the spirit of laws-第131部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


h　their　state；　which　is　that　of　companions。＇6＇　They　had　a　strong　emulation　to　obtain　the　prince's　esteem；　and　the　princes　had　the　same　emulation　to　distinguish　themselves　in　the　bravery　and　number　of　their　companions。　〃Their　dignity　and　power；〃　continues　Tacitus；　〃consist　in　being　constantly　surrounded　by　a　multitude　of　young　and　chosen　people；　this　they　reckon　their　ornament　in　peace；　this　their　defence　and　support　in　war。　Their　name　becomes　famous　at　home；　and　among　neighbouring　nations；　when　they　excel　all　others　in　the　number　and　courage　of　their　companions：　they　receive　presents　and　embassies　from　all　parts。　Reputation　frequently　decides　the　fate　of　war。　In　battle　it　is　infamy　in　the　prince　to　be　surpassed　in　courage；　it　is　infamy　in　the　companions　not　to　follow　the　brave　example　of　their　prince；　it　is　an　eternal　disgrace　to　survive　him。　To　defend　him　is　their　most　sacred　engagement。　If　a　city　be　at　peace；　the　princes　go　to　those　who　are　at　war；　and　it　is　thus　they　retain　a　great　number　of　friends。　To　these　they　give　the　war　horse　and　the　terrible　javelin。　Their　pay　consists　in　coarse　but　plentiful　repasts。　The　prince　supports　his　liberality　merely　by　war　and　plunder。　You　might　more　easily　persuade　them　to　attack　an　enemy　and　to　expose　themselves　to　the　dangers　of　war；　than　to　cultivate　the　land；　or　to　attend　to　the　cares　of　husbandry；　they　refuse　to　acquire　by　sweat　what　they　can　purchase　with　blood。〃

Thus；　among　the　Germans；　there　were　vassals；　but　no　fiefs；　they　had　no　fiefs；　because　the　princes　had　no　lands　to　give；　or　rather　their　fiefs　consisted　in　horses　trained　for　war；　in　arms；　and　feasting。　There　were　vassals；　because　there　were　trusty　men　who　being　bound　by　their　word　engaged　to　follow　the　prince　to　the　field；　and　did　very　nearly　the　same　service　as　was　afterwards　performed　for　the　fiefs。

4。　The　same　Subject　continued。　C？sar　says＇7＇　that　〃when　any　of　the　princes　declared　to　the　assembly　that　he　intended　to　set　out　upon　an　expedition　and　asked　them　to　follow　him；　those　who　approved　the　leader　and　the　enterprise　stood　up　and　offered　their　assistance。　Upon　which　they　were　commended　by　the　multitude。　But；　if　they　did　not　fulfil　their　engagements；　they　lost　the　public　esteem；　and　were　looked　upon　as　deserters　and　traitors。〃

What　C？sar　says　in　this　place；　and　what　we　have　extracted　in　the　preceding　chapter　from　Tacitus；　are　the　substance　of　the　history　of　our　princes　of　the　first　race。

We　must　not　therefore　be　surprised　that　our　kings　should　have　new　armies　to　raise　upon　every　expedition；　new　troops　to　encourage；　new　people　to　engage；　that　to　acquire　much　they　were　obliged　to　incur　great　expenses；　that　they　should　be　constant　gainers　by　the　division　of　lands　and　spoils；　and　yet　give　these　lands　and　spoils　incessantly　away：　that　their　demesne　should　continually　increase　and　diminish；　that　a　father　upon　settling　a　kingdom　on　one　of　his　children＇8＇　should　always　give　him　a　treasure　with　it：　that　the　king's　treasure　should　be　considered　as　necessary　to　the　monarchy；　and　that　one　king　could　not　give　part　of　it　to　foreigners；　even　in　portion　with　his　daughter；　without　the　consent　of　the　other　kings。＇9＇　The　monarchy　moved　by　springs；　which　they　were　continually　obliged　to　wind　up。

5。　Of　the　Conquests　of　the　Franks。　It　is　not　true　that　the　Franks　upon　entering　Gaul　took　possession　of　the　whole　country　to　turn　it　into　fiefs。　Some　have　been　of　this　opinion　because　they　saw　the　greatest　part　of　the　country　towards　the　end　of　the　second　race　converted　into　fiefs；　rear…fiefs；　or　other　dependencies；　but　such　a　disposition　was　owing　to　particular　causes　which　we　shall　explain　hereafter。

The　consequence　which　sundry　writers　would　infer　thence；　that　the　barbarians　made　a　general　regulation　for　establishing　in　all　parts　the　state　of　villainage　is　as　false　as　the　principle　from　which　it　is　derived。　If　at　a　time　when　the　fiefs　were　precarious；　all　the　lands　of　the　kingdom　had　been　fiefs；　or　dependencies　of　fiefs；　and　all　the　men　in　the　kingdom　vassals　or　bondmen　subordinate　to　vassals；　as　the　person　that　has　property　is　ever　possessed　of　power；　the　king；　who　would　have　continually　disposed　of　the　fiefs；　that　is；　of　the　only　property　then　existing；　would　have　had　a　power　as　arbitrary　as　that　of　the　Sultan　is　in　Turkey；　which　is　contradictory　to　all　history。

6。　Of　the　Goths；　Burgundians；　and　Franks。　Gaul　was　invaded　by　German　nations。　The　Visigoths　took　possession　of　the　province　of　Narbonne；　and　of　almost　all　the　south；　the　Burgundians　settled　in　the　east；　and　the　Franks　subdued　very　nearly　all　the　rest。

No　doubt　but　these　Barbarians　retained　in　their　respective　conquests　the　manners；　inclinations；　and　usages　of　their　own　country；　for　no　nation　can　change　in　an　instant　their　manner　of　thinking　and　acting。　These　people　in　Germany　neglected　agriculture。　It　seems　by　C？sar　and　Tacitus　that　they　applied　themselves　greatly　to　a　pastoral　life；　hence　the　regulations　of　the　codes　of　Barbarian　laws　almost　all　relate　to　their　flocks。　Roricon；　who　wrote　a　history　among　the　Franks；　was　a　shepherd。

7。　Different　Ways　of　dividing　the　Land。　After　the　Goths　and　Burgundians　had；　under　various　pretences；　penetrated　into　the　heart　of　the　empire；　the　Romans；　in　order　to　put　a　stop　to　their　devastations；　were　obliged　to　provide　for　their　subsistence。　At　first　they　allowed　them　corn；＇10＇　but　afterwards　chose　to　give　them　lands。　The　emperors；　or　the　Roman　magistrates；　in　their　name；　made　particular　conventions　with　them　concerning　the　division　of　lands；＇11＇　as　we　find　in　the　chronicles　and　in　the　codes　of　the　Visigoths＇12＇　and　Burgundians。＇13＇

The　Franks　did　not　follow　the　same　plan。　In　the　Salic　and　Ripuarian　laws；　we　find　not　the　least　vestige　of　any　such　division　of　lands；　they　had　conquered　the　country；　and　so　took　what　they　pleased；　making　no　regulations　but　among　themselves。

Let　us；　therefore；　distinguish　between　the　conduct　of　the　Burgundians　and　Visigoths　in　Gaul；　of　those　same　Visigoths　in　Spain；　of　the　auxiliary　troops　under　Augustulus　and　Odoacer　in　ltaly；＇14＇　and　that　of　the　Franks　in　Gaul；　as　also　of　the　Vandals　in　Africa。＇15＇　The　former　entered　into　conventions　with　the　ancient　inhabitants；　and　in　consequence　thereof　made　a　division　of　lands　between　them；　the　latter　did　no　such　thing。

8。　The　same　Subject　continued。　What　has　induced　some　to　think　that　the　Roman　lands　were　entirely　usurped　by　the　Barbarians　is　their　finding　in　the　laws　of　the　Visigoths　and　the　Burgundians　that　these　two　nations　had　two…thirds　of　the　lands；　but　this　they　took　only　in　certain　quarters　or　districts　assigned　them。

Gundebald　says；　in　the　law　of　the　Burgundians；　that　his　people　at　their　establishment　had　two…thirds　of　the　lands　allowed　them；＇16＇　and　the　second　supplement　to　this　law　notices　that　only　a　moiety　would　be　allowed　to　those　who　should　hereafter　come　to　live　in　that　country。＇17＇　Therefore；　all　the　lands　had　not　been　divided　in　the　beginning　between　the　Romans　and　the　Burgundians。

In　those　two　regulations　we　meet　with　the　same　expressions　in　the　text；　consequently　they　explain　one　another；　and　as　the　latter　cannot　mean　a　universal　division　of　lands；　neither　can　this　signification　be　given　to　the　former。

The　Franks　acted　with　the　same　moderation　as　the　Burgundians；　they　did　not　strip　the　Romans　wherever　they　extended　their　conquests。　What　would　they　have　done　with　so　much　land？　They　took　what　suited　them；　and　left　the　remainder。

9。　A　just　Application　of　the　Law　of　the　Burgundians；　and　of　that　of　the　Visigoths；　in　relation　to　the　Division　of　Lands。　It　is　to　be　considered　that　those　divisions　of　land　were　not　made　with　a　tyrannical　spirit；　but　with　a　view　of　relieving　the　reciprocal　wants　of　two　nations　that　were　to　inhabit　the　same　country。

The　law　of　the　Burgundians　ordains　that　a　Burgundian　shall　be　received　in　an　hospitable　manner　by　a　Roman。　This　is　agreeable　to　the　manners　of　the　Germans；　who；　according　to　Tacitus；＇18＇　were　the　most　hospitable　people　in　the　world。

By　the　law　of　the　Burgundians；　it　is　ordained　that　the　Burgundians　shall　have　two…thirds　of　the　lands；　and　one…third　of　the　bondmen。　In　this　it　considered　the　genius　of　two　nations；　and　conformed　to　the　manner　in　which　they　procured　their　subsistence。　As　the　Burgundians　kept　herds　and　flocks；　they　wanted　a　great　deal　of　land　and　few　bondmen；　and　the　Romans；　from　their　application　to　agriculture；　had　need　of　less　land；　and　of　a　greater　number　of　bondmen。　The　woods　were　equally　divided；　because　their　wants　in　this　respect　were　the　same。

We　find　in　the　code　of　the　Burgundians＇19＇　that　each　Barbarian　was　placed　near　a　Roman。　The　division　therefore　was　not　general；　but　the　Romans　who　gave　the　division　were　equal　in　number　to　the　Burgundians　who　received　it。　The　Roman　was　injured　least。　The　Burgundians　as　a　martial　people；　fond　of　hunting　and　of　a　pastoral　life；　did　not　refuse　to　accept　of　the　fallow　grounds；　while　the　Romans　kept　such　lands　as　were　properest　for　culture：　the　Burgundian's　flock　fattened　the　Roman's　field。

10。　Of　Servitudes。　The　law　of　the　Burgundians　notices＇20＇　that　when　those　people　settled　in　Gaul；　they　were　allowed　two…thirds　of　the　land；　and　one…third　of　the　bondmen。　The　state　of　villainage　was　therefore　established　in　that　part　of　Gaul　before　it　was　invaded　by　the　Burgundians。＇21＇

The　law　of　the　Burgundians；　in　points　relating　to　the　two　nations；　makes　a　formal　distinction　in　both；　between　the　nobles；　the　freeborn　and　the　bondmen。＇22＇　Servitude　was　not　therefore　a　thing　peculiar　to　the　Romans；　nor　liberty　and　nobility　to　the　Barbarians。

This　very　same　law　says；＇23＇　that　if　a　Burgundian　freedman　had　not　given　a　certain　sum　to　his　master；　nor　received　a　third　share　of　a　Roman；　he　was　always　supposed　to　belong　to　his　master's　family。　The　Roman　proprietor　was　therefore　free；　since　he　did　not　belong　to　another　person's　family；　he　was　free；　because　his　third　portion　was　a　mark　of　liberty。

We　need　only　open　the　Salic　and　Ripuarian　laws　to　be　satisfied　that　the　Romans　were　no　more　in　a　state　of　servitude　among　the　Franks　than　among　the　other　conquerors　of　Gaul。

The　Count　de　Boulainvilliers　is　mistaken　in　the　capital　point　of　his　system：　he　has　not　proved　that　the　Franks　made　a　general　regulation　which　reduced　the　Romans　into　a　kind　of　se