Part 6 (1/2)
2. cap. 1. _Rhegino_ sub anno 421.
Again, after the Death of _Clotharius_ the 4th King, the Kingdom was divided among his four Sons. So that _Cherebertus_ had that of _Paris: Guntra.n.u.s, Orleans: Chilpericus, Soissons:_ and _Sigebertus_ that of _Rheims_--, Greg. _lib. 4. cap. 22._ Aimoinus _lib. 3. cap. 1._ Rhegino _sub anno_ 498.
On the other hand, _Otto Frising._ chron. 5. cap. 9. and _G.o.d. Viterb._ tell us, That about the Year 630, when _Lotharius_ the 7th King died, _Dagobertus_ his Son reigned _singly_ in _France_, and a.s.signed to his Brother _Heribert_ some Cities and Villages on the River _Loire_, for his Maintenance. For from _Clodoveus_'s Time till now, the Kingdom of the _Franks_ was confusedly subdivided among the Sons, and the Sons Sons, each of which reigned over the part allotted him.--”The Extent of the Kingdom of the _Franks_ reaching now from _Spain_, as far as to _Hungary: Dagobert_ being sole King of all the _Franks_, gave Laws to the _Bavarians_.” So says _G.o.defridus_, not without good Grounds, as many wise Men have thought. For, as _Justin_ tells us, _lib. 21._ ”That Kingdom will be much more potent, which remains under the Domination of one Person, than when 'tis divided among many Brothers.”
But after some Years, when the Kingdom of the _Franks_ was excessively enlarged on all Sides, and King _Pipin_ was dead, the _General Council_ of the _Gauls_ changed this Method again. Which serves to confirm what we said before; _viz._ That the _whole Power_, relating to that Matter, was lodged in that _Council._ For _Eguinarthus_, in his Life of _Charlemagn_, writes thus, ”--After King _Pipin'_s Death, the _Franks_ having a.s.sembled themselves in a _solemn general Convention_, did there _appoint_ both his Sons to be their Kings, upon this Condition, that they shou'd equally divide the whole body of the Kingdom between them: And that _Charles_ shou'd reign over that part of it, which their Father _Pipin_ enjoy'd; and _Carloman_ over the other Part which their _Uncle_ held.”
Also the _Abbot of Ursperg_ says,--”When _Pipin_ was dead, his two Sons _Charles_ and _Carloman_, by the _Consent of all the Franks_, were created Kings, upon Condition, that they shou'd divide the whole body of the Kingdom equally between them.--” The same Method in dividing the Kingdom, was practised after the Death of _Charlemagn_, as 'tis manifest by his last Will and Testament, recorded by _Johannes Nauclerus_, and _Eguinarthus_'s History of his Life. Wherein we find almost all _Europe_ so divided among his three Sons, that nothing was a.s.signed either as a Portion or Dower, to his Daughters; but the marrying and providing for them was entirely trusted to the Care and Prudence of their Brothers.
_Otto Frisingensis_, chron. 6. cap. 6. and _Rhegino_ in chron. anno 877.
a.s.sure us, that the same Manner of dividing the Kingdom was practis'd in _East-France_, after the Death of _King Lewis the Stammerer_, in 874.
Again, some Years after, _anno_ 880. after King _Lewis_ the 23d King's Death, the very same way of dividing the Kingdom was made use of; which however we are to observe, was _not in_ the _Power_ and _Arbitriment_ of _the Kings themselves_; but done by the _Authority_ of the _Publick Council_, as we may easily collect from these Words of _Aimoinus_, lib.
5. cap. 40. ”The Sons (says he) of _Lewis_, late King of the _Franks_, met at _Amiens_, and divided their Father's Kingdom between them, _according to the Direction of their faithful Subjects._”
From all which Arguments 'tis very plain, that anciently there was no certain Law or Right of _Francogallia_ touching this Matter; but the _whole Power of disposing_ of it was lodged in the _Publick Council_ of the Nation. Indeed afterwards in the Reign of _Philip_ the 3d, (the 41st King) it was ordained, that certain Lords.h.i.+ps might be set out and a.s.signed to younger Brothers: But even of this Law there were various Interpretations, and many Controversies arose concerning Daughters; so that we can deliver nothing for certain in this Affair; only thus much we may truly say, That _if the Ancient Inst.i.tution of our Ancestors ought to be our Rule, the Determination of this whole Matter must be left to the Publick General Council of the Nation:_ that according to the Number of Children, some particular Lords.h.i.+ps or Territories, may _(by its Authority)_ be a.s.signed for their Maintenance.
CHAP. VIII.
_Of the_ Salick Law, _and what Right_ Women _had in the King's their Father's Inheritance_.
Because we have undertaken to give an Account of the _Law_ and _Right_ of _Regal Inheritance_, we must not omit making Mention of the _Salick Law_; which is both daily discours'd of by our Countrymen, and in the Memory of our Forefathers serv'd to appease a great and dangerous Contention, which arose touching the Succession to the Crown. For when (_Anno_ 1328.) _Charles the Fair_, Son of _Philip the Fair_, died, leaving his Wife with Child of a Daughter, (which some Months after was born) _Edward King of England_ (Son of _Isabella_, the Daughter of _Philip the fair_, and Sister to _Charles_ lately dead) claimed the Inheritance of his Grandfather's Kingdom as his Right. But _Philip of Valois_, Cousin germain by the Father's Side to the deceased King, standing up, alledged that there was an ancient Regal Law, called the _Salick Law_, by which _all Women_ were excluded from the Inheritance of the Crown. Now this Law both _Gaguinus_ and other Writers of like Stamp tell us, was written by _Pharamond_; and he calls it a most famous Law, even to his Time. For in his Life of _Philip of Valois_; ”The _Salick_ Law (says he) was a Bar to _Edward_'s t.i.tle; which Law being first given by _Pharamond_ to the _Franks_, has been religiously observed, even to those Days. By that Law, only the Heirs Male of our Kings are capable of governing the Kingdom, and no Females can be admitted to that Dignity.
The Words of that Law are these: _Nulla hereditatis portio de terra Salica ad mulierem venito; Let no Part of the Inheritance of_ Salick _Land come to a Woman_. Now (says _Gaguinus_) the _French_ Lawyers call _Salick_ Land, such as belongs only to the King, and is different from the _Alodial_ which concerns the Subjects; to whom, by that Law, is granted a free Dominion of any thing, not excluding the Princely Authority.” And to the same Purpose, not only almost all the _Francogallican Historians_, but even all the _Lawyers_ and _Pettifoggers_ have wrote to this Day, as _Paponius_ testifies, _Arrest._ lib. 4. cap. 1. So that now the mistake has prevailed so far, as to have obtain'd the Force of a Law. To explain this, it must be remembred (which we formerly gave an Account of) that the _Franks_ had two Seats of their Empire, and two Kingdoms; One in _France_, which remains to this Day; The other beyond the _Rhine_, near the River _Sala_; from whence they were called _Salii_, and _Salici Franci_ (joyning the two Names together) but for the most part briefly _Salici_; the Kingdom of these last, and even their very Name is in a Manner extinct. _Ammia.n.u.s Marcellinus_ makes mention in his History (as we told you before) of these _Salii_, and shews, that they are called the _Eastern Franks_, as the others were called the _Western_. Now as there were two Kingdoms of the _Franks_, so they had different Laws: those that belonged to the _Salii_, were called _Salick_; those that belonged to the _Francogalli_, were called _French. Eguinarthus_ in his Life of _Charles_ the Great says thus:--”After he had a.s.sumed the Imperial t.i.tle, finding that his Peoples Laws were in many Things deficient, (_for the_ Franks _have two Laws very different from each other in many Cases_,) he thought of adding such as were wanting.”--The Author of the Preface to the _Salick_ Law has this Pa.s.sage.--”The renowned Nation of the _Franks_, before it was converted to the Catholick Faith, enacted the _Salick_ Law by the Great Men of the Nation, who at that Time were their Governors; and from among a great many, four Persons were chosen; _Wisogast, Arbogast, Salogast_, and _Windogast_; who, during three Conventions [_tres mallos_] carefully perusing all Causes from their Original, gave their Judgment and Decree of every one of them in this Manner, &c.--” _Sigebertus_ in Chron. anni 422. & _Otto Frising_, lib.
4. cap. penult. make use of almost the same Words. ”From that time (say they) the Laws recommended to them by _Wisigastaldus_ and _Salogastus_, began to be in Force. By this _Salogastus_, they tell us, that Law was invented, which from his Name is to this Day called the _Salick_ Law; and the most n.o.ble of the _Franks_, called _Salici_, observe it at this time.”--Thus say the old Chronographers. By which we may refute the Error of such as derive the _Salick_ Law, _a Sale_, that is, _Prudence_; or what is called corruptly _Lex Salica_, instead of _Gallica_; than which nothing can be more absurd. But much greater Errors spring from the same Fountain: First, That People are so far imposed upon by those Authors, as to believe the _Salick_ Law had reference to the _Publick Right_ of the _Commonwealth_ and the _Government_, also to the _Hereditary Succession_ of the Kingdom. Now the very Records or Tables of this _Salick_ Law were not many Years ago found and brought to Light; from whose Inscription it appears, that they were first written and publish'd about _Pharamond'_s time: Besides, that all the Heads and Articles, both of the _Salick_ and _French_ Laws, were Const.i.tutions relating only to _private Right_ between Man and Man, and meddled not with the _Publick_ Right of the Kingdom or Commonwealth: among the rest, one Chapter, _t.i.t. 62._ has this in it.--”Of the _Salick_ Land, no Part or Portion of Inheritance pa.s.ses to a Female; but this falls to the Male Off-spring; that is, the Sons shall succeed to the Inheritance: But where a Dispute shall arise (after a long Course of Time) among the Grandsons and great Grandsons, _de alode terrae_; [Footnote: _Allodium_ is the contrary to _Feudum, Gothick_ words, for which 'tis difficult to find proper _English_.] let it be divided, _Non per stirpes sed per capita.”_ The like Law, _Extat apud_ Ripuarios, _t.i.t._ 58. _Item apud_ Anglos, _t.i.t._ 7. Where they are so far from enacting any thing relating to the Inheritances of Kingdoms, that they do not so much as affect _Feudal_ Successions, but only belong to _Allodial_; altho' a Portion was a.s.signed to Women out of those _Allodial_ Lands. Which Way soever this Matter may be, 'tis manifest in the first Place, that altho' no Article, either of the _Frank_ or _Salick_ Law were extant, which debars Women from the Inheritance of the Crown; yet the Customs and Inst.i.tutions of a Nation, preserv'd inviolate by universal Consent, during so many Ages, obtain the Force of a written Law: For tho'
_Childeric_, the Third King, left two Daughters behind him at his Death, the Kingdom was given to his Brother _Lotharius_, and his Daughters excluded. Again, after the Death of _Cherebert_ the 5th King, who left three Daughters; the Succession devolv'd upon his Brother _Sigebert_.
Also when _Gontrannus_ King of _Burgundy_ and _Orleans_ died, the Kingdom was conferr'd on his Brother _Sigebert_, not on his Daughter _Clotilda_. Lastly, _Philip_ of _Valois's_ Advocates might with greater Caution, as well as Efficacy, have argued for him out of the _Feudal_ Law, by which all Inheritances of _Fiefs_ descend to the Male Issue only, and not to the Female, who are not admitted to them. And when there happens a Want of Heirs Males in that Line or Branch wherein the Fief is lodged, then the _Feudum_ or _Fief_ returns back to the other Stock or Branch: which was the very Case at that Time. But such Fiefs as thro' a Depravation of the Law, are convey'd down to Women, cannot properly be called _Feuda_, but _Feudastra_, as in other of our Writings we have made it appear.
CHAP. IX.
_Of the Right of Wearing a large Head of Hair peculiar to the Royal Family._
It will not be amiss in this Place to give some Account of a Custom of our Ancestors, relating to the Hair worn by the Royal Family: For 'tis recorded, that our Forefathers had a particular Law concerning it; _viz._ That such as were chosen Kings by the People, or were of the Regal Family, shou'd preserve their Hair, and wear it parted from the Forehead, on both Sides the Head, and anointed with sweet Oyl, as an Ornament and peculiar Mark of their being of the Royal Family; whilst all other Persons, how n.o.bly born soever, had no right to wear a large Head of Hair; but were obliged to go with their Heads shorn or shaved, upon the Account (as 'tis probable) that they shou'd be more ready and expedite in their continual military Exercises, as the _Roman_ Histories tell us of _Julius Caesar_, and several others. _Aimoinus_ lib. I cap. 4.
says--”The _Franks_ chusing for themselves a King, according to the Custom of other Nations, raised, _Pharamond_ to the Throne, to whom succeeded his Son Clodio crinitus; For at that Time the Kings of the _Franks_ wore large Heads of Hair. Also lib. 3. cap. 61. _Gundoaldus_ being brought up by his Mother after the regal Manner, wore a long Head of Hair, according to the Custom of the ancient Kings of the _Franks_.”
In like Manner _Agathius_, lib. de Bell. Goth. I. where he speaks of _Clodoveus_, one of our Kings, who was taken in Battel by the _Burgundians_, (he calls him _Clodamirus_). ”As soon (says he) as his Horse had thrown him, the _Burgundians_ espying his large Head of Hair, which fell back over his Shoulders, presently knew him to be the Enemy's _General_; for 'tis not lawful for the Kings of the _Franks_ to cut off their Hair, but even from their Childhood they remain untrimm'd, and always keep a large Head of Hair hanging low down upon their Backs.” And we have many Instances that it was our Ancestors Custom, whenever they either deprived any one of the Crown, or took away all Hopes of obtaining the Kingdom, to cut off his Head of Hair. _Aimoinus_ in the same Place--”He earnestly beholding him, commanded his Hair to be cut off, denying him to be his Son.--Also--Having caused his Hair to be cut off a second Time, he put him in Prison at _Cologne_; from whence making his Escape, he fled to _Na.r.s.es_, and suffer'd his Hair to grow again, &c.” Which Story _Gregory_ of _Tours_, lib. 6. cap. 24. likewise records. Also _cap._ 44. where he speaks of King _Theodorick_.--”The Franks (says he) rose up in Arms against him, and cast him out of the Kingdom, and cut off his Head of Hair by Force.” But there is a very remarkable, or rather horrible Story related by _Gregory_ of _Tours_, concerning _Crotilda_, the Queen Mother; who chose rather to have the Heads of her two Grandsons cut off than their Hair. 'Tis in his 3d Book, _cap._ 18.--”Our Mother (says the King to his Brother) has kept our Brother's Sons with her, and intends to advance them to the Throne; we must concert what Measures ought to be taken in this Affair; whether we shall order their Hair to be cut off, and to reduce them to the State of common Subjects; or whether we shall cause them to be put to Death, and afterwards divide the Kingdom between us: Then they sent _Archadius_ with a Pair of Scissars in one Hand, and a naked Sword in t'other to the Queen; who approaching her, showed them both to her, and said, Your Sons, most Glorious Queen, have sent me to know your Pleasure, what Destiny you are pleased to allot to these two Youths; whether by suffering their Hair to be cut off, you will have them to live; or whether you had rather have both their Throats cut. Whereupon She chose rather to see them both kill'd, than to have their Hair cut off.” I further observe, that it was the Fas.h.i.+on when our Kings went to single Combat, to have their long Hair tied up in a large Knot a-top of their Helmets like a Crest; and that was their Cognizance or Mark in all their Fights. Therefore _Aimoinus_, lib. 4. cap. 18. where he speaks of the dreadful Combat between King _Dagobert_ and _Bertoaldus_, Duke of the _Saxons:_ ”The King (says he) having his Hair, together with a Part of his Helmet, cut off with a Blow of a Sword on his Head, sent them by his Esquire to his Father, desiring him to hasten to his a.s.sistance.”
Now when I consider what might be the Reasons of this Inst.i.tution, I can find none but this. That since it had been the ancient Custom of the _Gauls_ and _Franks_ to wear their Hair long (as it was also of the _Sicambri_, and of most others in those Parts) our Ancestors thought fit to continue, and in Process of Time to appropriate this Ornament, and Mark of Distinction to the Regal Family. No Person, tho' but indifferently learn'd, needs any Proof that the _Gauls_ wore their Hair long, especially when he calls to mind that of the Poet _Claudian_, ex lib. in Ruffin. 2.
_Inde truces flavo comitantur vertice_ Galli _Quos_ Rhoda.n.u.s _velox_, Araris _quos tardior ambit_, _Et quos nascentes explorat gurgite_ Rhenus.
Now that the _Franks_ did so too, whom we have shewn to be descended from the _Chauci_ or _Chaiici_, that single Pa.s.sage of the Poet _Lucan_ is sufficient to confirm.
_Et vos_ Crinigeros _bellis arcere_ Chaycos _Opposui, pet.i.tis_ Roman, &c.
Which being so, we may easily comprehend the Reason why Strangers, who were ill affected towards our Nation, contumeliously called our Kings, who wore so great a Head of Hair, _Reges setatos, bristled Kings_; and not only so, but (tho' Bristles and long Hair be common to Lyons, Horses and Swine, all which are therefore called _Setosi_, or _Setigeri_) they stretched the Contumely so far, as to say, they had Hogs Bristles. From whence arose that filthy Fiction and foul Name, [Greek: trichorachaton]