the spirit of laws-第153节

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！



This　pretension　cannot　be　applied　to　the　time　when　Clovis；　upon　his　entering　Gaul；　took　and　plundered　the　towns；　neither　is　it　applicable　to　the　period　when　he　defeated　Syagrius；　the　Roman　commander；　and　conquered　the　country　which　he　held；　it　can；　therefore；　be　referred　only　to　the　period　when　Clovis；　already　master　of　a　great　part　of　Gaul　by　open　force；　was　called　by　the　choice　and　affection　of　the　people　to　the　sovereignty　over　the　rest。　And　it　is　not　enough　that　Clovis　was　received；　he　must　have　been　called；　the　Abbé　du　Bos　must　prove　that　the　people　chose　rather　to　live　under　Clovis　than　under　the　domination　of　the　Romans　or　under　their　own　laws。　Now　the　Romans　belonging　to　that　part　of　Gaul　not　yet　invaded　by　the　Barbarians　were；　according　to　this　author；　of　two　sorts：　the　first　were　of　the　Armorican　confederacy；　who　had　driven　away　the　emperor's　officers　in　order　to　defend　themselves　against　the　Barbarians；　and　to　be　governed　by　their　own　laws；　the　second　were　subject　to　the　Roman　officers。　Now；　does　the　Abbé　produce　any　convincing　proofs　that　the　Romans；　who　were　still　subject　to　the　empire；　called　in　Clovis？　Not　one。　Does　he　prove　that　the　republic　of　the　Armoricans　invited　Clovis；　or　even　concluded　any　treaty　with　him？　Not　at　all。　So　far　from　being　able　to　tell　us　the　fate　of　this　republic；　he　cannot　even　so　much　as　prove　its　existence；　and　notwithstanding　he　pretends　to　trace　it　from　the　time　of　Honorius　to　the　conquest　of　Clovis；　notwithstanding　he　relates　with　most　admirable　exactness　all　the　events　of　those　times；　still　this　republic　remains　invisible　in　ancient　authors。　For　there　is　a　wide　difference　between　proving　by　a　passage　of　Zozimus＇191＇　that　under　the　Emperor　Honorius；　the　country　of　Armorica＇192＇　and　the　other　provinces　of　Gaul　revolted　and　formed　a　kind　of　republic；　and　showing　us　that　notwithstanding　the　different　pacifications　of　Gaul；　the　Armoricans　formed　always　a　particular　republic；　which　continued　till　the　conquest　of　Clovis；　and　yet　this　is　what　he　should　have　demonstrated　by　strong　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　pr