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