ThispretensioncannotbeappliedtothetimewhenClovis，uponhisenteringGaul，tookandplunderedthetowns；neitherisitapplicabletotheperiodwhenhedefeatedSyagrius，theRomancommander，andconqueredthecountrywhichheheld；itcan，therefore，bereferredonlytotheperiodwhenClovis，alreadymasterofagreatpartofGaulbyopenforce，wascalledbythechoiceandaffectionofthepeopletothesovereigntyovertherest。AnditisnotenoughthatCloviswasreceived，hemusthavebeencalled；theAbbéduBosmustprovethatthepeoplechoserathertoliveunderClovisthanunderthedominationoftheRomansorundertheirownlaws。NowtheRomansbelongingtothatpartofGaulnotyetinvadedbytheBarbarianswere，accordingtothisauthor，oftwosorts：thefirstwereoftheArmoricanconfederacy，whohaddrivenawaytheemperor’sofficersinordertodefendthemselvesagainsttheBarbarians，andtobegovernedbytheirownlaws；thesecondweresubjecttotheRomanofficers。Now，doestheAbbéproduceanyconvincingproofsthattheRomans，whowerestillsubjecttotheempire，calledinClovis？Notone。DoesheprovethattherepublicoftheArmoricansinvitedClovis；orevenconcludedanytreatywithhim？Notatall。Sofarfrombeingabletotellusthefateofthisrepublic，hecannotevensomuchasproveitsexistence；andnotwithstandinghepretendstotraceitfromthetimeofHonoriustotheconquestofClovis，notwithstandingherelateswithmostadmirableexactnessalltheeventsofthosetimes；stillthisrepublicremainsinvisibleinancientauthors。ForthereisawidedifferencebetweenprovingbyapassageofZozimus[191]thatundertheEmperorHonorius，thecountryofArmorica[192]andtheotherprovincesofGaulrevoltedandformedakindofrepublic，andshowingusthatnotwithstandingthedifferentpacificationsofGaul，theArmoricansformedalwaysaparticularrepublic，whichcontinuedtilltheconquestofClovis；andyetthisiswhatheshouldhavedemonstratedbystrongandsubstantialproofs，inordertoestablishhissystem。Forwhenwebeholdaconquerorenteringacountry，andsubduingagreatpartofitbyforceandopenviolence，andsoonafterfindthewholecountrysubdued，withoutanymentioninhistoryofthemannerofitsbeingeffected，wehavesufficientreasontobelievethattheaffairendedasitbegan。
Whenwefindhehasmistakenthispoint，itiseasytoperceivethathiswholesystemfallstotheground；andasoftenasheinfersaconsequencefromtheseprinciplesthatGaulwasnotconqueredbytheFranks，butthattheFrankswereinvitedbytheRomans，wemaysafelydenyit。
ThisauthorproveshisprinciplebytheRomandignitieswithwhichCloviswasinvested：heinsiststhatClovissucceededtoChilderichisfatherintheofficeofmagistermiliti？。Butthesetwoofficesaremerelyofhisowncreation。St。Remigius’lettertoClovis，onwhichhegroundshisopinion，isonlyacongratulationuponhisaccessiontothecrown。[193]Whentheintentofawritingissowellknown，whyshouldwegiveitanotherturn？
Clovis，towardstheendofthereign，wasmadeconsulbytheEmperorAnastasius：butwhatrightcouldhereceivefromanauthoritythatlastedonlyoneyear？itisveryprobable，saysourauthor，thatinthesamediplomatheEmperorAnastasiusmadeClovisproconsul。And，Isay，itisveryprobablehedidnot。Withregardtoafactforwhichthereisnofoundation，theauthorityofhimwhodeniesisequaltothatofhimwhoaffirms。ButIhavealsoareasonfordenyingit。GregoryofTours，whomentionstheconsulate，saysneverawordconcerningtheproconsulate。Andeventhisproconsulatecouldhavelastedonlyaboutsixmonths。Clovisdiedayearandahalfafterhewascreatedconsul；
andwecannotpretendtomakethepro—consulateanhereditaryoffice。Infine，whentheconsulate，and，ifyouwill，theproconsulate，wereconferreduponhim，hewasalreadymasterofthemonarchy，andallhisrightswereestablished。
ThesecondproofallegedbytheAbbéduBosistherenunciationmadebytheEmperorJustinian，infavourofthechildrenandgrandchildrenofClovis，ofalltherightsoftheempireoverGaul。Icouldsayagreatdealconcerningthisrenunciation。WemayjudgeoftheregardshowntoitbythekingsoftheFranks，fromthemannerinwhichtheyperformedtheconditionsofit。Besides，thekingsoftheFranksweremastersandpeaceablesovereignsofGaul；Justinianhadnotonefootofgroundinthatcountry；thewesternempirehadbeendestroyedalongtimebefore，andtheeasternempirehadnorighttoGaul，butasrepresentingtheemperorofthewest。Thesewererightsuponrights；themonarchyoftheFrankswasalreadyfounded；theregulationoftheirestablishmentwasmade；thereciprocalrightsofthepersonsandofthedifferentnationswholivedinthemonarchywereadmitted，thelawsofeachnationweregivenandevenreducedtowriting。What，therefore，couldthatforeignrenunciationavailtoagovernmentalreadyestablished？
WhatcantheAbbémeanbymakingsuchaparadeofthedeclamationsofallthosebishops，who，amidsttheconfusionandtotalsubversionofthestate，endeavourtoflattertheconqueror？Whatelseisimpliedbyflatteringbuttheweaknessofhimwhoisobligedtoflatter？Whatdorhetoricandpoetryprovebuttheuseofthoseveryarts？IsitpossibletohelpbeingsurprisedatGregoryofTours，who，aftermentioningtheassassinationscommittedbyClovis，saysthatGodlaidhisenemieseverydayathisfeet，becausehewalkedinhisways？WhodoubtsbuttheclergyweregladofClovis’sconversion，andthattheyevenreapedgreatadvantagesfromit？ButwhodoubtsatthesametimethatthepeopleexperiencedallthemiseriesofconquestandthattheRomangovernmentsubmittedtothatoftheFranks？TheFrankswereneitherwillingnorabletomakeatotalchange；andfewconquerorswereeverseizedwithsogreatadegreeofmadness。ButtorenderalltheAbbéduBos’
consequencestrue，theymustnotonlyhavemadenochangeamongtheRomans，buttheymustevenhavechangedthemselves。
Icouldundertaketoprove，byfollowingthisauthor’smethod，thattheGreeksneverconqueredPersia。IshouldsetoutwithmentioningthetreatieswhichsomeoftheircitiesconcludedwiththePersians；I
shouldmentiontheGreekswhowereinPersianpay，astheFrankswereinthepayoftheRomans。AndifAlexanderenteredthePersianterritories，besieged，took，anddestroyedthecityofTyre，itwasonlyaparticularaffairlikethatofSyagrius。But，beholdtheJewishpontiffgoesforthtomeethim。ListentotheoracleofJupiterAmmon。RecollecthowhehadbeenpredictedatGordium。Seewhatanumberoftownscrowd，asitwere，tosubmittohim；andhowallthesatrapsandgrandeescometopayhimobeisance。HeputonthePersiandress；thisisClovis’consularrobe。
DoesnotDariusofferhimonehalfofhiskingdom？IsnotDariusassassinatedlikeatyrant？DonotthemotherandwifeofDariusweepatthedeathofAlexander？WereQuintiusCurtius，Arrian，orPlutarch，Alexander’scontemporaries？Hasnottheinventionofprintingaffordedusgreatlightwhichthoseauthorswanted？[194]SuchisthehistoryoftheEstablishmentoftheFrenchMonarchyinGaul。
25。OftheFrenchNobility。TheAbbéduBosmaintainsthatatthecommencementofourmonarchytherewasonlyoneorderofcitizensamongtheFranks。Thisassertion，soinjurioustothenoblebloodofourprincipalfamilies，isequallyaffrontingtothethreegreathouseswhichsuccessivelygovernedthisrealm。Theoriginoftheirgrandeurwouldnot，therefore，havebeenlostintheobscurityoftime。Historymightpointouttheageswhentheywereplebeianfamilies；andtomakeChilderic，Pepin，andHughCapetgentlemen，weshouldbeobligedtotracetheirpedigreeamongtheRomansorSaxons，thatis，amongtheconquerednations。
ThisauthorgroundshisopinionontheSaliclaw。[195]Bythatlaw，hesays，itplainlyappearsthattherewerenottwodifferentordersofcitizensamongtheFranks：itallowedacompositionoftwohundredsousforthemurderofanyFrankwhatsoever；[196]butamongtheRomansitdistinguishedtheking’sguest，forwhosedeathitgaveacompositionofthreehundredsous，fromtheRomanproprietortowhomitgrantedahundred，andfromtheRomantributarytowhomitgaveonlyacompositionofforty—five。Andasthedifferenceofthecompositionsformedtheprincipaldistinction，heconcludesthattherewasbutoneorderofcitizensamongtheFranks，andthreeamongtheRomans。
Itisastonishingthathisverymistakedidnotsethimright。And，indeed，itwouldhavebeenveryextraordinarythattheRomannobilitywholivedunderthedominationoftheFranksshouldhavehadalargercomposition，andbeenpersonsofmuchgreaterimportancethanthemostillustriousamongtheFranks，andtheirgreatestgenerals。Whatprobabilityistherethattheconqueringnationshouldhavesolittlerespectforthemselves，andsogreataregardfortheconqueredpeople？
Besides，ourauthorquotesthelawsofotherbarbarousnationswhichprovethattheyhaddifferentordersofcitizens。NowitwouldbeamatterofastonishmentthatthisgeneralruleshouldhavefailedonlyamongtheFranks。HenceheoughttohaveconcludedeitherthathedidnotrightlyunderstandorthathemisappliedthepassagesoftheSaliclaw，whichisactuallythecase。
Uponopeningthislaw，wefindthatthecompositionforthedeathofanAntrustio。[197]thatis，oftheking’svassal，wassixhundredsous；andthatforthedeathofaRoman，whowastheking’sguest，wasonlythreehundred。[198]Wefindtherelikewisethatthecomposition[199]forthedeathofanordinaryFrankwastwohundredsous；[200]andforthedeathofanordinaryRoman，wasonlyonehundred。[201]ForthedeathofaRomantributary，[202]whowasakindofbondmanorfreedman，theypaidacompositionofforty—fivesous：butIshalltakenonoticeofthis，anymorethanofthecompositionforthemurderofaFrankbondmanorofaFrankfreedman，becausethisthirdorderofpersonsisoutofthequestion。
Whatdoesourauthordo？HeisquitesilentwithrespecttothefirstorderofpersonsamongtheFranks，thatisthearticlerelatingtotheAntrustios；andafterwardsuponcomparingtheordinaryFrank，forwhosedeaththeypaidacompositionoftwohundredsous，withthosewhomhedistinguishesunderthreeordersamongtheRomans，andforwhosedeaththeypaiddifferentcompositions，hefindsthattherewasonlyoneorderofcitizensamongtheFranks，andthattherewerethreeamongtheRomans。
AstheAbbéisofopinionthattherewasonlyoneorderofcitizensamongtheFranks，itwouldhavebeenluckyforhimthattherehadbeenonlyoneorderalsoamongtheBurgundians，becausetheirkingdomconstitutedoneoftheprincipalbranchesofourmonarchy。Butintheircodeswefindthreesortsofcompositions，onefortheBurgundiansorRomannobility，theotherfortheBurgundiansorRomansofamiddlingcondition，andthethirdforthoseofalowerrankinbothnations。[203]
Hehasnotquotedthislaw。
Itisveryextraordinarytoseeinwhatmannerheevadesthosepassageswhichpresshimhardonallsides。[204]Ifyouspeaktohimofthegrandees，lords，andthenobility，these，hesays，aremeredistinctionsofrespect，andnotoforder；theyarethingsofcourtesy，andnotlegalprivileges；orelse，hesays，thosepeoplebelongedtotheking’scouncil；nay，theypossiblymightbeRomans：butstilltherewasonlyoneorderofcitizensamongtheFranks。Ontheotherhand，ifyouspeaktohimofsomeFranksofaninferiorrank，[205]hesaystheyarebondmen；andthusheinterpretsthedecreeofChildebert。ButImuststopherealittle，toinquirefartherintothisdecree。Ourauthorhasrendereditfamousbyavailinghimselfofitinordertoprovetwothings：theonethatallthecompositionswemeetwithinthelawsoftheBarbarianswereonlycivilfinesaddedtocorporalpunishments，whichentirelysubvertsalltheancientrecords；[206]theother，thatallfreemenwerejudgeddirectlyandimmediatelybytheking。[207]whichiscontradictedbyaninfinitenumberofpassagesandauthoritiesinformingusofthejudiciaryorderofthosetimes。[208]
Thisdecree，whichwasmadeinanassemblyofthenation，[209]saysthat，ifthejudgefindsanotoriousrobber，hemustcommandhimtobetied，inordertobecarriedbeforetheking，siFrancusfuerit；butifheisaweakerperson（debiliorpersona），heshallbehangedonthespot。AccordingtotheAbbéduBos，Francusisafreeman，debiliorpersonaisabondman。IshalldeferenteringforamomentintothesignificationofthewordFrancus，andbeginwithexaminingwhatcanbeunderstoodbythesewords，aweakerperson，Inalllanguageswhatsoever，everycomparisonnecessarilysupposesthreeterms，thegreatest，thelessdegree，andtheleast。Ifnonewereheremeantbutfreemenandbondmen，theywouldhavesaidabondman，andnotamanoflesspower。
Thereforedebiliorpersonadoesnotsignifyabondman，butapersonofasuperiorconditiontoabondman。Uponthissupposition，Francuscannotmeanafreeman，butapowerfulman；andthiswordistakenhereinthatacceptation，becauseamongtheFrankstherewerealwaysmenwhohadgreaterpowerthanothersinthestate，anditwasmoredifficultforthejudgeorcounttochastisethem。Thisconstructionagreesverywellwithmanycapitularies[210]wherewefindthecasesinwhichthecriminalsweretobecarriedbeforetheking，andthoseinwhichitwasotherwise。
ItismentionedintheLifeofLouistheDebonnaire，[211]writtenbyTegan，thatthebishopsweretheprincipalcauseofthehumiliationofthatemperor，especiallythosewhohadbeenbondmenandsuchaswerebornamongtheBarbarians。TeganthusaddressesHebo，whomthisprincehaddrawnfromthestateofservitude，andmadeArchbishopofRheims：
"WhatrecompensedidtheEmperorreceivefromyouforsomanybenefits？
Hemadeyouafreeman，butdidnotennobleyou，becausehecouldnotgiveyounobilityafterhavinggivenyouyourliberty。"[212]
Thispassage，whichprovessostronglythetwoordersofcitizens，doesnotatallconfoundtheAbbéduBos。Heanswersthus：[213]"ThemeaningofthispassageisnotthatLouistheDebonnairewasincapableofintroducingHebointotheorderofthenobility。Hebo，asArchbishopofRheims，musthavebeenofthefirstorder，superiortothatofthenobility。"Ileavethereadertojudgewhetherthisbenotthemeaningofthatpassage；Ileavehimtojudgewhethertherebeanyquestionhereconcerningaprecedenceoftheclergyoverthenobility。"Thispassageprovesonly，"continuesthesamewriter，[214]"thatthefree—bornsubjectswerequalifiedasnoblemen；inthecommonacceptation，noblemenandmenwhoarefree—bornhaveforthislongtimesignifiedthesamething。"What！becausesomeofourburghershavelatelyassumedthequalityofnoblemen，shallapassageoftheLifeofLouistheDebonnairebeappliedtothissortofpeople？"Andperhaps，"continueshestill，[215]"HebohadnotbeenabondmanamongtheFranks，butamongtheSaxons，orsomeotherGermannation，wherethepeopleweredividedintoseveralorders。"Then，becauseoftheAbbéduBos’"perhaps，"theremusthavebeennonobilityamongthenationoftheFranks。Butheneverapplieda"perhaps"sobadly。WehaveseenthatTegandistinguishesthebishops，[216]whohadopposedLouistheDebonnaire，someofwhomhadbeenbondmen，andothersofabarbarousnation。Hebobelongedtotheformerandnottothelatter。Besides，Idonotseehowabondman，suchasHebo，canbesaidtohavebeenaSaxonoraGerman；abondmanhasnofamily，andconsequentlynonation。LouistheDebonnairemanumittedHebo；andasbondmenaftertheirmanumissionembracedthelawoftheirmaster，HebohadbecomeaFrank，andnotaSaxonorGerman。
Ihavebeenhithertoactingoffensively；itisnowtimetodefendmyself。ItwillbeobjectedtomethatindeedthebodyoftheAntrustiosformedadistinctorderinthestatefromthatofthefreemen；butasthefiefswereatfirstprecarious，andafterwardsforlife，thiscouldnotformanoblenessofdescent，sincetheprivilegeswerenotannexedtoanhereditaryfief。ThisistheobjectionwhichinducedM。deValoistothinkthattherewasonlyoneorderofcitizensamongtheFranks；anopinionwhichtheAbbéduBoshasborrowedofhim，andwhichhehasabsolutelyspoiledwithsomanybadarguments。Bethatasitmay，itisnottheAbbéduBosthatcouldmakethisobjection。ForafterhavinggiventhreeordersofRomannobility，andthequalityoftheking’sguestforthefirst，hecouldnotpretendtosaythatthistitlewasagreatermarkofanobledescentthanthatofAntrustio。ButImustgiveadirectanswer。TheAntrustiosortrustymenwerenotsuchbecausetheywerepossessedofafief，butthattheyhadafiefgiventhembecausetheywereAntrustiosortrustymen。Thereadermaypleasetorecollectwhathasbeensaidinthebeginningofthisbook。Theyhadnotatthattime，astheyhadafterwards，thesamefief：butiftheyhadnotthat，theyhadanother，becausethefiefsweregivenattheirbirth，andbecausetheywereoftengrantedintheassembliesofthenation，and，infine，becauseasitwastheinterestofthenobilitytoreceivethemitwaslikewisetheking’sinteresttograntthem。Thesefamiliesweredistinguishedbytheirdignityoftrustymen，andbytheprivilegeofbeingqualifiedtoswearallegianceforafief。Inthefollowingbook[217]Ishalldemonstratehow，fromthecircumstancesofthetime，therewerefreemenwhowerepermittedtoenjoythisgreatprivilege，andconsequentlytoenterintotheorderofnobility。ThiswasnotthecaseatthetimeofGontram，andhisnephewChildebert；butsoitwasatthetimeofCharlemagne。Butthoughinthatprince’sreignthefreemenwerenotincapableofpossessingfiefs，yetitappears，bytheabove—citedpassageofTegan，thattheemancipatedserfswereabsolutelyexcluded。
WilltheAbbéduBos，whocarriesustoTurkeytogiveusanideaoftheancientFrenchnobility；[218]willhe，Isay，pretendthattheyevercomplainedamongtheTurksoftheelevationofpeopleoflowbirthtothehonoursanddignitiesofthestate，astheycomplainedunderLouistheDebonnaireandCharlestheBald？TherewasnocomplaintofthatkindunderCharlemagne，becausethisprincealwaysdistinguishedtheancientfromthenewfamilies；whichLouistheDebonnaire，andCharlestheBalddidnot。
ThepublicshouldnotforgettheobligationitowestotheAbbéduBosforseveralexcellentperformances。Itisbytheseworks，andnotbyhishistoryoftheEstablishmentoftheFrenchMonarchy，weoughttojudgeofhismerit。Hecommittedverygreatmistakes，becausehehadmoreinviewtheCountofBoulainvilliers’workthanhisownsubject。
FromallthesestricturesIshalldrawonlyonereflection：ifsogreatamanwasmistaken，howcautiouslyoughtItotread？
______
1。Quantumverticeadoras？thereas，tantumradiceadTartaratendit——
Virgil，Georg。，ii。292；？neid，iv。446。
2。Bookiv。
3。Forinstance，hisretreatfromGermany。——Ibid。
4。DeBelloGall。，vi。21；Tacitus，DeMoribusGermanorum，31。
5。DeMoribusGermanorum，13。
6。Comites。
7。DeBelloGall。，vi。22。
8。SeetheLifeofDagobert。
9。SeeGregoryofTours，vi，onthemarriageofthedaughterofChilperic。Childebertsendsambassadorstotellhimthatheshouldnotgivethecitiesofhisfather’skingdomtohisdaughter，norhistreasures，norhisbondmen，norhorses，norhorsemen，norteamsofoxen，&c。
10。TheRomansobligedthemselvestothisbytreaties。SeeZozimus，v，uponthedistributionofcorndemandedbyAlaric。——ED。
11。Marius’Chronicleintheyear456。
12。Bookx，tit。1，§§8，9，&16。
13。Chapter54，§§1，2。ThisdivisionwasstillsubsistinginthetimeofLouistheDebonnaire，asappearsbyhisCapitularyoftheyear829，whichhasbeeninsertedinthelawoftheBurgundians，tit。79，§1。
14。SeeProcopius，WaroftheGoths。
15。SeeProcopius，WaroftheVandals。
16。LawoftheBurgundians，tit。54，§1。
17。Art。11。
18。DeMoribusGermanorum，21。
19。AndinthatoftheVisigoths。
20。Tit。54。
21。ThisisconfirmedbythewholetitleofthecodedeAgricolisetCensitis，etColonis。
22。Tit。26，§§1，a。
23。Tit。57。
24。Ovid，Met。ii。134。
25。WhileGaulwasunderthedominionoftheRomanstheyformedparticularbodies；theseweregenerallyfreedmen，orthedescendantsoffreedmen。
26。SeeGregoryofTours，ii，27。Aimoin，i。12。
27。SeetheLivesoftheSaints，footnote7，below。
28。GregoryofTours，ii。
29。Ibid。，vi。31。
30。Cassiodorus，iii。43。
31。Intheyear763。
32。SeetheannalsofFuld，intheyear739，PaulusDiaconus，DegestisLongobardorum，iii。30，iv。1，andtheLivesoftheSaintsinthenextfootnote。
33。SeethelivesofSt。Epiphanius，St。Eptadius，St。C？sarius，St。
Fidolus，St。Porcian，St。Treverius，St。Eusichius，andofSt。Leger；
themiraclesofSt。Julian，&c。
34。Ovid，Met。，i。293。
35。Eventhehusbandmenthemselveswerenotallslaves；seetheLeg。18，23，Cod。deAgricolis，etCensitis，etColonis，andLeg。20ofthesametitle。
36。SeeGregoryofTours，ii。
37。Ibid。，v。28。
38。Ibid。，viii。36。
39。LifeofSt。Aridius。
40。Bookvii。
41。EstablishmentoftheFrenchMonarchy，iii。14，p。515。SeeBaluzius，ii，p。187。
42。Bookiii。36。
43。Bookiii，p。514。
44。Bookx，tit。1，cap。xiv。
45。TheVandalspaidnoneinAfrica。——Procopius，WaroftheVandals，i，ii。HistoriaMiscella，xvi，p。106。ObservethattheconquerorsofAfricawereamixtureofVandals，Alans，andFranks。HistoriaMiscella，xiv，p。94。
46。EstablishmentoftheFranksinGaul，iii。14，p。510。
47。HelaysastressuponanotherlawoftheVisigoths，x，tit。1，art。
11，whichprovesnothingatall；itsaysonlythathewhohasreceivedofalordapieceoflandonconditionofarentorserviceoughttopayit。
48。Bookiii，p。511。
49。Leg。3，xi，tit。74。
50。EstablishmentoftheFrenchMonarchy，iii。14，p。513，wherehequotesthe28tharticleoftheedictofPistes。Seefartheron。
51。Ibid。iii。4，p。298。