University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
collapse section26. 
 26.1. 
 26.2. 
expand section26.3. 
expand section26.4. 
expand section26.5. 
expand section26.6. 
expand section26.7. 
expand section26.8. 
expand section26.9. 
 26.10. 
 26.11. 
 26.12. 
expand section26.13. 
expand section26.14. 
expand section26.15. 
expand section26.16. 
expand section26.17. 
collapse section26.18. 
  
  
expand section26.19. 
 26.20. 
 26.21. 
expand section26.22. 
expand section26.23. 
expand section26.24. 
expand section26.25. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

31.23. 23. The same Subject continued.

The clergy had reason to repent the protection they had granted to the children of Louis the Debonnaire. This prince, as I have already observed, had never given any of the church-lands by precepts to the laity; [150] but it was not long before Lotharius in Italy, and Pepin in Aquitaine, quitted Charlemagne's plan, and resumed that of Charles Martel. The clergy had recourse to the Emperor against his children, but they themselves had weakened the authority to which they appealed. In Aquitaine some condescension was shown, but none in Italy.

The civil wars with which the life of Louis the Debonnaire had been embroiled were the seed of those which followed his death. The three brothers, Lotharius, Louis, and Charles, endeavoured each to bring over the nobility to their party and to make them their tools. To such as were willing therefore to follow them they granted church-lands by precepts; so that to gain the nobility, they sacrificed the clergy.

We find in the Capitularies [151] that those princes were obliged to yield to the importunity of demands, and that what they would not often have freely granted was extorted from them: we find that the clergy thought themselves more oppressed by the nobility than by the kings, It appears that Charles the Bald [152] became the greatest enemy of the patrimony of the clergy, whether he was most incensed against them for having degraded his father on their account, or whether he was the most timorous. Be that as it may, we meet with continual quarrels in the Capitularies, [153] between the clergy who demanded their estates, and the nobility who refused or deferred to restore them; and the kings acting as mediators.

The situation of affairs at that time is a spectacle really deserving of pity. While Louis the Debonnaire made immense donations out of his demesnes to the clergy, his children distributed the church-lands among the laity. The same prince with one hand founded new abbeys and despoiled old ones. The clergy had no fixed state; one moment they were plundered, another they received satisfaction; but the crown was continually losing.

Toward the close of the reign of Charles the Bald, and from that time forward, there was an end of the disputes of the clergy and laity concerning the restitution of church-lands. The bishops indeed breathed out still a few sighs in their remonstrances to Charles the Bald, which we find in the Capitulary of the year 856, and in the letter they wrote to Louis, King of Germany, in the year 858, [154] but they proposed things, and challenged promises, so often eluded, that we plainly see they had no longer any hopes of obtaining their desire.

All that could be expected then was to repair in general the injuries done both to church and state. [155] The kings engaged not to deprive the nobility of their freemen, and not to give away any more church-lands by precepts, [156] so that the interests of the clergy and nobility seemed then to be united.

The dreadful depredations of the Normans, as I have already observed, contributed greatly to put an end to those quarrels.

The authority of our kings diminishing every day, both for the reasons already given and those which I shall mention hereafter, they imagined they had no better resource left, than to resign themselves into the hands of the clergy. But the ecclesiastics had weakened the power of the kings, and these had diminished the influence of the ecclesiastics. In vain did Charles the Bald and his successors call in the church to support the state, and to prevent its ruin; in vain did they make use of the. respect which the commonalty had for that body, [157] to maintain that which they should also have for their prince; [158] in vain did they endeavour to give an authority to their laws by that of the canons; in vain did they join the ecclesiastic with the civil punishments; [159] in vain to counterbalance the authority of the count did they give to each bishop the title of their commissary in the several provinces; [160] it was impossible to repair the mischief they had done; and a terrible misfortune, which I shall presently mention, proved the ruin of the monarchy.

Footnotes

[150]

See what the bishops say in the synod of the year 845, apud Teudonis villam, art. 4.

[151]

See the synod in the year 845, apud Teudonis villam, art. 3 and 4, which gives a very exact description of things; as also, that of the same year, held at the palaces of Vernes, art. 12, and the synod of Beauvais, also in the same year, art. 3, 4, and 6, in the "Capitulary in villa Sparnaco," in the year 846, art. 20, and the letter which the bishops assembled at Rheims wrote in 858, to Louis, King of Germany, art. 8.

[152]

See the "Capitulary in villa Sparnaco," in the year 846. The nobility had set the King against the bishops, insomuch that he expelled them from the assembly; a few of the canons enacted in council were picked out, and the prelates were told that these were the only ones which should be observed; nothing was granted them that could be refused. See art. 20, 21 and 22. See also the letter which the bishops assembled at Rheims wrote in the year 858 to Louis, King of Germany, art. 8, and the "Edict of Pistes," in the year 864, art. 5.

[153]

See this very Capitulary in the year 846, in villa Sparnaco. See also the Capitulary of the assembly held apud Marsnam in the year 847, art. 4, wherein the clergy reduced themselves to demand only the restitution of what they had been possessed of under Louis the Debonnaire. See also the Capitulary of the year 851, apud Marsnam, art. 6, and 7, which confirms the nobility and clergy in their several possessions, and that apud Bonoilum, in the year 856, which is a remonstrance of the bishops to the king, because the evils, after so many laws, had not been redressed; and, in fine, the letter which the bishops assembled at Rheims wrote in the year 858, to Louis, King of Germany, art. 8.

[154]

Art. 8.

[155]

See the Capitulary of the year 851, art. 6 and 7.

[156]

Charles the Bald, in the Synod of Soissons, says, that he had promised the bishops not to issue any more precepts relating to church-lands. Capitulary of the year 853, art. 11, Baluzius's edition. tome ii, p. 56.

[157]

See the "Capitulary of Charles the Bald," apud Saponarias, in the year 859, art. 3. "Venilon, whom I made Archbishop of Sens, has consecrated me; and I ought not to be expelled the kingdom by anybody."

[158]

See the "Capitulary of Charles the Bald," De Carisiaco, in the year 857, Baluzius's edition, tome ii, p. 88, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.

[159]

See the synod of Pistes in the year 862, art. 4, and the "Capitulary of Louis II," apud Vernis palatium, in the year 883, art. 4 and 5.

[160]

Capitulary of the year 876, under Charles, the Bald, in synodo Pontigonensi, Baluzius's edition, art. 12.