tirely subverts all the ancient records；＇206＇ the other； that all freemen were judged directly and immediately by the king。＇207＇ which is contradicted by an infinite number of passages and authorities informing us of the judiciary order of those times。＇208＇
This decree； which was made in an assembly of the nation；＇209＇ says that； if the judge finds a notorious robber； he must command him to be tied； in order to be carried before the king； si Francus fuerit； but if he is a weaker person （debilior persona）； he shall be hanged on the spot。 According to the Abbé du Bos； Francus is a freeman； debilior persona is a bondman。 I shall defer entering for a moment into the signification of the word Francus； and begin with examining what can be understood by these words； a weaker person； In all languages whatsoever； every comparison necessarily supposes three terms； the greatest； the less degree； and the least。 If none were here meant but freemen and bondmen； they would have said a bondman； and not a man of less power。 Therefore debilior persona does not signify a bondman； but a person of a superior condition to a bondman。 Upon this supposition； Francus cannot mean a freeman； but a powerful man； and this word is taken here in that acceptation； because among the Franks there were always men who had greater power than others in the state； and it was more difficult for the judge or count to chastise them。 This construction agrees very well with many capitularies＇210＇ where we find the cases in which the criminals were to be carried before the king； and those in which it was otherwise。
It is mentioned in the Life of Louis the Debonnaire；＇211＇ written by Tegan； that the bishops were the principal cause of the humiliation of that emperor； especially those who had been bondmen and such as were born among the Barbarians。 Tegan thus addresses Hebo； whom this prince had drawn from the state of servitude； and made Archbishop of Rheims： 〃What recompense did the Emperor receive from you for so many benefits？ He made you a freeman； but did not ennoble you； because he could not give you nobility after having given you your liberty。〃＇212＇
This passage； which proves so strongly the two orders of citizens； does not at all confound the Abbé du Bos。 He answers thus：＇213＇ 〃The meaning of this passage is not that Louis the Debonnaire was incapable of introducing Hebo into the order of the nobility。 Hebo； as Archbishop of Rheims； must have been of the first order； superior to that of the nobility。〃 I leave the reader to judge whether this be not the meaning of that passage； I leave him to judge whether there be any question here concerning a precedence of the clergy over the nobility。 〃This passage proves only；〃 continues the same writer；＇214＇ 〃that the free…born subjects were qualified as noblemen； in the common acceptation； noblemen and men who are free…born have for this long time signified the same thing。〃 What！ because some of our burghers have lately assumed the quality of noblemen； shall a passage of the Life of Louis the Debonnaire be applied to this sort of people？ 〃And perhaps；〃 continues he still；＇215＇ 〃Hebo had not been a bondman among the Franks； but among the Saxons； or some other German nation； where the people were divided into several orders。〃 Then； because of the Abbé du Bos' 〃perhaps；〃 there must have been no nobility among the nation of the Franks。 But he never applied a 〃perhaps〃 so badly。 We have seen that Tegan distinguishes the bishops；＇216＇ who had opposed Louis the Debonnaire； some of whom had been bondmen； and others of a barbarous nation。 Hebo belonged to the former and not to the latter。 Besides； I do not see how a bondman； such as Hebo； can be said to have been a Saxon or a German； a bondman has no family； and consequently no nation。 Louis the Debonnaire manumitted Hebo； and as bondmen after their manumission embraced the law of their master； Hebo had become a Frank； and not a Saxon or German。
I have been hitherto acting offensively； it is now time to defend myself。 It will be objected to me that indeed the body of the Antrustios formed a distinct order in the state from that of the freemen； but as the fiefs were at first precarious； and afterwards for life； this could not form a nobleness of descent； since the privileges were not annexed to an hereditary fief。 This is the objection which induced M。 de Valois to think that there was only one order of citizens among the Franks； an opinion which the Abbé du Bos has borrowed of him； and which he has absolutely spoiled with so many bad arguments。 Be that as it may； it is not the Abbé du Bos that could make this objection。 For after having given three orders of Roman nobility； and the quality of the king's guest for the first； he could not pretend to say that this title was a greater mark of a noble descent than that of Antrustio。 But I must give a direct answer。 The Antrustios or trusty men were not such because they were possessed of a fief； but that they had a fief given them because they were Antrustios or trusty men。 The reader may please to recollect what has been said in the beginning of this book。 They had not at that time； as they had afterwards； the same fief： but if they had not that； they had another； because the fiefs were given at their birth； and because they were often granted in the assemblies of the nation； and； in fine； because as it was the interest of the nobility to receive them it was likewise the king's interest to grant them。 These families were distinguished by their dignity of trusty men； and by the privilege of being qualified to swear allegiance for a fief。 In the following book＇217＇ I shall demonstrate how； from the circumstances of the time； there were freemen who were permitted to enjoy this great privilege； and consequently to enter into the order of nobility。 This was not the case at the time of Gontram； and his nephew Childebert； but so it was at the time of Charlemagne。 But though in that prince's reign the freemen were not incapable of possessing fiefs； yet it appears； by the above…cited passage of Tegan； that the emancipated serfs were absolutely excluded。 Will the Abbé du Bos； who carries us to Turkey to give us an idea of the ancient French nobility；＇218＇ will he； I say； pretend that they ever complained among the Turks of the elevation of people of low birth to the honours and dignities of the state； as they complained under Louis the Debonnaire and Charles the Bald？ There was no complaint of that kind under Charlemagne； because this prince always distinguished the ancient from the new families； which Louis the Debonnaire； and Charles the Bald did not。
The public should not forget the obligation it owes to the Abbé du Bos for several excellent performances。 It is by these works； and not by his history of the Establishment of the French Monarchy； we ought to judge of his merit。 He committed very great mistakes； because he had more in view the Count of Boulainvilliers' work than his own subject。
From all these strictures I shall draw only one reflection： if so great a man was mistaken； how cautiously ought I to tread？
______
1。 Quantum vertice ad oras ？thereas； tantum radice ad Tartara tendit Virgil； Georg。； ii。 292； ？neid； iv。 446。
2。 Book iv。
3。 For instance； his retreat from Germany。 Ibid。
4。 De Bello Gall。； vi。 21； Tacitus； De Moribus Germanorum； 31。
5。 De Moribus Germanorum； 13。
6。 Comites。
7。 De Bello Gall。； vi。 22。
8。 See the Life of Dagobert。
9。 See Gregory of Tours； vi； on the marriage of the daughter of Chilperic。 Childebert sends ambassadors to tell him that he should not give the cities of his father's kingdom to his daughter； nor his treasures； nor his bondmen； nor horses； nor horsemen； nor teams of oxen； &c。
10。 The Romans obliged themselves to this by treaties。 See Zozimus； v； upon the distribution of corn demanded by Alaric。 ED。
11。 Marius' Chronicle in the year 456。
12。 Book x； tit。 1； §§ 8； 9； & 16。
13。 Chapter 54； §§ 1； 2。 This division was still subsisting in the time of Louis the Debonnaire； as appears by his Capitulary of the year 829； which has been inserted in the law of the Burgundians； tit。 79； § 1。
14。 See Procopius； War of the Goths。
15。 See Procopius； War of the Vandals。
16。 Law of the Burgundians； tit。 54； § 1。
17。 Art。 11。
18。 De Moribus Germanorum； 21。
19。 And in that of the Visigoths。
20。 Tit。 54。
21。 This is confirmed by the whole title of the code de Agricolis et Censitis； et Colonis。
22。 Tit。 26； §§ 1； a。
23。 Tit。 57。
24。 Ovid； Met。 ii。 134。
25。 While Gaul was under the dominion of the Romans they formed particular bodies； these were generally freedmen； or the descendants of freedmen。
26。 See Gregory of Tours； ii； 27。 Aimoin； i。 12。
27。 See the Lives of the Saints； footnote 7； below。
28。 Gregory of Tours； ii。
29。 Ibid。； vi。 31。
30。 Cassiodorus； iii。 43。
31。 In the year 763。
32。 See the annals of Fuld； in the year 739； Paulus Diaconus； De gestis Longobardorum； iii。 30； iv。 1； and the Lives of the Saints in the next footnote。
33。 See the lives of St。 Epiphanius； St。 Eptadius； St。 C？sarius； St。 Fidolus； St。 Porcian； St。 Treverius； St。 Eusichius； and of St。 Leger； the miracles of St。 Julian； &c。
34。 Ovid； Met。； i。 293。
35。 Even the husbandmen themselves were not all slaves； see the Leg。 18； 23； Cod。 de Agricolis； et Censitis； et Colonis； and Leg。 20 of the same title。
36。 See Gregory of Tours； ii。
37。 Ibid。； v。 28。
38。 Ibid。； viii。 36。
39。 Life of St。 Aridius。
40。 Book vii。
41。 Establishment of the French Monarchy； iii。 14； p。 515。 See Baluzius； ii； p。 187。
42。 Book iii。 36。
43。 Book iii； p。 514。
44。 Book x； tit。 1； cap。 xiv。
45。 The Vandals paid none in Africa。 Procopius； War of the Vandals； i； ii。 Historia Miscella； xvi； p。 106。 Observe that the conquerors of Africa were a mixture of Vandals； Alans； and Franks。 Historia Miscella； xiv； p。 94。
46。 Establishment of the Franks in Gaul； iii。 14； p。 510。
47。 He lays a stress upon another law of the Visigoths； x； tit。 1； art。 11； which proves nothing at all； it says only that he who has received of a lord a piece of land on condition of a rent or service ought to pay it。
48。 Book iii； p。 511。
49。 Leg。 3；