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