the spirit of laws-第138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！


trong　and　substantial　proofs；　in　order　to　establish　his　system。　For　when　we　behold　a　conqueror　entering　a　country；　and　subduing　a　great　part　of　it　by　force　and　open　violence；　and　soon　after　find　the　whole　country　subdued；　without　any　mention　in　history　of　the　manner　of　its　being　effected；　we　have　sufficient　reason　to　believe　that　the　affair　ended　as　it　began。

When　we　find　he　has　mistaken　this　point；　it　is　easy　to　perceive　that　his　whole　system　falls　to　the　ground；　and　as　often　as　he　infers　a　consequence　from　these　principles　that　Gaul　was　not　conquered　by　the　Franks；　but　that　the　Franks　were　invited　by　the　Romans；　we　may　safely　deny　it。

This　author　proves　his　principle　by　the　Roman　dignities　with　which　Clovis　was　invested：　he　insists　that　Clovis　succeeded　to　Childeric　his　father　in　the　office　of　magister　militi？。　But　these　two　offices　are　merely　of　his　own　creation。　St。　Remigius'　letter　to　Clovis；　on　which　he　grounds　his　opinion；　is　only　a　congratulation　upon　his　accession　to　the　crown。＇193＇　When　the　intent　of　a　writing　is　so　well　known；　why　should　we　give　it　another　turn？

Clovis；　towards　the　end　of　the　reign；　was　made　consul　by　the　Emperor　Anastasius：　but　what　right　could　he　receive　from　an　authority　that　lasted　only　one　year？　it　is　very　probable；　says　our　author；　that　in　the　same　diploma　the　Emperor　Anastasius　made　Clovis　proconsul。　And；　I　say；　it　is　very　probable　he　did　not。　With　regard　to　a　fact　for　which　there　is　no　foundation；　the　authority　of　him　who　denies　is　equal　to　that　of　him　who　affirms。　But　I　have　also　a　reason　for　denying　it。　Gregory　of　Tours；　who　mentions　the　consulate；　says　never　a　word　concerning　the　proconsulate。　And　even　this　proconsulate　could　have　lasted　only　about　six　months。　Clovis　died　a　year　and　a　half　after　he　was　created　consul；　and　we　cannot　pretend　to　make　the　pro…consulate　an　hereditary　office。　In　fine；　when　the　consulate；　and；　if　you　will；　the　proconsulate；　were　conferred　upon　him；　he　was　already　master　of　the　monarchy；　and　all　his　rights　were　established。

The　second　proof　alleged　by　the　Abbé　du　Bos　is　the　renunciation　made　by　the　Emperor　Justinian；　in　favour　of　the　children　and　grandchildren　of　Clovis；　of　all　the　rights　of　the　empire　over　Gaul。　I　could　say　a　great　deal　concerning　this　renunciation。　We　may　judge　of　the　regard　shown　to　it　by　the　kings　of　the　Franks；　from　the　manner　in　which　they　performed　the　conditions　of　it。　Besides；　the　kings　of　the　Franks　were　masters　and　peaceable　sovereigns　of　Gaul；　Justinian　had　not　one　foot　of　ground　in　that　country；　the　western　empire　had　been　destroyed　a　long　time　before；　and　the　eastern　empire　had　no　right　to　Gaul；　but　as　representing　the　emperor　of　the　west。　These　were　rights　upon　rights；　the　monarchy　of　the　Franks　was　already　founded；　the　regulation　of　their　establishment　was　made；　the　reciprocal　rights　of　the　persons　and　of　the　different　nations　who　lived　in　the　monarchy　were　admitted；　the　laws　of　each　nation　were　given　and　even　reduced　to　writing。　What；　therefore；　could　that　foreign　renunciation　avail　to　a　government　already　established？

What　can　the　Abbé　mean　by　making　such　a　parade　of　the　declamations　of　all　those　bishops；　who；　amidst　the　confusion　and　total　subversion　of　the　state；　endeavour　to　flatter　the　conqueror？　What　else　is　implied　by　flattering　but　the　weakness　of　him　who　is　obliged　to　flatter？　What　do　rhetoric　and　poetry　prove　but　the　use　of　those　very　arts？　Is　it　possible　to　help　being　surprised　at　Gregory　of　Tours；　who；　after　mentioning　the　assassinations　committed　by　Clovis；　says　that　God　laid　his　enemies　every　day　at　his　feet；　because　he　walked　in　his　ways？　Who　doubts　but　the　clergy　were　glad　of　Clovis's　conversion；　and　that　they　even　reaped　great　advantages　from　it？　But　who　doubts　at　the　same　time　that　the　people　experienced　all　the　miseries　of　conquest　and　that　the　Roman　government　submitted　to　that　of　the　Franks？　The　Franks　were　neither　willing　nor　able　to　make　a　total　change；　and　few　conquerors　were　ever　seized　with　so　great　a　degree　of　madness。　But　to　render　all　the　Abbé　du　Bos'　consequences　true；　they　must　not　only　have　made　no　change　among　the　Romans；　but　they　must　even　have　changed　themselves。

I　could　undertake　to　prove；　by　following　this　author's　method；　that　the　Greeks　never　conquered　Persia。　I　should　set　out　with　mentioning　the　treaties　which　some　of　their　cities　concluded　with　the　Persians；　I　should　mention　the　Greeks　who　were　in　Persian　pay；　as　the　Franks　were　in　the　pay　of　the　Romans。　And　if　Alexander　entered　the　Persian　territories；　besieged；　took；　and　destroyed　the　city　of　Tyre；　it　was　only　a　particular　affair　like　that　of　Syagrius。　But；　behold　the　Jewish　pontiff　goes　forth　to　meet　him。　Listen　to　the　oracle　of　Jupiter　Ammon。　Recollect　how　he　had　been　predicted　at　Gordium。　See　what　a　number　of　towns　crowd；　as　it　were；　to　submit　to　him；　and　how　all　the　satraps　and　grandees　come　to　pay　him　obeisance。　He　put　on　the　Persian　dress；　this　is　Clovis'　consular　robe。　Does　not　Darius　offer　him　one　half　of　his　kingdom？　Is　not　Darius　assassinated　like　a　tyrant？　Do　not　the　mother　and　wife　of　Darius　weep　at　the　death　of　Alexander？　Were　Quintius　Curtius；　Arrian；　or　Plutarch；　Alexander's　contemporaries？　Has　not　the　invention　of　printing　afforded　us　great　light　which　those　authors　wanted？＇194＇　Such　is　the　history　of　the　Establishment　of　the　French　Monarchy　in　Gaul。

25。　Of　the　French　Nobility。　The　Abbé　du　Bos　maintains　that　at　the　commencement　of　our　monarchy　there　was　only　one　order　of　citizens　among　the　Franks。　This　assertion；　so　injurious　to　the　noble　blood　of　our　principal　families；　is　equally　affronting　to　the　three　great　houses　which　successively　governed　this　realm。　The　origin　of　their　grandeur　would　not；　therefore；　have　been　lost　in　the　obscurity　of　time。　History　might　point　out　the　ages　when　they　were　plebeian　families；　and　to　make　Childeric；　Pepin；　and　Hugh　Capet　gentlemen；　we　should　be　obliged　to　trace　their　pedigree　among　the　Romans　or　Saxons；　that　is；　among　the　conquered　nations。

This　author　grounds　his　opinion　on　the　Salic　law。＇195＇　By　that　law；　he　says；　it　plainly　appears　that　there　were　not　two　different　orders　of　citizens　among　the　Franks：　it　allowed　a　composition　of　two　hundred　sous　for　the　murder　of　any　Frank　whatsoever；＇196＇　but　among　the　Romans　it　distinguished　the　king's　guest；　for　whose　death　it　gave　a　composition　of　three　hundred　sous；　from　the　Roman　proprietor　to　whom　it　granted　a　hundred；　and　from　the　Roman　tributary　to　whom　it　gave　only　a　composition　of　forty…five。　And　as　the　difference　of　the　compositions　formed　the　principal　distinction；　he　concludes　that　there　was　but　one　order　of　citizens　among　the　Franks；　and　three　among　the　Romans。

It　is　astonishing　that　his　very　mistake　did　not　set　him　right。　And；　indeed；　it　would　have　been　very　extraordinary　that　the　Roman　nobility　who　lived　under　the　domination　of　the　Franks　should　have　had　a　larger　composition；　and　been　persons　of　much　greater　importance　than　the　most　illustrious　among　the　Franks；　and　their　greatest　generals。　What　probability　is　there　that　the　conquering　nation　should　have　so　little　respect　for　themselves；　and　so　great　a　regard　for　the　conquered　people？　Besides；　our　author　quotes　the　laws　of　other　barbarous　nations　which　prove　that　they　had　different　orders　of　citizens。　Now　it　would　be　a　matter　of　astonishment　that　this　general　rule　should　have　failed　only　among　the　Franks。　Hence　he　ought　to　have　concluded　either　that　he　did　not　rightly　understand　or　that　he　misapplied　the　passages　of　the　Salic　law；　which　is　actually　the　case。

Upon　opening　this　law；　we　find　that　the　composition　for　the　death　of　an　Antrustio。＇197＇　that　is；　of　the　king's　vassal；　was　six　hundred　sous；　and　that　for　the　death　of　a　Roman；　who　was　the　king's　guest；　was　only　three　hundred。＇198＇　We　find　there　likewise　that　the　composition＇199＇　for　the　death　of　an　ordinary　Frank　was　two　hundred　sous；＇200＇　and　for　the　death　of　an　ordinary　Roman；　was　only　one　hundred。＇201＇　For　the　death　of　a　Roman　tributary；＇202＇　who　was　a　kind　of　bondman　or　freedman；　they　paid　a　composition　of　forty…five　sous：　but　I　shall　take　no　notice　of　this；　any　more　than　of　the　composition　for　the　murder　of　a　Frank　bondman　or　of　a　Frank　freedman；　because　this　third　order　of　persons　is　out　of　the　question。

What　does　our　author　do？　He　is　quite　silent　with　respect　to　the　first　order　of　persons　among　the　Franks；　that　is　the　article　relating　to　the　Antrustios；　and　afterwards　upon　comparing　the　ordinary　Frank；　for　whose　death　they　paid　a　composition　of　two　hundred　sous；　with　those　whom　he　distinguishes　under　three　orders　among　the　Romans；　and　for　whose　death　they　paid　different　compositions；　he　finds　that　there　was　only　one　order　of　citizens　among　the　Franks；　and　that　there　were　three　among　the　Romans。

As　the　Abbé　is　of　opinion　that　there　was　only　one　order　of　citizens　among　the　Franks；　it　would　have　been　lucky　for　him　that　there　had　been　only　one　order　also　among　the　Burgundians；　because　their　kingdom　constituted　one　of　the　principal　branches　of　our　monarchy。　But　in　their　codes　we　find　three　sorts　of　compositions；　one　for　the　Burgundians　or　Roman　nobility；　the　other　for　the　Burgundians　or　Romans　of　a　middling　condition；　and　the　third　for　those　of　a　lower　rank　in　both　nations。＇203＇　He　has　not　quoted　this　law。

It　is　very　extraordinary　to　see　in　what　manner　he　evades　those　passages　which　press　him　hard　on　all　sides。＇204＇　If　you　speak　to　him　of　the　grandees；　lords；　and　the　nobility；　these；　he　says；　are　mere　distinctions　of　respect；　and　not　of　order；　they　are　things　of　courtesy；　and　not　legal　privileges；　or　else；　he　says；　those　people　belonged　to　the　king's　council；　nay；　they　possibly　might　be　Romans：　but　still　there　was　only　one　order　of　citizens　among　the　Franks。　On　the　other　hand；　if　you　speak　to　him　of　some　Franks　of　an　inferior　rank；＇205＇　he　says　they　are　bondmen；　and　thus　he　interprets　the　decree　of　Childebert。　But　I　must　stop　here　a　little；　to　inquire　farther　into　this　decree。　Our　author　has　rendered　it　famous　by　availing　himself　of　it　in　order　to　prove　two　things：　the　one　that　all　the　compositions　we　meet　with　in　the　laws　of　the　Barbarians　were　only　civil　fines　added　to　corporal　punishments；　which　entirely　subverts　all　the　ancient　records；＇206＇　the　other；　that　all　freemen　were　judged　directly　and　i