No More Learning

In southern France, though various cases of individual violence and
civil war have been already noticed, the general tendency was towards
the formation of consulates without a struggle. The nobles were often
members of the town and favoured the independent government, in which
they took part. Feudal tyranny was less extensive here than in the north.
There were many private wars, but more frequently between lord and
lord than between lord and town; the citizens combined for common de-
fence in times of such constant turbulence and to consider difficulties
arising from their two great enemies in the Middle Ages-plague and
famine. Consular government was so usual that its existence was scarcely
questioned. Local life and local union were very strong in a country
where each district, sometimes each town, had its own fors or customs
which the inhabitants combined to carry out and defend. Many rural
towns were created to improve the condition of the country and to attract
population. In Roussillon, places such as Perpignan obtained communal
government without a struggle, for they added considerably to military
defences which were greatly needed; and lords as well as burgesses were
glad to encourage the growth of these fortified strongholds. On the whole
the communal movement in the south was favoured by the feudal lords,
who realised the value of having the towns as their friends and allies.
The consulates fell eventually before the growth of royal power and ad-
ministrative centralisation, not in consequence of seignorial opposition.
The more this communal movement is studied, the clearer it becomes
that it was simply a natural stage in economic development. Economic
progress is the only one universal cause which can be found underlying all
the variety of immediate reasons, all the complex forms of individual de-
velopment. Society in feudal times was, as it were, in the stage of child-
hood. Defence from above in return for service from below; the one class
to fight and the other to labour; protection rather than competition-
such were the ideals of feudalism, which based all these relations and ser-
vices on land-holding. But even in its most ideal form the feudal system
was not progressive; in its least ideal form it was capable of great abuse;
protection was apt to turn into oppression, service into servitude. The
communal movement was not an attempt to oppose the whole system of
feudalism, but it was an effort to guard against its abuses and to advance
materially and politically, not only in spite of it, but actually on feudal
lines; a town aimed at becoming a landlord. The chief needs in the
Middle Ages were defence and progress, and association was one of the most
natural means of striving for them. An individual was too weak to strike
out for himself or to change existing circumstances, and thus the idea of


## p. 641 (#687) ############################################

Serfdom and the towns
641
union and combination arose. As population increased, as wealth was
more diffused, and as society advanced, this craving for progress, this
tendency towards association, became stronger and stronger. Throughout
the whole of Western Europe people lived under very similar conditions;
they had common troubles, common needs, common methods of cultiva-
tion, and common rights. Feudalism itself had a communal element;
every seigneurie was a group of vassals, every manor an agricultural com-
munity. The whole tendency of the time pointed to common action as a
solution of difficulties and as the best line of advance. Every institution,
therefore, which was based on common action, every step which involved
common effort, was indirectly an incentive to this spirit of association;
every event which encouraged social and economic progress was indirectly
a cause of the communal movement. It was not a revolution but a
natural development, a sign that society was struggling upward to freedom
and civilisation.
Granting that communal growth is an economic question, it follows
that certain points must especially be considered in accounting for the
development of the medieval communes. First, what were the chief evils
which needed reform, if advance were to be made? Secondly, why was
the idea of combination, to achieve this reform and assist this advance,
so widely diffused? Thirdly, what were the main causes of economic pro-
gress, and what direction did it most commonly take? Fourthly, what
were the chief aims that burgesses and peasants set before themselves as
likely to assist them in this progress? And finally, what circumstances,
if any, aided them in their efforts and led to the various forms of com-
munal organisation which have been already briefly described ?
The first great necessity for any forward movement in the Middle
Ages was to shake off the disabilities of serfdom. In the country, the
greater part of the cultivating class was made up of serfs or hommes
questaux, as they were called in the south; and as the towns, in their early
stages, were little more than populous villages, a great many of their in-
habitants also were serfs. It was possible for members of the upper class
among them to combine in order to improve their condition, to fix their
services, and even to get them commuted for money payments, without
necessarily rising out of the rank of villeinage; but in urban centres it
was more usual for inhabitants to unite to shake off the servile status alto-
gether and for all burgesses to become free men. Examples of serfdom
in early towns are numerous, and enfranchisement was one of the first )
privileges to be gained in any communal charter.
In Champagne and Burgundy, where towns were almost wholly rural
in character, serfdom was very prevalent in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, and local customs went to support the rights of the lords;
“coustumes en Champagne que homs de pôté (villeins) ne peut avoir
franchise, ne ne doit, ne ne se peut appeler francs, se il n'a de son seigneur
lettres ou privilèges. ” But it was not only in strictly rural districts that
C. MED. H. VOL. V. CH. XIX.
41


## p. 642 (#688) ############################################

642
The lords and the towns
serfdom was an obstacle to progress and therefore had to be opposed by
the communes. The inhabitants of Laon were not free from main-morte
and formariage till 1178. At Béziers, as late as the twelfth century, the
viscount was giving away burgesses as though they were actually his
chattels. At Soissons, the desire of the servile population to gain freedom
was one of the chief incentives to union, and the same is found in many
other places. Town charters aimed, whenever possible, at securing freedom
for the inhabitants. Blois was enfranchising serfs in 1196, though they did
not disappear in the town until the following century. At Limoges, in
customs probablydating from the thirteenth century, freedom from serfdom
after residence for a year and a day was decreed-a very usual condition.
In Bordeaux, only a month in the town was required to gain liberty. At
Oloron, all inhabitants were declared to be “hommes francs sans tâche
d'aucune servitude. ” So much did residence in a chartered town or bastide
come to imply freedom, that occasionally lords, when founding a ville-
neuve, would especially stipulate that their own serfs should not be ad-
mitted.
In many places not only serfs but free burgesses also suffered from
oppressions on the part of their feudal lords, and were encouraged to
common action on account of common misery. At Amiens, at the close of
the eleventh century, clergy and people united to complain of seignorial
abuses, and obtained from the count a promise of fairer justice and lighter
payments. At Vézelay, it was pecuniary exactions to which the inhabitants
chiefly objected, and in 1137 they claimed to have a voice in taxation, in
order that the burden of it might be more fairly distributed: “ tam
burgensium quam rusticorum, secundum facultatem suam, unus scilicet
plus et alius minus talliaretur. ” At St Quentin, military service and castle-
guard had presumably been excessive, since it was conceded in Count
Hébert's charter (1045-80) that there should be no castle erected within
three leagues of the town and no military service beyond a day's travel.
The limitation of military duties was a very usual condition in the south,
where feudal quarrels were constant. Only nine days at a time was a fairly
common term; but it was also possible to stipulate that a burgess should
not be forced to fight so far away that he could not come home to sleep.
Actual oppression on the part of the seigneur was an accidental circum-
stance; but the desire of the towns to break down servile disabilities, to
win greater freedom even from a friendly yoke, to manage their own
affairs and to settle their own quarrels, was a natural result of pro-
gress and became all the more active wherever society was the more
advanced.
1
Special servile characteristics. Main-morte implied that serfs could never
inherit property. The lord was always the heir, and children of a dead villein had
no rights of succession except by his will. Formariage was a due paid by serts
marrying outside the estate, which they were not allowed to do without license of
their lord.


## p. 643 (#689) ############################################

The influence of geography
643
That this desire to accelerate progress and to defend privileges should
take the form of communal association was, as we have seen, almost inevit-
able. Men acting together could do what each singly could not. Further,
communities were often bound together by the possession of common
property, common rights, and common customs. When the community
desired political as well as civil rights, the organised commune might be
evolved. Possibly the rural communes may be considered to have advanced
more directly on these lines. The urban communes had other inducements
to combine, and were less actuated by the possession of such things as
common pasture and common woods; but these influences cannot be wholly
disregarded. At Lézat, a rural town, free use of wood and water was
demanded for the whole body of inhabitants in their communal charter.
In the cartulary of Arbois, certain things are declared to be town property,
with which the lord cannot interfere: “costes pendentes, aqua, et li
chamois. . . libere sunt et communes,” and the community united to use
their own ovens as well as their own woods. The inhabitants of Marseilles
were in common possession of certain pasture rights.
The fact that so many southern towns and villages had their own local
customs has already been mentioned as a possible bond of connexion for
the inhabitants. The fors, e. g. of Bordeaux, of Bazas, of Daz, of Bayonne,
of Morlas, were all slightly different, and were eagerly defended by the
places which possessed them. They represented very early rights and
customs, though often not reduced to writing till a comparatively later
date. When new privileged towns and bastides were constructed, their
charters of liberties resembled to some extent the old customary rights of
the more ancient centres of population.
Thus the need for combination and the tendency towards it were early
in existence, and it was the natural progress of society, both material and
moral, which awoke the desire for union into real activity and converted
a vague connexion into a living organisation.
The progress of the towns was determined first and foremost by their
geographical position. The actual origin of the town itself was due to
accumulation of population in a place which was suitable for military
defence or for commercial activity; where either fortification and pro-
tection was especially needed, or a good market could be established for
the produce of the neighbourhood. The more suitable the situation, the
more rapidly would the town advance, and the more urgent would become
the need for communal action. Bordeaux clearly owed its progress to its
superb position. In the heart of the vine country and on a fine navigable
river, it early became renowned as a commercial centre of the greatest
importance. Soissons, on the high road from Flanders and at the
junction of various other routes, soon developed into an important
market town, with active trade in all directions. Cambrai had an im-
portant position on the frontier of Lorraine ; Perpignan was needed for
the military defence of Roussillon; Oloron has been called the king of
CH. XIX.
41-2


## p. 644 (#690) ############################################

644
The influence of wealth and prosperity
the Pyrenees. In such towns, all of which became communes, their
success was doubtless due in great measure to their situation.
Progress could take various directions. Some places long remained
almost entirely agricultural, and their markets were only used for the
sale of rural produce. Toulon is supposed to have made a very humble
beginning in this way, and its commune to have originated out of the
assembly which met to discuss pasture rights and rural matters. Others
owed their advance to their military importance. Talant was favoured
on this account by the Duke of Burgundy (1216), and so were many of
the southern bastides. But it was through their trade and commerce that
most of the leading towns progressed; wealth was a great help in the
struggle for independence, and the intercourse with other places which
commercial dealings involved brought not only direct ideas from abroad
but also a great increase of vigour and civilisation. The commune of
Narbonne, though later events robbed it of its greatness, was early rich
and powerful, owing to its trade with Spain, Italy, Sicily, and the Levant;
Rouen owed its prosperity and doubtless its privileges to the fact that it
was a wealthy trading centre; the Flemish towns certainly gained their
importance and independence through their commercial development.
But whatever line progress and prosperity took, they were the determining
causes of the communal movement. The more advance was made in
material well-being, the more galling did any social disabilities become,
and the more indignation was felt at seignorial interference or tutelage.
The result, therefore, of town progress was to awaken ambitions in
the hearts of the burgesses. They desired to secure their property, to gain
the full benefit of their wealth for their descendants and their town, to
throw off seignorial control, and to work for themselves. The first step
was to obtain increased privileges and civil powers, to shake off any idea
of servitude and to gain trading rights. The next was to unite for political
independence and to win self-government. They desired above all to be
free from the abuses of feudal justice, to have courts for their own
members, where townsmen could be tried by town judges and according
to town procedure. They needed also to secure financial authority and the
management of their own taxation, doubtless to avoid excessive pecuniary
burdens and the disappearance of town money into the coffers of the
seigneurs.
There were various circumstances which aided the towns in their
struggle for independence. Both kings and lords were in constant need of
money and support. Growth of luxury and expenses for war increased
this need, and it was in the towns that the greatest accumulation of wealth
was to be found, an important weapon in the hands of the burgesses. The
frequent feudal rivalries could be turned by the towns to their own ad-
vantage. They might offer support to the highest bidder, or take the
opportunity of quiet advance while their lords were too busy to attend to
them. Avignon gained its privileges at the end of the war between the


## p. 645 (#691) ############################################

International character of the movement
645
Counts of Provence and Toulouse, who shared the town between them
(1085-94). While they were fighting, the citizens were banding themselves
together in trade fraternities, and learning the value of union and inde-
pendence; eventually a municipal revolt ended in the expulsion of both
combatants. The fact that so often towns were under mixed jurisdictions
helped their cause. When, as in Amiens in the eleventh century, justice
was shared between the count, the bishop, and the chapter, it was probably
easier to shake off this divided control than the supreme authority of one
strong man. Even the long struggle between England and France, together
with much misery, brought some benefit to the communes, for the rival
kings needed urban support, and both strove to gain it by concessions.
Each town that formed itself into a commune actively helped on the
movement, for much was the result of example. Perhaps communal growth
was similar in Germany, Italy, England, and France, less because of inter-
national connexion than because the root cause, economic progress, was
the same in each case; but the action of no country could be wholly without
effect on the others. The example of Flanders was influential in northern
France, where Calais, Boulogne, and St Dizier all framed their organisations
on Flemish lines; and the consulates of the south may have owed some-
thing to the great republics of Italy. On the whole, however, outside in-
Auence seems to have been slight, and development was largely indepen-
dent; there was very little intercommunal and still less international
solidarity.
The twelfth century was a great period of communal growth, simply
because it was a period of active economic development. Material pros-
perity, moreover, had outstripped social progress; and it was the existence
of considerable wealth and an improved standard of living, side by side
with dependence and seignorial depression, which, in some cases at least,
gave the impulse to the movement. The twelfth century, again, was a
fortunate period for the communes, because political conditions helped on
this economic progress. The dispersion and division of authority had
weakened control, just when the desire for liberty was at its height. The
relations between the king and the great lords, between the lay and the
ecclesiastical seigneurs, were favourable to the towns. The crusading move-
ment and the consequent need for money amongst the ruling classes
coincided with the growing wealth of the boroughs and the growing im-
portance of the burgess class. It was a vital moment, and the communes
took advantage of it. The result was a universal spread of communal
associations; as Viollet says, “un phénomène social indépendent quant à
son essence des races, des langues et des frontières. ”
In England, although the boroughs did not rise to the independence of
the continental communes, there was a steady stream of town charters
from the reign of Henry I onwards. The towns purchased their privileges
one by one, starting with freedom from serfdom and judicial rights, until
little by little self-government was obtained.
CH, XIX.


## p. 646 (#692) ############################################

646
German and Italian towns
In Germany communal development was very similar to that in France.
The towns were either re-settlements of the old Roman sites, more or less
rural in origin, where the bond of common property united the new in-
habitants; or newer towns intended as centres of trade from the first.
They gradually advanced through the growth of a market and market-
place, through trade associations, through the special privileges and
judicial rights of the burgesses, until the possession of their own officials
and their own Rat marked the establishment of communal government.
Some of the more important towns, shaking off all intermediate control,
retained almost complete independence as Imperial cities. The special
characteristics of German towns were chiefly due to the weakness of the
central authority. They did not have to reckon with the king from the first,
as did the English boroughs; nor did they have to succumb to it in the
end, as did the communes of France. The leading towns, therefore, had
far more power; affiliation was so strong that the whole country was “a
network of inter-dependent municipal courts”; and inter-urban leagues
were more possible.
In Italy, the lack of any central authority was even more obvious than
in Germany, and the towns were able to profit by the constant struggles
between Pope and Emperor. This seems to give the movement a more
political character; but, as elsewhere, it was wealth and commercial im-
portance which enabled them to take advantage of the political situation.
The Lombard communes began to gain self-government as early as the
eleventh century. They resembled the towns of southern France in the
character of their government and in the important part played by the
upper classes in municipal development. But, while the French communes
declined with the decline of feudalism and were gradually subjugated by
the monarch, the Italian towns, as the Empire decayed, fell more and
more into the hands of great tyrant-dynasties, and maintained political
independence at the expense of internal liberty.
In France the movement was particularly marked by its independent
character. Though there were local exceptions, the leading communes,
especially in the older towns, were the work of the people themselves,
formed to protect their own interests, and recognised by charter eventually
when the lords were unable to withstand and put down the development
which had already taken place. As a rule, the inhabitants began by forming
themselves into communal groups, and then little by little these com-
munities acquired self-government. Documents shew this early grouping
of town population for common actions. In 962 the men of Arles as a
body figure in a treaty; in 1055 vineyards were given “in communitate
Arelatensi"; but consular government was not recognised till 1131. In
Bayonne, the prudhommes were early responsible for the maintenance of old
customs, and in 1190 a charter was confirmed by “toute la communauté. "
The town was already a commune jurée when a charter finally recognised
its rights in 1215. At Beauvais, where the commune was not formally con-


## p. 647 (#693) ############################################

Independent growth of the communes
647
firmed till 1122, a trial was held between the chapter and the “universalité
des bourgeois” in 1099. Sometimes these communities exercised some
form of municipal government, though they had not yet become actual
communes. At Dax moderate governmental powers were granted to the
capdel and prudhommes before any sign had appeared of the mayor, jurés,
and commune of later documents. Probably the Cinquantine of Lyons
was a communal council leading up to the consulate, though the exact con-
nexion between them is uncertain.
A proof that not only these preliminary communities, but also the
communes into which they developed, were the result of a popular move-
ment and the actual work of the townsmen, is to be found in the fact that
charters to old towns almost always confirmed rather than granted com-
munal powers. New towns might be privileged from the first and have a
certain share in their own government bestowed upon them; but towns
older than the communal movement won this for themselves. Occasionally
a charter confirms a previous grant, but more frequently still a previous
acquisition. In Bordeaux we have a very good example of the independent
development of communal government, culminating in a charter which
confirmed the popular advance. Although the town had long been an
important one, it was not really a commune before the thirteenth century;
there was no abrupt change from the government by count and bishop to
free municipal organisation. In 1200 a charter was issued "juratis et
burgensibus," but no allusion was made to a mayor; in 1205 the remission
of a maltolte was granted “dilectis et fidelibus probis hominibus nostris
manentibus apud Burdigalensem. ” In 1206 for the first time a mention
of the mayor of Bordeaux appears in the Patent Rolls, when the king
actually asks his “maire, jurats, et fidèles de Bordeaux” if they will accept
the seneschal he has appointed. There is absolutely no sign that the king
grants the mayor and commune, he simply accepts them? At Montreuil-
sur-Mer every step in the communal advance was fought for by the towns-
men. They proclaimed their own commune in 1137, but not till 1188 was
its existence formally recognised by Philip Augustus, who pardoned them
for the violence with which they had established it. The charter granted
to Rouen in 1145 confirmed the old rights of the burgesses and sanctioned
the commune which they had formed. Instances are too numerous to be
quoted exhaustively.
Similarly, when once a commune was established, its powers and
functions were little by little developed by the town. Communal govern-
ments generally exercised some legislative power and constantly published
statutes increasing their own authority, or, if this were impossible, further
privileges were bought. This, however, is rather a feature of town history
than an actual part of the communal movement. All evidence of this
1 A great deal of information concerning Bordeaux has been gathered from
some valuable lectures given by Monsieur Bémont in Paris, since published as Les
institutions municipales de Bordeaux au moyen âge, RH, 1916.
CH. XIX.


## p. 648 (#694) ############################################

648
Affiliation of communes
nature, however, helps to strengthen the theory that communal growth
was in its origin independent and popular; that its causes are to be found
in the progress of the townsmen themselves; that it was only by degrees
that the lords realised the possible value of favouring such a development
and themselves created new and privileged towns. Probably they also
realised that it was wise to gain control of so important a movement and
to lead it into channels which would not threaten their own authority too
much. Seignorial towns were never dangerous communes; they were rather
privileged communities, a source of strength not of weakness to their
founders.
Since the communal movement was a natural and economic develop-
ment, its extent and its results depended upon economic conditions. The
powers of a commune, whether urban or rural, varied according to the stage
of advance which the town or village had reached when it was struggling
for its incorporation and self-government. The more backward a place,
the more easily, as a rule, its ambitions would be satisfied; the richer and
more prosperous the town, the higher was the ideal at which the burgesses
aimed. Something might depend also upon outside circumstances, such as
the character of the feudal overlord or the attitude of the king; but it
was still more the condition of the town itself which determined the nature
and duration of its communal government.
Two other circumstances also tended to influence communal growth:
the frequent existence of double towns, and what has been called the
affiliation of the communes.
A large number of the older towns, especially in the south, had two
parts: the cité or fortified portion generally representing the ancient
settlement, and quite distinct from it the later bourg or mercantile town,
side by side with the older castrum or else built round it. Thus the
military and commercial centres were divided, although occasionally the
bourg also had its own walls for defence, as at Bordeaux and Carcassonne.
The importance of this formation for town development was that the
episcopal and more authoritative element tended to concentrate in the
cité or civitas; while in the newer town, where the more democratic
buildings were collected, such as the hospital, the market-place, and the
town hall, society was often rather more independent and was able to lead
the way in the formation of municipal government. This was not, however,
invariably the case. In Carcassonne the old cité developed municipal or-
ganisation almost before the ville basse was founded; and at Nîmes the
two parts of the town acquired consular government much at the same
time, and used to hold joint meetings for subjects of general interest.
The subject of affiliation is a very difficult one and much has been
written upon it. The fact that one town influenced another has never been
disputed, and certainly imitation must have played a considerable part in
the communal movement. Some places formed regular types, from which
other towns or villages drew their inspiration and whose privileges they


## p. 649 (#695) ############################################

Communal groups
649
eagerly copied. This imitation, however, was rarely complete; and the
influence of one town might be counteracted by the influence of another,
or weakened by local circumstances. In France affiliation was certainly
less strong than in Germany, where the Oberhof, a mother-town to which
appeal might be made, could give a final decision on matters concerning
one of its imitators.
In France, though there are occasional instances of
appeal, the idea of a real chef-de-sens is never completely worked out. The
jurats of Soissons were supposed to settle any difficulty of interpretation
in the charter of Meaux; Florent had to refer to the rights and customs
of Beaumont; while Abbeville had three towns to which it should appeal
-Amiens, St Quentin, and Corbie; but, as a rule, appeal to a mother-
town was not stipulated for at all. Luchaire has divided French communal
development into seven types, originating from seven influential towns,
but later writers have considered this division far too simple. Probably
the variety of types was far greater and the spread of communal charters
was complicated in all sorts of ways. In the north, St Quentin set an
example to the neighbouring villages and was in part copied by Abbeville;
but its influence over towns such as Laon and Noyon, and the other places
which imitated them, has been formerly much exaggerated. The charter
of Soissons spread through the surrounding country, was copied more or
less by Meaux, Sens, Compiègne, and Dijon, and by means of the latter
came to influence the rural communes of Champagne. But this influence
was neither direct nor unmixed with others. Soissons itself owed much to
the example of Beauvais; so also did Compiègne and Senlis; Sens and
Meaux imitated Senlis as well as Soissons. Even some of the village
federations of the Soissonais appealed to Meaux in cases of difficulty.
Rouen, which was very influential in Normandy and throughout the
English dominions generally, taught many of its lessons through inter-
mediaries, especially La Rochelle and Niort. The less advanced charters
had generally the greatest direct influence, since the lords did not oppose
their propagation. Eighty-three villages are said to have imitated the
customs of Lorris; five hundred places in Champagne, in Lorraine, and
throughout France, were organised on the lines of the law of Beaumont.
But, despite a certain amount of imitation, communal advance was any-
thing but stereotyped, and local characteristics in France were strongly
marked.
In some ways the regional grouping of communes is more instructive
and more interesting than their division according to types of the leading
towns. Geography undoubtedly influenced town development, and the
resemblance which many communal charters have to one another may
have been due just as often to resemblance of conditions as to direct
imitation. Thus, Flanders and northern France might be grouped together
as a very independent and commercial region, with St Omer and Amiens
as characteristic towns. Lorraine, with old aristocratic families on one
hand and servile cultivators on the other, was a district whose advance was
CH. XIX.


## p. 650 (#696) ############################################

650
Great variety in communal development
chiefly in the direction of enfranchisement and resistance to feudal abuses.
Burgundy was in rather a similar condition, though here the friendly re-
lations between lords and people led to very peaceable advance and very
early liberties, but, at the same time, to a great survival of seignorial
authority. In the cartulary of Arbois a pleasant instance of feudal kind-
ness is given in a charter by which the countess frees a group of serfs from
castle-guard. She points out that, after their hard day's work and then the
climb up the steep hill to her castle, they are fit for nothing but sleep, and
“nature le requiert qu'ils dorment. ” Champagne was another very rural
district, and political powers were in consequence little developed, but
Beauvais spread some influence here through trade connexion. The centre
of France, having made less economic progress than either the north or the
south, was generally contented with villes de bourgeoisie, such as Limoges.
In Guienne, English influence, trade development, and the existence of
local fors or customs, all affected urban growth. It was widespread and
vigorous, but the royal policy and power prevented complete independence.
Bordeaux may be taken as the typical town of this region; and eventually
the large number of bastides shew how the lords grasped the value of con-
cession and the need for encouraging a loyal population. Provence, even
if theories of Roman influence are put on one side, was the home of very
early communal independence, in Arles, Avignon, and elsewhere. Here the
old general assemblies played an important part in the building up of
union and self-government. In Languedoc, towns were either commercial
or military. Feudalism was not severe, popular rights were a very natural
growth, and committees with consular government were very numerous
and very powerful, until royal authority was asserted over them. Albi,
Carcassonne, and Toulouse are good examples of towns of this region,
which progressed on account of their trade and their military importance.
Roussillon was in a district where agricultural progress and the need for
military defence were the chief reasons for communal development.
Thus the communal movement was influenced by example, by geo-
graphical conditions, and by the circumstances of each town individually;
but the whole idea of association was in the air and spread itself almost
unconsciously.
The rural communes, so marked a feature of country life in parts of
France, require some separate consideration, although in the main their
causes and characteristics closely resemble those of the urban communes.
Economic advance, and the desire to improve their material and social
condition, induced peasants to combine and to struggle for privileges,
much as burgesses and townsmen had done. As a rule, political ideas
played rather a smaller part in a rural association than in the more enter-
prising town, but it was the same communal spirit which was inspiring
countryman and townsman alike. Differences of degree were due to
circumstances, and to the height to which local progress had attained


## p. 651 (#697) ############################################

Rural communes
651
before the formation of the community or commune. As was only natural,
the country was generally behind the town. It was the thirteenth century
which saw the establishment of most village communities, although in
many cases this corporate development was an outcome of older rights and
rural freedom in the past.
Rural communes seem to fall into two divisions, although, as often
in making distinctions, the line between the two is indefinite and not always
easy to trace. There were the self-made communities, villages or federa-
tions of villages, which combined largely as a result of town example, to
gain material advance, freedom from the worst abuses of serfdom, and a
varying degree of self-government. And there were the natural com-
munities, such as the valley communes of the Vosges and Pyrenees, which
geographical conditions, old survivals, and the special character of the
country, had rendered very independent from the first, where serfdom had
never existed in its most extreme form, and where the lords' rights had
never been much more than nominal. In some cases, the attempt to get
their old rights officially recognised ended in a loss of freedom for these
natural communes; but in others the original independence was main-
tained in a greater or less degree down to modern days.
In both these divisions, however, the idea of combining, for the main-
tenance of common rights and the increase of material well-being, was
always the determining factor in their communal existence. In the
northern villages, however, it was the value of example which appears
most immediately prominent; in the mountain communes, the union
through rights of common. property.
It was naturally the rural towns which formed the best example for
the villages, and the customs of Lorris and Beaumont were always the
first to spread in country districts. The villes-neuves and bastides, again,
themselves little but rural communes, must have done much to lead the
still unenfranchised villages to crave for similar privileges. That small
rural cultivators like themselves should be granted freedom, defence, and
common rights, while they remained under the old conditions, would be
naturally galling to any ambitious villagers. It is never so easy to throw
off old obligations as to make a wholly fresh start without them; never-
theless, there were various rural settlements which pressed on by their own
exertions, and acquired privileges similar to those bestowed from the first
on the bastides. Some of the villages, especially in the south, fortified
themselves; or, if they could not manage to build complete walls and
gateways, they made the church a stronghold and centre of their defences
in times of danger, and they acquired for themselves rights similar to those
of their favoured neighbours. Sometimes it was the banlieu of an urban
commune, actively influenced by events in the town itself, which spread a
desire for equal rights throughout the neighbouring country. Thus, in
Ponthieu alone, where the examples of Abbeville and Amiens were before
all eyes, thirty-six village communes existed in the fourteenth century.
CH. XIX,


## p. 652 (#698) ############################################

652
Common property as a bond of union
Although the country profited by town example, the motives which
actuated them were not wholly the same, or at least they did not exist in
the same proportions. Direct growth from the old free village, the
desire to ameliorate servile conditions, and the influence of parish life
and church duties, were all more prominent in the country than in the
town; while commercial causes, seignorial rivalry, and the desire for
political independence, were less general, though not wholly absent.
Several isolated villages did organise themselves contrary to the will of
their lord, but the result was often fatal, for it was difficult for the
peasants to hold their own against opposition. Thus Masnière, a hamlet
dependent on the Abbey of Corbie, was put down by the abbot when it
had given itself communal government; and the same thing happened at
Chablis near Tours. It was to avoid this difficulty that villages came to
form federations for mutual support, and when they were near some
important urban centre they looked to help from that quarter also. This
was not always effective, for the Laonnais group had only a very short
and stormy career. It was generally the least ambitious developments
which were the most durable, and where advance was very gradual less
opposition was excited. Thus a community which united peaceably to
maintain old rights, which had assemblies chiefly for agricultural matters,
and which elected only a few officials of its own to share in justice and
taxation without repudiating the supreme seignorial authority, might
very likely get its advance recognised, its privileges confirmed, and its
organisation accepted by the lord. He could still exercise influence over
the community and at the same time reap the benefit of contented vassals
and willing cultivators.
The important part played by common possessions in bringing about
union has been already mentioned, but in rural districts this is particularly
striking, whether it was actual corporate property the communities
acquired or merely common use. In Alsace several villages were often
united by the possession of the almend, common pasture land for a group
of hamlets; just as in the Pyrenees the ports or mountain pastures were
almost always shared. In some parts pasture was not free, in which case
the inhabitants of one or more villages would often combine to pay
jointly for pasturing their beasts and gathering wood in the forests; this
happened in many rural communities of the Yonne. In Normandy there
are many examples of rights in wood and waste shared by the villagers,
while any stranger had to pay for the use of it, even for the rights of
driving Hocks through the land at all. At Brucourt a document shews
that here, at least, the pasture was real corporate property: “les communes
du dit lieu de Brucourt furent données au commune de la dite paroisse. ”
At Boismont-sur-Mer, a tiny village in Ponthieu, the habitants had
rights of common along the shore, because the land was too poor to be of
any use as private property, and they were called bourgeois in consequence
of being banded together for mutual protection and guarantee of their


## p. 653 (#699) ############################################

Common rights and duties
653
possession. Similarly, at Filieffes, in the same neighbourhood, two marshes
were common to the inhabitants of the village, and a mayor and échevins
appointed to supervise rural affairs.
Common property led very often to the passing of common bye-laws,
and to the appointment of common officials to direct, supervise, and see
that these regulations were kept. Constantly the men of a village
would appear as joint suitors in a case, or to receive concessions. In
1214 there was a contention “super quaedam communia ab homini-
bus de Coldres cum hominibus de Nonancourt inita, et super quibus-
dam consuetudinibus. ” Elsewhere it was “homines Henrici de Tillao,”
"homines de Deserto," and others, who owed money “pro recognitione de
servicio. ” In the fourteenth century such instances were particularly
numerous in Normandy, and the courts held suits concerning "le commun
du hameau du Becquet,” “les habitants des cinq paroisses de la forêt de
Conches,” and so on. In the cartulary of Carcassonne there are many
proofs of village claims. The men of Villegly assert that from time
immemorial they have had common pasture rights, the common privilege
of a sheaf at harvest time, and common liberty to settle amongst them-
selves what crops they would grow without any seignorial interference
(fourteenth century).
The lords, on their side, were also able to enforce common duties.
“L'université des habitants” at Villegly owed a pound of wax and were
bound to castle-guard in turns. At Gardie, a sum was paid annually
“pro omnibus hominibus de universitate predicta. ” The Church also
frequently demanded common dues and services; and sometimes parish
officials-syndics and others—were chosen from the whole community to
manage the common work of the parish.
The existence of these common rights and duties, the need for agree-
ment as to the cultivation and other local business, led to the holding of
popular assemblies in villages and rural groups, which gave an impulse
to the idea of self-government. In the county of Dunois, there are
frequent examples of general meetings to discuss money payments or
military contributions demanded by the lord, or village matters of all
sorts, such as the building of enclosures or any public work. At Lutz, in
1387, twenty-seven inhabitants, “faisant la greigneur et plus saine partie
des manans et habitans," met to choose representatives to appear before
the Parlement on the subject of forced taille. In 1440 several villages met
to discuss the sending of a body of horsemen which had been commanded
by the king. Sometimes the rural communities were so small that about
twelve people were all they could muster as their representatives.
Some of the most interesting examples of these village meetings are
to be found in the cours colongères of Alsace and Lorraine, very indepen-
dent assemblies, often exercising judicial and administrative powers,
evidently survivals of old rights, which they claimed to have existed
“from time immemorial. ” In the Vosges there were a number of these
CH, XIX.


## p. 654 (#700) ############################################

654
The colonges of Alsace
rural groups or colonges: associations of hamlets and scattered farms,
holding from a lord, but with their own rural regulations, their own
tribunals, for low justice as a rule but occasionally for more important
cases, and their popular assemblies, without the consent of which the lord
was not supposed to interfere in any communal business. Common rights,
in particular, were under the supervision of these assemblies, and the lord
was often on a par with the villagers, so far as regarded the use of woods
and pasture. To be a member of one of these colonges, residence for a
year was generally required, and the new colon was formally received as a
member in a general assembly. All had to attend, under pain of a fine,
and only four excuses were recognised for absence: war, illness, old age,
or deafness. The lord, or his representative, generally presided over this
cour colongère, but the suitors had final decisions in their hands, and
justice was administered by elected échevins. Occasionally, greater inde-
pendence than this was acquired. At Donnelay, near Metz, for example,
the inhabitants elected the mayor or president and did justice and levied
taxes without seignorial control. No charters to these colonges exist
before the thirteenth century, some are later still; but they always contain
a statement to the effect that they are recognising old rights. These
documents shew that the community itself might possess serfs, that it had
rural officials, shepherds, foresters, and so forth, and it could buy, sell, or
otherwise dispose of its common land according to its will. There are
many curious old customs and conditions in these charters, which give a
most interesting picture of rural life in these mountain hamlets, but
which unfortunately do not throw any special light on the actual com-
munal movement. Here, as time went on, the old free character of the
villages was more and more lost. It was territorial sovereignty in this
case which was swamping the communes, since in the Empire, of which
they were part, central power was not taking the place of the feudal lords,
as was the monarchy in France. A letter to the Count of Harbourg in
1529 says: “Votre coulonge a beaucoup de franchises, mais aujourd'hui,
hélas, on ne s'en soucie guère. ” Little by little, this interesting survival
of old free rights, which had developed into actual communal organisa-
tion, disappeared, and ordinary feudal seigneuries were left in possession
of the field.
In the valley communities of the Pyrenees conditions were very
similar. Here it was clearly geographical causes which first led to com-
munal organisations. Villages, tiny hamlets, and scattered homesteads,
which would have had little importance as isolated units, naturally com-
bined while enclosed in one mountain valley, secure from much outside
interference or even intercourse, and already united for the use of pasture
land on the slopes of the hills. There was little reason here for much
seignorial supervision or interference; little for any lord to gain out of
these simple pastoral communities. From early days they had managed
their own affairs; during the winter months they were cut off almost


## p. 655 (#701) ############################################

Valley communes of the Pyrenees
655
entirely from outside relations; and in the summer they were chiefly
concerned in arranging for the feeding and management of the flocks and
herds which were their chief source of livelihood.
In Roussillon there were seven rural seigneuries, associations of villages,
not exactly republics, but with considerable independence, making their
own treaties, building their own fortifications, and holding general
meetings to regulate local business of all sorts. The little community of
Andorra still exists to illustrate something of the condition of these
mountain settlements. A group of six parishes, Andorra manages its
own affairs and simply pays an annual tribute to its feudal superiors: two-
thirds to the government of France, one-third to the Bishop of Urgel in
Spain. Though generally called a republic, it is in reality a very inde-
pendent seigneurie held in pariage by two lords.
In the western Pyrenees there were some large and important valleys,
which were able to develop considerable powers, free from all but nominal
subjection to their overlords. The Vallée d'Ossau still retains its own
distinctive dress, though this is fast disappearing, and it keeps its own
local archives in the principal village. In the Middle Ages it was directly
under the Viscount of Béarn, but otherwise independent. The Vallée
d'Aspe was practically a republic. Its narrow defiles and the high moun-
tains blocking it in were natural defences which secured its separate
existence, and it had self-government in the hands of its own jurats.
A document of 1692 speaks of its freedom in ancient times: "elle se
condisoit par des lois et des coûtumes qu'on n'a jamais empruntés, non
pas même depuis qu'elle s'est donnée volontairement au seigneur de Béarn. "
The valley of Cauterets had its own legislative assemblies, composed of
women as well as of men, and the fines and profits of justice were shared
between the community itself and its ecclesiastical seigneur, the abbot.
The Vallée d'Azun had its popular parliament and its local customs for
all the inhabitants, which the seigneur confirmed on request of “tot lo
pople d’Assun. "
These rural communes were known as beziaus, the inhabitants as
beziis, the local word for voisins; and it was quite usual for the bezias or
voisines to share equally with the men in government and administration-
in any case, when they were householders. The almost sovereign power
of these communities is especially shewn in their treaties with other valleys;
the lies and passeries were generally agreements as to pasture-rights,
which followed actual warfare between the villages. One of the most
famous of these treaties was between the French valley of Barétous and
the Spanish community of Ronçal, which was signed in 1373, and arranged
for a yearly tribute of three cows to be paid by the Frenchmen. This has
given rise to a curious ceremony which was kept up in full until late in
the nineteenth century. On the summit of the pass between the valleys,
representatives from each side used to meet and, with their hands inter-
laced on crossed lances, proclaim Pazavant (paix dorénavant). After this,
CH. XIX.


## p. 656 (#702) ############################################

656
General conclusions
the
COWS, bedecked with ribbons, were led across the frontier, and the
day ended in dancing and feasting.
Enough has been said to shew that the Pyrenean valleys were primitive
communities which had inherited customs from very early days and which
had never been under severe seignorial control. The communal movement
in their case was truly a natural growth; but they were so far affected by
the general tendency of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as to get
their rights recognised and their fors written down and confirmed. Their
special characteristics were elected officials, common rights and common
property, and a very popular and independent form of local government.
To sum up shortly the results arrived at in this chapter, two principal
conclusions seem to emerge—the difficulty of generalisation and the
natural and economic character of the movement.
First, as to the difficulty of generalising. It is almost impossible to
argue from events in a few towns the probable course of events in another.
Communal growth can best be studied through individual instances, but
it is unsafe to draw general conclusions from them as to the line of advance
throughout the whole country. Local differences have resulted in a very
great variety of local developments and causes, which helped the growth
of communes in one part of the country and were often absent in another.
The seignorial support, apparently beneficial in one instance, in another
may have meant the complete loss of communal independence.
Secondly, as to the natural character of the movement. The communal
movement was clearly a stage in economic development; instead of being
a break with old conditions and a revolution against feudal ideas, it was
consistent with the period of feudalism in which it arose. It was an attempt
of communities to rise by force of union in the feudal hierarchy and them-
selves to rank side by side with feudal seigneurs; sometimes as their vassals,
but whenever possible, as suzerains themselves and tenants-in-chief of the
Crown, privileged and independent of all but nominal allegiance.
As a general rule, it may be said that the older towns were the most
progressive in their actions, that they developed their own communes and
acquired the highest degree of independence for a short time. New towns
were often favoured by the lords and became privileged, but under con-
trol. Royal towns, though often in earlier possession of charters and
privileges, were always less completely free. Rural communities were very
frequently peaceful in their development and could trace back their rights
to very early days, but the assertion of these rights generally followed
the formation of town organisations in point of time, and occasionally the
rural commune was a direct imitation of an urban union.
In France this movement was widespread and important but short-
lived; for it came at a time when the growth of centralisation was little
by little absorbing feudal rights and local independence. The higher the
position at which the communes arrived, the more they came into conflict


## p. 657 (#703) ############################################

Importance of the movement
657
with the development of royal supremacy, and the more completely they
were destroyed. But, even though short-lived, the communal movement
in France, both urban and rural, had important results which outlasted
its own existence. Serfdom was distinctly diminished in severity and
extent; local patriotism was excited and continued, even though it might
be turned into other channels; commerce and trade were invigorated and
the energy of the burgesses could extend in that direction when self-
government disappeared; above all, it was the medieval commune which
formed the cradle of that important element of French society, the Tiers
État.
C. MED. H. VOL. V. CH. XIX.
42


## p. 658 (#704) ############################################

658
CHAPTER XX.
THE MONASTIC ORDERS.
The Rule of St Benedict was the fountain of monastic discipline in the
West, the source, not of a single religious order, but of religious order in
the most comprehensive sense of the phrase. Composed in the beginning
for a single community of cenobites, it took into account no system which
involved the grouping of monasteries in an organised federation or sub-
ordinated a number of houses to one common head. The successors of
St Benedict at Monte Cassino could make no claim to any but an hono-
rary primacy among Benedictine abbots. The Benedictine monastery was
a self-ruling corporation; its abbot, the father of the convent, was supreme
in it and in the dependent priories which formed integral, though locally
detached, portions of the organism. The Rule supplied the main prin-
ciple of its life; but in details it was governed by its own customary
code, the result of local conditions and individual convenience. Such
bodies of customs would necessarily have strong family and local like-
nesses; but they would shew no trace of a rigid uniformity. Relations
between neighbouring communities might be fraternal, but each was a
separate household, recognising a common paternity, not in any supreme
monastery, but in St Benedict, the founder of the monastic order.
This autonomy of the Benedictine community, with its healthy en-
couragement to free development on natural lines, was nevertheless not
without its drawbacks. The history of such great houses as Monte Cassino
- and Farfa shews, on the one hand, that a body of monks unprotected by
any central authority or mutual bond of union was peculiarly liable to
dispersion under the pressure of external attack. During the Lombard
invasions in the sixth century, and the Saracen inroads in the ninth, both
monasteries were left desolate for long periods. On the other hand, the
community ran the continual risk of internal decay. The rule of a weak
or careless abbot, under no effective supervision, was inevitably a source
of danger; while the growth of temporal possessions, given by benefactors
with the best intentions, brought with it temptations to the relaxation
of religious observance and to the admission of secular customs out of
keeping with the Rule. Both causes, in the disturbed condition of Euro-
pean society, combined against the steady maintenance of the founder's
principles. A convent scattered by invaders, and forced to lead a vagrant
life in search of casual hospitality, was unlikely, when it was restored to


## p. 659 (#705) ############################################

St Benedict of Aniane
659
its old home, to enter upon its duties with its pristine zeal and to prefer
austerity to comfort.
The restoration of discipline in monasteries was a necessary accom-
paniment of the establishment of law and order in the Carolingian Empire.
Charlemagne, with his sense of the value of learning to civilisation, saw
in well-ordered religious houses centres of culture and study which would
be an ornament to his realm and exercise a salutary influence upon their
surroundings. During his reign, an organised movement towards reform
began in the Aquitanian kingdom, with the encouragement of its ruler
Louis, his youngest son. The chief agent in this movement was Benedict,
Abbot of Aniane. Like many of his followers in the work of monastic
administration, he found himself dissatisfied with the normal routine of
the religious house in which he had made his profession. As a monk at
Saint-Seine, regarding the Rule of St Benedict as a system merely for
beginners, he endeavoured to follow the severe practices of Eastern mo-
nachism. About 780 he founded upon his inherited estates the monastery
of Aniane. At first, the customs which he prescribed to his monks were
too drastic; and experience probably taught him the wisdom of the Rule
which, in his ardour, he had underrated. After a period of disappoint-
ment, Aniane began to flourish. Monks went out from it to spread its
teaching in other parts of Gaul; old foundations received new life, and
new houses were founded under its influence. Twenty monks were sent
from Aniane to colonise Alcuin's monastery of Corméry; William, Duke
of Aquitaine, placed others in the monastery of Saint-Guilhem-du-Désert.
Benedict gained the favour of Charlemagne as a defender of orthodoxy
against the adoptionist heresy of Felix, Bishop of Urgel; and Louis the
Pious committed to him full authority to reform the monasteries of
Aquitania. When Louis succeeded to his father's dominions in 814, this
authority was extended over the whole of Gaul. Benedict was induced
to follow Louis northwards, and eventually to take up his abode in the
Kornelimünster, an abbey founded by him with the Emperor's help on
the Inde, near Aix-la-Chapelle. Here he died in February 822.
In his endeavours for reform, Benedict had to contend with three
main abuses. The custom of granting monasteries as fiefs to lay pro-
prietors endangered the whole system. Benedict prevailed upon Louis to
appoint only regulars as abbots, and to modify the requisition of services
from religious houses. Closely connected with this first abuse was the
prevalent abandonment of regular observances. In some prominent houses,
such as Saint-Denis at Paris and Saint-Bénigne at Dijon, the inmates had
abandoned the title of monks for that of clerks and canons.