FRENCH ARCHITECTURE. 1 — II. HO
WEVER, in the general disintegration the old organization did not entirely disappear. When the ties were severed which bound the people to their protectress and when the entire land was delivered over to barbarian invasions, they were indeed forced to defend themselves wherever they were, in an isolated fashion, for there was no cohesion anywhere and consequently no concert of action. The population took refuge in the cities, which they turned into so many fortresses, and within which the old institutions were safeguarded. This fact is evident, especially in the south, where Roman occupation had left the deepest traces and where the Franks of the north could never gain a secure foothold.
This concentration in local unities was, moreover, a natural outgrowth of the distribution of population common to the Gauls and the Romans. We must not fancy the rural regions inhabited at that period as they are to-day. At Rome and around Rome, “ there was no country; at least the fields in no way resembled those of to-day; they were cultivated, of course, but they were not peopled. The proprietors of the land were the inhabitants of the cities; they went out from their homes to look after their country estates, where they often kept a large number of slaves; but what we now term the country, with its scattered population occupying isolated dwellings or small villages, but covering the soil everywhere, was almost unknown in ancient Italy.
“In the same way, it is cities that one constantly encounters in the Gauls and in Spain: away from the towns the land is covered with woods and forests. Consider the character of the Roman remains and Roman roads. The latter are highways running from one town to another; the network of little routes which checker the country to-day was then unknown. There was nothing at that time which resembled the countless small monuments, the villages, chateaux and churches which have sprung up all over the land since the Middle Ages. Rome has bequeathed us nothing but the mighty imprints of the municipal system, vast monuments destined for the service of a numerous population concentrated at one spot. From whatever point of view one contemplates the Roman world, he finds almost without exception this great preponderance of cities and the non-existence socially of the country. ”
It was in the cities, which were genuine fortresses, and which may be considered as islets emerging here and there above the barbarian flood, that the old traditions, manners and institutions, all, in fact, that remained of national existence took refuge. Sheltered within the walls of these strongholds, the primitive population could guard a part of their privileges, and conduct the internal government in conformity with ancient institutions. When everything around them had been transformed, cities like Marseilles, Arles, Nîmes, Narbonne, Périgueux, Toulouse, Bourges, Paris, Rheims and Metz maintained for centuries, still, a relative independence, and presented an aspect wholly foreign to that which feudal society everywhere assumed.
It was in country regions that this society effected the most radical changes. As the invasions succeeded one another, each warfaring band pushed a little farther than its predecessor had done in quest of new lands to expropriate, the chiefs taking possession of vast domains, which they wrested from the former owners; but it should not he supposed that from the outset the invaders proceeded to a peaceful allotment of territory, wherein each member of the band had his part, of which he was to become the undisturbed proprietor. To effect this, it would have been necessary to disperse, which was hardly feasible in a subjugated but rebellious and hostile country. The newcomers were then in most cases obliged to remain encamped on the unfriendly soil, surrounded by redoubtable defenses. Fortified castles now began to spring up, and these multiplied in measure as the invasion progressed.
The primary consequence of such occupation, important in view of the ulterior mixture of the races, was not long in declaring itself; namely, a very unequal distribution of property in the hands of the conquerors. The barbarians, being neither able nor willing to form unions with the subjugated inhabitants, were driven into that state of savage and armed isolation, which was moreover suited to their instincts. “But isolation is only supportable in a laborious condition... Now, the barbarians
were essentially idle, they therefore required to live together, and many companions remained about their chief, leading on his domains pretty nearly the same life that they had led before in his train. But from these circumstances it arose that their relative situation was completely altered. Very soon a prodigious inequality sprang up between them... The chief,
become a great proprietor, disposed of many of the means of power; the others were always simple warriors, and the more the ideas of property established and extended themselves in men’s minds, the more was inequality, with its effects, developed. At this period we find a great number of freemen falling by degrees into a very inferior position; the laws speak constantly of freemen, of Franks, living on the lands of another and reduced almost to the situation of the laborers, ” that is to say of the original inhabitants.
Another consequence, not less important than the first from our present standpoint, was destined to show itself soon. The cities, as we have said, long served as a rampart to the conquered people, who sought refuge within their walls. The Franks penetrated into these with difficulty and could not have attempted with sufficient guarantees to make them their dwelling place. The Franks needed, moreover, a free field for the excursions by which they carried afar their pillaging exploits. It was therefore in the abandoned country regions that they settled.
The establishment of the feudal regime brought about a revolution in the distribution of the population. For the agglomerations in cities a different order of things was substituted; the new owners of the soil lived apart, each in a fortified dwelling, which he called his castle, and at a great distance from neighbors. Within the walls of his fortress, placed on some lofty, isolated site, he shut his family and surrounded it with a few defenders, who were attached to his person, and shared his roof and his table. Around the base of the castle rock, were grouped the coloni and serfs who cultivated the estate; a priest settled among these and founded a church; the priest became the village curate, while the castle had its chaplain. Such were the component elements of feudal society, which constituted a complete, distinct and isolated unity; it was sufficient unto itself and was bound to the society enveloping it on all sides only by the tie which the military obligation of a fief-holder to a suzerain establishes.
Was it possible for the customs thus imported by the races of the north to develop a vast social and political state, powerful as to its extent even? Assuredly not: each elementary group each of the units necessary to form such a social ensemble, was certainly endowed with uncommon energy and vitality; but it remained obstinately isolated and hostile to its neighbors. No bond was possible between these groups unless perchance a moment should come when their unsatiated and always present taste for distant adventures should temporarily establish one, as was the case in the Crusades. But of a permanent organization, wherein each member was to accept and bear obligations, of general laws, there could be no more question than of the creation of a vast state in which all the resources should be put in common and directed toward one end.
Herein lay the evil, and the cause of destruction to the feudal system. It possessed, nevertheless, virtues and merits. We are indebted to it, conjointly with Christian sentiment, for the institution of the family, as it is conceived by modern nations, as well as for the importance of woman’s place in human society.
If it was impossible to weld any one of the elementary groups to its neighbor, never, on the other hand, were these individual groups themselves so compactly constituted. “Never, in any other form of society, has the family been reduced to its simplest expression, never have husband, wife and children found themselves in such close union and so entirely separated from all other powerful and rival relationship... While in
his castle, the holder of a fief was associated with his wife and his children, who were almost his only equals, and who constituted his only intimate and permanent companionship. He doubtless often quitted his stronghold and led a brutal and
1 From the French of P. Planat, in Planat’s “Encylopidie de lʼArchitecture et de la Construction. ʼʼ Continued from page 5, No. 797.
WEVER, in the general disintegration the old organization did not entirely disappear. When the ties were severed which bound the people to their protectress and when the entire land was delivered over to barbarian invasions, they were indeed forced to defend themselves wherever they were, in an isolated fashion, for there was no cohesion anywhere and consequently no concert of action. The population took refuge in the cities, which they turned into so many fortresses, and within which the old institutions were safeguarded. This fact is evident, especially in the south, where Roman occupation had left the deepest traces and where the Franks of the north could never gain a secure foothold.
This concentration in local unities was, moreover, a natural outgrowth of the distribution of population common to the Gauls and the Romans. We must not fancy the rural regions inhabited at that period as they are to-day. At Rome and around Rome, “ there was no country; at least the fields in no way resembled those of to-day; they were cultivated, of course, but they were not peopled. The proprietors of the land were the inhabitants of the cities; they went out from their homes to look after their country estates, where they often kept a large number of slaves; but what we now term the country, with its scattered population occupying isolated dwellings or small villages, but covering the soil everywhere, was almost unknown in ancient Italy.
“In the same way, it is cities that one constantly encounters in the Gauls and in Spain: away from the towns the land is covered with woods and forests. Consider the character of the Roman remains and Roman roads. The latter are highways running from one town to another; the network of little routes which checker the country to-day was then unknown. There was nothing at that time which resembled the countless small monuments, the villages, chateaux and churches which have sprung up all over the land since the Middle Ages. Rome has bequeathed us nothing but the mighty imprints of the municipal system, vast monuments destined for the service of a numerous population concentrated at one spot. From whatever point of view one contemplates the Roman world, he finds almost without exception this great preponderance of cities and the non-existence socially of the country. ”
It was in the cities, which were genuine fortresses, and which may be considered as islets emerging here and there above the barbarian flood, that the old traditions, manners and institutions, all, in fact, that remained of national existence took refuge. Sheltered within the walls of these strongholds, the primitive population could guard a part of their privileges, and conduct the internal government in conformity with ancient institutions. When everything around them had been transformed, cities like Marseilles, Arles, Nîmes, Narbonne, Périgueux, Toulouse, Bourges, Paris, Rheims and Metz maintained for centuries, still, a relative independence, and presented an aspect wholly foreign to that which feudal society everywhere assumed.
It was in country regions that this society effected the most radical changes. As the invasions succeeded one another, each warfaring band pushed a little farther than its predecessor had done in quest of new lands to expropriate, the chiefs taking possession of vast domains, which they wrested from the former owners; but it should not he supposed that from the outset the invaders proceeded to a peaceful allotment of territory, wherein each member of the band had his part, of which he was to become the undisturbed proprietor. To effect this, it would have been necessary to disperse, which was hardly feasible in a subjugated but rebellious and hostile country. The newcomers were then in most cases obliged to remain encamped on the unfriendly soil, surrounded by redoubtable defenses. Fortified castles now began to spring up, and these multiplied in measure as the invasion progressed.
The primary consequence of such occupation, important in view of the ulterior mixture of the races, was not long in declaring itself; namely, a very unequal distribution of property in the hands of the conquerors. The barbarians, being neither able nor willing to form unions with the subjugated inhabitants, were driven into that state of savage and armed isolation, which was moreover suited to their instincts. “But isolation is only supportable in a laborious condition... Now, the barbarians
were essentially idle, they therefore required to live together, and many companions remained about their chief, leading on his domains pretty nearly the same life that they had led before in his train. But from these circumstances it arose that their relative situation was completely altered. Very soon a prodigious inequality sprang up between them... The chief,
become a great proprietor, disposed of many of the means of power; the others were always simple warriors, and the more the ideas of property established and extended themselves in men’s minds, the more was inequality, with its effects, developed. At this period we find a great number of freemen falling by degrees into a very inferior position; the laws speak constantly of freemen, of Franks, living on the lands of another and reduced almost to the situation of the laborers, ” that is to say of the original inhabitants.
Another consequence, not less important than the first from our present standpoint, was destined to show itself soon. The cities, as we have said, long served as a rampart to the conquered people, who sought refuge within their walls. The Franks penetrated into these with difficulty and could not have attempted with sufficient guarantees to make them their dwelling place. The Franks needed, moreover, a free field for the excursions by which they carried afar their pillaging exploits. It was therefore in the abandoned country regions that they settled.
The establishment of the feudal regime brought about a revolution in the distribution of the population. For the agglomerations in cities a different order of things was substituted; the new owners of the soil lived apart, each in a fortified dwelling, which he called his castle, and at a great distance from neighbors. Within the walls of his fortress, placed on some lofty, isolated site, he shut his family and surrounded it with a few defenders, who were attached to his person, and shared his roof and his table. Around the base of the castle rock, were grouped the coloni and serfs who cultivated the estate; a priest settled among these and founded a church; the priest became the village curate, while the castle had its chaplain. Such were the component elements of feudal society, which constituted a complete, distinct and isolated unity; it was sufficient unto itself and was bound to the society enveloping it on all sides only by the tie which the military obligation of a fief-holder to a suzerain establishes.
Was it possible for the customs thus imported by the races of the north to develop a vast social and political state, powerful as to its extent even? Assuredly not: each elementary group each of the units necessary to form such a social ensemble, was certainly endowed with uncommon energy and vitality; but it remained obstinately isolated and hostile to its neighbors. No bond was possible between these groups unless perchance a moment should come when their unsatiated and always present taste for distant adventures should temporarily establish one, as was the case in the Crusades. But of a permanent organization, wherein each member was to accept and bear obligations, of general laws, there could be no more question than of the creation of a vast state in which all the resources should be put in common and directed toward one end.
Herein lay the evil, and the cause of destruction to the feudal system. It possessed, nevertheless, virtues and merits. We are indebted to it, conjointly with Christian sentiment, for the institution of the family, as it is conceived by modern nations, as well as for the importance of woman’s place in human society.
If it was impossible to weld any one of the elementary groups to its neighbor, never, on the other hand, were these individual groups themselves so compactly constituted. “Never, in any other form of society, has the family been reduced to its simplest expression, never have husband, wife and children found themselves in such close union and so entirely separated from all other powerful and rival relationship... While in
his castle, the holder of a fief was associated with his wife and his children, who were almost his only equals, and who constituted his only intimate and permanent companionship. He doubtless often quitted his stronghold and led a brutal and
1 From the French of P. Planat, in Planat’s “Encylopidie de lʼArchitecture et de la Construction. ʼʼ Continued from page 5, No. 797.