History of the Origin of Representative Government in EuropeGuizot, François
History
History of the Origin of Representative Government in Europe
Guizot, François
Europe -- History; Representative government and representation
We have already seen what were the causes which occasioned the
fall of the Merovingian race, and the accession of Carlovingians.
The fall of the latter, in the tenth century presents some
features of similarity to that of the Merovingians, but between
the two, there was greater diversity than resemblance. The
ancient companions of the Frankish kings, the Leudes, the
Antrustions, and the beneficiaries, had left the court,
established themselves on their lands, and become feudal lords:
revolutions were no longer effected at the foot of the throne,
and in the interior of the royal palace. The feudal lords were
much more isolated, not only from the king, but also from one
another, than the Leudes had been under the Merovingians. Pepin
the Short was king in fact when Childeric III. was king in name;
Pepin assumed the name belonging to his power. At the end of the
tenth century, there was no king, and no powerful man in the
king's service who wielded the royal power in the name of Louis
V. Hugh Capet took possession of an almost vacant place, which,
at the moment, added much to his dignity, but little to his
authority. After the fall of the Merovingians, Pepin and
Charlemagne were able to attempt to establish the monarchical
system, and to inaugurate the central authority of the king; Hugh
Capet was unable to do this, nor did he attempt it; the feudal
lordships had divided the kingdom amongst them. Pepin was the
head of an aristocracy which had its centre in the palace of the
Merovingian kings. Hugh Capet was one of the principal members of
an aristocracy which had no centre; he made himself king because
the crown was within his reach. If Louis V. had resided at Rouen,
the Duke of Normandy would probably have seized the monarchy.
As regards the nature and extent of the royal authority, what I
have already said sufficiently indicates what it was: very
limited and precarious before the settlement of the Franks on
Roman territory--being nothing but the power of the chief of a
warlike band, always restrained by the presence of the free men,
his comrades--it became extended and strengthened after the
conquest by various causes:
{161}
Authority And Liberty.
1. By the dispersion of the Franks. They ceased constantly, to
surround the king; his authority was but slight over those who
left him; but those who were habitually near him depended more
closely upon him; a court of barbarian servants succeeded to a
court of warriors.
2. By the subjugation of neighbouring chiefs or kings.
3. By the increasing inequality of wealth: the royal property
greatly augmented, and this was their principal source of
power; they devoted all their energies to the amassing of
treasure; it was useless to leave their children a kingdom,
unless they could at the same time bequeath to them a full
exchequer.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account