Object of the course-Elements of national unity--They exist and begin to be developed in France towards the end of the 10th century-Thence dates French civilization-The feudal period will be the subject of this course-It includes the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, from Hugh Ca- pet to Philippe de Valois-Proof that these are the limits of the feudal period-Plan of the course: History; 1st, of society; 2d, of the human mind, during the feudal period-The history of society resolves itself into, 1st, history of civil society; 2d, history of religious society-The history of the human mind resolves itself into, 1st, history of learned literature; 2d, history of national literature in the vulgar tongue-Im- portance of the middle ages in the history of French civilization-The present state of opinions concerning the middle ages-Is it true that there is danger in historical impartiality and poetical sympathy for this Necessity for studying the progressive formation of the feudal system-It is often forgotten that social facts form themselves but slowly, and in forming themselves, undergo many vicissitudes-Analysis of the feudal system in its essential elements. They are three in number: 1. The nature of territorial property; 2. Amalgamation of sovereignty and pro- perty; 3. Hierarchical organization of the feudal association-State of territorial property from the 5th to the 10th century-Origin and mean- ing of the word feodum-It is synonymous with beneficium-History of benefices, from the 8th to the 10th century-Examination of the system of Montesquieu concerning the legal gradation of the duration of bene- fices Causes of the increase of the number of benefices-Almost all comes neither from the Roman society nor from the German band-Is it the result of conquest only ?-Of the system of feudal publicists on this subject-Two forms of society in Germany, the tribe and the band -Social organization of the tribe-Domestic sovereignty is there dis- tinct from political sovereignty-Twofold origin of domestic sovereignty among the ancient Germans-It arose from family and from conquest- What became of the organization of the German tribe, and especially of domestic sovereignty after the establishment of the Germans in Gaul -What it retained of the family spirit gradually diminished; what it retained of conquest became dominant-Recapitulation and true char- General association of the possessors of fiefs among themselves; third char- acteristic of the feudal system-From the very nature of its elements this association must have been weak and irregular-It, in fact, always was so-Fallacy of the view which the apologists of this system trace of the feudal hierarchy-Its incoherency and weakness were especially great at the close of the 10th century-The formation of this hierarchy from the 5th to the 10th century-Three systems of institution are seen together after the German invasion: free institutions, monarchical insti- tutions, aristocratical institutions-Comparative history of these three sys- tems-Decline of the two first-Triumph of the third, which yet remains Method to be followed in the study of the feudal period-The simple fief is the fundamental element, the integrant molecule of feudalism-The simple fief contains: 1, the castle and its proprietors; 2, the village and its inhabitants-Origin of feudal castles-Their multiplication in the 9th and 10th centuries-Causes of this-Efforts of the kings and powerful suzerains to oppose it-Futility of these efforts-Character of the castles of the 11th century-Interior life of the proprietors of fiefs-Their iso- lation-Their idleness-Their incessant wars, expeditions, and adven- tures-Influence of the material circumstances of feudal habitations upon the course of civilization-Development of domestic life, condition of women, and of the spirit of family in the interior of castles TWENTY-FIRST LECTURE. Object of the lecture-Of capitularies in general-Review of the capitularies of the Carlovingian Frank kings-Of the two forms under which the capitularies have descended to us-Scattered capitularies -Collection of Angesise and of the deacon Benedict-Of the edition of the capitularies by Baluze-Erroneous idea generally entertained as to capitularies—They are not invariably laws-Great variety in these acts-Attempt at classification-Table of contents of the capitularies of Charlemagne : 1. Moral legislation-2. Political legislation-3. Penal legislation--4. Civil legislation-5. Religious legislation-6. Canonical legislation-7. Domestic legislation-8. Incidental legislation-True character of the capitularies. I ANNOUNCED to you my intention of laying before you a summary of the reign of Charlemagne, and its results, reviewing his government and his influence upon intellectual development. In the first of these respects, the picture I have placed before you appears to me sufficiently complete; it presents, I think, a clear and precise idea of the part filled by the wars of Charlemagne in the history of civilization in the west; and, moreover, I could not enter more fully into the subject, without going through an absolute and continuous narration of events. As to the government of Charlemagne and its action upon mind, what I have said in the last lecture is altogether incomplete, and I may, without losing myself in details, enter more closely into this part of the subject. I will proceed to do so. The legislation of Charlemagne will now occupy our attention: that which he did in protecting intellectual development, with an account of the distinguished men who lived and labored under his influence, will be the subject of following lectures. It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word capitula, "little chapters," equally applies to all the laws of the Frank kings. I have no remark to make at present respecting the capitularies, in themselves of very slight importance, of the first race; of those of the second race, there have come down to us 152, namely: I The table in the twentieth lecture mentions only sixty; but there were besides five private acts, which, upon reflection, I think ought to be inserted among the capitularies. 5 capitularies of Pepin le Bref, commencing with the year 752, the period of his elevation to the title of king of the Franks. 65 of Charlemagne. 20 of Louis le Debonnaire. 52 of Charles le Chauve. 3 of Louis le Begue. 3 of Carloman. 1 of Eudes. 3 of Charles le Simple. I reckon here only the acts of such Carlovingians as reigned in France; several descendants of Charlemagne, established in Germany and Italy, also left capitularies, but with these we have nothing to do. The capitularies enumerated have come down to us in two different forms. We have them, first, in the shape of as many separate acts, scattered through various manuscripts, sometimes with, sometimes without date; and there exists, secondly, a collection of them made in the course of the ninth century, and divided into seven books. The first four of these were compiled by Angesise, abbot of Fontenelle, one of the councillors of Charlemagne, who died in 833. He collected and classified the capitula of that prince, and a portion of those of Louis le Debonnaire. The first book contains 162 capitula of Charlemagne, relative to ecclesiastical affairs. The second, forty-eight capitula of Louis le Debonnaire, in the same class of subjects. The third, ninety-one capitula of Charlemagne, on temporal affairs. The fourth, seventy-seven capitula of Louis le Debonnaire, on temporal affairs. To these four books, which, immediately upon their publication, acquired such credit that Charles le Chauve, in his own capitularies, cites them as an official code, a deacon of Mayence, named Benedict, at the request of his archbishop, Otger, added, about the year 842, three new books, constituting the fifth, sixth, and seventh books of the collection, and which contain: The fifth, 405 capitula; the sixth, 436 capitula; the seventh, 478 capitula. In all, 1697. But, besides the capitularies which Angesise had omitted, and those which had been declared since the compilation of his collection, the three books of the deacon Benedict contain a number of acts with which the Carlovingian kings had nothing to do; for instance, fragments of the Roman law, extracted from the Theodosian code, from Breviarium of the Visigoths, from Justinian, Julien, &c. We even find there considerable fragments of the famous collection known by the name of The false Decretals, pretended canons, and other acts of the first popes-a collection at this time scarcely known, and which Benedict himself was one of the first to bring into vogue; so that many learned persons have assigned their fabrication to him. Four supplements, added by anonymous compilers at later periods to the seven books already mentioned, extend the number of articles in this collection to 2100. The capitularies have been published several times under both these forms. The best edition is unquestionably that of Baluze, in two vols. folio, Paris, 1677. It is not only the best as a matter of comparison, but it is excellent in itself. "Of all the sources of the law of the middle ages," says Savigny,' "I have found none more fully presented to us than the capitularies in Baluze's excellent edition." And, in fact, it is far more complete, and better edited than those of Lindenbrog, Pithon, Herold, Du Tillot, &c. Baluze had collected a great number of manuscripts, and he published fragments and whole capitularies previously inedited. His work may fairly be described as a vast and good collection of texts; but there, in truth, its merit ends. The texts themselves have been subjected to no examination, to no critical revision. Baluze has given them to us exactly as he found them, without troubling himself to inquire whether or no the copyists had confused them, or filled them with blunders. It would doubtless have been an entire misconception to have sought to introduce into the capitularies an order foreign to the ideas of the primitive legislator, to have classified them systematically, to have curtailed repetitions emanating from the legislator himself, and which are characteristic of his work. But there are, in the various manuscripts, a confusion and a want of accuracy which are manifestly attributable to the copyists alone; a multitude of words are changed, a multitude of articles wrongly placed; various readings of the same manuscript are set down as different capitula. I do not by any means propose to 2 ii., 91. |