1700095660

1700095661 第一篇　查理曼及其继承者

1700095662

1700095663 1　查理曼

1700095664

1700095665 1.Lex Ripuaria（Ripuarian Law），36.11.M.G. LL.，5.231.

1700095666

1700095667 2.A cow is equated to 1 solidus. The expression “3 solidi，” which we find in one of the manuscripts, is obviously false, since an ox is counted as 2 solidi and a mare as 3. In a capitulary of Louis the Pious of the year 829，a cow is indicated in one place as the equivalent of 2 solidi.

1700095668

1700095669 3.（Note to the second edition）. The economic base of the Carolingian military organization is, as shown in Vol.Il, a barter economy. Alfons Dopsch, in his Economic Development of the Carolingian Period（Wirtschaftsentwicklung der Karolingerzeit），especially Vol. III, para.12，has recently claimed to prove that the generally accepted concept of this barter economy is incorrect and that there existed along with it a very considerable money economy. Consequently, he claims, the contrast between antiquity and the Middle Ages in this respect and in general is very overemphasized. I cannot agree with him. I find, on the contrary, the conclusions of my studies on the changes in military organization to be a new confirmation of the accepted concept. The transition from the Roman legionary to the medieval knight is not conceivable without the shift of the ancient money economy into a barter economy. See my review of Dopsch in the Deutsche Politik，26（1921）：620.“Römertum und Germanentum.”

1700095670

1700095671 4.The plebs urband（urban dwellers）were not considered as completely free in the Merovingian period. Brunner, German Legal History（Deutsche Recbtsgeschicbte），1：253，says: “We cannot determine with certainty how the decrease in freedom was expressed in a legal sense.”There can be no doubt that it is a question of the difference between the worrior and the nonwarrior. That point is not clear in Brunner because he believes, like Roth, in a general military obligation. According to the capitulary M.G. Capitularia Reg. Franc.，ed. Boretius，1：145，the tenant farmers were counted among the unfree men.

1700095672

1700095673 5.God. Kurth, in “The Nationalities in Auvergne”（“Les Nationalités en Auvergne”），Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l’Académie belgique，11（1899）: 769 and 4（1900）：224，proves with respect to Auvergne that no Franks at all settled there. In that region, even the great families holding the position of count were Romanics. Of almost all of the few Germans who appear in Auvergne, it can be proven that they did not settle there, except perhaps for a very few West Goths.

1700095674

1700095675 6.Numerous references in Guilhiermoz, Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse francaise, p.490.

1700095676

1700095677 7.Ancien Coutumier d’Anjou, Cited by Guilhiermoz, p.366.

1700095678

1700095679 8.Nithard IV, Chap.2.

1700095680

1700095681 9.Already explained by Boretius, Contributions to the Critique of the Capitularies（Beiträge zur Capitularienkritik），p.128，as a simple repetition from previous documents.

1700095682

1700095683 10.Cited by Baldamus in Tbe Military Organization under the Later Carolingians（Das Heerwesen unter den späteren Karolingern），p.12.

1700095684

1700095685 11.Hinkmar of Reims writes in the document against his nephew, the bishop of Laon（870）:“De hoc quippe vitio superbiae descendit quod multi te apud plurimos dicunt de fortitudine et agilitate tui corporis gloriari et de praeliis, atque, ut nostratum lingua dicitur, de vassaticis frequenter ac libenter sermonem habere, et qualiter agers si laicus fuisses irreverenter referre.”（“Certainly it comes from this sin of pride that many among the masses tell you to boast of your body’s strength and agility and of battles, and, as it is said in our language, to speak willingly and often with vassals and to reply disrespectfully, just as you would act if you had been a layman.”）I take this interesting extract of the document from Guilhiermoz, Essai sur l’origine de la noblesse française, p.438，where other examples of that special usage are also given.

1700095686

1700095687 12.Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond，1891，p.511.

1700095688

1700095689 13.When it is reported in the Annales Bertin, for the year 869 that for the garrison of a newly erected fort Charles the Bald called up one gastalds（scaramannus: warrior without a fief）from every 100 hides of land and a wagon with two oxen from every 1，000 hides, this does not give us any specific number, since it was not known at the court how many hides there were in each county. Consequently, this is only a very approximate reference, like the levy by groups.

1700095690

1700095691 14.In his German and French Constitutional History（Deutsche und französische Verfassungsgeschichte），Ernst Mayer has no doubt recognized the contradiction in the source material, but the solution that he gives in Vol.I, p.123，is impossible. He claims that on the Rhine, in Bavaria, and in Gothic Southern France only the Germans took the field, whereas berween the Seine and the Loire the general military obligation applied also to the Romans. One can imagine how such a Roman militia would have shown up between the Franks and the Goths！

1700095692

1700095693 15.That also applies when, as we later find prescribed in the Weissenburg service law and elsewhere, the ministeriale was supposed to be provisioned by the curia after the crossing of the Alps. Baltzer, pp.69，73. Waitz 8：162.

1700095694

1700095695 16.A manuscript of the Theodon Capitulary of 805，Chap.5，contains the sentence: “et ut servi lancea non portent, et qui invents fuerit post bannum hasta frangatur in dorso ejus”（“and that the unfree should not carry lances, and a spear should be broken on the back of whoever was found doing so after the order”）. Waitz, Verfassungsgeschichte，1st ed.，4：454，interprets that to mean that the common soldiers who followed their lords to war were absolutely forbidden to carry the lance as their individual weapon. This interpretation is not acceptable. That chapter has to do with the bearing of weapons in peacetime（“in patria”: “in one’s own country”）and with the suppression of feuds. Freemen were forbidden to carry arms（shield, lance, and armor）in peacetime, but no specific punishment was provided. In the case of serving men, this prohibition was backed by a threat of punishment.

1700095696

1700095697 17.The source passages are to be found in Prenzel, Contributions to the History of Military Organization under the Carolingians（Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kriegswesens unter den Karolingern），Leipzig dissertation，1887，p.34，and in Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte，4：455.

1700095698

1700095699 18.Multiple references are to be found in Guilhiermoz, p.245.

1700095700

1700095701 19.Annales Fuldenses（Annals of Fulda）for the year 894；Annales Altabenses（Annals of Niederalteich）for the year 1044：Thietmar，6：16.

1700095702

1700095703 20.Peez, in “The Travels of Charlemagne”（“Die Reisen Karls des Grossen”），Schmollers Jahrbücher fur Gesetzgebung，2（1891）：16，assembles all of Charlemagne’s travels and estimates that on the average he covered 1，100 miles each year of his reign. In the year 776 his travels amounted to almost 1，900 miles, and in 800 he covered almost 2，000 miles.

1700095704

1700095705 21.Imperial Courts in the Lippe, Rubr, and Diemel Areas（Reichshofe im Lippe-，Rubr-，und Diemelgebiet），1901. The Franks: Their System of Conquest and Settlement in the German Regions（Die Franken, ihr Eroberungsund Siedlungssystem im deutschen Volkslande），1904.

1700095706

1700095707 22.Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte，2：57 ff.，where all the source passages are also cited.

1700095708

1700095709 23.Daniels, in Manual of German Imperial and National Legal History（Handbuch der deutschen Reichs-und Staatenrechtsgeschichte），1：424，463，has already correctly observed that under the Merovingians the entire population cannot possibly have taken the oath. But his basis from the sources, on the other hand, has been correctly rejected by Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte，2d ed，3：296. The entire argument, however, arose from the erroneous interpretation of the basic concept, that is, of the Frankish people. Daniels was entirely right in believing that only the warriors took the oath, but he was in error in believing that this warrior class was already a class of vassals at that time. Waitz was right in his belief that the entire people（Volk）took the oath but incorrect in identifying this “people” with the population. As a result of our determination that the sources of the period are referring to the warriors（Kriegsvolk）when they say “people”（Volk），the entire dispute has become baseless. From the formal, juridical, and source-based viewpoints, Waitz is right; but objectively, in that the warrior class of the Merovingian period was the precursor of the vassal class of Carolingian times, Daniels is right.

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70009566e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]