Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow CHAP. III.: Capital Difference between the Salic Laws and those of the Visigoths and Burgundians. - Complete Works, vol. 2 The Spirit of Laws

Return to Title Page for Complete Works, vol. 2 The Spirit of Laws

Search this Title:

CHAP. III.: Capital Difference between the Salic Laws and those of the Visigoths and Burgundians. - Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, Complete Works, vol. 2 The Spirit of Laws [1748]

Edition used:

The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (London: T. Evans, 1777), 4 vols. Vol. 2.

Part of: Complete Works of Montesquieu, 4 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


CHAP. III.

Capital Difference between the Salic Laws and those of the Visigoths and Burgundians.

WE have already observed, that the laws of the Burgundians and Visigoths were impartial; but it was otherwise with regard to the Salic law, for it established between the Franks and Romans the most mortifying distinctions. When a Frank, a Barbarian, or one living under the Salic law, happened to be killed, a composition of 200 sols was to be paid to his relations ; only 100 upon the killing of a Roman proprietor , and no more than 45 for a Roman tributary. The composition for the murder of one of the king’s vassals, if a Frank , was 600 sols; if a Roman, though the king’s guest§ , only 300†† . The Salic law made therefore a cruel distinction between the Frank and Roman lord, and the Frank and Roman commoner.

Farther, if a number of people were got together to assault a Frank in his house‡‡ , and he happened to be killed, the Salic law ordained a composition of 600 sols; but if a Roman or a freedman* was assaulted, only half that composition. By the same law , if a Roman put a Frank in irons, he was liable to a composition of 30 sols; but if a Frank had thus used a Roman, he paid only 15. A Frank, stript by a Roman, was intitled to the composition of 62½ sols, and a Roman stript by a Frank, received only 30. Such unequal treatment must needs have been very grievous to a Roman.

And yet a celebrated author forms a system of the establishment of the Franks in Gaul, on a supposition that they were the best friends of the Romans. The Franks then the best friends of the Romans, they who did, and they who suffered from, the Romans such an infinite deal of mischief! The Franks, the friends of the Romans, they who, after subduing them by their arms, oppressed them in cold blood by their laws! They were exactly the friends of the Romans, as the Tartars, who conquered China, were the friends of the Chinese.

If some Catholic bishops thought fit to make use of the Franks in destroying the Arian kings, does it follow, that they had a desire of living under those barbarous people? And can we from hence conclude, that the Franks had any particular regard to the Romans? I should draw quite different consequences; the less the Franks had to fear from the Romans, the less indulgence they shewed them.

The Abbé du Bos has consulted but indifferent authorities for his history, such as poets and orators: works of parade and ostentation are improper foundations for building systems.

[]Salic law, tit. 44. sect. 1.

[]Qui res in pago ubi remanet proprias habet. Salic law, tit. 44. sect. 15.

[]Qui in truste dominicâ est. Ibid. tit. 41. sect. 4.

[§ ]Si Romanus homo conviva regis fuerit. Ibid. sect. 6.

[†† ]The principal Romans followed the court, as may be seen by the lives of several bishops, who were there educated; there were hardly any but Romans that knew how to write.

[‡‡ ]Salic law, tit. 45.

[* ]Lidus, whose condition was better than that of a bondman. Law of the Alemans, chap. 95.

[]Tit. xxxv. sect. 3. and 4.

[]The Abbé du Bos.

[]Witness the expedition of Arbogastes in Gregory of Tours, Hist. lib. 2.