Story
The formation of feudal relations in the Frankish state (V-IX centuries). Reforms of Charles Martell. Coursework: The Frankish state The formation of the feudal dependent peasantry in the Frankish state

The formation of feudal relations in the Frankish state (V-IX centuries). Reforms of Charles Martell. Coursework: The Frankish state The formation of the feudal dependent peasantry in the Frankish state

In the second half of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century. In the Frankish state, the process of feudal subjugation of the peasantry was intensively going on. Already under the Merovingians, precarious relations became widespread, now acquiring a hereditary character.

The peasant, having lost his land, turned to the master with a request to give him a plot of land (precaria, that is, a plot transferred by request); for this, he promised to fulfill the established "duties. The deal was formalized in writing: the land owner received a completed precarious letter from the peasant and gave him a senior letter. The letters indicated the terms of use of the land and the size of the peasant quitrent, the land owner promised not to violate the rights of the peasant and not to take away arbitrarily the plot transferred to him. But usually, after several generations, the peasant turned not only into a land owner, but also into a personally dependent one.

Not only people deprived of land ownership fell into precarious dependence, but also small free landowners who, by renouncing their property, sought to get rid of state duties, as well as to receive protection and patronage from the church or other land owner. The so-called “precarity with reward” was often used. The peasant who entered into land dependence, as in the second case, renounced his ownership right to the transferred plot, but at the same time received for use an additional plot, usually of not yet cultivated land.

The last two types of precaria served as a means of mobilizing the land ownership of peasants by the church and secular feudal lords.

The so-called commendation led to the loss of freedom. Helpless poor people entrusted themselves to ecclesiastical institutions or secular masters, promising to obey and serve them as a servant to a master. Often people enslaved themselves for debts, obliging themselves to perform slave duties. Unpaid debt turned them into hereditary slaves (servs).

The feudal lords did not hesitate to forcibly convert free people into serfs and dependents. This is stated in the capitularies of Charlemagne. In one of them we read: “If someone refuses to hand over his property to a bishop, abbot, count... they look for an opportunity to condemn such a poor man and force him to go to war every time, so that he willy-nilly sell or give them his property.” . The emperor warned bishops, abbots and counts not to "buy or seize by force the property of poor and weak people... because of which the royal service suffers." This was the reason for the king’s concern for weak, defenseless people.

The transformation of free people into dependents and serfs caused great changes in the political structure. Previously, all communal peasants were obliged to perform state duties and perform military service. Now, having become feudal dependents, they had to serve first of all their master.

Immunity. The royal power did not resist the growth of the private power of the feudal lords; and even contributed to this. The king gave ecclesiastical and secular feudal lords letters of immunity that freed their possessions from any interference by government officials. At the same time, judicial and administrative power over the population and all the funds that previously went to the state treasury passed into the hands of the immunoists.

Immunity strengthened the right of feudal property. In the immune territory, the patrimonial owner was the only master. He had power not only over the dependent, but also over the free population living within his domain. Charlemagne tried to use immunity as a tool to strengthen state power, placing responsibility for justice and maintaining order on the immune system. and the gathering of the militia. However, the expansion of immunity privileges it's gone benefited only large feudal lords and was one from premises the ensuing political fragmentation.

Vassalage. Vassalage had no less influence on the evolution of the early feudal Frankish state. By the end of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century. Vassal-feudal relations became widespread in the military organization and political structure. The army largely consisted of mounted warriors endowed with benefices; Royal vassals were appointed to government positions. At first, this even strengthened the state system: vassals, bound to the king by conditional possessions and personal oath, served more reliably than independent masters. But soon the vassals began to turn their benefices into hereditary possessions and refused to perform permanent service for them. Ultimately, this led to the collapse of the former territorial judicial-administrative organization and its replacement by a multi-level vassal-fief hierarchy. The king became the supreme overlord over the large feudal lords - his vassals, who in turn became lords over smaller vassals. This trend began already under Charlemagne, but it was finally developed half a century later.

Although the military profession was turning into a monopoly of the feudal lords, the peasants nevertheless did not get rid of the hardships of war. They were forced to pay war taxes and participate in campaigns as auxiliary forces. Charlemagne, taking care of better equipping his troops and increasing their combat effectiveness, carried out military reform. Only wealthy people who had at least 4 manses (plots) of land were supposed to go on a campaign; the peasants who owned 2 mansas had to equip two of one warrior, those who had 1 mansa - four of one, those who owned at least some property - five of one. This put an end to the old national militia. The army acquired a feudal-knightly appearance.

Carolingian estate. Sources of the late 8th - early 9th centuries. - The Capitulary of the Estates, which was apparently published by Charlemagne, and the Polypticus of Abbot Irminon (a scribal book of the Saint-Germain monastery near Paris) - depict in detail a large feudal estate of the time.

The land on the estate was divided into master's land and allotment land. The lord's land (master's domain), scattered in separate plots between peasant plots, was usually cultivated by dependent peasants with the help of their draft animals and equipment. Household slaves also worked on the lord's farm. The master's domain, in addition to arable land, included forests and meadows, which peasants could use only for a special fee. Peasant plots (mansy), under which most of the land on the estate was located, included, in addition to arable land, certain shares of communal land. They lay in stripes between the plots of other holders and the master's plots. In the fortress village, communal orders regarding crop rotation and grazing were preserved, to which the lordly economy was also subject.

Economy VIII-IX centuries. in its level it was already far superior to the economy of the Franks during the “Salic truth”. Two-field gave way to three-field. The cultivation of the land improved and the yield increased, although it still did not exceed two to three. The economy remained essentially natural. As the “Capitulary of the Estates” testifies, the king’s possessions, scattered over a large territory (mainly to the northeast of Paris), were supposed to provide the royal court with food, household crafts, as well as various supplies for military campaigns. In addition, food reserves were created in case of crop failure. In each estate, all branches of the economy developed - field cultivation, vegetable gardening, horticulture, cattle breeding, and various crafts. Cereals, legumes, oilseeds and fiber crops, millet were sown in the fields, and vegetables were sown in the gardens; Different varieties of fruit trees were planted in the gardens. They raised cattle and small livestock, horses, and various types of poultry. At the same time, each estate produced home craft products, from blacksmithing and weaving to handicrafts and jewelry. Peasants were also engaged in household crafts, as evidenced by peasant quitrent payments for handicraft products.

Categories of serf and dependent population. Forms of annuity. The largest group of dependent peasants were columns, which in their legal status differed significantly from the Roman colons. These were personally free peasants, obliged to bear land duties - quitrent and corvée. The main category of the personally dependent population was servo(slaves). Most of them had allotments and bore corvée and quitrent duties (their quitrents often consisted of products of particularly labor-intensive household crafts). The rest of the serfs did not have allotments and constantly worked at the court and in the lordly household, receiving the master's allowance (yard servants, slave artisans, etc.). Higher than the serfs in legal status were do you- semi-free peasants who had plots of land and performed corvée and quitrent duties. A very small group consisted of “free” people who lived within the estates and were, according to immunity, under the jurisdiction of the patrimonial owner. Their duties consisted mainly of taxes and various fees received in favor of the lord of the estate.

Peasant manses (allotments) were divided respectively into “free”, “lithic” and “servile” (slave). But it is characteristic that in most cases in the inventories of the 9th century. there is no longer any correspondence between the categories of manses and holders. Free mansas often belonged to litas and even slaves, and lithic and servile mansas were often owned by colons. This indicates the leveling of the serf and dependent population, who were equally subjected to feudal exploitation.

In general, in the estates of the Carolingian period, labor rent predominated, with product rent in second place. Cash rent still occupied an insignificant place. This is explained by the dominance of subsistence farming and the weak development of commodity-money relations. Nevertheless, trade developed, although neither handicrafts nor agricultural products were produced specifically for the market.

A classic example of early feudal society on the territory of the Western Roman Empire conquered by Germanic tribes was the unification of the Franks, in which the decomposition of the primitive communal system was accelerated as a result of the influence of Roman orders.

The Salic (maritime) Franks played a special role in history. Led by their leader Clovis, as a result of victorious wars in Gaul, sometimes in opposition to the disintegrating Roman Empire, sometimes in alliance with it, they created a vast kingdom stretching from the middle of the Rhine to the Pyrenees. In 486, the Franks captured the Sausson region, and subsequently the territory between the Seine and Loire. At the end V V. the Franks pushed the German Alemanni tribe beyond the Rhine, and at the beginning VI V. opposed the Visigoths, who owned all of southern Gaul. In the decisive battle of Poitiers in 507, the Franks won a complete victory over the Visigoths, whose dominance from then on was limited only to Spain. Under the sons of Clovis, Burgundy was annexed to the Frankish kingdom.

At the beginning, the Franks, like other Germanic peoples, had several rulers, the most famous of them was Merovei, from whose name the name of the Merovingian royal family was derived and whose grandson was Clovis. The Frankish state owed its strength and victories mainly to its king. Therefore, the royal power under Clovis is strengthened, he becomes the richest man in the state, as the new conquered lands come into his personal possession. The rapid advancement of the Franks was also facilitated by the fact that they settled in the occupied territories in compact masses, without dissolving among the local population, like the Visigoths, maintaining contact with their former homeland, from where they drew strength for new conquests. The captured lands of the former imperial fiscus were enough for distribution among the Frankish nobility, which made it possible not to enter into conflicts with the local Gallo-Roman population. The Frankish nobility was small in number and actively supported the Merovingian conquests, since they promised them enrichment. It was during military campaigns V - VI centuries the nobility formed into the ruling elite of Frankish society.

The victories of the Franks were explained not only by the objective conditions of their socio-economic development, but also by the choice of political means in achieving these goals. Thus, King Clovis was baptized in 496, accepting Christianity along with three thousand of his warriors. Baptism was a clever political move by Clovis and was accepted according to the rite of the Western (Roman) Church. The Germanic tribes (Ostrogoths and Visigoths, as well as the Vandals and Burgundians) were heretics from the point of view of the Roman Church, since they denied some of its dogmas. All the clergy of the Western Christian Church, who lived beyond the Loire, and the Gallo-Roman aristocracy, among whom Catholicism had long been rooted, took his side. Many cities and fortified points immediately opened their gates to the Franks.

Conquests accelerated the process of creating a Frankish state. The underlying reasons for the formation of Frankish statehood were rooted in the disintegration of the Frankish free community and the stratification of society.

The state of the Franks in its form was an early feudal monarchy, which arose during the transition period from communal to feudal society, bypassing the stage of slavery. This society was characterized by multistructure (a combination of tribal, communal, feudal and slave relations), and the incompleteness of the process of creating the main classes of feudal society. Because of this, the early feudal state of the Franks bore the imprint of the old communal organization and institutions of tribal democracy.

Salic truth about the social system of the Franks

The most important information about the social structure of the Franks during this period is drawn from the recording of ancient judicial customs of the Franks, called Salic truth. The most pronounced social and class differences in Frankish society, as evidenced by the Salic truth, were manifested in the position of slaves. Unlike a free community member, a slave was considered a thing, and his theft was equivalent to the theft of an animal. The marriage of a slave with a free man led to the latter's loss of freedom.

Salic truth indicates the presence of Franks and other social groups in society: serving nobility, free Franks, semi-free litas. The differences between them were not so much economic in nature as they were socio-legal, and were associated mainly with the origin and legal status of the person or social group to which this person belonged. Thus, in case of accidental loss of a free franc, payment was made ransom (wergeld) in the amount of 200 solidi, and for a representative of the nobility who was in the service of the king, a triple wergeld equal to 600 solidi was paid, and for a lita - 0.5 wergeld, i.e. 100 solidi.

The law of the Franks testifies to the beginning of the property stratification of society, highlighting the city servants serving the master's household as subjects of law. At the same time, Salic truth indicates that during this period there were still quite strong communal orders and communal ownership of fields, meadows and forests. The very concept of private ownership of land is absent in Salic truth. It only records the origin allod, providing for the right to transfer the allotment by inheritance through the male line.

Salic truth was divided into titles (chapters). Based on the titles establishing punishment for the theft of both cattle and fishing gear, boats, hunting dogs, beehives from the apiary and fruit trees from the garden, we can conclude that the Frankish economy had a wide variety of industries: livestock breeding, and beekeeping, and gardening, and viticulture. At the same time, the main role in the economic life of the Franks, according to Salic truth, was played by agriculture. In addition to grain crops, the Franks sowed flax and gardening, planting beans, peas, lentils and turnips. By this time they were well acquainted with the plow and harrow. Plowing was carried out on oxen. The transition to a two-field system, and then to a three-field system, indicated sufficient agrotechnical progress in farming.

10.2. Frankish state in the 7th-9th centuries.

Beneficiary system

The rapid growth of feudal relations is characterized by VII - IX centuries At this time, in Frankish society there was a agrarian revolution, which led to the widespread establishment of large feudal land ownership, to the loss of land and freedom by the community members.

Immediately after the death of Clovis, the early feudal state of the Franks was fragmented into the fiefs of his four sons. Later, for some time, the rulers of the Frankish state managed to unite the disparate parts, but the power of the Merovingian royal family, based on the possibility of granting land plots to their warriors, was seriously undermined by the lack of free lands. The ensuing strife revealed the fragility of the Merovingian kingdom, in which here and there internal borders appeared as a result of the local nobility disobeying or the population resisting the collection of taxes. Amid the chaos and turmoil, the prestige of the position of palace manager (mayordoma), which was in charge of the royal property, replacing the king as chairman of the royal court during his absence, grew steadily. The further rise of the mayors was also facilitated by the fact that the Merovingians VII c., with few exceptions, were weak and incapable sovereigns, who received the nickname “lazy”. As a result, the Merovingians were pushed back, and the actual power in the kingdom wasin the hands of individual people from noble landowners who held the position of mayordomos.

The general decline of trade, crafts and the naturalization of the economy reduced the value of all types of wealth except land ownership. Accordingly, in VI - VII centuries The economic and political role of that part of the upper crust of society that did not have significant land ownership was reduced to almost zero, and the social weight of the Frankish landed nobility grew even more significant.

At the end of VII - beginning of VIII V. The majordomos, who came from the noble Carolingian family, especially strengthened. They marked the beginning of a new dynasty on the throne of the Frankish kings VIII - X centuries

Majordomo Charles Martel began his activities with the pacification of the unrest, with the confiscation of the lands of his political opponents, with the partial secularization church lands. He took advantage of the right of kings to fill the highest church positions (decisions of the Orleans Church Councils of 511 and 549) and, at the expense of the land fund thus created, began to distribute land holdings to the new nobility for lifelong conditional holding - benefice(from Lat. good deed, mercy) when performing royal service. Refusal to serve or treason against the king entailed loss of the award. The beneficiary received land with dependent people who worked corvée or paid rent.

Vassalage system

The use of the beneficiary form of awards by large landowners led to the development of relations vassalage: the vassal depended on the lord who granted the benefices and swore an oath of allegiance and service to the latter. One of the immediate reasons for the introduction of the beneficiary system was the need to create cavalry. Armed horsemen had to be wealthy people in order to have a horse and weapons. Gradually, over the course of three centuries, a military class of knights was formed; the French called them Chevalier. As feudal ownership of land strengthened in IX V. benefits turned into Lena, or fiefs, which were grants to vassals that were inherited, but military service remained a condition for owning fief. Thanks to the vassalage system, knights were included insystem of fief holding of land and thereby into the management system. Military service became inseparable from land ownership.

Charles Martel's reforms did not remain in vain. They to a large extent prepared his victories over the Alamanni and Bavarians and helped repel the onslaught of the Arabs. As a result, Martell was provided with fairly strong power over the lands between the Loire and the Rhine, as well as significant influence in a number of neighboring regions. The history of the Carolingians' rise to power shows that the restoration of the unity of the Frankish state and its strengthening during VIII V. were to a large extent the merit of the new dynasty. They managed to accumulate significant land holdings in their hands, which made it possible to attract a large number of supporters (around 800, the Carolingians owned several hundred estates, many of them numbered 1000 hectares or more). The partial secularization of church lands and the awarding of grants to those close to them were not the invention of the dynasty, however, it was under the Carolingians that these measures began to be applied widely and in combination. They also introduced into the political practice of European monarchs a close alliance with the papacy, designed to illuminate royal power. Moreover, the practice of using the authority of the Roman Church appeared in the Frankish state only when Christianity became the dominant religion everywhere.

Immunity system

However, no political reforms of the Carolingians could have produced results if there were no social strata capable of supporting the struggle to strengthen and expand the Frankish state. If under the Merovingians the free franc was the support of royal power, then the real power of the Carolingians rested on other forces - on their vassals and beneficiaries. These were the social strata that were under their direct patronage. The power of the Carolingians became more and more seigneurial, private, it was dispersed among the counts and bishops. Only a certain part of the national powers remained in the hands of the Carolingians: border protection, a certain coordination of the actions of the central and patrimonial authorities. The new restructuring of the administrative apparatus was facilitated by the widespread immunity certificates, by virtue of which the territory belonging to the holder of immunity was withdrawn (partially or completely) from the jurisdiction of state authorities in judicial, tax and administrative matters.

Increasing fragmentation

The system of immunities inevitably entailed increased fragmentation and separatism, but under Charlemagne, who became the sole king of the Franks in 771, this process did not prevent the Frankish state from achieving its greatest power. In the east beyond the Rhine, Charles conquered Bavaria. The annexation of Bavaria forced him to encounter the Avars, a people of Turkic origin, who lived on the middle Danube. For more than thirty years, Charlemagne was forced to wage a difficult struggle with the pagan Saxons who lived between the lower Rhine and the Elbe.

To secure the borders of the empire, Charles created several powerful margraviates(border areas). In the south, in the Pyrenees, he fought with the Arabs and expanded his possessions by annexing the region with the seaside city of Barcelona, forming the Spanish brand.

Charles's state reached enormous proportions. In 800, he was crowned with the imperial crown in Rome, but despite the efforts of Charles himself and the church, the empire did not become a single territorial entity. The socio-economic and ethnic heterogeneity of the Carolingian state and the processes of feudalization led to the rapid death of an outwardly united empire. After the death of Charlemagne in 814, it was divided among his heirs. In 843, under the grandchildren of the great Carolingian, the empire was divided into three independent kingdoms: West Frankish, East Frankish and another “middle” kingdom, which included Italy and the border lands between the western and eastern kingdoms, which was an important stage in the history of France, Germany and Italy. The Capetians became successors to the Carolingian throne.

The West Frankish state, in its borders, basically anticipated the future France. On this territory, two nationalities close to each other were formed (from which the French nation later emerged) - southern French (Provencal) and northern French. They are characterized by a certain commonality of language, despite the difference in dialects. The period of French history ending with the fall of the Carolingians can be called the period of the emergence France because during its course they decidedthe outlines of borders and ethnic appearance, the prerequisites for the specific socio-economic development of the state in the subsequent era have matured.

10.3. Economic development of France in the X-XV centuries.

Further development of feudal relations

In IX - XI centuries Feudal relations in France are further developed and become dominant everywhere. With the establishment of the monopoly right of feudal lords to land, free peasant land ownership disappears. At the same time, under the conditions of the dominance of a natural economy, the fragmentation of large seigneuries and the emergence of new estates continue, which completely undermined the unity of the country and led to its territorial fragmentation.

The real power of the first Capetians was extremely insignificant and extended only to a small territory of their immediate possessions (domain king). The territory of the royal domain stretched from north to south in a narrow strip called Ile-de-France, and included such centers as Orleans And Paris. But even within this relatively small territory, the Capetians were not complete masters. Other feudal lords who inhabited Ile-de-France and had their own castles committed robbery on the highways. It took the first Capetians more than a hundred years to restore their power within the domain. They received the funds needed by the French kings mainly from their own estates. Outside the royal domain, the power of the first Capetians was completely illusory. Thus to the beginning XII For centuries, France was a unified kingdom in name only.

The inability of the kings to defend the borders of the kingdom led to the strengthening of local power, which was greatly facilitated by the fact that the benefice reached its greatest development and became fief, which was a grant to a vassal, which was already inherited, and was not lifelong, but military service still remained a condition of ownership.

The formation of the ruling class of feudal lords is directly related to the development of feudal land ownership and a complex system of vassal relations. The feudal class began to resemble a hierarchical ladder, consisting not only of lords and vassals, but also sub-vassals of different levels (lord-vassals).

Until the middle of XII V. the bulk of the feudal lords (arrier-vassals) did not obey either the king or other major feudal lords, since the principle was in force: the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal. Later, in connection with the beginning of the economic rise of the cities, which became natural allies of royal power, relations within the feudal class underwent some changes: the kings began to seek vassalage and an oath of allegiance from all feudal lords in the country. This process of turning arrogant vassals into direct vassals of the king was called shlmediatization WITH XII V. the process of fragmentation of land holdings practically stops. Fiefs become family estates. The access of new persons to the ranks of feudal lords becomes limited, feudal titles and ranks become hereditary.

During this same period, the final formation of the class of dependent peasantry took place. The vast majority of peasants turn into servs, whose legal status was inherited from slaves. However, the personal dependence of the serfs did not lead to their transformation into serfs. The scope of their duties was mainly determined by legal customs.

Another group of dependent peasants consisted of villans(former columns). They were considered personally free holders of the feudal lord's land and paid him a quitrent, which was easier than that of the serfs.

All peasants were obliged to observe feudal monopolies (platitudes): bake bread in the lord's bakery, harvest grapes in his winery and grind grain in the lord's mill. A special fee was levied for transporting food across bridges.

Increased exploitation contributed to a noticeable increase in agricultural production, expansion of sown areas and an increase in the level of agricultural technology. Agricultural crops became more diverse and tools improved. At the same time, the seniors' need for money was constantly growing. Not only nobles and barons, but also knights increasingly used the services of city merchants and artisans, since they were no longer satisfied with the things made by peasants in their estates.

Rent commutation its consequences

At the turn of XIII - XIV centuries and in subsequent, century, significant changes have occurred in the economic system of France: the gradual displacement of corvée quitrent in kind, and then monetary. Corvée was completely supplanted by XV V. even in the most conservative church lordships. Thanks to the growth of natural rent, considerable surpluses accumulated in the hands of the feudal lords, which went to the nearest city market or local fair. The peasants also did not stand aside, and with XIII V. there is a clear preponderance in favor of marketability peasant farming.

On the other hand, the economic difficulties associated with the Hundred Years' War with England, which primarily affected the situation of the French peasants, led to a spontaneous uprising that broke out in 1358, called the "Jacquerie" (from the contemptuous nickname for French peasants in the Middle Ages - Jacques the Prosta ). Despite the fact that the uprising ended in defeat, the peasants succeeded in replacing natural rent with cash rent, i.e. commutation of rent. This contributed to the development of commodity-money relations and the faster liberation of serfs from personal dependence.

Thus, the replacement of corvée, first with in-kind and then with monetary dues, led to the fact that the center of production of feudal rent moved to the peasant economy. The interest of the feudal lords themselves in new forms of exploitation in connection with the socio-economic changes that had taken place contributed to the beginning of the process of liberating the serfs from serfdom. This is how it arises censorship- a new form of peasant feudal land ownership. The peasant processing the crop could voluntarily move from place to place, pass it on by inheritance, and sell it, but so that the new owner would bear the same duties. The main thing is that a fixed annual cash fee was paid for the certification (qualification). Over time, it becomes the main form of peasant holding.

Communal revolutions

With the rapid growth of cities, a new stratum of feudal society is increasing, which has a special legal status - urban population. Initially, the legal status of townspeople was not much different from the situation of other dependent segments of the population, but with XII V. Due to the widespread movement of cities for self-government, the situation changed. They played a huge and progressive role in this communal revolutions XII - XIII centuries, so called because as a result of this struggle, free cities arose in France, the Netherlands and Spain - communes, free from serfdom, seigneurial jurisdiction and enjoying state sovereignty. Urban law arose, different from feudal law. Market law was recognized, which provided guarantees for merchant property. The city fell out of the orbit of the feudal estate, although it served the feudal regime. Urban communes quickly turned into large centers of crafts and trade. Thus, in Paris already in 1268 there were about a hundred craft corporations. And the fairs in Champagne, which lasted almost all year round, became a pan-European marketplace.

Communal revolutions were supported by royal power. Their result was the streamlining of responsibilities and the amount of fines, which were now strictly fixed. Banalities have been abolished.

Strengthening royal power

Started in XIII V. the process of overcoming feudal fragmentation was a natural consequence of the rise of cities and agriculture. Centralization took place through the strengthening of the political power of all territorial rulers, including the king, and then the expansion of the royal domain began at the expense of large feudal estates. When annexing a large fief, the king did not alter its administrative structure, but only, with the help of his managers, replaced the former count or duke, taking over his political and seigneurial rights. With weak economic and administrative ties, the presence of royal officials everywhere played a positive role in strengthening the power of the king. Royal courts everywhere acquired significant authority, the royal gold coin, thanks to its good quality, began to displace coins previously issued by large feudal lords. The king became the recognized sovereign of almost all the cities that were under his patronage and protection, paying a fixed tax to the treasury.

Judicial, administrative and monetary reforms contributed not only to political centralization, but also increased treasury revenues. The king's political power increased in parallel with the increase in income. In 1369, the permanent collection of customs duties and salt tax was legalized, and from 1439 a permanent tax was established - royal waist. Since that time, the use of indirect natogs has expanded. During the reign of Louis XI feudal fragmentation was ended forever. In its struggle for the unification of France, royal power relied on the cities. The third estate actively entered the political arena in such an estate-representative institution as Estates General(first convened in 1302). With the completion of the centralization process, the need to convene them disappeared. According to the form of government, France was an estate-representative monarchy.

10.4. Economic development of France at the stage of decomposition of feudalism

The situation of the peasants. Consequences of the Great Geographical Discoveries

At the stage of the late Middle Ages, when the feudal mode of production was decomposing, France surpassed all other Western European countries (states) in population: 15 million people lived here.

Agriculture remained the main branch of its economy, and the largest class was the peasantry. Since the monopoly of the nobles on land still existed, the peasants were the main category of land holders - censors. As noted, it has become widespread sharecropping And shared lease. French peasants also paid rent in kind (champard), burdensome for peasant farming. Even more difficult was the payment of monetary dues - chinsha. Contributed in favor of the king royal waist, and in favor of the church - tithe.

At the same time, changes were taking place in the French economy, and capitalist relations were emerging. On the economic development of France in XVI V. influenced "price revolution" Due to rising food prices, which increased 2.5 times, the ruin of the middle and small nobility acquired widespread proportions. The situation of the peasants did not improve, because they remained the main taxpayers, and taxes were constantly increasing. IN XVI - XVII centuries for this reason, numerous peasant uprisings took place (for example, in 1548, 1624, 1639 and other years.)

The consequence of the Great Geographical Discoveries was the increasing role of such port cities as Le Havre, Bordeaux, Dieppe, Nantes etc. Lyon has now become a major center of fair trade.

France began colonial conquests, expanded overseas trade, it captured Pondicherry in India, colonized Canada, the West Indies, and lands along the Mississippi River. In 1664 she created the East India Company.

Features of initial capital accumulation

In France, at this stage, the process of initial capital accumulation began, although it had its own characteristics. Unlike England, in France there was no mass dispossession of the peasants and the bourgeoisification of the nobility. The main channels for the initial accumulation of capital here weretax system, government loans (public debt system), sale of judicial and financial positions.

Accounts Chamber,XVIIV.

The salt tax remained particularly burdensome - gable. The royal tag, introduced in 1439, was levied on land, property or per capita. Since its size was not fixed, tax collectors abused this, and taxpayers suffered from their arbitrariness. In 1549, along with the large (royal) waist, the small waist, intended to pay the troops. IN XVI V. introduced in France tax system, and at the beginning XVII V. surintendant of finance M. Sully installed general French tax farming - one of the most important sources of initial capital accumulation.

The public debt system in France dates back to 1522, when King Francis I borrowed 250 thousand livres from Parisian bankers at the rate of 10% per annum. Since this period, speculation on the rate of rental securities has expanded, and interest rates have risen. As a result, arose tontine - inheritance of the right to receive interest on government loans, which led to the formation of a layer rentier - persons living on interest from securities, and intensified usurious exploitation.

Thanks to the process of initial accumulation of capital, a process of property stratification and landlessness of peasants is observed. The wealthy and bourgeois strata took advantage of the opportunity to buy up the rights of nobles to collect rent, farmed out the collection of indirect taxes, engaged in mortgage lending, and bought land. All this indicates that in France it was not entrepreneurship that prevailed, but usury And buyout operations.

Many French bourgeois preferred to be officials of the huge administrative-judicial apparatus and bought positions for money. As you know, absolutism in France reached its apogee under Louis. XIV , under which the extravagance of the royal court, favoritism, a huge bureaucratic apparatus, the most numerous of all states, and large military expenditures flourished. Moreover, all this was paid for by tax-paying classes - the peasantry and artisans.

Development of manufactories. Colbertism

These features of socio-economic. The development of France also predetermined the uniqueness of manufacturing production. The first manufactories that appeared in XVI c., were educated in cloth making, linen and silk production. A feature of the industrial development of France was the predominant production of products for the ruling class - luxury goods, perfumes, cosmetics. But unlike England, where manufactories were built by capitalist entrepreneurs, in France the development of manufactories was supported by the state.

French absolutism provided them with monopoly rights, privileges, subsidies, and pursued policies mercantilism, which received its greatest development under J. Colbert. Occupying the post of Comptroller General (Minister) of Finance, Colbert determined the power of the state by the amount of money he had. Colbert saw the source of their replenishment in trade. He is the founder of the East India and West India Companies. Colbert introduced a protective tariff and encouraged the development of the royal manufacturing industry. State intervention in the economy reached its greatest strength under Colbert, and his economic policy went down in history as Colbertism. The system of protectionist measures to ensure a positive balance of trade, carried out by Colbert, included: prohibitive duties on the import of industrial goods, reducing imports to a minimum; encouraging the development of domestic industry (export and import-substituting); creation of export manufactories at the expense of the state; attracting foreign craftsmen to work; providing industrial entrepreneurs with privileges.

Jeweler's Workshop

Under Colbert, France developed not only silk and woolen manufactories, but also metallurgical ones. Credit institutions appeared. Colbert took measures to unify tariffs and consolidate internal customs areas, which contributed to the development of domestic trade, although the products of manufactories, due to the low purchasing power of the masses, were intended primarily for the foreign market. Under Colbert, the French merchant and military fleet developed.

Sheep shearers

Absolute monarchy

The prerequisites for absolutism were rooted in socio-economic changes caused by the emergence and development of bourgeois relations. As capital accumulates, the entrepreneurial elite forms a new class. Large fortunes arise. Banks and national fairs are being developed.

The bourgeoisie, which replenished the state treasury, allowed the monarch to maintain a hired army and hired officials, to rise to the position of an autocrat who had absolute power over all his subjects, including feudal lords, who would remain a privileged class for a long time, occupy the highest government positions, but whose omnipotence would be limited rights of the monarch.

The principles of absolute monarchy find their most complete implementation in France. The kings seek complete control over all provinces and have a monopoly on the publication of laws binding on the entire state, including laws on taxes and military service. The autonomy of cities comes to an end, states general cease to be convened, and the church becomes completely dependent on the king.

Having played a positive role in the world historical process for a certain time, the absolute monarchy in France becomes an obstacle to the further development of the state.

Review questions

1. Explain how the formation of feudal land ownership took place in France.

2. Describe the categories of peasants and the forms of their dependence on the feudal lords, when the commutation of rent occurred, and its consequences.

3. Tell us about communal revolutions, the role of cities and their relationship with the feudal regime.

4. Explain how the formation of the absolute monarchy took place in France.

5. What effects did the Great Geographical Discoveries have on the economic development of France?

6. Reveal the features of the process of initial capital accumulation in France.

7. What are the features of the development of manufacturing in France? What is Colbertism?

Formation of the Frankish Kingdom

The Salic (maritime) Franks played a special role in history. Led by their leader Clovis, as a result of victorious wars in Gaul, sometimes in opposition to the disintegrating Roman Empire, sometimes in alliance with it, they created a vast kingdom stretching from the middle of the Rhine to the Pyrenees. In 486, the Franks captured the Sausson region, and subsequently the territory between the Seine and Loire. At the end of the 5th century. The Franks pushed the German Alemanni tribe beyond the Rhine, and at the beginning of the 6th century. opposed the Visigoths, who owned all of southern Gaul. In the decisive battle of Poitiers in 507, the Franks won a complete victory over the Visigoths, whose dominance from then on was limited only to Spain. Under the sons of Clovis, Burgundy was annexed to the Frankish kingdom.

At the beginning, the Franks, like other Germanic peoples, had several rulers, the most famous of them was Merovei, from whose name the name of the Merovingian royal family was derived and whose grandson was Clovis. The Frankish state owed its strength and victories mainly to its king. Therefore, the royal power under Clovis is strengthened, he becomes the richest man in the state, as the new conquered lands come into his personal possession. The rapid advancement of the Franks was also facilitated by the fact that they settled in the occupied territories in compact masses, without dissolving among the local population, like the Visigoths, maintaining contact with their former homeland, from where they drew strength for new conquests. The captured lands of the former imperial fiscus were enough for distribution among the Frankish nobility, which made it possible not to enter into conflicts with the local Gallo-Roman population. The Frankish nobility was small in number and actively supported the Merovingian conquests, since they promised them enrichment. It was during the military campaigns of the V-VI centuries. the nobility formed into the ruling elite of Frankish society.

Salic truth about the social system of the Franks

Salic truth indicates the presence of Franks and other social groups in society: serving nobility, free Franks, semi-free litas. The differences between them were not so much economic in nature as they were socio-legal, and were associated mainly with the origin and legal status of the person or social group to which this person belonged. Thus, in case of accidental loss of a free franc, payment was made ransom (wergeld) in the amount of 200 solids, and for a representative of the nobility who was in the service of the king, a triple wergeld equal to 600 solids was paid, and for a lita - 0.5 wergeld, i.e. 100 solids.

In the 5th century a powerful migration flow of Germanic tribes overwhelmed the lands of the Western Roman Empire. As a result, in Western Europe, the process of forming a new historical community began on the basis of Christianity, Roman law and administration, on the one hand, customary law, German military organization and traditional forms of economic management, on the other.

The combination of these elements created the phenomenon of the Western European Middle Ages. The transitional period of the 5th-8th centuries, when the kingdoms of the Franks, Goths, Burgundians and others existed on the territory of the former Roman provinces of Gaul, Spain and Italy, was a time of formation of new political centers, the leading place among which was gradually taken by the Frankish state of the Merovingians. Subsequently, this country, consolidated for a short time by the power of the new Carolingian dynasty, fell apart into several large parts, but the very idea of the political unity of Western Europe was inherited by the Holy Roman Empire.

A characteristic feature of the European Middle Ages was the feudal system. In the early period, its formation took place. Of course, the beginning of this process is of interest, when the way of life of late ancient society was influenced by new “barbarian” peoples.

It is known that the German leaders respected Roman culture and civil order. The Ostrogoth king Theodoric in Italy clearly patronized Roman poets and instituted Roman ceremonial. The Visigoths in Spain adopted the administrative system from the Romans and codified their laws along Roman lines. However, the Goths professed Arianism, and this prevented their Romanization. The Kingdom of the Franks in Gaul was distinguished by the fact that its successful creator Clovis accepted Christianity in an orthodox form. There were no barriers to marriage between the Gallo-Romans and the Franks, and within a few generations these peoples were assimilated. Thus, the process of merging the two cultures here went faster than in other Western European regions inhabited by Germanic tribes, and the formation of a new historical community accelerated. The kings of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty waged frequent wars, and the country suffered from numerous redistributions between the heirs of the royal crown. At this time, the elements of feudalism do not yet appear as clearly as in the subsequent Carolingian period, but the basis for the emergence of a feudal system is prepared when there is a decline in urban life and an increase in the number of settlers seeking food in the countryside. Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks, an important source for this period, contains vivid descriptions of the most noteworthy events in the country's history. Another source, the so-called. The "Salic Law" (Lex Salica) or Salic Truth provides more specific information about the life of Frankish society. This work is devoted to the consideration of the land relations of the Franks according to the Salic truth. Its task is to clarify the specific basis that preceded the formation of feudal orders in land use. It is clear that it is impossible to cover such a topic in its entirety in a short volume, so attention will be paid to the issue of ownership of land, its inheritance and the right to dispose of it.

Salic truth is a collection of primarily criminal legislation, a kind of law book. The accepted dating of this monument: 508-511. Its source was folk tradition, law approved by custom. According to Prologue I to the text of the collection, probably written down in the 8th century, the Salic law was the collective work of the four elders Vizogast, Bodagast, Salegast and Vidogast. King Clovis was its first publisher and editor. The original text of Pravda has not survived; only later Latin copies are available. Apparently the judges or one of their assistants made these lists for management. The initial text of the law consisted of 65 chapters (titles). Then additions were made to it by the sons of Clovis Childebert and Clothar. These and subsequent additions are given in the form of 7 capitularies. During the Carolingian period, new titles were added to Pravda, the total number of which reached 99-100. The last edition of the Salic Law was made in 798 under Charlemagne. This is the so-called Lex Emendata, i.e. amended law.

Since the first publications from random manuscripts, scholars have collected and prepared several critical editions of Salic truth. Much has also been done to study its handwritten history. In the appendix to the English edition of the text of the monument in 1880, Hendrik Kern proposed dividing all available manuscripts into five groups. The first includes four manuscripts of the 8th-9th centuries, containing 65 titles, which, according to the scientist, date back to the 6th century. Their distinctive feature is the explanation of some Latin words in the Frankish language in the form of glosses (the so-called Mahlberg gloss). The second group is represented by two manuscripts bearing the distinctive linguistic features of the 8th-9th centuries. The other two groups include 41 manuscripts and are each divided into two subgroups. Here the Salic truth is given with various additions and corrections from the Carolingian era. The fifth group includes the publication of one lost manuscript, related to the first two groups. In Russia, the first edition of Salic Truth in Latin with notes was made by Dmitry Egorov (Kyiv, 1906). The text of the first group was used as the basis. The Russian translation in 1913 was carried out by Nikolai Gratsiansky (republished posthumously in 1950).

The study of Salic truth has been carried out in a variety of contexts. As early as 1316, a congress of French barons referred to the prohibition of women from inheriting landed property in order to prevent the English female heirs of the last Capetian from laying claim to the French throne. This subsequently led to the Hundred Years' War. Since the formation of national states in Western Europe, disputes have arisen around the Salic Law about whether it was drawn up on the right bank of the Rhine before the Franks entered the Roman Empire, or appeared after their migration already on the left bank. German scientists often emphasized the German origin of Salic truth and somewhat idealized the mores of barbaric German society. Representatives of French science, for example, François Guizot (1787-1874), warned against excessive enthusiasm for the “merits” of this law, pointing out its incompleteness, rude morals, underdeveloped institutions, etc.

Considering that research Tue. floor. XIX century discovered the complex origin of Salic truth and different text layers and editions, analysis became of great importance for the study of this monument. With its help, conclusions about the economic and social structure of Frankish society began to be drawn from individual provisions of the law. In this case, two different approaches can be identified. Marxist historians, concerned with explaining the development of society as a consistent transition from one economic formation to another, drew on Salic truth to explain how in the Early Middle Ages the transition of former Germanic tribes to a feudal system occurred without going through the slaveholding formation. Research by the prominent Soviet medievalist Alexander Neusykhin (1898-1969) about the life of the Germans was carried out in this context. In his book “The Emergence of the Dependent Peasantry as a Class of Early Feudal Society in Western Europe in the VI-VIII Centuries.” there is a whole chapter devoted to the analysis of the Salic law. Neusykhin’s conclusions were built into the general concept of the formation of feudalism in the work of academician Sergei Skazkin (1890-1973) “Essays on the history of the Western European peasantry in the Middle Ages.” In their research, these Soviet historians were based on the study of specific facts and phenomena, and from this side their work has not lost its significance. However, the artificiality of the “economic formation” scheme itself makes them of little use conceptually.

Proponents of another approach, which can be conventionally called “civilizational,” examine the monuments of the Early Middle Ages in order to trace the interpenetration of elements of ancient culture and the way of life of the Germanic tribes and thus identify the formation of a new historical community in Western Europe. Currently, a number of scientists believe that feudalism is nothing more than a mirage, an idea, an interpretation, and not a historical fact. Manor, vassalage are historical facts, and feudalism is only a concept, an attempt to connect these facts. The types of social and economic relations in the Middle Ages cannot be subordinated to one general principle. Therefore, it is argued that feudalism is not a historical, but a historiographical phenomenon. In this context, the question of how this or that collection of laws reflects actual legislative practice is discussed, which for the VI-VII centuries. presents considerable difficulties. An example of a “civilizational” approach to the problem is the words of the Austrian researcher Alfons Dopch, who recalls the long history of the proximity of the Gallo-Romans and the Franks before the Merovingians, and then writes: “The Salic law clearly tells us that Roman and Frankish subjects were treated as equals. Roman land tenure has been preserved: there is a Romanus possessor and a Romanus tributaries. There is no violence, no slavery. The Frankish civilization grew on a basis associated with the late Roman civilization." This approach seems to be more productive conceptually.

Before proceeding to the consideration of specific places of Salic truth related to land ownership, it is necessary to make a few preliminary remarks. The text of laws known to us does not have any official royal determination about their entry into force. The exception is some capitularies added as an addition. For example, in the V capitulary - the Edict of Chilperic (561-584) - there is a traditional beginning with the observance of well-known formulas: “After discussion, in the name of God, with the most glorious optimates, antrustions and all our people, they decided...”. Therefore, quite a long time ago the idea was expressed that Salic truth is not a state law or code in the proper sense, but a list of court decisions, a collection compiled by some assessor (G. Viarda).

The text of the laws is divided into chapters (titles) and paragraphs; some paragraphs have appendices. The articles of the laws are presented in random order. Government institutions are named completely randomly. The punitive part clearly predominates. The king and the counts have the highest judicial functions. Jurors are used to make local court decisions. The usual form of punishment is a fine (two amounts are indicated in denarii and solidi). Some other symbolic rituals are also noticeable, such as throwing ears of grain, earth, etc.

The conquered Gallo-Romans were indeed not reduced by law to the status of slaves. However, it cannot be argued that their status was in all respects equal to that of the Salic Frank. For example, for the murder of a free franc, the law awards payment of 200 solidi, and for the murder of a “Roman” (a landowner and not a royal companion) - 100 solidi (XLI.1,8), also according to another article on murder, the amount for a “Roman, litan or "slave" is paid in half (XLII.4), for the abduction of a free person 200 solidi are awarded, for a "Roman" - 63 solidi, and for a slave - 15 solidi (XXXIX.1,2,3). If a Frank robs a Roman, then he is given a fine of 35 solids, and if a Roman robs a Frank, then a fine of 62.5 solids.

The silence of the Salic truth about the Christian Church and its ministers is characteristic. The first mentions appear in later additions. For example, Chapter LV was supplemented with rules on the punishment for setting fire to a chapel at 200 solidi, for the murder of a deacon - 300, a priest - 600, a bishop - 900. In the Decree of Chlothar, paragraph 15 appears on the forgiveness of a slave who has found refuge in the church.

Data on the land relations of the Franks according to the Salic law can be presented using analysis. Land use rules are assumed to be known here, so they are discussed casually and haphazardly.

The first question concerns land ownership. The Truth speaks absolutely clearly about individual land use. At a certain time, the site was fenced off (IX; XXXIV,1) to protect it from livestock. The plots were located along the roads, with paths running between them (XXXIV.2,3). The arable land was cut into stripes. This is explained by the fact that each community member had the right to a share of a plot of fertile soil. Each family cultivated the plots allocated to it at a certain time of the year. “Frankish arable farming,” writes Alexander Neusykhin, “was typical plow farming using a harness of oxen or bulls and a plow with an iron share.” The use of horses for plowing by the Franks is explained by their exceptional quantity. After the harvest, the field turned into a place for grazing livestock. In addition to cereals, turnips, beans, peas, and flax were grown on the plots. Orchards (apple trees, pears) and vineyards are also mentioned (XXVII). There were also fenced areas for livestock (“if anyone decides to drive the livestock out of the fenced area...” - IX.5). Each family had its own house with a barn and outbuildings for keeping animals (cattle, goats, sheep, pigs). Salic truth definitely protects all this property from encroachment by others.

In the Salic law one can find traces of communal ownership; the land was not yet in full ownership, only in individual use. For example, it could not be sold or bequeathed to third parties. Fields, pastures, and meadows were the property of the community. Confirmation of this can be seen in the chapter on immigrants. The rule here is that a visitor can settle in a villa (i.e., in a village) only with the general consent of its residents. The protest of one of them is enough for the new person not to be allowed to stay (XLV.1). In one addition to the Salic truth, called Extravagantia (compiled around the half of the 9th century), there are expressive words: “A person cannot settle if the neighbors (do not express their consent to use) grass, water and the road” (paragraph 11 ). If no protest is made within 12 months, the new settler and his labor remain inviolable (XLV.3). Obviously, this requirement of general consent expresses the right of the owners to allocate or not allocate communal land to the settler.

Communal land ownership, of course, finds its explanation in that archaic method of cultivating the land, when a plot of forest was cleared for plowing. This intense work required the participation of a large number of people. Gradually, especially under the influence of Roman technology, the peasants of Western Europe moved from clearing forests and cultivating light soils to draining wet areas and cultivating heavy soils. The fallow farming system gave way to the more advanced three-field system.

However, communal property had another source of origin - tribal life. Its clearest expression was the obligation to take an oath during trials of one’s relatives and to bear financial responsibility for their crimes. The trial in Salic truth did not know any other form of defense or prosecution than the provision of witnesses to their innocence, who swore an oath as evidence. Tests by fire and water were provided. In case of insolvency of the convicted person, his relatives paid the fine (LVIII.1). Also, the vira for the murdered person was distributed among his relatives: “If someone’s father is deprived of life, let his sons take half of the vira, and let the closest relatives, both on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, share the other half” (LXII .1). However, during the period of compilation of the Salic truth, a way out of patrimonial guarantee had already emerged. Anyone who wanted to renounce his kinship had to declare his refusal in court, and then, if one of his relatives was killed or died, he would no longer participate in the division of the inheritance or pay a fine (vira), in the event of his own death , his property went to the treasury (LX.1).

Of great interest is the development of allodial land ownership among the Franks. It is necessary to distinguish the first meaning of the word “allod” in the pre-feudal period from the later one, which arose under the influence of feudal relations. In this latter sense, “allod”, full ownership of land, is contrasted with “len”, i.e. conditional land ownership under a contract (foedus). Initially, an allod was a plot that free members of the community received when dividing up some wasteland. While maintaining his private ownership, the owner of the allod bore all duties for the benefit of the community. This allotment could be inherited, which was recorded by the Salic truth (LIX.5). Only sons are named as heirs, but brothers are also mentioned. Alexander Neusykhin suggests understanding “brothers” in the text of the law on allods as “sons” and not brothers of the father. Some ambiguity crept in, in his opinion, from the vagueness of the legal terminology of early legislative collections.

The fundamental point in this case is to secure the right of inheritance of land in a descending line from father to son. This led to the emergence of private land ownership along with communal land. Unfortunately, Salic truth does not provide complete clarity on such an important issue. Full ownership presupposes free disposal of the plot, including its sale or exchange. However, the text of the law does not say this anywhere. Obviously, the allod was passed down only by inheritance. Even when staying in a new place, the settler acquired a plot not by purchase, but by cession of land from the community (XLV.1). During the journey, he and his cargo of belongings were protected from robbery and arbitrariness (XIV.5). Leaving his previous place of residence, the peasant apparently lost his plot. The immediate reason for the resettlement was the fragmentation of plots due to the natural increase in village residents (villas). Obviously, the stage of equalizing distribution of plots had already been passed, and some community members found themselves with more land due to the inheritance of allods, while others had a shortage of it, which forced them to move to a new place. It is clear that in small villages a migrant could count on a more favorable reception than in large ones, where the allocation of new plots was associated with the division and cultivation of new areas. However, there was less and less ownerless land: the kings generously distributed it to their entourage. As a result, impoverished community members, who turned into migrants, went to noble people and received land from them with the obligation to cultivate it. Over time, when the community itself finds itself constrained on all sides by the master's estates, the traditions of communal land ownership will not lose their strength, and part of the land will continue to be cultivated jointly, not to mention the use of almenda (meadows, pastures, forest areas). In northern France, communal land tenure, for example, remained until the end of the 18th century.

The existence of allods did not destroy the community as much as the king's direct interference in its rights. For example, the right to refuse an alien. The chapter on the robberies of the Salic truth says that it is impossible for someone who has a royal charter to resettle under penalty of 200 solidi (XIV.4). The royal man was under special protection. Stand out are the counts, their assistant judges, the royal high-ranking slaves “sacebarons”, and the royal table mates. The life of a person in the royal service (like the count-deputy) is protected by a fine of 600 solids, three times more than the usual free franc (XLI.1,3,5). During the campaign, discipline becomes stricter. Here, the murder of a simple warrior is estimated at 600 solidi, and the murder of “one in the royal service” - at 1800 solidi (LXIII.1,2). At the same time, the count’s property is also especially protected, thefts “from under the castle”, “in the upper room”, and damage to the master’s mill are specially stipulated. The nobility seeks to consolidate its privileged position. Along with this, royal service opens up the opportunity for many to increase their possessions. Along with hereditary land holdings (allods) under the Carolingians, benefices and fief ownership appeared under the condition of performing royal service. This is already a visible expression of the feudal system.

Salic truth also mentions the dependent population, primarily slaves. It also talks about semi-free people, the so-called. Lit. A slave is the property of his master, he is subject to punishment, torture, and the death penalty. Marriages between slaves and freemen are prohibited. The master pays for the slave's crime. Slaves are represented in Salic truth as servants in the house of their master - “the master’s servants.” However, among them are also winegrowers, blacksmiths, carpenters, grooms, swineherds, goldsmiths (X.4,5; XXXV.6). It does not appear that slaves were intensively used in the fields as ploughmen. The theft and murder of a slave are equally valued at 30 solidi. The life of a lithium is estimated at slightly more - 100 solidi. Lith could gain freedom only through ransom with the consent of his master and subject to the return of his property. It is noteworthy that Salic truth does not yet know debt slavery. For violation of a debt obligation or non-repayment of a loan, a fine and repayment of the debt with the involvement of the count's servants are prescribed (L.1-3; LII.1).

In the VI-VIII centuries. There is a process of division of Frankish society into free and full landowners on the one hand and into dependent land users on the other. The position of the slave, the litha and the communal peasant is equalized in the status of a “serve”, a serf. “The formerly free,” writes the famous Soviet medievalist Aron Gurevich, “having turned into a dependent holder, was eventually excluded from the system of public legal relations, no longer attended a public meeting, did not perform military service, was subject to the jurisdiction of his master, who could subject him, like slave, corporal punishment." However, one can agree with the observation of the outstanding Russian historian Nikolai Kareev (1850-1931) that the formation of a new system of relations continued the development of elements of the previous Roman era, the so-called. colonata.

Salic truth describes Frankish society at the beginning of this process, when free communal land users, while maintaining many features of traditional Germanic life and equality among themselves, gradually succumbed to the state principles of the Merovingian power. In the text of the law, traces of the existence of patriarchal slavery, tribal life, common land ownership with its stripes, the traditional division into districts (pagi), guarantees in legal proceedings, etc. are still noticeable. But the influence of ancient civilization is already visible: the appearance of written laws, the use of denarii and solidi, the desire limit blood feud and replace it with monetary compensation, etc. In the nature of land use in the Salic law, Germanic principles (freedom of movement, communal land use) still appear in a purer form of pre-feudal relations.

More on the topic Forms of land ownership and land tenure in Frankish society of the era of Salic truth:

11. The victory of private ownership of peasant plots and the reasons for the ruin of free francs.

Plan

Introduction

Chapter 1. The Age of the Merovingians

1.1 Franks

1.2 The emergence of a state among the Franks

1.3 Clovis I

1.4 Clovis I's adoption of Christianity

1.5 Social order

1.6 Government system

1.7 End of the Merovingian era

Chapter 2. The Carolingian era

2.1 Reform of Charles Martel

2.2 Charlemagne

2.3 Government system

2.4 Social order

2.5 Collapse of the state

Chapter 3. Right

3.1 Salic truth

3.2 Ownership

3.3 Law of obligations

3.4 Family law

3.5 Inheritance law

3.6 System of crimes and punishments

3.7 Judicial system

3.8 Process

Conclusion

Introduction

The Frankish state that emerged from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire was one of the largest in early medieval Europe. At its apogee, it covered the entire territory of modern France, Belgium and Luxembourg, as well as a number of regions of the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The Frankish state went through two main periods in its development (from the end of the 5th to the 7th century and from the 8th to the mid-9th century). The boundary separating these periods is characterized not only by a change of ruling dynasties (the Merovingians were replaced by the Carolingians). It marked the beginning of a new stage in the deep socio-economic and political restructuring of Frankish society, during which the feudal state itself gradually took shape in the form of a seigneurial monarchy.

In the second period, the creation of large feudal land ownership, two main classes of feudal society was basically completed: a closed, hierarchically subordinate class of feudal lords bound by vassal bonds, on the one hand, and the dependent peasantry exploited by it, on the other. The relative centralization of the early feudal state is replaced by feudal fragmentation.

This course work will examine the main periods of the existence of the Frankish state - the emergence, flourishing, collapse; Attention will be drawn to the important importance of individual personalities of the ruling dynasties; a description will be given of the main legal source of the Salic francs - “Salic truth” and individual branches of law.

CHAPTER 1 THE MEROVINGIAN AGE

1.1 Franks

A union of Germanic tribes with a common name - the Franks - formed in the 3rd century AD. on the northeastern borders of Gaul, a province of the Roman Empire. The name Frank (“brave”, “free”, “free”) appears only in the middle of the 3rd century. Relations between the Franks and the Romans were quite friendly. At the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (451), the Franks fought on the side of the Romans as foederati. The Franks were divided into two large groups: the Ripuarian Franks, whose capital was the Roman city of Colonia, and the Salic Franks, the latter ruled by the Sicambrian family of the Merovingians. The most powerful were the Salic Franks. They first subjugated the coastal Franks, and this was their first step in conquering new lands.

The Franks, who settled in northern Gaul, in the Loire basin, spoke the Frankish dialect. But since the large indigenous population, consisting of Romanized Gauls, Visigoths and Burgundians, spoke Latin, the Franks gradually adopted this language. The combination of the Latin language and the Frankish dialect served as the basis for the formation of the Old French language.

The Franks had a primitive writing system. They knew the runic letter, which was used by almost all barbarians.

1.2 The emergence of a state among the Franks

For Gaul, the fifth century was a time of profound socio-economic transformations. In this richest province of Rome (territory almost coinciding with present-day France), the deep crisis that engulfed the empire found its manifestation. The protests of slaves, colonists, peasants, and the urban poor became more frequent. Rome could no longer defend its borders from invasions of foreign tribes and, above all, the Germans - the eastern neighbors of Gaul. As a result, most of the country was captured by the Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks (Salic and Ripuarian) and some other tribes. Of these Germanic tribes, the Salic Franks eventually turned out to be the most powerful (perhaps from Sala this was the name in ancient times for one of the rivers of what is now Holland). It took them a little more than 20 years to at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century. take over most of the country.

The emergence of a class society among the Franks, which had begun to emerge even before moving to their new homeland, sharply accelerated during the conquest of Gaul.

Each new campaign increased the wealth of the Frankish military-tribal nobility. When dividing up the spoils of war, she received the best lands, a significant number of colones, cattle, etc. The nobility rose above the ordinary Franks, although the latter continued to remain personally free and did not even initially experience increased economic oppression. They settled in their new homeland in rural communities (marks). The mark was considered the owner of all the land of the community, which included forests, wastelands, meadows, and arable lands. The latter were divided into plots, and quite quickly passed into the hereditary use of individual families.

The Gallo-Romans found themselves in the position of a dependent population, several times larger in number than the Franks. At the same time, the Gallo-Roman aristocracy partially retained its wealth. The unity of class interests marked the beginning of a gradual rapprochement between the Frankish and Gallo-Roman nobility, with the former becoming dominant. And this especially made itself felt during the formation of a new government, with the help of which it would be possible to maintain the captured country in one’s hands, to keep colonists and slaves in obedience. The previous tribal organization could not provide the necessary forces and means for this. The institutions of the tribal system begin to give way to a new organization with a military leader - the king and a squad personally devoted to him at the head. The king and his entourage actually decide the most important issues in the life of the country, although popular assemblies and some other institutions of the former Frankish system still remain. A new “public power” is being formed, which no longer coincides directly with the population. It consists not only of armed people who are independent of ordinary free people, but also of compulsory institutions of all kinds, which did not exist under the tribal system. The approval of the new public authority was associated with the introduction of territorial division of the population. The lands inhabited by the Franks began to be divided into "pagi" (districts), consisting of smaller units - "hundreds". The administration of the population living in pagas and hundreds is entrusted to special trustees of the king. In the southern regions of Gaul, where the former population many times prevailed at first, the Roman administrative-territorial division is preserved. But here, too, the appointment of officials depends on the king.

The emergence of a state among the Franks is associated with the name of one of their military leaders - Clovis (486-511) from the Merovingian clan. Under his leadership the main part of Gaul was conquered. Clovis's far-sighted political step was the adoption of Christianity by him and his squad according to the Catholic model. By this, he secured the support of the Gallo-Roman nobility and the Catholic Church that dominated in Gaul.

1.3 Clovis I

The years of life of Clovis I are 466-511. The young king of the Salic Franks from the family of the semi-legendary Merovei quickly realized the doom of the state of Syagria (the last Roman governor) - the last fragment of the Western Roman Empire, which did not even formally exist after 476 - and went to war against it together with other Frankish kings, his relatives. At the Battle of Soissons (486), the Gallo-Romans were defeated; Syagrius fled to Toulouse to the Visigoth king Alaric II, but was handed over to Clovis and executed.

At this time he was about 19 years old. This victory was the beginning of a whole series of military triumphs for the Salic Franks. They defeat the Burgundians, defeat the army of the largest state of that time - the Visigothic kingdom, subjugate the Ripuarian Franks (middle reaches of the Rhine), and prevail over the Alemanni. In the future, Clovis will take possession of most of Gaul.

This is how the rich region of Roman Gaul with Paris fell into the hands of the Franks. Occupying it, Clovis acted like a businessman: personally, still remaining a pagan, he tried from the very first steps to establish good relations with the rulers of the cities, the Catholic bishops. A textbook example of this is the episode with the Soissons Cup. After the victory at Soissons, among the captured booty was a cup from Reims Cathedral, which Archbishop St. Remigius and asked to return it to him, Clovis immediately agreed, but the problem was that what was captured was subject to division among all the soldiers. The king tried to exclude the cup from this section by asking the army to give it to him over and above his share. But among the warriors there was one staunch defender of the norms of military democracy, who cut the cup with the sword with the words: “You will not receive anything more than what you get by lot.” Clovis could only hand over the fragments of the sacred vessel to the prelate's envoy. He knew how to control himself and understood the formal correctness of the daredevil, but he could not forget such a challenge. When, after a goal, he had the opportunity to conduct another review of his army, the king found fault with the supposedly poor state of this warrior’s weapons and personally cut off his head, saying publicly: “That’s what you did with the cup in Soissons!” This had an effect, they began to fear the king. The clergy quickly appreciated the good will of the young monarch, and St. Remigius acknowledged his authority in writing as administrator of the Roman province.

Clovis's physical elimination of all his relatives, as possible rivals in the struggle for power, became widely known. Bloody feuds in royal families have been common among the Germans for a long time. Clovis gave them an unprecedented scale, including treachery, treachery, and murder in the arsenal of means of his internal political struggle. Clovis's services to the church were great; as the baptist of his country, His wife, Queen Clotilde, received the halo of holiness. But Clovis was not canonized, and the reason for this was the character of the king, pragmatic to the point of cynicism. Baptism was not associated with a moral revolution for him. Clovis saw the adoption of Christianity, first of all, as a practical benefit, and having already become a Christian, without any remorse, he carried out his plans for reprisals against all the kings and relatives. He set his son against the king of the Ripuarian Franks, Sigebert, who ruled in Cologne, and when he, at his instigations, got rid of his parent, Clovis' envoys killed him; Clovis annexed Sigebert's lands to his possessions, declaring his innocence in everything that happened. On other occasions he resorted to military force. So, he captured one of the kings of the Salic Franks, Hararic, with his son and forcibly cut off their hair, declaring the father a priest and the son a deacon, but then still considered this insufficient and executed both. King Ragnahar, who ruled in Cambrai, after a short war, was betrayed to Clovis by bribed traitors and killed by him personally. Combining strength with treachery, Clovis destroyed other kings related to him. The news reported by Gregory of Tours is colorful. “Having once gathered his own, he... They say that he remembered with regret the relatives whom he himself had destroyed: “Woe is me, I am left as a wanderer in a foreign land and have no relatives who could help me in case of misfortune!” But this did not mean that he was saddened by their death, but said so out of cunning, hoping to find out if anyone was still alive in order to kill every last one.”

1.4 Clovis's adoption of Christianity

The most important event of Clovis's reign was his baptism. This was preceded by the king's marriage to the Burgundian princess Clotilde, a devout Catholic, although the official religion of the Burgundian dynasty was Arianism. Clotilde immediately began to convince her husband to be baptized. Clovis waited for the new god to show what his strength was worth. The hesitation ended when the king, turning to Christ for help, won an important victory for him over the Alemanni. It was then, on December 25, 496, that the baptism of the king of the Franks with a 3,000-strong retinue took place in Reims at the hands of St. Remigration.

What was important was that Clovis accepted Christianity in its orthodox form. Previously, the baptized Germanic peoples (Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, etc.) preferred Arianism. The orthodox, Nicene religion was perceived by them as the official religion of imperial Rome, and since their states arose in heavily Romanized territories, the kings instinctively feared that their people would “dissolve” in an alien and powerful civilization. Clovis felt that these fears were unfounded, and the configuration of his possessions was such that it provided the possibility of a constant influx of new forces from the Germanic world. The decision he made created the precondition for Romano-Germanic cultural unity and synthesis, and this is the merit of the Frankish monarch to European culture.

But the direct political benefits of baptism soon became obvious. Clovis became the natural protector of all faithful Christians of Southern Gaul, who were under the rule of the Arian monarchs of the Visigothic kingdom. He used this as an excellent reason to start a war of conquest, which took on the character of a “crusade” (507). Accompanied by miraculous signs, the Frankish army crossed the Loire and defeated the Visigoths, and Clovis himself defeated Alaric II in single combat. The Visigoths were expelled beyond the Pyrenees, Aquitaine became Frankish. The international prestige of the young state immediately increased. He was noticed in distant Constantinople, Emperor Anastasius sent ambassadors to Clovis (508), announcing the elevation of the new coreligionist of the Byzantine monarch to the dignity of consul, Clovis began to travel everywhere in the consular attire brought to him; he added a diadem to it, clearly showing that he interpreted this act as recognition of his complete supremacy over Gaul; it was not for nothing that he began to be called not only consul, but also Augustus. For the Christian population of the country, this meant additional confirmation of the legitimacy of Frankish power.

1.5 Social order

The bulk of the population of the Frankish state during the era of its formation were free Franks and Gallo-Romans. Below them on the social ladder stood litas, freedmen and slaves. The Salic Franks did not have a clan nobility during the Merovingian dynasty, but very quickly a service nobility emerged from among the royal warriors and trusted servants endowed with large land holdings.

In the VI century. Important changes took place in the socio-economic structure of the Frankish state: the scale of slavery was further reduced, and the role of rent exploitation of small landowners sharply increased. In the social elite, the place of the slave-owning layers was increasingly occupied by landowning and serving nobility of different ethnic origins; among the exploited population, the proportion of small free owners and semi-dependent land holders increased.

The founding of a number of new German settlements had a significant impact on the change in the social system. True, the proportion of newly settled Germans among the local (Gallo-Roman or Romanized Germanic) population was very small - in general they amounted to no more than 5%. But certain areas - the lower reaches of the Rhine and Meuse, the left bank of the Middle Rhine - were populated by them quite compactly.

Possessing the rights and responsibilities of members of barbarian society, the Franks participated in the military militia, were present at meetings of the “hundred” - the lowest territorial-tribal administrative unit, ensured the implementation of court decisions, elected judges, enjoyed the right to a share of war booty, etc. The Frankish nobility opposed the rank and file freemen. In the VI century. its dominance was not yet based on the industrial exploitation of ordinary free people, but on the occupation of important government positions, military spoils, from the middle of the 6th century. - after the appearance of large estates among the Frankish nobility - and on the exploitation of foreign slaves and dependents. Social differentiation in Frankish society of the 6th century. did not, therefore, reach a class split; it was limited to early class forms.

Social relations of the same type existed in the 6th century. and in the settlements created by the Ripuarian Franks and Alemanni. Although the area of dominance of these relations as a whole was very small, they introduced their own specificity into the social structure of the Frankish state, increased its internal heterogeneity, and contributed to the disintegration of late antique orders. As a result, the social system of the Frankish state during most of the 6th century. was distinguished by a bizarre combination of deformed features of the late antique system, elements of a decaying tribal society, as well as some “proto-feudal” phenomena in its essence.

Salic truth consolidated the following social structure of Frankish society: secular feudal lords represented by the new service aristocracy; clergy; free Franks - peasants (the bulk of the country's population), litas - semi-free, Gallo-Romans, slaves.

The Free Franks were engaged in agriculture and lived in a neighboring community - a mark. They formed the basis of social organization. The general meeting of full members of the community decided the most important issues. Only it could, with the consent of all members of the community, accept a new resident of the village; also, by order of the king, anyone could settle on communal lands.

The arable land was the collective property of the mark. The entire peasant community as a whole retained the supreme rights to this land, but it was no longer redistributed, but was in the hereditary use of each individual peasant. The Frank could not alienate his allotment; in the event of his death, the land passed to his sons. Arable land was considered possession, not property. Forests, meadows, and pastures for livestock were in common use. The community was responsible for murder on its territory. Relatives were obliged to pay a fine for the offenses of their relatives. The Franks were annually called up for training camps called “March fields.” The king reviewed the militia.

The personal property of a Frank peasant in those days usually consisted of a house, livestock, and a plot of land. The rest of the land was allocated with farmsteads. Such household use included arable land and vineyards; sometimes meadows and forests. A wealthy family had slaves and semi-free litas as servants and artisans. Among them, the Salic truth mentions a blacksmith, a groom, a swineherd, and a winegrower.

It should be borne in mind that the Salic truth in articles about the community already records new social connections: the clan community, based on blood kinship, is replaced by a neighboring community (mark). The community-mark was the basis of the economic and social organization of Frankish society.

Staying in a mark community was not an obligation: its member could leave the community through the so-called renunciation of kinship. To do this, it was necessary at a court hearing to break three branches measuring an cubit over your head, scatter them in four directions and say that you refuse partnership, inheritance and the help of relatives. Leaving the community by renouncing kinship was beneficial to the richest and most powerful people. The stratification of free francs into poor and rich is also indicated by the title “About a Handful of Land,” titles about debt and methods of repaying it, about loans and their collection from the debtor, and others.

The decrees (capitularies) of the kings of the 6th century, which supplemented the Salic Truth and characterized the process of class stratification of Frankish society, already spoke of the land-poor Franks, large landowners owning estates in different places and of ruined people who were no longer able to pay fines and were wandering around the country. The reasons for the ruin were obvious: the severity of military service, separation from the economy, onerous taxes, common in the 6th century. and on free francs and causing a number of unrest, unaffordable fines for various types of offenses.

Salic truth contains provisions on allods - plots of land belonging to their owners as private property. Every year there were more and more allods. A layer of new service nobility appeared in the kingdom, whose representatives received lands from the king with the right of allod. This nobility gradually turned into large landowners - feudal lords. The king's associates, his officials (counts), and his warriors (antrustions) became major owners. Salic truth distinguishes them from the rest of the Frankish masses, especially protecting their lives with a triple wergeld (a fine of 600 solids for murder) and creating from them, along with the clergy, a privileged class of the serving aristocracy.

The formation of private land ownership (allod) was supposed to subsequently lead to the widespread development of large-scale land ownership. The expansion of privately owned lands threatened the very existence of the community.

As already indicated, communal ownership of arable land, meadows and forests was combined among the Franks with individual (family) ownership of a house, plot of land, livestock, household utensils, and agricultural implements. These Frankish communities coexisted with the private land ownership of the Gallo-Romans, preserved from the times of the Western Roman Empire, and the allods that appeared among the serving feudal aristocracy and the church. However, coexistence did not last long. Communal ownership of the Franks in a large part of the country gave way to allod. At the same time, there was a process of gradual establishment of dependence on the secular and spiritual feudal lords of the free peasant population. This process took place in the 7th - 8th centuries. in various forms: in the form of giving a free person under the protection of large feudal lords (commendation); debt bondage; by settling ruined free people on the land of the feudal lord under the condition of fulfilling the corresponding duties in favor of the large landowner. At the same time, the practice of so-called precaries is becoming widespread, both when a landless person receives a plot of land from a feudal lord for lifelong (and sometimes hereditary) use, and during commendation, when a peasant transfers his allod into ownership of the feudal lord and receives this land back with the obligation to pay quitrent (qualification) and perform corvée work.

Simultaneously with the growth of large landownership and the enslavement of the peasantry, there was a process of strengthening the personal power of large magnates by granting them so-called immunities (royal immunity letters), as a result of which the feudal nobility received the right within their possessions to carry out administrative, judicial, police, and military duties within certain limits and fiscal functions.

It is necessary to note the growth of church land ownership, as a result of which church magnates - bishops and abbots of large monasteries - were not inferior to secular magnates in their influence, privileges and power.

The landowning nobility began to occupy a dominant position in both the central and local government of the kingdom. The role and importance of the congress of secular and spiritual nobility increases, without whose consent the king could not make any important decisions. In the Frankish state there is a process of decentralization, which is accompanied by internecine wars.

1.6 Government system

In the processes of formation and development of the state apparatus of the Franks, three main directions can be identified. The first direction, especially characteristic of the initial stage (V-VII centuries), manifested itself in the degeneration of the organs of tribal democracy of the Franks into bodies of new, public power, into state bodies proper. The second was determined by the development of the bodies of patrimonial administration, the third was associated with the gradual transformation of the state power of the Frankish monarchs into the “private” power of the lord-sovereigns with the formation of the seigneurial monarchy, which was fully revealed at the final stage of the development of Frankish society (VIII-IX centuries). .

The conquest of Gaul served as a powerful impetus for the creation of a new state apparatus among the Franks, for it required the organization of administration of the conquered regions and their protection. Clovis was the first Frankish king to assert his exclusive position as sole ruler. From a simple military leader, he turns into a monarch, achieving this position by all means: treachery, cunning, destruction of relatives, other tribal leaders. One of the most important political actions of Clovis, which strengthened the position of the Frankish state through the support of the Gallo-Roman clergy, was the adoption of Christianity.

With the adoption of Christianity by Clovis, the church became a powerful factor in strengthening royal power. It was the church that gave into the hands of the Frankish kings such a justification for wars of conquest as a reference to the “true faith”, the unification in faith of many peoples under the auspices of a single king as the supreme, not only secular, but also spiritual head of their peoples.

The gradual transition of the Gallic elite to the Christian faith also becomes an important historical factor in the unification of Gaul and the development of a special regional feudal-Christian, Western European (Romano-Germanic) civilization.

After Clovis exterminated the clan aristocracy that competed with him, his closest support was not only the Frankish serving nobility. The latter was still very small: the number of "Leudas" - warriors who were baptized along with Clovis, was only 3000. The Merovingians retained the Roman monetary tax system and Roman law (for the Gallo-Roman population).

Socio-economic, religious-ideological, ethnographic and other changes in Gallic society had a direct impact on the processes of formation and development of specific features of the state apparatus of the Frankish empire, which absorbed in the 8th-9th centuries. most of the barbarian states of Western Europe. Already in the 5th century. Among the Franks, the place of the old clan community is finally replaced by a territorial community (mark), and with it a territorial division into districts (pagi), hundreds. Salic truth already speaks of the existence of officials of the kingdom: counts, satsebarons, etc. At the same time, it testifies to the significant role of communal government bodies. At this time the Franks no longer had a general tribal people's assembly. It was replaced by a review of the troops - first in March ("March fields"), then (under the Carolingians) in May ("May fields"). But local meetings of hundreds ("malus") continued to exist, performing judicial functions under the chairmanship of the Tungins, who, together with the Rakhinburgs, experts in law ("passing judgment"), were representatives of the community.

The role of the community in court cases was exceptionally great. The community was responsible for a murder committed on its territory, nominated co-jurors who testified to the good name of its member; The relatives themselves brought their relative to court, and together with him they paid the wergeld.

The king was recognized as the bearer of supreme power. His title was inherited, so that all Frankish kings of the 6th - early 8th centuries. belonged to the direct descendants of Clovis. The most important state prerogatives were concentrated in the hands of the king. He commanded a military militia, using not only Germans, but also free Gallo-Romans. He appointed - “on the advice and will of bishops and nobles” - and dismissed all senior officials, rewarding them for their service with chain gifts or land grants. In the VI-VII centuries. these awards became the full property of the new owners.

The king acted, first of all, as a “guardian of peace”, as an executor of judicial decisions of the community. His counts and social lords performed mainly police and fiscal functions. Salic truth provided for punishment for royal officials who refused to accede to the demand of a free man and to exercise power against offenders. At the same time, protecting to a certain extent the independence of the community on the part of royal officials, the Salic truth prohibited, for example, more than three social barons from appearing at one community meeting.

Royal orders, according to Salic truth, relate to a small range of state affairs - conscription into the army, summons to court. But Salic truth also testifies to the strengthening of the power of kings. Thus, for example, the performance of royal service justifies the failure of the accused to appear in the community court. Moreover, the king directly interferes with the internal affairs of the community, with its land relations, and allows a stranger to settle on communal land.

In the VI-VII centuries. under the direct influence of the late Roman order, the legislative powers of kings are strengthened, and the capitularies, not without the influence of the church, already speak of the sacred nature of royal power and the unlimited nature of its legislative powers. It is significant that the concept of treason against the king, classified as a serious crime, also appears there.

However, the king at this time is primarily a military leader, a military commander, whose main concern is “order” in the kingdom, pacifying the local nobility that goes out of obedience. The limited royal functions were also associated with the absence of effectively functioning central administration bodies, the treasury, and independent royal courts with appellate functions.

The central governing body was the royal court. It was here that the king held council with his entourage. From the end of the 6th century. The mayordomo (“house lord”) began to play an increasingly important role in this council. Initially, he managed only the palace economy, but gradually became the main administrative person of the kingdom. In addition to the palace council, state affairs were discussed on the March fields. Representing annual reviews of the general military militia in the time of Clovis - a relic of tribal meetings of the era of military democracy - the “March fields” turn into the 7th century. into the meetings of the serving nobility of different ethnic origins. Here the decisions outlined at meetings of the royal entourage were approved. The power of the Frankish kings increasingly expressed, thus, the interests of the aristocratic elite of society, which now included both secular magnates and the highest clergy; both Germans and Gallo-Romans.

The emerging state apparatus is also characterized by extreme amorphousness, the absence of clearly demarcated official powers, subordination, and organization of office work. The threads of government are concentrated in the hands of royal servants and associates. Among them are the palace count, referendarium, and chamberlain. The palace count primarily performs judicial functions, directs legal battles, and oversees the execution of sentences. The referendar (speaker), keeper of the royal seal, is in charge of royal documents, draws up acts, orders of the king, etc. The chamberlain monitors receipts in the royal treasury and the safety of the palace property.

In the VI-VII centuries. The chief manager of the royal palace, and then the head of the royal administration, was the chamber mayor, or mayor, whose power was strengthened in every possible way in the conditions of the incessant campaigns of the king, who ruled his territories “from the saddle.”

The formation of local authorities occurs at this time under the significant influence of late Roman orders. The Merovingian counts begin to rule the districts as Roman governors. They have police, military and judicial functions. In the capitularies, Tungin is almost never mentioned as a judge. The concepts of “count” and “judge” become unambiguous, their appointment falls within the exclusive competence of the royal power.

At the same time, the newly emerging organs of the state apparatus of the Franks, copying some of the late Roman state orders, had a different character and social purpose. These were authorities that expressed the interests primarily of the German service nobility and large Gallo-Roman landowners. They were built on different organizational foundations. For example, the king’s warriors were widely used in the public service. Initially consisting of a royal military detachment of free Franks, the squad, and consequently the state apparatus, was subsequently replenished not only by Romanized Gauls, who were distinguished by their education and knowledge of local law, but also by slaves and freedmen who made up the royal court staff. All of them were interested in strengthening royal power, in destroying the old tribal separatism, in strengthening new orders that promised them enrichment and social prestige.

Among the sources of state revenue in the 6th - early 7th centuries. Land and poll taxes, preserved from Roman times, played an important role. They were now levied not only on the Gallo-Romans, but also on the Germans. Although tax rates were increased more than once, tax revenue was not enough, especially since kings began to grant tax immunities to many churches, monasteries and other large landowners. From the middle of the 7th century. The place of tax revenues in the royal budget began to gradually be taken by emergency levies, court fines, trade duties, and income from royal estates. The irregularity of most of these sources of income undermined the treasury and made it difficult to reward the royal retainers; arbitrariness in the collection of fines, duties, etc. increased the discontent of the population. At the same time, the fund of land holdings, through which the serving nobility was allocated land, was also declining. The only way to ensure the loyalty of the nobles was to grant them ever new privileges: excluding them and their possessions from subordination to the county court, transferring to them the right to levy court fines, exemption from the obligation to place militia at the disposal of the kings, a promise “not to remove” from their positions, expansion of tax seizures. Some of these privileges were secured by the edict of Chlothar II in 614, others were recorded in immunity charters of the mid-7th century. The Edict of 614 gave the nobility the opportunity to control the appointment of counts, who could henceforth be selected only from local landowners.

In the second half of the 7th century. A new system of political domination and management is emerging, a kind of “democracy of the nobility,” which presupposes the direct participation of the top of the emerging class of feudal lords in governing the state.

The expansion of the participation of the feudalizing nobility in government, the "seignorization" of government positions led to the loss of the relative independence of the royal power that it had previously enjoyed. This did not happen immediately, but precisely during the period when large landholdings had already acquired significant dimensions. At this time, greater power was assumed by the previously created Royal Council, consisting of representatives of the serving nobility and the highest clergy. Without the consent of the Council, the king actually could not make a single serious decision. The nobility are gradually being given key positions in management not only in the center, but also locally. Along with the weakening of the power of kings, counts, dukes, bishops, and abbots, who became large landowners, acquired more and more independence, administrative and judicial functions. They begin to appropriate taxes, duties, and court fines.

Management functions were assigned to large local feudal lords.

In later truths, local rulers - dukes and counts - are given no less attention than the king. A fine according to the Alamanian Pravda threatens anyone for failure to comply with the demands of a duke or count, for “disregard for their summons with a seal.” The special title of the 2nd Bavarian Pravda is dedicated to the dukes “whom the people appointed or elected them”; it testifies to the breadth of those matters “that concern them.” It provides for punishment in the form of a significant fine not only for non-compliance, but also for “negligence” in carrying out their orders (2, 13), in particular, it speaks of impunity in the case of carrying out the Duke’s order to kill a person (2, 6), probably “acted against the law” (2, 2).

Moreover, according to the Alamannic truth, the position of duke is inherited by his son, who, however, faces “expulsion and disinheritance” for attempting to “take possession of it extortionately” (25, 1-2), however, the king could “forgive his son... and transfer his inheritance" (34:4). Over time, all the most important positions in the state apparatus became hereditary.

The obedience of the local nobility to the king, which remained to one degree or another, began to be increasingly determined by its personal relations with the royal court, vassal dependence on the king as a lord.

From the middle of the 7th century, during the era of the so-called lazy kings, the nobility directly took the reins of power into their own hands, removing the king. This is done first by increasingly strengthening the role and importance of the position of majordomo, and then by directly removing the king. A striking example of this is the very change of the royal dynasty among the Franks. Back in the 7th century. The Pipinid family of mayors began to stand out for its power and land wealth. One of them, Charles Martel, actually already ruled the country. Thanks to the reforms he carried out, he managed to strengthen for a certain time the unity of the Frankish state, which was experiencing a long period of political destabilization.

1.7 End of the Merovingian era

After the death of King Dagobert I in 639, there were constant internecine wars between representatives of the powerful aristocracy. At the same time, each surrounded himself with vassals, ruled like a small sovereign, involving the sections of the population dependent on him into internecine strife. In each of the three parts into which the Frankish state was divided - in Burgundy, Neustria and Austrasia, there were special heads of the palace - majordomos, who, being representatives of the nobility, actually led the foreign and domestic policy of the state, ignoring royal power and fighting with each other. In the beginning. 640s Thuringia, Alemannia and Bavaria were separated from the Frankish kingdom, ca. 670 Aquitaine became independent, which began to be governed by its independent dukes.

In the process of internecine struggle between representatives of the aristocracy, the strongest of them rose to the top - Pepin of Geristal, Major of Austrasia, who in 687 became the single Major of all three parts of the Frankish state. The title was left to the kings of the Merovingian house, and all actual power passed to the mayors. Relying on their enormous land wealth and many free vassals, Pepin and his successors brought the nobility to obedience and strengthened the military power of the Frankish kingdom. Pepin himself, having dealt with the nobility, successfully acted against the Germans in the east; he subjugated part of the Frisian territory to his power and again established Frankish influence in Alemannia and Bavaria.

Pepin's son, majordomo Charles Martel (715–741), distributing the lands of the Frankish Church as military benefices to his warriors, created a well-organized army with which he could undertake the most difficult campaigns. He conquered all of Friesland, strengthened the power of the Franks in Thuringia, and even imposed tribute on the warlike Saxons. He established close ties with Catholic missionaries who spread Christianity among the Germans and consolidated the successes of Frankish weapons across the Rhine.

In the south of the state, Charles Martel won a brilliant victory at Poitiers in 732 over the Arabs who had moved to Gaul from Spain they had conquered. The Battle of Poitiers was a turning point, after which further Arab advances into Europe were stopped. He again subjugated Aquitaine to the Franks. Charles Martel's son, Pepin the Short (741-768), finally expelled the Arabs from Gaul, conquered Septimania, and continued to consolidate the successes of the Franks across the Rhine. He completed the conquest of Thuringia, following the example of his father in the closest alliance with the church.

The Frankish majordomo, with the support of a friendly pope, imprisoned the last Merovingian king in a monastery and in 751 he himself took the throne. The new Frankish king, from whom the new Carolingian dynasty came, helped, in turn, the pope in the fight against the Lombards and gave him the region taken from the Lombards (the former Zarchate of Ravenna) to the pope as a secular sovereign. Thus, Pepin laid the foundation for the penetration of Frankish influence into Italy.

CHAPTER 2 THE CAROLINGIAN AGE

2.1 Reform of Charles Martel

In the second half of the 7th century. From among the landowning nobility of the Frankish state, a strong clan of the Pipinids (Arnulfings) emerged, which managed to unite it and subsequently replace the Merovingian dynasty with the new Carolingian dynasty. The Arnulfings took possession of the highest position of the Frankish kingdom - the chamber mayor (majordomo). In the first years of his reign, the power of the mayor of Charles (715–741), later nicknamed Martell (which means “hammer”), was finally consolidated. At this time, a serious danger loomed over the Franks from the Arab Caliphate: the Arabs, having conquered Spain, began an attack on Gaul in 720. The wars with the Arabs showed the superiority of cavalry over the infantry militia, which made up the bulk of the Frankish army. To create a cavalry, as well as strengthen the social base of his power, Charles Martell secularized a number of church and monastic land holdings and transferred them to representatives of the secular nobility. He took advantage of the right of kings to fill the highest church positions. Representatives of the secular nobility had to distribute these lands in the form of benefices on the terms of military service to the largest possible number of persons who had to appear on horseback with the appropriate weapons. The sources did not preserve data on how long it took Charles to form a new army and what its number was. It is only known that the Franks survived the decisive battle with the Arabs at Poitiers in October 732; Moreover, by ambushing an Arab camp where the looted booty was stored, the Franks caused confusion in the enemy camp; the leader of the Arab army was killed. Not daring to continue the battle, the Arabs retreated the next day. The movement of Islam to the west was stopped.

With the reform of Charles Martel, peasants were almost excluded from military service. Large landowners, medium and small feudal lords served as the basis for the creation of a new professional cavalry army. Before Charles Martell, the predominant form of royal land grants was grants of land by right of allod. Such donations quickly reduced the fund of royal lands and at the same time did not establish any new connection between the king and the feudal lords. Charles Martel introduced a completely new system of granting land in the form of benefices on conditions primarily of military service. The beneficiary usually received the land along with the people sitting on it, who paid rent in his favor and performed corvée work. The use of the same form of awards by other large landowners led to the formation of suzerainty-vassalage relations between large and small feudal lords.

It should be noted that the reform of Charles Martel strengthened the central government. The layer of middle and small feudal lords, strengthened thanks to it, formed the support of the Carolingian dynasty for a certain time. Following the example of the king, other large magnates also began to practice the distribution of benefices, which contributed to the creation of a hierarchical structure of feudal society and land ownership.

2.2 Charlemagne

The Frankish state reached its peak under Charlemagne (768-814), who sought to unite all the Roman and Germanic peoples of the West, using the fighting power of the Franks and the support of the Church for this. In 773-774, Charlemagne conquered Northern Italy and annexed it to the Frankish state, declaring himself king of the Franks and Lombards, the very fact of this conquest making the papal throne completely dependent on his power. Of the Germanic tribes, only the Saxons, who occupied almost all of Lower Germany and preserved the ancient Germanic system, remained independent. For as long as 33 years (772-804), Charlemagne introduced Christianity and Frankish rule among the Saxons with iron and blood, until he finally broke their stubbornness. Having conquered Saxony and undertaken a series of campaigns into the Slavic lands, Charles built several fortresses on the border, which later became strongholds for the spread of the Germans to the east.

Charles's Danube campaigns led to the destruction of the independence of Bavaria (788) and the defeat (final in 799) of the Avar Khaganate. In the south, Charles, continuing the struggle of his predecessors with the Arabs, undertook several campaigns in Spain and extended Frankish rule here to the river. Ebro.

The conquests of Charlemagne, which brought all Western European Christian countries (with the exception of England) under the rule of the king of the Franks, gave him the opportunity to move to first place among the rulers of Europe and allowed him to achieve the imperial title as the successor of the Western Roman emperors. Charlemagne's assumption of the imperial title in 800 formalized his conquests and cemented his hegemony in Europe.

Charles's great merit lies in the fact that he was able to put in order and put into practice the correct governance of the country, which contributed to its pacification. And if the first means of unifying the empire is considered to be the personality of Emperor Charles, and the second - his Reichstag, then the third means of uniting the disparate components of the empire were, undoubtedly, the officials appointed by him.

In relation to the church hierarchy, Charles maintained his position as autocrat completely intact. By accepting the new title of Roman Emperor, he became, in part, the head of the church. Charles's multifaceted administrative activities were mainly aimed at encouraging people to engage in practical activities - agriculture, industry, and trade. He created all the conditions for this - security from external invasions and internal order, as far as was possible at that time of the predominance of brute force and, as far as it was in his power, he encouraged the development of individual industries. He himself, as the largest landowner, was a reasonable and excellent owner; his estates were exemplary economic establishments. He demanded an exact report from his stewards: if they were guilty, they had to come to the king’s residence “and answer with their backs or suffer any other punishment that the queen wishes to impose.”

The main thing was considered to be the multiplication and improvement of communication routes, and this was easier for the autocratic ruler of a large state than for the rulers of scattered possessions. Charles paid attention, first of all, to improving water communications - and in 793, a grandiose project for that time appeared to connect the Danube and Rhine basins with a canal. The project was not carried out due to the inability to obtain a sufficient number of required labor. Another beneficent undertaking, the construction of a permanent bridge across the Rhine near Mainz, also ended unsuccessfully. It took 10 years to build and was built so firmly that, according to Einhard, “everyone believed that this bridge would last for a century,” but the fire of 813 destroyed this beautiful structure within just three hours.

The collapse of the Frankish state began immediately after the death of Charlemagne.

2.3 Government system

The center of government of the empire was the imperial court with its officials - the palace count, who combined in his hands the leadership of the royal administration along with the administration of justice; the chancellor is the custodian of the state seal, responsible for drawing up royal acts and heading the office; Count Palatine, in charge of palace management; archchaplain - head of the Frankish clergy, confessor of the king and his adviser on church affairs, custodian of the special shrine of the Frankish monarchs - the cloak of St. Martin Tulsky. Most of the other positions that existed earlier (marshal, seneschal, etc.) remained under the Carolingians.

Under Charlemagne, there was a council, which included high dignitaries and representatives of the nobility invited by the king. The council was convened by the king as needed; his competence extended to all matters “pertaining to the good of the king and kingdom.” To discuss matters concerning the entire state, Charles convened general congresses twice a year. At the end of spring, a general meeting (“Mayfield”) was held, in which major dignitaries, royal vassals, bishops, magnates with their vassals, as well as militias from among the free peasants took part. This meeting was also a military review.

The meetings and congresses of the times of Charlemagne were of an aristocratic character. Only courtiers, bishops and lords were called to the meeting. At the congresses, issues of war and peace, the adoption of laws, church affairs, trade matters, etc. were discussed. There was no voting. The king listened to opinions, then, in a close circle of the king’s closest dignitaries, a capitular decree was drawn up, on the basis of which various national affairs were decided.

The main administrative unit was the county. The border counties were called marques, and the leading counts were called margraves. Every two counties constituted a bishopric; Bishops, in addition to church affairs, had to monitor the behavior of the counts.

Every year, the territory of the state was divided by the king into audit districts, to which the sovereign's envoys were sent (one secular and one clergy), who took the oath of allegiance to the monarch from the population, promulgated royal orders, monitored their execution, the management of royal estates, the correct administration of justice, over the behavior of the clergy; holding officials, including counts, accountable, with the right to remove them and cancel the decisions they made.

2.4 Social order

The quantitative growth of the dependent peasantry, the qualitative increase in its role in agricultural production and, most importantly, the massive inclusion of small free farmers in the dependent peasantry make it possible to consider the time from the 8th to the mid-10th century. as a new - second - stage of the genesis of the feudal-dependent peasantry in a given region, the stage of the “agrarian revolution”. It was at this time that the feudal socio-political structure developed and became more complex. There is no need to exaggerate her maturity. The preservation in a number of places of small free property, the relatively narrow use by local lords of the means of judicial and political domination over the peasants, the comparative breadth of the prerogatives of the central state apparatus, as well as the very fact of the unification of most of the ruling class around the kings - all this allows us to speak about the predominance of the early form of feudal relationships. But the formation of their mature forms was not far off.

This is evidenced, among other things, by the fate of large private landowners. Already in the 9th century. it determined the life of a very significant part of the peasant population (at least a third). At the same time, in the center and north of the Paris Basin, on a somewhat smaller scale - in Picardy, Northern Burgundy and the Middle Rhine regions, the so-called classical fiefdom spread, i.e. a large seigneury of several hundred hectares or more, including extensive lordly arable land with grain production (25-30% of the total area of the estate) and a complex of land holdings; the dependent owners of these holdings performed regular corvee labor (2-3 days a week during the agricultural season) and therefore were closely connected with the master's economy. Along with such large seigneuries (3-4 thousand peasant holdings), smaller ones were often found, with 3-4 hundred mansi. There were, however, many even more modest-sized seigneuries (several dozen peasant holdings or less).

The boundaries of seigneuries - even small ones - rarely coincided with the boundaries of peasant communities. The most common type of peasant holdings - manses - almost everywhere (excluding Normandy and certain Rhine territories) were not compactly located plots, but complex land complexes. The house with a plot of land was located in the village. The arable land was scattered in separate sections, in stripes, in three or four fields that belonged to the village. Each owner of a mansa could, in addition, use undivided communal forests and pastures, and graze his livestock on stubble in a field left fallow. Mance as such represented the hereditary possession of its holder, who had the right to alienate it within the seigneury, and, with the consent of the patrimonial owner, outside it.

The most important branches of agriculture remained in the 8th-10th centuries. livestock farming and arable farming. Although livestock breeding continued to occupy an important place in the economy, its economic role in comparison with the 7th century. decreased and the primacy of agriculture became more obvious. This was especially true in areas with fertile soils - Ile-de-France and Picardy.

The big problems were the extreme instability of harvests, the very low technical level of agricultural implements at that time, the rarity of the use of iron in them, and the limited trade. The obvious shortage of labor was emphasized, which prevented proper cultivation of the land. The poor financial situation of the majority of dependent peasants caused stagnation in the number of this main producing class or even its reduction. Clarification of data on crop yields and population dynamics indicates that from the end of the 8th to the middle of the 9th century. The prevailing trend was economic recovery. Indisputable data from the 9th century speaks about it. about agricultural production on large estates, about the existence in them of a certain surplus of products, periodically sold on the market. This trend is confirmed by changes in the fate of cities and trade.

The growth of the money supply reflected a marked expansion in the scale of trade and the number of fairs and markets. Already in the Soissons Capitulary of Charles Martell (744), the possibility of the existence of weekly markets was envisaged in each of the episcopal (or archiepiscopal) cities of Gaul (in Carolingian times there were 129 of them, and their number especially grew in the northern half of the country). Among such cities were, in particular, Amiens, Arras, Bayeux, Beauvais, Cambrai, Clermont, Lap, Liege, Macon, Metz, Nantes, Orleans, Paris, Reims, Rennes, Rouen, Tournai, Tours, etc. The most important items of trade were bread, salt, olive oil, wine, the demand for which indicated the growth of an urban population not connected (or little connected) with agriculture. The seller of these products most often was the local farm (primarily the monastery). There was also interregional and transit trade in export goods, which was conducted by visiting merchants, albeit on a modest scale. As for handicraft products of everyday demand, the majority were so far produced by the peasants themselves or by domain artisans on local farmsteads.

Expansion of feudal land ownership in the 8th century. contributed to new wars of conquest and the accompanying new wave of Frankish colonization. Moreover, if in the Frankish colonization of the VI-VII centuries. Since mainly the top of Frankish society took part, wealthy allodists were involved in the colonization of the 7th-9th centuries, which took place on a much larger scale, at the expense of whom the class of feudal lords was replenished at that time with equestrian knighthood.

From the middle of the 8th century. The period preceding the completion of the process of stratification of Frankish society into the class of feudal landowners and the class of peasants dependent on them begins; relations of patronage, domination and subordination, arising on the basis of special contracts of commendation, precarity, and self-enslavement, become widespread. The development of patronage relations was greatly influenced by the Roman institution - clientele, patronage. The relations of patronage and patronage among the Franks were brought to life by the collapse of old tribal ties, the impossibility of economic independence of small peasant economies, ruined by wars and the robberies of feudal lords. Patronage entailed the establishment of personal and property dependence of the peasants on the landowner-magnates, since the peasants transferred to them the ownership of their land plots, receiving them back on the terms of fulfilling certain duties, paying quitrents, etc.

In the processes of establishing the power of large landowners over peasants in Western Europe, the Christian Church played a huge role, which itself became a large land owner. The stronghold of the dominant position of the church were monasteries, and the secular nobility - fortified castles, which became patrimonial centers, a place for collecting rent from peasants, a symbol of the power of the lords.

Agreements of commendation (patronage) arose primarily in the relations of peasants with the church and monasteries. They were not always directly related to the loss of freedom and property rights to the land plot of the commendedee, as was the case in the case of a contract of self-enslavement. But once they came under such protection, free peasants gradually lost their personal freedom and after several generations, the majority became serfs.

The precarious agreement was directly related to the transfer of land. It entailed the emergence of conditional holding of land transferred for temporary use, and was accompanied by the emergence of certain duties of a precarist in favor of a large landowner (to work in the master’s fields, to give him part of the harvest). In the person of the precarists, a transitional layer was created from free communal allodists to dependent peasants. There were three forms of precaria: precaria data (“precaria given”) - a unique form of land lease, on the basis of which a landless or land-poor peasant received a plot of land for temporary use. Under the contract of precaria remuniratoria ("precaria remunerated"), the precarist initially gave his plot of land to the landowner and received it back into possession. This type of precarity arose, as a rule, as a result of pledging land to secure a debt. Under the agreement precaria oblata (“precaria donated”), the precarist (most often under direct pressure from the landowner), who had already fallen into economic dependence, gave his plot to the master, and then received from him his own and an additional plot of land, but as a holding.

The owner of the precaria had the right of judicial protection against third parties, but not against the landowner. The precarium could be taken back by the landowner at any moment. As the number of people subject to the tycoon (precarists, commendees) grew, he acquired more and more power over them.

The state contributed in every possible way to strengthening this power. In the capitulary of 787, for example, it was forbidden for anyone to take under the protection of people who left the lord without his permission. Gradually, vassal ties, or relationships of dependence, cover all free people. In 808 they were ordered to go to war with their lord or with the count.

A new feudal form of colony arose, differing from the previous one in that not only a slave or a landless tenant, but also a free peasant could become a colony. According to the Alamannic Truth (22, 3), the colony runs his own household, but must pay taxes in kind to the church or work corvée 3 days a week.

Changes were also taking place in the legal status of slaves. For example, strict prohibitions on marriages between slaves and free people were relaxed. If, according to Roman law, a free woman was converted into slavery for having an affair with a slave, and according to Salic law, she could be killed with impunity, then the Alamannic truth gave such a woman the right to object to the “slave work of a servant” (18:2).

And finally, in the 9th century. large beneficiaries are seeking the right to transfer benefits by inheritance. Benefice is being replaced by feud (hereditary, as opposed to benefice, feudal land ownership granted by the lord to his vassal for service). Large feudal lords turn into sovereigns with political power in their domains.

2.5 Collapse of the Frankish state

The collapse of the Frankish state began immediately after the death of Charlemagne. Centrifugal tendencies in the Frankish state, which Charlemagne managed to cope with with greater or less difficulty, prevailed soon after his death. Already under his son Louis the Pious, warring factions of the nobility, led by the royal sons, achieved such influence that they repeatedly sought to temporarily remove Louis from power. In 843, after the Treaty of Verdun, the sons of Louis divided the Frankish state into three unequal parts: the West Frankish kingdom (west of the Rhine), the East Frankish kingdom (east of the Rhine) and "Middle France" (regions along the Rhine and Rhone and Italy ). Of these three states, West Frankish was the immediate predecessor of France. Italy and Burgundy at times united under one government, at times they split into two independent states. The partition led to strife, which especially intensified after the death of Louis.

In the 40-60s of the 9th century. Due to the intensification of Norman raids, the political situation of the West Frankish kingdom became especially complicated. The failure of the kings to repel the Normans encouraged individual earls or dukes to act at their own peril. The nobility preferred submission to such local rulers, who actually protected it from Norman raids, to submission to a distant and powerless king. Counts and dukes became hereditary, just as conditional benefices became hereditary property (these possessions were now called “fiefs”). In an effort to strengthen their position, individual noble families continued to expand their seigneuries, seeking, on the one hand, the extension of their power to the still remaining free territories and, on the other hand, a stricter subordination of small free farmers involved in dependence at the previous stage. Thus, at the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th centuries. feudalization went both in breadth and depth, preparing the formation of mature forms of feudal relations and at the same time making it impossible to maintain the unity of the state.

CHAPTER 3 LAW

3.1 Salic truth

“Salic Truth” is a monument to the customary law of the Salic Franks, the first codification of their customs, the legal source of a significant part of the population of the Frankish state of the Merovingian era. The Roman influence was felt here much less than in other barbarian truths, and is found mainly in external features: the Latin language, fines in Roman monetary units.

"Salic truth" more or less in its pure form reflects the archaic orders of the primitive communal system that existed among the Franks even before the conquest, and weakly reflects the life and legal status of the Gallo-Roman population. But throughout the VI-IX centuries. Frankish kings made more and more additions to the “Salic Truth”, therefore, in combination with other sources of a later period, it also allows us to trace the further evolution from the tribal system to the feudalism of Frankish society. The Salic Truth examines in detail various situations and lists punishments for breaking the law, ranging from the theft of a chicken to a ransom for the murder of a person. The Ripuarian Franks, Burgundians, Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic tribes also had their own codes of laws - “Truth”. “Salic truth” reflects the customs of a people who recently moved to the relatively weakly Romanized parts of Gaul and therefore preserved the norms of their life in a purer form.

“Salic truth” was divided into titles (chapters), and each title into paragraphs. Many titles were dedicated to fines for all kinds of thefts. There were also such titles in it: “About murders or if someone steals someone else’s wife”, “About if someone grabs a free woman by the arm, hand or finger”, “About four-legged people, if they kill a person”, “About a servant at witchcraft”, etc. The title “On insult by words” defined punishments for insult depending on the degree of insult. The title “On mutilation” stated: “If someone plucks out another’s eye, he is sentenced to pay 62 and 1/2 solidus”; “If your nose is torn off, you will be sentenced to pay... 45 solids”; “If an ear is torn off, you will be sentenced to pay 15 solids.” Solidus is a Roman coinage unit. In the 6th century, 3 solidi corresponded to the cost of a cow, “healthy, sighted and horned.”

The legislation establishes general norms: what punishments or fines follow as a result of an offense, but specific cases are not described - they are brought under the norm. The situation is completely different in the recording of custom. There is no general ruling here about what punishment will befall a murderer or thief. Instead, the Salic Law contains numerous articles, each of which describes an individual fact.

Studying the “Salic Truth”, we can conclude that the economy of the Franks was at a higher level than the economy of the Germans.

Animal husbandry played an important role in the Frankish economy at all times. “Salicheskaya Pravda” scrupulously established what fine should be paid for the theft of a pig, for a one-year-old piglet, for a pig stolen along with a piglet, for a suckling pig separately, for a pig from a locked barn, etc.

The Salic Truth examined in great detail all cases of theft of large horned animals, sheep, goats, and cases of horse theft. The development of poultry farming was evidenced by the fines imposed for stolen poultry (chickens, roosters, geese). The Salic Pravda had titles that established fines for the theft of bees and hives from an apiary, for damage and theft of fruit trees from the garden (the Franks knew how to graft fruit trees by cuttings), and for the theft of grapes from a vineyard. Of interest are the titles that determine penalties for the theft of fishing gear, boats, hunting dogs, birds and animals tamed for hunting.

“The Salic Truth” indicates that the Frankish economy had a wide variety of industries - animal husbandry, beekeeping, gardening, viticulture, as well as hunting and fishing. However, agriculture played the main role in the Frankish economy. They sowed grain crops, flax, and had vegetable gardens where they grew beans, peas, cabbage, and turnips. The Franks were well acquainted with the plow and harrow. Plowing was done with oxen. Damage to a plowed field was punishable by a fine. The grain harvests were rich. The Franks carried the harvest from the fields on carts to which horses were harnessed. Every free Frankish peasant's house had outbuildings. The resulting harvest was stored in barns and barns. Water mills were not uncommon in the Frankish economy.

According to the Salic Truth, the estate land was the individual property of each free Frank. This circumstance is indicated by the high fines established for damaging and destroying fences or entering other people's yards for the purpose of stealing. At the same time, the meadows and forests were the collective property of the peasant community. The herds belonging to the peasants of neighboring villages grazed in common meadows. A free peasant could take any tree from the forest, including one that had been cut down, if it had a mark on it that it had been cut down more than a year ago. The peasant community retained supreme rights to arable land. However, arable land was not redistributed, but was in the hereditary use of every free Frankish peasant.

The Franks' family ties were very strong. The clan in Sadic Truth acts not only as the supreme owner of communal lands, but also as a political organization. There were such customs as the payment of money for the murder of a person by his relatives, the inheritance of property (except land) on the maternal side, and the payment by relatives of a part of the ransom (wergeld) for the murder for their insolvent relative. “Salic truth” affirmed and consolidated the possibility of transferring property to a non-relative. Voluntary withdrawal from the clan union was called “renunciation of kinship.” The procedure for “renunciation of kinship” was discussed in detail by the Salic Truth in title 60. A person who wished to renounce kinship, doge, was to appear at a meeting of judges elected by the people, break three branches measuring a cubit over his head, scatter the broken branches in four directions and say that he renounces the inheritance and all accounts with his relatives. A person who renounced kinship after this procedure could not participate in either inheritance or receive a wergeld. His inheritance went to the treasury.

The Franks were famous for the purity of their family relationships. A woman could only marry a man equal to her in birth and condition. If she married a member of the lower class, the law was strict against her and her husband. By marrying a slave, she herself became a slave. The Franks had a symbolic custom: if a woman wanted to marry a slave, she was called to the family court and a sword and spindle were placed in front of her. She could take a sword and kill a slave chosen as a groom. If she took the spindle, it meant that she was getting married and becoming a slave.

The additions to the Salic Truth report on the impoverished and completely bankrupt Franks, who were no longer able to pay the fines imposed on them and wandered through the forests like vagabonds and robbers. The process of disappearance of the free peasantry in the Frankish state was far from uniform in different areas. It was most intense in the western part of the kingdom - Neustria, partly in the southeast - in Burgundy, much weaker - in the northeastern districts - Austrasia. Here, tribal-communal relations lasted longer. In Austrasia, the peasant continued to play a leading political role until the 8th century.

3.2 Ownership

In the initial period of the history of the Frankish state, communal ownership of peasants was relatively developed, in which arable land was distributed into plots between individual families, and forests and pastures remained in common use. Family property occupied a special place among communal peasants, the alienation of which was allowed only with the consent of family members. Salic truth established only inheritance by law. In the event of the death of one of the community members who left no heirs, his land plot passed to the community.

During the reign of Clovis, the first king of the Franks, allods became widespread - the private property of the new serving nobility with complete freedom of disposal. Later, benefices appeared - possessions on the terms of military service without the right of transfer by inheritance, which over time became hereditary, thus turning into fiefs.

As for the peasantry, the most common form of land ownership for them was holding with payment of quitrents and performing corvee work in favor of the feudal lord. In legal terms, acquired property was close to the allod, which the owners could freely dispose of.

3.3 Law of obligations

This area of civil law was poorly developed among the Franks. The most common contracts were purchase and sale and loan. For a purchase and sale agreement, the mere agreement of the parties was not enough; it came into force only after the transfer of the thing. At the same time, the actual transfer of a thing was replaced by symbolic rituals: the transfer of a piece of turf when selling a field, a branch of a tree when selling a forest, a door when selling a house.

In a loan agreement, the debtor was responsible not only with his property, but also with his personality: in case of failure to fulfill the obligation, he became the slave of the creditor.

The conclusion of treaties required the pronouncing of various kinds of solemn formulas.

3.4 Family law

The power of the husband and father acted among the Franks in the form of guardianship over the wife and minor children. The woman was under guardianship all her life. In the event of the death of her husband, her adult sons became the guardians of the widow, and if they were absent, other relatives of the deceased.

Marriage required the consent of both parties, as well as parents or guardians. Before the adoption of Christianity, the form of marriage among the Franks was the purchase of a bride. Traces of this purchase are available in the Salic Truth, which indicates the amount of the purchase payment on the part of the groom in the event of marriage with a widow to her relative under whose guardianship she was (title XLIV - 3 solids and 1 denarius). Divorce was initially allowed only to the husband and consisted of the husband’s refusal to continue living together with his wife. If the divorce was without valid reasons, the ex-wife kept her dowry and gifts made by her husband during the period of their married life; in addition, the husband had to pay her a fine. Under the influence of the Catholic Church, divorce was prohibited in 744.

The wife could have her own property. As for property acquired during marriage, the husband was considered its owner. The father could use the property of his minor children and received the compensation due to him for the damage caused.

A number of norms of Salic truth were aimed at protecting family and morality.

Marriages between freemen and slaves were prohibited; Violation of this rule was punishable by loss of freedom. For the abduction of another man's wife, the perpetrator was sentenced to an exceptionally large fine of 200 solids (as for the murder of a free franc); for kidnapping someone else's bride - a fine of 15 solids in favor of the groom. Extramarital cohabitation was punished (with a free woman - a fine of 45 solids, with a slave - 15 solids).

3.5 Inheritance law

In relation to family estates and acquired real estate, as well as movable property, the closest heirs of the deceased were his children and descendants (grandchildren, great-grandchildren). In their absence, inheritance was carried out depending on the degree of relationship (along lines). First degree of kinship - descending (children, grandchildren); second degree of kinship ascending (father and mother of the deceased and their descendants); third degree of relationship (grandfather and grandmother of the deceased and their descendants). The closest degree of relationship excluded the subsequent one. If there were several relatives in the closest degree, they inherited in equal shares.

Initially, German law did not allow inheritance by will; but with the development of private property, the so-called affatomy appeared in Frankish law, through which it was possible to increase the share of one or another heir during the life of the testator. Aftatomy resembles a legate in Roman law; in this case, the specified property passed in favor of a specific person after the death of the testator. But affatomy could take place only in the absence of children of the testator and only in relation to movables and acquired immovable property.

A special order of inheritance existed in relation to fiefs, which were inherited according to the principle of primogeniture (they passed into the possession of the eldest in the family).

3.6 System of crimes and punishments

Salic truth prohibited blood feud and lynching, replacing them with a fine. At the same time, it should be noted that the fines are extremely heavy, beyond the reach of ordinary communal peasants. Until the end of the 6th century, the relatives of the perpetrator (the so-called relatives) had to participate in the payment of the fine; after this was abolished, the principle of personal responsibility of the offender began to apply. If the culprit (and relatives) could not pay the fine, then he was subject to the death penalty.

When determining the punishment, aggravating circumstances were taken into account (attack on a sleeping person, woman, child, abuse of the dead). Salic truth formulated the concept of complicity, while the instigator was punished more severely than the perpetrator.

If we talk about specific crimes, the Salic truth (taking into account additions in the form of royal capitularies) provides for liability for the following acts.

1. High treason, insult to the king, conspiracies, punishment - death penalty. Religious crimes; for example, for sacrilege (theft of church property) - mutilation and death penalty. The penalty for counterfeiting coins is death.

2. Crimes against the person. For murder there is a fine. At the same time, Salic truth consolidates inequality in the punishment system depending on the social class of the victim (for the murder of a free franc - 200 solidi; for the murder of a royal official, warrior, priest - 600 solidi; for the murder of a bishop - 900 solidi). The highest fine in the amount of 1800 solids is provided for the murder by a crowd of a royal servant in his house, as well as for murder on a campaign: if the victim was in the royal service.

It was a very peculiar crime, the responsibility for which was provided for by Title XIV § 1, Addendum 1 (a witch, if she was caught having eaten a person, was sentenced to a fine of 200 solids).

In the case of grievous bodily harm, various fines were provided depending on the specific crime (for castration - 200 solids, for damage to the tongue - 100 solids); for wounds - a fine depending on the size of the wound in inches (from 15 to 45 solids); for damage to a finger - a fine depending on which finger is damaged (if the thumb is fine - 50 solids, the index finger - 35 solids, the fourth - 9 solids). For insult - a fine (the word “freak” - 3 solids, “liar” - 15 solids, “harlot” - 45 solids).

3. Crimes against property. For robbery - death penalty, for arson - 62.5 solids; for robbery (if the victim was a free franc - 63 solidi, and if he was a Gallo-Roman - 35 solidi). Arson was punishable along with robbery.

For the theft of a slave or draft animal - a fine of 30 solids. For the theft of a hunting dog - 15 solids, a shepherd's dog - 3 solids, a suckling pig - 3 solids, a two-year-old pig - 15 solids.

Royal property was protected by an increased triple fine.

4. Malfeasance. Crimes against justice. Salic truth speaks of the count's responsibility if he refused justice, or took beyond the legal limit when collecting a debt (title IV). This was punishable by up to the death penalty. The liability of the Rahinburg assessors was also provided for if they judge not according to the law (title LXII - a fine of 15 solids).

5. Military crimes. For desertion - death penalty.

6. Crimes against family and morality. For rape - a fine of 63 solids; for rape “en masse”, everyone present at the scene of violence against a woman was subject to punishment (Title XIII).

In conclusion, it should be noted that in addition to the indicated cases, slaves and litas were punished with death for the abduction of a free woman; as well as slaves, if they committed a crime for which a free person was punished with a fine of 45 solids or more.

3.7 Judicial system

In ancient times, the trial of the Germans was carried out by a meeting of free people of the district (hundreds) under the chairmanship of an elected centurion (tungin). Already under Clovis, the main role in judicial proceedings passed from Tungin to the Count - a royal official who made decisions in civil cases and sentences in criminal cases together with the Rahinburgs. In the era of Charlemagne, the Rahinburgs, who were elected for each case, were replaced by Scabins, appointed by the count with the consent of the population for a life term from among the most authoritative people in the district.

Decisions and sentences of the count's court could be appealed to the king's court, which was usually headed by the chamber mayor (mayor). In the Carolingian era, the royal court began to be headed by a palace count, although the king could conduct the court alone. The jurisdiction of the royal court, which included the highest palace dignitaries, as well as representatives of the secular and ecclesiastical nobility, was unlimited: it could take on any case as a court of first instance. Some cases (about palace employees, high dignitaries, state crimes) were assigned exclusively to his jurisdiction.

Special mention should be made of the jurisdiction of the church, to which the affairs of clergy were assigned. As for cases between clergy and secular persons, in the Merovingian era they were considered by mixed courts composed of representatives of spiritual and secular authorities. Under the Carolingians, these cases were subject to consideration by a mixed court if a secular person refused to submit to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the church court was expanded, it extended to widows, orphans, and freedmen who were under the patronage of the church. Here a number of punishments were of a purely ecclesiastical nature: removal of clergy from office, excommunication, prohibition of priestly service, which could extend to entire localities. Church excommunication had very serious consequences. The excommunicated person was not allowed to participate in church sacraments and services, no one had to talk to him, no one dared to drink or eat with him, or even say hello, otherwise he himself would be subject to excommunication. Anyone who died excommunicated was considered deprived of salvation beyond the grave. The church court also imposed secular punishments: fines, imprisonment; but church rules did not allow the death penalty; Therefore, serious crimes were subject to trial in a secular court.

3.8 Process

The procedure for legal proceedings was the same in both civil and criminal cases. As a rule, a criminal case was initiated on the initiative of the victim, who himself had to summon the defendant (or accused of committing a crime) to court. If the defendant (accused) did not appear in court without good reason, he was punished by a fine of 15 solids (title I, § 1). If the defendant (accused) did not appear in court for the second and then the third time, then he was summoned to the court of the king, who declared him deprived of his patronage. Then the perpetrator and his property became the property of the victim (or plaintiff). And until he pays everything that is due from him, no one (not even his wife) can, under threat of punishment, help him.

The Salic process was adversarial. Not only summoning the defendant to court, but also finding the stolen item, calling witnesses and co-jurors was the job of the victim himself. For example, everyone had the right to pursue (title XXXII) and search (title XLVII). The court, even in criminal cases, did not collect evidence, but only observed the competition between the parties and established who won the dispute.

If the defendant (accused) confesses, there is no contest between the parties and the court makes an appropriate decision (sentence). If the accused did not admit his guilt, then there were two forms of trial depending on whether he was caught red-handed or not. If the perpetrator was caught at the scene of the crime, the court immediately passed a verdict after the oath was taken by the victim and a certain number of witnesses confirming the fact of catching the accused red-handed.

In other cases, the accused was required to provide evidence of his innocence. First of all, the court took into account the statements of fellow jurors who spoke about the reputation of the accused. The number of co-jurors depended on the severity of the crime (six, twelve or more). But the risk for the accused was that the co-jurors were obliged to pronounce together with the accused a special sacred formula without the slightest mistake: any mistake entailed the loss of the case by the accused, based on the fact that God is invisibly present during legal proceedings and will not allow the wrong side to win the case .

Of course, eyewitness testimony was also taken into account as evidence; in some cases, they resorted to ordeals - “God's judgment” in the form of a test with a hot iron or a pot of boiling water: the accused had to take a hot iron in his hand or put his hand in boiling water, after which the hand was tied. A few days later, the court carried out an examination: if the burnt hand healed, then the accused was declared innocent; otherwise he was found guilty.

Subsequently, a new type of ordeal was introduced in the form of a water test, in which the accused was immersed with his hands and feet tied in a vat of cold water. If he did not sink to the bottom of the vat, he was found guilty, since the water, considered a pure element, rejected him.

Finally, the judicial duel also acted as evidence. The winning side in the duel won the case.

In conclusion, it should be noted that interrogation under torture was allowed in relation to slaves.

Perjury was punishable by a fine of 15 solids (title XLVIII); false accusation was punishable by a fine, but if this occurs in the absence of the accused, then the fine was higher (63 solids); and if anyone is falsely accused of a crime punishable by death, the offender is punished with a fine of 200 solids (Title XVIII).

Enforcement of the judgment was a matter for the winning party (plaintiff).

Control over the execution of court decisions was entrusted to the count.

Conclusion

In this work, the state structure of the Salic Franks was examined, a detailed description of the social and state system of the Merovingian and Carolingian eras was given in accordance with legal customs and the main legal source of the Salic Franks - “Salic Truth”.

Considering the emergence and development of the Frankish state, its social and political system, the system of authorities, management and the main features of law, we can say that the main line of development of Frankish society was the formation and evolution of feudal relations as the next stage of development of society after the primitive communal and slaveholding system.

The more than four-hundred-year history of the Frankish state is, as it were, a prologue to the history of most modern Western European countries, and primarily France.

Bibliography

1 . World history in 4 volumes. / Eger O. – M.: AST Publishing House LLC, 2000

2. General history of law and state. / Grafsky V.G. – M.: Norma, 2004. – 752 p.

3. Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks / Ed. prepared Savukova V.D. - M., 1987.

4 . Life of Charlemagne. T.11 / Eingard. - M.: 1977.

5 . History of state and law of foreign countries. Part 1. / edited by Zhidkov O.A. – M.: Norma, 2000

6. Reader on the General History of State and Law. T.1. / Ed. Batyr K.I. and Polikarpova E.V. – M.: Yurist, 2003. – 520 p.

7. Reader on the history of the Middle Ages. / ed. Gratsiansky and Skazkin. - M.: 1993

Clovis also appropriated vast lands of the former Roman imperial fiscus. His successors gradually seized all the free lands, which at first were considered the property of the entire people. From this fund, the Frankish kings distributed land grants to their confidants and the church on the right of private ownership.

At that time, the cost of a cow was 3 solids.

The fact is that at the end of the 6th century. A royal decree appeared, according to which communal peasants received, with the permission of the community, ownership of their hereditary land plots, which had previously been outside of civil circulation.

The term leudes is close to fideles "faithful"

Lat. beneficium - beneficence, mercy

The fund for these grants was initially the lands confiscated from the rebel magnates, and when these lands dried up, a partial secularization of church lands was carried out.

The post of chamber mayor (majordomo), which served as a stepping stone to the throne for Charlemagne's predecessors, was abolished.

Engels

The edict of King Chilperic (grandson of Clovis) made changes to the Salic truth: from the second half of the 6th century. the land could be inherited not only by the sons, but also by the daughters of the deceased.

Title LVIII

Title XLII