Part 1206

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

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

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

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

{3751}