The French Nobility

THE Abbe du Bos maintains, that at the commencement of our monarchy there was only one order of citizens amo= ng the Franks.

This assertion, so injurious to the noble blood of our princ= ipal families, is equally affronting to the three great houses which succes= sively governed this realm. The origin of their grandeur would not therefor= e have been lost in the obscurity of time.

History might point out the ages= when they were plebeian families; and to make Childeric, Pepin, and Hugh Capet gentlemen, we should be obliged to trace their pedigree among the Roma= ns or Saxons, that is, among the conquered nations.

This author grounds* his opinion on the Salic law. By that law, he says, it plainly appears, that there were not two different orders o= f citizens among the Franks: it allowed a composition=E2=80=A0 of two hundred sous for the murder of any Frank whatsoever; but among the Romans it distinguished the king’s guest, for whose death it gave a composition of three hundred so= us, from the Roman proprietor to whom it granted a hundred, and from the Ro= man tributary to whom it gave only a composition of 45.

As the difference of the compositions formed the principal distinction, he conclud= es that there was but one order of citizens among the Franks, and three amo= ng the Romans.

It is astonishing that his very mistake = did not set him right. And indeed, it would have been very extraordinary th= at the Roman nobility who lived under the domination of the Franks, should = have a larger composition; and been persons of much greater importance than= the most illustrious among the Franks, and their greatest generals.

What probability is there, that the conquering nation should have so little res= pect for themselves, and so great a regard for the conquered people? Beside= s, our outhor quotes the laws of other barbarous nations, which proves that= they had different orders of citizens.

Now it would be a matter of astonis= hment that this general rule should have failed only among the Franks. Henc= e he ought to have concluded either that he did not rightly understand, or = that he misapplied, the passages of the Salic law; which is actually the ca= se.

Upon opening this law, we find that the = composition for the death of an Antrustio*, that is, of the kings vassal, was fix hund= red sous: and that for the death of a Roman, who was the=E2=80=A0 kings guest, was on= ly three hundred. We find there likewise that=E2=80=A1 the composition for the death of an ordi= nary Frank=E2=88=A5 = was 200 sous;

and for the death of an ordinary Roman=C2=A7, was only one hundred. For t= he death of a Roman** tributary, who was a kind of bondman or freedman, they paid a composition= of fortyfive sous: but I shall take no notice of this, no more than of the composition for the murder of a Frank bondman or of a Frank freedman, beca= use this third order of persons is out of the question.

What does our author do? He is quite sil= ent with respect to the first order of persons among the Franks, that is th= e article relating to the Antrustios; and afterwards, upon comparing the or= dinary Frank, for whose death they paid a composition of 200 sous, with those whom he distinguishes under three orders among the Romans, and= for whose death they paid different compositions, he finds that there was only one order of citizens among the Franks, and that there were three amon= g the Romans.

As the Abbe is of opinion that ther= e was only one order of citizens among the Franks, it would have been lucky= for him that there had been only one order also among the Burgundians, bec= ause their kingdom constituted one of the principal branches of our monarch= y. But in their codes*= we find 3 sorts of compositions, one for the Burgundian or Roman n= obility, the other for the Burgundians or Romans of a middling condition, a= nd the third for those of a lower rank in both nations.

He has not quoted this law.

It is very extraordinary to see in what = manner he evades=E2=80= =A0 those passages which press him hard on all sides. If you speak to h= im of the grandees, lords, and the nobility: these, he says, are mere disti= nctions of respect, and not of order; they are things of courtesy, and not = legal privileges; or else, he says, those people belonged to the king’s council; nay, they possibly might be Romans: but still there was only = one order of citizens among the Franks. On the other hand, if you speak to = him of some Franks of an inferior rank=E2=80=A1, he says, they are bondmen; and thus he interpr= ets the decree of Childebert. But I must stop here a little, to enquire far= ther into this Edition: curre= nt; Page: [419] decree. Our author has rendered it famous by availing hims= elf of it in order to prove two things; the one*, that all the compositions we meet with in the= laws of the Barbarians were only civil fines added to corporal punishments= , which intirely subverts all the antient records: the other, that all free= men were judged directly and immediately by the king=E2=80=A0, which is contradicted by an infi= nite number of passages and authorities informing us of the judiciary order of those t= imes.

This decree, which was made in an assemb= ly=E2=88=A5 of the n= ation, says, that if the judge finds a notorious robber, he must command hi= m to be tied, in order to be carried before the king, = si Francus fucrit; but if he is a weaker person (debilior persona), he shall be hanged on the spot. According to th= e Abb=C3=A9 du Bos, Francus is a freeman, debilior persona is a bondman. I shall defer enterin= g for a moment into the signification of the word Fran= cus, and begin with examining what can be understood by these words,= a weaker person.

In all languages whatsoever, = every comparison necessarily supposeth three terms, the greatest, the less = degree, and the least. If none were here meant but freemen and bondmen, the= y would have said a bondman, and not a man of less power. Therefore debil= ior persona does not signify a bondman, but a person of a superior c= ondition to a bondman.

Upon this supposition, Francus<= /span> cannot mean a freeman but a powerful man; and this word is taken her= e in that acception, because among the Franks there were always men who had greater power than others in the state, and it was more difficult for th= e judge or count to chastise them. This explication agrees very well with m= any capitularies*, w= here we find the cases in which the criminals were to be carried before the= king, and those in which it was otherwise.

It is mentioned in the life of Lewis the= Debonnaire=E2=80=A0= , written by Tegan, that the bishops were the principal cause of the humili= ation of that emperor, especially those who had been bondmen, and such as w= ere born among the Barbarians. Tegan thus addresses Hebo, whom this prince = had drawn from the state of servitude, and made archbishop of Rheims. =E2= =80=9CWhat recompence= =E2=80=A1 did the emperor receive from you for so many benefits? He mad= e you a freeman, but did not enoble you, because he could not give you nobi= lity after having given you your liberty.=E2=80=9D

This discourse which proves so strongly = the two orders of citizens, does not at all confound the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos. = He answers thus=E2=88=A5= : =E2=80=9CThe meaning of this passage is not, that Lewis the Debonnair= e was incapable of introducing Hebo into the order of the nobility. Hebo, a= s archbishop of Rheims, must have been of the first order, superior to that= of the nobility.=E2=80=9D I leave the reader to judge, whether this be not= the meaning of that passage; I leave him to judge whether there be any que= stion here concerning a precedency of the clergy over the nobility. =E2=80= =9CThis passage proves only,=E2=80=9D continues the same writer=C2=A7, =E2=80=9Cthat the freebo= rn subjects were qualified as noblemen; in the common acceptation nobleme= n and men who are free-born have for this long time signified the same thin= g.

What! because some of our Burghers have lately assumed the qual= ity of noblemen, shall a passage of the life of Lewis the Debonnaire be app= lied to this sort of people? =E2=80=9CAnd perhaps, (continues he still)=E2=88=A5 Hebo had not b= een a bondman among the Franks, but among the Saxons, or some other German = nation, where the people were divided into several orders.

Then be= cause of the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos=E2=80=99s perhaps= there must have been no nobility among the nation of the Franks. But he ne= ver applied a perhaps so badly. We have seen th= at Tegan=C2=A7 disti= nguishes the bishops, who had opposed Lewis the Debonnaire, some of whom ha= d been bondmen, and others of a barbarous nation. Hebo belonged to the form= er and not to the latter.

Besides, I do not see how a bondman, such as Hebo= , can be said to have been a Saxon or a German; a bondman has no family, an= d consequently no nation. Lewis the Debonnaire manumitted Hebo; and as bond= men after their manumission, embraced the law of their master, Hebo was bec= ome a Frank, and not a Saxon or German.

I have been hitherto acting offensively;= it is now time to defend myself. It will be objected to me, that indeed th= e body of the Antrustios formed a distinct order in the state, from that of= the freemen; but as the fiefs were at first precarious, and afterwards for= life, this could not form a nobleness of descent, since the privileges wer= e not annexed to an hereditary fief.

This is the objection which induced Mr= . de Valos to think, that there was only one order of citizens among the= Franks; an opinion which the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos has borrowed of him, and whi= ch he has absolutely spoiled with so many bad arguments. Be that as it may,= it is not the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos that could make this objection.

For after h= aving given three orders of Roman nobility, and the quality of the king=E2= =80=99s guest for the first, he could not pretend to say that this title wa= s a greater mark of a noble descent than that of Antrustio. But I must give= a direct answer.

The Antrustios or trusty men were not such because they w= ere possessed of a fief, but they had a fief given them because they were A= ntrustios or trusty men. The reader may please to recollect what has been s= aid in the beginning of this book. They had not at that time, as they had a= fterwards, the same fief: but if they had not that, they had another, becau= se the fiefs were given at their birth, and because they were often granted= in the assemblies of the nation, and, in fine, because it was the interest= of the nobility to receive them, it was likewise the king=E2=80=99s intere= st to grant them. These families were distinguished by their dignity of tru= sty men, and by the privilege of being qualified to swear allegiance for a = fief.

In the following book,* I shall demonstrate from the circumstances of time, that there we= re freemen who were permitted to enjoy this great privilege, and consequent= ly to enter into the order of nobility. This was not the case at the time o= f Gontram, and his nephew Childebert; but so it was at the time of Charlema= ign. But though in that prince=E2=80=99s reign the freemen were not incapab= le of possessing fiefs, yet it appears by the above-cited passage of Tegan,= that the freedmen were absolutely excluded.

Will the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos who carries us= to Turkey, to give us an idea of the ancient French nobility; will he, I say, pretend that they ever complained among the Turks of the elevation of= people of low birth to the honours and dignities of the state, as they com= plained under Lewis the Debonnaire and Charles the Bald? There was no compl= aint of that kind under Charlemaign. because this prince always distinguish= ed the ancient fron the new families; which Lewis the Debonnaire and Charle= s the Bald did not.

The public should not forget the obligat= ion it owes to the Abb=C3=A9 du Bos for several excellent performances. It = is by these works, and not by his history of the establishment of the Frenc= h monarchy, we ought to judge of his merit. He committed very great mistake= s, because he had more in view the count of Boulainvillier=E2=80=99s work, = than his own subject.

From all these strictures I shall draw o= nly one reflection; if so great a man was mistaken, how cautiously ought I = to tread?