The French Revolution of 1789, as Viewed in the Light of Republican InstitutionsAbbott, John S. C. (John Stevens Cabot)
History
The French Revolution of 1789, as Viewed in the Light of Republican Institutions
Abbott, John S. C. (John Stevens Cabot)
France -- History -- Revolution, 1789-1799
At the next review of his troops, Clovis, approaching the soldier, took
his weapon as if to inspect it. Pronouncing it to be unfit for use,
he threw it disdainfully upon the ground. As the soldier stooped to
pick it up, Clovis with one blow of his battle-axe crushed his skull,
exclaiming, "Thus didst thou strike the vase at Soissons."[5]
The monarchy, thus established by usurpation, treachery, and blood, was
very precarious and shadowy in its power. There was no acknowledged
metropolis, no centralization of authority, no common laws. The whole
country was occupied by the various tribes of invaders, each, under
its own local chiefs, claiming independence, governed by its own
customs, and holding the province upon which it chanced to have taken
possession. Thus the supremacy of Clovis was neither precisely defined
nor boldly claimed.
When Cæsar, five hundred years before the rise of Clovis, invaded
Gaul, he found a tribe, called the Parisii, dwelling upon the banks
of the Seine, with their principal village--which consisted of a few
barbarian huts of mud, with straw roofs, and without chimneys--upon
a small island embraced by the river. From the name of the tribe the
village itself was subsequently called Paris. Such was the origin of
that world-renowned metropolis which for ages has been the focal point
of literature, science, art, and bloody revolutions. During the sway of
the Romans the city had increased very considerably in population and
importance, and Clovis selected it as his capital.
For about three hundred years the successors of Clovis maintained their
supremacy. During all this period there was a constant conflict between
the king and the heads of the other tribes, or the nobles as they
gradually began to be called. An energetic monarch would occasionally
arise and grasp extended power. But he would perhaps be succeeded by
a feeble ruler, and the nobles would again rally and make vigorous
encroachments upon the royal assumptions. The only contest, however,
was between the king and the nobles. The mass of the people were in
abject servitude, with no recognized rights.
In the year 732 the Moors, who had crossed the sea from Africa and
had overrun Spain, began to crowd down in battle array through the
defiles of the Pyrenees upon the plains of France. A successful
general, Charles _Martel_ (the hammer), so called from the tremendous
blows he dealt the enemy, met them and drove them back with prodigious
slaughter. By his achievements he acquired immense popularity and
renown. As a very feeble prince then occupied the throne, Charles
Martel collected the reins of power into his own hands, and, though
nominally but an illustrious general, became in reality the ruler of
France. Satisfied with the possession of power he was not ambitious of
the kingly title, or thought it not prudent to grasp at too much at
once.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account