PART II.

HISTORY OF FRANCE. SECT. I.-THE VARIOUS RACES OF ANCIENT GAUL.

The people who inhabited France at the most distant epoch of its history are scarcely known but in the writings of their conquerors, the Romans. They undoubtedly owed their origin to other conquering nations mixed with the people they had subdued. Cæsar represents them as warlike, going always armed, and ready on all occasions to terminate their differences by the sword; as a people of great levity, and little inclined to idleness; but hospitable, generous,

confiding, and sincere. They were so possessed with the idea of what has been called the right of the strongest, that they claimed the power of life and death over their wives and children. The Druids, their priests, who were the sole depositaries of learning amongst them, were indebted to the credulity of the people for the deference they paid to them. ruled the people by the terror of their anatheThese priests mas; they were exempt from all tribute to the state, and abounded in riches. Like many other barbarians, they sacrificed human victims. It is said, however, that they taught the doctrine of one Supreme Being; but it seems more probable, that they maintained only the superstitions

of polytheism, or a species of gross fetichism. Their bards or poets composed war songs to animate the combatants, and to perpetuate the memory of their heroes.

These people, whom the Romans called Gauls, but who denominated themselves Kelts or Celts, were governed mostly by an aristocracy. The elders, notables, or senators of their towns, together with the military and their chiefs, formed what we call the nobility; these, in conjunction with the priests, possessed the riches and the power; vassalage and misery were the portion of the commonalty. The nation of Gaul formed a kind of confederation, most of the states of which were governed by chiefs elected by the military. These chiefs were by no means possessed of absolute authority; one of them said to Cæsar, the commonwealth has not less power over me, than I have over it.'

The discipline of the Romans, and the genius and good fortune of Cæsar, triumphed in ten years over the valor of the Gauls. It was the policy of these conquerors to sow divisions among minor states; and thus, by intriguing with their allies and partisans, to vanquish them by means of themselves. As the Gauls were impetuous in attacking their enemies, so they were easily discouraged by a reverse of fortune. Colonies had commenced the work of their subjugation, and conquest completed it; the Gauls became Romans; the latter introduced among them the arts and new manners; they subdued them by civilisation. The municipal regulations, and the agriculture of the Romans soon rendered the country flourishing, and despotism afterwards despoiled it. This state of things continued for four centuries, when the people were reduced to the lowest depths of misery, devoured by the proconsuls, the prey of factions, and alternately passing from insurrection to slavery, under tyrants who were perpetually changing.

About this time, and in the midst of the confusion occasioned by the inroads of various barbarous tribes, Christianity was established in the Roman empire. At first it was the religion of the oppressed and the persecuted; and the consolation of the unfortunate; and it quickly spread as such among the Gauls. In the year 325 the emperor Constantine decreed the public exercise of the new religion, and soon re-established order. The bishops enjoyed the affections of the people; despotic power therefore caressed them, in order to gain the obedience of the multitude. They, on the other hand, hesitated not to avail themselves by degrees of the civil jurisdiction; and the bishop of Rome, since that time decorated with the title of Sovereign Pontiff, already possessed some spiritual supremacy. The civilisation, arts, and literature, of the Romans, were on the decline; the empire, divided and weakened, was falling into ruin; discipline was relaxed; the illusion of the Roman name had vanished; and ignorance and barbarism were extending their shades over the fine provinces which had flourished under the administration of a Trajan, an Antonine, and a Marcus Aurelius.

SECT. II. THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY Attracted by the salubrious climate, and great

riches of the provinces of the empire, the barbarous tribes of the north of Europe frequently invaded it; but were driven back, sometimes by force, and sometimes by treaties and presents. This latter proceeding however, though despotism in its weakness often employed it, soon increased the mischiefs it was designed to cure. Degenerate Rome had recourse even to the arms of its enemies to defend itself against its own subjects. Lands were allotted to legions of barbarians, who were set to guard the frontiers. The Franks, a Germanic tribe, were for a long time appointed to defend the banks of the Rhine, from which they derived the name of Ripuarius (from ripa, the bank of a river); but these barbarians no sooner learned the arts of war from the Romans, than they began to turn them to their own advantage; they chose rather to invade the empire, than to defend it, and saw the important opportunity offered, by the confusion which prevailed, for them to form durable establishments where they pleased. The Vesogoths, or Visigoths, settled in Spain and the south of France; The Burgundiones, or Bourguignons, fixed themselves in the east; and the Franks established their dominion in Belgium. Of all the uncivilised tribes, the Franks bore the greatest resemblance to the Romans; they marched in different tribes or armies, at the head of each of which was an elective chief. The monks, who have written chronicles of these times, have handed down to us the names of some of their princes, whom the monarchical historians of that country have denominated kings of France. But Theudemer, Hiod, Merveg, and Hild-rik, can only be regarded as powerful provincial chieftains: and the very existence of Faramund, or Pharamond, is doubtful. Actius, a Roman general, obtained some advantages over Hlod, or Clodion; he also vanquished several barbarous tribes, and for a short time re-established the Roman authority in Gaul, with the exception of Armorica (now Brittany), which was declared independent. About this time the cloud of Tartars which Attila, called the scourge of God, led on to the plunder of the world, fell upon Gaul; when Actius, concluding treaties of peace with the other enemies of the empire, united his army to that of the Visigoths, and overcame Attila in the plains of Chalons, in Champagne. But for this great victory, probably, the race of the Gauls would have been at this day mixed with that of the Huns.

At that time (A. D. 458), the son of Merveg, Mérovée, or Childeric, commanded the Franks at Tournay; but they deposed him, because he debauched their daughters. The fact is remarkable, and proves that these tribes were accustomed to exercise this important right of sovereignty. In his room they chose Ægidius, the commander of the Roman militia; who, in consequence of a Patrician, that was his personal enemy, stirring up the Visigoths, and even the tribe of Ripuary Franks against him, entered into an alliance with Childeric, and they together vanquished the Visigoths at Orleans. Childeric upon this was reconciled to his Franks: he was a brave soldier, and resided at Tournay, never penetrating far into Gaul.

At his death (A. D. 481) he left his son, a

youth of sixteen years old, at the head of his tribe, now known as the Salic tribe. Our limits do not allow us to trace all the events which present themselves in the history of the Gauls about this period; and indeed they are not very interesting: we behold alternately wars and alliances among the Romans and Franks, the Visigoths, and other barbarians; ambitious generals, raised to power by the intrigues of the imperial court, but quickly overcoming their feeble masters, and calling in the aid of the barbarous tribes to serve the ever-changing purposes of their personal ambition. The Western Empire was then just falling; the Saxons seized upon Anjou and Maine; the Burgundians occupied the Seine; the Goths and Visigoths extended their dominion as far as the Loire; the Franks and the All-manns, branches of the different hordes of German plunderers, contended for the possession of the North; while the Romans or Gauls kept the remaining part of the country, and the Armoricans were independent.

Hlodwech or Chlodovech, was the son of Hildrik; and is the French Clovis, a name which appears to have a common origin with that of Hludvik or Louis. His territories were very limited; but he was ambitious, and possessing superior talents, formed the design of making himself master of Gaul. Having united himself with a Frankish tribe, he first of all defeated Syagrius, the son of Ægidius, who governed the Gallo-Romans of Soissonnais, and, having forced him to surrender at discretion, he caused him to be beheaded. Clovis very soon entered into alliance with the Ripuary Franks; and still farther increased his power and influence among the Gauls, by marrying Clotilda, the daughter of the king of Burgundy. This princess being a professed Christian, Clovis, by this marriage, appeared to come forward as the protector of the Christians of Gaul, who composed the greater part of the population: he at the same time availed himself of their support, and soon found that he needed it. Some powerful competitors presented themselves, among the German tribes, to whom, in conjunction with his allies the Ripuarii, he gave battle at Tolbiac near Cologne, in 496, and defeated them. Gregory, the chronicler, relates a circumstance respecting this battle that too much resembles the labarum of Constantine, to be considered as any thing but a fable. It is possible, however, that while the battle was doubtful, the French monarch, imitating the policy of the Roman, publicly made a vow to become a Christian, in order to reanimate the courage of the numerous soldiers of that religion who served in his army. Remigius, or Remi, the bishop, afterwards baptised him at Rheims, as well as part of his army; the coronation is a doubtful circumstance, and the story of the miraculous phial was invented since that time. The history of this age abounds in legends and pretended miracles. The Romans had often bestowed dignities on barbarous princes, in order to command their influence by means of their vanity. Clovis already held the title of master of the Roman militia; after the defeat of Syagrius he became so in point of fact. His conversion subjected all

the Roman orthodox party to his power. The kings of the Visigoths were also Christians, but Arians. The confederated Armoricans hastened to treat with Clovis, who had been for a long time at war with them, and who, in 494, had taken Paris, one of the cities of the coalition. It remained for him only to subdue the Visigoths and the Burgundians, and he began with the latter. Clotilda herself excited him to it, through her resentment against Gondebaud, the murderer of her father. Clovis, who undertook nothing without an ally, proposed, in 500, to share the contest with the powerful Theodoric, who, while he reigned over the Goths, was endeavouring to restore in Italy the civilisation of the Romans; but Clovis conquered without his assistance. Theodoric, however, took possession of his part of the spoil. The revolt of the Christians had great influence in the defeat of Gondebaud; too late he perceived, that he could not withstand the ruling opinions; he became a Christian, and Clovis re-established him on his throne, making him tributary to himself. Theodoric, who dreaded the aggrandisement of Clovis, constrained him, without doubt, to adopt this moderate proceeding; he is also said to have raised impediments in the way of the defeat of the Visigoths. Their king Alaric, however, having given dissatisfaction to his subjects, Clovis took advantage of this circumstance, formed a junction with Gondebaud, and beat the army of Alaric at Vouillé, near Poitiers, in 507; the consequence of this victory was the conquest of almost the whole of the south of Gaul, which in later times received from its conquerors the name of FRANCE. Clovis returned in triumph to Tours, where he presented offerings at the tomb of St. Martin. Here also he received a diploma from the emperor, conferring on him the dignity of Roman consul, and the title of Augustus. This, however, added but little to his power, and deprived him of none of his independence.

Clovis now took up his residence at Paris, the chief city of the Parisian tribe, but still called Lutetia. Here Julius Cæsar, we are told, resided when he so gloriously conducted the administration of Gaul. In order to extend his own dominions, Clovis destroyed the various tributary kings of the Franks, and caused himself to be elected in their place. He died at Paris in 511. The similarity of character that may be traced between this prince and Constantine is very striking: the first professed Christian monarchs, they were alike ambitious, and their principal knowledge of religion seems to have consisted in the art of making it subservient to their own designs. This was in fact the secret of their conquests.

With respect to the situation of the nations that inhabited France, at this period, the Franks were either freedmen or slaves; but slavery was not so much a personal bond among them as among the Romans. Those of the tribe of Clovis, called the Salic, were governed by the law of that name, which had been enacted by their chiefs: the tribe of the Ripuarii had its own institutions. The freemen assembled every year in the Champ-de-Mars, and there passed the

sation.

laws. They nominated their kings; but they generally chose the eldest son of the former monarch. The Burgundians, governed by the laws of Gondebaud, which went by the appellation of Gombette, maintained the form of a nation until the second dynasty; their manners were more fierce than those of the others. The Visigoths had for the most part gone over into Spain, while the Romans or Gauls preserved their civil condition, as far as the rights of conquest would permit. As the ecclesiastics belonged to this nation, it on that account preserved a remnant of influence; the clergy being able for a long time to perpetuate the Roman society and civiliReligion was the only restraint they could oppose to force; unhappily in later times they were destined to abuse it. But at this period they retained much of their primitive simplicity, and the docile confidence of the barbarous tribes rendered the power of the bishops salutary in preserving peace, and effecting reconciliations for them. When a Frank was made a priest, they cut off his long hair, which was a mark of distinction among the freemen of his nation, and he became in a manner a Roman or literary man. A lighter fine, it is said, was exacted for having killed a Roman than a Frank. In other respects the Romans were judged by their own tribunals, and when a Roman and a Frank were parties in a cause, the tribunal was formed of an equal number of the two nations. The degenerated Latin language evidently predominated, and was employed in the public decrees of the Franks; in fine, the Franks became united with the Romans. It is only necessary to glance over the history of these times, in which we do not find a single insurrection of the Gauls against the Franks, and in which we see that the ascendancy of the bishops tended to maintain a kind of equality and union between the two nations, to reject the notion of Montesquieu and others, who have asserted that the Gauls were reduced to a state of slavery. Neither can we admit the conclusions that the abbé Dubos has drawn from the consulship of Clovis, that the king of the Franks was the real heir to the authority and magistracy of the Romans.

The conquerors dispersed among the Gauls did not meet to appoint a successor to Clovis; his sons divided his dominions among them, Similar divisions were often made, and from this circumstance have arisen great evils to the people, and great confusion in the history of these times. We shall not occupy our pages with the name of a crowd of obscure kings, who reigned at Orleans, at Metz, at Soissons, or at Paris, or with the wars which they waged in disputing what they called their inheritances. In this tissue of cruelties, assassinations, and inglorious combats, we find no one point to which we can refer for any great changes, or for events of any political importance. After two successive wars the Franks completely subjugated the Burgundians; they afterwards drove the Goths from the provinces of the Alps. The emperor Justinian about this time (A.D. 535) granted to the French kings the rights of empire over the Gauls. Clotaire, who was at first only king of Soissons, was at the time of his death in posse

His

sion of the entire monarchy of Clovis. children shared his dominions among them; but they had Paris for their common centre: yet the queens Fredegonda and Brunehaut excited perpetual wars among them. The former was a prodigy of boldness, of wickedness, and genius; and gained several battles in person; the other, if we may believe records which generally abound in contradictions, died a most dreadful death. Dagobert was a prodigal king, who burdened France with taxes, to found monasteries and support his mistresses. Although a popular song has styled him the good king, the treacherous massacre of 15,000 Bulgarians, who sought an asylum in his dominions, and whom he had permitted to pass the winter there, by no means proves his humanity. The monks have made him a saint; but it must be remembered, that Eloi, his goldsmith and treasurer, scarcely ever concerned himself with the finances, except for the purpose of adding to the number of monasteries. This period of the history of France affords very little that is interesting; we, however, find in it the beginnings of the feudal system, which for so long a time oppressed the people and devoured France.

What were exactly the countries which fell to the Franks after the above conquest, or were given to them by their kings, is a point on which historians are not agreed. A similar obscurity rests on the subject of those lands called Salic, which, having been granted in recompense for military service, could not be inherited by women, a custom from which is derived the famous Salic law, which excludes females from the throne of France. Certain it is, that the kings, after the example of the Romans, granted lands, or military benefices, at first for a time, and afterwards for life. The great men, called fidelles, who had the nearest access to the kings, who fought at their sides, who formed their council, and swore allegiance to them, transmitted these concessions in inheritance to their posterity. Each of them possessed a seniorate or seigniory, a name borrowed from the municipal regulations of the Romans, and by which the Franks, or even the Gauls before them, designated the public authority attached to the domain, and a superiority over the neighbouring estates. This was the commencement of feudality, a kind of sovereignty of the castle over the country, of the landlord over the tenant. The seniores or seigniors would necessarily soon become many petty tyrants. From that time they exercised the right of civil and political justice in their several cantons; fines and confiscatiors became their perquisites of office. These seigniories were then few in number, but in aftertimes they spread over Europe. The bishops and monks also became seigniors, as the seigniors and military men became bishops and abbots; the priests held the highest station at this epoch. The most ignorant superstition enslaved the minds of men, and from this the church derived immense riches. But oppression was perpetually changing places, and thus accomplishing in part the work of justice. The soldiers pillaged the people, and the churchmen levied a tax upon the territories of the soldiers; again the king

SO