We read in the Salic law (tit. 43): _Si quis romanum hominem convivam regis occiderit, sol. 300 culpabilis judicetur_. The Roman editors of this law would have rendered the word _gast_ by _conviva_.]
When most of the vassals had dispersed themselves, in order that each might reside in his own allodial or beneficiary estate, we may easily perceive the necessity that thus arose of determining the obligations that were then imposed upon them; but this was only done imperfectly and by degrees, as is generally the case where matters are at issue which have for a long time had a general and conventional adjustment. As the first race began to disappear and the second to arise in its place, the obligations attached to the conferring of benefices appear to be clearly determined. They range themselves under two principal heads. _First_, the obligation of military service on the requisition of the patron. _Secondly_, the obligation of certain judicial and domestic services of a more personal and household character. It is impossible at the present time to specify what these services were to which the incumbents were held. We see only, among a host of acts, that the kings imposed on the incumbents _servilia_, which obliged them to present themselves at court. These obligations were comprised under the general term _fidelity_. They were at first personal, and attached to the quality of _liege-man,_ independently of the possession of any benefice; a connexion identical with that between the ancient German associates and their monarch. When it had become necessary for the king to give lands as a benefice, in order to insure the fidelity of his liege subjects, the obligation attached itself to the quality of beneficiary. We constantly see benefices given under the condition of loyalty. Charlemagne, when he gave a benefice in perpetuity to Jean, annexed to it this condition. { 123} There is reason to believe that benefices were also given, conditioned by the payment of certain fees (_census_). I do not find, at this period, the granting of any benefice in which the imposition of a rental is expressly indicated; but the nature of things seems to show that such must have been the case, and I do find mention made of benefices conferred _absque ullo censu_. Anxiety in certain cases to obtain exemption from the fees, proves that in other cases they were imposed. It is probable that rentals were attached to benefices, granted hereditarily, and not to those which were only given for the term of an individual life.