posed to muster that the precedence which existed among the princes was in part connected (194). It included, secondly, the duty of guarding some of the king's castles and, thirdly, that of surrendering some of their own castles to be garrisoned by the king's men (195). the Court service, too, can be said to fall under three headings, the duty of giving the king advice and of assembling in the royal council; that of presenting themselves before the king and of participating in the life and ceremonies of his Court; and the practics of occupying the higher offices of the Crown resulting in the more important princes' being enfeoffed of them, in addition to the office of duke (196). Finally, the monetary contributions made by princes to the king constituted an equivalent of the Western feudal aids (197).
The vassalage of the princes entailed, moreover, three royal prerogatives: the judiciary rights of the king over them (198); his right to inflict the pain of forfeiture of life and possessions (199); and of supervising the princely succession (200). The first prerogative stemmed from both the dynasticist and the feudal principle. The second and third, though obviously feudal in nature, tended, because of the coincidence of the two regimes, to be applied by the Crown also to the purely dynasticist aspect of the princely group.
Now the princely dependence of the king was grounded in both the fides and the feudum; in the latter, however, because of the symbiosis of dynasticim and feudalism, only partially. It is to be borne in mind that the princes derived their power not only from their sovereign rights, but also from being great landowners; and the fact of the symbiosis resulted in several kinds of tenure. In the first place, to repeat, the princes were possessors of dynastic allods, equivalents of the alleux souverains or Sonnenlehen of the West, designated by the