SECOND LECTURE.

Necessity of reading a general history of France before we study that of civilization -- M. de Sismondi's work-Why we should study the political state of a country before its moral state, the history of society before that of man-The social state of Gaul in the 5th century-Original monuments and modern works descriptive of that subject-Difference between the civil and religious society of that period-Imperial government of Gaul-The provincial governors-Their official establishments -Their salaries-Benefits and defects of the administration-Fall of the Roman empire-Gaulish society: 1. The senators; 2. The curiales ; 3. The people; 4. The slaves-Public relations of these various classes-Decline and helplessness of Gaulish civil society-Causes of this-The people attach themselves to the religious community.

BEFORE entering upon the history of French civilization, I would engage those among you who propose to make a serious study of the subject, to read with attention one of the larger histories of France, which may serve, as it were, for a frame in which to place the facts and ideas we shall together collect.. For I do not propose to relate to you the course of what are more especially called events, which yet it is indispensable for you to know. Of all the histories of France I could point but to you, the best beyond any question is that of M. de Sismondi. It is no part of my intention to enter here into a discussion of the merits and defects of that work, but I will, in a few words, indicate to you what you will more peculiarly find there, and what I advise you more peculiarly to seek there. Considered as a critical exposition of the institutions, the political development, the government of France, the Histoire des Français of M. de Sismondi is incomplete,' leaving

1 M. Guizot speaks of the first twelve volumes of the Paris edition.

U

in my opinion something to be desired. Speaking of the volumes already published, I should say that its account of the two epochs most important for the political destiny of France, the reign of Charlemagne and that of St. Louis, is, perhaps, among the feeblest portions of the work. As a history of intellectual development of ideas, it is deficient, to a certain extent, in depth of research, and in exactness as to results. But, as a narrative of events, as a picture of the revolutions and vicissitudes of the social state, of the mutual relations of the various classes of society at different periods, of the progressive formation of the French nation, it is a work of the highest order, a work whence instruction of the most valuable kind is to be derived. You may, perhaps, find occasion to desire in it somewhat more impartiality, somewhat greater freedom of imagination; you may, perhaps, detect in it, at times, too much of the influence upon the writer's mind of contemporary events and opinions; but, nevertheless, it is a prodigious, a splendid work, infinitely superior to all those which preceded it, and one which, read with attention, will admirably prepare you for the studies we are about to pursue.

It is part of my plan, whenever we approach a particular epoch, or a crisis of French society, to point out to you the original literary monuments which are extant with respect to it, and the principal modern works which have treated of the subject. You will thus be enabled to test for yourselves, in the crucible of your own studies, the results which I shall endeavour to lay before you.

You will remember that I proposed to consider civilization in its aggregate, as a social development, and as a moral development, in the history of the mutual relations of man, and in that of ideas; I shall accordingly examine each epoch under this double aspect. I shall commence in every case with the study of the social state. I am quite aware that in so doing, I shall not begin with the beginning: the social state derives, among a number of other causes, from the moral state of nations; creeds, feelings, ideas, manners, precede the external condition, the social relations, the political institutions; society, saving a necessary and powerful reaction, is that which men make it. Conformably with true chronology, with the internal and moral chronology, we ought to study man before society. But the true historic

order, the order in which facts succeed one another, and reciprocally create each other, differs essentially from the scientific order, from the order in which it is proper to study them. In reality, facts develop themselves, so to speak, from within to without; causes inward produce effects outward. Study, on the contrary-study, science, proceed, and properly proceed, from without to within. It is with the outward that its attention is first occupied; it is the outward which it first seizes upon, and following which, it advances, penetrates on and on, until by degrees it arrives within.

And here we come to the great question, the question so often and so well treated, but not as yet, perhaps, exhausted, the question between the two methods of analysis and synthesis; the latter, the primitive method, the method of creation; the other, the method of the second period, the scientific method. If science desired to proceed according to the method of creation, if it sought to take facts in the order according to which they reproduce each other, it would run a great risk, to say the least, of missing the full, pure source of things, of not embracing the whole broad principle, of arriving at only one of the causes whence effects have sprung; and thus involved in a narrow, tortuous, fallacious path, it would wander more and more remote from the right direction; and instead of arriving at the veritable creation, instead of finding the facts such as they really are, such as they really produce one the other, it would give birth to mere valueless chimeras, grand, indeed, in appearance, but in reality, notwithstanding the amount of intellectual wealth expended in their pursuit, utterly frivolous and of no account.

On the other hand, were science, in proceeding from without to within, according to its own proper method, to forget that this is not the primitive productive method, that facts in themselves subsist and develop themselves in another order than that in which it views them, it might in time also forget that it was preceded by facts, it might exclude from its remembrance the very foundation of things, it might be dazzled with itself, it might fancy that it was reality; and it would thus speedily become a mere combination of appearances and terms, as vain, as fallacious as the hypothesis an deductions of the contrary method.

It is highly important not to lose sight of this distinction

and its consequences; we shall meet with them again more than once on our way.

In a former lecture, on seeking in the cradle of European civilization for its primitive and essential elements, I found, on the one side, the Roman world, on the other, the barbarians. In commencing, therefore, in any quarter of Europe, the study of modern civilization, we must first investigate the state of Roman society there, at the moment when the Roman empire fell, that is to say, about the close of the fourth and the opening of the fifth century. This investigation is peculiarly necessary in the case of France. The whole of Gaul was subject to the Empire, and its civilization, more especially in its southern portions, was thoroughly Roman. In the histories of England and of Germany, Rome occupies a less prominent position; the civilization of these countries, in its origin, was not Roman, but Germanic; it was not until a later period of their career that they really underwent the influence of the laws, the ideas, the traditions of Rome. The case with our civilization was different; it was Roman from its very outset. It is characterised, moreover, by this peculiar feature, that it drew nourishment from both the sources of general European civilization. Gaul was situated upon the limits of the Roman world and of the Germanic world. The south of Gaul was essentially Roman, the north essentially Germanic. Germanic manners, institutions, influences, prevailed in the north of Gaul; Roman manners, institutions, influences, in the south. And here we already recognise that distinctive character of French civilization, which I endeavoured to demonstrate in my first lecture, namely, that it is the most complete, the most faithful image of European civilization in the aggregate. The civilization of England and of Germany is especially Germanic; that of Spain and Italy especially Roman; that of France is the only one which participates almost equally of the two origins, which has reproduced, from its outset, the complexity, the variety of the elements of modern society.

The social state of Gaul, then, towards the end of the fourth and the commencement of the fifth century, is the first object of our studies. Before entering upon it, I will mention what are the great original monuments, and what the principal modern works on the subject which I would advise you to consult.

Of the original monuments, the most important, beyond all doubt, is the Theodosian code. Montesquieu, though he does not exactly say so, is evidently' of opinion that this code constituted, in the fifth century, the whole Roman law, the entire body of Roman legislation. It constitutes nothing of the sort. The Theodosian code is a collection of the constitutions of the emperors, from Constantine to Theodosius the younger, and was published by the latter in 438. Independently of these constitutions, the ancient Senatus Consulta, the ancient Plebiscita, the law of the Twelve Tables, the Pretorian Edicts, and the opinions of the jurisconsults, constituted a part of the Roman law. Just previously, by a decree of Valentinian III. in 426, the opinions of five of the great lawyers, Papinian, Ulpian, Paul, Gaius, and Modestinus, had expressly been invested with the force of law. It were, however, quite accurate to say that, in a practical point of view, the Theodosian code was the most important law book of the Empire; it is, moreover, the literary monument which diffuses the greatest light over this period.2

The second original document to which I would invite your attention, is the Notitia Imperii Romani, that genuine impe rial almanac of the fifth century, giving lists of all the functionaries of the empire, and presenting a complete review of the whole of its administration, of all the relations between the government and its subjects.3 The Notitia has been illustrated with the greatest learning by the jurisconsult Pancirolus; I know of no work which contains so many remarkable and curious facts as to the interior of Roman society.

I will refer you, for a third original source, to the great collections of the acts of the councils. Of these there are two; the collections of the councils held in Gaul, which were published by Père Sirmond, with a supplementary volume compiled by Lalande,5 and the general collection of councils, compiled by the Père Labbe.6

'Esprit des Loix, xxviii. chap. 4.

2 Six vols folio, avec les Commentaires de J. Godefroy. Ritter, Leipsig, 1738.

3 The best edition is that printed in the 7th vol. of the Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum of Grævius.

Three vols. folio. Paris, 1629.

6 Eighteen vols. folio. Paris, 1672.

One vol. folio. Paris, 1660.