the spirit of laws-第154部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

d　for　the　conquered　people？　Besides；　our　author　quotes　the　laws　of　other　barbarous　nations　which　prove　that　they　had　different　orders　of　citizens。　Now　it　would　be　a　matter　of　astonishment　that　this　general　rule　should　have　failed　only　among　the　Franks。　Hence　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　case。

Upon　opening　this　law；　we　find　that　the　composition　for　the　death　of　an　Antrustio。＇197＇　that　is；　of　the　king's　vassal；　was　six　hundred　sous；　and　that　for　the　death　of　a　Roman；　who　was　the　king's　guest；　was　only　three　hundred。＇198＇　We　find　there　likewise　that　the　composition＇199＇　for　the　death　of　an　ordinary　Frank　was　two　hundred　sous；＇200＇　and　for　the　death　of　an　ordinary　Roman；　was　only　one　hundred。＇201＇　For　the　death　of　a　Roman　tributary；＇202＇　who　was　a　kind　of　bondman　or　freedman；　they　paid　a　composition　of　forty…five　sous：　but　I　shall　take　no　notice　of　this；　any　more　than　of　the　composition　for　the　murder　of　a　Frank　bondman　or　of　a　Frank　freedman；　because　this　third　order　of　persons　is　out　of　the　question。

What　does　our　author　do？　He　is　quite　silent　with　respect　to　the　first　order　of　persons　among　the　Franks；　that　is　the　article　relating　to　the　Antrustios；　and　afterwards　upon　comparing　the　ordinary　Frank；　for　whose　death　they　paid　a　composition　of　two　hundred　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　among　the　Romans。

As　the　Abbé　is　of　opinion　that　there　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；　because　their　kingdom　constituted　one　of　the　principal　branches　of　our　monarchy。　But　in　their　codes　we　find　three　sorts　of　compositions；　one　for　the　Burgundians　or　Roman　nobility；　the　other　for　the　Burgundians　or　Romans　of　a　middling　condition；　and　the　third　for　those　of　a　lower　rank　in　both　nations。＇203＇　He　has　not　quoted　this　law。

It　is　very　extraordinary　to　see　in　what　manner　he　evades　those　passages　which　press　him　hard　on　all　sides。＇204＇　If　you　speak　to　him　of　the　grandees；　lords；　and　the　nobility；　these；　he　says；　are　mere　distinctions　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；＇205＇　he　says　they　are　bondmen；　and　thus　he　interprets　the　decree　of　Childebert。　But　I　must　stop　here　a　little；　to　inquire　farther　into　this　decree。　Our　author　has　rendered　it　famous　by　availing　himself　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　entirely　subverts　all　the　ancient　records；＇206＇　the　other；　that　all　freemen　were　judged　directly　and　immediately　by　the　king。＇207＇　which　is　contradicted　by　an　infinite　number　of　passages　and　authorities　informing　us　of　the　judiciary　order　of　those　times。＇208＇

This　decree；　which　was　made　in　an　assembly　of　the　nation；＇209＇　says　that；　if　the　judge　finds　a　notorious　robber；　he　must　command　him　to　be　tied；　in　order　to　be　carried　before　the　king；　si　Francus　fuerit；　but　if　he　is　a　weaker　person　（debilior　persona）；　he　shall　be　hanged　on　the　spot。　According　to　the　Abbé　du　Bos；　Francus　is　a　freeman；　debilior　persona　is　a　bondman。　I　shall　defer　entering　for　a　moment　into　the　signification　of　the　word　Francus；　and　begin　with　examining　what　can　be　understood　by　these　words；　a　weaker　person；　In　all　languages　whatsoever；　every　comparison　necessarily　supposes　three　terms；　the　greatest；　the　less　degree；　and　the　least。　If　none　were　here　meant　but　freemen　and　bondmen；　they　would　have　said　a　bondman；　and　not　a　man　of　less　power。　Therefore　debilior　persona　does　not　signify　a　bondman；　but　a　person　of　a　superior　condition　to　a　bondman。　Upon　this　supposition；　Francus　cannot　mean　a　freeman；　but　a　powerful　man；　and　this　word　is　taken　here　in　that　acceptation；　because　among　the　Franks　there　were　always　men　who　had　greater　power　than　others　in　the　state；　and　it　was　more　difficult　for　the　judge　or　count　to　chastise　them。　This　construction　agrees　very　well　with　many　capitularies＇210＇　where　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　Louis　the　Debonnaire；＇211＇　written　by　Tegan；　that　the　bishops　were　the　principal　cause　of　the　humiliation　of　that　emperor；　especially　those　who　had　been　bondmen　and　such　as　were　born　among　the　Barbarians。　Tegan　thus　addresses　Hebo；　whom　this　prince　had　drawn　from　the　state　of　servitude；　and　made　Archbishop　of　Rheims：　〃What　recompense　did　the　Emperor　receive　from　you　for　so　many　benefits？　He　made　you　a　freeman；　but　did　not　ennoble　you；　because　he　could　not　give　you　nobility　after　having　given　you　your　liberty。〃＇212＇

This　passage；　which　proves　so　strongly　the　two　orders　of　citizens；　does　not　at　all　confound　the　Abbé　du　Bos。　He　answers　thus：＇213＇　〃The　meaning　of　this　passage　is　not　that　Louis　the　Debonnaire　was　incapable　of　introducing　Hebo　into　the　order　of　the　nobility。　Hebo；　as　Archbishop　of　Rheims；　must　have　been　of　the　first　order；　superior　to　that　of　the　nobility。〃　I　leave　the　reader　to　judge　whether　this　be　not　the　meaning　of　that　passage；　I　leave　him　to　judge　whether　there　be　any　question　here　concerning　a　precedence　of　the　clergy　over　the　nobility。　〃This　passage　proves　only；〃　continues　the　same　writer；＇214＇　〃that　the　free…born　subjects　were　qualified　as　noblemen；　in　the　common　acceptation；　noblemen　and　men　who　are　free…born　have　for　this　long　time　signified　the　same　thing。〃　What！　because　some　of　our　burghers　have　lately　assumed　the　quality　of　noblemen；　shall　a　passage　of　the　Life　of　Louis　the　Debonnaire　be　applied　to　this　sort　of　people？　〃And　perhaps；〃　continues　he　still；＇215＇　〃Hebo　had　not　been　a　bondman　among　the　Franks；　but　among　the　Saxons；　or　some　other　German　nation；　where　the　people　were　divided　into　several　orders。〃　Then；　because　of　the　Abbé　du　Bos'　〃perhaps；〃　there　must　have　been　no　nobility　among　the　nation　of　the　Franks。　But　he　never　applied　a　〃perhaps〃　so　badly。　We　have　seen　that　Tegan　distinguishes　the　bishops；＇216＇　who　had　opposed　Louis　the　Debonnaire；　some　of　whom　had　been　bondmen；　and　others　of　a　barbarous　nation。　Hebo　belonged　to　the　former　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；　and　consequently　no　nation。　Louis　the　Debonnaire　manumitted　Hebo；　and　as　bondmen　after　their　manumission　embraced　the　law　of　their　master；　Hebo　had　become　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　the　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　were　not　annexed　to　an　hereditary　fief。　This　is　the　objection　which　induced　M。　de　Valois　to　think　that　there　was　only　one　order　of　citizens　among　the　Franks；　an　opinion　which　the　Abbé　du　Bos　has　borrowed　of　him；　and　which　he　has　absolutely　spoiled　with　so　many　bad　arguments。　Be　that　as　it　may；　it　is　not　the　Abbé　du　Bos　that　could　make　this　objection。　For　after　having　given　three　orders　of　Roman　nobility；　and　the　quality　of　the　king's　guest　for　the　first；　he　could　not　pretend　to　say　that　this　title　was　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　were　possessed　of　a　fief；　but　that　they　had　a　fief　given　them　because　they　were　Antrustios　or　trusty　men。　The　reader　may　please　to　recollect　what　has　been　said　in　the　beginning　of　this　book。　They　had　not　at　that　time；　as　they　had　afterwards；　the　same　fief：　but　if　they　had　not　that；　they　had　another；　because　the　fiefs　were　given　at　their　birth；　and　because　they　were　often　granted　in　the　assemblies　of　the　nation；　and；　in　fine；　because　as　it　was　the　interest　of　the　nobility　to　receive　them　it　was　likewise　the　king's　interest　to　grant　them。　These　families　were　distinguished　by　their　dignity　of　trusty　men；　and　by　the　privilege　of　being　qualified　to　swear　allegiance　for　a　fief。　In　the　following　book＇217＇　I　shall　demonstrate　how；　from　the　circumstances　of　the　time；　there　were　freemen　who　were　permitted　to　enjoy　this　great　privilege；　and　consequently　to　enter　into　the　order　of　nobility。　This　was　not　the　case　at　the　time　of　Gontram；　and　his　nephew　Childebert；　but　so　it　was　at　the　time　of　Charlemagne。　But　though　in　that　prince's　reign　the　freemen　were　not　incapable　of　possessing　fiefs；　yet　it　appears；　by　the　above…cited　passage　of　Tegan；　that　the　emancipated　serfs　were　absolutely　excluded。　Will　the　Abbé　du　Bos；　who　carries　us　to　Turkey　to　give　us　an　idea　of　the　anc