The History of the Origins of Representative Government in Europe

Lecture 2

LECTURE 2 General character ofpolitical institutions in Europe, .from thefourth to the eleventh century. ~ Political sterility ofthe Roman Empire. ~ Progress ofthe Germanic invasions. ~ Sketch ofthe history ofthe Anglo-Saxons. I HAVE divided the history of the political institutions of modern Europe into four great epochs, the first ofwhich extends from the fourth to the eleventh century . This long interval was required to introduce a little light and fixity into the changeful chaos ofthose new empires which the successive invasions ofthe Roman territory by the barbarians had called into being, and whence issued those mighty states whose destiny constitutes the history of modern Europe. The essential characteristics ofthis epoch are: the conflict and fusion ofGermanic customs with Roman institutions, the attempt to establish monarchical government, and the formation ofthe feudal regime. No general system ofpolitical institutions then existed; no great dominant influence can be discerned; all was local, individual , confused, obscure. A multitude ofprinciples and forces, mingling and acting (as it were) by chance, were engaged in conflict to resolve a question ofwhich men were completely ignorant, and the secret of which God alone possessed. This question was: What form ofgovernment would issue from all these different elements , brought so violendyinto contactwith each other. Five centuries elapsed before the question was decided, and then feudalism was the social state ofEurope. Before entering, however, upon the history ofinstitutions, let me say a few words upon the progress ofthe fall ofthe Roman Empire, and ofthe invasions ofthe barbarians.1 1. For more details on the condition ofEurope at the fall ofthe Roman Empire, see Guizot, HCE, Lecture II, pp. 27-46. Of utmost importance is Guizot's emphasis on the coexistence and combat of different principles and systems of political organization (theocratic, monarchic, aristocratic , and popular) that had limited and modified each other over time, thereby contributing to the progress ofEuropean civilization. Guizot argued that "in Europe liberty has been the result ofthe variety of the elements ofcivilization, and ofthe state ofstruggle in which they have constantly existed" (ibid., p. 31). 20 LECTURE 2 From the accession ofAugustus to the death ofTheodosius the Great, the Roman Empire, in spite ofits greatness, presents a general character ofimpotence and sterility. Its institutions, its government, its philosophy, its literature, indeed everything connected with it, bears this sad impress; even the minds of its most illustrious citizens were confined to a circle of antiquated ideas, and wasted in vain regrets for the virtues and glories ofthe Republic. The fermentation of new ideas produces no decadence; but when, in a great empire, society , feeling itselfoppressed and diseased, can conceive no new hopes, no grand ideas,-when, instead of pressing onwards towards the future, it invokes only the recollections and images ofthe past-then there is a real decline; it matters not how long the state is in falling, its ruin is thenceforward continuous and inevitable . The fall ofthe Roman Empire occupied fifteen centuries; and for fifteen centuries it continued to decline, until its downfall was consummated by the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. During this long period, no new idea, no regenerative principle, was employed to reinvigorate the life ofthe government ; it was sustained by its own mass. Towards the end of the third century , when the universal servitude seemed to be most firmly established, imperial despotism began to feel the precariousness ofits position, and the necessity for organization. Diocletian created a vast system ofadministration. Throughout this immense machine, he established underworks in harmony with the principle ofhis government; he regulated the action ofthe central power in the provinces, and surrounded himself with a brilliant and puissant court: but he did not rekindle the moral life of the Empire; he merely organized more perfectly a material resistance to the principles of destruction which were undermining it; and it was with this organization that, first in the West as well as in the East, and afterwards in the East alone, the Empire was able to struggle on, from the fourth to the fifteenth century. Theodosius the Great, who died in395, was the last emperor who tightly held and skilfully managed the heterogeneous bundle ofthe Roman power. He was truly a great man; for great men appear in disgraceful times, as well as in times of success; and Theodosius was still the master ofthe Roman world. As soon as he was dead, the dissolution broke out, under his sons Honorius and Arcadius.*There was now no real unity or central force in the government; Rome gradually abandoned her provinces...