General Idea of the Abbe Du Bos=E2=80=99s Book on the Establishment of= the French Monarchy in Gaul

BEFORE I finish this book, it will not b= e im, proper to write a few strictures on the Abbe du Bos’s performance, because my notions are perpetually contrary to his; and if he ha= s hit on the truth, I must have missed it.

This performance has imposed upon a grea= t many, because it is penned with art; because the point in question is con= stantly supposed; because the more it is deficient in proofs, the more it a= bounds in probabilities; and, in fine, because an infinite number of conjec= tures are laid down as principles, and from thence other conjectures are inferred as consequences. The reader forgets he has been doubting, in order t= o begin to believe.

As a prodigious fund of erudition is interspersed, = not in the system, but around it, the mind is taken up with the appendages,= and neglects the principal. Besides, such a vast multitude of researches h= ardly permit one to imagine that nothing has been found; the length of the = way makes us think that we are arrived at our journey=E2=80=99s end.

But when we examine the matter thoroughly, we find an immense colossus with earthen feet; and it is Edition: current; the earthen feet that render the colossus immense. If the Abbe du Boss system had been well grounded, he would not have been obliged to write three= tedious volumes to prove it; he would have found every thing within his subject; and without wandering on every side in quest of what was extremely f= oreign to it, even reason itself would have undertaken to range this in the= same chain with the other truths. Our history and laws would have told him. Do not take so much trouble, we shall be your vouchers.

CHAP. 24: The same Subject continued. Re= flection on the main Part of the System

THE Abbe du Bos endeavours by all m= eans to explode the opinion that the Franks made the conquest of Gaul. Acco= rding to his system our kings were invited by the people, and only substitu= ted themselves in the place, and succeeded to the rights, of the Roman empe= rors.

This pretension cannot be applied to the= time when Clovis, upon his entering Gaul, took and plundered the towns; neither is it applicable to the period when he defeated Syagrius the Roman co= mmander, and conquered the country which he held; it can therefore be refer= red only to the period when Clovis, already master of a great part of Gaul by open force, was called by the choice and affection of the people to the sovereignty over the rest. And it is not enough that Clovis was received, h= e must have been called; the Abbe du Bos must prove that the people ch= ose rather to live under Clovis, than under the domination of the Romans, o= r under their own laws.

The Romans belonging to that part of Gaul not yet i= nvaded by the Barbarians, were, according to this author, of two sorts; the first were of the Armorican confederacy, who had driven away the emperors officers, in order to defend themselves against the Barbarians, = and to be governed by their own laws; the second were subject to the Roman = officers.

Now does the Abbe produce any convincing proofs that the Rom= ans who were still subject to the empire, called in Clovis? Not one.

Does he prove that the republic of the Armoricans invited Clovis; or even conclud= ed any treaty with him? Not at all. So far from being able to tell us the f= ate of this republic, he cannot even so much as prove its existence; and notwithstanding he pretends to trace it from the time of Honorius to the conquest of Clovis, notwithstanding he relates with a most admirable exactness = all the events of those times; still this republic remains invisible in anc= ient authors. For there is a wide difference between proving by a passage o= f Zozymus*, that und= er the emperor Honorius, the country of Armorica and the other provinces of Gaul revol= ted and formed a kind of republic;

and shewing us that notwithstanding the different pacifications of Gaul, the Armoricans formed a particular republi= c, which continued till the conquest of Clovis: and yet this is what he should have demonstrated by strong and substantial proofs, in order to establi= sh his system.

For when we behold a conqueror entering a country, and subdu= ing a great part of it by force and open violence, and soon after we find t= he whole country subdued, without any mention in history of the manner of i= ts being effected, we have sufficient reason to believe that the affair end= ed as it began.

When we find he has mistaken this point, it is easy to perceive that his whole system falls to the ground; and as o= ften as he infers a consequence from these principles, that Gaul was not co= nquered by the Franks, but that the Franks were invited by the Romans, we m= ay safely deny it.

This author proves his principle, by the= Roman dignities with which Clovis was invested: he insists that Clovis suc= ceeded to Chilperic his father in the office of magister maliti=C3=A6. But these two offices are merely of his own creatio= n. S. Remigius letter to Clovis, on which he grounds his opinion is only a congratulation upon his accession to the crown. When the intent of a writin= g is so well known, why should we give it another turn?

Clovis, towards the end of his reign, wa= s made consul by the emperor Anastasius: but what right could he receive fr= om an authority that lasted only one year? It is very probable, says our au= thor, that in the same diploma the emperor Anastasius made Clovis proconsul= . And, I say, it is very probable he did not.

With regard to a fact for whi= ch there is no foundation, the authority of him who denies is equal to that= of him who affirms. But I have also a reason for denying it. Gregory of To= urs, who mentions the consulate, says never a word concerning the proconsul= ate. And even this proconsulate could have lasted only about six months. Cl= ovis died a year and a half after he was created consul; and we cannot pret= end to make the proconsulate an hereditary office. In fine, when the consul= ate, and, if you will, the proconsulate were conferred upon him, he was alr= eady master of the monarchy, and all his rights were established.

The second proof alledged by the Abb=C3= =A9 du Bos, is the renunciation made by the emperor Justinian, in favour of= the children and grand-children of Clovis, of all the rights of the empire= over Gaul. I could say a great deal concerning this renunciation. We may j= udge of the regard shewn to it by the kings of the Franks, from the manner = in which they performed the conditions of it. Besides, the kings of the Fra= nks were masters, and peaceable sovereigns of Gaul; Justinian had not one f= oot of ground in that country; the western empire had been destroyed a long= time before; and the eastern empire had no right to Gaul, but as represent= ing the emperor of the west. These were rights to rights; the monarchy of t= he Franks was already founded; the regulation of their establishment was ma= de; the reciprocal rights of the persons and of the different nations who l= ived in the monarchy, were agreed on; the laws of each nation were given an= d even reduced into writing. What could therefore that foreign renunciation= avail to a government already established?

What can the Abb=C3=A9 mean by making su= ch a parade of the declamations of all those bishops, who amidst the confus= ion, and total subversion of the state, endeavour to flatter the conqueror?= What else is implied by flattering, but the weakness of him who is obliged= to flatter? What does rhetoric and poetry prove, but the use of those very= arts? Is it possible to help being surprised at Gregory of Tours, who afte= r mentioning the assassinations committed by Clovis, says, that God laid hi= s enemies every day at his feet, because he walked in his ways? Who doubts = but the clergy were glad of Clovis=E2=80=99s conversion, and that they even= reaped great advantages from it? But who doubts at the same time that the = people experienced all the miseries of conquest, and that the Roman governm= ent submitted Edition: curren= t; Page: [415= ] to that of the Franks? The Franks were neither willing nor = able to make a total change; and few conquerors were ever seized with so gr= eat a degree of madness. But to render all the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos=E2=80=99s c= onsequences true, they must not only have made no change amongst the Romans= , but they must have even changed themselves.

I could undertake to prove, by following= this author=E2=80=99s method, that the Greeks never conquered Persia. I sh= ould set out with mentioning the treaties which some of their cities conclu= ded with the Persians: I should mention the Greeks who were in Persian pay,= as the Franks were in the pay of the Romans. And if Alexander entered the = Persian territories, besieged, took, and destroyed the city of Tyre, it was= only a particular affair like that of Syagrius. But, behold the Jewish pon= tiff goes forth to meet him. Listen to the oracle of Jupiter Hammon. Recoll= ect how he had been predicted at Gordium. See what a number of towns crowd,= as it were, to submit to him; and how all the Satraps and grandees come to= pay him obeisance. He put on the Persian dress; this is Clovis=E2=80=99s c= onsular robe. Does not Darius offer him one half of his kingdom? Is not Dar= ius assassinated like a tyrant? Do not the mother and wife of Darius weep a= t the death of Alexander? Were Quintus Curtius, Arrian, or Plutarch, Alexan= der=E2=80=99s cotemporaries? Has not the invention of* printing affording us great lights, whic= h those authors wanted? Such is the history of the est= ablishment of the French monarchy in Gaul.