XII. Examples from the Holy (Roman) Empire
you." 1 Behold how far the Spaniards have held their kings in honor as they were in duty bound.
XII. Examples from the Holy (Roman) Empire Why go any further? Everyone knows what the authority is of that most famous gathering of princes in the whole world — that is, of the Empire of the Seven Electors. It is in regard to the election of an emperor, as well as his discharge whenever necessary, as experienced by the emperors Adolphus in the year 1296, and Wenceslaus in the year 1400.2 The oath by which the kings or German emperors then bound themselves, was such as described in the treatise entitled Speculum Saxonicum.3 For when a king is elected, he is compelled by means of a public oath, to vouch for fidelity and hominium (or homage as the common people call it) to the empire, and to promise that he will promote the administration of justice by all in his power. And furthermore, that he will ward off all kinds of injustice, and in short, that he will with all zeal and exertion, protect the rights of the empire.
XIII. Examples of the Kings of Gaul, before and after their Union with the Franks
I now come to the Franks. Julius Caesar is our witness that before their arrival in Gaul, the Frankish kings were responsible to the Estates of the people.4 In recounting the words in some speech of Ambiorix, the chieftain of the Eburones (or the people of Liege as their modern name is), he says that the king's authority is of such a nature that the multitude
(that is, the lawfully assembled multitude) possesses no less rights against him, than he has against it.5 The same is proved from the words of Vercingetorix, the king of the Averni, pleading his cause in a gathering of the people, as it is reproduced by the same Caesar.6
But afterwards, the Gauls and the Franks united under the style of the Francogalli. And although their kingdom, by the striking favor of God, has been continued and preserved for a very long time, yet at the present time at least (wherever the blame might attach), it seems to so totter, that its most certain and immediate destruction has to be feared; and yet, that can hardly happen without a mighty revolution in the remaining parts of the world. I strongly suspect that the remarks which I now have to make on that score will be pleasing and acceptable to some; but to others, most disagreeable and ill-omened. Yet if I maintain nothing that is not the truth, I hope that God will grant me His favor against all misrepresentation.
Hence, although the Franco-Gauls elected their kings first from the house of the Nerobingians, then from the descendants of Charlemagne, and finally from the successors of Hugh Capet, yet I maintain that from the beginning, they established their monarchy
1 See Ralph E. Giesey, If Not, Not: the oath of the Aragonese and the legendary laws of Sobrarbe (Princeton University
Press, 1968) 2 The emperor Adolphus was deposed in the year 1298, not 1296; the emperor Wenceslaus in 1400.
3 Sachsenspiegel, Landrecht, book III, 54, 2 4 Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, book V, 8.
5 Ibid, book V, 27: "ut non minus habaret iuris in se multitudo, quam ipse in multitudinem."
6 Ibid, book VII, 4.
in such a way that their kings ruled, not by the sole right of succession,1 but were elected at the same time by the agreement of the Estates of the Kingdom. After being thus elected,
Pharamundus was raised to the royal throne in the year of our Lord 419;2 so was Pippin in the year 751; and his sons Charles and Carloman in the year 768. And at length in 771, upon the authority of the Estates, Charles succeeded to his brother's portion. Following this authority, he himself afterwards (in 812) appointed his son Louis heir to the empire.
And in his will, he expressly provided(as Nauclerus recorded it) 3 that the people, that is the Estates themselves, should elect as his successor to the kingship, whichever of his children they preferred. And he also charged his uncles who might survive him, to agree to such an election. This occurrence is indeed most remarkable and most fitting for the solution of this entire question.4 And such was the oath of the Franco-Gallic kings upon the testimony of Aymoinus, who represents the said Charles the Bald as saying:
"because, even as those venerable Bishops have by the voice of one of them, declared and by trustworthy sign indicated in accordance with our unanimous decision, you too have acclaimed that I have, by the choice of God, come to this office for your salvation and profit and guidance and government — know that the Lord helping me to preserve them, it is my will, in accordance with my knowledge and power, to honor and protect, and to keep in honorable protection, the dignity and cult of God and the holy churches; and also [to protect] each of you in accordance with the dignity of his rank and his person; and to keep safe for each one, his rank, law and justice in accordance with both the ecclesiastical and temporal rights due him. In this, may royal honor and power, and due obedience, and assistance for the preservation and defense of the kingdom, granted to me by God, be shown to me by each one of you according to his rank and dignity and ability, and even as your predecessors showed these to my predecessors, justly, faithfully, and reasonably." 5
He records this verbatim.
Moreover, it is proved by countless examples, that those very Estates had the power of dismissing the kings whom they had elected, if they committed any wrong. For his disgraceful crimes and deeds of lust, Childeric — by public resolution in 361 — was thrust from the kingship and expelled. And Gilo, who was not of the Nerovingian dynasty, was placed in his stead. And Chilperic was dethroned in 578, and Theodoric in 657. Indeed, there are more. In 890, the Estates passed over Charles, the son of Louis the Stutterer, and chose Eudes of Odones as king.6 We also read that Hugh Capet deprived Charles (the brother of Lothar) of his kingdom, since Charles was conducting the matter in too negligent and dilatory a fashion. He was bringing it before the Council, obviously hoping that the Estates of the Kingdom would settle their quarrel according to the established custom.7 In short, if the Franco-Gallic kingship was not bestowed by way of election, we would have to say that neither Pippin nor Capet possessed any right to it, since there was no lack of successors in the male line of Nerovingian heirs when Pippin grasped the royal
1 The mention of the right of succession is further developed in Chapter VI of Francois Hotman's, Francogallia. A useful analysis on this point can be found in Ralph E. Giesey, "The Juristic Basis of Dynastic Right to the French Throne,"
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 51/5 (1961), p. 30-37.
2 Aimoin De Fleuri, Hist. Francorum, book I, cap. 4 (Migne, Patrol. Lat., 139, 640B)
3 Johannes Nauclerus, Chronica...res memorabliles, vol. II, generatio 28 4 A precise and documented account can be found in Hotman, Francogallia, chap. VI, p. 48 of the Geneva, 1573 ed.
5 Aimoin De Fleuri, Hist. Francorum, book V, cap. 21, p. 640 of the Paris, 1567 ed.
6 Again, the text is detailed and documented in Hotman, Francogallia, chapter VI, p. 54-58 of the Geneva, 1573 ed.
7 Cf. Ibid, chapter XVI.
power. Nor was there any lack of heirs from the sons of Charlemagne when Capet claimed the royal diadem for himself.
Furthermore, as regards the power of those same Estates — by which they either conferred the principal positions of dignity and high office in the Kingdom, or took them away; or at least, carefully noting how kings behaved, both in conferring or taking them away, and in exacting taxes; or in the other principal tasks of kingship in time of peace and war — for that power, I declare, there is evidence to spare in the most ancient and entirely reliable records. These clearly prove the impudence of those flatterers who today do not cease by right means and wrong, to add to their power from the ruins of such a great kingdom that was so wisely established. And indeed, in our times the man who is the greatest in blood, succeeds to the kingdom of France without summoning the Estates.
He introduces a new shape of things to suit the desire of those who have courted the favor and support of such a successor. The meeting of the people is no longer convened at the appointed time, but only when it seems expedient to certain individuals who thereby seek personal advantages and safeguards from danger. Furthermore, as often as the Estates are summoned, this happens not so much to the end that a serious decision concerning public affairs may be arrived at, but for the sake of talking — and that is done in the fashion of the rhetoricians (or rather of the sophists), so that time and all action may be made vain by means of tedious and affected arguments. Those men take their seats there as judges against whom all the accusation and complaints are chiefly directed. And finally, questions of both wars and peace or truce are decided upon, taxes and tribute are imposed, laws upon public and private matters are made and unmade, dignities and commands and likewise all public offices are bestowed upon chosen men, or taken from them, according to the arbitrary will of a certain limited group of men or women — noble or baseborn, honest or abandoned, who enjoy greater authority or influence with the rulers of the state, since it is through their ears and eyes alone that the latter hear and see.
All these circumstances, I declare, are completely at variance with the just customs and policy of our ancestors, and clearly in direct opposition to the chief laws upon which the foundations of the French monarchy rest.
But I now leave it to all lawyers, who possess a good conscience together with knowledge of the law, to discuss the question whether any prescription of however long a period of time, can or should in accordance with any law, divine or human, find application here.
For it is a fact that even to this day, kings are anointed in solemn ritual, and swear their oath (if only its words were publicly printed so they might be known to all); and further, after they have secured the kingship, they usually confirm their privileges to the communities severally, and also their public charges to the officials of the kingdom
(though many abuses occur here, which are in no way to be commended); and lastly, if the kings are minors, the orders and Estates of the kingdom decide by common resolution to whom its administration shall be entrusted — all these, I say, are the present survivals of that erstwhile authority which the Estates enjoyed, and which is now gradually disappearing. Yet, not two centuries have passed since the will of Charles V (nicknamed the Wise) was annulled by the Estates themselves; that is, in 1380.1
1 Here Beza is reciting the many details and documentation found in Hotman, Francogallia, chapter XVII, p. 137-38 of the Geneva, 1573 ed.
What more is there? In 1567, Louis XI — who tried his utmost to transform the French monarchy into a tyranny (a procedure which the parasites of the palace call the emancipation of the sovereign, of his release from slavery) — was deservedly accused of the worst misgovernment of the kingdom. Thirty (or thirty-six) men were given to him as guardians by the Estate gathered at Tours, that he might allow himself to be directed and guided by them.1 It is true, indeed, that he afterwards easily rid himself of them. Under pretext of the idol of Clery,2 which he worshipped with the greatest superstition, all his oaths and promises were but sport and jest to him. Yet this was done with so much harm to himself, and with such an unhappy result, that apart from the disgrace with which he is branded even today, he could enjoy no rest or peace during his lifetime. Even at death's door, he experienced what it meant to be feared, rather than be loved by his subjects.
And since mention has been made of the violation of an oath, we would add another most remarkable example. While Charles VII was still Dauphin, he had John — the last Duke of Burgundy (descended from the royal stock of France) — miserably slain in his presence.
This was in violation of his word of honor, and of the peace and friendship that had only recently been confirmed by oath near Melun.3 Although that Duke fully deserved such a great ordeal, this perjury was, in the end, expiated by many thousands of souls in France, and with the ruin of almost the entire kingdom. And King Charles himself was reduced to such misery, that he was first disinherited by his father, and afterwards saw his deadly enemy invested with the royal power in Paris. And he was himself subsequently styled
King of Aquitaine rather than of France. At length, however, he was constrained with great dishonor to himself, to purchase peace, as it appears from the treaty drawn up at Arras. Although the king himself negotiated with Duke Philip, the son of the murdered
John, as though with his subject. Yet in that treaty, this express clause is contained:
"to which the king himself shall agree, and which he shall approve by his letter of authority. But if this agreement happens to be violated by him, then his clients, vassals, and subjects, present and future, shall thereafter not be bound either to obey or serve him, but will show every obedience rather to the Duke of Burgundy and his successors, and against him. In short, all those very clients, beneficiaries and subjects shall, in this case, be regarded as free, disengaged and entirely released from every engagement, oath, and allegiance, and from their promises, obligations, and whatever duties by which they previously were bound to King Charles. So that, in the sequel, none of these may be counted to their detriment or burden, nor may any remissness be exacted from them. Indeed more, let King Charles very soon bid them do this very thing, and let him declare them freed and disengaged from all their oaths and obligations if any such thing should happen." 4
This to be sure was the end of a breach of royal faith committed with evil design. But because these covenants were faithfully kept in later times, the greatest peace and calm befell the kingdom. Further, if it seemed fair then, that his clause should be inserted into this fortuitous promise which, strictly speaking, did not bear upon the administration of
1 For Louis XI and the Estates General of 1468 (not 1467), see the study by J. Russell Major, Representative Institutions in Renaissance France, 1421-1559 (University of Wisconsin Press, 1960), chapter III. Cf. Hotman, Francogallia,
Chapter XVIII (p. 140-140 of the Geneva 1573 ed.) 2 Allusion to Notre Dame of Clery, which was the favorite chapel of Louis XI. See Pierre Champion, Louis XI (Paris,
1927), II, 211-213.
3 The peace was concluded in Pouilli, close to Melun, July 11, 1419.
4 Article 29 of the Treaty of Arras, September 21, 1435. Cf. Isambert, et al., Recueil General Des Anciennes Lois
Francaises, VIII, 826-827.