the spirit of laws-第148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！


　well　as　the　letter　of　those　three　treaties　in　this　respect　are　very　much　alike。

But　as　to　what　concerns　the　freemen；　there　is　a　vital　difference。　The　treaty　of　Andelot　does　not　say　that　they　might　do　homage　for　a　fief；　whereas　we　find　in　the　divisions　of　Charlemagne　and　Louis　the　Debonnaire　express　clauses　to　empower　them　to　do　homage。　This　shows　that　a　new　usage　had　been　introduced　after　the　treaty　of　Andelot；　whereby　the　freemen　had　become　capable　of　this　great　privilege。

This　must　have　happened　when　Charles　Martel；　after　distributing　the　church…lands　to　his　soldiers；　partly　in　fief；　and　partly　as　allodia；　made　a　kind　of　revolution　in　the　feudal　laws。　It　is　very　probable　that　the　nobility　who　were　seized　already　of　fiefs　found　a　greater　advantage　in　receiving　the　new　grants　as　allodia；　and　that　the　freemen　thought　themselves　happy　in　accepting　them　as　fiefs。

THE　PRINCIPAL　CAUSE　OF　THE　HUMILIATION　OF　THE　SECOND　RACE

25。　Changes　in　the　Allodia。　Charlemagne　in　the　partition＇165＇　mentioned　in　the　preceding　chapter　ordained　that　after　his　death　the　vassals　belonging　to　each　king　should　be　permitted　to　receive　benefices　in　their　own　sovereign's　dominion；　and　not　in　those　of　another；＇166＇　whereas　they　may　keep　their　allodial　estates　in　any　of　their　dominions。＇167＇　But　he　adds＇168＇　that　every　freeman　might；　after　the　death　of　his　lord；　do　homage　in　any　of　three　kingdoms　he　pleased；　as　well　as　he　that　never　had　been　subject　to　a　lord。　We　find　the　same　regulations　in　the　partition　which　Louis　the　Debonnaire　made　among　his　children　in　the　year　817。

But　though　the　freeman　had　done　homage　for　a　fief；　yet　the　count's　militia　was　not　thereby　weakened：　the　freeman　was　still　obliged　to　contribute　for　his　allodium；　and　to　get　people　ready　for　the　service　belonging　to　it；　at　the　proportion　of　one　man　to　four　manors；　or　else　to　procure　a　man　that　should　do　the　duty　of　the　fief　in　his　stead。　And　when　some　abuses　had　been　introduced　upon　this　head；　they　were　redressed；　as　appears　by　the　constitutions　of　Charlemagne；＇169＇　and　by　that　of　Pepin；　King　of　Italy；　which　explain　each　other。＇170＇

The　remark　made　by　historians　that　the　battle　of　Fontenay　was　the　ruin　of　the　monarchy；　is　very　true；　but　I　beg　leave　to　cast　an　eye　on　the　unhappy　consequences　of　that　day。

Some　time　after　the　battle；　the　three　brothers；　Lothairius；　Louis；　and　Charles；　made　a　treaty；＇171＇　wherein　I　find　some　clauses　which　must　have　altered　the　whole　political　system　of　the　French　government。

1。　In　the　declaration＇172＇　which　Charles　made　to　the　people　of　the　part　of　the　treaty　relating　to　them；　he　says　that　every　freeman　might　choose　whom　he　pleased　for　his　lord；＇173＇　whether　the　king　or　any　of　the　nobility。　Before　this　treaty　the　freeman　might　do　homage　for　a　fief；　but　his　allodium　still　continued　under　the　immediate　power　of　the　king；　that　is；　under　the　count's　jurisdiction；　and　he　depended　on　the　lord　to　whom　he　vowed　fealty；　only　on　account　of　the　fief　which　he　had　obtained。　After　that　treaty　every　freeman　had　a　right　to　subject　his　allodium　to　the　king；　or　to　any　other　lord；　as　he　thought　proper。　The　question　is　riot　in　regard　to　those　who　put　themselves　under　the　protection　of　another　for　a　fief；　but　to　such　as　changed　their　allodial　into　a　feudal　land；　and　withdrew　themselves；　as　it　were；　from　the　civil　jurisdiction　to　enter　under　the　power　of　the　king；　or　of　the　lord　whom　they　thought　proper　to　choose。

Thus　it　was　that　those　who　formerly　were　only　under　the　king's　power；　as　freemen　under　'the　count；　became　insensibly　vassals　one　of　another；　since　every　freeman　might　choose　whom　he　pleased　for　his　lord；　the　king　or　any　of　the　nobility。

2。　If　a　man　changed　an　estate　which　he　possessed　in　perpetuity　into　a　fief；　this　new　fief　could　no　longer　be　only　for　life。　Hence　we　see；　a　short　time　after；　a　general　law　for　giving　the　fiefs　to　the　children　of　the　present　possessor：＇174＇　it　was　made　by　Charles　the　Bald；　one　of　the　three　contracting　princes。

What　has　been　said　concerning　the　liberty　every　freeman　had　in　the　monarchy；　after　the　treaty　of　the　three　brothers；　of　choosing　whom　he　pleased　for　his　lord；　the　king　or　any　of　the　nobility；　is　confirmed　by　the　acts　subsequent　to　that　time。

In　the　reign　of　Charlemagne；＇175＇　when　the　vassal　had　received　a　present　of　a　lord；　were　it　worth　only　a　sou；　he　could　not　afterwards　quit　him。　But　under　Charles　the　Bald；　the　vassals　might　follow　what　was　agreeable　to　their　interests　or　their　inclination　with　entire　safety；＇176＇　and　so　strongly　does　this　prince　explain　himself　on　the　subject　that　he　seems　rather　to　encourage　them　in　the　enjoyment　of　this　liberty　than　to　restrain　it。　In　Charlemagne's　time；　benefices　were　rather　personal　than　real；　afterwards　they　became　rather　real　than　personal。

26。　Changes　in　the　Fiefs。　The　same　changes　happened　in　the　fiefs　as　in　the　allodia。　We　find　by　the　Capitulary　of　Compiègne；＇177＇　under　King　Pepin；　that　those　who　had　received　a　benefice　from　the　king　gave　a　part　of　this　benefice　to　different　bondmen；　but　these　parts　were　not　distinct　from　the　whole。　The　king　revoked　them　when　he　revoked　the　whole；　and　at　the　death　of　the　king's　vassal；　the　rear…vassal　lost　also　his　rear…fief：　and　a　new　beneficiary　succeeded；　who　likewise　established　new　rear…vassals。　Thus　it　was　the　person　and　not　the　rear…fief　that　depended　on　the　fief；　on　the　one　hand；　the　rear…vassal　returned　to　the　king　because　he　was　not　tied　for　ever　to　the　vassal；　and　the　rear…fief　returned　also　to　the　king　because　it　was　the　fief　itself　and　not　a　dependence　of　it。

Such　was　the　rear…vassalage；　while　the　fiefs　were　during　pleasure；　and　such　was　it　also　while　they　were　for　life。　This　was　altered　when　the　fiefs　descended　to　the　next　heirs；　and　the　rear…fiefs　the　same。　That　which　was　held　before　immediately　of　the　king　was　held　now　mediately；　and　the　regal　power　was　thrown　back；　as　it　were；　one　degree；　sometimes

two；　and　oftentimes　more。

We　find　in　the　books　of　fiefs＇178＇　that；　though　the　king's　vassals　might　give　away　in　fief；　that　is；　in　rear…fief；　to　the　king；　yet　these　rear…vassals；　or　petty　vavasors；　could　not　give　also　in　fief；　so　that　whatever　they　had　given；　they　might　always　resume。　Besides；　a　grant　of　that　kind　did　not　descend　to　the　children　like　the　fiefs；　because　it　was　not　supposed　to　have　been　made　according　to　the　feudal　laws。

If　we　compare　the　situation　in　which　the　rear…vassalage　was　at　the　time　when　the　two　Milanese　senators　wrote　those　books；　with　what　it　was　under　King　Pepin；　we　shall　find　that　the　rear…fiefs　preserved　their　primitive　nature　longer　than　the　fiefs。＇179＇

But　when　those　senators　wrote；　such　general　exceptions　had　been　made　to　this　rule　as　had　almost　abolished　it。　For　if　a　person　who　had　received　a　fief　of　a　rear…vassal　happened　to　follow　him　upon　an　expedition　to　Rome；　he　was　entitled　to　all　the　privileges　of　a　vassal。＇180＇　In　like　manner；　if　he　had　given　money　to　the　rear…vassal　to　obtain　the　fief；　the　latter　could　not　take　it　from　him；　nor　hinder　him　from　transmitting　it　to　his　son；　till　he　returned　him　his　money：　in　fine；　this　rule　was　no　longer　observed　by　the　senate　of　Milan。＇181＇

27。　Another　change　which　happened　in　the　Fiefs。　In　Charlemagne's　time　they　were　obliged；＇182＇　under　great　penalties；　to　repair　to　the　general　meeting　in　case　of　any　war　whatsoever；　they　admitted　of　no　excuses；　and　if　the　count　exempted　any　one；　he　was　liable　himself　to　be　punished。　But　the　treaty　of　the　three　brothers＇183＇　made　a　restriction　upon　this　head　which　rescued　the　nobility；　as　it　were；　out　of　the　king's　hands；　they　were　no　longer　obliged　to　serve　him　in　time　of　war；　except　when　the　war　was　defensive。＇184＇　In　others；　they　were　at　liberty　to　follow　their　lord；　or　to　mind　their　own　business。　This　treaty　relates　to　another；＇185＇　concluded；　five　years　before；　between　the　two　brothers；　Charles　the　Bald　and　Louis；　King　of　Germany；　by　which　these　princes　release　their　vassals　from　serving　them　in　war；　in　case　they　should　attempt　hostilities　against　each　other；　an　agreement　which　the　two　princes　confirmed　by　oath；　and　at　the　same　time　made　their　armies　swear　to　it。

The　death　of　a　hundred　thousand　French；　at　the　battle　of　Fontenay；　made　the　remains　of　the　nobility　imagine　that　by　the　private　quarrels　of　their　kings　about　their　respective　shares；　their　whole　body　would　be　exterminated；　and　that　the　ambition　and　jealousy　of　those　princes　would　end　in　the　destruction　of　all　the　best　families　of　the　kingdom。　A　law　was　therefore　passed　that　the　nobility　should　not　be　obliged　to　serve　their　princes　in　war　unless　it　was　to　defend　the　state　against　a　foreign　invasion。　This　law　obtained　for　several　ages。＇186＇

28。　Changes　which　happened　in　the　great　Offices；　and　in　the　Fiefs。　The　many　changes　introduced　into　the　fiefs　in　particular　cases　seemed　to　spread　so　widely　as　to　be　productive　of　general　corruption。　I　noticed　that　in　the　beginning　several　fiefs　had　been　alienated　in　perpetuity；　but　those　were　particular　cases；　and　the　fiefs　in　general　preserved　their　nature；　so　that　if　the　crown　lost　some　fiefs　it　substituted　others　in　their　stead。　I　observed；　likewise；　that　the　crown　had　never　alienated　the　great　offices　in　perpetuity。＇187＇

But　Charles　the　Bald　made　a　general　regulation；　which　equally　affected　the　great　offices　and　the　fiefs。　He　ordained；　in　his　capitularies；　that　the　counties　should　be　given　to　the　children　of　the　count；　and　that　this　regulation　should　also　take　place　in　respect　to　the　fiefs。＇188＇

We　shall　see　presently　that　this　regulation　received　a　wider　extension；　insomuch　that　the　great　offices　and　fiefs　went　even　to　distant　relatives。　Thence　it　followed　that　most　of　the　lords　who　before　this　time　had　held　immediately　of　the　crown；　held　now　mediately。　Those　counts　who　formerly　administered　justice　in　the　king's　placita；　and　who　led　the　freemen　against　the　enemy；　found　themselves　situated　between　the　king　and　his　freemen；　and　the　king's　power　was　removed　farther　off　another　degree。

Again；　it　appears　from　the　capitularies；＇189＇　that　the　counts　had　benefices　annexed　to　their　counties；　and　vassals　under　them。　When　the　counties　became　hereditary；　the　count's　vassals　were　no　longer　the　immediate　vassals　of　the　king；　and　the　benefices　annexed　to　the　counties　were　no　longer　the　king's