the spirit of laws-第164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！



Toward　the　close　of　the　reign　of　Charles　the　Bald；　and　from　that　time　forward；　there　was　an　end　of　the　disputes　of　the　clergy　and　laity　concerning　the　restitution　of　church…lands。　The　bishops　indeed　breathed　out　still　a　few　sighs　in　their　remonstrances　to　Charles　the　Bald；　which　we　find　in　the　Capitulary　of　the　year　856；　and　in　the　letter　they　wrote　to　Louis；　King　of　Germany；　in　the　year　858；＇155＇　but　they　proposed　things；　and　challenged　promises；　so　often　eluded；　that　we　plainly　see　they　had　no　longer　any　hopes　of　obtaining　their　desire。

All　that　could　be　expected　then　was　to　repair　in　general　the　injuries　done　both　to　church　and　state。＇156＇　The　kings　engaged　not　to　deprive　the　nobility　of　their　freemen；　and　not　to　give　away　any　more　church…lands　by　precepts；＇157＇　so　that　the　interests　of　the　clergy　and　nobility　seemed　then　to　be　united。

The　dreadful　depredations　of　the　Normans；　as　I　have　already　observed；　contributed　greatly　to　put　an　end　to　those　quarrels。

The　authority　of　our　kings　diminishing　every　day；　both　for　the　reasons　already　given　and　those　which　I　shall　mention　hereafter；　they　imagined　they　had　no　better　resource　left；　than　to　resign　themselves　into　the　hands　of　the　clergy。　But　the　ecclesiastics　had　weakened　the　power　of　the　kings；　and　these　had　diminished　the　influence　of　the　ecclesiastics。　In　vain　did　Charles　the　Bald　and　his　successors　call　in　the　church　to　support　the　state；　and　to　prevent　its　ruin；　in　vain　did　they　make　use　of　the。　respect　which　the　commonalty　had　for　that　body；＇158＇　to　maintain　that　which　they　should　also　have　for　their　prince；＇159＇　in　vain　did　they　endeavour　to　give　an　authority　to　their　laws　by　that　of　the　canons；　in　vain　did　they　join　the　ecclesiastic　with　the　civil　punishments；＇160＇　in　vain　to　counterbalance　the　authority　of　the　count　did　they　give　to　each　bishop　the　title　of　their　commissary　in　the　several　provinces；＇161＇　it　was　impossible　to　repair　the　mischief　they　had　done；　and　a　terrible　misfortune；　which　I　shall　presently　mention；　proved　the　ruin　of　the　monarchy。

24。　That　the　Freemen　were　rendered　capable　of　holding　Fiefs。　I　said　that　the　freemen　were　led　against　the　enemy　by　their　count；　and　the　vassals　by　their　lord。　This　was　the　reason　that　the　several　orders　of　the　state　balanced　each　other；　and　though　the　king's　vassals　had　other　vassals　under　them；　yet　they　might　be　overawed　by　the　count；　who　was　at　the　head　of　all　the　freemen　of　the　monarchy。

The　freemen　were　not　allowed　at　first　to　do　homage　for　a　fief；　but　in　process　of　time　this　was　permitted：＇162＇　and　I　find　that　this　change　was　made　during　the　period　that　elapsed　from　the　reign　of　Gontram　to　that　of　Charlemagne。　This　I　prove　by　the　comparison　which　may　be　made　between　the　treaty　of　Andelot；＇163＇　by　Gontram；　Childebert；　and　Queen　Brunehault；　and　the　partition　made　by　Charlemagne　among　his　children；　as　well　as　a　like　partition　by　Louis　the　Debonnaire。＇164＇　These　three　acts　contain　nearly　the　same　regulations　with　regard　to　the　vassals；　and　as　they　determine　the　very　same　points；　under　almost　the　same　circumstances；　the　spirit　as　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