The other questions which caused mutual animosity between England and France in the decline of the 19th century had nothing whatever to do with their conflicting international interests. The offensive attitude of theThe entente with England.English press towards France on account of the Dreyfus affair was repaid by the French in their criticism of the Boer War. When those sentimental causes of mutual irritation had become less acute, the press of the two countries was moved by certain influences to recognize that it was in their interest to be on good terms with one another. The importance of theircommercialrelations was brought into relief as though it were a new fact. At last in 1903 state visits between the rulers of England and of France took place in their respective capitals, for the first time since the early days of the Second Empire, followed by an Anglo-French convention signed on the 8th of April 1904. By this an arrangement was come to on outstanding questions of controversy between England and France in various parts of the world. France undertook not to interfere with the action of England in Egypt,while England made a like undertaking as to French influence in Morocco. France conceded certain of its fishing rights in Newfoundland which had been a perpetual source of irritation between the two countries for nearly two hundred years since the treaty of Utrecht of 1713. In return England made several concessions to France in Africa, including that of the Los Islands off Sierra Leone and some rectifications of frontier on the Gambia and between the Niger and Lake Chad. Other points of difference were arranged as to Siam, the New Hebrides and Madagascar. The convention of 1904 was on the whole more advantageous for England than for France. The free hand which England conceded to France in dealing with Morocco was a somewhat burdensome gift owing to German interference; but the incidents which arose from the Franco-German conflict in that country are as yet too recent for any estimate of their possible consequences.
One result was the retirement of M. Delcassé from the foreign office on the 6th of June 1905. He had been foreign minister for seven years, a consecutive period of rare length, only once exceeded in England since the creation ofThe work of M. Delcassé.the office, when Castlereagh held it for ten years, and one of prodigious duration in the history of the Third Republic. He first went to the Quai d’Orsay in the Brisson ministry of June 1898, remained there during the Dupuy ministry of the same year, was reappointed by M. Waldeck-Rousseau in his cabinet which lasted from June 1899 to June 1902, was retained in the post by M. Combes till his ministry fell in January 1905, and again by his successor M. Rouvier till his own resignation in June of that year. M. Delcassé had thus an uninterrupted reign at the foreign office during a long critical period of transition both in the interior politics of France and in its exterior relations. He went to the Quai d’Orsay when the Dreyfus agitation was most acute, and left it when parliament was absorbed in discussing the separation of church and state. He saw the Franco-Russian alliance lose its popularity in the country even before the Russian defeat by the Japanese in the last days of his ministry. Although in the course of his official duties at the colonial office he had been partly responsible for some of the expeditions sent to Africa for the purpose of checking British influence, he was fully disposed to pursue a policy which might lead to a friendly understanding with England. In this he differed from M. Hanotaux, who was essentially the man of the Franco-Russian alliance, owing to it much of his prestige, including his election to the French Academy, and Russia, to which he gave exclusive allegiance, was then deemed to be primarily the enemy of England. M. Delcassé on the contrary, from the first, desired to assist arapprochementbetween England and Russia as preliminary to the arrangement he proposed between England and France. He was foreign minister when the tsar paid his second visit to France, but there was no longer the national unanimity which welcomed him in 1896, M. Delcassé also accompanied President Loubet to Russia when he returned the tsar’s second visit in 1902. But exchange of compliments between France and Russia were no longer to be the sole international ceremonials within the attributes of the French foreign office; M. Delcassé was minister when the procession of European sovereigns headed by the kings of England and of Italy in 1903 came officially to Paris, and he went with M. Loubet to London and to Rome on the president’s return visits to those capitals—the latter being the immediate cause of the rupture of the concordat with the Vatican, though M. Delcassé was essentially a concordatory minister. His retirement from the Rouvier ministry in June 1905 was due to pressure from Germany in consequence of his opposition to German interference in Morocco. His resignation took place just a week after the news had arrived of the destruction of the Russian fleet by the Japanese, which completed the disablement of the one ally of France. The impression was current in France that Germany wished to give the French nation a fright before the understanding with England had reached an effective stage, and it was actually believed that the resignation of M. Delcassé averted a declaration of war. Although that belief revived to some extent the fading enmity of the French towards the conquerors of Alsace-Lorraine, the fear which accompanied it moved a considerable section of the nation to favour an understanding with Germany in preference to, or even at the expense of, friendly relations with England. M. Clémenceau, who only late in life came into office, and attained it at the moment when a better understanding with England was progressing, had been throughout his long career, of all French public men in all political groups, the most consistent friend of England. His presence at the head of affairs was a guarantee of amicable Anglo-French relations, so far as they could be protected by statesmanship.
By reason of the increased duration and stability of ministries, the personal influence of ministers in directing the foreign policy of France has in one sense become greater in the 20th century than in those earlier periods when France had first to recuperate its strength after the war and then to take its exterior policy from Germany. Moreover, not only have cabinets lasted longer, but the foreign minister has often been retained in a succession of them. Of the thirty years which in 1909 had elapsed since Marshal MacMahon retired and the republic was governed by republicans, in the first fifteen years from 1879 to 1894 fourteen different persons held the office of minister of foreign affairs, while six sufficed for the fifteen years succeeding the latter date. One must not, however, exaggerate the effect of this greater stability in office-holding upon continuity of policy, which was well maintained even in the days when there was on an average a new foreign minister every year. Indeed the most marked breach in the continuity of the foreign policy of France has been made in that later period of long terms of office, which, with the repudiation of the Concordat, has seen the withdrawal of the French protectorate over Roman Catholic missions in the East—though it is too soon to estimate the result. In another respect France has under the republic departed a long way from a tradition of the Quai d’Orsay. It no longer troubles itself on the subject of nationalities. Napoleon III., who had more French temperament than French blood in his constitution, was an idealist on this question, and one of the causes of his own downfall and the defeat of France was his sympathy in this direction with German unity. Since Sedan little has been done in France to further the doctrine of nationalities. A faint echo of it was heard during the Boer war, but French sympathy with the struggling Dutch republics of South Africa was based rather on anti-English sentiment than on any abstract theory.
(J. E. C. B.)
Bibliography of French History.—The scientific study of the history of France only begins with the 16th century. It was hampered at first by the traditions of the middle ages and by a servile imitation of antiquity. Paulus Aemilius of Verona (De rebus gestis Francorum, 1517), who may be called the first of modern historians, merely applies the oratorical methods of the Latin historiographers. It is not till the second half of the century that history emancipates itself; Catholics and Protestants alike turn to it for arguments in their religious and political controversies. François Hotman published (1574) hisFranco-Gallia; Claude Fauchet hisAntiquités gauloises et françoises(1579); Étienne Pasquier hisRecherches de la France(1611), “the only work of erudition of the 16th century which one can read through without being bored.” Amateurs like Petau, A. de Thou, Bongars and Peiresc collected libraries to which men of learning went to draw their knowledge of the past; Pierre Pithou, one of the authors of theSatire Ménippée, published the earliest annals of France (Annales Francorum, 1588, andHistoriae Francorum scriptores coetanei XI., 1596), Jacques Bongars collected in hisGesta Dei per Francos(1611-1617) the principal chroniclers of the Crusades. Others made a study of chronology like J.J. Scaliger (De emendatione temporum, 1583;Thesaurus temporum, 1606), sketched the history of literature, like François Grudé, sieur of La Croix in Maine (Bibliothèque françoise, 1584), and Antoine du Verdier (Catalogue de tous les auteurs qui ont écrit ou traduit en français, 1585), or discussed the actual principles of historical research, like Jean Bodin (Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem, 1566) and Henri Lancelot Voisin de La Popelinière (Histoire des histoires, 1599).But the writers of history are as yet very inexpert; theHistoire générale des rois de Franceof Bernard de Girard, seigneur de Haillan (1576), theGrandes Annales de Franceof François de Belleforest (1579), theInventaire général de l’histoire de Franceof Jean de Serres (1597), theHistoire générale de France depuis Pharamondof Scipion Dupleix (1621-1645), theHistoire de France(1643-1651) of François Eudes de Mézeray, and above all hisAbrégé chronologique de l’histoirede France(1668), are compilations which were eagerly read when they appeared, but are worthless nowadays. Historical research lacked method, leaders and trained workers; it found them all in the 17th century, the golden age of learning which was honoured alike by laymen, priests and members of the monastic orders, especially the Benedictines of the congregation of St Maur. The publication of original documents was carried on with enthusiasm. To André Duchesne we owe two great collections of chronicles: theHistoriae Normannorum scriptores antiqui(1619) and theHistoriae Francorum scriptores, continued by his son François (5 vols., 1636-1649). These publications were due to a part only of his prodigious activity; his papers and manuscripts, preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, are an inexhaustible mine. Charles du Fresne, seigneur du Cange, published Villehardouin (1657) and Joinville (1668); Étienne Baluze, theCapitularia regum Francorum(1674), theNova collectio conciliorum(1677), theVitae paparum Avenionensium(1693). The clergy were very much aided in their work by their private libraries and by their co-operation; Père Philippe Labbe published hisBibliotheca nova manuscriptorum(1657), and began (1671) hisCollection des conciles, which was successfully completed by his colleague Père Cossart (18 vols.). In 1643 the Jesuit Jean Bolland brought out vol. i. of theActa sanctorum, a vast collection of stories and legends which has not yet been completed beyond the 4th of November. (SeeBollandists.) The Benedictines, for their part, published theActa sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti(9 vols., 1668-1701). One of the chief editors of this collection, Dom Jean Mabillon, published on his own account the Vetera analecta (4 vols., 1675-1685) and prepared theAnnales ordinis sancti Benedicti(6 vols., 1703-1793). To Dom Thierri Ruinart we owe good editions of Gregory of Tours and Fredegarius (1699). The learning of the 17th century further inaugurated those specialized studies which are important aids to history. Mabillon in hisDe re diplomatica(1681) creates the science of documents or diplomatics. Adrien de Valois lays a sound foundation for historical geography by his critical edition of theNotitia Galliarum(1675). Numismatics finds an enlightened pioneer in François Leblanc (Traité historique des monnaies de France, 1690). Du Cange, one of the greatest of the French scholars who have studied the middle ages, has defined terms bearing on institutions in hisGlossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis(1678), recast by the Benedictines (1733), with an important supplement by Dom Carpentier (1768), republished twice during the 19th century, with additions, by F. Didot (1840-1850), and by L. Favre at Niort (1883-1888); this work is still indispensable to every student of medieval history. Finally, great biographical or bibliographical works were undertaken; theGallia christiana, which gave a chronological list of the archbishops, bishops and abbots of the Gauls and of France, was compiled by two twin brothers, Scévole and Louis de Sainte-Marthe, and by the two sons of Louis (4 vols., 1656); a fresh edition, on a better plan, and with great additions, was begun in 1715 by Denys de Sainte-Marthe, continued throughout the 18th century by the Benedictines, and finished in the 19th century by Barthélemy Hauréau (1856-1861).As to the nobility, a series of researches and publications, begun by Pierre d’Hozier (d. 1660) and continued well on into the 19th century by several of his descendants, developed into theArmorial général de la France, which was remodelled several times. A similar work, of a more critical nature, was carried out by Père Anselme (Histoire généalogique de la maison de France et des grands officiers de la couronne, 1674) and by Père Ange and Père Simplicien, who completed the work (3rd ed. in 9 vols., 1726-1733). Critical bibliography is especially represented by certain Protestants, expelled from France by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Pierre Bayle, the sceptic, famous for hisDictionnaire critique(1699), which is in part a refutation of theDictionnaire historique et géographiquepublished in 1673 by the Abbé Louis Moréri, was the first to publish theNouvelles de la république des lettres(1684-1687), which was continued by Henri Basnage de Beauval under the title ofHistoire des ouvrages des savants(24 vols.). In imitation of this, Jean Le Clerc successively edited aBibliothèque universelle et historique(1686-1693), aBibliothèque choisie(1703-1713), and aBibliothèque ancienne et moderne(1714-1727). These were the first of our “periodicals.”The 18th century continues the traditions of the 17th. The Benedictines still for some time hold the first place. Dom Edmond Martène visited numerous archives (which were then closed) in France and neighbouring countries, and drew from them the material for two important collections:Thesaurus novus anecdotorum(9 vols., 1717, in collaboration with Dom Ursin Durand) andVeterum scriptorum collectio(9 vols., 1724-1733). Dom Bernard de Montfaucon also travelled in search of illustrated records of antiquity; private collections, among others the celebrated collection of Gaignières (now in the Bibliothèque Nationale), provided him with the illustrations which he published in hisMonuments de la monarchie françoise(5 vols., 1729-1733). The text is in two languages, Latin and French. Dom Martin Bouquet took up the work begun by the two Duchesnes, and in 1738 published vol. i. of the Historians of France (Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum scriptores), an enormous collection which was intended to include all the sources of the history of France, grouped under centuries and reigns. He produced the first eight volumes himself; his work was continued by several collaborators, the most active of whom was Dom Michel J. Brial, and already comprised thirteen volumes when it was interrupted by the Revolution. In 1733, Antoine Rivet de La Grange produced vol. i. of theHistoire littéraire de la France, which in 1789 numbered twelve volumes. While Dom C. François Toustaint and Dom René Prosper Tassin published aNouveau Traité de diplomatique(6 vols., 1750-1765), others were undertaking theArt de vérifier les dates(1750; new and much enlarged edition in 1770). Still others, with more or less success, attempted histories of the provinces.In the second half of the 18th century, the ardour of the Benedictines of St Maur diminished, and scientific work passed more and more into the hands of laymen. The Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, founded in 1663 and reorganized in 1701, became its chief instrument, numbering among its members Denis François Secousse, who continued the collection ofOrdonnances des rois de France, begun (1723) by J. de Laurière; J.-B. de La Curne de Sainte Palaye (Mémoires sur l’ancienne chevalerie, 1759-1781;Glossaire de la langue française depuis son origine jusqu’à la fin de Louis XIV, printed only in 1875-1882); J.-B. d’Anville (Notice sur l’ancienne Gaule tirée des monuments, 1760); and L.G. de Bréquigny, the greatest of them all, who continued the publication of theOrdonnances, began theTable chronologique des diplômes concernant l’histoire de France(3 vols., 1769-1783), published theDiplomata, chartae, ad res Francicas spectantia(1791, with the collaboration of La Porte du Theil), and directed fruitful researches in the archives in London, to enrich theCabinet des chartes, where Henri Bertin (1719-1792), an enlightened minister of Louis XV., had in 1764 set himself the task of collecting the documentary sources of the national history. The example set by the religious orders and the government bore fruit. The general assembly of the clergy gave orders that itsProcès verbaux(9 vols., 1767-1789) should be printed; some of the provinces decided to have their history written, and mostly applied to the Benedictines to have this done. Brittany was treated by Dom Lobineau (1707) and Dom Morice (1742); the duchy of Burgundy by Dom Urbain Plancher (1739-1748); Languedoc by Dom Dominique Vaissète (1730-1749, in collaboration with Dom Claude de Vic; new ed. 1873-1893); for Paris, its secular history was treated by Dom Michel Félibien and Dom Lobineau (1725), and its ecclesiastical history by the abbé Lebeuf (1745-1760; new ed. 1883-1890).This ever-increasing stream of new evidence aroused curiosity, gave rise to pregnant comparisons, developed and sharpened the critical sense, but further led to a more and more urgent need for exact information. The Académie des Inscriptions brought out itsHistoire de l’Académie avec les mémoires de littérature tirés de ses registres(vol. i. 1717; 51 vols. appeared before the Revolution, with five indexes;videtheBibliographieof Lasteyrie, vol. iii. pp. 256 et seq.). Other collections, mostly of the nature of bibliographies, were theJournal des savants(111 vols., from 1665 to 1792;videtheTable méthodiqueby H. Cocheris, 1860); theJournal de Trévoux, orMémoires pour l’histoire des sciences et des beaux-arts, edited by Jesuits (265 vols., 1701-1790); theMercure de France(977 vols., from 1724 to 1791). To these must be added the dictionaries and encyclopaedias: theDictionnaire de Moréri, the last edition of which numbers 10 vols. (1759); theDictionnaire géographique, historique et politique des Gaules et de la France, by the abbé J.J. Expilly (6 vols., 1762-1770; unfinished); theRépertoire universel et raisonné de jurisprudence civile, criminelle, canonique et bénéficiale, by Guyot (64 vols., 1775-1786; supplement in 17 vols., 1784-1785), reorganized and continued by Merlin de Douai, who was afterwards one of theMontagnards, a member of the Directory, and a count under the Empire.The historians did not use to the greatest advantage the treasures of learning provided for them; they were for the most part superficial, and dominated by their political or religious prejudices. Thus works like that of Père Gabriel Daniel (Histoire de France, 3 vols., 1713), of Président Hénault (Abrégé chronologique, 1744; 25 editions between 1770 and 1834), of the abbé Paul François Velly and those who completed his work (Histoire de France, 33 vols., 1765 to 1783), of G.H. Gaillard (Histoire de la rivalité de la France et de l’Angleterre, 11 vols., 1771-1777), and of L.P. Anquetil (1805), in spite of the brilliant success with which they met at first, have fallen into a just oblivion. A separate place must be given to the works of the theorists and philosophers:Histoire de l’ancien gouvernement de la France, by the Comte de Boulainvilliers (1727),Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les deux Gaules, by the abbé J.B. Dubos (1734);L’Esprit des lois, by the président de Montesquieu (1748); theObservations sur l’histoire de France, by the abbé de Mably (1765); theThéorie de la politique de la monarchie française, by Marie Pauline de Lézardière (1792). These works have, if nothing else, the merit of provoking reflection.At the time of the Revolution this activity was checked. The religious communities and royal academies were suppressed, and France violently broke with even her most recent past, which was considered to belong to theancien régime. When peace was re-established, she began the task of making good the damage which had been done, but a greater effort was now necessary in order to revive the spirit of the institutions which had been overthrown. The new state, which was, in spite of all, bound by so many ties to the former order of things, seconded this effort, and during thewhole of the 19th century, and even longer, had a strong influence on historical production. The section of the Institut de France, which in 1816 assumed the old name of Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, began to reissue the two series of theMémoiresand of theNotices et extraits des manuscrits tirés de la bibliothèque royale(the first volume had appeared in 1787); began (1844) that of theMémoires présentés par divers savantsand theComptes rendus(subject index 1857-1900, by G. Ledos, 1906); and continued theRecueil des historiens de France, the plan of which was enlarged by degrees (Historiens des croisades, obituaires, pouillés, comptes, &c.), theOrdonnancesand theTable chronologique des diplômes. During the reign of Louis Philippe, the ministry of the interior reorganized the administration of the archives of the departments, communes and hospitals, of which theInventaires sommairesare a mine of precious information (see theRapport au ministre, by G. Servois, 1902). In 1834 the ministry of public instruction founded a committee, which has been called since 1881 the Comité des Travaux historiques et scientifiques, under the direction of which have been published: (1) theCollection des documents inédits relatifs à l’histoire de France(more than 260 vols. have appeared since 1836); (2) theCatalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de France; (3) theDictionnaires topographiques(25 vols. have appeared); and theRépertoires archéologiquesof the French departments (8 vols. between 1861 and 1888); (4) several series ofBulletins, the details of which will be found in theBibliographieof Lasteyrie. At the same time were founded or reorganized, both in Paris and the departments, numerous societies, devoted sometimes partially and sometimes exclusively to history and archaeology; the Académie Celtique (1804), which in 1813 became the Société des Antiquaires de France (general index by M. Prou, 1894); the Société de l’Histoire de France (1834); the Société de l’École des Chartes (1839); the Société de l’Histoire de Paris et de l’Île-de-France (1874; four decennial indexes), &c. The details will be found in the excellentBibliographie générale des travaux historiques et archéologiques publiés par les sociétés savantes de France, which has appeared since 1885 under the direction of Robert de Lasteyrie.Individual scholars also associated themselves with this great literary movement. Guizot published aCollection de mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France(31 vols., 1824-1835); Buchon, aCollection des chroniques nationales françaises écrites en langue vulgaire du XIIIeau XVIesiècle(47 vols., 1824-1829), and aChoix de chroniques et mémoires sur l’histoire de France(14 vols., 1836-1841); Petitot and Monmerqué, aCollection de mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France(131 vols., 1819-1829); Michaud and Poujoulat, aNouvelle Collection de mémoires pour servir a l’histoire de France(32 vols., 1836-1839); Barrière and de Lescure, aBibliothèque de mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France pendant le XVIIIesiècle(30 vols., 1855-1875); and finally Berville and Barrière, aCollection des mémoires relatifs à la Révolution Française(55 vols., 1820-1827). The details are to be found in theSources de l’histoire de France, by Alfred Franklin (1876). The abbé J.P. Migne in hisPatrologia Latina(221 vols., 1844-1864), re-edited a number cf texts anterior to the 13th century. Under the second empire, the administration of the imperial archives at Paris published ten volumes of documents (Monuments historiques, 1866;Layettes du trésor des chartes, 1863, which were afterwards continued up to 1270;Actes du parlement de Paris, 1863-1867), not to mention several volumes ofInventaires. The administration of the Bibliothèque impériale had printed theCatalogue général de l’histoire de France(10 vols., 1855-1870; vol. xi., containing the alphabetical index to the names of the authors, appeared in 1895). Other countries also supplied a number of useful texts; there is much in the English Rolls series, in the collection ofChroniques belges, and especially in theMonumenta Germaniae historica.At the same time the scope of history and its auxiliary sciences becomes more clearly defined; the École des Chartes produces some excellent palaeographers, as for instance Natalis de Wailly (Éléments de paléographie, 1838), and L. Delisle (q.v.), who has also left traces of his profound researches in the most varied departments of medieval history (Bibliographie des travaux de M. Léopold Delisle, 1902); Anatole de Barthélemy made a study of coins and medals, Douët d’Arcq and G. Demay of seals. The works of Alexandre Lenoir (Musée des monuments français, 1800-1822), of Arcisse de Caumont (Histoire de l’architecture du moyen âge, 1837;Abécédaire ou rudiment d’archéologie, 1850), of A. Napoléon Didron (Annales archéologiques, 1844), of Jules Quicherat (Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, published after his death, 1886), and the dictionaries of Viollet le Duc (Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française, 1853-1868;Dictionnaire du mobilier français, 1855) displayed to the best advantage one of the most brilliant sides of the French intellect, while other sciences, such as geology, anthropology, the comparative study of languages, religions and folk-lore, and political economy, continued to enlarge the horizon of history. The task of writing the general history of a country became more and more difficult, especially for one man, but the task was none the less undertaken by several historians, and by some of eminence. François Guizot treated of theHistoire de la civilisation en France(1828-1830); Augustin Thierry after theRécits des temps mérovingiens(1840) published theMonuments de l’histoire du tiers état(1849-1856), the introduction to which was expanded into a book (1855); Charles Simonde de Sismondi produced a mediocreHistoire des françaisin 31 vols. (1821-1844), and Henri Martin aHistoire de Francein 16 vols. (1847-1854), now of small use except for the two or three last centuries of theancien régime. Finally J. Michelet, in hisHistoire de France(17 vols., 1833-1856) and hisHistoire de la Révolution(7 vols., 1847-1853), aims at reviving the very soul of the nation’s past.After the Franco-German War begins a better organization of scientific studies, modelled on that of Germany. The École des Hautes Études, established in 1868, included in its programme the critical study of the sources, both Latin and French, of the history of France; and from theséminaireof Gabriel Monod came men of learning, already prepared by studying at the École des Chartes: Paul Viollet, who revived the study of the history of French law; Julien Havet, who revived that of Merovingian diplomatics; Arthur Giry, who resumed the study of municipal institutions where it had been left by A. Thierry, prepared theAnnales carolingiennes(written by his pupils, Eckel, Favre, Lauer, Lot, Poupardin), and brought back into honour the study of diplomatics (Manuel de diplomatique, 1894); Auguste Molinier, author of theSources de l’histoire de France(1902-1904; general index, 1906), &c. Auguste Longnon introduced at the École des Hautes Études the study of historical geography (Atlas historique de la France, in course of publication since 1888). The universities, at last reorganized, popularized the employment of the new methods. The books of Fustel de Coulanges and Achille Luchaire on the middle ages, and those of A. Aulard on the revolution, gave a strong, though well-regulated, impetus to historical production. The École du Louvre (1881) increased the value of the museums and placed the history of art among the studies of higher education, while the Musée archéologique of St-Germain-en-Laye offered a fruitful field for research on Gallic and Gallo-Roman antiquities. Rich archives, hitherto inaccessible, were thrown open to students; at Rome those of the Vatican (Registres pontificaux, published by students at the French school of archaeology, since 1884); at Paris, those of the Foreign Office (Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs depuis le traité de Westphalie, 16 vols., 1885-1901; besides various collections of diplomatic papers, inventories, &c.). Those of the War Office were used by officers who published numerous documents bearing on the wars of the Revolution and the Empire, and on that of 1870-1871. In 1904 a commission, generously endowed by the French parlement, was entrusted with the task of publishing the documents relating to economic and social life of the time of the Revolution, and four volumes had appeared by 1908. Certain towns, Paris, Bordeaux, &c., have made it a point of honour to have their chief historical monuments printed. The work now becomes more and more specialized.L’Histoire de France, by Ernest Lavisse (1900, &c.), is the work of fifteen different authors. It is therefore more than ever necessary that the work should be under sound direction. TheManuel de bibliographie historiqueof Ch. V. Langlois (2nd edition, 1901-1904) is a good guide, as is hisArchives de l’histoire de France(1891, in collaboration with H. Stein).Besides the special bibliographies mentioned above, it will be useful to consult theBibliothèque historiqueof Père Jacques Lelong (1719; new ed. by Fevret de Fontette, 5 vols., 1768-1778); theGeschichte der historischen Forschung und Kunstof Ludwig Wachler (2 vols., 1812-1816); theBibliographie de la France, established in 1811 (1st series, 1811-1856, 45 vols.; 2nd series, 1 vol. per annum since 1857); the publications of the Société de Bibliographie (Polybiblion, from 1868 on, &c.); theBibliographie de l’histoire de France, by Gabriel Monod (1888); theRépertoireof the abbé Ulysse Chevalier (Biobibliographie; new ed. 1903-1907; andTopobibliographie, 1894-1899). Bearing exclusively on the middle ages are theBibliotheca historica medii aeviof August Potthast (new ed. 1896) and theManuel(Les Sources de l’histoire de France, 1901, &c.) of A. Molinier; but the latter is to be continued up to modern times, the 16th century having already been begun by Henri Hausser (1st part, 1906). Finally, various special reviews, besides teaching historical method by criticism and by example, try to keep their readersau courantwith literary production; theRevue critique d’histoire et de littérature(1866 fol.), theRevue des questions historiques(1866 fol.), theRevue historique(1876 fol.), theRevue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, accompanied annually by a valuableRépertoire méthodique(1898 fol.); theRevue de synthèse historique(1900 fol.), &c.
Bibliography of French History.—The scientific study of the history of France only begins with the 16th century. It was hampered at first by the traditions of the middle ages and by a servile imitation of antiquity. Paulus Aemilius of Verona (De rebus gestis Francorum, 1517), who may be called the first of modern historians, merely applies the oratorical methods of the Latin historiographers. It is not till the second half of the century that history emancipates itself; Catholics and Protestants alike turn to it for arguments in their religious and political controversies. François Hotman published (1574) hisFranco-Gallia; Claude Fauchet hisAntiquités gauloises et françoises(1579); Étienne Pasquier hisRecherches de la France(1611), “the only work of erudition of the 16th century which one can read through without being bored.” Amateurs like Petau, A. de Thou, Bongars and Peiresc collected libraries to which men of learning went to draw their knowledge of the past; Pierre Pithou, one of the authors of theSatire Ménippée, published the earliest annals of France (Annales Francorum, 1588, andHistoriae Francorum scriptores coetanei XI., 1596), Jacques Bongars collected in hisGesta Dei per Francos(1611-1617) the principal chroniclers of the Crusades. Others made a study of chronology like J.J. Scaliger (De emendatione temporum, 1583;Thesaurus temporum, 1606), sketched the history of literature, like François Grudé, sieur of La Croix in Maine (Bibliothèque françoise, 1584), and Antoine du Verdier (Catalogue de tous les auteurs qui ont écrit ou traduit en français, 1585), or discussed the actual principles of historical research, like Jean Bodin (Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem, 1566) and Henri Lancelot Voisin de La Popelinière (Histoire des histoires, 1599).
But the writers of history are as yet very inexpert; theHistoire générale des rois de Franceof Bernard de Girard, seigneur de Haillan (1576), theGrandes Annales de Franceof François de Belleforest (1579), theInventaire général de l’histoire de Franceof Jean de Serres (1597), theHistoire générale de France depuis Pharamondof Scipion Dupleix (1621-1645), theHistoire de France(1643-1651) of François Eudes de Mézeray, and above all hisAbrégé chronologique de l’histoirede France(1668), are compilations which were eagerly read when they appeared, but are worthless nowadays. Historical research lacked method, leaders and trained workers; it found them all in the 17th century, the golden age of learning which was honoured alike by laymen, priests and members of the monastic orders, especially the Benedictines of the congregation of St Maur. The publication of original documents was carried on with enthusiasm. To André Duchesne we owe two great collections of chronicles: theHistoriae Normannorum scriptores antiqui(1619) and theHistoriae Francorum scriptores, continued by his son François (5 vols., 1636-1649). These publications were due to a part only of his prodigious activity; his papers and manuscripts, preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, are an inexhaustible mine. Charles du Fresne, seigneur du Cange, published Villehardouin (1657) and Joinville (1668); Étienne Baluze, theCapitularia regum Francorum(1674), theNova collectio conciliorum(1677), theVitae paparum Avenionensium(1693). The clergy were very much aided in their work by their private libraries and by their co-operation; Père Philippe Labbe published hisBibliotheca nova manuscriptorum(1657), and began (1671) hisCollection des conciles, which was successfully completed by his colleague Père Cossart (18 vols.). In 1643 the Jesuit Jean Bolland brought out vol. i. of theActa sanctorum, a vast collection of stories and legends which has not yet been completed beyond the 4th of November. (SeeBollandists.) The Benedictines, for their part, published theActa sanctorum ordinis sancti Benedicti(9 vols., 1668-1701). One of the chief editors of this collection, Dom Jean Mabillon, published on his own account the Vetera analecta (4 vols., 1675-1685) and prepared theAnnales ordinis sancti Benedicti(6 vols., 1703-1793). To Dom Thierri Ruinart we owe good editions of Gregory of Tours and Fredegarius (1699). The learning of the 17th century further inaugurated those specialized studies which are important aids to history. Mabillon in hisDe re diplomatica(1681) creates the science of documents or diplomatics. Adrien de Valois lays a sound foundation for historical geography by his critical edition of theNotitia Galliarum(1675). Numismatics finds an enlightened pioneer in François Leblanc (Traité historique des monnaies de France, 1690). Du Cange, one of the greatest of the French scholars who have studied the middle ages, has defined terms bearing on institutions in hisGlossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis(1678), recast by the Benedictines (1733), with an important supplement by Dom Carpentier (1768), republished twice during the 19th century, with additions, by F. Didot (1840-1850), and by L. Favre at Niort (1883-1888); this work is still indispensable to every student of medieval history. Finally, great biographical or bibliographical works were undertaken; theGallia christiana, which gave a chronological list of the archbishops, bishops and abbots of the Gauls and of France, was compiled by two twin brothers, Scévole and Louis de Sainte-Marthe, and by the two sons of Louis (4 vols., 1656); a fresh edition, on a better plan, and with great additions, was begun in 1715 by Denys de Sainte-Marthe, continued throughout the 18th century by the Benedictines, and finished in the 19th century by Barthélemy Hauréau (1856-1861).
As to the nobility, a series of researches and publications, begun by Pierre d’Hozier (d. 1660) and continued well on into the 19th century by several of his descendants, developed into theArmorial général de la France, which was remodelled several times. A similar work, of a more critical nature, was carried out by Père Anselme (Histoire généalogique de la maison de France et des grands officiers de la couronne, 1674) and by Père Ange and Père Simplicien, who completed the work (3rd ed. in 9 vols., 1726-1733). Critical bibliography is especially represented by certain Protestants, expelled from France by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Pierre Bayle, the sceptic, famous for hisDictionnaire critique(1699), which is in part a refutation of theDictionnaire historique et géographiquepublished in 1673 by the Abbé Louis Moréri, was the first to publish theNouvelles de la république des lettres(1684-1687), which was continued by Henri Basnage de Beauval under the title ofHistoire des ouvrages des savants(24 vols.). In imitation of this, Jean Le Clerc successively edited aBibliothèque universelle et historique(1686-1693), aBibliothèque choisie(1703-1713), and aBibliothèque ancienne et moderne(1714-1727). These were the first of our “periodicals.”
The 18th century continues the traditions of the 17th. The Benedictines still for some time hold the first place. Dom Edmond Martène visited numerous archives (which were then closed) in France and neighbouring countries, and drew from them the material for two important collections:Thesaurus novus anecdotorum(9 vols., 1717, in collaboration with Dom Ursin Durand) andVeterum scriptorum collectio(9 vols., 1724-1733). Dom Bernard de Montfaucon also travelled in search of illustrated records of antiquity; private collections, among others the celebrated collection of Gaignières (now in the Bibliothèque Nationale), provided him with the illustrations which he published in hisMonuments de la monarchie françoise(5 vols., 1729-1733). The text is in two languages, Latin and French. Dom Martin Bouquet took up the work begun by the two Duchesnes, and in 1738 published vol. i. of the Historians of France (Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum scriptores), an enormous collection which was intended to include all the sources of the history of France, grouped under centuries and reigns. He produced the first eight volumes himself; his work was continued by several collaborators, the most active of whom was Dom Michel J. Brial, and already comprised thirteen volumes when it was interrupted by the Revolution. In 1733, Antoine Rivet de La Grange produced vol. i. of theHistoire littéraire de la France, which in 1789 numbered twelve volumes. While Dom C. François Toustaint and Dom René Prosper Tassin published aNouveau Traité de diplomatique(6 vols., 1750-1765), others were undertaking theArt de vérifier les dates(1750; new and much enlarged edition in 1770). Still others, with more or less success, attempted histories of the provinces.
In the second half of the 18th century, the ardour of the Benedictines of St Maur diminished, and scientific work passed more and more into the hands of laymen. The Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, founded in 1663 and reorganized in 1701, became its chief instrument, numbering among its members Denis François Secousse, who continued the collection ofOrdonnances des rois de France, begun (1723) by J. de Laurière; J.-B. de La Curne de Sainte Palaye (Mémoires sur l’ancienne chevalerie, 1759-1781;Glossaire de la langue française depuis son origine jusqu’à la fin de Louis XIV, printed only in 1875-1882); J.-B. d’Anville (Notice sur l’ancienne Gaule tirée des monuments, 1760); and L.G. de Bréquigny, the greatest of them all, who continued the publication of theOrdonnances, began theTable chronologique des diplômes concernant l’histoire de France(3 vols., 1769-1783), published theDiplomata, chartae, ad res Francicas spectantia(1791, with the collaboration of La Porte du Theil), and directed fruitful researches in the archives in London, to enrich theCabinet des chartes, where Henri Bertin (1719-1792), an enlightened minister of Louis XV., had in 1764 set himself the task of collecting the documentary sources of the national history. The example set by the religious orders and the government bore fruit. The general assembly of the clergy gave orders that itsProcès verbaux(9 vols., 1767-1789) should be printed; some of the provinces decided to have their history written, and mostly applied to the Benedictines to have this done. Brittany was treated by Dom Lobineau (1707) and Dom Morice (1742); the duchy of Burgundy by Dom Urbain Plancher (1739-1748); Languedoc by Dom Dominique Vaissète (1730-1749, in collaboration with Dom Claude de Vic; new ed. 1873-1893); for Paris, its secular history was treated by Dom Michel Félibien and Dom Lobineau (1725), and its ecclesiastical history by the abbé Lebeuf (1745-1760; new ed. 1883-1890).
This ever-increasing stream of new evidence aroused curiosity, gave rise to pregnant comparisons, developed and sharpened the critical sense, but further led to a more and more urgent need for exact information. The Académie des Inscriptions brought out itsHistoire de l’Académie avec les mémoires de littérature tirés de ses registres(vol. i. 1717; 51 vols. appeared before the Revolution, with five indexes;videtheBibliographieof Lasteyrie, vol. iii. pp. 256 et seq.). Other collections, mostly of the nature of bibliographies, were theJournal des savants(111 vols., from 1665 to 1792;videtheTable méthodiqueby H. Cocheris, 1860); theJournal de Trévoux, orMémoires pour l’histoire des sciences et des beaux-arts, edited by Jesuits (265 vols., 1701-1790); theMercure de France(977 vols., from 1724 to 1791). To these must be added the dictionaries and encyclopaedias: theDictionnaire de Moréri, the last edition of which numbers 10 vols. (1759); theDictionnaire géographique, historique et politique des Gaules et de la France, by the abbé J.J. Expilly (6 vols., 1762-1770; unfinished); theRépertoire universel et raisonné de jurisprudence civile, criminelle, canonique et bénéficiale, by Guyot (64 vols., 1775-1786; supplement in 17 vols., 1784-1785), reorganized and continued by Merlin de Douai, who was afterwards one of theMontagnards, a member of the Directory, and a count under the Empire.
The historians did not use to the greatest advantage the treasures of learning provided for them; they were for the most part superficial, and dominated by their political or religious prejudices. Thus works like that of Père Gabriel Daniel (Histoire de France, 3 vols., 1713), of Président Hénault (Abrégé chronologique, 1744; 25 editions between 1770 and 1834), of the abbé Paul François Velly and those who completed his work (Histoire de France, 33 vols., 1765 to 1783), of G.H. Gaillard (Histoire de la rivalité de la France et de l’Angleterre, 11 vols., 1771-1777), and of L.P. Anquetil (1805), in spite of the brilliant success with which they met at first, have fallen into a just oblivion. A separate place must be given to the works of the theorists and philosophers:Histoire de l’ancien gouvernement de la France, by the Comte de Boulainvilliers (1727),Histoire critique de l’établissement de la monarchie françoise dans les deux Gaules, by the abbé J.B. Dubos (1734);L’Esprit des lois, by the président de Montesquieu (1748); theObservations sur l’histoire de France, by the abbé de Mably (1765); theThéorie de la politique de la monarchie française, by Marie Pauline de Lézardière (1792). These works have, if nothing else, the merit of provoking reflection.
At the time of the Revolution this activity was checked. The religious communities and royal academies were suppressed, and France violently broke with even her most recent past, which was considered to belong to theancien régime. When peace was re-established, she began the task of making good the damage which had been done, but a greater effort was now necessary in order to revive the spirit of the institutions which had been overthrown. The new state, which was, in spite of all, bound by so many ties to the former order of things, seconded this effort, and during thewhole of the 19th century, and even longer, had a strong influence on historical production. The section of the Institut de France, which in 1816 assumed the old name of Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, began to reissue the two series of theMémoiresand of theNotices et extraits des manuscrits tirés de la bibliothèque royale(the first volume had appeared in 1787); began (1844) that of theMémoires présentés par divers savantsand theComptes rendus(subject index 1857-1900, by G. Ledos, 1906); and continued theRecueil des historiens de France, the plan of which was enlarged by degrees (Historiens des croisades, obituaires, pouillés, comptes, &c.), theOrdonnancesand theTable chronologique des diplômes. During the reign of Louis Philippe, the ministry of the interior reorganized the administration of the archives of the departments, communes and hospitals, of which theInventaires sommairesare a mine of precious information (see theRapport au ministre, by G. Servois, 1902). In 1834 the ministry of public instruction founded a committee, which has been called since 1881 the Comité des Travaux historiques et scientifiques, under the direction of which have been published: (1) theCollection des documents inédits relatifs à l’histoire de France(more than 260 vols. have appeared since 1836); (2) theCatalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de France; (3) theDictionnaires topographiques(25 vols. have appeared); and theRépertoires archéologiquesof the French departments (8 vols. between 1861 and 1888); (4) several series ofBulletins, the details of which will be found in theBibliographieof Lasteyrie. At the same time were founded or reorganized, both in Paris and the departments, numerous societies, devoted sometimes partially and sometimes exclusively to history and archaeology; the Académie Celtique (1804), which in 1813 became the Société des Antiquaires de France (general index by M. Prou, 1894); the Société de l’Histoire de France (1834); the Société de l’École des Chartes (1839); the Société de l’Histoire de Paris et de l’Île-de-France (1874; four decennial indexes), &c. The details will be found in the excellentBibliographie générale des travaux historiques et archéologiques publiés par les sociétés savantes de France, which has appeared since 1885 under the direction of Robert de Lasteyrie.
Individual scholars also associated themselves with this great literary movement. Guizot published aCollection de mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France(31 vols., 1824-1835); Buchon, aCollection des chroniques nationales françaises écrites en langue vulgaire du XIIIeau XVIesiècle(47 vols., 1824-1829), and aChoix de chroniques et mémoires sur l’histoire de France(14 vols., 1836-1841); Petitot and Monmerqué, aCollection de mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France(131 vols., 1819-1829); Michaud and Poujoulat, aNouvelle Collection de mémoires pour servir a l’histoire de France(32 vols., 1836-1839); Barrière and de Lescure, aBibliothèque de mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France pendant le XVIIIesiècle(30 vols., 1855-1875); and finally Berville and Barrière, aCollection des mémoires relatifs à la Révolution Française(55 vols., 1820-1827). The details are to be found in theSources de l’histoire de France, by Alfred Franklin (1876). The abbé J.P. Migne in hisPatrologia Latina(221 vols., 1844-1864), re-edited a number cf texts anterior to the 13th century. Under the second empire, the administration of the imperial archives at Paris published ten volumes of documents (Monuments historiques, 1866;Layettes du trésor des chartes, 1863, which were afterwards continued up to 1270;Actes du parlement de Paris, 1863-1867), not to mention several volumes ofInventaires. The administration of the Bibliothèque impériale had printed theCatalogue général de l’histoire de France(10 vols., 1855-1870; vol. xi., containing the alphabetical index to the names of the authors, appeared in 1895). Other countries also supplied a number of useful texts; there is much in the English Rolls series, in the collection ofChroniques belges, and especially in theMonumenta Germaniae historica.
At the same time the scope of history and its auxiliary sciences becomes more clearly defined; the École des Chartes produces some excellent palaeographers, as for instance Natalis de Wailly (Éléments de paléographie, 1838), and L. Delisle (q.v.), who has also left traces of his profound researches in the most varied departments of medieval history (Bibliographie des travaux de M. Léopold Delisle, 1902); Anatole de Barthélemy made a study of coins and medals, Douët d’Arcq and G. Demay of seals. The works of Alexandre Lenoir (Musée des monuments français, 1800-1822), of Arcisse de Caumont (Histoire de l’architecture du moyen âge, 1837;Abécédaire ou rudiment d’archéologie, 1850), of A. Napoléon Didron (Annales archéologiques, 1844), of Jules Quicherat (Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, published after his death, 1886), and the dictionaries of Viollet le Duc (Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française, 1853-1868;Dictionnaire du mobilier français, 1855) displayed to the best advantage one of the most brilliant sides of the French intellect, while other sciences, such as geology, anthropology, the comparative study of languages, religions and folk-lore, and political economy, continued to enlarge the horizon of history. The task of writing the general history of a country became more and more difficult, especially for one man, but the task was none the less undertaken by several historians, and by some of eminence. François Guizot treated of theHistoire de la civilisation en France(1828-1830); Augustin Thierry after theRécits des temps mérovingiens(1840) published theMonuments de l’histoire du tiers état(1849-1856), the introduction to which was expanded into a book (1855); Charles Simonde de Sismondi produced a mediocreHistoire des françaisin 31 vols. (1821-1844), and Henri Martin aHistoire de Francein 16 vols. (1847-1854), now of small use except for the two or three last centuries of theancien régime. Finally J. Michelet, in hisHistoire de France(17 vols., 1833-1856) and hisHistoire de la Révolution(7 vols., 1847-1853), aims at reviving the very soul of the nation’s past.
After the Franco-German War begins a better organization of scientific studies, modelled on that of Germany. The École des Hautes Études, established in 1868, included in its programme the critical study of the sources, both Latin and French, of the history of France; and from theséminaireof Gabriel Monod came men of learning, already prepared by studying at the École des Chartes: Paul Viollet, who revived the study of the history of French law; Julien Havet, who revived that of Merovingian diplomatics; Arthur Giry, who resumed the study of municipal institutions where it had been left by A. Thierry, prepared theAnnales carolingiennes(written by his pupils, Eckel, Favre, Lauer, Lot, Poupardin), and brought back into honour the study of diplomatics (Manuel de diplomatique, 1894); Auguste Molinier, author of theSources de l’histoire de France(1902-1904; general index, 1906), &c. Auguste Longnon introduced at the École des Hautes Études the study of historical geography (Atlas historique de la France, in course of publication since 1888). The universities, at last reorganized, popularized the employment of the new methods. The books of Fustel de Coulanges and Achille Luchaire on the middle ages, and those of A. Aulard on the revolution, gave a strong, though well-regulated, impetus to historical production. The École du Louvre (1881) increased the value of the museums and placed the history of art among the studies of higher education, while the Musée archéologique of St-Germain-en-Laye offered a fruitful field for research on Gallic and Gallo-Roman antiquities. Rich archives, hitherto inaccessible, were thrown open to students; at Rome those of the Vatican (Registres pontificaux, published by students at the French school of archaeology, since 1884); at Paris, those of the Foreign Office (Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs depuis le traité de Westphalie, 16 vols., 1885-1901; besides various collections of diplomatic papers, inventories, &c.). Those of the War Office were used by officers who published numerous documents bearing on the wars of the Revolution and the Empire, and on that of 1870-1871. In 1904 a commission, generously endowed by the French parlement, was entrusted with the task of publishing the documents relating to economic and social life of the time of the Revolution, and four volumes had appeared by 1908. Certain towns, Paris, Bordeaux, &c., have made it a point of honour to have their chief historical monuments printed. The work now becomes more and more specialized.L’Histoire de France, by Ernest Lavisse (1900, &c.), is the work of fifteen different authors. It is therefore more than ever necessary that the work should be under sound direction. TheManuel de bibliographie historiqueof Ch. V. Langlois (2nd edition, 1901-1904) is a good guide, as is hisArchives de l’histoire de France(1891, in collaboration with H. Stein).
Besides the special bibliographies mentioned above, it will be useful to consult theBibliothèque historiqueof Père Jacques Lelong (1719; new ed. by Fevret de Fontette, 5 vols., 1768-1778); theGeschichte der historischen Forschung und Kunstof Ludwig Wachler (2 vols., 1812-1816); theBibliographie de la France, established in 1811 (1st series, 1811-1856, 45 vols.; 2nd series, 1 vol. per annum since 1857); the publications of the Société de Bibliographie (Polybiblion, from 1868 on, &c.); theBibliographie de l’histoire de France, by Gabriel Monod (1888); theRépertoireof the abbé Ulysse Chevalier (Biobibliographie; new ed. 1903-1907; andTopobibliographie, 1894-1899). Bearing exclusively on the middle ages are theBibliotheca historica medii aeviof August Potthast (new ed. 1896) and theManuel(Les Sources de l’histoire de France, 1901, &c.) of A. Molinier; but the latter is to be continued up to modern times, the 16th century having already been begun by Henri Hausser (1st part, 1906). Finally, various special reviews, besides teaching historical method by criticism and by example, try to keep their readersau courantwith literary production; theRevue critique d’histoire et de littérature(1866 fol.), theRevue des questions historiques(1866 fol.), theRevue historique(1876 fol.), theRevue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, accompanied annually by a valuableRépertoire méthodique(1898 fol.); theRevue de synthèse historique(1900 fol.), &c.
(C. B.*)
French Law and Institutions
Celtic Period.—The remotest times to which history gives us access with reference to the law and institutions formerly existing in the country which is now called France are those in which the dominant race at least was Celtic. On the whole, our knowledge is small of the law and institutions of these Celts, or Gauls, whose tribes constituted independent Gaul. For their reconstruction, modern scholars draw upon two sources; firstly, there is the information furnished by the classical writers and by Caesar and Strabo in particular, which is trustworthy but somewhat scanty; the other source, which is not so pure, consists inthe accounts found in those legal works of the middle ages written in the neo-Celtic dialects, the most important and the greater number of which belong to Ireland. A reconstruction from them is always hazardous, however delicate and scientific be the criticism which is brought to bear on it, as in the case of d’Arbois de Jubainville, for example. Moreover, in the historical evolution of French institutions those of the Celts or Gauls are of little importance. Not one of them can be shown to have survived in later law. What has survived of the Celtic race is the blood and temperament, still found in a great many Frenchmen, certain traits which the ancients remarked in the Gauls being still recognizable:bellum gerere et argute loqui.
Roman Period.—It was the Roman conquest and rule which really formed Gaul, for she was Romanized to the point of losing almost completely that which persists most stubbornly in a conquered nation, namely, the language; the Breton-speaking population came to France later, from Britain. The institutions of Roman Gaul became identical with those of the Roman empire, provincial and municipal government undergoing the same evolution as in the other parts of the empire. It was under Roman supremacy too, as M. d’Arbois de Jubainville has shown, that the ownership of land became personal and free in Gaul. The law for the Gallo-Romans was that which was administered by theconventusof the magistrate; there are only a few peculiarities, mere Gallicisms, resulting from conventions or usage, which are pointed out by Roman jurisconsults of the classical age. The administrative reforms of Diocletian and Constantine applied to Gaul as to the rest of the empire. Gaul under this rule consisted of seventeen provinces, divided between two dioceses, ten in the diocese of the Gauls, under the authority of the praetorian prefect, who resided at Treves; and the other seven in thedioecesis septem provinciarum, under the authority of avicarius. The Gallo-Romans became Christian with the other subjects of the empire; the Church extended thither her powerful organization modelled on the administrative organization, eachcivitashaving a bishop, just as it had acuriaand municipal magistrates. But, although endowed with privileges by the Christian emperors, the Church did not yet encroach upon the civil power. She had the right of acquiring property, of holding councils, subject to the imperial authority, and of the free election of bishops. But only the first germs of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are to be traced. In virtue of the laws, the bishops were privileged arbitrators, and in the matter of public sins exercised a disciplinary jurisdiction over the clergy and the faithful. In the second half of the 4th century, monasteries appeared in Gaul. After the fall of the Western empire, there was left to the Gallo-Romans as an expression of its law, which was also theirs, a written legislation. It consisted of the imperial constitutions, contained in the Gregorian, Hermogenian and Theodosian codes (the two former being private compilations, and the third an official collection), and the writings of the five jurists (Gaius, Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian and Modestinus), to which Valentinian III. had in 426 given the force of law.
The Barbarian Invasion.—The invasions and settlements of the barbarians open a new period. Though there were robbery and violence in every case, the various barbarian kingdoms set up in Gaul were established under different conditions. In those of the Burgundians and Visigoths, the owners of the great estates, which had been the prevailing form of landed property in Roman Gaul, suffered partial dispossession, according to a system the rules regulating which can, in the case of the Burgundians, be traced almost exactly. It is doubtful whether a similar process took place in the case of the Frankish settlements, but their first conquests in the north and east seem to have led to the extermination or total expulsion of the Gallo-Roman population. It is impossible to say to what extent, in these various settlements, the system of collective property prevailing among the Germanic tribes was adopted. Another important difference was that, in embracing Christianity, some of the barbarians became Arians, as in the case of the Visigoths and Burgundians; others Catholic, as in the case of the Franks. This was probably the main cause of the absorption of the other kingdoms into the Frankish monarchy. In each case, however, the barbarian king appeared as wishing not to overthrow the Roman administration, but to profit by its continuation. The kings of the Visigoths and Burgundians were at first actually representatives of the Western empire, and Clovis himself was ready to accept from the emperor Anastasius the title of consul; but these were but empty forms, similar to the fictitious ties which long existed or still exist between China or Turkey and certain parts of their former empires, now separated from them for ever.
As soon as the Merovingian monarch had made himself master of Gaul, he set himself to maintain and keep in working order the administrative machinery of the Romans, save that the administrative unit was henceforth no longer theprovinciabut thecivitas, which generally took the name ofpagus, and was placed under the authority of a count,comesorgrafio(Graf). Perhaps this was not entirely an innovation, for it appears that at the end of the Roman supremacy certaincivitateshad already acomes. Further, severalpagicould be united under the authority of adux. Thepagusseems to have generally been divided into hundreds (centenae).
But the Roman administrative machinery was too delicate to be handled by barbarians; it could not survive for long, but underwent changes and finally disappeared. Thus the Merovingians tried to levy the same direct taxes as the Romans had done, thecapitatio terrenaand thecapitatio humana, but they ceased to be imposts reassessed periodically in accordance with the total sum fixed as necessary to meet the needs of the state, and became fixed annual taxes on lands or persons; finally, they disappeared as general imposts, continuing to exist only as personal or territorial dues. In the same way the Roman municipal organization, that of thecuriae, survived for a considerable time under the Merovingians, but was used only for the registration of written deeds; under the Carolingians it disappeared, and with it the old senatorial nobility which had been that of the Empire. The administration of justice (apart from the king’s tribunal) seems to have been organized on a system borrowed partly from Roman and partly from Germanic institutions; it naturally tends to assume popular forms. Justice is administered by the count (comes) or his deputy (centenariusorvicarius), but on the verdict of notables called in the textsboni hominesorrachimburgii. This takes place in an assembly of all the free subjects, calledmallus, at which every free man is bound to attend at least a certain number of times a year, and in which are promulgated the general acts emanating from the king. The latter could issue commands or prohibitions under the name ofbannus, the violation of which entailed a fine of 60solidi; the king also administered justice (in palatio), assisted by the officers of his household, his jurisdiction being unlimited and at the same time undefined. He could hear all causes, but was not bound to hear any, except, apparently, accusations of deliberate failure of justice and breach of trust on the part of therachimburgii.
But what proved the great disturbing element in Gallo-Roman society was the fact that the conquerors, owing to their former customs and the degree of their civilization, were all warriors, men whose chief interest was to become practised in the handling of arms, and whose normal state was that of war. It is true that under the Roman empire all the men of acivitaswere obliged, in case of necessity, to march against the enemy, and under the Frankish monarchy the count still called together hispagensesfor this object. But the condition of the barbarian was very different; he lived essentially for fighting. Hence those gatherings or annual reviews of theCampus Martius, which continued so long, in Austrasia at least. They constituted the chief armed force; for mercenary troops, in spite of the assertions of some to the contrary, play at this period only a small part. But this military class, though not an aristocracy (for among the Franks the royal race alone was noble), was to a large extent independent, and the king had to attach theseleudesorfidelesto himself by gifts and favours. At the same time the authority of the king gradually underwent achange in character, though he always claimed to be the successor of the Roman emperor. It gradually assumed thatCharacter of the Merovingian kingship.domestic or personal character that, among the Germans, marked most of the relations between men. The household of the king gained in political importance, by reason that the heads of the principal offices in the palace became at the same time high public officials. There was, moreover, a body of men more especially attached to the king, theantrustions(q.v.) and the commensals (convivae regis) whoseweregeld(i.e.the price of a man’s life in the system of compensation then prevalent) was three times greater than that of the other subjects of the same race.
The Frankish monarch had also the power of making laws, which he exercised after consulting the chief men of the kingdom, both lay and ecclesiastical, in theplacita, which were meetings differing from theCampus Martiusand apparently modelled principally on the councils of the Church. But throughout the kingdom in many places the direct authority of the king over the people ceased to make itself felt. Theimmunitates, granted chiefly to the great ecclesiastical properties, limited this authority in a curious way by forbidding public officials to exercise their functions in the precinct of land which wasimmunis. The judicial and fiscal rights frequently passed to the landowner, who in any case became of necessity the intermediary between the supreme power and the people. In regard to this last point, moreover, the case seems to have been the same with all the great landowners orpotentes, whose territory was calledpotestas, and who gained a real authority over those living within it; later in the middle ages they were calledhomines potestatis(hommes de poeste).
Other principles, arising perhaps less from Germanic custom strictly speaking than from an inferior level of civilization, also contributed towards the weakening of the royal power. The monarch, like his contemporaries, considered the kingdom and the rights of the king over it to be his property; consequently, he had the power of dealing with it as if it were a private possession; it is this which gave rise to the concessions of royal rights to individuals, and later to the partitions of the kingdom, and then of the empire, between the sons of the king or emperor, to the exclusion of the daughters, as in the division of an inheritance in land. This proved one of the chief weaknesses of the Merovingian monarchy.
In order to rule the Gallo-Romans, the barbarians had had inevitably to ask the help of the Church, which was the representative of Roman civilization. Further, the Merovingian monarch and the Catholic Church had comePosition of the Church.into close alliance in their struggle with the Arians. The result for the Church had been that she gained new privileges, but at the same time became to a certain extent dependent. Under the Merovingians the election of the bishopa clero et populois only valid if it obtains the assent (assensus) of the king, who often directly nominates the prelate. But at the same time the Church retains her full right of acquiring property, and has her jurisdiction partially recognized; that is to say, she not only exercises more freely than ever a disciplinary jurisdiction, but the bishop, in place of the civil power, administers civil and criminal justice over the clergy. The councils had for a long time forbidden the clergy to cite one another before secular tribunals; they had also, in the 6th century, forbidden secular judges under pain of excommunication to cite before them and judge the clergy, without permission of the bishop. A decree of Clotaire II. (614) acknowledged the validity of these claims, but not completely; a precise interpretation of the text is, however, difficult.
The Merovingian dynasty perished of decay, amid increasing anarchy. The crown passed, with the approval of the papacy, to an Austrasian mayor of the palace and his family, one of those mayors of the palace (i.e.chief officer ofCarolingian period.the king’s household) who had been the last support of the preceding dynasty. It was then that there developed a certain number of institutions, which offered themselves as useful means of consolidating the political organism, and were in reality the direct precursors of feudalism. One was the royal benefice (beneficium), of which, without doubt, the Church provided both the model and, in the first instance, the material. The model was theprecaria, a form of concession by which it was customary for the Church to grant the possession of her lands to free men; this practice she herself had copied from the five-years leases granted by the Roman exchequer. Gradually, however, theprecariahad become a concession made, in most cases, free and for life. As regards the material, whenBeginnings of the feudal system.the Austrasian mayors of the palace (probably Charles Martel) wished to secure the support of thefidelesby fresh benefits, the royal treasury being exhausted, they turned to the Church, which was at that time the greatest landowner, and took lands from her to give to their warriors. In order to disguise the robbery it was decided—perhaps as an afterthought—that these lands should be held asprecariaefrom the Church, or from the monastic houses which had furnished them. Later, when the royal treasury was reorganized, the grants of land made by the kings naturally took a similar form: thebeneficium, as a free grant for life. Under the Merovingians royal grants of land were in principle made in full ownership, except, as Brunner has shown, that provision was made for a revocation under certain circumstances. No special services seem to have been attached to the benefice, whether granted by the king or by some other person, but, in the second half of the 9th century at least, the possession of the benefice is found as the characteristic of the military class and the form of their pay. This we find clearly set forth in the treatisede ecclesiis et capellisof Hincmar of Reims. Thebeneficium, in obedience to a natural law, soon tended to crystallize into a perpetual and hereditary right. Another institution akin to thebeneficiumwas thesenioratus; by thecommendatio, a form of solemn contract, probably of Germanic origin, and chiefly characterized by the placing of the hands between those of the lord, a man swore absolute fidelity to another man, who became hissenior. It became the generally received idea (as expressed in the capitularies) that it was natural and normal for every free man to have asenior. At the same time a benefice was never granted unless accompanied by thecommendatioof the beneficiary to the grantor. As the most importantsenioreswere thus bound to the king and received from him their benefices, he expected through them to command their men; but in reality the king disappeared little by little in thesenior. The king granted as benefices not only lands, but public functions, such as those of count ordux, which thus became possessions, held, first for life, and later as hereditary properties. The Capitulary of Kiersy-sur-Oise (877), which was formerly considered to have made fiefs legally and generally hereditary, only proves that it was already the custom for benefices of this kind,honores, to pass from the father to one of the sons.
Charlemagne, while sanctioning these institutions, tried to arrest the political decomposition. He reorganized the administration of justice, fixing the respective jurisdictions of the count and thecentenarius, substituting for therachimburgiiReforms of Charlemagne.permanentscabini, chosen by the count in the presence of the people, and defining the relations of the count, as the representative of the central authority, with theadvocatiorjudicesofimmunitatesandpotestates. He reorganized the army, determining the obligations and the military outfit of free men according to their means. Finally, he established those regular inspections by themissi dominiciwhich are the subject of so many of his capitularies. From theDe ordine palatiiof Hincmar of Reims, who follows the account of a contemporary of the great emperor, we learn that he also regularly established two general assemblies,conventusorplacita, in the year, one in the autumn, the other in the spring, which were attended by the chief officials, lay and ecclesiastical. It was here that the capitularies (q.v.) and all important measures were first drawn up and then promulgated. The revenues of the Carolingian monarch (which are no longeridenticalwith the finances of the state) consisted chiefly in the produce of the royal lands (villae), which the king and his suite often came andconsumed on the spot; and it is known how carefully Charlemagne regulated the administration of thevillae. There were also the free gifts which the great men were bound, accordingCarolingian fiscal system.to custom, to bring to theconventus, the contributions of this character from the monasteries practically amounting to a tax; the regular personal or territorial dues into which the old taxes had resolved themselves; the profits arising from the courts (the royalbannus, and thefredum, or part of the compensation-money which went to the king); finally, numberless requisitions in kind, a usage which had without doubt existed continuously since Roman times. The Church was loaded with honours and had added a fresh prerogative to her former privileges, namely, the right of levying a real tax in kind, thetithe. Since the 3rd century she had tried to exact the payment of tithes from the faithful, interpreting as applicable to the Christian clergy the texts in the Old Testament bearing on the Levites; Gallican councils had repeatedly proclaimed it as an obligation, though, it appears, with little success. But from the reign of Pippin the Short onwards the civil law recognized and sanctioned this obligation, and the capitularies of Charlemagne and Louis the Debonnaire contain numerous provisions dealing with it. Ecclesiastical jurisdictionThe Church under Charlemagne.extended farther and farther, but Charlemagne, the protector of the papacy, maintained firmly his authority over the Church. He nominated its dignitaries, both bishops and abbots, who were true ecclesiastical officials, parallel with the lay officials. In eachpagus, bishop and count owed each other mutual support, and the missi on the same circuit were ordinarily a count and a bishop. In the first collection of capitularies, that of Ansegisus, two books out of four are devoted to ecclesiastical capitularies.
What, then, was the private and criminal law of this Frankish monarchy which had come to embrace so many different races? The men of Roman descent continued under the Roman law, and the conquerors could not hope to impose theirThe law under the Frank monarchy.customs upon them. The authorized expression of the Roman law was henceforth to be found in theLex romana WisigothorumorBreviarium Alarici, drawn up by order of Alaric II. in 506. It is an abridgment of the codes, of that of Theodosius especially, and of certain of the writings of the jurists included under the Law of Citations. As to the barbarians, they had hitherto had nothing but customs, and these customs, of which the type nearest to the original is to be found in the oldest text of theLex Salica, were nothing more than a series of tariffs of compensations, that is to say, sums of money due to the injured party or his family in case of crimes committed against individuals, for which crimes these compensations were the only penalty. They also introduced a barbarous system of trial, that by compurgation,i.e.exculpation by the oath of the defendant supported by a certain number ofcojurantes, and that by ordeal, later calledjudicium Dei. In each new kingdom the barbarians naturally kept their own laws, and when these men of different races all became subject to the Frankish monarchy, there evolved itself a system (called thepersonnalité des lois) by which every subject had, in principle, the right to be tried by the law of the race to which he belonged by birth (or sometimes for some other reason, such as emancipation or marriage). When the two adversaries were of different race, it was the law of the defendant which had to be applied. The customs of the barbarians had been drawn up in Latin. Sometimes, as in the case of the first text of the Salic law, the system on which they were compiled is not exactly known; but it was generally done under the royal authority. At this period only these written documents bear the name of “law” (leges romanorum;leges barbarorum), and at least the tacit consent of the people seems to have been required for these collections of laws, in accordance with an axiom laid down in a later capitulary;lex fit consensu populi et constitutione regis. It is noteworthy, too, that in the process of being drawn up in Latin, most of theleges barbarorumwere very much Romanized.
In the midst of this diversity, a certain number of causes tended to produce a partial unity. The capitularies, which had in themselves the force of law, when there was no question of modifying theleges, constituted a legislation which was the same for all; often they inflicted corporal punishment for grave offences, which applied to all subjects without distinction. Usage and individual convenience led to the same result. The Gallo-Romans, and even the Church itself, to a certain extent, adopted the methods of trial introduced by the Germans, as was likely in a country relapsing into barbarism. On the other hand, written acts became prevalent among the barbarians, and at the same time they assimilated a certain amount of Roman law; for these acts continued to be drawn up in Latin, after Roman models, which were in most cases simply misinterpreted owing to the general ignorance. The type is preserved for us in those collections ofFormulae, of which complete and scientific editions have been published by Eugène de Rozière and Carl Zeumer. During this period, too, the Gallican Church adopted the collection of councils and decretals, called later theCodex canonum ecclesiae Gallicanae, which she continued to preserve. This collection was that of Dionysius Exiguus, which was sent to Charlemagne in 774 by Pope Adrian I. But in the course of the 9th century apocryphal collections were also formed in the Gallican Church: the False Capitularies of Benedictus Levita, and the False Decretals of Isidorus Mercator (seeDecretals).
All the subjects of the Frankish monarchy were not of equal status. There was, strictly speaking, no nobility, both the Roman and the Germanic nobility having died out; but slavery continued to exist. The Church, however, was preparing the transformation of the slave into the serf, by giving force and validity to their marriages, in cases, at least, when the master had approved of them, and by forbidding the latter unjustly to seize the slave’speculium. But between the free man (ingenuus) and the slave lay a number of persons of intermediate status; they possessed legal personality but were subject to incapacities of various kinds, and had to perform various duties towards other men. There was, to begin with, the Roman colonist (colonus), a class as to the origin of which there is still a controversy, and of which there is no clear mention in the laws before the 4th century; they and their children after them were attached perpetually to a certain piece of land, which they were allowed to cultivate on payment of a rent. There were, further, theliti(litusorlidus), a similar class of Germanic origin; also the greater number of the freedmen or descendants of freedmen. Many free men who had fled to the great landowners for protection took, by arrangement or by custom, a similar position. Under the Merovingian régime, and especially under the Carolingians, the occupation of the land tended to assume the character of tenure; but free ownership of land continued to exist under the name ofalod(alodis), and there is even evidence for the existence of this in the form of small properties, held by free men; the capitularies contain numerous complaints and threats against the counts, who endeavoured by the abuse of their power to obtain the surrender of these properties.
Period of Anarchy and the Rise of Feudalism.—The 10th and 11th centuries were a period of profound anarchy, during which feudalism was free to develop itself and to take definitive shape. At that time the French people may beAnarchy and feudal origins.said to have lived without laws, without even fixed customs and without government. The legislative power was no longer exercised, for the last Carolingian capitularies date from the year 884, and the first laws of the Capetian kings (if they may be called laws) do not appear till during the 12th century. During this period the old capitularies andlegesfell into disuse and in their place territorial customs tended to grow up, their main constituents being furnished by the law of former times, but which were at the outset ill-defined and strictly local. As to the government, if the part played by the Church be excepted, we shall see that it could be nothing but the application of brute force. In this anarchy, as always happens under similar conditions, men drew together and formed themselves into groups for mutual defence. A nucleus was formed which was to become the new social unit, that is to say, the feudal group. Of this the centre was a chief, around whom gathered men capable of bearing arms, who commended themselves tohim according to the old form of vassalage,per manus. They owed him fidelity and assistance, the support of their arms but not of their purse, save in quite exceptional cases; while he owed them protection. Some of them lived in his castle or fortified house, receiving their equipment only and eating at his table. Others received lands from him, which were, or later became, fiefs, on which they livedcasati. The name fief,feudum, does not appear, however, till towards the end of this period; these lands are frequently calledbeneficiaas before; the term most in use at first, in many parts, iscasamentum. The fief, moreover, was generally held for life and did not become generally hereditary till the second half of the 11th century. The lands kept by the chief and those which he granted to his men were for the most part rented from him, or from them, for a certain amount in money or in kind. All these conditions had already existed previously in much the same form; but the new development is that the chief was no longer, as before, merely an intermediary between his men and the royal power. The group had become in effect independent, so organized as to be socially and politically self-sufficient. It constituted a small army, led, naturally, by the chief, and composed of his feudatories, supplemented in case of need by therustici. It also formed an assembly in which common interests were discussed, the lord, according to custom, being bound to consult his feudatories and they to advise him to the best of their power. It also formed a court of justice, in which the feudatories gave judgment under the presidency of their lord; and all of them claimed to be subject only to the jurisdiction of this tribunal composed of their peers. Generally they also judged the villeins (villani) and the serfs dependent on the group, except in cases where the latter obtained as a favour judges of their own status, which was, however, at that time a very rare occurrence.
Under these conditions a nobility was formed, those men becoming nobles who were able to devote themselves to the profession of arms and were either chiefs or soldiers in one of the groups which have just been described. The term designating a noble,miles, corresponds also to that of knight (Fr.chevalier, Low Lat.caballerius), for the reason that chivalry, of which the origins are uncertain, represents essentially the technical skill and professional duties of this military class. Every noble was destined on coming of age to become a knight, and the knight equally as a matter of course received a fief, if he had not one already by hereditary title. This nobility, moreover, was not a caste but could be indefinitely recruited by the granting of fiefs and admission to knighthood (seeKnighthood and Chivalry).
The state of anarchy was by now so far advanced that war became an individual right, and the custom of private war arose. Every man had in principle the right of making war to defend his rights or to avenge his wrongs. LaterPrivate war.on, doubtless, in the 13th century, this was a privilege of the noble (gentilhomme); but the texts defining the limits which the Church endeavoured to set to this abuse, namely, the Peace of God and the Truce of God, show that this was at the outset a power possessed by men of all classes. Even a man who had appeared in a court of law and received judgment had the choice of refusing to accept the judgment and of making war instead. Justice, moreover, with its frequent employment of trial by combat, did not essentially differ from private war.
It is unnecessary to go further and to affirm, with certain historians of our time, for example Guilhermoz and Sée, that the only free men at that time, besides the clergy, were the nobles, all the rest being serfs. There are many indications which lead us to assume, not only in the towns but even in the country districts, the existence of a class of men of free status who were notmilites, the class later known in the 13th century asvilains,hommes de poeste, and, later,roturiers. The fact more probably was that only the nobles and ecclesiastics were exempt from the exactions of the feudal lords; while from all the others the seigneurs could at pleasure levy thetaille(a direct and arbitrary tax), and those innumerable rights then calledconsuetudines. Free ownership, theallodium, even under the form of small freeholds, still existed by way of exception in many parts.
Had, then, the main public authority disappeared? This is practically the contention of certain writers, who, like M. Sée, maintain that real property, the possession of a domain, conferred on the big landed proprietor all rights of taxation, command and coercion over the inhabitants of his domain, who, according to this view, were always serfs. But this is an exaggeration of the thesis upheld by old French authors, who saw in feudalism, though in a different sense, a confusion of property with sovereignty. It appears that in this state of political disintegration each part of the country which had a homogeneous character tended to form itself into a higher unit. In this unit there arose a powerful lord, generally a duke, a count, or a viscount, who sometimes came to be called thecapitalis dominus. He was either a former official of the monarchy, whose function had become hereditary, or a usurper who had formed himself on this model. He laid claim to an authority other than that conferred by the possession of real property. He still claimed to exercise over the whole of his former district certain rights, which we see him sometimes surrendering for the benefit of churches or monasteries. His court of justice was held in the highest honour, and to it were referred the most important affairs. But in this district there were generally a number of more or less powerful lords, who as a rule had as yet no particular feudal title and are often given the name ofprincipes. Often, but not always, they had commended themselves to this duke or count by doing homage.
On the other hand, the royal power continued to exist, being recognized by a considerable part of old Gaul, theregnum Francorum. But under the last of the Carolingians it had in fact become elective, as is shown by the electionsThe royal power.of Odo and Robert before that of Hugh Capet. The electors were the chief lords and prelates of theregnum Francorum. But following a clever policy, each king during his lifetime took as partner of his kingdom his eldest son and consecrated and crowned him in advance, so that the first of the Capetians revived the principle of heredity in favour of the eldest son, while establishing the hereditary indivisibility of the kingdom. This custom was recognized at the accession of Louis the Fat, but the authority of the king was very weak, being merely a vague allegiance. His only real authority lay where his own possessions were, or where there had not arisen a duke, a count, or lord of equal rank with them. He maintained, however, a general right of administering justice, acuria, the jurisdiction of which seems to have been universal. It is true that the parties in a suit had to submit themselves to it voluntarily, and could accept or reject the judgment given, but this was at that time the general rule. The king dispensed justice surrounded by the officers of his household (domestici), who thus formed his council; but these were not the only ones to assist him, whether in court or council. Periodically, at the great yearly festivals, he called together the chief lords and prelates of his kingdom, thus carrying on the tradition of the Carolingianplacitaorconventus; but little by little, with the appropriation of thehonores, the character of the gathering changed; it was no longer an assembly of officials but of independent lords. This was now called thecuria regis.
While the power of the State was almost disappearing, that of the Church, apart from the particular acts of violence of which she was often the victim, continued to grow. Her jurisdiction gained ground, since her procedureThe Church.was reasonable and comparatively scientific (except that she admitted to a certain extent compurgation by oath and thejudicia Dei, with the exception of trial by combat). Not only was the privilege of clergy, by which accused clerks were brought under her jurisdiction, almost absolute, but she had cognizance of a number of causes in which laymen only were concerned, marriage and everything nearly or remotely affecting it, wills, crimes and offences against religion; and even contracts, when the two parties wished it or when the agreement was made on oath, came within her competence. Such, then, were theecclesiastical or Christian courts (cours d’église, course de chrétienté). The Church, moreover, remained in close connexion with the crown, the king preserving a quasi-ecclesiastical character, while the royal prerogatives with regard to the election of bishops were maintained more successfully than the rights of the crown, though in many of the great fiefs they none the less passed to the count or the duke. It was at this time too that the Church tried to break the last ties which still kept her more or less dependent on the civil power; this was the true import of the Investiture Contest (seeInvestiture, andChurch History), though this was not very acute in France.
The period of the true feudal monarchy is embraced by the 12th and 13th centuries, that is to say, it was at this time that the crown again assumed real strength and authority;The feudal monarchy.but so far it had no organs and instruments save those which were furnished by feudalism, now organized under a regular hierarchy, of which the king was the head, the “sovereign enfeoffer of the kingdom” (souverain fieffeux du royaume), as he came later on to be called. This new position of affairs was the result of three great factors: the revival of Roman Law, the final organization of feudalism and the rise of the privileged towns. The revival of Roman law began in France and Italy in the second halfRoman law.of the 11th century, developing with extraordinary brilliance in the latter country at the university of Bologna, which was destined for a long time to dominate Europe. Roman law spread rapidly in the French schools and universities, except that of Paris, which was closed to it by the papacy; and the influence of this study was so great that it transformed society. On the one hand it contributed largely to the reconstitution of the royal power, modelling the rights of the king on those of the Roman emperor. On the other hand it wrought a no less profound change in private law. From this time dates the division of old France into thePays de droit écrit, in which Roman law, under the form in which it was codified by Justinian, was received as the ordinary law; and thePays de coutume,The customs.where it played only a secondary part, being generally valid only asratio scriptaand not aslex scripta. In this period the customs also took definitive form, and over and above the local customs properly so called there were formed customs known asgeneral, which held good through a whole province orbailliage, and were based on the jurisprudence of the higher jurisdictions.
The final organization of feudalism resulted from the struggle for organization which was proceeding in each district where the more powerful lords compelled the others to do them homage and become their vassals; thecapitalis dominusFinal organization of feudalism.had beneath him a whole hierarchy, and was himself a part of the feudal system of France (seeFeudalism). Doubtless in the case of lords like the dukes of Brittany and Burgundy, the king could not actually demand the strict fulfilment of the feudal obligations; but the principle was established. The question now arises, did free and absolute property, theallodium, entirely disappear in this process, and were all lands held as tenures? It continued to exist, by way of exception, in most districts, unchanged save in the burden of proof of ownership, with which, according to the customs, sometimes the lord and sometimes the holder of the land was held charged. In one respect, however, namely in theFeudal character of justice.administration of justice, the feudal hierarchy had absolute sway. Towards the end of the 13th century Beaumanoir clearly laid down this principle: “All secular jurisdiction in France is held from the king as a fief or anarrière-fief.” Henceforth it could also be said that “All justice emanates from the king.” The law concerning fiefs became settled also from another point of view, the fief becoming patrimonial; that is to say, not only hereditary, but freely alienable by the vassal, subject in both cases to certain rights of transfer due to the lord, which were at first fixed by agreement and later by custom. The most salient features of feudal succession were the right of primogeniture and thepreferencegiven to heirs-male; but from the 13th century onwards the right of primogeniture, which had at first involved the total exclusion of the younger members of a family, tended to be modified, except in the case of the chief lords, the eldest son obtaining the preponderant share orpréciput. Non-noble (roturier) tenancies also became patrimonial in similar circumstances, except that in their case there was no right of primogeniture nor any privilege of males. The tenure of serfs did not become alienable, and only became hereditary by certain devices.
Feudal society next saw the rise of a new element within it: the privileged towns. At this time many towns acquired privileges, the movement beginning towards the end of the 11th century; they were sanctioned by a formalRise of the privileged towns.concession from the lord to whom the town was subject, the concession being embodied in a charter or in a record of customs (coutume). Some towns won for themselves true political rights, for instance the right of self-administration, rights of justice over the inhabitants, the right of not being taxed except by their own consent, of maintaining an armed force, and of controlling it themselves. Others only obtained civil rights,e.g.guarantees against the arbitrary rights of justice and taxation of the lord or his provost. The chief forms of municipal organization at this time were thecommune juréeof the north and east, and theconsulat, which came from Italy and penetrated as far as Auvergne and Limousin. The towns with important privileges formed in feudal society as it were a new class of lordships; but their lords, that is to say their burgesses, were inspired by quite a new spirit. The crown courted their support, taking them under its protection, and championing the causes in which they were interested (seeCommune). Finally, it is in this period, under Philip Augustus, that the great fiefs began to be effectually reannexed to the crown, a process which, continued by the kings up to the end of theancien régime, refounded for their profit the territorial sovereignty of France.