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！
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 h