Part 2 — Chapter IV.—Of Provincial and Communal Institutions. (continued 2)

Schröder, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (1889), pages 381-388.

{3747}

"By the time at which we have arrived (the Hohenstaufen Period) the knights themselves, 'ordo equestris major:' had come to form a class so distinct and so exclusive that no outsiders could enter it except in the course of three generations or by special decree of the king. Only to those whose fathers and grandfathers were of knightly origin could fiefs now be granted; only such could engage in judicial combat, in knightly sports and, above all, in the tournament or joust. … Feudalism did much to awaken a moral sentiment: fidelity, truth and sincerity were the suppositions upon which the whole system rested, and a great solidarity of interests came to exist between the lord and his vassals. The latter might bring no public charges against their master in matters affecting his life, limb or honor; on three grand occasions, in case of captivity, the knighting of his son, the marriage of his daughter, they were obliged to furnish him with pecuniary aid. Knightly honor and knightly graces come in the twelfth century to be a matter of fashion and custom; a new and important element, too, the adoration of woman, is introduced. A whole literature arises that has to do almost exclusively with knightly prowess and with knightly love. Altogether we see the dawn of a new social life."

E. F. Henderson, A History of Germany in the Middle Ages, page 424-425.

See, also, FEUDALISM (page 1117); and EUROPE (pages 1019-1020).

FIELD, Cyrus, and the ocean telegraph.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

FINNISH POPULAR POETRY.

See KALEVALA (page 1935).

FLEMINGS, Commerce of the.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

FLORENTINE BANKERS AND MONEY CHANGERS.

See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

FORMOSA.

"Formosa, or Taiwan, as it is called by the Chinese, is about 400 miles south of the mouth of the Yang-tse, and 100 from the mainland of China. It lies between 25° 20' and 21° 50' north latitude, is nearly 240 miles long, by an average of 75 miles wide, and has an area of about 12,000 square miles. It is remarkable for its beauty and fertility, and also for the variety of its products. It was formerly attached to the province of Fohkien, and governed by a resident commissioner; but since the Franco-Chinese War, during which the French, under Admiral Courbet, were foiled in their efforts to take possession of it, it has been erected into an independent province by imperial decree, and is now [1887] governed by Liu Ming-Ch'uan, an able and progressive man, with the title and almost unlimited authority of governor-general. The island was once in the possession of the Spaniards, who called it Formosa (beautiful), but did not colonize it. It then passed into the hands of the Dutch, who built Fort Zealandia, and established a trading-post on the southwest coast, near the present city of Taiwan-fu, and another known as the Red Fort, at Tamsui, on the northwest coast. But the Dutch in turn abandoned the island about the year 1660, immediately after which it was occupied and colonized by the Chinese from Amoy and other points on the coast of Fohkien. The population is now estimated by the governor-general at 4,000,000 Chinese and 60,000 savages, but the first figures are doubtless much too large. The savages are a fine race of men of the Malay or Polynesian type, who hold nearly all the east coast and the mountain region, covering over one half the island. They live mostly by hunting and fishing, or upon the natural products of the forest, and cultivate but little land. They wear scarcely any clothing, use bows, arrows, and knives, together with a few old-fashioned matchlocks, and yet withal they have up to the present time successfully resisted all efforts to subjugate them or to take possession of their fastnesses. They are brave, fierce, and active, but have made scarcely any progress in the arts of civilization. They are naturally kind and hospitable to Europeans, but look upon the Chinese as their deadly enemies."

J. H. Wilson, China, chapter 18.

In 1874, in order to obtain redress for a murder of Japanese sailors by savages on the eastern coast of Formosa, the Japanese Government undertook to take possession of the southern part of Formosa, "asserting that it did not belong to China because she either would not or could not govern its savage inhabitants. … The expedition was called a High Commission, accompanied by a force sufficient for its protection, sent to aboriginal Formosa to inquire into the murder of fifty-four Japanese subjects, and take steps to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. A proclamation was issued April 17, 1874, and another May 19th, stating that General Saigo was directed to call to an account the persons guilty of outrages on Japanese subjects. As he knew that China was not prepared to resist his landing at Liang-kiao, his chief business was to provide means to house and feed the soldiers under his command. The Japanese authorities do not appear very creditably in this affair. No sooner did they discover the wild and barren nature of this unknown region than they seemed fain to beat an incontinent and hasty retreat, nor did the troops landed there stand upon the order of their going. … The aborigines having fled south after the first rencontre, the Japanese leader employed his men as best he could in opening roads through the jungle and erecting houses. Meanwhile the Peking authorities were making preparations for the coming struggle, and though they moved slowly they were much in earnest to protect their territory. General Shin Pao-chin having been invested with full powers to direct operations against the Japanese forces, began at once to draw together men and vessels in Fuhchau and Amoy. The Japanese consuls at Amoy and Shanghai were allowed to remain at their posts; and during the year two envoys arrived at Pelting to treat with the Court. … The probabilities were strong against any settlement, when the parties were induced to arrange their quarrel by the intervention and wise counsel of Sir T. F. Wade, the British minister. The Japanese accepted 500,000 taels for their outlays in Formosa for roads, houses, and defences; agreeing thereupon to retire and leave the further punishment of the aborigines to the Chinese authorities. The two envoys left Peking, and this attempt at war was happily frustrated. … The civilization of all parts of Formosa has since rapidly advanced by the extension of tea and sugar culture, the establishment of Christian missions, and the better treatment of the native tribes."

S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 26 (volume 2).

FOURIER AND FOURIERISM.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847, and 1841-1847 (pages 2939 and 2943).

{3748}

—————FRANCE: Start————

FRANCE: Outline Sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1015. and after).

FRANCE: 1ST-5TH CENTURIES. The early routes and marts of trade.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

FRANCE: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES. Rise of the Privileged Bourgeoisies and the Communes. The double movement of Urban Emancipation.

"The 12th and 13th centuries saw the production of that marvelous movement of emancipation which gave liberty to serfs, created privileged bourgeoisies and independent communes, caused new cities and fortresses to issue from the earth, freed the corporations of merchants and artisans, in a word placed at the first stroke, beside royalty, feudality and the church, a fourth social force destined to absorb one day the three others. While the cultivator of the soil passed by enfranchisement from the category of things sold or given away into that of the free people (the only ambition permitted to the defenseless unfortunates who inhabited isolated farms or unwalled villages), the population grouped in the urban centers tried to limit or at least to regulate the intolerable exploitation of which it was the object. The bourgeois, that is to say the inhabitants of walled cities, born under the shelter of a donjon or au abbey, and the citoyens of the ancient episcopal cities, rivaled each other in efforts to obtain from the seigneurial power a condition more endurable in point of taxation, and the suppression of the most embarrassing hindrances to their commerce and manufactures. These inhabitants of towns and cities constituted, if only by being grouped together, a force with which feudality was very soon obliged to reckon. Divided, besides, into merchants' societies and companies of workmen they found within themselves the germ of organization which permitted collective resistance. The seigneur, intimidated, won by an offer of money, or decided by the thought that his domination would be more lucrative if the city became more prosperous, made the concessions which were asked of him. Thanks to a favorable concurrence of circumstances, charters of franchises were multiplied in all parts of France. At the end of the 12th century, the national territory, in the north as well as the south, was covered with these privileged cities or bourgeoisies, which, while remaining administered, judicially and politically, by seigneurial officers, had acquired, in matters financial, commercial and industrial, the liberties necessary to their free development. Feudality very soon found such an advantage in regulating thus the exploitation of the bourgeois, that it took the initiative itself in creating, in the uninhabited parts of its domains, privileged cities, complete in all their parts, designed to become so many centers of attraction for foreigners. It is the innumerable bourgeoisies and 'villes neuves' which represent the normal form of urban emancipation. Certain centers of population obtained at the first stroke the most extensive civil and financial liberties; but, in the majority of cases, the bourgeois could win their franchises only bit by bit, at the price of heavy pecuniary sacrifices, or as the result of an admirable perseverance in watching for opportunities and seizing them. The history of the privileged cities, whose principal virtue was a long patience, offers nothing moving or dramatic. … But the spectacle of these laborious masses persisting, in obscurity and silence, in the demand for their right to security and well-being, does not the less merit all our attention. What forces itself upon the meditations of the historian, in the domain of municipal institutions, is just the progress slow and obscure, but certain, of the dependent bourgeoisie. … The development of the seigneurial cities offers such a variety of aspects, their progressive and regular conquests were so important in the constitution of our rights public and private, that too much care and effort cannot be devoted to retracing minutely their course. This history is more than any other that of the origin of our third estate. It was in the privileged cities, to which the great majority of the urban population belonged, that it began its political education. The city charters constituted the durable lower stratum of its first liberties. In other words the third estate did not issue suddenly from the more or less revolutionary movement which gave birth to the independent communes: it owes its formation and its progress above all to this double pacific evolution: the possessors of fiefs enfranchising their bourgeoisie and the latter passing little by little entirely from the seigneurial government under that of royalty. This was not the opinion which prevailed at the time when the founder of the science of municipal institutions, Augustin Thierry, published in the 'Courrier Français' his admirable 'Lettres ' on the revolutions of the communes. The commune, a city dowered with judicial and political privileges, which conferred upon it a certain independence, administered by its elected magistrates, proud of its fortified inclosure, of its belfry, of its militia,—the commune passed at that time as the pre-eminent type of the free city of the middle ages. That great movement of urban and rural emancipation which stirred the France of the 12th century to its very depths was personified in it. So the commune concentrated historical interest upon itself, leaving in the shade all other forms of popular evolution. Guizot, who had the sense of truth rather than that of the picturesque, tried to combat this exclusive tendency. In the brilliant lessons that he gave at the Sorbonne on the history of the origins of the third estate, he showed, with his customary clearness, that the development of the bourgeois class was not accomplished by any single method; that the progress realized in the cities where the communal regime had never succeeded in establishing itself must also be taken into account. The impression left by the highly colored and dramatic recitals of Augustin Thierry remained for a long time the stronger. … Contemporary science has not only assigned to itself the mission of completing the work of the historians of the Restoration: it has desired also to improve it by rectifying, upon many points, the exaggerated opinions and false judgments of which the history of our urban institutions was at first the victim. It has been perceived that the communal movement properly so called did not have, upon the destinies of the popular class, the decisive, preponderant influence which was attributed to it 'a priori.' The commune, a brilliant but ephemeral form of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, has been set back little by little into its true place. {3749} It is now no longer regarded as an essential manifestation of our first democratic aspirations. One might be tempted to see on the contrary, in that collective seigneury, often hostile to the other social elements, impregnated with the spirit of 'particularisme,' made for war and agitated without cessation by warlike passions, an original but tardy product of the feudal principle. … We must be resigned to a fact in regard to which nothing can be done: the absence of documents relative to the municipal constitution of cities and towns during four hundred years, from the 7th century to the 11th. From all appearances, this enormous hiatus will never be overcome. … Facts being lacking, scholars have had recourse to conjecture. Some among them have supposed that the principal characteristics of the Gallo-Roman municipalities were perpetuated during this period. At bottom, their hypothesis rests principally upon analogies of names. … From the point of view of positive science, the Germanic origin of the communes is not more easy of demonstration. … It is even doubtful whether the essential element of the communal institution, the confederation formed by the inhabitants, under the guaranty of the mutual oath, belongs exclusively to the customs of the Germans. The theory of Augustin Thierry, which made of the commune a special application of the Scandinavian gilde, has been judged too narrow by contemporary scholars. They have reproached him with reason for having localized an institution which belongs entirely to the Germanic race. But the principle of association, applied in the cities, is not a fact purely German. … Association is a fact which is neither Germanic nor Roman; it is universal, and is produced spontaneously among all peoples, in all social classes, when circumstances exact and favor its appearance. The communal revolution then is a national event. The commune was born, like other forms of popular emancipation, from the need which the inhabitants of the cities had of substituting a limited and regulated exploitation for the arbitrary exploitation of which they were the victims. Such is the point of departure of the institution. We must always return to the definition of it given by Guibert de Nogent. It is true as a basis, although it does not embrace all the characteristics of the object defined: 'Commune! new name, detestable name! By it the censitaires are freed from all service in consideration of a simple annual tax; by it they are condemned, for the infraction of the law, only to a penalty legally determined; by it, they cease to be subjected to the other pecuniary charges by which the serfs are overwhelmed.' At certain points, this limitation of the seigneurial power was made amicably, by pacific transaction between the seigneur and his bourgeois. Elsewhere, an insurrection, more or less prolonged, was necessary in order to establish it. When this popular movement had as a result, not only the assuring to the people the most necessary liberties which were demanded, but besides that of abating to their advantage the political position of the master, by taking from him a part of his seigneurial prerogatives, there arose not only a free city, but a commune, a bourgeois seigneury, invested with a certain political and judicial power. This definition of the commune implies that originally it was not possible to establish it otherwise than by a pressure exerted, more or less violently, upon the seigneurial authority. We have the direct proof of it for some of our free municipalities, but it is presumable that many other communes whose primitive history we do not know have owed equally to force the winning of their first liberties. … We do not mean that, in the first period of the history of urban emancipation, all the communes, without exception, were obliged to pass through the phase of insurrection or of open resistance. There were some which profited (as the cities of the Flemish region in 1127) by a combination of exceptional circumstances to attain political liberty without striking a blow. Among these circumstances must be mentioned in the first rank the prolonged vacancy of an episcopal see and the disappearance of a laic lord, dead without direct heir, leaving a succession disputed by numerous competitors. But, ordinarily, the accession of the bourgeoisie to the rank of political power did not take place pacifically. Either the seigneur struggled against his rebellious subjects, or he feared the struggle and bent before the accomplished fact. In all cases it was necessary that the people were conscious of their power and imposed their will. This is proven by the dramatic episodes which the narrations of Augustin Thierry have forever rendered celebrated. … Later, in the decline of the 12th century, it must be recognized that the opinion of the dominant class ceased to be as hostile to the communes. When the conviction had been acquired that the popular movement was irresistible, it was tolerated; the best means even were sought to derive advantage from it. The Church always remained upon the defensive; but the king and the great feudal lords perceived that in certain respects the commune might be a useful instrument. They accepted then the communal organization, and they even came to create it where it was not spontaneously established. But it is easy to convince one's self that the communes of this category, those which owe their creation to the connivance or even to the initiative of the seigneur, did not possess the same degree of independence as the communes of the primitive epoch, founded by insurrection. On the whole, the communal revolution was only one of the aspects of the vast movement of political and social reaction which the excesses of the feudal regime engendered everywhere from the 11th to the 14th century. … One would like to possess the text of one of those oaths by which the bourgeois of the northern communes bound themselves together, for the first time, with or without the consent of their seigneur, in the most ancient period of the communal evolution. It would be of the highest interest for the historian to know how they set about it, what words were pronounced to form what the contemporary writers called a 'conjuration,' a 'conspiration,' a 'confederation.' No document of this nature and of that primitive epoch has come down to us. … The sum total of the sworn bourgeois constituted the commune. The commune was most often called 'communia,' but also, with varying termination, 'communa,' 'communio,' 'communitas.' {3750} Properly speaking and especially with reference to the origin, the name commune was given not to the city, but to the association of the inhabitants who had taken oath. For this reason also the expression 'commune jurée' was used. Later the acceptation of the word was enlarged; it designated the city itself, considered as a geographical unit. … The members of the commune, those who formed part of the sworn association, were properly called 'the sworn of the commune,' 'jurati communie,' or, by abridgment, 'the sworn,' 'jurati.' They were designated also by the expression: 'the men of the commune,' or, 'those who belong to the commune,' 'qui sunt de communia.' They were also entitled 'bourgeois,' 'burgenses,' more rarely 'bourgeois jurés'; sometimes also 'voisins,' 'vicini,' or even 'friends,' 'amici.' … We are far from having complete light on the question as to what conditions were exacted from those who entered the communal association, and to what classes of persons the access to the bourgeoisie was open or interdicted. The variety of local usages, and above all the impossibility of finding texts which apply to the most ancient period of urban emancipation, will always embarrass the historian. To find upon these matters clear documents, developed and precise, we must come down, generally, to the end of the 18th century or even to the century following, that is to say to the epoch of the decadence of the communal regime. … The bourgeois could not be diseased, that is to say, undoubtedly, tainted with an incurable malady and especially a contagious malady, as leprosy. … The communal law excluded also bastards. On this point it was in accord with the customary law of a very great number of French regions. … They refused also to receive into their number inhabitants encumbered with debts. The condition of debtor constituted in effect a kind of servitude. He no longer belonged to himself; his goods might become the property of the creditor, and he could be imprisoned. … With still more reason does it appear inadmissible that the serf should be called to benefit by the commune. The question of urban serfdom, in its relations with the communal institution, is extremely obscure, delicate and complex. There are however two facts in regard to which affirmation is allowable. It cannot be doubted that at the epoch of the formation of the communes, at the opening of the 12th century, there were no longer any serfs in many of the urban centers. It may be held also as certain that the desire to bring about the disappearance of this serfdom was one of the principal motives which urged the inhabitants to claim their independence. … The inhabitant who united all the conditions legally required for admission to the bourgeoisie was besides obliged to pay a town-due, ('droit d'entrée'). … If it was not always easy to enter a communal body, neither could one leave it as easily as might have been desired. The 'issue de commune' exacted the performance of a certain number of troublesome formalities. … So, it was necessary to pay to become a communist, and to pay yet more in order to cease to be one. The bourgeois was riveted to his bourgeoisie. … Up to this point we have examined only half the problem of the formation of the commune, approaching it on its general side. There remains the question whether all the popular element which existed in the city formed part of the body of bourgeoisie, and whether the privileged class, that of the nobles and clergy, was not excluded from it. … We shall have to admit as a general rule, that the nobles and the clergy while taking oath to the commune, did not in reality enter it. What must be rejected, is the sort of absolute, inviolable rule which has been formed on this opinion. In the middle ages especially there was no rule without exception. … The commune was an institution rather ephemeral. As a really independent seigneury, it scarcely endured more than two centuries. The excesses of the communists, their bad financial administration, their intestine divisions, the hostility of the Church, the onerous patronage of the 'haut suzerain,' and especially of the king: such were the immediate causes of this rapid decadence. The communes perished victims of their own faults, but also of the hate of the numerous enemies interested in their downfall. … The principal cause of the premature downfall of the communal regime is without any doubt the considerable development of the monarchical power in France at the end of the 18th century. The same force which annihilated feudality, to the profit of the national unit, was also that which caused the prompt disappearance of the independence of the bourgeois seigneuries. With its privileges and its autonomy, the commune impeded the action of the Capetains. Those quarrelsome and restless republics had no reason for existence, In the midst of the peaceful and obedient bourgeoisie upon which royalty had laid its hand. The commune then was sacrificed to the monarchical interest. In Italy and in Germany, the free cities enjoyed their independence much longer, by reason of the absence of the central power or of its weakness."

Achille Luchaire, Les Communes Francaises a l'époque des Capétiens directs (translated from the French), pages 1-16, 45-56, 65, and 288-290.

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270. The reign of Saint Louis. The monarchy in his time and its kingdom.

"The fundamental institution upon which all the social edifice rested, in the time of Saint Louis, was royalty. But this royalty, from the double point of view of theory and practice, was very different from what it had been originally. In principle it was the divine right, that is, it was an emanation from the Most High, and the king held of no other seigneur. This is what the feudal maxim expressed after its fashion; 'The king holds only of God and his sword.' … Royalty was transmitted by heredity, from father to son, and by primogeniture. However, this heredity, which had formerly needed a sort of election to confirm It, or at least popular acclamation, needed now to be hallowed by the unction of the church. Consecration, joined to the privilege of being the eldest of the royal race, made the king. … It must not be thought however that the ideas of the time attributed to the hereditary principle a force absolute and superior to all interests. Theologians could say to kings that the son should succeed the father if he imitated his probity; that power was transferred into other hands in punishment of injustice. … Christian tradition was, in fact, greatly opposed to what was then called tyranny. … Not only must royalty not be tyranny, but it must admit the representatives of the nation, in a certain measure, to a participation in the government. …

{3751}

In practice, without doubt, these salutary principles were often disregarded; but it is still much that they were professed, and this fact alone constitutes an enormous difference between the middle ages and the later centuries. The royal power, besides, had not yet a material force sufficiently great to dominate everywhere as absolute master. Under the two first lines, it was exercised in the same degree over all points of the territory; from the accession of the third, on the contrary, it was only a power of two degrees, having a very unequal action according to the territory and the locality. A part of France composed the royal domain; it was the patrimony of the Capetian house, increased by conquest or successive acquisitions. There, the king exercised an authority almost without limit; he was on his own ground. All the rest formed duchies, counties, or seigneuries of different sorts, possessed hereditarily by great vassals, more or less independent originally. Here the king was only the suzerain; he had scarcely any rights excepting to homage, to military service, to pecuniary assistance in certain stated cases, and to some privileges called royal, as that of coining money. The entire royal policy, from Philip Augustus to Louis XI., consisted in skilfully increasing the first of these parts by absorbing little by little the second. … The kingdom of France, in the time of Saint Louis, was still very nearly as the treaty of Verdun had established it. On the north and east, it was bounded by the Empire of Germany. The frontier line passed a little beyond the cities of Ghent, Audenarde, Tournai, Douai, Guise, Mézières, Grandpré, Vitry, Joinville, Fay, Mirabeau; then it followed the course of the Saône and the Rhône, from which it diverged only in two places in order to attribute to the Empire the, at least, nominal possession of part of Lyonnais and Vivarais. On the south, the Pyrenees formed, as originally, the natural limit; but from the treaty of Corbeil (1258) Roussillon remained with the king of Aragon, in exchange for his right over the county of Foix, the territory of Sault, Fenouilhedès and Narbonnais. On the other hand, the vast duchy of Guienne, comprising Bearn and the county of Bigorre, came … under the suzerainty of the king of France only by virtue of the treaty of Paris (1259). On the west the kingdom was bounded only by the ocean, Brittany also having rendered homage to the crown from the time of Philip Augustus. Thus Saint Louis and his son left it, on the whole, more extensive than it was before them, and if it was more limited than the France of the present, on the east, it reached, on the contrary, farther to the north. The royal domain embraced in 1226 only the half of this immense perimeter. It was composed of the primitive nucleus of the Capetian possessions: that is, of the Isle of France and of Orleannais; then of French Vexin. Gâtinais and the viscounty of Bourges, brought by Philip I.; of the county of Corbeil and the seigneury of Monthléry, acquired by Louis VI.; of Artois, Vermandois (with the county of Amiens), Valois, Norman Vexin, of the counties of Evreux, Meulan, Alençon, Perché, Beaumont sur Oise, acquired by Philip Augustus and Louis VIII.; finally the territory obtained by the former from John Lackland by war or by confiscation, that is, all Normandy, Touraine, Perigord, Limousin, and the viscounty of Turenne. Anjou, Maine, Poitou, Auvergne, Angoumois, included in the same conquest, had since been detached from the crown to form princely appanages. The profitable domain of Perigord of Limousin and of the viscounty of Turenne, was reconveyed, in 1259, to the king of England, … in order to bring all the region of the southwest within the pale of the royal suzerainty. But Saint Louis compensated for this diminution by acquiring successively the two great seneschalates of Nîmes and of Carcassonne, the counties of Clermont, of Mortain, of Macon, and Philip the Bold did more than redeem it, by realizing the annexation, so skilfully prepared by Blanche of Castile, of the last domains of the count of Toulouse, which had become those of Alphonse of Poitiers, that is, of nearly all Languedoc. The possessions of the crown thus formed two or three separate groups, cut up in the most fantastic fashion, and connected only as the result of long effort. All the rest of the kingdom was composed of great fiefs escaping the direct action of royalty, and themselves subdivided into lesser fiefs, which complicated infinitely the hierarchy of persons and lands. The principal were the counties of Flanders, Boulogne, Saint Pol, Ponthieu, Aumale, Eu, Soissons, Dreux, Montford-l'Amaury; the bishoprics of Tournai, Beauvais, Noyon, Laon, Lisieux, Reims, Langres, Chalons, the titularies of which were at the same time counts or seigneurs; the vast county of Champagne, uniting those of Réthel, Grandpré, Roucy, Brienne, Joigny and the county Porcien; the duchy of Burgundy, so powerful and so extensive; the counties of Nevers, Tonnerre, Auxerre, Beaujeu, Forez, Auvergne; the seigneury of Bourbon; the counties of Blois and of Chartres; the county or duchy of Brittany; Guienne, and, before 1271, the county of Toulouse; the bishoprics of Albi, Cahors, Mende, Lodève, Agde, Maguelonne, belonging temporally as well as spiritually to their respective bishops; finally the seigneury of Montpellier, holding of the last of these bishoprics. To which must yet be added the appanages given by Louis VIII. to his younger sons, that is, the counties of Artois, Anjou, Poitiers, with their dependencies. … So when the government of the kingdom at this epoch is spoken of, it must be understood to mean that of only the least considerable part of the territory,—that is, of the part which was directly submitted to the authority of the king. In this part the sovereign himself exercised the power, assisted, as ordained by the theories examined above, by auxiliaries taken from the nation. There were neither ministers nor a deliberative corps, properly speaking; however there was very nearly the equivalent. On one side, the great officers of the crown and the royal council, on the other the parliament and the chamber of accounts (exchequer), or at least their primitive nucleus, constituted the principal machinery of the central government, and had, each, its special powers. The great officers, of whom there had at first been five, were only four from the reign of Philip Augustus, who had suppressed the seneschal owing to the possibility of his becoming dangerous by reason of the progressive extension of his jurisdiction; they were the bouteiller, who had become the administrator of the royal expenditure; the chambrier, elevated to the care of the treasury; the connétable, a kind of military superintendent; and the chancelier, who had the disposition of the royal seal. {3752} These four personages represented in a certain degree, secretaries of state. The two latter had a preponderant influence, one in time of peace, the other in time of war. To the chancellor belonged the drawing up and the proper execution (legalization) of the royal diplomas; this power alone made him the arbiter of the interests of all private individuals. As to the constable he had the chief direction of the army, and all those who composed it, barons, knights, paid troops, owed him obedience. The king, in person, had the supreme command; but he frequently allowed the constable to exercise it, and, in order not to impose too heavy a burden upon him, or rather to prevent his taking a too exclusive authority, he had appointed as coadjutors two 'maréchaux de France' who were second in command. … The king's council had not yet a very fixed form. Saint Louis submitted important questions to the persons about him, clerics, knights or men of the people; but he chose these advisers according to the nature of the questions, having temporary counsellors rather than a permanent council. Among these counsellors some were more especially occupied with justice, others with finance, others with political affairs. These three categories are the germ of the parliament, of the exchequer, and of the council of state; but they then formed an indistinct ensemble, called simply the king's court. They were not completely separated so as to form independent institutions until the time of Philippe le Bel. The first, that which later constituted the parliament, belongs especially to the judicial department. … The second, while not yet elevated into a distinct and permanent body, is already delegated to special duties, being charged with examining the accounts of the baillis and seneschals. The 'gentlemen of the accounts' ('gentes quae ad nostros computos deputantur') began under Saint Louis to meet periodically in the Temple, at Paris, and to exercise a regular control over the public finances; so that this new creation, which was, later, to render services so important, was an outcome of the scrupulous probity with which the royal conscience was filled. … The superior jurisdiction is represented by the parliament. The organization of this famous body was begun in the lifetime of Philip Augustus. Under the reign of this prince [Saint Louis] and notably as a result of his absence, the 'cour du roi' had begun to render more and more frequent decisions. The section which was occupied with judicial affairs, appears to have taken on, in the time of Saint Louis, an individual and independent existence. Instead of following the sovereign and meeting when he thought it expedient, it became sedentary. … The date at which the series of the famous registers of the parliament, known under the name of Olim begins may be considered that of the definitive creation of this great institution. It will be remarked that it coincides with the general reform of the administration of the kingdom undertaken by the good king on his return from Syria. … From its birth the parliament tended to become, in the hands of royalty, a means of domination over the great vassals. Not only were the seigneurs insensibly eliminated from it, to the advantage of the clergy, the lawyers, and the officers of the crown, but by a series of skilful victories, its action was extended little by little over all the fiefs situated outside the royal domain, that is over all France. It is again Saint Louis who caused this great and decisive advance toward the authority of the suzerain. He brought it about especially by the abolition of the judicial duel and by the multiplication of appeals to the parliament. … As for the appeals the interdiction of 'fausser jugement' (refusal to submit to the sentence pronounced) was not the only cause of their multiplication. Many of the great vassals were led to bring their affairs before the king's court, either on account of the confidence inspired by the well known equity of Saint Louis, or by the skill of the royal agents, who neglected no opportunity to cause the acceptance of the arbitration of the crown; and those who did not resign themselves to it were sometimes compelled to do so. The appeals of their subjects naturally took the same route; however they continued to employ the medium of the seneschal's court or that of the bailli, while those of the barons and the princes of the blood went directly to Paris. No general law was promulgated in regard to the matter. Royalty was content to recover little by little, by partial measures, the superior jurisdiction formerly usurped by the feudality. … Above and outside of the parliament justice was rendered by the king in person. … Saint Louis, always thoughtful of the interests of the lowly, had a liking for this expeditious manner of terminating suits. Nearly every morning, he sent two or three members of his council to inquire, at the palace gate, if there were not some private individuals there wishing to discuss their affairs before him; from this came the name 'plaids de la porte' given to this kind of audience. If his counsellors could not bring the parties to an agreement, he called the latter into his own room, examined their case with his scrupulous impartiality, and rendered the final sentence himself on the spot. Joinville, who took part more than once in these summary judgments, thus describes to us their very simple mechanism. 'The king had his work regulated in such a way, that monseigneur de Nesle and the good count de Soissons, and the rest of us who were about him, who had heard our masses, went to hear the 'plaids de la porte,' which are now called 'requêtes' (petitions). And when he returned from the monastery, he sent for us, seated himself at the foot of his bed, made us all sit around him, and asked us if there were any cases to despatch which could not be disposed of without him; and we named them to him, and he sent for the parties and asked them: Why do you not take what our people offer you? And they said: Sire, because they offer us little. Then he said to them: You should take what they are willing to give you. And the saintly man labored in this way, with all his might to set them in a just and reasonable path.' Here the great peace-maker is clearly seen; private individuals as well as princes, he desired to reconcile all, make all agree. These patriarchal audiences often had for theater the garden of the palace or the wood of Vincennes. The legendary oak which sheltered the modern Solomon remains in all memoirs as the symbol of his kindly justice and of his popularity, well acquired."

A. Lecoy de la Marche, La France sous Saint Louis et sous Philippe le Hardi, liv. 1, chapter 2, and liv. 2, chapters 1 and 3.

{3753}

FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429. The family and circumstances of Jeanne d' Arc.

"What were the worldly circumstances, what was the social position, of the parents of Jeanne d'Arc? Questioned on these points, the people of the country, called to testify at the public inquiry, in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings, all made the same reply; they said that the father and mother of the maid were unassuming husbandmen and possessed with their cottage only a moderate patrimony. According to a memorandum, made out with the assistance of papers and family traditions, a memorandum transmitted by the abbé Mandre, curé of Damvillers (Meuse), who died about 1820, to his nephew Mr. Villiaumé, father of the historian of Jeanne d' Arc and of the Revolution, the real estate belonging to Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée represented about twenty hectares, of which twelve were cultivated, four were meadow and four woodland, and in the latter the 'bois Chesnu'; they had beside their house, their furniture and a reserve of two or three hundred francs which they kept carefully in view of the possibility of a flight before some invasion, such as they had been obliged to take to Neufchâteau. By cultivating, themselves, what they possessed, they could obtain from it an annual revenue equivalent to four or five thousand francs of our money, which permitted them to distribute alms to the poor, notwithstanding their moderate patrimony, and to give hospitality to the mendicant friars as well as to the travelers who often passed through that country. If these valuations are not rigorously exact, they appear to us at least quite reasonable, though we are ignorant of the data upon which they rest. In a parochial register of Domremy, transcribed in 1490, we read that Jacob d'Arc and Ysabellot, his wife, had established an annual income of two gros [gros of Lorraine, coin worth 1/8 oz. of silver] in favor of the curé of Domremy from a 'fauchée' and a half [day and a half's mowing] of field situated in the 'ban' of Domremy, above the bridge, between the heirs Janvrel and the heirs Girardin, on condition of the celebration of two masses each year during the week of the Fontaines for anniversary services for the dead. The property of these honest people constituted, if we may judge by the different replies of the Maid compared with one another, what was called then in the Barrois a 'gagnage' or little farm; now, what distinguished the gagnage from the simple 'conduit,' was that the first always employed for the needs of cultivation a certain number of horses. The usage was at that time, in that region, to attach three or four mares to the plough, and they even had, at least in the great gagnages, a special horse to drag the harrow. Besides this property situated at Domremy, it may be supposed that Jacques d'Arc possessed in right of his wife some pieces of land at Vouthon, for we see by a register of the writs of court of the provostship of Gondrecourt that the eldest of his sons named Jacquemin made his residence from 1425 in this village of the Barrois holding where he cultivated undoubtedly the little patrimony of Isabelle Romée. Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle de Vouthon had three sons, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and two daughters, the elder named Catherine, the younger Jeanne or rather Jeannette, she who was by her heroism to immortalize her line. Two documents … prove with evidence that Jacques d'Arc figured in the first rank of the notables of Domremy. In the first of these, dated Maxey-sur-Meuse, October 7, 1423, he is styled 'doyen' of that village and by this title comes immediately after the mayor and alderman. 'In general,' says M. Edward Bonvalot, speaking of the villages in the region of the Meuse governed by the famous charter of Beaumont in Argonne, 'there is but one doyen or sergeant in each village, who convokes the bourgeois to the electoral assemblies and to the sittings of the court; it is he also who convokes the mayor, aldermen and the men of the commune to their reunions either periodical or special; it is he who cries the municipal resolutions and ordinances; it is he who commands the day and night watch; it is he who has charge of prisoners. Among the privileges which he enjoys must be cited the exemption from the taxes (deniers) of the bourgeoisie. At Linger, he has the same territorial advantages as the clerk of the commune.' It is seen by various documents that the doyens were also charged with the collection of the 'tailles,' 'rentes' and 'redevances,' and that they were appointed to supervise bread, wine and other commodities as well as to test weights and measures. In the second document, drawn up at Vaucouleurs March 31, 1427, Jacques d'Arc appears as the agent of the inhabitants of Domremy in a suit of great importance which they then had to sustain before Robert de Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs. … The situation of Domremy was privileged, and, thanks to this situation, humble peasants who had few needs found even in the soil which they cultivated nearly everything which was necessary for their subsistence. The heights crowned with beeches and venerable oaks, which shut in on the west the valley where the village lies, furnished fire-wood in abundance; the acorns permitted the fattening of droves of hogs; the beautiful vineyard of Greux, exposed to the east and climbing the slopes of these heights since the 14th century, produced that light wine, excessively acid, which is not the less agreeable to the somewhat harsh palate of the children of the Meuse; the fields lying at the foot of these slopes and contiguous to the houses were reserved for the cultivation of the cereals, of wheat, of rye and of oats; finally, between these cultivated fields and the course of the Meuse, over a breadth of more than a kilometer stretched those verdant meadows whose fertility equals their beauty and from which is still taken the best and most renowned hay of all France. The principal wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy was the cattle which they pastured in these meadows, where each, after the hay-harvest, had the right to pasture a number of heads of cattle proportioned to that of the 'fauchées de pré' [days mowings of field] that he possessed. This is what was called the 'ban de Domremy' the care of which was confided, by turns, to a person taken from each 'conduit' or household. It may be seen by certain replies of Jeanne to her judges at Rouen that she had been more than once appointed to this charge, when the turn of her parents came, and her enemies had not failed to seize upon this circumstance to pretend to see in her only a shepherdess by profession. … {3754} Most of the historians of Jeanne d'Arc have made a great mistake when they have imagined Domremy an out-of-the-way corner and isolated, so to speak, from the rest of the world; on the contrary, a road much frequented toward the end of the middle ages crossed this village. This was the old Roman road from Langres to Verdun which passed through Neufchâteau, Domremy, Vaucouleurs, Void, Commercy and Saint-Mihiel; it had acquired yet more importance since the marriage of Philip the Bold and Margaret, daughter of Louis de Male, had brought into the same hand Flanders, Artois and Burgundy. This marriage had had the effect of giving increased activity to the exchanges between the extreme possessions of the Burgundian princes. … It may be seen by what precedes that, like the legendary beech of her native village, the childhood of the virgin of Domremy sprang out of a soil full of vigor and was in the main haunted by beneficent fairies. Born in a fertile and smiling corner of the earth, the issue of an honest family, whose laborious mediocrity was elevated enough to touch nobility when ennobling itself by alms-giving, and humble enough to remain in contact with all the poor; endowed by nature with a robust body, a sound intelligence and an energetic spirit, the little Jeannette d'Arc became under these gentle influences all goodness and all love. Certain facts which are related of her early years show her religiously enamored of country life. She gave some wool from her sheep to the bell-ringer of Domremy to render him more zealous in fulfilling his office, so much did the silvery chiming of his church bell, sounding suddenly in the quiet of the valley, enchant her ear. And the inspiring virtue of the cool shadows, of the 'frigus opacum' of Virgil, who had better felt it than she who replied to her judges at Rouen: 'If I were in the midst of the woods, I should hear my voices better.' … One of the consequences of the treaty of Troyes was the occupation of Champagne by the [English] invaders.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422 (page 1175).

It is certain, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary of many historians of Jeanne, that from this date the English were rendered absolutely masters of the bailiwick of Chaumont. The principal fortresses of Bassigny, notably Nogent-le-Roi and Montigny-le-Roi, received garrisons of the enemy. The 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' preserved in our National Archives, where the acts emanating from the English government [chancellorship] during this period are registered, are full of letters of pardon or of remission granted in the name of Henry V. and Henry VI. to different inhabitants of this bailiwick, and nothing proves better to what degree the authority of the king of England was at that time received and accepted in this region. Some of these letters were given on account of offenses committed in the provostship of Andelot, of which the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs held, as is known. This châtellenie was, in truth, the last fragment of French soil that Charles VII. had kept at the eastern extremity of his kingdom, as he had succeeded in keeping Mont-Saint-Michel at the western extremity. Pressed upon by the Anglo-Burgundians on the south, by the restless and violent Robert of Saarbruck, seigneur of Commercy, on the north, hemmed in, on the east and west, between the possessions of the dukes of Bar and of Lorraine, who were unceasingly at war with their neighbors, this little corner of the earth was a sort of arena where all parties came into collision; and during the four or five years which immediately preceded the first apparition of the archangel Michael to the Maid, toward the middle of 1425, ten or twelve leaders of bands may be counted who emulated each other, as it were, in ravaging it in all directions. During the first half of the 15th century, the men at arms of the marches of Lorraine had the reputation of being, with the Bretons, the greatest pillagers in the world. … We know now in all its details a curious episode which particularly concerns the native village of Jeanne. This episode had remained completely unknown up to the present day, and it was a fortunate accident which, in the beginning of our researches, commenced in 1878, caused us to discover in the National Archives, in the 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' the document in which the relation of it is found. There is question in this document of a remission of penalty granted by King Charles VII. to a certain Burthélemy de Clefmont for the murder of an Anglo-Burgundian band-leader who had carried away the cattle from two villages of the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs; now, these two villages are precisely Greux and Domremy. … Different circumstances of the narrative, compared with several documents relative to the leader killed by Barthélemy de Clefmont, do not permit us to place the incident at any other date than 1425. … The principal, not to say the only wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy, was the cattle which they pastured in the meadows of the Meuse. The configuration of the soil permits the cultivation only of some fields situated along the border of these meadows, at the foot of the wooded hill against which the village is set; so, the little grain that was harvested there would not have sufficed to feed the population. … We understand then the important injury done to these unfortunate peasants by taking from them at one stroke all the communal flock; they were completely ruined; they were stripped between one day and another of the most precious of their possessions; they were almost condemned to die of poverty with very brief delay. Such a disaster would have cast down a spirit of ordinary temper; it had no other effect than to exalt the profound faith and to awaken the already extraordinary energies of the little Jeannette d'Arc. Endowed, notwithstanding her tender years, with that almost superhuman moral force of which we read that it transports mountains, she called Heaven confidently to the assistance of her people, and our readers already know that Heaven heard her voice. Jeanne de Joinville, lady of Ogéviller, the good châtelaine of Domremy, must have been keenly touched by the unfortunate situation caused to her people, and she had besides the greatest interest in making the brigands in the pay of Henri d'Orly disgorge, in order to assure the payment of her taxes. This is why she complained to her cousin Antoine de Lorraine, count of Vaudemont, who had in his immediate tenure the château of Doulevant, occupied by the chief of these brigands. The count hastened to give satisfaction to the demands of his relative; he sent Barthélemy de Clefmont, one of his men at arms, in pursuit of the marauders. {3755} The expedition was a complete success. Though the cattle had already been taken as far as Dommartin-le-Franc, twenty leagues distant from the shores of the Meuse, they were recovered. Antoine de Lorraine then caused them to be restored to the lady of Ogéviller whose people, those of Greux as well as of Domremy, thus came again into possession of the precious booty which had been stolen from them and which they believed irreparably lost. What a signal favor of Providence, a miracle, these poor people in general and Jeannette d'Arc in particular must have seen in a restitution so unhoped for! In the meantime,—we may reasonably suppose this, if not affirm it with certainty,—the news of a great defeat inflicted on the English before Mont-Saint-Michel, toward the end of June 1425, by sea as well as by land, must have arrived at Domremy. Almost at the same time, that is in the last days of the following August, they learned that these same English had just invaded Barrois and that they had burned dwellings at Revigny as well as in the ban of Chaumont, near Bar-le-Duc. Never had Jeanne felt more sorrowfully 'the pity it was for the kingdom of France,' and never also had she had a more entire faith in God to assure the salvation of her country. The theft, then the restitution of the cattle of Greux and Domremy, the victory won by the defenders of Mont-Saint-Michel, the invasion of Barrois by the English, here are the three principal occurrences which immediately preceded and which explain, at least in a certain degree, the first apparition of the archangel Michael to the little Jeannette d'Arc."

S. Luce, Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy (translated from the French), chapters 2-3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1582. Footing secured at the mouth of the Senegal.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1582.

FRANCE: A. D. 1631. First printed newspaper publication.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1631 (page 2594).

FRANCE: A. D. 1648-1715. Relations with Germany and Austria.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

FRANCE: A. D. 1682-1693. Contest of the King and the Gallican Church with the Papacy.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693 (page 2462).

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1770. The fatal policy in Europe which lost to the French their opportunity for colonial aggrandizement.

"Louis XIV. had made France odious to her neighbors and suspected by all Europe. Those who succeeded him required much prudence and wisdom to diminish the feelings of fear and jealousy which this long reign of wars and conquests had inspired. They were fortunate in that the moderation demanded of them was for France the most skilful and advantageous policy. France kept Alsace, Franche-Comte, Flanders, Roussillon, and beyond this enlarged frontier she was no longer menaced by the same enemies. The treaty of Utrecht had modified the entire balance of power. There is henceforward no house of Austria excepting in Germany. It is too often forgotten, in speaking of this house and its rivalry with that of France, that the most ardent center of hatred was in Spain. It was Spain which cherished that violent rancor which, for lack of words as much as of ideas, is placed to the account of Austria alone. Spain is no longer to be feared; she is weakened, she is becoming dependent. A cadet of France, a Bourbon, reigns at Madrid, and the roles, in that direction, are exchanged. As to Austria even, she has increased undoubtedly: she has taken the Low Countries, Milan, Naples, very soon she adds Sicily to them; but she is scattered. In multiplying her outposts, she presents so many points of aggression to her adversaries. France has the Low Countries under her hand: Savoy threatens Milan: and, in Germany, Prussia, which is growing, groups the opponents of the Empire. France completes her work by the annexation of Lorraine. The house of Lorraine is transported to Tuscany, and by the effect of the same treaty, that of Vienna in 1738, Naples and Sicily pass to the Spaniards. It seems that henceforward France has only to conserve on the continent. She presents to it the most compact power. Her principal enemy in it is greatly reduced. She is surrounded by states, weaker than she, who defer to her and fear her; she can resume that fine role of moderator and guardian of the peace of Europe which Richelieu had prepared for her, and bear elsewhere, into the other hemisphere, the superabundance of her forces and that excess of vigor which in great nations is precisely the condition of health. The future of her grandeur is henceforward in the colonies. There she will encounter England. Upon this new stage their rivalry will be revived, more ardent than in the days of the hundred years war. To maintain this struggle which extends over the entire world, France will not be too strong with all her resources. When she is engaged in Canada and the Indies at the same time, she will not need to carry her armies across the Rhine. Peace on the continent is the condition necessary to the magnificent fortune which awaits her in America and Asia. If she wishes to obtain it she must renounce continental ambitions. She can do it; her defense is formidable. No one about her would dare to fire a gun without her permission. But, alas! she is far removed from this wisdom, and, in attempting to establish colonies, and make changes in the kingdoms of Europe at the same time, she will compromise her power in both worlds at once. The French desire colonial conquests, but they can not abstain from European conquests, and England profits by it. Austria becomes her natural ally against France. These powerful diversions keep the French on the ground. However, they can yet curb Austria; they have Prussia, Savoy, Poland and Turkey if necessary. Diplomacy is sufficient for this game; but this game is not sufficient for the French politicians. The hatred of the house of Austria survives the causes of rivalry. This house seems always 'the monster' of which Balzac speaks. One is not satisfied to have chained it; one can cease only after having annihilated it. 'There is always,' writes Argenson, 'for politicians a fundamental rule of reducing this power to the point where the Emperor will not be a greater landholder than the richest elector.' Charles VI. dies in 1740; he leaves only a daughter; the opportunity seems favorable, and noisily sounding the death-cry (l'hallali) they take the field at the head of all the hunters by inheritance.

See AUSTRIA: A. D.1740, and after (pages 212-220).

{3756}

They go 'to make an emperor, to conquer kingdoms!' The Bavarian whom they crown is a stage emperor, and, as for conquests, they are considered only too fortunate that Maurice of Saxe preserves to France those of Louis XIV. The coalition has no other result than to enlarge Prussia. Meanwhile France is beaten on the sea and abandons solely to the resources of his genius Dupleix, who with a handful of men was founding an empire. There was besides another small matter; after having exposed Canada in order to conquer Silesia for the king of Prussia, it was lost in order to have the pleasure of giving back that province to the queen of Hungary. France had played the game of England in the war of the succession of Austria, she played that of Austria in the seven years war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after (pages 1495-1502).

Frederic was the most equivocal of allies. In 1755, he deserted cynically and passed over to the English, who had just recommenced war against France. England having Prussia, it was important in order to maintain the equilibrium, that France have Austria. Maria Theresa offered her alliance and France accepted it. Thus was concluded the famous treaty of May 1, 1756. The object of this alliance was entirely defensive. This is what France did not understand, and she did not cease to be a dupe for having changed partners. Louis XV. made himself the defender of Austria with the same blindness as he had made himself her adversary. The continental war which was only the accessory became the principal. From a ruling power, France fell to the rank of a subordinate. She did not even attain the indirect result to which she sacrificed her most precious interests. Frederic kept Silesia, France lost Canada and abandoned Louisiana; the empire of the Indies passed to the English. Louis XV. had thus directed a policy the sole reason for which was the defeat of England, in such a way as to assure the triumph of that country. 'Above all,' wrote Bernis to Choiseul, then ambassador at Vienna, 'arrange matters in such a way that the king will not remain in servile dependence on his allies. That state would be the worst of all.' It was the state of France during the last years of the reign of Louis XV. The alliance of 1756 which had been at its beginning and under its first form, a skilful expedient, became a political system, and the most disastrous of all. Without gaining anything in territory, France lost her consideration in Europe. She had formerly grouped around her all those who were disturbed by the power of Austria; forced to choose between them and Austria, she allowed the Austrians to do as they chose. To crown the humiliation, immediately after a war in which she had lost everything to serve the hatred of Maria Theresa for Frederic, she saw those unreconcilable Germans draw together without her knowledge, come to an understanding at her expense and, in concert with Russia, divide the spoil of one of the oldest clients of the French monarchy, Poland. There remained to France but one ally, Spain. They were united in 1761 by the Family Pact, the only beneficial work which had been accomplished in these years of disaster. … To the anger of having felt herself made use of during the war, to the rancor of having seen herself duped during the peace, was joined the fear of being despoiled one day by an ally so greedy and so little scrupulous. 'I foresee,' wrote Mably some years later, 'that the Emperor will demand of us again Lorraine, Alsace and everything which may please him.'—'Who can guaranty France, if she should experience a complicated and unfortunate war,' said one of the ministers of Louis XVI., 'that the Emperor would not reclaim Alsace and even other provinces?' It was in this way that the abuse made by Austria of the alliance revived all the traditions of rivalry. Add that Maria Theresa was devout, that she was known to be a friend of the Jesuits, an enemy of the philosophers, and that at the King's court, the favorites were accounted as acquired from Austria: everything thus contributed to render odious to public opinion the alliance which, in itself, already seemed detestable. At the time when they were beginning to style the partisans of new ideas 'patriots,' they were in the habit of confounding all the adversaries of these ideas with the 'Austrian party.' … The marriage of Marie Antoinette with the Dauphin was destined to seal forever the alliance of 1756. The unfortunate princess accumulated on her head the hatreds and prejudices heaped up by three centuries of rivalry and excessively stimulated by the still smarting impression of recent wrongs. Even the cause of her coming to France rendered her suspected by the French; they imputed to her as a crime her attachment to the alliance, which was, notwithstanding, the very reason of her marriage. To understand the prodigious unpopularity which pursued her in France, it is necessary to measure the violence of the passions raised up against her mother and her country; it was summed up, long before the Revolution, in that word which became for Marie Antoinette a decree of forfeiture and of death: the Austrian."

A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 288-297.

FRANCE: A. D. 1776-1778. Disposition to aid the revolt of the English colonies in America. The American embassy. Dealings of Beaumarchais and Silas Deane.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778 (pages 3241, 3244).

FRANCE: A. D. 1777. The first daily newspaper.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1777 (page 2600).

FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789. Paris in the Revolution. The part of the Nobodies.

"The history of the revolution can no more be understood without understanding the part played in it by Paris, than one can conceive of the tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out; and to understand the part played by Paris in the revolution is equally impossible. … Let us commence at the bottom with the nobodies. They are no specialty of Paris. There are many of them in every city, but the larger the city the greater the percentage. Paris, therefore, has the highest. They are isolated particles. In the ushering in of the new era they have no part. The regulations concerning the elections to the States-General contain no provision in regard to them. … It was simply a matter of course, that these nobodies went for nothing in the question at hand. Whether they were likely to continue to be nothing in it, nobody seems to have asked. … The existence of this class was partly due to natural causes, the working of which the wit of man can to a degree mitigate, but never prevent.

{3757}

In the 'ancien régime,' however, the wit of man had altogether been bent upon stimulating it. The privilege-bane had also been extended over the domain of labor. When, in 1776, Turgot broke down the guilds, the Parliament of Paris strenuously opposed the government, declaring: all Frenchmen are divided into established corporations, forming one continuous chain from the throne down to the lowest handicraft, indispensable to the existence of the state, and not to be abolished, lest the whole social order break asunder. That was but too true. Since the days of Henry III. (1574-1589) the forcing of all industrial pursuits into the strait-jacket of guildships had been carried to the extreme of utter absurdity. Here, too, the chronic financial distress had been the principal cause. At first the handicrafts, which everybody had been at liberty to practice, were withdrawn from free competition and sold as a privilege, and then, when nothing was left to be sold, the old guilds were split up into a number of guildlets, merely to have again something to put on the counter. And it was not only left pretty much to the masters whom they would admit to the freedom of the guild, but besides the charges for it were so high that it was often absolutely out of the reach even of the most skillful journeyman. Even a blood-aristocracy was not lacking. In a number of guilds only the sons of masters and the second husbands of masters' widows could become masters. Thus an immense proletariat was gradually formed, which to a great extent was a proletariat only because the law irresistibly forced it into this position. And the city proletariat proper received constant and ever-increasing additions from the country. There such distress prevailed, that the paupers flocked in crowds to the cities. … In 1791, long before the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, there were in a population of 650,000, 118,000 paupers (indigents). Under the 'ancien régime' the immigrant proletariat from the country was by the law barred out from all ways of earning a livelihood except as common day-laborers, and the wages of these were in 1788, on an average, 26 cents for men and 15 for women, while the price of bread was higher than in our times. What a gigantic heap of ferment!"

H. von Holst, The French Revolution, lecture 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1792. Effects of the Revolution in Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1794. Myths of the Revolution.

"The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

J. G. Alger, Glimpses of the French Revolution, preface.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1796. The Assignats of the Revolution.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1807. Napoleon and Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1855-1895. Acquisitions in Africa.

(See in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1855, 1864, 1876-1880, and after.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858-1886. Conquest of Tonkin and Cochin China.

See TONKIN (page 3114).

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1892. Advance in the policy of Protection.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1871-1892 (page 3082).

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895. Assassination of President Carnot. Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer. Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

"The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot, President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16. His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was immediately summoned for a presidential election. The convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour, president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M. Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M. Dupuy third, with 97."

Political Science Quarterly, December, 1894.

On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of the President under the existing constitution. The exciting crisis which this resignation produced was passed through without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

FRANCE: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES (page 2010).

FRANCE, Bank of.

See MONEY (page 2212).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin, and the first subscription library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Electrical discovery.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1745-1747 (page 770).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Examination before Parliament.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (pages 3192-3201).

FRANKLIN, Sir john. Northern explorations and voyages of. Loss and search for.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822, and after.

{3758}

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, in Italy.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177; also, pages 1811-1813.

FREE CITIES OF GERMANY, The.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 13-15th CENTURIES; also, page 473.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, The first.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3305).

The Second.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (pages 3388-3391).

GALEN, and the development of anatomy and physiology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d CENTURY (page 2128).

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

GAUL: Ancient commerce.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GENOA: The Bank of St. George.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2207).

GENOA: Mediæval Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

GEORGE III.: Conversation with Governor Hutchinson on affairs in the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

His absolute notions of Kingship.

See England: A. D. 1760-1763 (page 927).

GEORGE, Henry, and the Single Tax movement.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE, Origin and development of the.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

—————GERMANY:Start————

GERMANY: Outline sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1015, and after).

GERMANY: A. D. 962. Otto I. and the Restoration of the Empire.

"And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire, an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. … The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an organization which, resting on the internal development of the German nations had won a universal position through the extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time reducing to submission took in other regions extending far beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper place here to enter more deeply into the question of the feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements of life changed their character so soon as it became the custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided with possessions according to their own several grades, could only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the land. It was through and through a living organization, which took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own part entered into a similar relationship with their own sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a connection which extended also to those border nations which were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion. He passed his life amid constant internal and external struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed, but they cannot complete."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte, (translated from the German), volume 7, pages. 5-7.

{3759}

"For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east, he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared, marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which have affected the course of the world's history met together in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves there just as they did in the great onward course of events. … In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not through laws, not through an artificial state system, not through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check, compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up till then masses of peoples threatening everything with destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial crown; but this again it is which first really secures and confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a decisive influence on church progress even in the western lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish, faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by the authority of the church. But one must not be led into error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor and always hits the mark. With such a representative the empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

W. von Giesebrecht, Deutsche Kaiserzeit (translated from the German). volume 1, pages 476-484.

"He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the German nation and this powerful and intelligent people undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity, doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to construct those foundations of general European culture for which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom (translated from the German), volume 3, page 334.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 936-973 (pages 1439-1441).

GERMANY: 11-12th Centuries. The question of the Investitures.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 11-12TH CENTURIES.

{3760}

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1272(?). The Rise of the College of Electors.

"At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the first time the fully developed college of electors as a single electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what individuals composed it was definitely settled before Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of government in Germany there can be no question at all of a simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of selection from among the heirs available within this family. Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole character of German kingship as in consequence of its amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die out during many generations, the right came to be at last almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of those who had the right of election, would, already during his lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years 1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at elections been handed down from the past? The very principle of election having been disregarded in the natural course of events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year 1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have been the former customary mode of elections which provided that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected and the electors present should do homage to the new king. This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the material part of the election, on the other hand, the part that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner of constituting this committee differed. Something essential had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at elections which should accord with the changed circumstances. One case however had not been provided for in these still so informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that those taking part in the election could come to no agreement at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198, however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of course did not come about. As a consequence questions with regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one: can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote? Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the practical application of the principle that had been laid down in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below this electoral committee? These are questions which the German electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms of the empire. One of the most important results of this reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging to this committee certain particular princes: the three Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But side by side with this view the old theory still held its own, that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other could only be reached according to the way in which the next elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king' was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the Rhine. {3761} Present were also many counts. But William caused himself still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia; Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting, according to their own view, in part at least, by actually electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these elections is clear enough. The general right of election of the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral college, which was looked upon as possessing almost exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence, and the component parts which made it up correspond in substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect; all share of others in the election is done away with. Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote, yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most important revolutions in the German form of government was herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being, not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided; the era of double elections was practically at an end."

K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 23-28.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152 (page 1444).

GERMANY:A. D. 1154-1190. Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.

See (in this Supplement) ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.