THIRD LECTURE. Object of the lecture-All the various systems pretend to be legitimate— What is political legitimacy ?-Co-existence of all systems of govern ment in the fifth century-Instability in the condition of persons properties, and institutions-There were two causes of this, one material, the continuation of the invasion; the other moral, the selfish sentiment of individuality peculiar to the barbarians - The germs of civilization have been the necessity for order, the recollections of the Roman empire, the Christian church, and the barbarians-Attempts at organization by the barbarians, by the towns, by the church of Spain, by Charlemagne, and Alfred-The German and Arabian invasions cease-The feudal system begins. I HAVE placed before you the fundamental elements of European civilization, tracing them to its very cradle, at the moment of the fall of the Roman empire. I have endeavoured to give you a glimpse beforehand of their diversity, and their constant struggle, and to show you that no one of them succeeded in reigning over our society, or at least in reigning over it so completely as to enslave or expel the others. have seen that this was the distinguishing character of European civilization. We now come to its history at its com mencement, in the ages which it is customary to call the barbarous. We At the first glance we cast upon this epoch, it is impossible not to be struck with a fact which seems to contradict what we have lately said. When you examine certain notions which are accredited concerning the antiquities of modern Europe, you will perceive that the various elements of our civilization, the monarchical, theocratical, aristocratical, and democratical principles, all pretend that European society originally belonged to them, and that they have only lost the sole dominion by the usurpations of contrary principles. Question all that has been written, all that has been said upon this subject, and you will see that all the systems whereby our beginnings are sought to be represented or explained, maintain the exclusive predominance of one or other of the elements of European civilization. Thus there is a school of feudal publicists, of whom the most celebrated is M. de Boulainvilliers, who pretend that, after the fall of the Roman empire, it was the conquering nation, subsequently become the nobility, which possessed all powers and rights; that society was its domain; that kings and peoples have despoiled it of this domain; that aristocratic organization was the primitive and true form of Europe. Beside this school, you will find that of the monarchists, the abbé Dubos, for instance, who maintain, on the contrary, that it was to royalty European society belonged. The German kings, say they, inherited all the rights of the Roman emperors; they had even been called in by the ancient nations, the Gauls among others; they alone ruled legitimately; all the acquisitions of the aristocracy were only encroachments upon monarchy. A third party presents itself, that of the liberal publicists, republicans, democrats, or whatever you like to call them. Consult the abbé de Mably; according to him, it is to the system of free institutions, to the association of free men, to the people properly so called, that the government of society devolved from the period of the fifth century: nobles and kings enriched themselves with the spoils of primitive freedom; it sank beneath their attacks, indeed, but it reigned before them. And above all these monarchical, aristocratical, and popular pretensions, rises the theocratical pretension of the church, who affirms, that in virtue of her very mission, of her divine title, society belonged to her; that she alone had the right to govern it; that she alone was the legitimate queen of the European world, won over by her labours to civilization and to truth. We fancied See then the position in which we are placed! we had shown that no one of the elements of European civilization had exclusively ruled in the course of its history; that those elements had existed in a constant state of vicinity, of amalgamation, of combat, and of compromise; and yet, at our very first step, we meet with the directly contrary opinion, that, even in its cradle, in the bosom of barbaric Europe, it was such or such a one of their elements which alone possessed society. And it is not only in a single country, but in all the countries of Europe, that, beneath slightly different forms, at different periods, the various principles of our civilization have manifested these irreconcilable pretensions. The historical schools we have just characterized, are to be met with everywhere. This is an important fact,-important not in itself, but because it reveals other facts which hold a conspicuous place in our history. From this simultaneous setting forth of the most opposite pretensions to the exclusive possession of power in the first age of modern Europe, two remarkable facts become apparent. The first the principle, the idea of political legitimacy; an idea which has played a great part in the course of European civilization. The second the veritable and peculiar character of the condition of barbaric Europe, of that epoch with which we are at present especially concerned. I shall endeavour to demonstrate these two facts, to deduce them successively from this combat of primitive pretensions which I have just described. What do the various elements of European civilization, the theocratical, monarchical, aristocratical, and popular elements pretend to, when they wish to appear the first who possessed society in Europe? Do they not thus pretend to have been alone legitimate? Political legitimacy is evidently a right founded upon antiquity, upon duration; priority in time is appealed to as the source of the right, as the proof of the legitimacy of power. And observe, i pray you, that this pretension is not peculiar to any one system, to any one element of our civilization; it extends to all. In modern times we are accustomed to consider the idea of legitimacy as existing in only one system, the monarchical. In this we are mistaken; it is discoverable in all. You have already seen that all the elements of our civilization have equally desired to appropriate it. If we enter into the subsequent history of Europe, we shall find the most different social forms and governments equally in possession of their character of legitimacy. The Italian and Swiss aristocracies and democracies, the republic of San Marino, as well as the greatest monarchies of Europe, have called themselves, and have been regarded as legitimate; the former, like the latter, have founded their pretension to legitimacy upon the antiquity of their institutions, and upon the historical priority and perpetuity of their system of government. If you leave Europe and direct your attention to other times and other countries, you everywhere meet with this idea of political legitimacy; you find it attaching itself everywhere to some portion of the government, to some institution, form, or maxim. There has been no country, and no time, in which there has not existed a certain portion of the social system, public powers; which has not attributed to itself, and in which has not been recognised this character of legitimacy, derived from antiquity and long duration. What is this principle? what are its elements? how has it introduced itself into European civilization? At the origin of all powers, I say of all without any distinction, we meet with physical force. I do not mean to state that force alone has founded them all, or that if, in their origin, they had not had other titles than that of force, they would have been established. Other titles are manifestly necessary; powers have become established in consequence of certain social expediences, of certain references to the state of society, manners, and opinions. But it is impossible to avoid perceiving that physical force has stained the origin of all the powers of the world, whatever may have been their character and form. Yet none will have anything to say to this origin; all powers, whatever they may be, reject it; none will admit tnemselves the offspring of force. An unconquerable instinct warns governments that force does not found right, and that if force was their origin, their right could never be established. This, then, is the reason why, when we go back to early times, and there find the various systems and powers a prey to violence, all exclaim, "I was anterior to all this, I existed previously, in virtue of other titles; society belonged to me before this state of violence and struggle in which you meet with me; I was legitimate, but others contested and weized my rights." This fact alone proves that the idea of force is not the foundation of political legitimacy, but that it reposes upon a totally different basis. What, indeed, is done by all these systems in thus formally disavowing force? They themselves proclaim that there is another kind of legitimacy, the true foundation of all others, the legitimacy of reason, justice, and right; and this is the origin with which they desire to connect themselves. It is because they wish it not to be supposed that they are the offspring of force, that they pretend to be invested in the name of their antiquity, with a different title. The first characteristic, then, of political legitimacy, is to reject physical force as a source of power, and to connect it with a moral idea, with a moral force, with the idea of right, of justice, and of reason. This is the fundamental element from which the principle of political legitimacy has issued. It has issued thence by the help of antiquity and long duration. And in this manner: govern After physical force has presided at the birth of all ments, of all societies, time progresses; it alters the works of force, it corrects them, corrects them by the very fact that a society endures, and is composed of men. Man carries within himself certain notions of order, justice, and reason, a certain desire to induce their prevalence, to introduce them into the circumstances among which he lives; he labours unceasingly at this task; and if the social condition in which he is placed continues, he labours always with a certain effect. Man places reason, morality, and legitimacy in the world in which he lives. Independently of the work of man, by a law of Providence which it is impossible to mistake, a law analogous to that which regulates the material world, there is a certain measure of order, reason, and justice, which is absolutely necessary to the duration of a society. From the single fact of its duration, we may conclude that a society is not wholly absurd, insensate, and iniquitous; that it is not utterly deprived of that element of reason, truth, and justice, which alone gives life to societies. If, moreover, the society develops itself, if it becomes more vigorous and more powerful, if the social condition from day to day, is accepted by a greater number of men, it is because it gathers by the action of time more reason, justice, and right; because circumstances regulate themselves, step by step, according to true legitimacy. |