Om Swastyastu,
Ketika komputer saya "masuk bengkel" kena virus, rupanya ada topik hangat di HD-NET tentang Feodalisme, yang berawal dari topik "Kehidupan di Griya" Maka dengan maksud membuat pembicaraan kita berbobot, berikut ini akan saya kutipkan tulisan seorang Guru Besar di University of Connecticut : Fred A. Cazel, Jr. tentang Feudalism. Daftar Pustaka yang digunakan adalah : 1) Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society, tr.by L.A.Manyon (Chicago, 1961). 2) Ganshof, Francois L., tr. by Philip Grierson (London 1952). 3) Painter, Sidney, French Chivalry (Baltimore 1940), 4) Petit-Dutaillis, Charles, The Feudal Monarchi in France and England from the 10th to the 13th Century, tr. by E.D.Hurst (London 1936). 5) Stephenson, Carl, Mediaeval Feudalism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1942. 5) Strayer, Joseph R., Feudalism (Princeton 1965).
Maksud tulisan ini adalah untuk menyatukan persepsi kita terlebih dahulu tentang Feudalism sebelum kita membahas corak kehidupan, adat dan tradisi beragama Hindu di Bali yang beraroma feodalisme sangat tinggi. Ada rekan yang mengerti bahwa saya tidak menyukai feodalisme, tetapi meragukan apakah prinsip itu akan dapat dipertahankan ke anak-cucu-cicit dikemudian hari. Saya menjamin itu, tidak perlu dikhawatirkan, karena prinsip-prinsip pola pikir dan kehidupan sehari-hari diarahkan sesuai dengan inti ajaran Agama Hindu : TATTVAMASI. Disamping itu kepada keluarga sudah saya nasihatkan berkali-kali agar tidak membiarkan dirinya dilayani atau diperlakukan orang lain secara feodal.
FEUDALISM.
Feudalism was a system of contractual relationships among the members of the upper class in medieval Europe, in which Lords made grants of fiefs to vassals in return for pledges of military and political service. It must be sharply distinguished from seignorialism or manorialism, as it is called in Britain, which was the system of relationships between lords and their subjects, chiefly peasants, who were socially as well as politically their inferiors. Feudal relationships were typically free and contractual among members of the same class.
Feudalism came to afect the basis of political organization in most of medieval Europe. Originating in the early 8th century, it reached its fullest development and widest extent between the middle of the 11th and the middle of the 13th century, Its cradle was the kingdom of the Franks between the Rhine and the Loire rivers, but the other lands of the Carolingian Empire southern France, Catalonia, Lombardy, Saxony and Bavaria were also feudalized, if less thoroughly. Later, French, especially Norman, conquerors took feudalism to Britain, southern Italy, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople; the Slavic and Scandinavian states were somewhat affected through the German empire.
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT.
There has been much controversy over the origins of feudalism. In the 19th century, French scholars sought the origins of vassalage in the ancient Roman institution of patrocinium (patronage), in which men gave service to a powerful patron in return for his protection. German scholars, on the other hand, claimed it arose from the similar comitatus (companionage) of the Germanic war chiefs, described by Tacitus. Gifts in return for political and military services could be found among the primitive Germans, while the Romans had precarious land tenures (that is, land was given conditionally for a term of years or lives). All of these elements doubtless entered into the development of the new feudal institutions, but nothing that can be properly described as feudal is known before the early 8th century. Then, rather suddenly in the 730's, records inform us of men called "vassals", to whom lords gave precarious tenures "in benefice" in return for political and military services.
Scholars do not agree on the causes for this "Carolingian feudalism", but one tradition credits Charles Martel, the real ruler of the Frankish kingdoms at this time, with its establishment; it is said that he gave benefices to vassals from the lands of church in order to acquire a heavily armed cavalry. His descendants, in any case, made increasing use of the enormous landed wealth of the churs to benefice vassals and thus to secure both professional soldiers and loyal administrators. The idea of the territorial state was very weak among the Franks, and a ruler depended largely on the loyalty of this vassals. With almost all Latin Christendom, except for the British Isles, under Charlemagne's rule at the end of the 8th century, his vassals were scattered throughout his empire, and the imperial example was widely followed. As yet, however, only a small, if most important, minority of landholders were beneficed, and most land was still held in absolute ownership.
After Charlemagne's death, in 814, his descendants divided and redivided his empire, and in their quarrels they gave away many of the imperial estates as well as offices and franchises to their supporters. Early in the 10th century Europe had not only been divided into the kingdoms of France, Germany, and Italy, but it had also seen power granted away to or usurped by dukes and counts, and even viscounts, whose dominions were the real states of Europe of the period.
It should be emphasized that this fragmentation of the empire was not the result of feudalism. Feudalism had not even fully developed as yet, and when it did, it was a force for the reintegration of Europe rather than otherwise. Where allegiance to an emperor or king, even sometimes to a duke or count, was lacking, the political fabric could be held together by vassalage. This was particularly true in the area between the Loire and Rhine rivers, for in Germany east of the Rhine ties of blood held the tribal duchies together, while in Languedoc and Italy, Roman law provided an alternative political system, which was lacking north of the Loire.
From the very end of the 9th century comes the first recorded use of the vernacular word "fief" in place of "benefice"; the word "feudalism" itself is derived from the Latin form of "fief", feodum. The word "fief" is of Teutonic origin, coming from the first letter of the runic alphabet (fe), which signified cattle and thus movable property. Its root meaning shows the precarious character of feudal relationships at this early time, when vassals often held no land of their lords, or, if they did, held it purely at the lord's will. Land was still normally held in absolute possesion, allodium, as contrasted to feodum. But vassals increasingly pressed for fiefs in land, that is, land provided with peasants to till the fields and support the vassal in his position as a professional warrior. Increasingly also the vassals sought to make their fiefs hereditary : if they had heirs, they wished them to be received as vassals by their lords and thus to continue to hold their fiefs.
Normally vassals were warriors, but sometimes fiefs were given for other kinds of professional and even industrial or commercial services. There was as yet nothing systematic about fiefs and vassal, and men of all strata of society "commended" themselves to (placed themselves under the protection of) other men. What all this relationships had in common in this early period was their exeptional character : they were not the normal public relationships of a man to emperor, duke, count, or seigneur. It was preciseoy because these public relationships were weak that vassalage and fiefs were necessary.
The feudalization of the successor states to Carolingian Empire proceed throughout the 10th and well into the 11th century without exciting much contemporary remark. By 1050, feudalism had clearly become a widespread phenomenon in northen France, where probably most of the seigneurs were feudal lords of vassals or both. Although allodial tenures never disapeared here, most land was held in fief. It was principalities of France, such as the counties of Flanders and Champagne and the duchies of Aquitaine and Normandy, appeared. In these principalities the political and military institutions were more feudal than public. When the counts of Anjou built new castles, for example, they bound their castellans to them by feudal bonds.
Feudalism reached its apogee in the 12th century. So successful, so ubiquitous was it that Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa made it the chief principle of organization in his empire, now deprived of the tribal and the ecclesiastical bases of his predecessors. By insisting on the feudal obligations of the great vassal dukes and counts, he broke the power even of Henry the Lion, Duke of both Saxony and Bavaria. The "Angevin empire" of King Henry II of England and his sons, which included most of the principalities of western France as well as those of the British Isles, was simply an aggregation of feudal principalities, held together chiefly by the ties of vassalage and feudal service. But the feudal monarchy par excellence was the France of Philip II, called "Augustus" by his contemporaries because of the great empire he built up within his kingdom by feudal means; most of the "Angevin empire" in France fell into his hands because King John of England was adjudged a contum acious vassal in the feudal court of France. In sum, under strong kings who made use of their suzerainty, feudalism strengthened rather than weakened the state.
Institutions of Classical Feudalism. By the end of the 12th century, feudalism was mature and lawyers had begun to describe it. Although there were many variations and continuing changes it is not difficult to abstract the classical form of feudal institutions at this time.
Vassalage and Fief. Vassalage and the fief were, of course, the basic institutions. The fief was normally an estate in land, though it might be any source of income, and money fiefs were not uncommon. If landed, a fief could be anything from a kingdom to a village or even a part of a village; one's dignity depended upon the size and number of one fiefs. Everyone who held a fief, whether simple knight or great king, was a vassal, and vassalage was a thoroughly honorable estate. Within his fief the vassal was lord of the nonfeudal population : he ruled over them, and they paid him rents in money, kind, and services, but they did not enter into the feudal system. To become a vassal was to become a member of the upper, the feudal, class. When a man became a vassal of another, he knelt before him and placed his hands between his lord's hands as a sign of subordination, but immediately afterwards the lord raised the vassal to his feet and kissed him on the mouth in token of their social equality.
This ceremony of homage brought vassalage and their fief together. After the vassal did homage, he swore an oath of fealty to his lord, and the lord invested the vassal with the fief. The vassal swore to serve the lord, and the lord promised to defend the vassal. All these acts were done in the lord's court in the precence of witnesses, and thus, not unlike a marriage, the feudal contract was made. Unlike marriage, it was a hereditary relationship, renewable by each new generation as long as the families lasted. When fiefs became hereditary, vassalage became less personal and multiple homages common, though frequently "liege homage" was reserved to the vassal's principal lord.
Servises and Incidents. The servises that the vassal owed his lord were of three kinds : military, political, and financial. As a warrior he was expected to come to his lord's aid with horse and arms when summoned to do so. In defense against invasion or attack, his obligation was unlimited, although in many places the lord promised to replace any horses the vassal lost in his service, war-horses beingi very expensive. In an offensive war, servise was usually limited to 6 weeks or 40 days in western Europe. After 40 days the lord might have the vassal's service, but he would have to pay his expenses. In addition, if a lord had a castle, his vassal might be required to do castle-guard for a fixed period every year that was increased in time of war.
Political service was called court service. At the lord's summons, the vassal was expected to attend his lord's summons, the vassal was expected to attend his lord's court to give him counsel; if the lord planned to make war or peace, to make a marriage or get a divorce, to sit in judgement on lord, he was expected to summon his vassal to his court. Indeed if the lord did not summon his vassals, they might well resent the omission.
Finally, the lord could claim financial aids from his vassals in time of great need : four occasions were widely recognized as normal-ransom, a marriage, a knighting, and a crusade but other reasons might be advanced for the consideration of the court of the lord's vassal as agroup. In this connection, the lord might take financial substitutes for military service : a payment in lieu of field service was known in England as scutage (shield-money).
The lord had other rights over his vassal's fief, known collectively as "feudal incidents", meaning those rights incidental to the feudal relationship. When a vassal died, his heir had to do homage to the lord and generally pay a "relief" for the fief, the relief being a large sum of money, commonly a year's income from the fief. If the heir were a minor, the lord could claim custody of the fief and sometimes of the heir during his monirity. Such wardships could then entitle the lord to enjoy the income of the fief during the minority or to sell or give away the custody for economic or political profit. Although a vassal could normally marry without his lord's consent, lords frequently had the right to approve the marriage of heiresses to fiefs, since such a marriage was tantamount to giving the fief to a new family. The right to approve or make marriages could be lucrative for the lord. Similarly the lor's approval was normally required for alienation of any part of a fief, whether by gift to the church or by sale or lease to someone els; and for this, too, he might require a payment. Subinfeudation, by which a vassal gave part of his fief to a man who became his vassal, was not regarded as alienation.
In the even that either lord or vassal failed to observe the feudal contract, remedies were available. If the lord failed to defend his vassal or made anjust demands upon him, the vassal might "defy" his lord, literally "break fight" with him. He would normally then claim to hold his fief of his lord's lord, if there were one, or otherwise choose a lord who could protect him against the wrath of his defied lord. On the other hand, if a vassal failed to perform the services due his lord or otherwise injured his lord's interests, the lord could bring charges against the vassal in his court; if the fellow-vassals who were the suitors of the court agreed, the vassal could be adjudged to have forfeited his fief. In the event that he contested the judgement against him, the suitors were obliged to help the lord in enforcing it. Defiance and forfeiture were not common, of the feudal system would have soon failed. But families died out quite frequently, and in many feudal states collateral inheritance was not the rule. In these cases the fief reverted to the lord as an "escheat" which he could keep or grant out again to another vassal as he chose.
National variations. Feudalism developed first and most naturally in northern France. There it was least systematic and hierarchical; many men held both fief and allods, some rich and powerful men were the vassals of lesser men, and there was no real relationship between the vassal and his lord's lord. During the 12th century there was some codification of feudal custom in the great fiefs, such as Normandy, but only in the 13th century was this done for the whole realm, in the so-called Establissements of King Louis IX. Even then there was still much freedom for variation within each fief. The duchy of Normandy retained its separate and distinctive customs throughout the ancien regime. There no war could be made lawfully upon the duke, but it could be upon the king of France. Private warfare was strictly regulated, and no castle could be built without ducal permission or ever held against the duke's person.
These Norman regulations of feudalism were closely paralleled in England. While a few scholars hold that Anglo-Saxon institutions were already feudal before the Norman Conquest in 1066, most believe that feudalism in England was developed by the Norman conquerors on the basis of their knowledge of it at home. This is indicated by the close similarity of feudal institutions in Normandy, Norman England, and Norman Sicily.Thus Englishfeudalism was strictly controlled by William the Conqueror and his successors in the same ways that Norman feudalism was. The English kings also requered all their free subject to take an oath of homage and fealty and thus broke the maxim of French (as opposed to Norman) feudalism that "the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal". Whereas in Franch it was not only lawful but required that the vassal of vassal should follow his lord in war even against his lord's lord, in England it was not lawful in respect to the king, just as in Normandy it was not lawful in respect to the duke.
Contingent events and local conditions also differentiated the feudalism of Norman Sicily and of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Norman feudalism in Italy was much the same as that in Normandy or in England, but it did not embrace the native nobility, who remained a wealthy and powerful nonfeudal class. In the Levant and Greece also, feudalism was the law of the "Franks" and not of the natives, who remained the bulk of the population. But there, where war was the norm in life even more than in the West, military service was correspondingly more important. In Morea (the Peloponnesus) the vassal of the principality of Achaea were obliged to serve four mounths in campaigns and four additional months in castle-guard, leaving them only four months a year at home. The king of Jerusalem theoritically controled all castles, but he had to consult his barons before he disposed of one. Money fiefs were more common in the East than in the West, and the age of majority much earlier, in both cases presumably because of the greater need for fighting men.
In northern and central Italy and in southern Franch and Catalonia, allodial tenures remained predominant, and feudal tenures tended to be assimilated to them. In Italy investiture preseded fealty, while homage was rarely made, indicating that the emphasis was placed on the fief rather than vassalage. Southern France was known for its fief retories (nonnoble tenures) and its fiefs francs, which were noble but owed no services at all. The kingdom of Aragon, which included Catalonia, used the same vocabulary of feudalism as the French, but elsewhere in Spain feudalism left little mark either on the language or institutions.
German feudalism differed in the vocabulary of feudalism, since all the terms were translated into German; even "fief", originally Germanic, was not used but given a later translation, Lehnrecht, feudal law, was always sharply contrasted with Landrecht, the general law of the land, for in Germany, too, allodial tenures remained normal. As a result, fiefs, though strictly separate, tended to be like allods and more important than savvalage. Neither reliefs nor financial aids were widespread in Germany, and the class vassals of servile status, the ministeriales, lasted longer here than elsewhere. Such feudal institutions as the various Slavic and Scandinavian procipalities adopted were taken from Germany.
Decline of feudalism. Feudalism had been developed to meet the military and political needs of an age of small and weak states composed almost entirely of two classes, noble and peasant. Even in the 12th century, conditions were already changing with the emergence of the bourgeoisie as amajor class and with the emergence of both city-states and monarchies supported in large measure by the wealth, the arms, and the political values of the new class. In northern Italy the citizens made war upon the country nobility and often forced them to move into the cities and become citizens. In England and in Spain the feudal monarchies evolved into parliamentary monarchies by the late 13th century as representatives of the bourgeoisie were called to the councils of the king along with churchmen and nobles. Even in France, the bourgeoisie found a place in the provincial estates and the occasional Estates General that the kings called.
In the cities and the parliaments of 13th and 14th century Europe the wealth of the new middle class was taxed to support the cities and monarchies. With these taxes cities and princes could hire soldiers and civil servants to do the work the feudal class had done. The change in military service was made easier by the appearance of the new arms and new tactics. Where the knight had been supreme in the 12th century, the invantery reemerged as the main fighting force in the 13th and more particularly in the 14th century. The longbow was adopted by the English from the Welsh in the 13th century, and with it they won the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt in the Hundred Years' War. The Flemings and the Scots developed invantry spearmen into forces that won the battles of Courtrai in 1302 and Bannockburn in 1314, respectively. The Frence clung to the feudal cavalry longer, but even they came to adopt the new model in the 15th century. Cavalry became auxiliary troops, and noblemen chiefly officers of an infantry army paid from tax monies. Sometimes noblemen were given contracts by king to recruit armies, whose immediate loyalty was to the noblemen rather than the king. This system has been called "bastard feudalism", but it lacked the essential characteristics of classical feudalism, the hereditary fief and full vassalage. Private war was increasingly discouraged by strong kings, who were supported in this policy by the bourgeoisie. The latter was not opposed to war when it was profitable, but it did object to wars that distrupted trade and industry.
The church, too, was opposed to private warfare among the feudal class, and though tenacious of its own rights as a feudal lord, it was not averse to the disappearance of the srvices it owed. Though subinfeudation feudal tenures had often become a complex of economic rights in land rather than the means of providing military and political services. With the church, the noble pressed for a reduction in the services they owed for their fiefs : thus the knight service due the king of England was reduced in the 13th century from over 5000 knights to about a tenth of that number. The nobles fought against their supersession in the councils and in the government of their kings, and in general they retained a special political status until very recent times; but that status was increasingly based upon their wealth and social position rather than upon any real feudal ties. The kings sought to free themselves of baronial councils and were generally successful in building up nonfeudal civil services. On the other hand, the kings and other princes valued their feudal incidents and held on to them with a strong grip. Even in the United States, which derived most of its law from England, land is still held in "free simple", which means a fief not entailed, and the landowner is, in effect, a vassal of the states. The state as successor to the medieval prince still has the right of escheat in the rare event a landowner dies without heirs and without a will.
The Idea of Feudalism. To the men living in the classical age of feudalism, the feudal system was as natural as the air their breathed and as little considered. The nearest to political analyses of the feudal system that the age produced were the treatises on customary law. Such a tratise on the feudal law of northern Italy was attached to Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis in the 12th century and Renaissance commentators, particularly inFrance, made some observations on it that indicated an awareness of its difference from either the ancient polity or their own. But the honor of first seeing the feudal system as a whole seems to belong to Sir Henry Spelman in 17th century England, In A Treatise of Feuds and Tenures by Knight Service inEngland written in 1639, though not published until 1698, he clearly described classical feudalism, drwing upon his knowledge of International law as well as English history.
Montesquieu popularized the idea of feudalism when he trated it at length in L'esprit des lois (1748) , though he wrote of it as "anarchy with a tendency to order an harmony". Even worse was the treatment accorded the concept by Voltaire, who identified feudalism with seignorialism and thus with tyranny. When the revolutionary Assembly in France abolished "feudalism" in 1789, it was seignorialism they meant. Populas and even scholarly though about the two has tended to be confused ever since, but happily the most recent Western scholarship on feudalism has shown a desire to correct the hoary errors of the Enlightenment.
A special case must be made of Marxism, which represents such a large share of contemporary political thinking. Karl Marx was educated in the political theory of continental Europe, and although he wrote Das Kapital inBritain, he presents in it an idea of feudalism developed from the tyrannical seignorialism of Voltaire rather than the classical feudalism of Spelman. Marx went on to extend the Enlightenment idea and to make of "feudalism" a stage in economic development intermediate between slavery and capitalism. Thus the Marxis many of the underdeveloped countries today are "feudal", the criteria not being whether fiefs and vassalage are present, but whether slavery has been passed and capitalism not yet reached.
A great many other societies, ancient and modern, as well as medieval, have been described as "feudal" by loose analogy with western European feudalism. A "feudal age" has been attributed to Egypt in the 3d millennium B.C., to China from the 11th to the 3d century B.C., and many others. Inall these cases the analogies are superficial, and it is more confusing than helpful to describe these polities as feudal. The nearest parallel is to be found in Japan between the 14th and 16th centuries A.D.: the shoen and the samurai are comparable to the seigniory and the knight. But even in Japan there was nothing quite like European fiefs and vassals, and the differences are more important than the similarities. In sum the vocabulary of feudalism is best reserved for the system of institutions that developed in western Europe between the 10th and 13th century.
Significance of Feudalism. Feudalism did not cause the fragmentation of the empire in the 9th century. That was done by the still-barbaric nobles with their love of personal liberty and their lust for power and glory. Without a strong king to comand their respect and loyalty, they went their own individual ways, and Europe fell apart into thousands of seigneuries, each with its virtually absolute sovereign lord. Feudalism provided a means by which those seigneurs could fight and work together politically with the minimum loss of liberty. At a local level three or four seigneurs could unite under the leadership of the strongest among them as their feudal lord to defend themselves against the aggression of their neighbors, or to carry on aggressive campaign themselves. In time counts, dukes, and kings could build up a feudal hierarchy in theis principalities that would ensure mediate, if not immediate, lordship over all the noble seigneurs of the country. The failure of a vassal to carry out his part of the feudal contract could lead to the loss of his fief, and conversely when the prince became so powerful as to threaten the liberties of his vassals, they could demand that he observe his side of the contract. Magna Carta is precisely such a feudal document, extracted from King John of England by his vassals, who saw him to be violating the letter and the spirit of the feudal laws.
In the evolution of western European polities feudalism had this double value : it assisted grately in the integration of the principalities that ultimately became the nation-states of modern Europe, and it established a tradition of resistance to monarchial absolitism in those states. When Voltaire cried outagainst the tyranny of seignorialism under the name of feudalism, he was speaking in a feudal tradition. The English philosopher John Locke spoke even more directly in that tradition in his theory of government by contract. Modern liberalism has its roots in that system, the name of which is anathema to so many liberals.
Tulisan Fred A. Cazel Jr. tentang Feudalism sudah berakhir sampai seri ke 10. Mulai seri ke 11 dan seterusnya, dengan berpegang pada tulisan Fred A. Cazel Jr saya akan mencoba meninjau feudalism yang marak di Bali sejak abad ke-14.
Seperti yang dikemukakan Fred A.Cazel Jr., Feudalism didefinisikan sebagai : Suatu system hubungan kontrak antara kelas atas (Raja) dengan kelas bawah (petani yang kemudian menjadi rakyat) dimana kelas atas memberikan pinjaman tanah pertanian kepada kelas bawah dan sebagai imbalannya kelas bawah berkewajiban mendukung dan membela kelas atas dalam hal militer dan politik. Kontrak itu bebas, artinya bilamana petani tidak suka atau ingin berpindah kedaerah lain dibebaskan menuruti keinginannya dengan terlebih dahulu mengembalikan tanah pertanian kepada raja. Feudalism dibedakan dengan SEIGNORIALISM atau MANORIALISM. Menurut Encyclopedia Americana, manorialism berasal dari kata "Manoir" (in France) artinya suatu daerah yang berpenduduk atau desa yang berada dalam kekuasaan raja, pangeran, atau pemimpin gereja, yang merupakan satu kesatuan ekonomi dimana penduduknya terikat sebagai budak dari penguasa. Jadi manorialism adalah pengembangan dari feudalism. Bedanya, dalam feudalism masih ada kontrak yang bebas dan hanya menyangkut hak menggarap tanah pertanian, sedangkan dalam manorialism tidak ada kontrak dan kebebasan, serta meliputi tidak hanya hak menggarap tanah saja tetapi juga semua segi aktifitas ekonomi di suatu wilayah yang dikuasai kaum elit. Sebuah Manor meliputi area yang luas dan dilindungi benteng keliling untuk menjaga keamanan dan ketentraman penduduk, namun juga berfungsi sebagai pencegah penduduk lari keluar Manor. Kewajiban penduduk adalah membayar pajak kepada kaum elit. Dalam hal-hal tertentu seseorang dapat dibebaskan dari pembayaran pajak semata-mata berdasarkan pertimbangan dan keputusan penguasa.
Jika kita meninjau sejarah Bali sejak tahun 1343M atau Isaka 1265, akan nampak sejak awal bahwa system yang berlaku adalah manorialism, bukan lagi feudalism. Tahun 1343 merupakan tonggak sejarah karena Majapahit yang dipimpin oleh raja putri : Sri Ratu Tribhuwanottunggadewi Jayawisnuwardhani bersama patih agung Gajahmada berhasil menguasai kerajaan Bali Aga yang dipimpin oleh raja Paduka Bhatara Sri Asta Asura Ratna Bumi Banten dengan patihnya Ki Pasung Grigis dan Ki Kebo Iwa. Setelah menaklukkan Bali maka pimpinan pemerintah sementara diserahkan kepada Mpu Jiwaksara kemudian terkenal dengan nama Ki Patih Wulung selama 7 tahun. Pada tahun 1350 barulah Majapahit melantik raja definitip di Bali yang bergelar Dalem Sri Kresna Kepakisan. Ibu kota kerajaan dan kedudukan raja ada di Samplangan (Samprangan, Gianyar, masa kini) sedangkan para arya yang berjasa turut membantu menaklukkan Bali diberi kedudukan sebagai berikut : I Gusti Nyuhaya menjadi maha patih di Samplangan, Arya Kuta Waringin di Klungkung, Arya Kenceng di Tabanan, Arya Belog di Kaba-kaba, Arya Dalancang di Kapal, Arya Belentong di Pacung, Arya Sentong di Carangsari, Arya Kanuruhan di Tangkas, Arya Krian Punta di Mambal, Arya Jrudeh di Tamukti, Krian Tumenggung di Patemon, Arya Demung Wang Bang Kediri di Kretelangu, Arya Sura Wang Bang Lasem di Sukahet, Arya Wang Bang Mataram di Samplangan, Arya Melel Cengkrong di Jembrana, Arya Pamacekan di Bondalem, Arya Gajahpara dan Arya Getas di Toya Anyar. Kedudukan para arya itu sebagai kepala pemerintahan setempat mempunyai kekuasaan area tertentu berupa tanah beserta segenap isinya, termasuk penduduk. Mereka juga mempunyai hak memungut pajak dari rakyatnya serta dapat menerima penduduk baru migrasi dari Jawa (Majapahit) untuk membuka area pertanian baru. Kewajiban mereka adalah hormat, setia, tunduk dan membayar upeti tahunan kepada raja di raja Dalem Sri Kresna Kepakisan.
Selain kelompok Manca yang kemudian menjadi kaum bourgoisie, ada kelompok lain yang dinamakan "Pasek" (asal kata dari Pacek = paku; jadi Pasek artinya yang ditokohkan). Kelompok Pasek adalah keturunan dari Mpu Gnijaya yang datang dari Jawa Timur ke Bali sekitar abad ke-10. Kelompok Pasek yang dipimpin Kiyai Agung Pasek Gelgel mendukung pemerintahan Dalem Sri Kresna Kepakisan. Maka sebagai imbalan kesetiaannya mereka diberi tugas-tugas dibidang pemerintahan, militer, adat, dan keagamaan. Kiyai Agung Pasek Gelgel diberi tugas sebagai bendahara pemeliharaan parhyangan, Pasek Preteka sebagai pembantu Kiyai Pasek Gelgel, Pasek Padang Subadra menjadi pemangku pura-pura Sad Kahyangan, Pasek Tatar sebagai pemelihara Pura Baleagung, Pasek Kubakal sebagai penyelenggara urusan pertanahan, Pasek Salahin dan Pasek Kubakal sebagai petugas pelaksana ritual Pura Baleagung, Pasek Tohjiwa sebagai polisi kerajaan, Pasek Gaduh sebagai panglima inteligen, Pasek Ngukuhin sebagai pejabat pertahanan dan keamanan, Pasek Kedangkan sebagai panglima pasukan khusus Dulang Mangap. Para Pasek tidak mendapat area otonom dan rakyat, tetapi mendapat tanah sawah subur masing-masing seluas berbibit 750 Kg. Dalam perkembangannya kemudian kelompok Pasek tidak menjadi bourgoisie karena tidak mempunyai rakyat yang menghambakan diri.
Pada tahun 1556M terjadi usaha kudeta di kerajaan Gelgel ketika itu rajanya adalah I Dewa Pamahyun. Pemberontakan dipimpin oleh Kriyan Batan Jeruk dan I Dewa Anggungan (saudara sepupu raja), yang merasa tidak puas pada system pemerintahan yang lemah. Kudeta ini digagalkan oleh para pendukung raja dibawah pimpinan Kiyai Kubon Tubuh dan Kriyan Dawuh Nginte. Pengaruh usaha kudeta ini, para Manca yang tadinya bersatu, mulai terpecah dan curiga akan adanya kemungkinan saling menyerang. Untuk menjaga keamanan, para Manca memupuk kekuatan militer yang mampu mempertahankan wilayah, membangun tapal batas dan menguatkan tembok-tembok Puri. Saudara-saudara dari I Dewa Anggungan "dibuang secara halus" keluar istana : I Dewa Gedong Arta ke Manggis (Karangasem), I Dewa Nusa ke Sibang (Mengwi), I Dewa Bangli ke Bangli, I Dewa Pagedangan ke Tohpati (Badung). Keempat bersaudara itu diberikan area dan rakyat sehingga lama kelamaan keturunannya dianggap "Dalem" oleh rakyatnya masing-masing.
Pada tahun 1578M terjadi lagi pemberontakan terhadap raja I Dewa Pemahyun, bermula dari pertikaian antar Manca, yaitu antara Kryan Pande yang setia pada raja dengan Ki Gusti Talabah didukung oleh sanak keluarganya. Kryan Pande dibantu oleh panglima-panglima kerajaan sehingga akhirnya Ki Gusti Talabah wafat dalam pertempuran.
Pada tahun 1665M untuk ketiga kalinya terjadi pemberontakan kepada raja ketika itu yang bergelar Dalem I Dewa Anom Pemahyun Dimade. Kali ini pemberontakan yang dipimpin Kriyan Maruti berhasil menggulingkan pemerintahan. Dalem mengungsi ke Sidemen. Kryan Maruti menobatkan diri menjadi Raja Gelgel dengan gelar Anglurah Agung Maruti Dimade. Ia berhasil menjadi raja Gelgel sampai tahun 1704 ( 39 tahun).
Suatu catatan sejarah Bali yang perlu dikemukakan dalam bahasan tentang feudalism in Bali yang menuju kepada manorialism, adalah tentang sosok Ki Barak yaitu anak hasil hubungan gelap antara Dalem Seganing raja Gelgel dengan pembantu istana yang bernama Ni Luh Pasek. Bayi itu lahir tahun 1599M kemudian dinamakan Ki Barak karena ketika lahir seluruh tubuhnya berwarna merah darah. Keajaiban phisik serta kekuatan magis terpancar dari anak itu dalam pertumbuhan selanjutnya. Untuk menutup aib maka ia diserahkan kepada I Gusti Jelantik Bogol sebagai anak angkat kemudian diberi nama Gusti Gede Kepasekan. Dalem Seganing khawatir bila keperkasaan Gusti Gede Kepasekan dapat menyaingi kewibawaan putra mahkota I Dewa Dimade. Maka pada tahun 1611M Ki Barak atau Gusti Gede Kepasekan "dibuang" ke Den Bukit bersama ibunya Ni Luh Pasek. Ketika itu Ki Barak baru berusia 12 tahun. Lima tahun kemudian tepatnya tahun 1616M ketika Ki Barak berusia 17 tahun, ia berhasil membunuh penguasa Den Bukit yang bernama Pungakan Gendis. Sejak itu ia dinobatkan oleh rakyat Den Bukit menjadi raja dengan gelar I Gusti Anglurah Panji Sakti. Wilayah kerajaan yang membentang dari Gilimanuk di ujung barat sampai ke Tianyar di ujung timur dan Menguwi di selatan kemudian dinamakan Buleleng.
Berbeda dengan para Manca yang merasa wajib memberikan upeti kepada raja-diraja Dalem di Suwecapura / Gelgel, maka Panji Sakti tidak demikian. Ia tidak begitu acuh pada kerajaan Gelgel. Maka dapat dimengerti kenapa ketika Kryan Maruti mengkudeta Gelgel di tahun 1665M Panji Sakti berdiam diri tidak membantu Gelgel. Disaat itu kerajaan Buleleng sudah berusia 49 tahun dan Panji Sakti sudah berusia 66 tahun. Buleleng sedang menikmati zaman keemasan dengan daerah jajahan Blambangan, Pasuruan, Probolinggo dan Madura. Pasukan elitnya yang bernama Taruna Goak sangat ditakuti oleh musuh dan para Manca lain, karena Taruna Goak direkrut dari orang-orang Buleleng yang tegap, orang Blambangan, Pasuruan, Probolinggo, Madura, Bugis, dan Belanda. Orang Blambangan, Pasuruan, Probolinggo, dan Madura adalah hasil jarahan tentara yang dikalahkan, orang Bugis adalah bajak laut dan orang Belanda adalah desersi tentara Belanda (VOC). Orang-orang Bugis khusus membajak kapal-kapal VOC dan kapal-kapal yang mengadakan hubungan dagang dengan VOC. Pemimpin suku Bugis adalah Karaeng Bonto Marannu, Karaeng Galesong, Karaeng Manggapa, Karaeng Talolo dan Karaeng Jaranika. Yang lama bermukim di Buleleng adalah Karaeng Galesong di tahun 1674 ketika berperang melawan Laksamana Speelman. Dalam perang laut itu Karaeng Galesong dibantu oleh pasukan Taruna Goak. Orang-orang Pasuruan dan Probolinggo pandai bertempur dengan gajah, orang-orang bugis ahli silat, dan orang-orang Belanda menggunakan senjata api. Taruna Goak pernah menggempur kerajaan Badung, Jembrana, Tabanan, Mengwi dan Gianyar. Walaupun kerajaan-kerajaan itu tidak berhasil menjadi jajahan Panji Sakti namun hasil jarahan dari istana-istana itu menumpuk kekayaan Panji Sakti untuk memperkuat pasukan tentaranya.
Ketidak berhasilan Panji Sakti menjadi penguasa penuh selewat "bukit" di sebelah selatan Buleleng adalah karena takdir Hyang Widhi yang pernah disampaikan oleh tokoh misterius dari alam niskala yang bernama Ki Panji Landung. Sosok Ki Panji Landung ditemui Ki Barak di pinggir Danau Tamblingan di tahun 1611M dalam perjalanan "pembuangannya" dari Gelgel ke Gobleg bersama ibunya. Gobleg adalah tanah kelahiran ibunya dari ayah yang bernama Ki Pasek Gobleg. Takdir yang disampaikan Ki Panji Landung adalah Ki Barak akan menjadi Raja Den Bukit dengan batas wilayah : Tianyar di timur, Gilimanuk di barat, Mengwi di selatan, laut di utara.
I Gusti Anglurah Panji Sakti atau lebih populer dengan gelar Kiyai Anglurah Panji Sakti adalah sosok raja dengan pribadi yang berjiwa patriotik, anti hegemony asing, anti imperialisme dan anti monopoli.Kiprahnya dalam memimpin rakyat Buleleng mewujudkan alam demokrasi dan keberanian mengemukakan pendapat bagi rakyat. Di zaman itu Buleleng dengan rajanya yang bijaksana dan reformis menjadi daya tarik bagi penduduk Bali daerah lain, sehingga banyak yang berduyun-duyun datang ke Buleleng untuk melepaskan diri dari ikatan manorialism di kerajaan-kerajaan Bali bagian selatan, timur dan barat. Sejak itu penduduk Buleleng adalah campuran keturunan : orang-orang Campa/Thailand (pengikut Kesari Warmadewa yang datang ke Buleleng abad ke 7M), Jawa Tengah (pengikut Empu Sindok yang datang di abad ke 8M), Jawa Timur (abad ke 17), Bali selatan-timur-barat (abad ke 16), Bugis (abad ke 16), Belanda (abad ke 17). Bukti-bukti sejarah adalah adanya : Kampung Bugis (pemukiman orang Bugis), Banjar Jawa (pemukiman orang Madura dan Pasuruan), Lingga (dari Linggo - pemukiman orang Probolinggo), Banjar Petak (tempat kandang gajah), Banjar Peguyangan (tempat memandikan gajah), Desa Pegayaman (pemukiman islam dari Kalimantan). Dengan penduduk yang heterogin seperti itu maka bentuk-bentuk manorialism apalagi feudalism tidak pernah ada di Buleleng.
Selama Anglurah Agung Maruti Dimade menjadi raja Gelgel, para Manca tidak mau mengakui kekuasaannya yang diperoleh dari kudeta itu. Mereka membentuk kerajaan-kerajaan sendiri yaitu : Karangasem, Bangli, Gianyar, Buleleng, Badung, Mengwi, Tabanan dan Jembrana. Gelgel dengan ibu kotanya Suwecapura yang tadinya merupakan pusat pemerintahan mempunyai luas wilayah yang jauh lebih kecil dibanding kerajaan-kerajaan lain, terutama Badung, Tabanan, Mengwi, Jembrana dan Buleleng. Lahan-lahan pertanian yang subur terletak di Gianyar, Bangli, Tabanan, Badung, dan Mengwi. Kelima kerajaan ini menikmati hasil pertanian yang melimpah dan menjadikannya lebih kaya dari Gelgel dibidang perekonomian. Raja-raja baru ini yang dulunya berasal dari kelompok Manca kemudian mengatur penuh pemerintahannya, termasuk penataan dibidang sosial politik. Wilayah kerajaan dibagi-bagi atas kekuasaan administratif yang dikepalai oleh seorang Punggawa yang biasanya ditunjuk oleh raja dari anggauta keluarganya. Para Punggawa memiliki kekuasaan yang besar, memerintah rakyat dan memungut pajak dalam wilayahnya, namun harus tetap patuh serta tidak lalai menyampaikan upeti tahunan kepada raja. Dalam keadaan seperti itu system manorialism dilaksanakan dengan ketat baik oleh raja kepada punggawa, maupun oleh punggawa kepada rakyat.
Perhatian Panji Sakti, raja Buleleng untuk menyerang Gelgel yang dikudeta Agung Maruti berawal dari usaha Agung Maruti merebut keris pusaka Gusti Ngurah Jelantik dari Puri Jelantik, wilayah Gelgel. Panji Sakti membantu Gusti Ngurah Jelantik dan berhasil menelusup ke Gelgel dan melarikan Ngurah Jelantik ke Tojan, Blahbatuh (kemudian bernama Puri Blahbatuh, Gianyar). Dari pengalaman itu terbukalah rahasia kekuatan Agung Maruti, sehingga serangan besar-besaran dari koalisi laskar Taruna Goak yang dipimpin Kiyai Tamblang Sampun, laskar Badung yang dipimpin I Gusti Ngurah Pemedilan, laskar I Gusti Ngurah Jelantik, laskar I Dewa Manggis dari Karangasem dan laskar Dewa Agung Jambe dari Guliang berhasil merebut kembali Gelgel dan mengusir Agung Maruti beserta keluarga dan pengikutnya ke Kuramas (Kramas), Kapal dan Jimbaran. Panglima perang andalan Agung Maruti bernama Ki Dukut Kertha gugur dalam pertempuran di Tukad Jinah melawan Kiyai Tamblang Sampun panglima Taruna Goak.
Masa kekuasaan Anglurah Agung Maruti Dimade di Gelgel berakhir pada tahun 1704 dan I Dewa Agung Jambe dinobatkan menjadi raja Gelgel. Ibu kota kerajaan yang tadinya di Swecapura dipindahkan ke Semarapura yang kemudian nama kerajaanpun berganti menjadi kerajaan Klungkung diperintah oleh raja-raja keturunan Dinasti Sri Kresna Kepakisan.
I Dewa Agung Jambe sebagai pembaharu kerajaan Gelgel dan peletak batu pertama kerajaan Klungkung memerintah sejak tahun 1704 sampai tahun 1775. Walaupun beliau tetap menyandang gelar Ratu Susuhunan Bali dan Lombok artinya semacam kekaisaran di zaman Romawi, pada kenyataan sehari-hari, raja-raja di Bali dan Lombok bertindak sebagai kerajaan yang merdeka dan berdiri sendiri tidak ada kewajiban apapun menghambakan diri dalam bidang politik, ekonomi dan militer ke Klungkung. Penghormatan ke Puri Semarapura hanyalah sebatas kenangan sejarah dan raja-raja menokohkan Susuhunan sebagai pemimpin spiritual saja. Keadaan ini berlangsung terus sampai abad ke-19.
Ditinjau dari sejarah perkembangan feudalism menjadi manorialism di Eropa, maka perkembangan di Bali sejak abad ke-18 menunjukkan hilangnya system manorialism dari raja Klungkung terhadap raja-raja Karangasem, Bangli, Gianyar, Buleleng (termasuk Jembrana yang dijajah Buleleng), Badung, Mengwi dan Tabanan. System manorialism masih tetap bertahan di masing-masing kerajaan itu antara penguasa (raja) dan rakyatnya. Kedudukan Ratu Susuhunan Bali dan Lombok yang dianggap sebagai pemimpin spiritual oleh raja-raja di Bali dan Lombok, bisa disamakan dengan kedudukan kaum bourgoisie di Eropa Tengah pada abad ke-17 namun bedanya, Susuhunan mencukupi kebutuhan ekonominya sendiri tanpa bantuan raja-raja lain. Di zaman itu system kasta yang dikembangkan di Bali sejak "penjajahan" Majapahit masih dipelihara. Gelar kebangsawanan yang tertinggi ada pada Susuhunan yaitu Dewa Agung, sedangkan raja-raja lain memakai gelar Dewa atau Gusti. Mereka segan menggunakan gelar yang sama apalagi melampaui gelar Susuhunan. Peranan dibidang spiritual ketika itu antara lain memimpin pelaksanaan yadnya di Pura Besakih, memimpin keturunan Dinasti Sri Kresna Kepakisan, memberi prasasti tentang "soroh" atau clan kepada rakyat yang membutuhkan, memberi nasihat/petunjuk dibidang adat-istiadat, dll........................(bersambung)
Om Santi, santi, santi, Om
Ida Pandita Nabe Sri Bhagawan Dwija Warsa Nawa Sandhi,
Geria Tamansari Lingga Ashrama, Jalan Pantai Lingga, Banyuasri, Singaraja, Bali.
sumber: milis HDnet
Ketika komputer saya "masuk bengkel" kena virus, rupanya ada topik hangat di HD-NET tentang Feodalisme, yang berawal dari topik "Kehidupan di Griya" Maka dengan maksud membuat pembicaraan kita berbobot, berikut ini akan saya kutipkan tulisan seorang Guru Besar di University of Connecticut : Fred A. Cazel, Jr. tentang Feudalism. Daftar Pustaka yang digunakan adalah : 1) Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society, tr.by L.A.Manyon (Chicago, 1961). 2) Ganshof, Francois L., tr. by Philip Grierson (London 1952). 3) Painter, Sidney, French Chivalry (Baltimore 1940), 4) Petit-Dutaillis, Charles, The Feudal Monarchi in France and England from the 10th to the 13th Century, tr. by E.D.Hurst (London 1936). 5) Stephenson, Carl, Mediaeval Feudalism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1942. 5) Strayer, Joseph R., Feudalism (Princeton 1965).
Maksud tulisan ini adalah untuk menyatukan persepsi kita terlebih dahulu tentang Feudalism sebelum kita membahas corak kehidupan, adat dan tradisi beragama Hindu di Bali yang beraroma feodalisme sangat tinggi. Ada rekan yang mengerti bahwa saya tidak menyukai feodalisme, tetapi meragukan apakah prinsip itu akan dapat dipertahankan ke anak-cucu-cicit dikemudian hari. Saya menjamin itu, tidak perlu dikhawatirkan, karena prinsip-prinsip pola pikir dan kehidupan sehari-hari diarahkan sesuai dengan inti ajaran Agama Hindu : TATTVAMASI. Disamping itu kepada keluarga sudah saya nasihatkan berkali-kali agar tidak membiarkan dirinya dilayani atau diperlakukan orang lain secara feodal.
FEUDALISM.
Feudalism was a system of contractual relationships among the members of the upper class in medieval Europe, in which Lords made grants of fiefs to vassals in return for pledges of military and political service. It must be sharply distinguished from seignorialism or manorialism, as it is called in Britain, which was the system of relationships between lords and their subjects, chiefly peasants, who were socially as well as politically their inferiors. Feudal relationships were typically free and contractual among members of the same class.
Feudalism came to afect the basis of political organization in most of medieval Europe. Originating in the early 8th century, it reached its fullest development and widest extent between the middle of the 11th and the middle of the 13th century, Its cradle was the kingdom of the Franks between the Rhine and the Loire rivers, but the other lands of the Carolingian Empire southern France, Catalonia, Lombardy, Saxony and Bavaria were also feudalized, if less thoroughly. Later, French, especially Norman, conquerors took feudalism to Britain, southern Italy, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople; the Slavic and Scandinavian states were somewhat affected through the German empire.
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT.
There has been much controversy over the origins of feudalism. In the 19th century, French scholars sought the origins of vassalage in the ancient Roman institution of patrocinium (patronage), in which men gave service to a powerful patron in return for his protection. German scholars, on the other hand, claimed it arose from the similar comitatus (companionage) of the Germanic war chiefs, described by Tacitus. Gifts in return for political and military services could be found among the primitive Germans, while the Romans had precarious land tenures (that is, land was given conditionally for a term of years or lives). All of these elements doubtless entered into the development of the new feudal institutions, but nothing that can be properly described as feudal is known before the early 8th century. Then, rather suddenly in the 730's, records inform us of men called "vassals", to whom lords gave precarious tenures "in benefice" in return for political and military services.
Scholars do not agree on the causes for this "Carolingian feudalism", but one tradition credits Charles Martel, the real ruler of the Frankish kingdoms at this time, with its establishment; it is said that he gave benefices to vassals from the lands of church in order to acquire a heavily armed cavalry. His descendants, in any case, made increasing use of the enormous landed wealth of the churs to benefice vassals and thus to secure both professional soldiers and loyal administrators. The idea of the territorial state was very weak among the Franks, and a ruler depended largely on the loyalty of this vassals. With almost all Latin Christendom, except for the British Isles, under Charlemagne's rule at the end of the 8th century, his vassals were scattered throughout his empire, and the imperial example was widely followed. As yet, however, only a small, if most important, minority of landholders were beneficed, and most land was still held in absolute ownership.
After Charlemagne's death, in 814, his descendants divided and redivided his empire, and in their quarrels they gave away many of the imperial estates as well as offices and franchises to their supporters. Early in the 10th century Europe had not only been divided into the kingdoms of France, Germany, and Italy, but it had also seen power granted away to or usurped by dukes and counts, and even viscounts, whose dominions were the real states of Europe of the period.
It should be emphasized that this fragmentation of the empire was not the result of feudalism. Feudalism had not even fully developed as yet, and when it did, it was a force for the reintegration of Europe rather than otherwise. Where allegiance to an emperor or king, even sometimes to a duke or count, was lacking, the political fabric could be held together by vassalage. This was particularly true in the area between the Loire and Rhine rivers, for in Germany east of the Rhine ties of blood held the tribal duchies together, while in Languedoc and Italy, Roman law provided an alternative political system, which was lacking north of the Loire.
From the very end of the 9th century comes the first recorded use of the vernacular word "fief" in place of "benefice"; the word "feudalism" itself is derived from the Latin form of "fief", feodum. The word "fief" is of Teutonic origin, coming from the first letter of the runic alphabet (fe), which signified cattle and thus movable property. Its root meaning shows the precarious character of feudal relationships at this early time, when vassals often held no land of their lords, or, if they did, held it purely at the lord's will. Land was still normally held in absolute possesion, allodium, as contrasted to feodum. But vassals increasingly pressed for fiefs in land, that is, land provided with peasants to till the fields and support the vassal in his position as a professional warrior. Increasingly also the vassals sought to make their fiefs hereditary : if they had heirs, they wished them to be received as vassals by their lords and thus to continue to hold their fiefs.
Normally vassals were warriors, but sometimes fiefs were given for other kinds of professional and even industrial or commercial services. There was as yet nothing systematic about fiefs and vassal, and men of all strata of society "commended" themselves to (placed themselves under the protection of) other men. What all this relationships had in common in this early period was their exeptional character : they were not the normal public relationships of a man to emperor, duke, count, or seigneur. It was preciseoy because these public relationships were weak that vassalage and fiefs were necessary.
The feudalization of the successor states to Carolingian Empire proceed throughout the 10th and well into the 11th century without exciting much contemporary remark. By 1050, feudalism had clearly become a widespread phenomenon in northen France, where probably most of the seigneurs were feudal lords of vassals or both. Although allodial tenures never disapeared here, most land was held in fief. It was principalities of France, such as the counties of Flanders and Champagne and the duchies of Aquitaine and Normandy, appeared. In these principalities the political and military institutions were more feudal than public. When the counts of Anjou built new castles, for example, they bound their castellans to them by feudal bonds.
Feudalism reached its apogee in the 12th century. So successful, so ubiquitous was it that Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa made it the chief principle of organization in his empire, now deprived of the tribal and the ecclesiastical bases of his predecessors. By insisting on the feudal obligations of the great vassal dukes and counts, he broke the power even of Henry the Lion, Duke of both Saxony and Bavaria. The "Angevin empire" of King Henry II of England and his sons, which included most of the principalities of western France as well as those of the British Isles, was simply an aggregation of feudal principalities, held together chiefly by the ties of vassalage and feudal service. But the feudal monarchy par excellence was the France of Philip II, called "Augustus" by his contemporaries because of the great empire he built up within his kingdom by feudal means; most of the "Angevin empire" in France fell into his hands because King John of England was adjudged a contum acious vassal in the feudal court of France. In sum, under strong kings who made use of their suzerainty, feudalism strengthened rather than weakened the state.
Institutions of Classical Feudalism. By the end of the 12th century, feudalism was mature and lawyers had begun to describe it. Although there were many variations and continuing changes it is not difficult to abstract the classical form of feudal institutions at this time.
Vassalage and Fief. Vassalage and the fief were, of course, the basic institutions. The fief was normally an estate in land, though it might be any source of income, and money fiefs were not uncommon. If landed, a fief could be anything from a kingdom to a village or even a part of a village; one's dignity depended upon the size and number of one fiefs. Everyone who held a fief, whether simple knight or great king, was a vassal, and vassalage was a thoroughly honorable estate. Within his fief the vassal was lord of the nonfeudal population : he ruled over them, and they paid him rents in money, kind, and services, but they did not enter into the feudal system. To become a vassal was to become a member of the upper, the feudal, class. When a man became a vassal of another, he knelt before him and placed his hands between his lord's hands as a sign of subordination, but immediately afterwards the lord raised the vassal to his feet and kissed him on the mouth in token of their social equality.
This ceremony of homage brought vassalage and their fief together. After the vassal did homage, he swore an oath of fealty to his lord, and the lord invested the vassal with the fief. The vassal swore to serve the lord, and the lord promised to defend the vassal. All these acts were done in the lord's court in the precence of witnesses, and thus, not unlike a marriage, the feudal contract was made. Unlike marriage, it was a hereditary relationship, renewable by each new generation as long as the families lasted. When fiefs became hereditary, vassalage became less personal and multiple homages common, though frequently "liege homage" was reserved to the vassal's principal lord.
Servises and Incidents. The servises that the vassal owed his lord were of three kinds : military, political, and financial. As a warrior he was expected to come to his lord's aid with horse and arms when summoned to do so. In defense against invasion or attack, his obligation was unlimited, although in many places the lord promised to replace any horses the vassal lost in his service, war-horses beingi very expensive. In an offensive war, servise was usually limited to 6 weeks or 40 days in western Europe. After 40 days the lord might have the vassal's service, but he would have to pay his expenses. In addition, if a lord had a castle, his vassal might be required to do castle-guard for a fixed period every year that was increased in time of war.
Political service was called court service. At the lord's summons, the vassal was expected to attend his lord's summons, the vassal was expected to attend his lord's court to give him counsel; if the lord planned to make war or peace, to make a marriage or get a divorce, to sit in judgement on lord, he was expected to summon his vassal to his court. Indeed if the lord did not summon his vassals, they might well resent the omission.
Finally, the lord could claim financial aids from his vassals in time of great need : four occasions were widely recognized as normal-ransom, a marriage, a knighting, and a crusade but other reasons might be advanced for the consideration of the court of the lord's vassal as agroup. In this connection, the lord might take financial substitutes for military service : a payment in lieu of field service was known in England as scutage (shield-money).
The lord had other rights over his vassal's fief, known collectively as "feudal incidents", meaning those rights incidental to the feudal relationship. When a vassal died, his heir had to do homage to the lord and generally pay a "relief" for the fief, the relief being a large sum of money, commonly a year's income from the fief. If the heir were a minor, the lord could claim custody of the fief and sometimes of the heir during his monirity. Such wardships could then entitle the lord to enjoy the income of the fief during the minority or to sell or give away the custody for economic or political profit. Although a vassal could normally marry without his lord's consent, lords frequently had the right to approve the marriage of heiresses to fiefs, since such a marriage was tantamount to giving the fief to a new family. The right to approve or make marriages could be lucrative for the lord. Similarly the lor's approval was normally required for alienation of any part of a fief, whether by gift to the church or by sale or lease to someone els; and for this, too, he might require a payment. Subinfeudation, by which a vassal gave part of his fief to a man who became his vassal, was not regarded as alienation.
In the even that either lord or vassal failed to observe the feudal contract, remedies were available. If the lord failed to defend his vassal or made anjust demands upon him, the vassal might "defy" his lord, literally "break fight" with him. He would normally then claim to hold his fief of his lord's lord, if there were one, or otherwise choose a lord who could protect him against the wrath of his defied lord. On the other hand, if a vassal failed to perform the services due his lord or otherwise injured his lord's interests, the lord could bring charges against the vassal in his court; if the fellow-vassals who were the suitors of the court agreed, the vassal could be adjudged to have forfeited his fief. In the event that he contested the judgement against him, the suitors were obliged to help the lord in enforcing it. Defiance and forfeiture were not common, of the feudal system would have soon failed. But families died out quite frequently, and in many feudal states collateral inheritance was not the rule. In these cases the fief reverted to the lord as an "escheat" which he could keep or grant out again to another vassal as he chose.
National variations. Feudalism developed first and most naturally in northern France. There it was least systematic and hierarchical; many men held both fief and allods, some rich and powerful men were the vassals of lesser men, and there was no real relationship between the vassal and his lord's lord. During the 12th century there was some codification of feudal custom in the great fiefs, such as Normandy, but only in the 13th century was this done for the whole realm, in the so-called Establissements of King Louis IX. Even then there was still much freedom for variation within each fief. The duchy of Normandy retained its separate and distinctive customs throughout the ancien regime. There no war could be made lawfully upon the duke, but it could be upon the king of France. Private warfare was strictly regulated, and no castle could be built without ducal permission or ever held against the duke's person.
These Norman regulations of feudalism were closely paralleled in England. While a few scholars hold that Anglo-Saxon institutions were already feudal before the Norman Conquest in 1066, most believe that feudalism in England was developed by the Norman conquerors on the basis of their knowledge of it at home. This is indicated by the close similarity of feudal institutions in Normandy, Norman England, and Norman Sicily.Thus Englishfeudalism was strictly controlled by William the Conqueror and his successors in the same ways that Norman feudalism was. The English kings also requered all their free subject to take an oath of homage and fealty and thus broke the maxim of French (as opposed to Norman) feudalism that "the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal". Whereas in Franch it was not only lawful but required that the vassal of vassal should follow his lord in war even against his lord's lord, in England it was not lawful in respect to the king, just as in Normandy it was not lawful in respect to the duke.
Contingent events and local conditions also differentiated the feudalism of Norman Sicily and of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Norman feudalism in Italy was much the same as that in Normandy or in England, but it did not embrace the native nobility, who remained a wealthy and powerful nonfeudal class. In the Levant and Greece also, feudalism was the law of the "Franks" and not of the natives, who remained the bulk of the population. But there, where war was the norm in life even more than in the West, military service was correspondingly more important. In Morea (the Peloponnesus) the vassal of the principality of Achaea were obliged to serve four mounths in campaigns and four additional months in castle-guard, leaving them only four months a year at home. The king of Jerusalem theoritically controled all castles, but he had to consult his barons before he disposed of one. Money fiefs were more common in the East than in the West, and the age of majority much earlier, in both cases presumably because of the greater need for fighting men.
In northern and central Italy and in southern Franch and Catalonia, allodial tenures remained predominant, and feudal tenures tended to be assimilated to them. In Italy investiture preseded fealty, while homage was rarely made, indicating that the emphasis was placed on the fief rather than vassalage. Southern France was known for its fief retories (nonnoble tenures) and its fiefs francs, which were noble but owed no services at all. The kingdom of Aragon, which included Catalonia, used the same vocabulary of feudalism as the French, but elsewhere in Spain feudalism left little mark either on the language or institutions.
German feudalism differed in the vocabulary of feudalism, since all the terms were translated into German; even "fief", originally Germanic, was not used but given a later translation, Lehnrecht, feudal law, was always sharply contrasted with Landrecht, the general law of the land, for in Germany, too, allodial tenures remained normal. As a result, fiefs, though strictly separate, tended to be like allods and more important than savvalage. Neither reliefs nor financial aids were widespread in Germany, and the class vassals of servile status, the ministeriales, lasted longer here than elsewhere. Such feudal institutions as the various Slavic and Scandinavian procipalities adopted were taken from Germany.
Decline of feudalism. Feudalism had been developed to meet the military and political needs of an age of small and weak states composed almost entirely of two classes, noble and peasant. Even in the 12th century, conditions were already changing with the emergence of the bourgeoisie as amajor class and with the emergence of both city-states and monarchies supported in large measure by the wealth, the arms, and the political values of the new class. In northern Italy the citizens made war upon the country nobility and often forced them to move into the cities and become citizens. In England and in Spain the feudal monarchies evolved into parliamentary monarchies by the late 13th century as representatives of the bourgeoisie were called to the councils of the king along with churchmen and nobles. Even in France, the bourgeoisie found a place in the provincial estates and the occasional Estates General that the kings called.
In the cities and the parliaments of 13th and 14th century Europe the wealth of the new middle class was taxed to support the cities and monarchies. With these taxes cities and princes could hire soldiers and civil servants to do the work the feudal class had done. The change in military service was made easier by the appearance of the new arms and new tactics. Where the knight had been supreme in the 12th century, the invantery reemerged as the main fighting force in the 13th and more particularly in the 14th century. The longbow was adopted by the English from the Welsh in the 13th century, and with it they won the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt in the Hundred Years' War. The Flemings and the Scots developed invantry spearmen into forces that won the battles of Courtrai in 1302 and Bannockburn in 1314, respectively. The Frence clung to the feudal cavalry longer, but even they came to adopt the new model in the 15th century. Cavalry became auxiliary troops, and noblemen chiefly officers of an infantry army paid from tax monies. Sometimes noblemen were given contracts by king to recruit armies, whose immediate loyalty was to the noblemen rather than the king. This system has been called "bastard feudalism", but it lacked the essential characteristics of classical feudalism, the hereditary fief and full vassalage. Private war was increasingly discouraged by strong kings, who were supported in this policy by the bourgeoisie. The latter was not opposed to war when it was profitable, but it did object to wars that distrupted trade and industry.
The church, too, was opposed to private warfare among the feudal class, and though tenacious of its own rights as a feudal lord, it was not averse to the disappearance of the srvices it owed. Though subinfeudation feudal tenures had often become a complex of economic rights in land rather than the means of providing military and political services. With the church, the noble pressed for a reduction in the services they owed for their fiefs : thus the knight service due the king of England was reduced in the 13th century from over 5000 knights to about a tenth of that number. The nobles fought against their supersession in the councils and in the government of their kings, and in general they retained a special political status until very recent times; but that status was increasingly based upon their wealth and social position rather than upon any real feudal ties. The kings sought to free themselves of baronial councils and were generally successful in building up nonfeudal civil services. On the other hand, the kings and other princes valued their feudal incidents and held on to them with a strong grip. Even in the United States, which derived most of its law from England, land is still held in "free simple", which means a fief not entailed, and the landowner is, in effect, a vassal of the states. The state as successor to the medieval prince still has the right of escheat in the rare event a landowner dies without heirs and without a will.
The Idea of Feudalism. To the men living in the classical age of feudalism, the feudal system was as natural as the air their breathed and as little considered. The nearest to political analyses of the feudal system that the age produced were the treatises on customary law. Such a tratise on the feudal law of northern Italy was attached to Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis in the 12th century and Renaissance commentators, particularly inFrance, made some observations on it that indicated an awareness of its difference from either the ancient polity or their own. But the honor of first seeing the feudal system as a whole seems to belong to Sir Henry Spelman in 17th century England, In A Treatise of Feuds and Tenures by Knight Service inEngland written in 1639, though not published until 1698, he clearly described classical feudalism, drwing upon his knowledge of International law as well as English history.
Montesquieu popularized the idea of feudalism when he trated it at length in L'esprit des lois (1748) , though he wrote of it as "anarchy with a tendency to order an harmony". Even worse was the treatment accorded the concept by Voltaire, who identified feudalism with seignorialism and thus with tyranny. When the revolutionary Assembly in France abolished "feudalism" in 1789, it was seignorialism they meant. Populas and even scholarly though about the two has tended to be confused ever since, but happily the most recent Western scholarship on feudalism has shown a desire to correct the hoary errors of the Enlightenment.
A special case must be made of Marxism, which represents such a large share of contemporary political thinking. Karl Marx was educated in the political theory of continental Europe, and although he wrote Das Kapital inBritain, he presents in it an idea of feudalism developed from the tyrannical seignorialism of Voltaire rather than the classical feudalism of Spelman. Marx went on to extend the Enlightenment idea and to make of "feudalism" a stage in economic development intermediate between slavery and capitalism. Thus the Marxis many of the underdeveloped countries today are "feudal", the criteria not being whether fiefs and vassalage are present, but whether slavery has been passed and capitalism not yet reached.
A great many other societies, ancient and modern, as well as medieval, have been described as "feudal" by loose analogy with western European feudalism. A "feudal age" has been attributed to Egypt in the 3d millennium B.C., to China from the 11th to the 3d century B.C., and many others. Inall these cases the analogies are superficial, and it is more confusing than helpful to describe these polities as feudal. The nearest parallel is to be found in Japan between the 14th and 16th centuries A.D.: the shoen and the samurai are comparable to the seigniory and the knight. But even in Japan there was nothing quite like European fiefs and vassals, and the differences are more important than the similarities. In sum the vocabulary of feudalism is best reserved for the system of institutions that developed in western Europe between the 10th and 13th century.
Significance of Feudalism. Feudalism did not cause the fragmentation of the empire in the 9th century. That was done by the still-barbaric nobles with their love of personal liberty and their lust for power and glory. Without a strong king to comand their respect and loyalty, they went their own individual ways, and Europe fell apart into thousands of seigneuries, each with its virtually absolute sovereign lord. Feudalism provided a means by which those seigneurs could fight and work together politically with the minimum loss of liberty. At a local level three or four seigneurs could unite under the leadership of the strongest among them as their feudal lord to defend themselves against the aggression of their neighbors, or to carry on aggressive campaign themselves. In time counts, dukes, and kings could build up a feudal hierarchy in theis principalities that would ensure mediate, if not immediate, lordship over all the noble seigneurs of the country. The failure of a vassal to carry out his part of the feudal contract could lead to the loss of his fief, and conversely when the prince became so powerful as to threaten the liberties of his vassals, they could demand that he observe his side of the contract. Magna Carta is precisely such a feudal document, extracted from King John of England by his vassals, who saw him to be violating the letter and the spirit of the feudal laws.
In the evolution of western European polities feudalism had this double value : it assisted grately in the integration of the principalities that ultimately became the nation-states of modern Europe, and it established a tradition of resistance to monarchial absolitism in those states. When Voltaire cried outagainst the tyranny of seignorialism under the name of feudalism, he was speaking in a feudal tradition. The English philosopher John Locke spoke even more directly in that tradition in his theory of government by contract. Modern liberalism has its roots in that system, the name of which is anathema to so many liberals.
Tulisan Fred A. Cazel Jr. tentang Feudalism sudah berakhir sampai seri ke 10. Mulai seri ke 11 dan seterusnya, dengan berpegang pada tulisan Fred A. Cazel Jr saya akan mencoba meninjau feudalism yang marak di Bali sejak abad ke-14.
Seperti yang dikemukakan Fred A.Cazel Jr., Feudalism didefinisikan sebagai : Suatu system hubungan kontrak antara kelas atas (Raja) dengan kelas bawah (petani yang kemudian menjadi rakyat) dimana kelas atas memberikan pinjaman tanah pertanian kepada kelas bawah dan sebagai imbalannya kelas bawah berkewajiban mendukung dan membela kelas atas dalam hal militer dan politik. Kontrak itu bebas, artinya bilamana petani tidak suka atau ingin berpindah kedaerah lain dibebaskan menuruti keinginannya dengan terlebih dahulu mengembalikan tanah pertanian kepada raja. Feudalism dibedakan dengan SEIGNORIALISM atau MANORIALISM. Menurut Encyclopedia Americana, manorialism berasal dari kata "Manoir" (in France) artinya suatu daerah yang berpenduduk atau desa yang berada dalam kekuasaan raja, pangeran, atau pemimpin gereja, yang merupakan satu kesatuan ekonomi dimana penduduknya terikat sebagai budak dari penguasa. Jadi manorialism adalah pengembangan dari feudalism. Bedanya, dalam feudalism masih ada kontrak yang bebas dan hanya menyangkut hak menggarap tanah pertanian, sedangkan dalam manorialism tidak ada kontrak dan kebebasan, serta meliputi tidak hanya hak menggarap tanah saja tetapi juga semua segi aktifitas ekonomi di suatu wilayah yang dikuasai kaum elit. Sebuah Manor meliputi area yang luas dan dilindungi benteng keliling untuk menjaga keamanan dan ketentraman penduduk, namun juga berfungsi sebagai pencegah penduduk lari keluar Manor. Kewajiban penduduk adalah membayar pajak kepada kaum elit. Dalam hal-hal tertentu seseorang dapat dibebaskan dari pembayaran pajak semata-mata berdasarkan pertimbangan dan keputusan penguasa.
Jika kita meninjau sejarah Bali sejak tahun 1343M atau Isaka 1265, akan nampak sejak awal bahwa system yang berlaku adalah manorialism, bukan lagi feudalism. Tahun 1343 merupakan tonggak sejarah karena Majapahit yang dipimpin oleh raja putri : Sri Ratu Tribhuwanottunggadewi Jayawisnuwardhani bersama patih agung Gajahmada berhasil menguasai kerajaan Bali Aga yang dipimpin oleh raja Paduka Bhatara Sri Asta Asura Ratna Bumi Banten dengan patihnya Ki Pasung Grigis dan Ki Kebo Iwa. Setelah menaklukkan Bali maka pimpinan pemerintah sementara diserahkan kepada Mpu Jiwaksara kemudian terkenal dengan nama Ki Patih Wulung selama 7 tahun. Pada tahun 1350 barulah Majapahit melantik raja definitip di Bali yang bergelar Dalem Sri Kresna Kepakisan. Ibu kota kerajaan dan kedudukan raja ada di Samplangan (Samprangan, Gianyar, masa kini) sedangkan para arya yang berjasa turut membantu menaklukkan Bali diberi kedudukan sebagai berikut : I Gusti Nyuhaya menjadi maha patih di Samplangan, Arya Kuta Waringin di Klungkung, Arya Kenceng di Tabanan, Arya Belog di Kaba-kaba, Arya Dalancang di Kapal, Arya Belentong di Pacung, Arya Sentong di Carangsari, Arya Kanuruhan di Tangkas, Arya Krian Punta di Mambal, Arya Jrudeh di Tamukti, Krian Tumenggung di Patemon, Arya Demung Wang Bang Kediri di Kretelangu, Arya Sura Wang Bang Lasem di Sukahet, Arya Wang Bang Mataram di Samplangan, Arya Melel Cengkrong di Jembrana, Arya Pamacekan di Bondalem, Arya Gajahpara dan Arya Getas di Toya Anyar. Kedudukan para arya itu sebagai kepala pemerintahan setempat mempunyai kekuasaan area tertentu berupa tanah beserta segenap isinya, termasuk penduduk. Mereka juga mempunyai hak memungut pajak dari rakyatnya serta dapat menerima penduduk baru migrasi dari Jawa (Majapahit) untuk membuka area pertanian baru. Kewajiban mereka adalah hormat, setia, tunduk dan membayar upeti tahunan kepada raja di raja Dalem Sri Kresna Kepakisan.
Selain kelompok Manca yang kemudian menjadi kaum bourgoisie, ada kelompok lain yang dinamakan "Pasek" (asal kata dari Pacek = paku; jadi Pasek artinya yang ditokohkan). Kelompok Pasek adalah keturunan dari Mpu Gnijaya yang datang dari Jawa Timur ke Bali sekitar abad ke-10. Kelompok Pasek yang dipimpin Kiyai Agung Pasek Gelgel mendukung pemerintahan Dalem Sri Kresna Kepakisan. Maka sebagai imbalan kesetiaannya mereka diberi tugas-tugas dibidang pemerintahan, militer, adat, dan keagamaan. Kiyai Agung Pasek Gelgel diberi tugas sebagai bendahara pemeliharaan parhyangan, Pasek Preteka sebagai pembantu Kiyai Pasek Gelgel, Pasek Padang Subadra menjadi pemangku pura-pura Sad Kahyangan, Pasek Tatar sebagai pemelihara Pura Baleagung, Pasek Kubakal sebagai penyelenggara urusan pertanahan, Pasek Salahin dan Pasek Kubakal sebagai petugas pelaksana ritual Pura Baleagung, Pasek Tohjiwa sebagai polisi kerajaan, Pasek Gaduh sebagai panglima inteligen, Pasek Ngukuhin sebagai pejabat pertahanan dan keamanan, Pasek Kedangkan sebagai panglima pasukan khusus Dulang Mangap. Para Pasek tidak mendapat area otonom dan rakyat, tetapi mendapat tanah sawah subur masing-masing seluas berbibit 750 Kg. Dalam perkembangannya kemudian kelompok Pasek tidak menjadi bourgoisie karena tidak mempunyai rakyat yang menghambakan diri.
Pada tahun 1556M terjadi usaha kudeta di kerajaan Gelgel ketika itu rajanya adalah I Dewa Pamahyun. Pemberontakan dipimpin oleh Kriyan Batan Jeruk dan I Dewa Anggungan (saudara sepupu raja), yang merasa tidak puas pada system pemerintahan yang lemah. Kudeta ini digagalkan oleh para pendukung raja dibawah pimpinan Kiyai Kubon Tubuh dan Kriyan Dawuh Nginte. Pengaruh usaha kudeta ini, para Manca yang tadinya bersatu, mulai terpecah dan curiga akan adanya kemungkinan saling menyerang. Untuk menjaga keamanan, para Manca memupuk kekuatan militer yang mampu mempertahankan wilayah, membangun tapal batas dan menguatkan tembok-tembok Puri. Saudara-saudara dari I Dewa Anggungan "dibuang secara halus" keluar istana : I Dewa Gedong Arta ke Manggis (Karangasem), I Dewa Nusa ke Sibang (Mengwi), I Dewa Bangli ke Bangli, I Dewa Pagedangan ke Tohpati (Badung). Keempat bersaudara itu diberikan area dan rakyat sehingga lama kelamaan keturunannya dianggap "Dalem" oleh rakyatnya masing-masing.
Pada tahun 1578M terjadi lagi pemberontakan terhadap raja I Dewa Pemahyun, bermula dari pertikaian antar Manca, yaitu antara Kryan Pande yang setia pada raja dengan Ki Gusti Talabah didukung oleh sanak keluarganya. Kryan Pande dibantu oleh panglima-panglima kerajaan sehingga akhirnya Ki Gusti Talabah wafat dalam pertempuran.
Pada tahun 1665M untuk ketiga kalinya terjadi pemberontakan kepada raja ketika itu yang bergelar Dalem I Dewa Anom Pemahyun Dimade. Kali ini pemberontakan yang dipimpin Kriyan Maruti berhasil menggulingkan pemerintahan. Dalem mengungsi ke Sidemen. Kryan Maruti menobatkan diri menjadi Raja Gelgel dengan gelar Anglurah Agung Maruti Dimade. Ia berhasil menjadi raja Gelgel sampai tahun 1704 ( 39 tahun).
Suatu catatan sejarah Bali yang perlu dikemukakan dalam bahasan tentang feudalism in Bali yang menuju kepada manorialism, adalah tentang sosok Ki Barak yaitu anak hasil hubungan gelap antara Dalem Seganing raja Gelgel dengan pembantu istana yang bernama Ni Luh Pasek. Bayi itu lahir tahun 1599M kemudian dinamakan Ki Barak karena ketika lahir seluruh tubuhnya berwarna merah darah. Keajaiban phisik serta kekuatan magis terpancar dari anak itu dalam pertumbuhan selanjutnya. Untuk menutup aib maka ia diserahkan kepada I Gusti Jelantik Bogol sebagai anak angkat kemudian diberi nama Gusti Gede Kepasekan. Dalem Seganing khawatir bila keperkasaan Gusti Gede Kepasekan dapat menyaingi kewibawaan putra mahkota I Dewa Dimade. Maka pada tahun 1611M Ki Barak atau Gusti Gede Kepasekan "dibuang" ke Den Bukit bersama ibunya Ni Luh Pasek. Ketika itu Ki Barak baru berusia 12 tahun. Lima tahun kemudian tepatnya tahun 1616M ketika Ki Barak berusia 17 tahun, ia berhasil membunuh penguasa Den Bukit yang bernama Pungakan Gendis. Sejak itu ia dinobatkan oleh rakyat Den Bukit menjadi raja dengan gelar I Gusti Anglurah Panji Sakti. Wilayah kerajaan yang membentang dari Gilimanuk di ujung barat sampai ke Tianyar di ujung timur dan Menguwi di selatan kemudian dinamakan Buleleng.
Berbeda dengan para Manca yang merasa wajib memberikan upeti kepada raja-diraja Dalem di Suwecapura / Gelgel, maka Panji Sakti tidak demikian. Ia tidak begitu acuh pada kerajaan Gelgel. Maka dapat dimengerti kenapa ketika Kryan Maruti mengkudeta Gelgel di tahun 1665M Panji Sakti berdiam diri tidak membantu Gelgel. Disaat itu kerajaan Buleleng sudah berusia 49 tahun dan Panji Sakti sudah berusia 66 tahun. Buleleng sedang menikmati zaman keemasan dengan daerah jajahan Blambangan, Pasuruan, Probolinggo dan Madura. Pasukan elitnya yang bernama Taruna Goak sangat ditakuti oleh musuh dan para Manca lain, karena Taruna Goak direkrut dari orang-orang Buleleng yang tegap, orang Blambangan, Pasuruan, Probolinggo, Madura, Bugis, dan Belanda. Orang Blambangan, Pasuruan, Probolinggo, dan Madura adalah hasil jarahan tentara yang dikalahkan, orang Bugis adalah bajak laut dan orang Belanda adalah desersi tentara Belanda (VOC). Orang-orang Bugis khusus membajak kapal-kapal VOC dan kapal-kapal yang mengadakan hubungan dagang dengan VOC. Pemimpin suku Bugis adalah Karaeng Bonto Marannu, Karaeng Galesong, Karaeng Manggapa, Karaeng Talolo dan Karaeng Jaranika. Yang lama bermukim di Buleleng adalah Karaeng Galesong di tahun 1674 ketika berperang melawan Laksamana Speelman. Dalam perang laut itu Karaeng Galesong dibantu oleh pasukan Taruna Goak. Orang-orang Pasuruan dan Probolinggo pandai bertempur dengan gajah, orang-orang bugis ahli silat, dan orang-orang Belanda menggunakan senjata api. Taruna Goak pernah menggempur kerajaan Badung, Jembrana, Tabanan, Mengwi dan Gianyar. Walaupun kerajaan-kerajaan itu tidak berhasil menjadi jajahan Panji Sakti namun hasil jarahan dari istana-istana itu menumpuk kekayaan Panji Sakti untuk memperkuat pasukan tentaranya.
Ketidak berhasilan Panji Sakti menjadi penguasa penuh selewat "bukit" di sebelah selatan Buleleng adalah karena takdir Hyang Widhi yang pernah disampaikan oleh tokoh misterius dari alam niskala yang bernama Ki Panji Landung. Sosok Ki Panji Landung ditemui Ki Barak di pinggir Danau Tamblingan di tahun 1611M dalam perjalanan "pembuangannya" dari Gelgel ke Gobleg bersama ibunya. Gobleg adalah tanah kelahiran ibunya dari ayah yang bernama Ki Pasek Gobleg. Takdir yang disampaikan Ki Panji Landung adalah Ki Barak akan menjadi Raja Den Bukit dengan batas wilayah : Tianyar di timur, Gilimanuk di barat, Mengwi di selatan, laut di utara.
I Gusti Anglurah Panji Sakti atau lebih populer dengan gelar Kiyai Anglurah Panji Sakti adalah sosok raja dengan pribadi yang berjiwa patriotik, anti hegemony asing, anti imperialisme dan anti monopoli.Kiprahnya dalam memimpin rakyat Buleleng mewujudkan alam demokrasi dan keberanian mengemukakan pendapat bagi rakyat. Di zaman itu Buleleng dengan rajanya yang bijaksana dan reformis menjadi daya tarik bagi penduduk Bali daerah lain, sehingga banyak yang berduyun-duyun datang ke Buleleng untuk melepaskan diri dari ikatan manorialism di kerajaan-kerajaan Bali bagian selatan, timur dan barat. Sejak itu penduduk Buleleng adalah campuran keturunan : orang-orang Campa/Thailand (pengikut Kesari Warmadewa yang datang ke Buleleng abad ke 7M), Jawa Tengah (pengikut Empu Sindok yang datang di abad ke 8M), Jawa Timur (abad ke 17), Bali selatan-timur-barat (abad ke 16), Bugis (abad ke 16), Belanda (abad ke 17). Bukti-bukti sejarah adalah adanya : Kampung Bugis (pemukiman orang Bugis), Banjar Jawa (pemukiman orang Madura dan Pasuruan), Lingga (dari Linggo - pemukiman orang Probolinggo), Banjar Petak (tempat kandang gajah), Banjar Peguyangan (tempat memandikan gajah), Desa Pegayaman (pemukiman islam dari Kalimantan). Dengan penduduk yang heterogin seperti itu maka bentuk-bentuk manorialism apalagi feudalism tidak pernah ada di Buleleng.
Selama Anglurah Agung Maruti Dimade menjadi raja Gelgel, para Manca tidak mau mengakui kekuasaannya yang diperoleh dari kudeta itu. Mereka membentuk kerajaan-kerajaan sendiri yaitu : Karangasem, Bangli, Gianyar, Buleleng, Badung, Mengwi, Tabanan dan Jembrana. Gelgel dengan ibu kotanya Suwecapura yang tadinya merupakan pusat pemerintahan mempunyai luas wilayah yang jauh lebih kecil dibanding kerajaan-kerajaan lain, terutama Badung, Tabanan, Mengwi, Jembrana dan Buleleng. Lahan-lahan pertanian yang subur terletak di Gianyar, Bangli, Tabanan, Badung, dan Mengwi. Kelima kerajaan ini menikmati hasil pertanian yang melimpah dan menjadikannya lebih kaya dari Gelgel dibidang perekonomian. Raja-raja baru ini yang dulunya berasal dari kelompok Manca kemudian mengatur penuh pemerintahannya, termasuk penataan dibidang sosial politik. Wilayah kerajaan dibagi-bagi atas kekuasaan administratif yang dikepalai oleh seorang Punggawa yang biasanya ditunjuk oleh raja dari anggauta keluarganya. Para Punggawa memiliki kekuasaan yang besar, memerintah rakyat dan memungut pajak dalam wilayahnya, namun harus tetap patuh serta tidak lalai menyampaikan upeti tahunan kepada raja. Dalam keadaan seperti itu system manorialism dilaksanakan dengan ketat baik oleh raja kepada punggawa, maupun oleh punggawa kepada rakyat.
Perhatian Panji Sakti, raja Buleleng untuk menyerang Gelgel yang dikudeta Agung Maruti berawal dari usaha Agung Maruti merebut keris pusaka Gusti Ngurah Jelantik dari Puri Jelantik, wilayah Gelgel. Panji Sakti membantu Gusti Ngurah Jelantik dan berhasil menelusup ke Gelgel dan melarikan Ngurah Jelantik ke Tojan, Blahbatuh (kemudian bernama Puri Blahbatuh, Gianyar). Dari pengalaman itu terbukalah rahasia kekuatan Agung Maruti, sehingga serangan besar-besaran dari koalisi laskar Taruna Goak yang dipimpin Kiyai Tamblang Sampun, laskar Badung yang dipimpin I Gusti Ngurah Pemedilan, laskar I Gusti Ngurah Jelantik, laskar I Dewa Manggis dari Karangasem dan laskar Dewa Agung Jambe dari Guliang berhasil merebut kembali Gelgel dan mengusir Agung Maruti beserta keluarga dan pengikutnya ke Kuramas (Kramas), Kapal dan Jimbaran. Panglima perang andalan Agung Maruti bernama Ki Dukut Kertha gugur dalam pertempuran di Tukad Jinah melawan Kiyai Tamblang Sampun panglima Taruna Goak.
Masa kekuasaan Anglurah Agung Maruti Dimade di Gelgel berakhir pada tahun 1704 dan I Dewa Agung Jambe dinobatkan menjadi raja Gelgel. Ibu kota kerajaan yang tadinya di Swecapura dipindahkan ke Semarapura yang kemudian nama kerajaanpun berganti menjadi kerajaan Klungkung diperintah oleh raja-raja keturunan Dinasti Sri Kresna Kepakisan.
I Dewa Agung Jambe sebagai pembaharu kerajaan Gelgel dan peletak batu pertama kerajaan Klungkung memerintah sejak tahun 1704 sampai tahun 1775. Walaupun beliau tetap menyandang gelar Ratu Susuhunan Bali dan Lombok artinya semacam kekaisaran di zaman Romawi, pada kenyataan sehari-hari, raja-raja di Bali dan Lombok bertindak sebagai kerajaan yang merdeka dan berdiri sendiri tidak ada kewajiban apapun menghambakan diri dalam bidang politik, ekonomi dan militer ke Klungkung. Penghormatan ke Puri Semarapura hanyalah sebatas kenangan sejarah dan raja-raja menokohkan Susuhunan sebagai pemimpin spiritual saja. Keadaan ini berlangsung terus sampai abad ke-19.
Ditinjau dari sejarah perkembangan feudalism menjadi manorialism di Eropa, maka perkembangan di Bali sejak abad ke-18 menunjukkan hilangnya system manorialism dari raja Klungkung terhadap raja-raja Karangasem, Bangli, Gianyar, Buleleng (termasuk Jembrana yang dijajah Buleleng), Badung, Mengwi dan Tabanan. System manorialism masih tetap bertahan di masing-masing kerajaan itu antara penguasa (raja) dan rakyatnya. Kedudukan Ratu Susuhunan Bali dan Lombok yang dianggap sebagai pemimpin spiritual oleh raja-raja di Bali dan Lombok, bisa disamakan dengan kedudukan kaum bourgoisie di Eropa Tengah pada abad ke-17 namun bedanya, Susuhunan mencukupi kebutuhan ekonominya sendiri tanpa bantuan raja-raja lain. Di zaman itu system kasta yang dikembangkan di Bali sejak "penjajahan" Majapahit masih dipelihara. Gelar kebangsawanan yang tertinggi ada pada Susuhunan yaitu Dewa Agung, sedangkan raja-raja lain memakai gelar Dewa atau Gusti. Mereka segan menggunakan gelar yang sama apalagi melampaui gelar Susuhunan. Peranan dibidang spiritual ketika itu antara lain memimpin pelaksanaan yadnya di Pura Besakih, memimpin keturunan Dinasti Sri Kresna Kepakisan, memberi prasasti tentang "soroh" atau clan kepada rakyat yang membutuhkan, memberi nasihat/petunjuk dibidang adat-istiadat, dll........................(bersambung)
Om Santi, santi, santi, Om
Ida Pandita Nabe Sri Bhagawan Dwija Warsa Nawa Sandhi,
Geria Tamansari Lingga Ashrama, Jalan Pantai Lingga, Banyuasri, Singaraja, Bali.
sumber: milis HDnet
/http://www.iloveblue.com/printnews.php?jenis=article&pid=1292
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar