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