THIRTIETH LECTURE.

General summary of the course-Extent and variety of subjects-The history of civilization, its price--It is the result of all partial histories--Unity and variety of the existence of a people--Three essential elements in French civilization, Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity, Germany--1. Of the Roman element, from the 5th to the 10th century--Under a social point of view--Under an intellectual point of view-2. Of the Christian element, from the 5th to the 10th century-Under a social point of view--Under an intellectual point of view--3. Of the Germanic element, from the 5th to the 10th century--Under a social point of view--Under an intellectual point of view--Two principal facts characterize this epoch: 1. The prolongation, more or less apparent, but everywhere real, of Roman society and its influence-2. The disorderly and indeterminate fermentation of the different elements of modern civilization-Conclusion.

WE are come to the termination of this course. I would now take a review of the whole, noticing the chief and predominant facts, which appear to me to result from it, and which characterize, during that long period, the history of our civilization.

I gave at the commencement a description of Gaul prior to the German invasion, at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the 5th century, under the Roman administration. We considered its social and intellectual state in civil and in religious society.1

After I had thus made you acquainted with Roman-Gaul, I took you across the Rhine. I directed your view towards Germany, prior to the invasion also, and in the infancy of its institutions and manners.2

The Germans having invaded Gaul, we examined what were the consequences, whether immediate or probable, of this first contact of Roman with barbarous society. I drew your attention to their abrupt and violent collision.3

From the sixth century to the middle of the eighth, we followed the progressive amalgamation of the two societies.

1 Lect. 2-6.

2 Lect. 7.

Lect. 8.

་

In the civil order, we saw barbarous laws arise, and the Roman law perpetuated. I labored to explain the character, generally misunderstood, in my opinion, of these first rudiments of modern legislation.1 We passed from thence to religious society; and considering it in its double element, priests and monks, the secular and regular clergy, we gave an account both of its relations with civil society, and of its own internal organization.'

Such has been our progress, from the sixth to the eighth century, in the history of the social state; but we had also to consider the intellectual state of Frankish-Gaul at the same period; we searched both in sacred and profane literature, and we endeavored to ascertain their distinctive character and reciprocal influence.3

We thus arrived at the great crisis which signalized the middle of the eighth century, the fall of the Merovingian kings and the accession of the Carlovingians; I attempted to characterize this revolution, and to assign its real causes.4

The Carlovingian revolution being comprehended, the reign of Charlemagne specially occupied us; I considered it in its events, properly so called, in its laws, in its action on mind. I desired particularly to distinguish that which he attempted, and that which he effectually accomplished, that which perished with him, and that which survived him.5

After the death of Charlemagne, the rapid dissolution of his vast empire struck our attention; we endeavored to take an account of it, and to make known to ourselves the progress as well as the causes of that phenomenon ; we pursued it, on the one hand, in its events, on the other, in its laws; we inquired into the political and the legislative revolution, which, from the death of Charlemagne to the accession of Hugh Capet, led to the feudal system.

6

To this history of civil society, from the middle of the eighth to the end of the tenth century, succeeded the history of religious society at the same period, that is to say, the history of the Gallo-Frankish church, considered firstly in itself, that is, in its national existence; secondly, externally, in its relations with the government of the universal church, that is, the popedom.

Lastly, always remaining true to the essential idea of civilization, and always mindful to consider it under its double aspect, with respect to society and the human soul, the intellectual state of Frankish-Gaul, from the eighth to the tenth century, was our concluding study. We saw ancient philosophy expire, and ecclesiastical theology arise: and we determined with some precision the profane and the sacred elements which have contributed to the modern development of the human mind.1

Such is the vast career, the steps of which we have followed; such is the immense variety of objects which have passed under your view. Certainly, I have not arbitrarily or from mere fancy led you into this vast expanse, causing you continually to be changing the point of view of subject. The very nature of our study rigidly exacted it: the history of civilization can only be given at this expense.

This history is a new work, scarcely more than sketched. The idea of it has been first conceived in the eighteenth century, and it is in our own times, under our own eyes, that we see its true fulfilment begin. It is not, however, only in the present day that history is made a study of; not only facts, but their connection and their causes, have been studied; philosophers and scholars have equally labored in this field. But up to the present times, we may say, the study of history, both philosophical and scholastic, has been partial and limited; political, legislative, religious, and literary histories have been written; learned researches have been made, brilliant reflections have been presented on the destination and development of laws, manners, sciences, letters, arts, of all the works of human activity; but they have never been regarded together, at one view, in their intimate and fertile union. And wherever there has been an attempt to grasp at general results, or a desire to form a complete idea of the development of human nature, it is altogether on a partial foundation that the edifice has been raised. The Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle, and the Esprit des Lois, are glorious essays on the history of civilization; but who cannot see that Bossuet has almost exclusively confined his search to religious creeds, and Montesquieu to political institutions? These two geniuses have thus narrowed the horizon of their view. What

1 Lect. 28, 29

are we to say concerning minds of an inferior order? It is evident that, scholastic or philosophical, history up to the present day has never really been general; it has never at one time followed man in all the careers wherein his activity exhibits itself. And yet the history of civilization is possible only under this condition; it is a summary of all histories; it requires them all for materials, for the fact which it relates is the summary of all other facts. An immense variety, without doubt; yet do not think that unity is destroyed thereby. There is unity in the life of a people, in the life of the human race, just as there is in that of an individual; but, as in fact all the circumstances of destiny and activity in an individual contribute to form his character, which is one and the same, so the unity and history of a people must have for its basis all the variety of its entire existence.

It is, then, wholly of necessity, and driven by the very nature of our subject, that we have gone over the political, ecclesiastical, legislative, philosophical, and literary history of Frankish Gaul, from the fifth to the tenth century: if we have arrived at any precise and positive results, we owe them to this method. You may have observed, especially, how much we have been enlightened by placing civil and religious society continually in juxta-position, both of which are incomprehensible if we leave them separate. Let us now endeavor to understand clearly these results, which we have obtained, I think, with some certainty; let us endeavor to determine the point of departure of Gaulish civilization in the fifth century, and the point at which it had arrived at the end of the tenth.

You are aware that the essential, fundamental elements of modern civilization in general, and of French civilization in particular, reduce themselves to three: the Roman world, the Christian world, and the Germanic world; antiquity, Christianity, and barbarism. Let us see what transformation these three elements underwent between the fifth and tenth centuries, what they became in this last period, and what remained of them in the civilization of that period.

I. I commence with the Roman element. I wish to cast a slight glance at what the Roman world has furnished to France, under a social and an intellectual point of view; and we must discover what remained of it in the tenth century, in society and in mind.

Under the first point of view-that is to say, the influence

of Roman on Gallo-Frankish society, from the fifth to the tenth century, the result of our inquiries is, that the Roman world, when it broke up, bequeathed to the future the wrecks of three great facts-1st, central sole power, empire, and absolute royalty; 2d, imperial administration, government of provinces by the delegates of the central power; 3d, the municipal system, the primitive mode of existence of Rome and most of the countries which had successively formed the Roman empire.

What are the changes which these three facts underwent between the fifth and tenth centuries?

1. With respect to the central power, sole and sovereign, it perished, as you know, in the invasion; in vain some of the first barbarous kings tried to restore it, and to exercise it to their advantage; they were baffled in the attempt; imperial despotism was too complex an instrument for their rude hands. At the fall of the Merovingians, Charlemagne attempted to revive it, and to use it; the attempt had a momentary success; central power re-appeared: but, after Charlemagne, as after the first invasion, it broke asunder, and was lost in the chaos. Nothing, surely, less resembled imperial power than the royalty of Hugh Capet. Some remembrance of it, nevertheless, lay in the minds of men: Empire had left behind it profound traces. The names of emperor, imperial authority, Sovereign majesty, had still a certain virtue, and recalled a certain type of government; these were now only words, yet words still powerful, and sufficient to produce deeds if the occasion offered. Such was the state in which, at about the end of the tenth century, this first legacy of the Roman world manifested itself.

2. The imperial administration underwent very nearly the same vicissitudes; the barbarous chiefs tried to use it, but with no better success. This mode of governing the several parts of a state was too complicated, too exact; it required the concurrence of too many agents, and intelligence of too developed a kind; the administrative machine of the empire was speedily deranged, if I may so speak, in the hands of its new masters. Charlemagne attempted to give it regularity and motion; it was a necessary consequence of the restoration of central power; and, by an analogous consequence, together with the central power of Charlemagne, perished also the provincial administration, which he had, as well as he could, reconstructed. After the complete dissolution of the new