1. Fustel de Coulanges as an Historian
Author(s): Edward Jenks
Source: The English Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 46 (Apr., 1897), pp. 209-224
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/547462 .
Accessed: 02/02/2011 16:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The English
Historical Review.
http://www.jstor.org

2. THE ENGLISII
REVIEW
HISTORICAL
NO. XLVI.-APRIL I897
Fustel de Coulange s Hn istoria;n
as
died on 12 Sept.
N UMADENYSFUSTELDE COULANGES
1889. At the time of his death he was widely known in
France and Germany as a devoted and inspiring teacher, whose
reverencefor his work made its sterling qualities the more impres-
sive, and as a writer of striking originality, unsurpassed industry,
and an unrivalledgift of exposition. His influencewas, in its way,
as penetratingas that of Renan and Gaston Paris. A chair had
been specially created for him in the famous Ecole Pratiquedes
Hautes Etudesin the Sorbonne, foundedbyDuruy. He was renowned
throughoutthe civilised world as the author of 'La CiteAntique,''
published in 1864, a work to which, avowedlyor unavowedly, more
than one writer of eminence has been indebtedfor his inspiration.
When death came he was engaged in publishing,in a greatly ex-
panded form, his 'Histoire des Institutions Politiques de l'Ancienne
France,'a task which has, since his death, and since the appearance
of Mr.HerbertFisher'sadmirablearticle, publishedin this REVIEW
in January 1890,2beencompletedby his friendand formerpupil }I.
CamilleJullian. The publicationof this work,and of two volumes
l Fustel has been accused of borrowing the idea of his work from Maine's Ancient
Law, published in 1861, and this book was certainly on his shelves at the time of his
death (see Catalogue des Livrcs . . . de feu M,2. Fustel de Coulangcs, Picard, 1890,
p. 16); but it is sufficient to compare the two volumes to realise the absurdity
of the charge. Besides, as Fustel himself candidly confessed, he could not in 1864
read English, and the first French translation of Maine did not appear till ten years
later (P. Guiraud, Fustel de Coulanges, p. 37). At the risk of reproof, it may
be suggested that the work of Fustel's countryman Flaubert, Salanrmnbo, which
appeared in 1862, is much more likely to have been the inspiration. But of the
originality of the book there can be little question, and M. Jules Simon is justified in
describing it, in the words of Montesquieu, as 'prolem sine matre creatam.'
2 Fustel de Coulanges, ENGLISH HISTORICAL V.
IEYIEW, 1-6.
VOL. XII.-NO. XLVI. P

3. 210 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN April
of detachedstudies,3chiefly dealing with the same subject, and the
appearance of a biography by MI.Paul Guiraud,4together with
various French 'appreciations,' by MMI.Jules Simon,5 Albert
Sorel,6 Gabriel Monod,7 Edouard Sayous,8 and others, seem to
renderit possible to form some probableestimateof the rankwhich
Fustel is likely to occupy as an historian.
It is very certain, despite the judgment of M. Monod,9that
Fustel himself would desire to be judged by his work as a
medievalist. Though he does not appear to have ever formally
repudiated ' La Cite Antique,' though indeed he refers to it with
somethingof satisfaction in the last pages which he published,'0
he had, in fact, totally abandoned methodswhich alone rendered
the
it possible for such a book to be written. The Fustel of 1864 puts
to himself the question-
Quelsouvenir peut-ilnous resterde ces gen6rations ne nousont
qui
paslaiss6un seul texte 6crit?
And he answersit thus :-
le
Heureusement, passene meurt jamaiscompletement l'homme.
pour
L'hommepeutbien l'oublier, maisil le garde toujoursen lui. Car,tel
qu'ilest lui-inme h chaque il
epoque, est le produit le resum6 toutes
et de
les 6poques ant6rieures.S'il descend son ame,il peuty retrouver
en et
ces
distinguer diff6rentes 6poquesd'apresce quechacuned'ellesa laiss6
en lui."
The Fustel of later years was never weary of protesting against
the applicationof such a doctrine to the study of history.
Yet we may very well doubt whether nature had fitted him
for a medievalist. When we think of the MiddleAges, with their
credulity, their blind acceptanceof inconsistent beliefs,their vague-
ness and incompleteness,their indifferenceto orderand symmetry,
their gross materialism,their passion for display, their illiteracy,
we are compelledto ask at the outset whether Fustel was the man
to make such a period live before us. A classic to the finger-tips,
sceptical,logical,definite,with an exquisitesense of style, untouched
by gross ambitions, dignified, self-controlled, he approaches his
materials with the air of a critic, rather than with the frank delight
of an artist whose soul goes out in sympathy with his subject. We
read his books,and we are tempted to say-The MiddleAges are
NouveElesRccherches sur quclqucs Probldmes d'Histoire (1891); Questions His-
toriques (1893). The Recherches sur quelques Problemes d'Histoire appeared in 1885,
during its author's lifetime. 4 Fustel de Coulanges. Hachette, 1896.
Minmoires l'Academie des Sciences, xviii. 33-72.
de
* Ibid. pp. 185-230. 7 BevueIlistorique, xli. 277-85.
' Acaddemi de Besanfon: Rcntrde Solennellc, 1890, pp. 41-51.
* Op. cit. p. 279.
'o La Monarchic Fralnqe, Preface, p. ii. He seems, however, to have given his
the
contemporaries impressionthat he regarded as a juvenileessay (AlbertSorel,
it
op. cit. p. 214). "2 La Citd Anttiguc, Introduction, pp, 4, 5.

4. 1897 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN 211
not here. All these things may have existed in the MiddleAges;
now and again a statesman or a speculatormay have seen them.
But they formed no substantial part of the life of the average
man. And then we ask ourselveswhy Fustel cameto deal with such
a subject. He began his careeras a teacher of rhetoricand ancient
history; these were the subjectsof his study at Athens, of his teach-
ing at Amiens, at Strassburg,and at the Ecole Normaleat Paris.
Until the year 1870 (he was born in 1830) he gave no public proof
that the Middle Ages had specially interested him.'2 In the year
1874 he issued the first volume of his great work. Where are we
to look for the causes of the change?
Even the sternestrepudiatorof the a priori methodcouldhardly
distrust the suggestion that the war with Germany was, of all
things, the event most likely to work a spiritual revolutionin the
mind of a Frenchman of the years 1870-4. But there is no need
to resort to the a priori method. Until the year 1870, Fustel's pub-
lished writings are occupied entirely with problemsof the ancient
world. That he was profoundlymoved by the war itself is manifest
from the facts that he took public part in the questionsof the hour,
and that he had preparedhimself to write its history.13 From the
year 1870 onwardsthere came in rapid succession from his pen a
series of articles dealing directly, or by obvious reference,with the
political questions of the day.'" They are inspired by a depth of
passion quite alien from the scientific calm of his earlier writings.
The passion is controlled and obscured by the unbending dignity
of a classical style; but it is unmistakablythere, and its influence
serves to add a human interest to works which profess to be the
abstract voice of history. Fustel had passed through the long
agony of the war, and had come out of it with a burning desire to
rescue his country from the abyss of despair into which she had
fallen-to recreateher abandonedself-respect. For his life's work
he set himself to refute the gigantic calumny that France was a
degradedand enslaved provinceof the Roman empire, enlightened
12 It is, however, right to say that some of his most characteristic views on
the
barbarian conquests are to be found in the unpublished notes of the lectures delivered
before the empress in 1870 (see Jules Simon, op. cit. p. 51). M. Monod (Revue
Blistorique, xli. 283) carries others back to the Strassburg period.
13
Guiraud, p. 177.
1 L'Alsace est-elle Allemande ou Franeaise ?
(1870), La Politique d'Envalzissement
(1871), both reprinted in Questions Historiques (1893); Les Libertes Comnnunales
en Europe (1871), L'Invasion Germanique au V"e Siecle (1872), both in the Revue des
Deux Mondes; De la Manigre d'ecrire Z'Histoire en France et en Allemagne (1872), in
Questions Historiques. It is much to be regretted that M. Jullian has not thought fit
to reprint the articles entitled L'Organisation de la Justice dans Z'Antiquitdet les
Temps Modernes, which appeared in the Bevute des Deux Mondes in 1871. It is true
that parts of them have been incorporated"into La Monarchie Franque, but it is
only after reading the articles themselves that we fully realise what we have lost by
their author's death. What would we not have given for his matured exposition of
the Fors de Bearn and the Olim, of Pierre des Fontaines and Jean Bouteiller ?
P2

5. 212 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AN HISTORIAN April
AS
from time to time by the outpourings of Teutonic freedom,but
sadly apt to fall again into the darkness of hopeless and vicious
bondage. To this end he undertookto reconstructthe MiddleAges.
He wentinto the war,aphilosopher,he came out of it a patriot.'5 He
still wore the judge's robes,but he had in truth becomean advocate,
and an advocateall the more dangerous that he still assumed the
tone of impartiality. In this character he displayeda mastery of
his art, a resource, a vigour, a subtlety, which rendered him a
most formidable opponent; and, after a short experience of his
powers,few could be found willing to measure swordswith him.16
It is no part of our present object to inquire how far Fustel has
succeededin his task of raising up a generation of high-mindedand
powerful teachers and students, or to examine to what extent the
splendidwork produced by French men of letters in the last two
decades is indebted to his inspiration. We have here rather to
consider how far the fundamental change of 1870 has influenced
Fustel's own writings, and affectedtheir value.
When a controversialist undertakesto write history, he incurs
the risk of two special dangers. Having to deal with controversial
subjects,he may be tempted to deal only with controversialsub-
jects. Having to decipherevidence,he may be temptedto read into
it his own prepossessions. How far did Fustel succumbto these
temptations?
It would not be just to say that lie deals only with controversial
questions. If he occasionally uses expressions17 which would lead
us to believe that, to his thinking, the province of the historian
includes the whole field of social life, Fustel practicallyaccepts the
current modern doctrinethat history is the recordof states. He
accordinglyconfineshis attention mainly to the ostensible machi-
nery of government, and to those institutions-e.g. systems of
landownership-which,in medievalstates, exercised directinfluence
a
upon governmental machinery. He does not profess to describe
the development of religious beliefs,the variations of manners, the
growth and decline of literatureand other arts, or even those pro-
cesses of commercialand industrialdevelopmentwhich are as much
institutions as are political organs.18 He only alludes in an inci-
15 Though he did not take part in so-called practical politics, Fustel was not with-
out concrete views on political questions. One of his most interesting convictions is
that a republican form of government is incompatible with democratic principles.
See the account of his views in Guiraud, cap. iv.
"I An admirable specimen of such
unwillingness is to be found in Schroder's
Lehrbuch der Deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, p. 48, n. 19, on the Germanic Mark. In
other places Dr. Schroder appears to quote Fustel as an authority for doctrines to
which he (Fustel) was diametrically opposed.
" (L'histoire) 'est la science des societes humaines' (L'Alleu et le Domlaine
Rural, Introd. p. 4).
" There is an interesting
passage on medieval commerce in La Monarchie Franzqte
(pp. 254-64). But Fustel does not deal with the subject systematically.

6. 1897 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN 213
dental way to battles, sieges, and internationalrelations. Individuals
appearto interest him little, unless they happen to be authorsof
documents. He apologises for relating the history of Childeric.19
Although an occasional word reveals the fact that he has a distinct
appreciation of a Dagobert or a Charles the Bald,20 the reader may
turn page after page of his books without lighting upon a name or
a date. It is quite safe to say that he betrays no interest in indivi-
dual character, regarded as an objective fact. With him individuals
are merely regrettable essentials of historical developements. He
seems almost to forget that societies, even political societies, are
composed, after all, of human beings, and that, in rudimentary
societies, the influence of individfals is often very great. But, in
his chosen province, he goes over the whole ground, carefully de-
scribing, piece by piece, the framework of the state at a given period,
and it is in many cases only by an increase of vitality, a deepening
rigour of demonstration, that the reader, otherwise unacquainted
with the course of controversy, becomes aware that Fustel is mar-
shalling an argument rather than depicting an institution. In his
minor works, of course, he throws off the mask: many of them are
avowedly polemics. But in his History there are proportion,
balance, completeness.
Herein lies, in fact, the danger of the situation. The historians
of the nineteenth century have fairly agreed in describing the Frank
empire as the inauguration of a new epoch, in which old things were
cast away. In their view the civilisation of the Roman world dis-
appeared, and modern Europe slowly grew out of virgin soil. The
primitive customs of the German tribes, spread abroad by the
Violkerlanderuzng, replaced the elaborate system of Roman law; the
invaders settled down as feudal overlords of a conquered race, whom
they treated as outside the political pale, and whose lands they
distributed amongst themselves; communal ownership of the soil
replaced the Roman system of individual proprietorship; justice
was no longer meted out by imperial functionaries, but issued from
the mouths of assembled freemen; the Merovingian or Karolingian
king was merely a tribal chief, bound to consult his followers on all
questions of policy, and to accept their decision; men no longer
groaned under the oppressive omnipotence of a centralised despotism,
nor wallowed in the vices of an effete civilisation, but rejoiced in
the freedom of self-government and the innocence of primitive
simplicity.
According to Fustel, the Teutonic invasion (if invasion it can be
called) was the gradual incorporation of petty handfuls of brigands
into a gigantic system of administration in which they were soon
19 L'Invasion Germanique, 472.
p.
20 Les Articles de Kiersy (Nouvelles Recherches, p. 458).

7. 214 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN April
lost.21 There was no Volkerwanderung at all, but merely a roam-
22
ing about of small companiesof mercenaries,perpetuallyfighting
against one another, and willing to sell themselves to the highest
bidder.23 The chief of one of these companiesmanaged,by a lucky
accident, to seize the administrative machineryof north-eastern
Gaul, and to use it as a means of extorting money from the pro-
vincials.24 But Clovia had no policyother than that of fightingwith
rival chiefs of kindredblood. Owingmainlyto the advantageof being
able to pose as a Roman official,25 succeeded in conqueringhis
he
rivals; but his reign, and those of his successors,had no influence
on the institutions of the countrieswhich nominallyobeyedthem,26
and which graduallyfell into anarchy under their incapablerule2'7
The officiallanguage of the Merovingsis the Latin of the imperial
chancery; the common speech of their day, the Gallo-Romanof
the lower empire.28 Their court is modelled on the palatium of
Constantinople.29The Frankish graf is the Roman comes,and the
comitatlus the Roman civitas; 30 the rachimbiurgiare the assessores
of the Roman governor, and they have no voice in judgment.3
The Merovingiankingship is purely hereditary; for the Merovings
treated the kingdomas a piece of property.32 There are no race
distinctions in this epoch;33 and there is no proof of any general
confiscation of lands by a conquering people.34 The alleged 'per-
sonality' of the laws is based, not on descent, but on social posi-
tion: the francus is a freeman (ingenuus) and the romanuzs en-
an
franchisedslave.35 The one original Germanidea, that of universal
military service,36is of no avail to resist the process of decay; and
the accession of the house of Pepin is no resurrectionof German
genius, for Pepin is partly Roman (or at least Gallo-Roman)by
descent, and Charles the Great draws his inspiration from
Rome and Constantinople, not from the forests of Germany.37
Finally, feudalism itself is a product not of the fifth century, but
of the ninth; and if the immunitas is a confession by the Karo-
lingian monarchs of their inability to keep their own officials in
the
check,38 prccarium and the patronatus are social abuses against
which the legislators of Byzantium have for centuries thunderedin
vain.39 It is feudalism and not the barbarians which abolishes the
21
L'Invasion Germaniquc, pp. 317-20.
22 23
Ibid. p. 340. Ibid. pp. 306-11. " Ibid. pp. 481-8.
25 Ibid. p. 495. 6 Ibid. bk. ii. capp. xiv.-xvi.
27
Transformations de la Royaute, bk. i. capp. ii.-v.
28 L'Invasion 29 La
Germanigqe, p. 545. Monarchic Franque, cap. viii.
30 Ibid. 196-216. 31 Ibid.
pp. pp. 350-78, and Recherches, pp. 423-99.
32 Ibid.
pp. 33-50. 33 L'Invasion Germanique, c. xv.
34 L'Alleu, pp. 149-50.
35 De l'InAgalite du Wergeld dans les Lois Franqucs (Nouvelles Recherches,
p.
361); La Monarchie Franque, p. 283. 36 Ibid.
cap. xii.
37
Transformations de la Royante, bk. ii. cap. ii.
38 Les Origines dueSystUne Fodal, c. xvi. 39 Ibid. c. iv.

8. 1897 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN 215
western empire; and the deathblow of that empire is not the
victory of Odoacer,40 the treaty of Verdun.41
but
Now all this, or a great part of it, may be true; and it is, in
fact, very little more than a restatement of the 'views put forward
by the abbe Dubos in the ' Discours Preliminaire' prefixedto his
'Histoire Critique,'publishedat the commencementof the eight-
eenth century.42 But it should be borne in mind that almost
everyassertion which it implies is strenuouslydenied by one or an
other memberof a distinguishedschoolof modernhistorians,which
Fustel chooses to brandwith the title of 'Germanist,' but which,in
fact, includes not only G. L. von Maurer,Waitz, Zoepfl,Eichhorn,
Lamprecht, Schroder, Sohm, Gfrorer,Freeman, Junghans,43 and
possibly even Stubbs and Brunner, but Michelet, Thierry, Viollet,
Glasson, Th6venin, Armand Riviere, Arbois de Jubainville, and
Laveleye. It is time, however, that we returned from Fustel's
conclusionsto his methods.
And the other danger into which a controversialistis likely
to fall, in his writing of history, is, in fact, a danger against which
Fustel has virtuously attempted to guard himself by the adop-
tion of one of his most characteristicdoctrines. In the writing of
history, he urges again and again, we must limit ourselves rigidly
to the evidenceof texts. What do the documents tell us ? That
and that alone is history. History is not a matter of imagination,
it is a matter of observation: it is inductive, not deductive.
We may admit at once that the study of documentsis, with
Fustel, no mere quotationof haphazard extracts, but a reasoned
and minute questioning, comparison, and interpretation of an
immensemass of written evidence. The question still remains-Is
this touchingconfidence writtentestimonywarranted? Andthis
in
question is, in effect, the questionof the comparative value of direct
and indirect evidence.
Now the great objectionto indirect evidence is that it may be
misinterpreted. It can hardlybe wilfullymisleading,or prejudiced.
But direct evidencemay be open to all these objections. We know
for a fact that the definitionof forgeryhas varied from time to
time; and that, when the offencewas treated as a matter of eccle-
siasticaljurisdiction,the rules on the subjectwere such as a modern
judge wouldhardly approve. Manya medieval monasteryretained
in its service a useful officialwhom we should scarcelybe far wrong
40 Les Origines du Systeme Fdodal, c. iv.
41
Transformations de la Royaut4, bk. iv. c. 5.
42 Histoire
Critique de l'Vtablissement de la Monarchie Franloise dans les Gaules.
Amsterdam, 1734.
43
Junghans's work (Die Geschichte der Frainkischen Kunige Childerich znd
Chlodovech), published in 1857, contains more than one of Fustel's ideas. But the
ninth chapter, in which its author summarises his conclusions, is a good example
of the legend which Fustel set himself to destroy. It has been translated into French
by G. Monod.

9. 216 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN April
in describingas a forgerin ordinary. The famous doctrine that
the end justifies the means was here very much in point. If a
hostile claim were made to lands which had been for ages in the
possessionof a great abbey, are we to supposethat the absence of
an original charter of gift would be allowedto stand in the way of
a successful defence? On the day of trial the documentwould be
forthcoming, and, in an age ignorant of the modern science of
diplomatic,would probablybe accepted as conclusive. We have
heard of forged decretals,and forgeddonations,of Simonides and
Shapira; and the applicationof critical tests is every day reducing
the number of those medieval documentswhich we can accept as
authentic in the strictest sense. We have in effect,according to
KarlPertz,44 some 120 genuineroyalchartersof the whole Mero-
but
vingian epoch, and of these only forty-eightsurvivein their original
form;45 all the rest are copies, which may, or may not, have been
actually taken from the originals. Again, are we to supposethat a
pious chronicler,detailing the doings of a monarchor great feuda-
tory, who had distinguished himself by his munificence to the
chronicler'shouse, would give quite their due prominenceto those
acts of his hero which were likely to prejudice the latter in the
eyes of posterity? And in this connexion it is not unworthy of
notice that a very large proportion,perhaps five-sixths,of the docu-
ments which profess to date from the ninth and four preceding
centuries, are of ecclesiasticalorigin. The need for caution is here
obvious.
But it may be said that these are vague charges. Let us look,
then, at a concreteexamplerecently exposedby the late M. Julien
Havet, whose early death has robbed France of one of her most
promisingscholars. Until the year 1885 historians (Fustel among
the number46) had consideredas one of the most valuable texts of
Merovingiantimes a document purportingto be the testament of
a certain Perpetuus,bishop of Tours in the fifth century, the con-
tents of which are expressly described by his celebratedsuccessor,
Gregory. This document was believed to be reproduced in an
alleged 'copy' discovered, after his death, among the papers of
Jer6me Vignier, a priest of the Oratory,who died in 1661, and pub-
lished by Ach6ryshortly afterwards.47 It is true that this copy,
4
Monumenta Germ. vol. i. Prol. p. xi. It is true that J. Havet suggests ((Elluves,
i. 2, n.) that Pertz has relegated to his list of spurtia documents which deserve a
better fate. On the other hand Havet disputes at least one important charter which
Pertz accepts as genuine. We must, of course, remember the private charters, not
printed by Pertz. But, according to Fustel himself (L'Allcu, p. 114), the total
number does not exceed 300; and, of course, many of these are not originals.
45 Havet ((Euvrcs, i. 2) reduces these numbers to ninety and thirty-seven respec-
tively. With him agrees Giry (Manuel de Diplomatique, p. 706).
4l L'Alleu et Ic Domaine
iRural, p. 14.5, n.; NTouvellcs Recechrches, 229, n.
p.
47 Vetcrum aliquot
Scriptorum . . . Spicilcgium. The document in question is

10. 1897 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AN HISTORIAN 217
AS
written by Vignier himself, purportedto have been made from the
original; but the original was never found. Notwithstandingthis
suspicious circumstance,and despite the fact that Roth had, in
1850, thrown a doubt on the genuineness of other pieces alleged to
have been discovered by Vignier,48 authenticity of the alleged
the
testament seems to have been unquestioned till Julien Havet took
the matter in hand. This learned critic had very little difficultyin
showing (1) that the documentfound among Vignier's papers did
not, in fact, correspondwith the description given by Gregoryof
Tours; (2) that it grossly violated several cardinalrules of Roman
law as that law stood in the fifth century; (3) that, on the other
hand, it was perfectly consistent with the provisionsof the later
Romanlaw, which was studiedin Francein the seventeenthcentury;
(4) that the language of the document,especially in the names of
places, was anachronistic if attributed to the fifth century, but
accorded accurately with the nomenclature of the seventeenth.
Pushing his researchesstill further, Havet, assisted later on by
Battifol, Wattenbach, and Ingold, seems to have proved pretty
clearly that Jerome Vignier was an ingenious man of letters who
amused his leisure hours by fabricatingdocuments,not necessarily
with intent to deceive, but with the result of deceiving. Fustel,
who has enunciated some rather dangerous doctrine on the value
of non-contemporary copies,49protests against this attempt to dis-
credit the memory of a pious saranTt,
mainly on the ground of its
improbability.50 But here we must remind Fustel of his own
methods. And, after all, no one accuses Vignier of more than a
jen d'esprit.
But, if the historian had only to guard against fabrications,the
case against Fustel's theory of evidence would not be so strong as
it is. The study of diplomatic has made such strides in recent
years, that we may hope before very long to have something like
an authentic canon, upon which it will be possible to rely with
confidence. It is the unintentional and unavoidable misleading
which constitutes the real danger. A documentmay not have in-
tended to say what it appearsto say; or, on the otherhand, it may
omit all descriptionof essentials which, for some reason or another,
its framer did not deem it necessary to describe. Finally, the
absenceof documentsmay be as misleadingas the existence of false
documents. And it is just in these cases that the interpretationof
the controversialistis likely to be warped. A very curious example
of the first case has recently arisen.
Until recent years, it was the rule for editors of Merovingian
in v. 105-8 of the edit. of 1665. Vignier was the originator of the marriage
myth of
the Maid of Orleans.
s4 Alsatia,
1855, pp. 94-5. P La Monarchie Frangte, pp. 21-3.
m' Nouvellcs Recherches,
p. 247, n.

11. 218 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS ANLHISTORIAN April
documentsto readthe openingwordsof a royaldiplomathus: N. rex
vir
francorumn illutster. The practice was adoptedby Dom Bouquet,
Mabillon,Letronne, Karl Pertz, Pardessus, and Jules Tardif, and
has become classical. As a matter of fact, the words vir inluster
do not appearin full in the protocolof any of the original charters
whichwe possess; but, wheremoderntranscribers have placedthem,
the originals show a sort of monogram (siglum), somewhat difficult to
decipher,which appearsto representthe letters V. INL., or, perhaps,
V. INLT.51 Now, vir inluster was a well-recognised official title of the
later Roman empire, and belonged, amongst other officials,to the
magistri militum. The office of magistcr milit,nmwas frequently held
by barbariansin the fourth and fifth centuries; and, though there
seems to be no positive proof that the early Merovingsactually
served as magistri milituLm,Fustel's theory is that the formula N.
rexfrancorum vir inzlusteris merely an adaptation by the Merovin-
gian chancelloror referendariusof the Roman formula,N. magister
militmnl inlutster. From this and other evidence he drawsthe
vir
conclusionthat the early Merovingsconsidered themselves the in-
heritors of the Roman empire.52 But Julien Havet denies that
V. INL. signifiesvir inluster. Accordingto him it is an abbreviation
of viris inlustribus, and refers to the addresses of the diploma; while
the undoubted appearance of viriinlusterin the Karolingiandocu-
ments he attributes to the habits of Pepin's mayoral chancery.53
Havet's arguments, though ingenious and interesting, and though
supportedby the adherence of 1MMI. d'Arboisde Jubainville54 and
Giry,~5appear by no means conclusive; and Fustel has answered
them with vigour.56 But it is obvious that evidencecapableof such
widelydifferentinterpretationby eminent critics can hardlybe con-
sideredabsolutelysafe. In sobertruth, no perfectlyobjectiveaccount
of any documentcan be given, except by means of a facsimile repro-
duction. The critic, the translator, even the copyist, necessarily leaves
sometracesof himself in his work; and all the formidableapparatus
of referencewith which Fustel adorns his pages will not wipe away
the memoryof the essay 'De la Maniere d'ecrirel'Histoireen France
51 See facsimiles in Letronne
(Diplomata et Chartac Merovingicae Aetatis, Nos.
I. IV. VI. VII., &c.) To an outsider No. I. looks much more like inluster vir than vir
inluster. But the latter is the official rendering.
' La Monarchic Franzqe, pp. 123-7. 53 CELnves, 1-1l.
i.
5< Deux
Manidres d'ecrire l'Histoire, cap. vi. ? 6. This book, which was pub-
lished in 1896, contains many severe strictures on Fustel's accuracy. These strictures
are, however, open to the very grave objection that they are mainly based on the
second (1877) edition of Fustel's book, although the definitive edition had appeared
long before M. d'Arbois de Jubainville's criticism was published in solemn form. The
passages selected do not appear in the definitive edition, and the writer cannot trace
them in the first. Unhappily, the second edition is not easily met with in England.
5s Manuel de Diplomatiquce,pp. 318, 708, &c.
5S Les Titres Roimains de la Monarchie Franque, Nouvelles Recherches, pp. 219-74.
Fustel is supported by Pirenne (Compte rendzt de la Commissiolt Royale d'Histoire,
4e ser. xiii., 1885) and H. Bresslau (Neues Arctiv, xii. 355-60, 1887). But the verdict
of the majority seems to be against him.

12. 1897 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN 219
et en Allemagne.' Nay, it ispossible to holdthat Fustel's practice of
referringexclusivelyto original documents in his foot notes is both
unfair and inconvenient. It should always be borne in mind that
Fustel's works are written for the general public,not for specialists.
They are didactic, not merely erudite. And it may very well be
questioned whether, for example, Lehuerou is not a safer guide
for the layman than the 'Notitia Dignitatum,' and MM. Emile
Desjardins and Auguste Longnon than Dicuil and the monk of
Colmar; while it is hardly fair to these modern authors (two of
whom, at least, were to be found on Fustel's bookshelves that57)
Fustel's readers should be left to assume that he for the first time
had establishedthe striking similarity betweenthe administrative
divisions of Roman and Frankish Gaul.
But where Fustel's theoryappearsat its weakestis in its failure
to allow for the absence of documents. Himself rarely without a
pen in his hand, he hardly seems to realise that the universal
passion for records is a very modern thing, and that men who
labouredpainfully at the productionof runes or majusculeswould
contrive, so far as possible, to do without such irksome assistance.
The story of Theodoricand the stencil plate is an illustrationmuch
to the point. The true recorder of early times is the memory,'8
not the pen; and the historian who refuses to see anything more
in the early MiddleAges than the recordsof scribesis apt to obtain
not merely an imperfectbut a distortedview of his subject. Leav-
ing out of account the accidental and deliberate destructions of
documentswhich are continuallytaking place, and the comparative
rarity of medieval documents,we must always rememberthat the
nearer to primitive conditionswe go, the larger the proportionof
human transactions which are not recordedin writing at all. And
it would be as rash to deny that such transactions took place,
becauseno written evidence of them is in existence, as to assert
that there were no births and deaths in England before the six-
teenth century,on the groundthat the registers begin at that time.
To realise the weaknessof Fustel's theory, we have only to imagine
the case of a man blind from his birth. Fustel would not allow
that he could knowanything of the world around him, except what
he was expressly told. The sounds of common life, the hum of
bees, the song of birds, the rustle of leaves, the noise of hurrying
feet, would be terriblyliable to misinterpretation. And yet it may
be questionedwhether the blind man would not get from them his
truest idea of the unseen world. Now suppose him restored to
sight. In the objects which he saw around him would he not
5' Catalogue, pp. 37, 40.
5S The abbe Dubos is the author (op. cit. Preliminaire, p. 15) of a rather startling
doctrine that oral tradition is less vivid in primitive than in advanced communities.
The doctrine can hardly be accepted without proof.

13. 220 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN April
really have far betterevidenceof whathappenedduringhis blindness
than all the documents of that period? That is just our position
with regard to the MiddleAges. We cannot see them, but we can
hear the echoes of their life struggle; we can also see the life
which they have produced.
This criticism appears to apply with especial force to one of the
most famous of Fustel's many controversies,the controversyas to
the nature of the land system among the Germansof the fifth and
sixth centuries. As is well known,he holds that the documentsdo
not prove the theory, adopted by so many distinguished writers,
that the German system was a system of co-proprietorship the in
village or clan. There he is doubtlessright, and his opponentshave
made a profoundmistake in attempting to prove by documents a
theory which, if true, almost presupposesthe absence of documents.
Furthermore it is quite possible that in Gaul, on which Fustel's
eyes were mainly fixed, the firm establishment of a system of
individualownershipby the Roman law may have proveda barrier
too strong for the national prejudicesof the Germans,few or many,
who settled there. But Fustel goes further than this, and asserts
that the documents disprovethe existence of co-proprietorship not
only in Gaul, but in what is now Germanyand (by implication)in
Teutonic Europe generally.59 But is it not possible that, along-
side of this system of written conveyancing, applicable only to
individual ownership, and (apparently)little practised except by
royalty and the church,there may have existed a system of popular
oral conveyancing; just as alongside of the record-keepingroyal
courts in England there existed for long centuries many other law
courts,whosehistorywe can now but dimly trace, though it may well
be that they played a very large part in the daily lives of ordinary
men ? It would appear that the earliest land charter of private
origin known to exist relative to Swedishland is of the year 1208.60
Are we to conclude from this fact (1) that there were no previous
transfersof private land; (2) that previoustransferstook place, but
were effected by oral procedure; or (3) that there were previous
documentarytransfers which have been lost ? Either of the two
first hypotheses would militate against Fustel's theory; the last is
no more probable than the second. Take Fustel's own tests of com-
munal ownership. They are heredity, inalienability, exclusion of
women from the inheritance.6' But are not these featuresjust the
very reasons why we should not expect documentarysurvivals of
59
This, at any rate, is the impression likely to be formed by a reading of his cele-
brated essay Le ProblUme des Origines de la Propriiet Fonciere, published in 1889.
In his earlier essay, Les Germains connaissaicnt-ils la Pro2)rite des Terres ?, he is
much more cautious (cf. Recherches, p. 315). But even there, as M. Simon says,
'il ne l'affirmait pas, mais il le croyait' (op. cit. p. 68).
o6 Diplonatarium Suecanum, ed. Liljegren, i. 159.
"' Recherches,p. 234. Fustel speaks here only of alienation by testament. But

14. 189T FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN 221
such a system ? In fact it is outside documentsaltogether,it is in
speech (not forgettingVinogradoffsconspicuouswarning),customs,
institutions, geographicalfeatures, survivals of all kinds, that we
must look for evidenceof the communalsystem. Happily there is
much more history in the world than can be put on the shelvesof a
library; and an afternoonin the fields or an hour in an old building
may teachthe historianas much as a volumeof charters. Upon the
great subject of the survival of intermixed lands, Fustel says
virtually nothing; and though the Allinenden which have, beyond
question, existed in central Europe since the thirteenth century
may be, as he suggests, the creation of the twelfth, we are entitled
to ask that this view, no less than its opponent, should be proved.
But in this great question of land ownership Fustel did not even
know all the documents. He dismisses the English evidencein a
way which seems to show that he had not much acquaintancewith
it;G2 of the Scandinavian evidence he was avowedly ignorant.63
And yet, while we may fully admit the force of his remarkson the
value of so-called comparative studies, we shall probably think
that, in a matter of this kind, the evidenceof England and Scandi-
navia is of considerablevalue for the early history of the Germans.
Now the English documents,if they do not expresslydescribecom-
munal ownership,at least make pretty clear allusions to it; while
the Scandinavian codes expressly show us, not merely the com-
munal village, but an oral system of conveyancing. How very far
from conclusiveFustel's reasoningon this great subjectis, may be
gathered from the most cursory glance at Professor MIaitland's
latest work.64
Somethinghas now been said of Fustel's conclusionsand of his
materials. It remains to allude to one other equally striking
feature of his work. He was, of course, a scientific as opposedto
an epical historian. But even the scientific historian has a choice
of methods. He may write lengthwise or crosswise,perpendicularly
or horizontally. Each plan has its advantages. The formeris the
more lifelike, more apt to find readers; and, after all, the greatest
historian can accomplish little unless he is read. On the other
hand, the syntheticalwriter is so apt to be overcomeby the volume
of his material, that he generally compromisesby confining his
story to the actions of a few prominentmen or to a particularside
of human activity; and his readers thus miss that enlargementof
horizon which should be one of the chief benefits derived from
the study of history. Fustel, aware of this danger, and deeply
distrusting the allurements of synthesis, pinned his faith to the
presumably alienation inter vivos, at least of specific land, would be equally incon.
sistent with community.
62 63 Reche?rccs, p. 307, n.
Questions Historiqgues,p. 101.
61
Domesday Book and beyond. Cambridge, 1897.

15. 222 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN April
analytical method: Une loingue et scrltpuleuseobservationdit detail
est done la seule voie qui puisse conduire qulelquerue d'ensemble.
Pour un jour de synthese il faut des ainees d'analyse.A5 And, in
effect, Fustel's great work is nothing more or less than a series of
detached sectional studies, the order in which they appear, or are
read, seeming to him of small importance.66 One may very well
ask whether this is history at all, even the history of institutions.
For institutions, no less than individuals, are alive, are subject to
the laws of growth and decay, and, at least in progressive societies
like those of western Europe, are continually developing. Any
process which treats them as rigid bodies is prima facie unsuitable
to the subject; and Fustel made a damaging admission when he
reminded his hearers that l'histoire est prcprement la science du
devenir.67 For the one quality which is conspicuously absent from
his works is movement. We are shown a series of pictures, exqui-
sitely drawn, of different periods and aspects of society. There are
the administrative systems of Roman Gaul, of the Merovings, of the
Karolings; the land systems of Roman Gaul, of Merovingian Gaul,
of Karolingian Gaul. But we do not see how or why the transfor-
mations are effected; we only realise that they have been effected.
A page of Fustel is to a page of Gibbon what a skeleton is to a
living body. We may perceive the mechanism better, but we pro-
bably get a less complete understanding of the animal.
A controversialist, but a controversialist incapable of subterfuge;
an historian who confines his attention to documents, but whose
knowledge of documents is unrivalled; an analyst, but an analyst
of many subjects and many periods-what is the special value of
Fustel's work ?
It would seem natural to say that it is material for history,
rather than history itself. The distinction is important, and must
be taken as largely qualifying Fustel's famous dogma, that history
is not an art, but a science. The task of collecting, arranging, and
weighing evidence, of drawing from that evidence just conclusions,
is a scientific task. But the building up of a record which shall
faithfully reproduce the life of which these dead materials speak is
emphatically a work of art. History is necessarily subjective; it
is knowledge, not the materials from which knowledge is derived.
' La Gaule
Romzaine, Introd. p. xiii.
66
So puzzling, indeed, is the arrangement of Fustel's great work, that it may be
helpful to state here exactly how it appeared. The first volume was published in
1875, and was reprinted (with some alterations) in 1877. At this time the author
hoped to finish his work in two volumes. In 1888 appeared La Monarchie Franque,
in 1889 (but after the author's death) L'Alleu et ie Donzaine Rural, in 1890 Les
Origines du SystUmeFeodale, in 1891 La Gaule Romnaineand L'Invasion Germanique
(these last two being an expansion and reissue of the volume of 1875 and 1877), in
1892 Les Transformations de la Boyautd pendant V'Epoqie
" Les Carolingienne.
Origines du? Systeme Feodal, Introd. p. xv.

16. 1897 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN 223
But, looking a little closer, we seem to see that Fustel's work is
neither history nor the materials for history. He is not an editor
of documents,like Dom Bouquet, Le Long, Mabillon,Pertz, Le-
tronne, Champollion-Figeac,Roziere, Jules Tardif, or even like
Benjamin Guerard,whom he so much admired. He does not write
Urkundengeschichte. selects, extracts, compares, arranges in
He
line his beloved documents; and from them draws sharp and
pointed doctrines,which he supports by argument,and even by
invective. He is not content to establish the text and leave his
readers to draw their own conclusions. He does not even profess
to be a paleographer,and therein he lays himself open to obvious
criticism; for one who stakes his all on documentsought clearly to
be content with nothing less than the documentsthemselves. But
Fustel, unless speciallyattacked,is willing to accept the renderings
of the editors, whilst he rejects with scorn the conclusions of the
historians. He is a critic, but not a sceptic; a materialist,but not
a nihilist.
Surely, then, his value is clear. IIe has not written the defini-
tive history of the MiddleAges in western Europe; we may have
to wait many years for such a work,to witness the failure of many
attempts. But each historian, as he essays his task, will have to
reckon with Fustel de Coulanges. His work is a standard and a
test. No historian with a name to lose will henceforward venture
to quoteisolatedtexts in the haphazardfashionpractisedby Fustel's
immediatepredecessors;he has taught us that half a dozen passages
which appear to favour a certain view are not of great weightwhen
compared with several hundreds which manifestly contradict it.
And his clear and incisive analysis constitutes a steel barrierwhich
the riders of fanciful theorieswill find it difficultto clear. As each
future historian tells his story he will proceedwith the fear of
Fustel before his eyes, and many of the time-honoured legendswill
appear no more. There is not much left of Gaupp'stheory of the
law of the ChamavianFranks;68 for Fustel has shown that it rests
on a baseless identificationof the Chamaviof the fourth century
with the inhabitants of Hamaland in the ninth.69 The articles of
Kiersy will no longerproveto us (as they do to MMI. Thevenin7 and
EImile Bourgeois71)that Charles the Bald solemnly discussedeach
clause of his capitularieswith his assembledcouncil; forFustel has
shown that the alternation of question and answer is an arrange-
63 Lex FrancorumnChawmavorum (1855). The writer has not been able to see this
work, or the translation of it which appeared in the Notlvelle Revue de Droit Francrais
et Etranger for 1855. But Gaupp's views are expressly adopted by Sohm in his edition
of the text for the Monumenta Germaniac (Legunm tom. v. pp. 269-76, folio).
69 Quelquzes Remarques sur la Loi dite des Francs Chamnavcs(Nouvelles Re-
cherches, p. 408).
7o Lex et Capitula (Bibl. de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, fasc. 35, p. 154).
'7 Le Capitulairc de Kiersy-sur.-Oise, cap. iii.

17. 224 FUSTEL DE COULANGES AS AN HISTORIAN April
and
ment of a scribe,72 that capitulariesand answerswere separate
documents. We shall no longer see village communitywherever
we read the word mnarca; Fustel has examined every Frankish
for
document in which it occurs from the sixth century to the tenth,
and shown that in these cases it is only possible to translate it
either as a boundaryor as a private domain.73 The homo vligrans
will no longer walk for us as the would-bepartnerin a community
which will have none of him; for Fustel has reduced him to the
level of a commontrespasser.74We shall for the future be extremely
scepticalof any accountof land partitionby conqueringBurgundians
and Wisigoths; for Fustel has shown it to be extremelyprobable
that hospitalitas nothing more than the right to free quarters.75
was
And, finally, we shall no longer hastily translate villa as Gemeinde,
or even as township; for Fustel, in one of his most admirable
studies, has shown us that the villa was a very definite thing, and
that it was not the territorybelonging to a group of cultivators,
but the absolute propertyof a landowner.76
The man who has done all this may be an iconoclast; but he is
much more. He has set the writers of history on a newroad; and
we shall be much surprisedif the student in future years does ndt
find, as he looks backward,that a great gulf divides the historians
of the twentieth century-those at least who treat of the Middle
Ages-from their predecessorsof the nineteenth. If this prophecy
prove correct,the bridge which spans the gulf will be found to be
the work of Fustel de Coulanges.
EDWARDJENKS.
72 Les Articles de. Kiersy
(Nouvelles Recherches, p. 420).
73 La Marche Germaniqquc (Rccherc7es, pp. 319-56).
:4 Etude str Ic Titre de la Loi Salique ' De migrantibus' (Nouvelles Recherc7es,
pp. 327-60). It must be admitted, however, that Fustel's interpretation of this
famous passage has been condemned by one of the most competent of modern critics
(Maitland, Domesday, p. 350, n.)
75 Sur 't Hospitalitd' dans la Loi des Burgondes
(ibid. pp. 314-26).
76 Le Colonat Romain
(Reche'chcs, pp. 1-186).