably land, po- litical authority could easily become fragmented.‘ Yer this need not be the only outcome. Strayer (1965: 38) shows how vassalage was already in existence * According to the Oxford English Dinars, testory “the lad or dsc ound a city of town and under ts jrsction shen this dfn ws eventually Unt solee, was followed by one centered on the wate, a wage dating back afc 149 (Gs 1973: 16-17). ary dscusions of tertorialquestions pertained to Greek ct te, ites, and then to medieval Italian eis such as Florence, Pi, Ge ‘The teroriaty of these ciey-states also entailed sovereignty. Theis was veal sve gy whereas the sovereignty of kings ested on allegiance of iadvidals and organised bs Though such sevice was often rewarded witha land recesaiy a component ofthe sytem, Not all vassals owned Ind ws, Milan, avd Venice,