By Eric Vandenbroeck and co-workers
While some will point
to the Magna Carta and England as the birthplace of sovereignty they seem to
be conflating democratic institutions with institutions of absolutism. Rather
as we will see, the commonwealth, is a description of multiple systems, but is
not by itself a sovereign principle. In fact the accelerated growth of the
scope of Christendom in the eight century was a necessary condition for the
formation of feudalism. And the relative resurgence of the security and trade
subsystems where a necessary condition for the formation of the absolutist
state. Our line of reasoning is novel but testable, plus we ought to be wary of
claims about relative power which expect the system to shift when a rising
hegemon defeats a decadent power.
The interregnum
between the Rome’s hierarchical sovereignty and the principles of bartered
sovereignty established by Charles Martel, Charlemagne, and the Catholic Church
saw a relative decline in literacy and written work. The church became the main
repository of knowledge during this period and remained so for centuries
afterwards. This is vitally important to understanding politics during the
period for two reasons. First, leaders at the time had little tradition to draw
from. Important thinkers such as Aristotle were lost to these generations.
Second, we have fewer recollections and histories of the period from which to
draw an understanding of their political system. The number of extant writings
in Rome and ancient China by contrast give us a wealth of sources on which to
draw out their principles of rule. However, we can lay out some of the basic
problems that existed during this period with some degree of certainty. Even
while the Roman Empire retained some influence in the west during the latter
stages of the Western Roman Empire, the Merovingian kings began to establish
their rule over the Franks and much of Northern Gaul. The Merovingians ruled
according to Salic law. The term rule and law are here very dubious. The most
important principle of Salic law for this study was the division of property
among all of ruler’s sons. This rule ensured that the Merovingian period was
characterized by internecine fighting among family members over inheritances.
(See Patrick J. Geary, Before France and Germany: the creation and
transformation of the Merovingian world, Oxford University Press, 1988).
For example, Clovis,
one of the most powerful of the Merovingian kings, gained a relative
unprecedented level of power mainly through killing most of those closely
related to him that had land or could make claims on his land. But upon his
death his kingdom was divided into four for each of his sons. The warring began
again. Primat, a chronicler of French history in the
thirteenth century, relates the story of Clovis’ wife, Clotild,
now a grandmother, being presented the option by her other sons to, “make a
choice between two things: either your grandchildren will become clerics and be
shorn with the scissors, or they will be killed with [a] sword; one of these
two actions must be taken.” (Robert Levine, France before Charlemagne: a
translation from the Grandes chroniques, 1990, pg.
68).
Clotild thinking her sons would not be so brutal as to do the
latter chose not to send them into the priesthood. When her son Lothar, kills
the first of the grandchildren Primat remarks,
“Things turned out otherwise, for the treacherour
Lothar took the eldest of the children, threw him to the ground, stuck a knife
in his ribs and tooks his life and his kingdom.”
(Ibid. pg. 69).
The most significant
part of this is that the grandson’s very existence was proof of a future
kingdom. Lothar’s act on future generations was an act of territorial
consolidation. Adding to the problem was the fact that the Franks were not the
only tribe in modern-day France. Gaul was divided into five different units:
Austrasia, Neustria, Burgundy, Aquitane, and
Provence. (Guy Halsall, Social Identities and Social Relationships in Early
Merovingian Gaul. In Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian period: an
ethnographic perspective, edited by I. N. Wood, 1998, pg. 145).
Not only did the
Merovingian kings have to contend for the control of the regions among their
siblings, but when they lost control of those regions they had to contend with
whoever had taken over that territory. Burgundy, in particular, proved to be a
lasting problem for Frankish kings. Salic law provided the division of kingdoms
among the king’s sons which weakened the descendants of the king vis-à-vis
outside challengers and encouraged brutal wars between blood relatives. No
sovereign principle existed at this point and the laws that filled the void
were decidedly problematic. Lineages among the royal family were strictly
controlled, but other social hierarchies were fluid and contingent. (Ibid. pg.
150).
The absence of a
rigid social hierarchy reinforced the notion that conflicts could occur at any
given time with a number of claims being both legitimate and important. While
Frankish identity expanded in scope, Frankish rule was much more hit and miss.
(Ibid. pg. 158).
Paul Fouracre explains that Frankish political institutions were
based upon Roman law, but were far more brutal and far less regulated. Kings
were expected to consult with other elites, but it was common not to. Law was
as much a practical matter of expedience as it was a matter of justice. Killing
dissidents and challengers was accepted in the course of business. Brutality of
course is not mutually exclusive from a sovereign principle, but the fact that
the incidents of brutality were spontaneous and contingent suggests that no
real principle existed. It was a profoundly unstable period. (Fouracre, Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian period: an
ethnographic perspective. Edited by I. N. Wood, 1998).
Kings were expected
to consult with other elites, but it was common not to. Law was as much a
practical matter of expedience as it was a matter of justice. Killing
dissidents and challengers was accepted in the course of business. Brutality of
course is not mutually exclusive from a sovereign principle, but the fact that
the incidents of brutality were spontaneous and contingent suggests that no real
principle existed. It was a profoundly unstable period. Charles Martel entered
into this environment as Mayor of the Palace for the last Merovingian king.
This title implied the role of chief administrator. By the end of the
Merovingian dynasty it had evolved to mean effective ruler. At this point
the Merovingian kings were a fairly pathetic lot given more to avarice,
drinking, and whoring than the actual business of rule. Charles Martel
established his own authority by defeating the Moors and the Burgundians. His
military success led him to ultimately ignore the succession of the Merovingian
line and establish his own family as the rulers of the Franks. (Edward James,
The origins of France: from Clovis to the Capetians, 500-1000, 1982, pg 152).
So began the
Carolingian period. But the essential problem of rule remained. Rather than
focus on a decision rule like primogeniture he chose to create a basic set of
feudal arrangements. This is perhaps unsurprising; feudal arrangements are more
consistent with pre-existing Salic institutions than primogeniture would have
been. The political institutions were likewise consistent with Merovingian
rule. Independent rulers persisted throughout much of Gaul in the forms of
counts. The Carolingian innovation following from Charles Martel was to add
another set of authority figures, missi, and bind all
of these forms of nobility to the king.(Since the titles are interchangeable,
the missi will also be referred to as dukes).The
principle, which was entrenched more deeply by Martel’s grandson Charlemagne,
can be summarized as, ‘From fealty comes survival; from survival comes
advancement.’ The general instability of Merovingian rule encouraged widespread
violence. With Carolingian rule came a stable principle. Instead of constantly
warring over inheritances, though this would persist in a more limited form
throughout the feudal era, a basic negotiation principle became entrenched. The
Salic laws which allowed for the distribution of lands among sons and the
election of new kings when a family line died out was not truly eliminated
until Hugh Capet had his son Robert crowned king, without dividing lands, while
he still lived in 987. (François Louis Ganshof,
Frankish institutions under Charlemagne. Providence, 1968).
If all local rulers
were loyal to the king their bargaining position would be improved vis-à-vis
other local rulers. But none had the legitimacy to enforce their claims
directly.
Charlemagne was a
micromanager. As the most central figure in the formal creation of a Frankish
principle of bartered sovereignty Charlemagne created rules which reflected his
keen interest in the administration of the kingdom. In a number of
Charlemagne’s capitularies, set of rules released by Charlemagne or in his
name, he reaffirms the basic logic of bartered sovereignty. In the Capitulare de Villis he reaffirms
the basic hierarchy of the fief distinguishing between serfs and freemen,
stewards, mayors, and the various tradesmen that keep an estate running. (H. R.
Loyn and John Percival, The Reign of Charlemagne:
documents on Carolingian government and administration, 1976, pp 64-73).
Other capitularies
such as the Capitulare missorum
Generale and the Divisio Regnorum dealt more directly with the business of rule.
Beyond dealing with issues such as incest, private judgment, corruption and the
like Charlemagne specifically outlaws patricide and fratricide. This is an
obvious reversal of earlier Merovingian practices. This can be understood at
its core as a principle of bartered sovereignty. Instead of creating a stable
hierarchy through a rigidly controlled family tree, the basic rules of
allegiance and servitude are negotiated as a matter of expedience. All public
lands became state lands and were handed out based upon rank and fealty. Fealty
among the counts and dukes was regulated by a separate set of ministers called
the missi. The fealty oaths taken by local lords
prior to Charlemagne’s rule were fairly weak. According to the Chronicle of Fredegar, a contemporaneous account of the period prior to
Charlemagne’s rule the oaths were frequently broken and renegotiated. (See
Chronicle of Fredegar).
One instructive
sequence of events was when Charlemagne’s father, Pippin III, restored a
fortress and gave it to Remistanius a local lord in
order to oppose another, Waiofar. Later Remistanius would defect and pledge loyalty to Waoifar. In order to deal with this betrayal Pippin plotted
with the Saracens, traditional Frankish enemies, to capture Remistanius
and hand him over for judgement by Pippin. By hanging Remistanius
Pippin was able to gain the fealty of most of Waiofar’s
supporters. (J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The fourth book
of the Chronicle of Fredegar. London, 1960, Ch. 46 –
51 pp 114-119).
Only occasionally was
a broken oath cause in itself for cutting off future diplomatic ties. The missi were only marginally capable of asserting the king’s
over-lordship in relation to these fealty oaths. After Charlemagne came to
power the local struggles were mostly suppressed and most of the wars took
place on the outer bounds of the Frankish kingdom among the Saracens, the
Burgundians, and the Saxons. A separate principle bound slaves and freemen
alike to their local land. In the Double Capitulary of Thionville
Charlemagne sets out the principle that all owe fealty to the king unless they
owe fealty to somebody else. Specifically he states, “Concerning the swearing
of oaths, that fealty should not be sworn to anyone except to us, and by each
man to his [own] lord with a view to our interest and that of the lord himself;
excepted are those oaths which are rightly owed by one man to another One
instructive sequence of events was when Charlemagne’s father, Pippin III,
restored a fortress and gave it to Remistanius a
local lord in order to oppose another, Waiofar. Later
Remistanius would defect and pledge loyalty to Waoifar. In order to deal with this betrayal Pippin plotted
with the Saracens, traditional Frankish enemies, to capture Remistanius
and hand him over for judgement by Pippin. By hanging Remistanius
Pippin was able to gain the fealty of most of Waiofar’s
supporters. (Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. 1960. The fourth
book of the Chronicle of Fredegar. London: Nelson.
Ch. 46 – 51 pp 114-119).
Yet all of the
kingdom was ultimately bound to Charlemagne’s judgment. In the original state
of bartered sovereignty there were provisions balancing the appetites of the
nobles with the poverty of the masses. The missi were
responsible for administering this basic level of justice and Charlemagne was
remarkably involved in the entire process. At this level bartered sovereignty
is incredibly effective and stable. The problem is that as a sovereign
principle it relies almost entirely upon the skill of those involved in the
bartering. The commonly accepted notion of feudalism flowed from the flaws of
Charlemagne’s successors. Nobles became more elitist and control over them
weakened. Local nobles were able to form their own petty kingdoms. Bartered
sovereignty from the end of Charlemagne’s rule in 813 AD to the issuance of the
Edict of Nantes in 1598 shifted power back and forth between the king, when
there was one—and the local nobility. Bargaining ability would prove to be
central throughout much of this period. Given these constraints the
interpersonal bonds of bartered sovereignty became an impersonal institution.
North and Thomas recognized this fact some time ago, noting that as far as the
fief went the input negotiations between lord and serf, as opposed to slavery,
fixed wages, or fixed rents, were the optimal arrangement given the limitations
at the time. (Douglass Cecil North and Robert Paul Thomas, The rise of the
Western world; a new economic history. Cambridge [Eng.] 1973).
Between elites the
responsibilities of a vassal to his lord and a lord to the church varied on an
as needed basis. Where the church and the ideological subsystem were relatively
dominant they arbitrated the competing claims of various lords. The church was
the only dominant structure over most of the European world order at the time
and so was often the case that the Church was involved in arbitrating claims.
However, the church was weak in one fundamental manner: it had no army of its
own. It had its own vassals, but could not organize its own army. Thus the
relative power of the lords provided a bargaining position wherein they could
secure both the stamp of legitimacy and the authority to undertake whatever
campaigns they saw as necessary. After all, it is easy to claim that the
internecine violence of the time was caused by brigands and marauders, but it
was equally attributable to the competing land claims of lords and vassals
among each other. Violence during this period was a fact of life. The relative
zone of peace provided by Christendom merely made this violence more
predictable. The social subsystems of the feudal period presented an
interesting set of problems and led to the Origins and Evolution of
Bartered Sovereignty. At the beginning of the Carolingian period Christianity
had split into a number of variants. The center of the Catholic Church remained
in Rome, but the emperor had moved to Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire
formed another center of religion and it was one which tried to exert control
over the Catholic Church, but with limited effect. Arianism, which had
developed in Alexandria during the decline of the Western Roman Empire, had
persisted among the Germanic tribes. (Michel R. Barnes and Daniel H. Williams,
Arianism after Arius: essays on the development of the fourth century
Trinitarian conflicts, 1993).
Christianity was
pervasive in Europe at the time, but there was no unified hierarchy by which
all belonged and all believed similarly. At the same time military tactics had
shifted fundamentally away from massive infantry wars. Small armies and roving
bands of cavalry had become the norm. Cities had collapsed in favor of the
massive patronage networks of latifundia, but the latifundia could not sustain
the other major benefits of cities as centers of learning and exchange. Markets
became itinerant and illiteracy became commonplace. Given these limitations
forming a cohesive world order becomes incredibly difficult.
Charlemagne’s rule
proved to be central not only in creating new principles of rule, but in
creating the space in which these principles could become dominant. As indicated
above, the principles of bartered sovereignty created by Charlemagne and his
grandfather, Charles Martel were of a limited variety. All fealties were
focused on one central figure, the king. They responded to the basic
infrastructural limitations of their immediate kingdoms. Charles Martel could
not control all of the various nobles in the territories he had conquered
personally, he therefore created the missi to
administrate in his name while he granted the counts and dukes their various
fiefs. The problem became pronounced as Charlemagne began to conquer outlying
kingdoms and to build the Frankish Empire. One thing aided him greatly in this
endeavor: his close relations with the Catholic Church in Rome.
A central part of
Charlemagne’s wars was the elimination of heretical Christians in Gaul.
Charlemagne was generally considered to be a benevolent ruler, but the
punishments meted out to Arians and other heretical sects were almost always
brutal and almost always ended with death. While brutal this had the long-term
effect of rapidly expanding the scope of the Catholic ideological subsystem through
Western Europe. The pope remained weak in relation to the Byzantine Emperor
however. The coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans on Christmas
day in the year 800 had the lasting effect of giving the power of legitimizing
future emperors to the pope. Einhard in The Life of Charlemagne The Medieval
Sourcebook (2005), notes that, “It was then that he received the titles of
Emperor and Augustus [Dec 25, 800], to which he at first had such an aversion
that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that
they were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have
foreseen the design of the Pope.” (See also:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/einhard1.html).
Furthermore in
proclaiming Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor it effectively made the Frankish
Empire the proxy for Christendom. Other portions of the Mediterranean world
remained within the Catholic scope, but were less subordinate to Catholic rule.
The wax and wane of this power over time proves crucial to explaining the
feudal world order. It was the legitimizing force of faith mapped onto the
impressive military conquests of Charlemagne that defined what Christendom
could be. (Donald A. Bullough, Carolingian renewal: sources and heritage, 1991,
pg. 146).
It was for later
leaders to wrestle over what it was. While the power to crown the Holy Roman
Emperor remained a powerful tool in the pope’s arsenal it was another
associated tool that proved to be most important: excommunication. In
Charlemagne’s campaigns he was able to extend and unify Christendom, but the
pope’s power to excommunicate provided an important counterbalance to the power
of the Frankish kings and, the Holy Roman Emperor. In France this had the
long-term effect of creating a unified area in which ideological hierarchies
were rather static, but which remained outside the direct control of the French
kings. There has been a debate about the precise nature of warfare and
war-making in early feudal period. Accounts of Charles Martel’s victory over
the Moors at Poitiers in 732 suggest that the Moors fought on horseback while
the Franks may have ridden to the site of the battle, but battled on foot.
Similarly, there is some evidence that the stirrup, which was one of the more
crucial inventions in history, was
becoming prevalent during the period of Charlemagne’s rule. However, one cannot
say for certain that cavalry was the central tool of war until after the turn
of the millennium. (Lynn Townsend White, Medieval technology and social change,
Oxford University Press, 1966).
Regardless, what is
apparent about warfare in Europe at the time was that it had become the pursuit
of the elites. This is not to suggest that only the elites fought, but that it
was organized according to elite status. This is in contrast to formal status
built through military service. The days of massive legions had long since
passed. The absence of a large, organized army severely limited the designs of
any king. Armies were built indirectly through local nobles and their vassals
and serfs instead of through a direct method of conscription. When a campaign
was over the army disbanded. Enforcing borders and protecting frontiers with
this sort of military force was limited at best. The limitations were
pervasive, but the social hierarchies were localized. The specific nature of
the lord-vassal relationship became more and more particularized after
Charlemagne’s death. Dunbabin notes that: The quality
of lordship symbolized by the fidelity or vassalage varied markedly. Princes,
counts, and also kings, could always afford to make heavy demands on their own
armed warriors; they could sometimes impose the characteristics of vassalage on
their relations with their subordinate aristocrats, whether officers or not,
but often had to be content simply with Bullough notes that the increasing
power of the French court and the resurgence of centers of learning in France
supported the assertion of Frankish power in ecclesiastical issues when the
monarchs in Constantinople were either uninterested or powerless to stop this
accretion of authority. The difference between fidelity oaths and vassalage was
the difference between non-interference agreements and mutual-aid obligations
respectively. (Jean Dunbabin, France in the
making, 843-1180, 2000, pg 115).
Furthermore vassals
often had multiple obligations. Because of the limitations in warfare there
were significant limitations in the types of territories that could be built.
Even the frontiers of the Frankish Empire during the height of Charlemagne’s
power were merely nominal and were frequently nonexistent. The security
subsystem was constrained both by technology and by the nature of the
lord-vassal relationship. There is more to this era than simply the
negotiations of French elites however. This feudal arrangement allowed for what
Michael Mann calls, “the extraction of surplus labor through ground rent by a
class of landlords from a dependent peasantry” (Mann, The sources of social
power: Volume 1: A history of power from the beginning to AD 1760. pg. 375).
Though Charlemange was able to stretch out the boundaries of the
French kingdom he was hamstrung by the weakness and poverty of the cities.
Charlemagne was generally generous with the church, but his chief advisor and
biographer, Einhard, was occasionally forced to demand gifts from local bishops
in order to fund the state. (Ganshof). The revenues
from state production and limited taxation were not sufficient to keep the
state solvent. The amount of capital available for investment and its fluidity
were severely limited; the economy as a whole was forced to move from gold to
silver coinage. Charlemagne was able to establish standards of coinage and
weight, but was limited in his ability to enforce those standards. (James).
Transporting currency
was also a dangerous undertaking. Extending credit for long distance purchases
was limited in scope because of church rules against usury and was therefore
limited small Jewish populations throughout Europe. The net result of these
limitations was to limit the size of cities and the scope of markets. Towns
remained small and relatively disconnected save for religious pilgrims, nomads,
and traveling fairs. The fairs themselves which represented the widest ranging
of the markets were itinerant and somewhat unpredictable. The process of ruralization that had begun in the late Roman era continued
through the Carolingian dynasty despite the numerous innovations undertaken by
Charlemagne. The European world order by the time of Charlemagne’s death thus,
was for all purposes a Frankish world order. The initial structure of the
European world order in the immediate aftermath of the decline of the Roman
Empire is often characterized as fragmented as well as highly personalized.
Joseph Strayer says of the period that, “The Roman idea of the state was
quickly forgotten in the troubled period of invasions and migrations . . . In
the early Middle Ages the dominant form of political organization in Western
Europe was the Germanic kingdom, and the Germanic Kingdom was in some ways the
complete antithesis of a modern state. It was based on loyalties to persons,
not to abstract concepts or impersonal institutions.” (Joseph Reese Strayer, On
the medieval origins of the modern state, 1970, Pg 13).
In Frankish Gaul,
which was on the fringes of the empire to begin with rule certainly was highly
personalized. The beginning of the Carolingian dynasty saw Frankish Gaul become
the center of the Western European world order. In conquest Charlemagne was
able to define the frontiers of that world order and in death he left a legacy
of fragmented deterritorialized polities. While the
economic and security systems collapsed precipitously the Church did rise up to
replace the fading embers of Roman identity. By the time that Charlemagne was
crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo Christianity had effectively formed a
cohesive ideological system over much of Europe. The invasions and migrations
had—as far as was possible during the time, largely ceased. Europe emerged from
centuries of turmoil as a Catholic continent. In so doing one cannot
underestimate the importance of that faith. The common creed that united the
Frankish world order enabled other important relationships including those
bonds of kith and kin that were central to bartered sovereignty. Various
secular and religious norms bound Europe together. The pope held the power to
excommunicate and crown kings. Used wisely these powers expanded the scope of
Christendom and created some degree of conformity within it. Similarly, the
power of kings to grant vassalage created the means to protect their vast land
holdings while at the same time defending Christendom where necessary. In the
wake of Charlemagne’s death the Frankish Empire began to fragment. This
happened partly because Salic tradition remained and competing claims to
inheritances would come to divide the kingdom, and partly because his sons lacked
the basic acumen for rule that he possessed. By the time Charlemagne died, his
son Louis, the sole remaining direct heir, was known more for acumen in piety
than in politics. He lacked any skill at mediating the rising conflicts among
the nobility. (Dunbabin).
During his reign
numerous civil wars began to rend the empire and upon his death the empire was
finally divided between his three sons, who warred among themselves over the
remains until the Treaty of Verdun in 843. It was these remnants, constantly
divided, that created the basis for the characteristic heteronomy of the
medieval era.
The Frankish world order
was at once bound together by the ideological subsystem, Christendom and the
Holy Roman Empire, and was progressively fragmenting as another part of
ideological subsystem, Salic law, continued to carve up feudal lands.
As the kingdom began
to fragment the other subsystems were limited in scope and capacity; the elites
were incapable of abetting the fragmentation. Cities in this period were as
much a part of the negotiations as anything else with the bishoprics autonomy
traded for right of investiture given to the kings. The autonomy of the cities
was traded for the right of the kings to appoint the bishops. There was no
secular authority during this phase of bartered sovereignty.
To suggest otherwise
is problematic for a number of reasons, but it is most important as regards
that lord-serf relationship. From serfs to lords and bishops, from lords and
bishops to the pope loyalty and suffering were inherently intertwined. And from
the pope down to the meanest serf they were in turn bound to the land given the
meager production that was possible at the time. Serfs themselves retained a
bargaining position simply because agricultural production and technology had
declined so markedly from the end of the Roman Empire. The entire arrangement
was open to frequent renegotiation based upon the exigencies of the moment.
Thus bartered sovereignty was the logical outcome given the spatial constraints
of the time with each linked together by common beliefs, but too weak to
enforce any lasting hierarchy upon each other and too impoverished to escape.
The Frankish kingdom continued to dwindle, but the Frankish world order
persisted in much of Europe. The limited scope of the trade and security
subsystems continued to divide Europe, while Christendom continued to hold it
together. The shift from a wholly unstable system into a prolonged period of
bartered sovereignty is thus somewhat easy to explain. What remains more
difficult to explain is the second phase of this European transformation: from
bartered sovereignty to administrative sovereignty. The Carolingian Dynasty
died in 967 AD with death of Louis V. Without a male heir to inherit the
kingdom it fell to a council to appoint the new king. After some debate Hugh
Capet was elected king. The kingdom that he accepted was by this point divided
by not only by fief, but by currency and language. Capet himself was notable
not so much for how he lived, but how he died. Nearing death he oversaw the
coronation of his son, Robert II, as King of France. This had a profound effect
upon the Frankish world order. Capet’s desire to ensure his family’s power had
the long term effect of undermining Salic law. Primogeniture would not become
common in France for some time, but a stable line of succession for the
kingship did become more or less accepted practice. At the turn of the
millennium the French social and economic environment began to improve rapidly.
The kingdoms would continue to fragment and the principle of bartered
sovereignty would persist, but numerous changes began to substantially affect
the course of French history. The changes in technology and wealth were not, in
and of themselves, the proximate causes of change in the sovereign principles
of the European world order. In fact, the end of the Carolingian line had a profound
affect on the stability of the Frankish, now becoming
French, world order. Set loose from its moorings the various nobles continued
to assert their authority through a principle of bartered sovereignty, but that
authority came to define smaller and smaller territories. Regino
of Prüm, noted in the tenth century, that: After
Charles [the Fat’s] death, the kingdoms which had obeyed his will, as if devoid
of a legitimate heir, were loosened from their bodily structure into parts and
now awaited no lord or hereditary descent, but each set out to create a king
for itself from its own inner parts. This event roused many impulses towards
war, not because Frankish princes, who in nobility, strength, and wisdom were
able to rule kingdoms, were lacking, but because among themselves an equality
of generosity, dignity, and power increased discord. No one surpassed the
others that they considered it fitting to submit themselves to follow his rule.
Indeed Francia would given rise to many princes fit
to govern the kingdom had not fortune in the pursuit of power armed them for
mutual destruction. (Paul Edward Dutton, Carolingian civilization: a reader,
1993, pg 507).
With the end of the
Carolingian line at hand the stabilizing force of a strong king loosed upon
France an anarchy of contending powers intent on asserting their legitimate
claims, but lacking the power or charisma to insist on fealty. The emerging
French polity was stabilized by the accession of Hugh Capet, but was still
wracked with the competing claims of local lords. Hugh Capet, himself was only
safe in region nearest the Île de France. Two major events during this period
began to change the violent status quo that defined medieval France: the
resurgence of French agricultural production and the economy, and the
diminishing power of the Catholic Church in Europe. The next two sections will
explore the import of these events in the evolution of the French state. Cities
reemerged in the period between 1000 AD and the beginning of the Hundred Years
War (1336 AD), characterized by increasing competition over the growing
resources of the continent. From this point the French state grew in fits and
starts. “The transformative story of the eleventh and twelfth centuries was the
economic and governmental colonization of formerly underdeveloped and undergoverned internal spaces. In counties, castellanies,
and fiefs of all sorts, the number of towns, villages, and parishes increased,
forests were cleared, new fields planted, and markets founded.” (Geoffrey Koziol, Political Culture. In France in the central Middle
Ages: ages 900-1200, edited by M. Bull, 2002, pg 59).
The increasing wealth
did not make bartered sovereignty obsolete, but reversed the process
fragmentation that followed from the Treaty of Verdun and highlighted the
integrative possibilities of bartered sovereignty rather than the
disintegrative capacity which had been dominant. Wealthier lords began to
assert their dominance over weaker ones. Fealty became more stable as lords
gained the ability to punish defectors. Cities and agricultural production
became central to the increasing power of lords rather than islands of
resistance to feudal capriciousness. Under Pope Urban II we see the beginning
of the European Crusades to liberate Jerusalem. The Crusades did have the
ultimate effect of breaking Europe out of a period of profound isolation while
simultaneously distracting the pope from the more general affairs of Europe.
With the end of this isolationism trade began to reemerge. This happened first
and foremost in Italy. But France held some of the more fertile land in Western
Europe and together with Flanders was able to begin to produce surplus product.
The trade that developed between Flanders and England around this time was
crucial to world history. The growth of industry and trade around this period
led the nobles to view their fiefs as more than simple land grants whereby they
would pay their debts to the king. They became profitable endeavors. The basic
feudal arrangement remained, but the units which they described began to change
fundamentally. The fief became an estate, the town became a center of
production rather than a refuge of the meek, and the church shifted from
dominating presence to mediator, teacher, and landholder. Cities over time
became more than mere vessels of opposition to the feudal structure; they
became alternatives to that structure. The bishoprics and independent cities
survived the expansion of feudalism precisely because they were a part of the
feudal structure. (Strayer). Their relative autonomy was bartered between
elites as a matter of course. Autonomy was not assumed, but was merely
guaranteed temporarily as a function of force or diplomacy. Their power in this
instance flowed not from counter-balancing the king and his vassals, but by
providing leverage to them or to the church. The long-term effect of this of
course was to instill a true sense of independence within the cities.
Regardless of their position within the system their own beliefs created the
impetus for change.
Combined with the
revival of Roman law, the rediscovery of Aristotle, and a number of other
philosophical revelations the late Middle Ages shifted the power to the cities
because the cities presented a philosophical alternative to the feudal
structure. The revival of trade, the return of a monetarized economy, and
secular contracts in the Middle Ages all had a profound effect on the French
world order. It was not just that cities experienced a marked and important
resurgence, it was the manner in which it happened. The expansion of cities
both in size and in number followed directly from the expansion of
long-distance trade. This expansion of trade was in turn enabled by the gradual
and growing obsolescence of interpersonal contracts. The early medieval era was
based on narrow allegiances and kinship ties . . . Such personal ties and lack
of confidence in the material environment made economic exchange difficult to
conduct . . . The necessity to have circumscribed areas of clear jurisdiction,
and the desire to substantiate private property combined with the necessity for
more formalized interaction which could exist independent of the specific
actors, renewed interest in Roman law. (H. G. Koenigsberger,
George L. Mosse, and G. Q. Bowler. 1989.
Europe in the sixteenth century. 2nd ed.)
Overcoming the
temporal and spatial limitations on trade in Europe was thus the chief
achievement of cities and merchants. The subsequent explosion of trade in
numerous goods, wool and linens chief among them, led to most of the key
changes including the enclosure movement in England, the rapid expansion of
cities in modern France, Italy, and Germany, and the eventual schism in the
Catholic Church. In France the lord-serf relationship began to disappear in
favor of more productive relationships more reminiscent of late Roman times
than of the harsh penurious existence enforced on many laypeople during the
Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties. One facet of this new relationship
between the lord and laypeople was the bannum which
required all inhabitants, serfs, freemen, and otherwise to use the lord’s mills
and granaries, and to pay tolls on the use of public goods like roads and
bridges. In exchange the lords were largely responsible for increasing the
safety of those public areas and expanding the arable land in the fief.
(Constance Bouchard, Rural economy and society. In France in the central Middle
Ages: ages 900-1200, edited by M. G. Bull, Oxford, 2002, pg. 92).
The rise in
production generally went along with a decrease in serfdom and in increase in
wages for those tenant farmers. The increase in wealth had the ultimate effect
of increasing the strength of bartered sovereignty from the bottom up. The
improvement in production increased territorial consolidation and decreased the
need for the lord-vassal relationship. As the number of vassals decreases the
principle of bartered sovereignty becomes increasingly incoherent. And in 1075
AD the second significant shift took place. A crisis between King Henry IV of
Germany and Pope Gregory VII, known as the Investituture
Conflict radically changed the hierarchy within Christendom and ultimately
began to undermine the centrality of the Catholic Church in European politics.
Kings had long held the right to choose and appoint bishops in their kingdoms.
While this right had been uncontroversial prior to this period, Pope Gregory
VII had eliminated the right of investiture by papal decree. King Henry IV of
Germany had insisted on the right of kings to put bishops into office. Henry’s
response essentially called for Gregory to step down as pope. Gregory
subsequently excommunicated Henry. This led to the famous and often
mythologized event in 1076 at the castle in Canossa near Milan. As the story
goes, Henry stood in the snow (perhaps barefoot, perhaps in a hairshirt) for
three days seeking absolution. Gaining that Henry was eventually crowned Holy
Roman Emperor. The conflict between pope and emperor simmered however and Henry
eventually threw Gregory in jail and appointed a new pope. While Gregory’s
eventual downfall is significant, equally significant is that this
excommunication was taken seriously. The power of the pope to define who
existed within and without Christendom had profound consequences for both
rulers and laypeople. To be excommunicated essentially excluded that person or
that ruler from international society. Certainly, for King Henry, the threat of
exclusion was a threat to his current kingdoms. While the Investiture Conflict
mainly involved the Holy Roman Empire and England it had profound effects on
the Frankish world order. The Crusades had reawakened the linkages of the
Charlemagne’s world order which had lain dormant for many centuries. However,
the Church reforms, including investiture rights and demands of priestly celibacy,
had the effect of limiting the scope of papal power. (H. E. J. Cowdrey, Popes
and church reform in the 11th century, 2000).
The ideological
subsystem did not collapse, but the secularization of royal power had the
long-term effect of isolating the Catholic Church and progressively limiting
the geographic scope of the papal hierarchy. Because of these reforms secular
kings would inevitably come to replace the ideological subsystem of the church
with an ideological hierarchy centered on their own charisma. By 1200 AD the
kings were still too weak individually to assert their authority against the
church however the new principle dividing secular and ecclesiastic rule
provided a jumping off point for further innovations. The role of the church as
an ideological subsystem went beyond simply defining the laity, legitimizing
the lords and vassals, and extending the ecumene. The church became the
protector of extant knowledge with varying degrees of success. In so doing
official written law fell under the jurisdiction of the church. This had two
main effects. First, God’s word as written in the bible and as interpreted by
the church became the first, and universally accepted, source of law in all of
Christendom. (Marcus Bull, The Church. Edited by M. Bull, France in the central
Middle Ages: ages 900-1200, 2002,135).
In disputes among the
various elites the logic of argumentation often followed from quite carefully
and precisely from various interpretations of the bible. Second, the
interpretations of other sources of law that were commonly used, chiefly Roman
law, were always consonant with biblical law. God was the lawgiver and his
universe was arranged according to an unknowable set of laws, but a set of laws
that was surely perfect. The Investiture Conflict cut to the very heart of this
issue. But it did so unevenly. By the end of the Investiture Conflict, resolved
in the Concordants of London and Worms, England and
Germany established principles by which they could flout, or at least subvert,
the will of the pope in the appointment of bishops and other members of the
ecumene. (See also Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The investiture controversy: church
and monarchy from the ninth to the twelfth century, 1988; Frederick Karl
Morrison, The investiture controversy; issues, ideas, and results. 1971).
These negotiations
reinforce the notion that bartered sovereignty was still the dominant principle
at the same time that the church was in a relatively weaker position to the
royalty The conflict left France rather unscathed, but the last remaining
vestige of the Frankish world order had begun to crumble. The ideological
subsystem became smaller, more isolated, and more particular. France became one
of the first areas loosed from the bonds of Christendom. The politics of the Holy
Roman Empire became the chief occupation of the popes in the central Middle
Ages. The Chronicle of the Abbey of Morigny shows how
the abbot was engaged in negotiations with kings and lords to secure church
lands. (See also Richard Cusimano and Morigny A translation of the Chronicle of the abbey of Morigny, France, c. 1100-1150, 2003).
Until the Avignon
papacy during the Hundred Years War, France pursued its own development rather
than the arcane politics of the papacy. The decline of Christendom hastened the
decline of the Frankish world order, but bore in the seeds of a resplendent
French world order. The church found its power over the laity severely
circumscribed over time. In its place grew the secular authority of kings,
nobles, and merchants. The puzzle that has challenged other systems change
theories and which is still perplexing is simply this: if the decline of
feudalism began around 1000 AD as agricultural practices began to improve and
the secular power of kings began to assert itself how come it took another 600
years for the absolutist state to fully emerge? Early in the second millennium
AD we do see improvements in the ability of the French to support themselves.
However, this did not coincide with French kings exerting themselves upon the lesser
lords in any cohesive and meaningful way. It took quite some time for war to
approach the Clausewitzian ideal of organized armies
dedicated to organized political outcomes for extended periods of time. Even
the Crusades followed a feudal logic of organization rather than any specific
raison d’état.
Thus while the
hierarchies which it had traditionally defined were becoming more marginal, the
trade subsystem on the other hand was resurgent and though plagues and famines
would continue to limit the rate of growth the direction of growth was
undeniable. (Michael Jones, The crown and the provinces in the fourteenth
century. In France in the later Middle Ages, 1200-1500, edited by D. Potter,
Oxford, 2003).
The meager existence
that the early Middle Ages provided was slowly being replaced by a better, more
stable existence. Yet bartered sovereignty continued to structure the world
order. Interpersonal bonds of fealty continued to be the medium through which
politics at every level occurred. It is thus significant that none of these
changes were the proximate causes of the rise of administrative sovereignty.
The birth of the absolutist state in the late 16th century was foretold by the
changes occurring in the 11th and 12th centuries, but it was not predicated by
them. (David Parker, The making of French absolutism, 1983).
At this point little
has been said about changes to the security subsystem and this is because
little did change during this period. However, during the subsequent period of
the Avignon papacy and the Hundred Years War the security subsystem changed in
significant ways soon followed, by the hundred years War.
The Île de France,
that central part of France incorporating Paris and the outlying valleys, was
particularly well-suited to the growth of Western Europe because it was
situated near many waterways and other transportation routes. In the period
following the Investiture Conflict Philip II (Philip Augustus) engaged in
numerous wars and diplomatic engagements that expanded the French sphere of
influence and, by proxy, the French state. Territorial consolidation at the
local level solidified the hierarchy among the king and the princes. However,
territorial demarcation was still absent from the picture.204 The common ideas
that one holds for a French state still did not exist to this point. There was
not a common language in the territories we now consider France. The modern
French language is derived from the dialect, langue d’oil
spoken around the Île de France. In all of France, particularly the south
(Languedoc) vassalage continued to characterize numerous elite relationships
negotiated and renegotiated constantly. The period of the 12th and 13th
centuries was one of the first eras of rebirth, but did not correspond in any
respect to the consolidation of the French kingdom. There was no France to
speak of in any cohesive sense though the core of it would grow out of the
kingdom of Western Francia under the leadership of the Capetian kings. (Roger
Price, A concise history of France, Cambridge 2005, pg. 26).
As late as the 15th
century the Dauphiné was bound to the king of France,
but not as a French territory. By the early 14th century economic growth has
seized much of Europe. Philip Augustus founded the University of Paris.
Flanders, still an independent territory, burgeoned as a site of wool
production. Trade routes across Europe became increasingly dense and vibrant.
This was in part due to the Crusades, but equally due to a relative period of
peace. Warfare was still endemic to the period and we must therefore understand
this period of peace in its proper context. By 1312, “population densities were
higher than they would again be before the eighteenth century.” (R. J. Knecht,
The rise and fall of Renaissance France, 1483-1610, Cambridge, 2001).
During this period
the power of the church continued to wane and changes in the security subsystem
were minimal. The art of war did not change substantially either it was a
period more defined by ongoing changes to the trade subsystem. Coinage and
contract labor began to reemerge. Soldiers, for example, could expect to be
paid a consistent wage. Looting and pillage remained central parts of warfare,
but wage soldiery generally stabilized the relationship of king to army. (C. T.
Allmand, Society at war: the experience of England
and France during the Hundred Years War, 1998).
Similarly, peasants
that had been made serfs began to reassert their independence to local lords.
However, the governments themselves remained rather weak, both in terms of taxation
and force. The ability of the king to collect taxes and exert control over
distant territories remained weak. It led to a brief, but highly unstable
period. The principle of bartered sovereignty remained stable, while the
relative subsystems around it changed rapidly. This was exacerbated by the
Avignon Papacy during the years of 1305 – 1378. Under Pope Clement V, partly
because of a conflict with Philip IV (Philip the Fair) and partly because of
wars threatening Rome, the papal seat was relocated to the papal estates in
Avignon. This had two major effects on the feudal arrangements in France and
Europe at the time. First, France gained considerable power over the church and
thus was able to consolidate its own power.
During the Avignon papacy every pope elected (seven of them) was French. (P. S.
Lewis, Essays in later medieval French history, 1985).
French kings
benefited from having the pope in France. With the College of Cardinals
electing French popes the French kings were able to pursue an agenda almost
wholly to their own liking.
Second, the pope
began the practice of simony and selling indulgences while in France. This had
the famous effect of creating the basis for the two schisms, the Great Schism
and the Protestant Reformation, which would follow. So instead of the church
holding captive the whole of Christendom under its dual powers of
excommunication and the power to crown kings we see this power inverted. The
church, for purposes of taxation and increasing wealth, became captive to the whims
of merchants and lords capable of filling church coffers. Meanwhile Philip IV
and subsequent French kings used their power to essentially approve or
disapprove of the decisions of the College of Cardinals.
This sequence of
events would shortly lead England and France towards the Hundreds Years War.
Some such as Strayer disagree with this basic notion pointing out that while
the Popes were French their policies remained focused on increasing papal
authority. Ironically, their actions mattered little; it was the appearance of
impropriety that ultimately undermined the Pope and the Church. Strayer. The
war, which began in 1336, had at its core a number of causes. One was primarily
financial; after confiscating the property of the Jews and Knight Templar to pay
for his armies and his wars Philip IV was left with little else to do, except
to increase taxation. This came mainly in the form of taille, “a direct tax on
persons and property.” (Koenigsberger, Mosse, and Bowler. Pg. 282).
This worked well
enough, but Philip IV had two fatal flaws: he was mortal and his heirs didn’t
live long. Shortly after his death the Capetian line itself ended with the
death of his son Charles IV. Reverting to Salic law there was some dispute over
who would inherit the French crown with equal claims made by Edward III, king
of England, and Philip of Valois, a nephew to Charles. With French control of
the papacy there was little doubt that the French claim would triumph. However,
France ’s increased need for revenues did not decrease during this time and
Philip’s (now Philip VI) eyes turned towards Flanders.
French control over
Flanders was unacceptable to the English given English reliance on the fleece
trade that fueled Flanders’ looms and England ’s wealth. Thus began the Hundred
Years War. It continued as many wars of this period did: it was long and bloody
and the peasants bore the brunt of the cost and carnage. (Nicholas Wright,
Knights and peasants: the Hundred Years War in the French countryside, Warfare
in history, Rochester 1998).
It was significant to
the security subsystem for a number of reasons. One of the more notable changes
was the shift from cavalry to infantry as the central unit of warfare.
The French victory in
the Hundred Years War is perhaps surprising given their general incompetence in
many of the major battles including Poitiers, Crecy, and Agincourt. In each of
those battles English infantry and artillery (longbow-men and cannon) provided
the decisive advantage in the battle. Superior logistics in the end trumped
superior tactics, but the message was sent to all of Europe nonetheless. The
day of the knight was coming to an end. Given the importance of infantry, the
onus of defense now began to fall upon the king. This fundamentally changed the
role structures that necessitated bartered sovereignty vis-à-vis the security
subsystem.
From this point
forward kings would begin to build centralized armies in lieu of relying of
feudal obligations of lords and their manors. Expanding from the Île de France
the new security subsystem began to grow outwards into the rest of France.
We may summarize by
saying that there are three significant issues that arise from this chapter in
French history. First, it results in the English expulsion from the mainland
leaving the French kings to consolidate the territories to their north. Second,
the carnage of the war combined with the Black Death, which swept out of the
Gobi Desert and arrived in 1347, severely undermined the position of the
church. The church was unable to explain the plague in religious terms and
unable to provide sacraments to the dying and this disillusioned much of laity.
Lastly the requirements of self-defense and the increasing costs of war
consolidated and strengthened the French bureaucracy and thus the French king.
As the line goes, ‘war made the state.’ There is some disagreement as to how to
interpret this period of French history. For some, the period of growth
beginning with Philip Augustus continuing through Saint Louis and Philip IV
represents the beginning of the French state. The consolidation of territories
and the growth of a central bureaucracy designed to levy taxes did begin during
this period. The question that one ought to pose then is under what set of
principles did this emerge? For this we find fairly strong evidence that this
period of consolidation was still marked by a basic principle of bartered
sovereignty. While the king was able to subject larger territories under his
immediate control his power to tax those territories was still severely
limited. (Elizabeth A. R. Brown, Customary aids and royal finance in Capetian
France : the marriage aid of Philip the Fair, Cambridge, 1992).
The king’s bureaucracy
was small. In order to tax the peasants most often the king had to agree not to
tax the nobles. Taxation of the nobles, or the lack thereof, would continue to
be a defining characteristic of this period and indeed, as I shall show later,
we can use that taxation of the nobles as something of a benchmark for the rise
of administrative sovereignty, and later absolute sovereignty. One might point
to Saint Louis ’s use of Parlément and the Estates
General to resolve conflicts and establish the legal basis of kingly right as
another starting point for a new sovereign principle. Certainly these
institutions look remarkably like state institutions, but they were far more
charismatic than they were legalistic.
Subsequent kings
consulted these bodies only intermittently and largely to give the appearance
of being magnanimous. Lewis points out, “No king could act alone: he had his
entourage, his counsellors, his ‘favourites’; he had
his civil servants. In this welter of governance the individual will of the
king might be hard to identify.” Thus not only did the king use representative
bodies intermittently, his own agenda was coopted and compromised by those
surrounding him. The actual negotiations between the three estates, the
nobility, the clergy, and the commoners, were still highly interpersonal and
random. Some institutions that would prove useful to the state did rise in this
period, but one in better off understanding this period for the rebirth of
industry and as the high-water mark of the Catholic Church.
The Hundred Years
War, which ended in 1453 at the Battle of Castillon,
devastated the population, but strengthened industry and the bureaucracy. The
Great Schism which had at one point given the people three separate popes
ushered in a period of mysticism and religious innovation among the laity and a
profound period of questioning among all involved. In the course of the Hundred
Years War the two great social systems, the fief and the church, that had
stabilized Europe through the Middle Ages began to crumble. Time and again the
knight on horseback was defeated by infantry and cannon. While the church found
itself making one mistake after another. The principle of diffuse hierarchy
that had characterized the security system began to change rapidly, though the
resulting scope of that system would take some time to change. The totalitizing capacity on the ideological system became more
or less bankrupt, Christendom was coming apart at the seams. Yet France found
itself on the fringes of the growing ‘heresy’ of the Reformation. The stage was
thus set for a rapid growth of the economy. While other wars did follow in the
immediate aftermath, particularly the French-Italian wars under Charles VIII,
Louis XII, and Francis I, the development of France in this period is best
understood by the peaceful growth within the burgeoning territory. (David
Potter, A history of France, 1460-1560: the emergence of a nation state, 1995).
In the middle of this
Louis XI (The Spider King) found grist for consolidating unprecedented power.
One could argue that the beginnings of absolutism, but while he made the claim
for absolutism and did away with the Estates General for the most part Louis
still never quite threw out the status quo of bartered sovereignty.
For Louis absolutism
was a bargaining position, not an entirely new principle. His nickname by
itself may evidence enough of this; he was the Spider King constantly weaving
and trapping people in his web. Every claim was a ploy and a trap, not a new
sovereign principle. It is important to distinguish between absolutism, which
could be said to be a sign of administrative sovereignty, and absolute
sovereignty, which is characterized by a heretofore absent control of ideology
by the state. (David Potter, A history of France, 1460-1560: the emergence of a
nation state, 1995).
The state of affairs
that France found itself in during this period brought the Renaissance to
France, filled its coffers, and increased the well-being of its entire people.
When Martin Luther’s theses first arrived in Paris in 1521 they didn’t have
nearly the effect that they had had in other parts of Europe. They were
proclaimed heretical rather quickly and they were fairly easy to suppress and
control in the beginning. Nonetheless, among townspeople (particularly
artisans) and disempowered nobility they gained a distinct following. This was
accelerated and strengthened by the writings of Calvin beginning to appear in
France in 1535. (R. J. Knecht, The French wars of religion, 1559-1598, 1996,
pg. 50).
By 1562 attempts at
negotiated peace and reconciliation had failed and the first of the French
Civil Wars began. The resolution to the civil wars was quite surprising. Henry
of Navarre, descended from the powerful Bourbon line of Capetian kings, was
named king following the death of Henry III. Though he might have been king he
could not be crowned; he could not enter Paris. Henry of Navarre was a Huguenot
and the Catholic League held Paris. He was able to secure territories in the
south of France for himself, but he remained unable to retake Paris. In what
was one of the more savvy moves in French political history he converted to
Catholicism and was subsequently crowned Henry IV in Chartres in 1594.The
period between 1453 and 1594 was characterized by the increasing inefficiency
of bartered sovereignty. Cities, trade, education, and population grew rapidly
through this period. (S. Annette Finley-Croswhite,
Henry IV and the towns: the pursuit of legitimacy in French urban society,
1589-1610, 1999).
With the increase in
wealth came an increase in the number of people who either claimed nobility or
could buy the ear of the monarch and his lieges. The infinite complexities of a
system of this sort are one thing when the hierarchy is rather straightforward,
but as lineages and claims to nobility became increasingly complex the
interpersonal nature of the feudal system was pushed to the breaking point.
(Mark Greengrass, France in the age of Henri IV: the struggle for stability,
1995).
The Reformation was
the actual breaking point. Given the excuse Huguenots and Catholics could
create their own exclusive systems of fealty each dependent upon their victory.
Meanwhile the religious wars had grown beyond the townspeople who had initially
supported them. Now forced to give allegiance to the nobles who would support
their victory they were trebly taxed. The state, the war, and their allegiances
all conspired to deprive the commoners of their livelihood. By the time Henry
had come to power norms entrepreneurs had actively and successfully begun
advocating for the absolutist king no longer bound by oaths of fealty, but a
leviathan unto himself. Henry was more like his distant predecessor,
Charlemagne, than any that had come before him or after him. He actively
created a new principle of rule, administrative sovereignty, to replace the
increasingly defunct principles of bartered sovereignty. Sully points out the
self-evident intentionality of this, “From hence likewise we may perceive the
motives for [Henry’s] pursuing a conduct so opposite to anything that had
hitherto been undertaken by crowned heads . . . to render France happy forever
was his desire; and as she cannot perfectly enjoy this felicity unless all
Europe partakes of it, so it was the happiness of Europe in general which he
labored to procure.” (James Goldsmith, Lowth Longman.
Lordship in France, 1500-1789, 2005).
The collapsing
Frankish world order was thus being explicitly replaced with a French world
order which had at its head a single ruler focused on the administrative
priorities of rule rather than the petty claims of local nobles. Henry
explicitly rejected the centrality of these claims to good or sensible
governance. His most significant act in spelling out this claim was issuing the
Edict of Nantes in 1598 which created the absolute monarch in the French state.
Overtly, the Edict of Nantes guaranteed safe places of worship to the Huguenots
throughout France. (Ragnhild Marie Hatton, Louis XIV and absolutism, 1976).
The more subtle
effect was to replace the principle of bartered decisionmaking
with royal decree. One significant passage states: In the Houses that are
Fiefs, where those of the said Religion have not high Justice, there the said
Exercise of the Reformed Religion shall not be permitted, save only to their
own Families, yet nevertheless, if other persons, to the number of thirty,
besides their Families, shall be there upon the occasion of Christenings,
Visits of their Friends, or otherwise, our meaning is, that in such case they
shall not be molested: provided also, that the said Houses be not within
Cities, Burroughs, or Villages belonging to any Catholick
Lord (save to Us) having high Justice, in which the said Catholick
Lords have their Houses. For in such cases, those of the said Religion shall
not hold the said Exercise in the said Cities, Burroughs, or Villages, except
by permission of the said Lords high Justices. (Roland Mousnier,
The Edict of Nantes Stetson University, 2006, see also:
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/edictnantes.html).
This is significant
because it emphasizes the will of the king in decisions rather than bonds of
fidelity and vassalage. Regardless of the relationship of the king to the
nobles, the king asserts his prior right to declare and enforce law. The Edict
of Nantes expresses something far more particular and important than the vague
absolutism of cuius region eius
religio. Henry IV created a principle of absolutism
that was far more dominant than other alternatives at the time. It was not the
mutual noninterference of the Peaces of Augsburg or
Westphalia. It was the king’s right to ignore the claims of the lower nobility.
In general political
scientists take the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 to be the genesis of the modern
principle of sovereignty. Those that don’t will often instead rely upon the
Peace of Augsburg in 1555 which first established the principle of cuius regio eius
religio. However, both of these treaties were mainly
concerned with the Holy Roman Empire which remained fractious for more than a
century after both of those treaties. Furthermore, the Peace of Augsburg
preceded the first French Civil War by seven years. Clearly the principle
established in that peace could be none to relevant to the French view of the
state or sovereignty. If that principle had been influential in France then
Henry would have been more inclined to cede some land that would be designated
Protestant in order to create a lasting peace. Insofar as France is the first
modern state we should be concerned with the historical shifts that proved
crucial to the formation of French sovereignty instead of merely seeking out
benchmarks which are convenient, but not altogether accurate.
In a curious way the
revocation of the edict by Louis XIV in 1685 actually strengthened the principles
which it had espoused while getting rid of the pretext of religious freedom.
The principle of the prince choosing the religion offers the hope that under a
different prince a new dominant religion might be possible. In contrast, the
principle that the king had the power to determine when and where religious
freedom was tolerated creates the very basis of absolutism. The Edict of
Nantes, in this regards, reflects the concepts proposed by Jean Bodin in 1576 far more closely and immediately than any
subsequent treaties such as Westphalia. The burden of taxes that the commoners
suffered under at the end of the Wars of Religion strained the economy.
The state was nearly
bankrupt. The commoners were surely taxed, but that revenue never made it back
to the central bureaucracy. Henry and his great minister Sully undertook a
number of reforms that had the effect of creating the first recognizable French
state. Externally Henry was able to secure most of the borders of modern
France. He did so with the idea of a nascent French world order as his explicit
goal. Additionally, he kept France active in the Age of Exploration. With
secured borders and increased revenues he was able to engage in the reforms
that were so desperately necessary domestically. By reducing corruption and
increasing the flowing of tax revenues directly to the central government Henry
was effectively able to co-opt both the security and trade subsystems under the
heading of the French state.
His heavy reliance on
Sully to administer the domestic reforms began the long tradition of other
ministers that would follow including Mazarin and Richelieu. We may speak in
this sense of a new principle of administrative sovereignty. National unity was
notably absent from France in this period. We may now begin to understand the
French state as a thing in itself and not merely the sum of compromises that
each individual king had made. Instead of ceding and gaining territory and
rights willy-nilly all over Europe, Henry IV sought agreements that would actually
stabilize and consolidate a French state.
With this as his
birthright Louis XIV (The Sun King) was well-positioned to create absolutism as
we actually understand it. There are, of course, the famous innovations that he
made during his reign, in particular the courtier system as Versailles, that
consolidated his power and severely weakened the position of the nobility.
(François Bluche, Louis XIV, 1990).
By the time of his
death the balance of power between the three estates was effectively defunct.
The nobility had been castrated and the church was increasingly irrelevant. The
king and commoners were the last ones standing. Louis XIV inherited the throne
while still in his minority. Prior to his accession the state was largely run
by Richelieu. While Louis was still a youth Cardinal Mazarin, Richelieu ’s
successor, handled the business of rule in the state. In time Louis would
become famous for his own ideas on absolutist rule, but the ministers that
oversaw him and the state during his childhood were equally absolutist in
philosophy, if not less effective in practice. Mazarin, in particular, through
his policies incited a series of minor rebellions among the nobility in the
middle of the 17th century. These rebellions, which began shortly after the Peace
of Westphalia and were called the Fronde, are notable mainly for their
factionalism and general incompetence. (Richard Bonney, The limits of
absolutism in ancien régime France, 1995).
Needless to say the
Fronde failed. During this period, “The disarmament of noble chateux and of the towns commenced by Richelieu and Mazarin
also continued, achieving for the first time an effective monopoly of armed
force. In many respects Louis XIV was only operating a system of government
created by his predecessors in which the role of the monarch, as the Lord’s
anointed, was to serve as the symbol and source of unity.”
Louis’ reign was thus
not revolutionary, but merely significant for two key reasons. The first reason
was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. By the time this happened it was a
minor issue. In fact, the insignificance of it is what is notable. By 1685
France was a Catholic country through and through. Whereas prior kingdoms were
defined by their faith, in France in this period the faith was dictated by the
court. The second innovation was, of course, the construction of Versailles.
Louis’ creation of an unarmed palace where service to the king was the only
method of advancement subjugated the nobility. It gave the nobility the choice
to either fight in the military or to serve him as courtiers. To minimize
corruption in the bureaucracy courtiers had little to do with the affairs of
state, but all of the courtiers were indebted to the king because of the
exorbitant cost of the lifestyle. The cost of life at Versailles was quite
expensive. One it tempted to cite Louis XIV and his
reign as significant milestones in the development of the state we see rather
minor changes to a nascent absolutism which had begun to develop centuries
earlier. Absolutism became a popular concept around Europe during this time and
the French were the first and most able in ruling according to its principles.
However, it was not absolute; its final failing was that while Louis was
convinced that the state would continue without him he was nonetheless
convinced that the king was the state. As the bloody wars of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries prove nationalism is a far more compelling type of
absolutism. Louis’ reign was the high-water mark of administrative sovereignty.
Versailles, which
made much of the internal complacency possible, was simply too expensive to
maintain. Furthermore absolutism would prove an easy target for the
Enlightenment.
With this sketch of
French history we are able to narrow down a period where this shift from
bartered to administrative sovereignty actually took place. That enables us to
eliminate many of the prior explanations for the development of administrative
sovereignty at the same time that it provides some insight into the proximate
causes. Having rejected the formation of the state in the 12th – 14th centuries
we are able reject the collapse of the church and the rise of towns as
proximate causes of the shift in sovereignty. Similarly, the understanding that
Louis XIV was none too revolutionary in his development of the absolutist
monarchy rejects the relevance of the Peace of Westphalia as a turning point.
We are for reasons already described able to focus on the reign of Henry IV as
the most consequential norms entrepreneur in this regard. For some historians
it is common to focus on the personality of the kings and other leading figures
as particularly significant, but while this is appealing it is not all that
illuminating. Attributing all the decisions he made to the brilliance of him or
his chief counselor, Sully, implies that it was merely their own inventiveness
that proved the significant factor. This ignores the decision-making
constraints that they operated under. Henry’s conversion to Catholicism and his
issuance of the Edict of Nantes were certainly individual decisions, but they
were expedient given the circumstances. The Edict of Nantes doesn’t illustrate
Henry’s profound decency, but instead illuminates what was efficient for the
time. Henry could have continued to fight for his kingship as a Protestant, he
could have continued to fight Protestants for dominance in France after his
conversion, but neither would have been expedient. Bartered sovereignty was
dead by this point. There was no sense in parceling off French territory. He bought
loyalty with state funds, crushed rebellions in the name of the state. He
lacked the state apparatus of Louis XIV, but the principles of his rule were
the same regardless. There was no pervasive ideology tying the state together.
The church was compromised, its hierarchy no longer relevant. The Catholic
victory in the French Civil Wars was a pyrrhic one. Spanish intervention on
behalf of the Catholic League soured so much of France that any loyalties which
transcended the raison d’etat were effectively
defunct by Henry’s death. Christendom was no longer a compelling ideological
subsystem. This is proven conclusively by French involvement in the Thirty
Years War on the side of the Protestants. Yet there were no French people yet.
The creation of a French people was a project left ultimately to Napoleon. The
rise of the cities was paralleled by the development of a centralized French
army. While the army at its genesis was a rather pitiful thing it eventually
made the feudal arrangement entirely irrelevant. Not only were knights a
strategic liability, by the time Henry became king the fiefs by which they kept
control of the local peasantry were mostly defunct. The most successful nobles
had long abandoned the lord-serf relationship in favor of more efficient
farming and production methods.
However, in contrast
to modern Italy and Germany, the cities could not ever effectively assert their
independence contra the strong center of the state. The growth of the security
and trade subsystems occurred at the same time and pace. Over the period of the
two centuries bridging the Hundred Years War these three subsystems passed each
other as strangers in the night. Going downhill was the ideological subsystem
eking out its remaining spheres of influence against the rising tide of the
secular state. Heading uphill were the dominant, and contradictory, ideologies
of secular trade in the cities, and the subjugation of the nobility to the
king. The reign of Henry IV was the key moment when bartered sovereignty
finally failed. What options were left to him at this point? Given the nature
of the growing cities including their Protestantism and their desire for some
meaningful independence hierarchal sovereignty was out of the question. What
submission was there to be gained? Similarly transborder sovereignty was bound
to fail since there was no pervasive ideology to tie the commoners to the king.
Administrative sovereignty, absolutism, was literally not only the most
efficient option, but also the only one open to Henry and Sully.
For obvious reasons
thus the path of the French state becomes crucial to story of world history. It
was French power that ended the Thirty Years War. It was French dominance that
led other states in the crucial period of the 17th and 18th centuries to begin
to copy their form of absolutism. It was French dominance on the continent that
sent the British, Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese abroad to seek their fortunes.
From the first battle
at Poitiers in 732 it was French power that drove the evolution of bartered
sovereignty, and later it was French power that drove the shift towards
administrative sovereignty. The nascent absolutist was a French innovation that
had less to do with the events of the Holy Roman Empire and more to do with the
internal development of the French polity. Those who have engaged in analyses
of the development and genesis of sovereignty to this point have tended to
paint this development in a more internationalist light. Certainly, our
broadest tendency is to point to Augsburg and Westphalia and say that the birth
of the state took place there.
This is factually
untenable; it leads to problematic theories of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is not an original innovation of the period. As a constitutive rule
it does not represent something sui generis. This has shown that the
development of absolutism was a principle of rule developed in contrast to
prior, stable principles of rule. Sovereignty during feudalism was not unheard
of, nor fragmented, nor anarchic.
It was organized and
well-understood. The fruitful questions must thus focus on why France, why
then, why absolutism?
The relative scope of
the important subsystems in France was unique to Europe at the time. France ’s
development was different than England or Germany. One significant aspect of
this difference was that the security subsystem developed coterminous with the
trade subsystem. Additionally, France ’s rejection of Catholicism was less
absolute and its acceptance of Protestantism was equally less absolute. The
ideological subsystem collapsed in the face of this indeterminacy. It was the
French rejection of Christendom that was significant. If we are to legitimately
accept Augsburg or Westphalia as significant milestones then those dates and
events must correspond to the development of absolutism in some logical manner.
They fail to do so. The French chronology is far more compelling. From the
beginning of the civil war in 1562 to the publication of the Six Books of the
Commonwealth in 1576 to the Edict of Nantes in 1598 absolutism was a French
solution to French problems. It was a limited solution; it was brilliant and it
was effective. Given the nature of development at the time it was also the only
stable solution possible.
P5.html
For updates
click homepage here