Rights in Civil Society - Part Four
Chapter 3 - (2nd Part)
| The struggle between family and civil elements was carried into the heart of renewed, mature civil societies and caused the rise of sovereign houses and modern nations |
2016. a) Civil societies pass from defence to attack and thus, not content with the social element, absorb the seigniorial element.
2017. The Roman element, that is, the social element, escaped the observation of the conquering families, who despised it. It was thus preserved in the communes where it flourished and grew powerful. The natural result was a desire of independence in the communes themselves and in the cities. This was soon followed by willingness to dominate over the weak. Civil societies thus passed from just defence to attack, and themselves became lords over the peoples subject to them, creating one cause of their own decadence.
2018.
| The communes, protected and supported by the arm of the Pope, and favoured by the kings of Sicily, had finally overcome Barbarossa after many difficulties. Barbarossa, although bearing the title of emperor of the Romans happily conferred on him by the jurisconsults, and believed by all to be the true successor of the ancient Caesars, was obliged to content himself with empty superiority. This indignity was inflicted on one who from the height of his throne had looked down on other kings as his vassals, had held the power of creating new monarchs, and granted through imperial investiture lawful possession over vast monarchies, `feuds of the crown', as they were called in the appropriate language of the imperial jurists. Already, but to a greater extent when they had conquered the lord of the world, the communes had enlarged their command over nearby lands and castles. Villages of little importance were happy to have a sound defence as a result of aggregation to the nascent commune. Later, greater cities and lands had to cede to pressure from ambitious, triumphant communes. We have already indicated the power of Pisa and Genoa even before 1000 AD. In 1140, Ventimiglia was forced to swear fidelity to San Siro and the people of Genoa. Milan subjected Lodi, Como and Cremona at the time of Barbarossa. In 1170, the men of Casal Sant' Evasio were subjects of Vercelli.(197) In 1199, the Cenedesi became citizens of Trevigi. The marquises of Monferrato, Savona and Ceva were sworn in as citizens of Asti in the 13th century, the counts of Biandrate as citizens of Vercelli(198) and Novara. As we know, they resembled rulers rather than barons. Bertold, patriarch of Aquileia, one of the most powerful sovereigns of Italy, became a citizen of Padua in 1221, and paid ransom to the city. Shortly after, the Dauphin of Vienna became a burgher of Turin to strengthen the alliance he had made with the city. Other examples of the height of prosperity enjoyed by the communes at the end of 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries need not be mentioned here.(199) |
2019. b) By admitting to their ranks the heads of powerful families, civil societies took on the discord between the family and civil elements. Their newly acquired power prepared the way for the decadence of the communes, that is, the decadence of the municipalities.
The feudatories who became burghers and citizens of those small civil societies, whose power they feared and whose protection they invoked against the oppression of more powerful feudatories, were unable to change their old way of thinking simply by ascription to such communities. The concept of seigniory impressed in their minds necessarily followed them; they brought it into the heart of the civil societies of which they had become members. They did indeed declare unambiguously at their enrolment that they were equal to all their fellow-members; this equality was the required legal condition. But their spirit was quite different; it retained its dominant instinct. At the same time, the communes thought themselves honoured and strengthened by accepting as equals in name and word feudatories whom they really considered as lords, as in fact they were. These men were rich and powerful, and more enlightened and alert in politics and government than the other citizens.
As soon as the lords became members of civil societies, they found themselves in command, and were of great assistance from the beginning in providing a form and regular organisation for the communes. This provoked an appearance of extraordinary prosperity and fortune. Valiant lords who had fled to communes and cities to escape the oppression of other lords were accustomed to war; they were soon at the head of the armies of their scorned peoples, whom they freed or whose freedom they vindicated against those who held power or tyrannised and oppressed them. The lords acquired glory as popular leaders, as fathers of their country, or founders or saviours of the republic. But when the republics were assured of safety from external dangers, the greatest danger of all arose in their midst. The seigniorial, prevalent families, having increased their authority through the services rendered to the communes, and no longer distracted by anything else, aspired to civil command, or rather, ignorant of the nature of civil command, aspired to seigniory.
2020. There followed: 1. bitter strife between such families; 2. bitter strife between such families and the people. Again, family and civil elements were at odds in a conflict dependent for its severity on the proximity, cohesiveness and admixture of the elements.
2021. The outcome of these murderous discords varied:
1. Sometimes one citizen family overcame the others to become the more or
less absolute lord of the commune — a monarchy was founded.
2. Sometimes several powerful families together dominated the people — an
aristocratic government resulted.
3. Sometimes, the people won — a democratic form of organisation
was founded.
4. Sometimes the government was separated in two, one aristocratic, one
democratic — independent societies arose.
5. Sometimes finally, a foreign ruler, or an already sovereign family, favoured
by such discords, was able to subject to itself the power of both nobles and
communes.
2022. According to Cibrario, whom we are following here,
| Men of noble blood, whose ancestors had helped
to attain independence, acquired a natural preponderance in the counsels of the
republic through their wise conduct of public affairs and the blood they had
shed in combat. No one envied that power as long as the fatherland was insecure
or the exercise of authority was accompanied by troubles and dangers of all
kinds. When things had settled, every spirit was aflame with the desire to
command. Under the pretext that all private greatness entailed a diminution of
public freedom, persecution broke out first against those who governed the
republic with pride and violence, and then against the best and greatest
citizens, who suffered a kind of ostracism. As far back as 1185, two years
after the peace of Constance, Modena has records of rulers, chiefs and
vassals of the Mutiny, whose ambition centred on a separate government.
They were in fact forced to swear to support the rulers of the city, and
to keep the peace among themselves.(200) In no other city was democracy so violent. At Milan, although it prevailed
under Martin della Torre, it soon gave way to the rise of the Visconti, heads
of the nobles. If the people did not succeed in taking over the government, it tried to withdraw itself from its influence. It formed another government, called the society of St. George,(203) or St. Stephen,(204) or the society of the people.(205) There was also a Guelf section, headed by a foreign commander, such as the republic of a foreign power. If there was no commander-in-chief, there were four or more rectors, as in the republic itself, divided into a small and a great council. Everything was intended to paralyse the action of laws and lawful magistrates. In some cities, the guilds of artisans formed part of the government. These craft unions were called Paratici in Lombardy, and ruled by priors and consuls,(206) or sometimes by one or more standard-bearers. The end of these societies was: 1. to get the greatest number possible of their members chosen for office; 2. to make the opinion of the society prevail in the councils; 3. to revenge every offence, even the smallest, against a member of the society by punishing offenders in limb, life and possessions; 4. to prevent merited punishment for these vendettas falling on their perpetrators. It was these societies which preferred to call a foreign dominator to rule the country when they saw the nobles attaining the upper hand. They preferred this to serving their fellow-citizens. The final, perpetual victory would be gained, they thought, when they forced the nobles to serve at the very moment in which they were preparing to take up command again. |
| Summary of the stages through which civil society took the more perfect form it shows in our present European nations |
2023. Modern nations emerged from the struggle we have described between the family and civil elements. In fact, Providence brought that struggle to produce the most perfect civil state ever seen on earth, in the form of stable, unceasingly progressive civilisation. Antagonism is always the means used by the wisdom of the Creator to place and fix finite beings at the centre of good, despite their constant readiness to move blindly towards the outer limits.
2024. If the stability of modern nations dates from the 16th century, their progress dates from the 18th. Indeed this characteristic word `progress' was not mentioned until people saw new nations, already sufficiently constituted, rise and move towards something better with peaceful, regulated, sure and inexorable tread. Historically, this epoch is assigned to the 18th brumaire in the 8th year of the French republic (9th November 1799).
2025. At this point we have to retrace carefully the stages by which modern societies were formed. These stages, securely indicated in history, are of great assistance in removing a world of prejudices and mistaken theories from the minds of those who imagine that civil society fell from heaven already formed, and cannot now be moulded or even touched by human hands without sacrilege. These stages, through which modern nations passed according to providential laws, were the following:
2026. 1st stage. The Roman element remained nameless and bereft of legality, but a germ of new civil societies.
Religion and Roman law, having survived the empire, were the bond amongst the conquered. But while the law no longer had an interpreter, this was not the case with religion. The bishops who governed the continuation of society amongst the conquered, were also the pastors of the conquerors. In the public acts of the time, great numbers of people appear not as a named body, but as individuals living near one another, that is, as co-existing.(207)
2027. 2nd stage. Civil societies without legal existence, organisation or
name begin to acquire an organisation and name as soon as seigniorial families
enter them.
As long as civil society was composed solely of the people, without
recognition on the part of the ruling lords and without any corporate name, it
was ignorant and incapable of any suitable organisation. When certain families
of lords entered society, for the reasons we have given, they brought
organisation to these civil multitudes who soon acquired the name of `communes'
or `municipalities'.(208)
2028. 3rd stage. The organisation of civil societies consisted first in
an explicit, free law to which were bound only those who wished to enter the
society, not all the inhabitants of a given territory.
We have seen that civil society does not of its own nature necessarily include
all those who dwell in an area (cf. 1670-1676). In addition, the poor who are
unable to pay the indispensable contribution to the social administration
cannot be called citizens, according to natural right. Others may refuse to
join, although later, under circumstances which become clear through the
contrast and complication of interests, a jural obligation may arise for them
to do so (cf. 1904-1916).
In the centuries when modern civil societies began once more to knit together,
they appeared as leagues in which many, but not all individuals, bound
themselves to protect their own interests. The number of these individuals
varied, and came partly from the families of the people, especially those
enriched through trade, and partly from seigniorial families.
2029. In medieval times at the beginning of our civil societies, good sense, the natural light of reason, had shown that the two principles we have indicated were principles of justice.
1. Association in civil commonalty is of its nature a free act. Civil
society is not necessarily composed of all the people dwelling in a territory,
but of those alone who willingly join it.
2. Only the person who accepts the obligation of paying the necessary
contribution to the administration of this civil union is necessarily a
member.(209) From then on,
| the individual who could not or did not want to become a citizen put himself under the wardship of the ruler or the commune. For this protection, he paid an annual levy of a florin, or a gold coin, or a few pounds of wax, pepper, cane or some other product. Clerics, who did not pay tax with the people nor satisfy the other obligations of citizens, were not considered citizens, but foreigners under the special protection of the commune,(210) although more often than not they made no attempt to refuse requests for financial or military help, or assistance with transport, on extraordinary occasions.(211) |
2030. Foreigners and citizens inhabited the same territory, therefore. Even now, the same distinction is partly preserved, except that a person who is a foreigner in one place is normally a citizen in another. Practically everyone is a citizen or at least a subject. At the beginning of civil association, however, many people existed in a totally extra-social condition.
2031. However, once communes were established, these nascent civil societies, which were not yet completely organised, felt even more than at present the need not to tolerate foreigners. Hence the choice with which these people were presented: either leave the territory or become members, that is, citizens.(212)
2032. Civil commonalty, having increased through continual aggregation, broadened to admit entire classes and conditions of persons. Thus, practically all the inhabitants of the same territory were drawn into a single civil society.(213)
2033. 4th stage. Civil societies were first temporary, then
perpetual.
Civil society conceived in its integrity and perfection is perpetual (cf.
1630-1639). But it does not become perpetual immediately. Just as it is not
universal in the beginning — it does not extend to all families — so
it does not begin its existence as an never-ending aggregation. Only the
utility experienced through its existence makes it continue after its
commencement without further thought of its suppression. This passage from
temporary to perpetual society is also part of history.
2034. According to Cibrario,
| These groupings were first established temporarily on oath, as for example at Genoa, and then in perpetuity. They were, according to Professor Baggio's excellent definition, associations of persons in a city or district, and sometimes outside, who possessed some right, voice and activity in government(214) and, we need to add, offered one another guarantees of security, justice and tranquillity. In the beginning, they were more aristocratic than democratic; the distinction, found in many cities, between greater and lesser consuls,(215) the hereditary nature of certain responsibilities in determined families, or the rising of popular sects against the tyranny of the nobles in the 12th century seem to indicate this. For the rest, the consuls were chosen from both the upper classes and the people. Otto of Freising writes in fact that there were three orders of persons in the communes of Italy: the commanders-in-chief, the vassals and the people (the foot-soldiers may have been included amongst the vassals). He also says that such consuls were chosen not from one order but from each of them to suppress pride.(216) |
2035. 5th stage. Civil societies were first formed to regulate a part of the modality of rights, and then extended to universal rule over this modality.
Universality, that is, regulation of the entire modality of citizens' rights (cf. 1621-1629), is a characteristic of fully established civil society. At the beginning, however, society was formed to regulate only a part of this modality; later, it would become perfect by embracing it all. This gradation is also evident in medieval history. The first part of modality which fell under regulation was the defence of rights. It was in this area that need, which serves as the impulse for association, was felt more keenly.
| The communes, both immediate and mediate, could under some aspects be defined as societies of mutual guarantee. In the beginning, neighbours were the first to know if anyone broke the public peace, and they sought to calm the discord. This can be seen in Anglo-Saxon laws, and more clearly in the statutes of Susa prior to 1148 where every misdeed is understood as known to neighbours, `it will be decided by neighbours'. If something is done which provokes protest, the public official will judge but impose different punishments on the upright, that is, the freemen, and the instigators or ring-leaders (glittones). Exception is made only for violent thieves, traitors and highwaymen over whom judgment has been reserved to his court by Amadeus III, sub nostro velle sint. We see from this that each citizen was considered a guarantor of the public peace, and that it was left to him to maintain it. With the exception of grave misdeeds, criminal action was not taken even in the case of murder if neighbours succeeded in settling the discord. However, as Roman law gradually came to prevail, such customs ceased to have any effect.(217) In the statutes of the city of Soest, attributed to the first years of the 12th century, we read: `Anyone who on impulse has renounced his city (citizenship) because he has injured a fellow-citizen in his person or his effects will renounce it finally.' The communes, therefore, could be defined as societies of persons sworn to uphold the public peace on their own authority and under mutual guarantee, whether they depended or not on a foreign lord.(218) |
2036. Civil societies set up in medieval communes therefore underwent a process of formation similar to that of other societies or leagues with particular aims. In fact, the spirit of association manifested in the Middle Ages produced different special unions. One of these, whose primary aim was the guarantee or defence of rights, later took the name of civil society. This kind of society is not, therefore, something mysterious or sui generis to which the normal principles of other societies are inapplicable. It was the very similarity of nature which enabled other special societies either to be fused with civil society or to lord over it.(219)
2037. These particular leagues of mutual guarantee were seeds of civil societies because they had as their aim the modality of rights, although only to the extent that this referred to the defence of their own rights (and even this often served as a pretext for invading the rights of others). This aim brought together all classes of persons whose interest lay in their own class, but especially the class formed by the principal or noble citizens.
| As far back as 1185, two years after the peace of Constance, Modena has records of rulers, chiefs and vassals of the Mutiny, whose ambition centred on a separate government. They were in fact forced to swear to support the rulers of the city, and to keep the peace among themselves.(220) In this and the following century, there are records in many other cities and lands about companies of patricians, under the name of families in charge of hospices or inns, baronies and military societies. But they were unable to hold out for long against the pressure and impetus of the people as a whole.(221) |
2038. Separate governments were instituted in this way for different classes of citizens. Each government represented a small civil society set up on the same territory as others with which it had some kind of understanding.(222)
2039. 6th stage. Small civil societies unite and fuse into more extended
civil societies to form the modern nations of Europe.
The struggle between the family and civil elements is followed by
the struggle between co-existing civil societies where we can distinguish: 1.
the social (good) element; 2. the limited, restrictive (bad) element.
2040. Considered in itself, limitation of civil society is neither
bad nor anti-social; it is simply extra-social. If people were perfectly
virtuous, such an element would place different civil societies in a peaceful
state by nature. The whole human race, although divided into various civil
societies, would remain joined by the same bond of justice and religion, in
other words, by the bond of theocratic society. It is extremely
difficult, however, for the insufficiently enlightened human mind to conceive
civil society as both divided and pure, that is, to conceive it for what
it is, a special society. On the contrary, peoples and their legists always
tend to include in their own civil society the entire concept of society, and
to look to those outside the fatherland as totally disassociated and lacking
every common right. This highly mistaken judgment is the result of
greed, which restricts human desires and does not allow people to see
beyond the narrow sphere of things illuminated by the false light of
selfishness. Thus, the limitation of civil society is changed into an
evil element that occasions disaster, discord and struggle between limited
civil societies — and the smaller the societies, the greater the struggle.
The good obtained by Providence from these struggles is the fusion of lesser
civil societies into greater. This is an improvement for mankind because it
simultaneously removes limitation, the source of the evil.
2041. Let us consider the accidents which favour or hamper this providential work. First, the fusion of several small societies into greater civil societies is achieved more easily when a prevalent power is readily available to do this. As long as the discordant small societies are more or less equal, they continue to harm and buffet one another without ever uniting or fusing. Granted human wickedness, it is extremely difficult for small, quarrelsome societies to cast off their hatred and emulation promptly. They are not content to lose their own individuality by fusing into a common society through free pacts. Indeed, each society hopes to overcome the others; this is its ambition and its presumption, and it will not renounce this hope except through force. Nevertheless, gradual civilisation, of which Christianity is the source, and particular circumstances brought some societies into confederation. Without becoming a single nation under every respect, they had a federal government. This was the case in ancient Greece, although at an imperfect level; in Christian times, in Switzerland and the United States, at a more perfect level.
2042. If one civil society overcomes another and assimilates it, the resulting fusion is produced by virtue of the social force. This was the noble politic of the Romans who always preferred citizens rather than bond-servants amongst those they conquered. Citizens, who enlarged the republic, rendered it larger, more just and more civil.(223)
2043. A third way of fusion is present when power, unaccompanied by sociality, is then united to sociality. We need to consider this case more carefully because it is precisely what took place in the Middle Ages when flourishing nations were formed which now divide Europe.
2044. As we said, there was in the Middle Ages a seigniorial element
alongside the social element. This seigniorial element was divided into
two parts, which were found in: 1. feudatory houses; 2. sovereign houses. A
double struggle ensued: the struggle of the social element with both feudatory
houses and sovereign houses. The result of the twofold struggle was a priceless
good: both social element and seigniorial element were checked and situated
within just limits. Each tempered the other without destroying it. A wonderful
conciliation took place, thanks to the principles of Christian justice, which
led to a state of particular perfection and growth amongst family and civil
societies.
We need however to explain this happy outcome of such a long, obstinate
conflict. To do this, and understand how collision, humiliation and consequent
pacification of two proud elements could simultaneously offer extreme advantage
to civil and family societies, we must recall some principles.
2045. The defect of civil society totally unaccompanied by any seigniorial element is weakness. We have seen that it is altogether necessary for the government of civil society to possess a prevalent force through which it can make its rule over the modality of rights overcome all possible opposition. This force is so necessary to the de facto and de iure existence of government that we did not hesitate to declare it one of the characteristics of society itself (cf. 1640-1642).
2046. The defect of seigniory totally unaccompanied by civil society is oppressive force and tyranny. We have seen that the nature of mere seigniory implies that the master alone is end, and that all his bond-servants are means to his will. If, therefore, seigniory stands totally alone, without any social element, it is the most unjust, inhuman thing on earth.
2047. The obvious conclusion is that each of these elements will confer what
is lacking to the other if some way can be found of bringing them together,
joining and pacifying them, granted their division in the Middle Ages. It is
also clear that civil society must receive from the union the
force it needs, which is supplied by the seigniorial family; and that
family society must receive from its entrance into civil association the
justice and humanity it finds there.
This is indeed what took place in the Middle Ages. Through the mediation of
Christianity, through its illumination and strict justice, through the bond of
its charity, the separate elements of civilisation and family did not break
under the tremendous pressure they exerted on one another; they mollified and
befriended one another.
2048. Let us consider what actually happened in each of the two struggles.
We have described the struggle of the communes with the feudatory families. The
communes gained the advantage; the feudatories became citizens. Hence the
regular organisation and power of those small civil societies. In this struggle
the individual commune or individual city fought against several families with
which it was in contact.
We still have to describe the struggle of the communes and cities with
sovereign families. In this case, several communes and cities fought with
individual houses that claimed seigniory over them; the sovereigns had the
advantage. Hence the fusion of communes, cities and small republics into our
great, modern nations.(224)
2049. The need of defence against the power of sovereign families first resulted in confederation amongst the communes. This, however, was not sufficient for fusion because a federal government is not properly speaking fusion of several communes in a nation. Moreover, such leagues lasted only as long as the danger did.(225)
2050. Nevertheless, the Lombard league made rulers grant them a greater degree of freedom than that available to subject cities not included in the league. As a result, the social element increased through the spontaneous desire of the lords who already recognised their inability to preserve the seigniory they possessed unless they tempered it with society.
| When the famous confederation of the cities of northern Italy, the Lombard league, was finally victorious in the long, ferocious war against Barbarossa, it obliged the emperor to recognise its independence solemnly in the treaties of the peace of Constance (1183 AD). At the time, it was feared that other fortified, populous cities, subjects of various rulers, would be drawn to follow the example of the league. To obviate this danger, the rulers had from the beginning of the century begun to permit some of the better cities to swear community allegiance (comuniam iurare), that is, to take the form of municipalities and municipal government with territory and jurisdiction.(226) Their aim was to obtain the considerable help of the cities and their bishops against the barons.(227) It was not long before the same kind of generosity was practised towards territories of minor importance: their good, ancient customs were recognised and allowed to be put into writing; personal enfranchisement was given to the inhabitants; and a single code of law, which was a book of privileges, a rural, civil, criminal, political code, and organic legislation, was provided for each territory on the basis of that which free cities had set up for themselves. The aim was to endow these territories with further privileges in the shape of immunities and other kinds of enfranchisement in order to forestall their envy of free communes and to eliminate any desire for troubled independence in preference to a quiet life.(228) This in turn was inevitably imitated by the barons themselves in the territories they still controlled either by agreement or through force.(229) |
2051. The absolute freedom obtained through force by the communes of the Lombard league would seem to have delayed the time needed for their fusion into a single nation. In fact, the opposite occurred. Those independent communes or tiny States experienced the absolute need for a superior force which would bring an end on the one hand to the visceral discord between the seigniorial and social elements, and on the other to the discord and external, murderous wars that arose between the communes themselves. Cibrario describes these internal and external dissensions:
| The civil wars fought between one territory and another, and between one house and another began in Florence in 1170. The names Ghibelline (imperial) and Guelf (popular) were a mantel covering private ambition.(230) The first people, that is, the first company of the people with given ranks, functionaries and standard-bearers, was formed in 1250 to resist the intolerable oppression of the Ghibellines. But when the people, that is, the Guelfs, prevailed definitively, their tyranny was worse than that of the Ghibellines, although it was said, and to an extent was true, that the Guelfs were the foundation and rock of freedom in Italy. The same thing happened at more or less the same time in other Italian communes. The rulers favoured the Guelfs from whom they hoped to have, and in many places actually did have seigniory over the State. This was partly due to the disorders which always accompany popular governments, which are the worse tyrants and cannot last; and partly due to the dislike of popular governments for the grandees which impelled the former to consign the State to a foreigner rather than allow it to return to those who had been driven away from it.(231) It is clear from the obligation already undertaken by the chiefs and vassals of Modena in 1183 to maintain reciprocal peace that seeds of discord could without difficulty germinate between men equally desirous of command. The Gualandelli and Aginoni disrupted and bloodied the territory from the end of the 12th century; the Lambertazzi and Geremei, and later the Scacchesi and Maltraversi did the same at Bologna; the Sanguini and Rotondi at Novara; the Pergalini and Raspanti at Pisa; the Mascherati and Rampini at Genoa; the Bianchi and Neri at Siena and Florence. The members of each faction took care to differentiate themselves from the others in what they wore, in their colours and sometimes even in the way they folded their napkins. They had no scruple about shedding the blood of their consorts and kin, and often pushed their hatred to the extremes of bestiality. They tore their enemies limb from limb when they had sufficient power to kill them leisurely. Sometimes they took care to let them die without confession, and took pleasure in barbarously imagining their eternal suffering.(232) |
2052. These desperate, brutal struggles could not be brought to an end without some superior force. Civil society always needs a prevalent force, proportioned to its greatness, and this force could be found only in the unity of the sovereign houses. The inevitable happened:
1. Sometimes the citizens of the free cities themselves submitted to the
sovereign houses as their only hope of salvation.
2. Sometimes the losing faction, not all the citizens, appealed to a foreign
tyrant.(233)
3. Sometimes, the sovereign houses, profiting by the discord amongst small
civil societies, imposed themselves as protectors, peace-makers, and rulers. In
their eyes, this was a great favour.
2053. Indeed
| to people unaccustomed to freedom who served a multiplicity of masters under the cloak of freedom, it must, generally speaking, have appeared more peaceful to serve a single ruler than the will of many whose seigniory was continually subject to change. People were disturbed at regular intervals by the frightening sound of bells calling to arms and the tumults of the lower orders; they had to drag inside the house whatever was outside, bolt their doors, fill their rooms with stones and slings and endeavour to defend themselves; they never knew when the enemy would prevail or they themselves would be ruined or suffer death or at least be sent into exile, leaving their house to be burnt and pillaged by the enemy.(234) Ordinary folk saw a commander-in-chief or podestà called to provide justice who turned on them and cut off their heads for some crime, but did not dare do the same with the grandees. Sometimes a mob of artisans would come armed to court and threaten to turn the city upside down unless certain persons were condemned to death; others of the lower classes took control of the judiciary, cited citizens to appear before them, and imprisoned, condemned to death or executed their enemies under some legal pretext. One faction would make a pact with robbers or with armed foreigners for the sake of freedom to shed blood and pillage for days on end in their own country.(235) It is clear that in such circumstances, the rule of an individual, though hard, must have appeared attractive, provided it was strong and just.(236) |
2054. Social government, therefore, lacked force. The whole of society was looking for force, as well as peace, and it was easily found in the sovereign houses which, taught by evident circumstances, recognised their noble mission. They took the opportunity of reigning in glory over societies, ruling them civilly rather than destroying them. To do this, however, they had to modify the concept of their seigniory with the concept of civil society. Seigniorial families thus received in themselves the good element they lacked; the spirit of civil society broke dynastic selfishness. These families beheld their greater interest, which extended magnificently beyond the walls and the palisades of their paternal castles and palaces. It was impossible for them to ignore the empire destined for them by Providence. This empire was more desirable than the one they had exercised over bond-servants and soldiers; it was an empire over freemen, that is, over citizens.(237) Civil societies called out to them for help, but for help as from protectors. These societies wanted to retain all their private rights, yet at the same time find the firm, strong regulation of the modality of their rights which was lacking. Reigning houses answered this desire.
According to Cibrario:
| Many of these cities had to submit themselves in the 12th and 14th centuries to the obedience of sovereigns within whose State their own limited territory was situated. However, the cities retained in the form of privilege their municipal institutions together with the possibility of proposing for selection by the ruler the noble they had chosen as podestà. In subject-territories this person took the title of `vicar'. This was, we may say, the original, legal organisation of the communes. In fact, the prevalence of the guilds of artisans, the organised violence of popular societies, and of baronial and noble societies, caused great alteration, disturbance and distortion in those unhappy medieval republics. The only communes to attain and maintain great seigniory for a long period were those which ruled the seas. They sacrificed their freedom in the interest of trade, and often used their considerable wealth to save themselves from difficult steps.(238) |
2055. Trade also explains why a considerable portion of social freedom had to be granted by sovereigns to communes subject to them.
| Rights in favour of trade were the privileges which they [the communes] held most dear, and which they enjoyed longest after they had lost their freedom. Thus, for example, the `burden', as it was called, which each had to contribute annually, was fixed and could not be changed without their consent. Also fixed was the annual period of time they had to devote to war, and the distance war could take them from their own country. It was established that no one could be imprisoned if he were ready to provide bail (the only exception was capital crimes). For the same reason, fixed financial penalties existed for even grave demeanours. Loss of a foot, hand, ear or eye was inflicted only in the lack of payment. Moreover, people could not be taken to court outside their own territory. Finally, merchants belonging to a privileged territory were free of customs either throughout the entire State of the ruler or in some part of it.(239) |
2056. Sovereign houses therefore found themselves in an enviable position. They could easily undertake to protect the rights of all, and could exercise that immense complex of benefits included in the magnificent motto: recta tueri [to protect what is right]; they could defend individuals against the masses; commonalties against seigniorial houses; seigniorial houses against one another and against popular factions; the Church against impiety and blind passion; they could form an alliance with each of these elements and thus strengthen themselves against others who might try to prevail; they could use different parties and interests against each other whenever necessary and opportune. They were thus in a position to ensure a continual increase of their own domination. They were led to do all this much more by the very force of things, by the inevitable events guided from on high, than by their own counsel. Our great civil societies, these wonderful European nations destined to bring extremely just and lasting civilisation to the whole world, arose in this way.
| The internal struggle to produce perfect civil society in nations already founded |
2057. The foundation of nations is posited when many small civil communities unite under a sovereign.(240) It is not true, however, that the perfection of great civil societies was attained in a single step. Nothing is done by leaps. The elements inherent to multitudes are not changed by a treaty, a decree, a battle or any instantaneous event whatsoever. Opinions, habits and in great part real forces remain what they were. Many seeds of discord endured, therefore, in small civil societies gathered together under a sceptre. There did indeed exist a higher hand capable of overpowering, diminishing and pacifying them, but this took time, constancy and endless conflict.
2058. The first condition of our modern nations is thus described by Cibrario.
| We have to imagine a State divided by as many minor States as there were dominant feudal castles and free or privileged territories. In other words, the monarchy was planted, as it were, with tiny tyrants, tiny aristocracies, tiny democracies. Monarchy was constrained to favour the popular principle in order to free itself from the impact of feudal bonds and baronial pride. We have to imagine a State made up of many, well-populated territories, each envious of the others, at enmity with one another, and anxious about their own interests which they were unable to transform into a common interest. Consequently, they were incapable of fully developing their greatness. This State was sprinkled, as it were, with fortresses which made it weak rather than strong; it was rutted with bad roads, independent of the lie of the land and of easier communications, which wandered up hill and down dale to the gates of every miserable village for the sake of the dues which could be imposed there. Imagine these bad roads ruined by just wars on the part of the rulers or by private violence, and you will have some idea of the scene that we have tried to depict. Imagine also, and this was common in Germany, that such violence remained unpunished. Lack of public perfection, regular justice and government was supplied by associated factions, as for instance in Westphalia where justice was organised in a hidden, violent and ineluctable way by vengeful tribunals whose sentences of condemnation first came to the knowledge of those they judged at the moment of execution.(241) |
2059. In such a mixture of contrary elements, the great obstacle faced by sovereign families in their endeavour to lead and preside over civil society was noble, powerful families. Force always resides in these families. On the one hand they aspired to independence; on the other they tended to seigniorial domination over the people, whom they wanted to see subject to servitude and amongst whom they abhorred the thought of citizenship. A highly enlightened policy on the part of sovereign houses led them to become protectors of the people, that is, of civil commonalties against the lords. They used the people under their guidance to temper seigniorial spirits and to force minor lords to equality with the citizens.
2060. Nevertheless, such a sound, universally advantageous policy could not be understood immediately by sovereign houses themselves. The obstacle was the seigniorial spirit which had prevailed for so long in them, and drew its origin from their very existence as families. Ancient prejudices, the traditional manner of thought and feeling, could not be changed overnight. New, liberal attitudes could not be attained as these families stepped out of their caste, as a modern writer says.(242) Once the communes had been subjected to their rule, intestinal strife broke out and continued, although less ferociously than before. According to Cibrario:
| The life of citizens, although quieter and freer than that of others, granted the misery of the times, was nonetheless difficult. Rulers short of money often came down on them with demands for help or subventions. It is true that they did this as though asking for a special favour, but they were often unsatisfied when communes granted two florins instead of the three requested. If payment was delayed, they had the whole treasury arrested and sealed the doors of the counsellors until the matter was settled. Moreover, despite the communes' privilege of providing only a certain number of soldiers for a time and within the limits of a determined territory, the ruler, under threat of imminent attack from some powerful neighbour, often commanded the council to assemble the entire general army at a certain time and place. If anyone capable of bearing arms was missing, the punishment was a fine of one hundred gold florins and perpetual displeasure.(243) There was almost continuous irritation between rulers and communes. The great lord commanded ambassadors to be sent to him with full powers to conclude business he himself proposed. Communes called them `ambassadors ad referendum'. The ruler, for example, required a subsidy of two thousand florins. The commune found out how much other territories of equal standing had granted, and then offered a third or half of that sum. The ruler declared a general war; the commune sent a troop of twenty-five knights under their protection, and ambassadors(244) to detail the miseries of the people.(245) |
2061. Sovereigns took a long time to accustom themselves to people already organised in civil communities; they had to understand that their own greatest force would be found in these civil organisations. The great lords would certainly have overcome sovereigns who chose to depend upon overbearing power. Consequently, the natural position of these sovereigns had to be that of defenders of justice, protectors of every right, guardians of the multitude of weak persons against the few who were strong. Rulers did indeed attain a suitable understanding with popular civilisation. From then on, the two sides communicated rationally, discussed rights, and dealt openly and loyally with one another. Bloody wars on the battlefield gave way to legal-political wars in assemblies. In turn political assemblies, following the example of Church Councils and composed to a great extent of bishops, were schools in which sovereign houses were enlightened about their true interests and finally became true civil heads of nations.
2062. The history of this great step along the road to civilisation, that is, of the first political unions, is described by the author of Economia politica del medio evo in the following words:
| When some provision had to be made about business that impinged on universal interest, it was the custom, even before the 14th century, to call a general parliament of nobles and deputies of the communes for the sake of their counsel and help. This was the case in Piedmont and Savoy for sumptuary laws, or the distribution of provisions, or fear of invasion by the great companies which infested Italy and France.(246) It was the first step towards national unity against the gradual division and disintegration caused by feudalism. Towards the end of the 13th century, regular assemblies of the three estates, that is, of ecclesiastics, nobles and commons, began in England. In 1302, Philip the Fair called these assemblies in France for the sake of help in his tyrannical plans against the pope and his own people. He flattered public opinion in order to strengthen royal authority. At that time, the estates had no political authority. The king called them together to ask some extraordinary subsidy from them; they consented, but at the same time begged the king to confirm and maintain their ancient franchises, and to reform some abuse (principally in the administration of justice or the bestowal of ecclesiastical benefices). The king either consented or denied the requests, and referred to laws which already dealt with the matter. For the rest, the estates were subservient when the king was strong, and demanding in times of calamity, as for example after the unfortunate battle of Poitiers (1356). As Guizot judiciously said, these assemblies were either consultative or contractual. They began in Spain in 1350. Under the monarchy of Savoy, subsidies were requested in place after place for the whole of the 14th century by officials deputed by the ruler. The first general assembly of the estates was called by Amadeus VIII for Tonon, 13th October 1439; the second at Geneva on 8th December of the same year after Amadeus' election as Pope.(247) In the 15th century, when sovereign authority had been much reduced by civil wars and desperate times, the estates played a considerable part in political manoeuvring.(248) |
2063. The next steps were those taken by Louis XI, Charles V, Louis XIV, and later by all the monarchs, to lower the nobility from their seigniorial level to that of citizens. This also was an immense advance, and extremely necessary to perfect our great, modern civil societies. Diminution of the excessive seigniorial and family element increased the civil element. Peaceful fusion of the two elements was made easier, or rather possible; the existence, peace and prosperity of civil commonalties, always under threat from violent, family selfishness, was assured. At the same time, the intellectual and moral state of the powerful families was improved as they came under pressure to respect and accept internally the element of civil justice.(249)
I have no wish to describe this great work here.
It was brought about by great foresight and by force, by just and unjust means, and has been fully and masterfully examined by many authors. It will help instead if we concentrate on outlining the truly beautiful ideal of civil society. This ideal remains the aim of civil society which still struggles to attain it, and will go on struggling until it has both eliminated every element inimical to the ideal, and fully conquered, digested and assimilated all the elements not truly inimical to it but disassociated from it.
The ideal concept that we intend to study and outline will, I think, allow us to understand the natural, irresistible, providential movement of civil association either as it progresses peacefully and harmoniously to the ideal, provided it is not held back and impeded on its way, or as it progresses convulsively and precipitously to the ideal, if it has to break free from constraints. I would almost say that in this fatal movement of civil society, as it tends to realise its idea, we have to look for the profound reasons of every social revolution, ancient and modern. This impetuous movement also explains those epochs in which civil society turns on itself in harmful fury, epochs which are more than suitable for convincing wise rulers that they can do everything by seconding the laws of social movement, and nothing by rashly and obstinately opposing them.
Notes
(197) Monumenta hist. patriae, chartar. t. 1, col. 861.
(198) In 1170. — Monumenta hist. patriae, chartar. t. 1, col. 864.
(199) `Sometimes lands of little repute and lesser lords paid notable sums to obtain citizenship from a powerful commune. See the chronicles of Sienna for examples of this' (Rer. Ital., t. 15).
(200) Antiq. ital., dissert. bk. 1.
(201) Statuta Florentiae, t. 1, p. 429.
(202) Cf. Capponi, the riot of the Ciompi, Chronichette antiche, p. 219.
(203) At Chieri.
(204) `At Vercelli. There is some record of this from 1183, when the society of St. Stephen already shared in the government.' Cf. Monumenta hist. patriae, chart., t. 1, col. 921.
(205) At Cuneo, and in many other cities.
(206) `At Novara, the consuls of the Paratici took part in government in 1194.' Monum. hist. patriae, chartar., t. 1, col. 1021.
(207) `In 1090, a certain Otto, called Rifus, and his wife Benedicta, sold a house and a stable "to all the neighbours of Biella". This shows that the commune of Biella still had no common legal organisation. However, the simple capacity that enables people to acquire, which the act reveals, has very important consequences for the history of the Italian municipality. Two years later, the inhabitants of Saorgio, listed individually as men and women, made a donation to the monastery of St. Honoratus of Lenno' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 4). — It is noteworthy that women begin to be named here. - In a diploma published by Muratori, children are named together with the Prior of the city of Ragusa, Peter the Slav. This man `with ALL alike, my nobles and non-nobles, old, young, adolescents, and CHILDREN also' restores certain goods to the abbot of St. Mary of Lacuna in the presence of the bishop, Vitale. This document dates to 1044, and leads one to believe that Ragusa was the first city organised under a municipal government. In stipulations of this kind, the introduction of women and children shows 1. a certain relaxation in the bond of domestic society; 2. the tendency men have by nature to accredit their own intelligence and feeling to others who do not share it.
(208) `The counts of Biandrate condescended to make just treaties with the soldiers of Biandrate, that is, with the lesser vassals and feudatories who, with free and good men, were everywhere the principle and foundation of the communes which they had the good sense to strengthen by aggregating the people. In 1098, Asti was free and made an alliance with Humbert II, count of Savoy, the heir of its ancient lords. Novara, Vercelli, Nice on the sea, Turin, and shortly afterwards Chieri and Testona, and other smaller lands were free' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 4). - `I do not think that the word "soldier" can be understood in any other way at the time. Epidamnus the Coenobite, when speaking of the movement of lesser vassals against greater, says: "The pact based on lawful oath-taking arose in Italy. The lesser SOLDIERS, more oppressed than usual by the evil domination of their superiors, joined together to resist" (Goldast, Rer. Alemann., t. 1, part 1). This is even more obvious from the preface to the law of Corrado on feuds (1037) which says that it came about "to reconcile the spirits of the seniors and the SOLDIERS." Shortly after, the document calls these "seniors" "greater vassals", that is, commanders-in-chief who are always placed in opposition to "soldiers" (Murat., Antiq. Ital., t. 1, col. 609)'.
(209) Modern publicists distinguish between passive and active citizenship. I think that this is one of those false distinctions which in a remarkable way serve to confuse rather than explain the rights of individuals. To my mind, citizenship is an altogether simple, single concept: `It is the state of the individual who as a member of civil society is obliged to pay his tax contribution to civil society, from which he receives his share of utilities.' There cannot be any middle state; either these conditions are verified, and citizenship is present, or they are not, and no citizenship is present. Only the state of extra-social, jural relationships remains (cf. 1677-1679).
(210) This unhappy exemption from the social contribution greatly damaged the clergy because it excluded them de facto from enrolment amongst the citizens. Being considered as foreigners also harmed the exercise of their holy ministry, which is supremely social. This false idea of the priest as excluded from civil society is still fixed in the minds of the people, although the very few ecclesiastics who have anything left after the despoliation of the clergy carried out in the name of civil society pay taxes like other citizens.
(211) Cibrario, ibid., c. 7.
(212) `Foreigners who wanted to live perpetually or temporarily in some territory had to become citizens, buy a house of a certain value and fulfil the other obligations of citizenship, which was granted by the communal council either in perpetuity or temporarily' (Cibrario, ibid.).
(213) `Whatever the previous municipal organisation, it was brought into a more general association in which the lesser vassals (soldiers), the good men, that is, nobles or freemen or foot-soldiers, and the artisans and common people, all entered. It was only in the more powerful cities I think, that the great vassals, or commanders-in-chief, shared in the pact' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 4).
(214) Monumenta hist. patriae. Leges municipales, col. 257. — `The names of the four consuls of Genoa in 1117 are preserved in a poem of praise about the tithes from fishing owed to the bishop of Genoa which was declaimed by them "in the presence of the good men", in the church of St. Laurence. They are Lanfranco Roca, Alberto Malo Ocello, Lamberto Gezo, Oglerio Capra. We note as a sign of advanced civilisation at Genoa that all the good men present at the judgment, or poem, had surnames. Amongst them are a Guido Spinola, an Abogrado, a Fornari and others "whose names", says the notary, "are difficult to write". This is from the contemporary parchment register entitled: "Praises by the consuls of the commune, and about their judgments".'
(215) `A letter of 1115 from the Pisans to the citizens of Nice has the following address: "By the grace of Almighty God. Greetings to the venerable bishop of Nice, and to all the good and wise men of the same city, GREATER and LESS, from the archbishop, consuls and viscounts with the whole people of Pisa, who by divine Providence form the elements of the Pisans"' (Geoffrey, Storia dell'alpi marittime, bk. 7).
In 1126, the five consuls and the foot-soldiers of Mantua made a contract with the abbot of Polirone. Here it seems that government of the municipality was left de facto, if not de iure, to the nobles and foot-soldiers alone.
(216) Cibrario, ibid., c. 4.
(217) Cibrario, ibid., c. 6. - Note here 1. how civil society undertook criminal justice gradually, not immediately. Part of the exercise of this justice was left to private persons, as we saw in RI, 149-155; 2. how the prevalence of Roman law, the law of more perfect civil society, removed the imperfection of criminal law left in great part to private individuals. The Roman seed, mortified but not altogether dead, is yet again that which slowly propagates itself in modern nations.
(218) Cibrario, ibid., in a note.
(219) `The spirit of association which, after trade, is the source of all greatness in the Middle Ages, was shown not only in the primitive organisation of the communes, but also later in the celebrated Lombard and Tuscan leagues, in the league between trade guilds (whatever the different names given to these corporations of artisans), in the league formed for trade amongst the German Hanseatic cities, in the partial leagues, called Ganerbian, instituted between various chatelains of Germany for the sake of mutual security against the violence of more powerful lords, and in many similar facts. This spirit degenerated, however, and was the subject of abuse. It brought about the ruin of the cities in which solemn commitments and oath-taking were multiplied too easily. Often, as history tells us, a faction took over government, or two opposing factions usurped it in an impious, bitter struggle. Cohesion between the lesser vassals, freemen and people gave rise to the independence of the communes; the disintegration of these elements caused various difficulties which brought them to ruin' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 5).
(220) Antiq. ital., Diss. 51.
(221) Cibrario, ibid., c. 5.
(222) `When independence first came to the free cities, all the sections of government were ruled through consuls, divided in some places into major and minor consuls, that is, consuls from the nobility and from the people' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 6).
(223) SP, 37-47.
(224) We need to consider that feudatories did not become citizens simply because forced to do so by communes. They were drawn to do so by the advantages that ascription to communes presented, and by the evils they feared through non-ascription. Communes never conquered lords directly by force of arms, but indirectly, through circumstances which made communes useful to lords and strengthened them against sovereign houses. It remains true, therefore, that the communes' power is due to the lords who entered them. This explains why wars fought by the people on their own against the lords never succeeded, at least not in the long term. `Not one of these revolts, generally stained with atrocious cruelty, attained the aim desired by the rebels. The condition of the peasants in Jutland, Sienis and Frisia was practically free.
The word "Frisian" was combined in a popular proverb with the epithets "noble" and "free". The wars these people undertook so unsuccessfully did not indeed remove, but weakened these prerogatives. In other countries, however, and in France in particular, the condition of the serfs remained miserable in the extreme. It would have been worse if Beaumanoir's opinion were strictly true. He writes that bond-servants are so subject to their master that he can take for himself all that they have in death or life, and imprison them corporally whenever he pleases, rightly or wrongly, without accounting for this to anyone except God (Coutume de Bauvoisis)' (Cibrario., ibid., c. 4).
(225) `The free communes of Lombardy, which united against the emperor Barbarossa formed a kind of federal republic as long as the league endured. If the league had succeeded in outlasting its own triumph, in suppressing the hatred of one city for another, in uniting all spirits in a common bond, at least for common defence, freedom would not have collapsed so soon under the command of the tyrants. The execrable names Ezzolino and Malatesta would not have blackened the pages of our history. In Germany, where ability and wealth were not so great and passions not so violent or evil, the Hanseatic league and the confederation of Rhenish cities later showed what great power could be forged through harmony amongst the weak, and what degree of prosperity could be attained in this way' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 4).
(226) `L'Oisel, Mèmoires de Beuvais et Beuvoisis, p. 271. A charter of Louis VII, 1144 AD, reads: "The people of Beauvais have enjoyed from our father, Louis, for a long time, community allegiance as it was established and sworn, together with similar customs. We, therefore, grant and confirm these things to them provided they preserve their fidelity to us".'
(227) `Ordenicus Vitalis, bk. 2. — Sugenius, in vita Ludovici VI, c. 7.'
(228) `The statutes given by Amadeus III to the city of Susa are, I believe, amongst the most ancient. He died in 1148. Cf. Cibrario, Storia di Chieri, t. 1, appendix, where the author has printed the confirmation and extension of these statutes under Thomas I in 1238; and Historiae patriae monumenta, leges municipales, col. 6. The statutes of Aosta are dated 1188, those of Chambery 1232. Both are published in Documenta, monete, sigilli raccolti in Savoja, in Isvizzera e in Francia, per ordine del re Carlo Alberto, by Luigi Cibrario and Domenico Promis, pp. 82, 126. The statutes of Fribourg in Bleisgau given by Duke Bertold of Zoehringen, are dated 1120.'
(229) `D'Achery, Spicilegium, t. 2: 362; and 13: 330. — Brussels, De usu feudorum, 1: 167, 176. — Perard, Pièces rares pour servir à l'hist. de Bourgogne, 274, 311, 412, 430 et alibi.'
(230) `These names were recently recognised in the very places where they were born seven centuries before. At Wurtemberg those who vote with the ministry are called Ghibelline (waiblinger); Guelfs are the members of the opposition.'
(231) Cibrario, ibid., c. 6.
(232) Cibrario, ibid., c. 5.
(233) Cibrario, speaking of the artisans' guilds in certain cities, which formed part of the government and were ruled by priors, or consuls, or one or more standard-bearers, says: `It was these societies which in the end, when they saw matters turning in favour of the nobles, preferred to call upon a foreign tyrant than serve their fellow-citizens. The societies thought that they gained a final, lasting victory when they constrained the others to serve at the very moment when they were about to reclaim command' (Cibrario, ibid., c. 5).
(234) Cibrario, Storia di Chieri, bks. 3 and 4.
(235) `There are frequent examples of all these disorders in the chronicles of Siena, Florence, Orvieto, Rimini, Bologna and other cities in Italy. They have been printed by Muratori.'
(236) Cibrario, ibid., c. 5.
(237) Sovereign houses, which already exercised a broad, liberal rule over the many seigniorial houses subject to them, were more suitable for understanding and accepting the social element than noble houses of lesser rank. They were already practising a kind of civil government. Moreover, the greater extension of their seigniory must have assured them of a greater quantity of the understanding needed for government. For the way to measure the degree of this understanding, cf. SP, 345-370.
(238) Ibid., c. 6.
(239) Ibid., c. 7.
(240) Sovereigns existed at the time of the barbarian invasions, but not properly speaking legally constituted civil societies. Sovereigns commanded individuals, subjects, bond-servants, but nothing more. True civil societies took root with the establishment of communes which were then united in provinces without being destroyed; provinces were then united in nations without being destroyed. These are the organs of the great civil commonalties of which we are speaking.
(241) Cibrario, ibid., c. 7.
(242) `Kings were nothing more than noble chieftains who abandoned their caste to create for themselves a special fortune by relying on foreign allies.' Lerminier, Philosophie du Droit, bk. 3, c. 2.
(243) Lib. consil. civit., Taur., 1377.
(244) Lib. consil. civit., Taur., 1372, 1373.
(245) Cibrario, ibid., c. 7.
(246) Lib. consil. civit., Taur., 1328 AD and following. — Conto del tesoriere generale di Savoia, 1391, 1393 AD.
(247) `Conto di Giovanni Lyobard, tesoriere generale, from 31st August, 1439, to 7th March, 1440, fol. 242. Before that time, we find subsidies requested place by place from each commune, baron and prelate.'
(248) Cibrario, ibid., c. 7.
(249) This step towards the civilisation of modern societies was also assisted in an incredible way by Christianity, which always contributes to the production of all the great benefits of mankind. There is some truth in what a recent author said: `The stubborn insubordination of the barons against the throne was rendered forever powerless by the religious sanction granted to the hereditary monarchy. One example is the miraculous vigour experienced by Joan of Arc when she needed it to save from ruin the fairest kingdom of the world and its boy king. When Richelieu and Louis XIV finally succeeded in entirely overpowering the ancient aristocracy, and outlined their plan for unity and concentration (which was afterwards put into effect and perfected by the French revolution), it was thought that the violence and despotism they exercised against the nobles would be harmful to the royal power. Instead, it was favourable because the royal power was at the time the representative of divine right and still protected by people's faith. In addition, the onslaught of the royal power against the proud subjects overshadowing it was directed solely against the representatives of the brutal force hidden under the vain show of titles' (Laurent de l'Ardeche, Storia di Napoleone, c. 16).