of one town against another, and usurpation of
tyrants, who made themselves masters of the towns.
In short, they exactly resembled ancient Greece. The
arts were everywhere cultivated, and conspiracies
everywhere formed: but they had not yet learned
to fight as those people did at Thermopylae and Mar-
athon.
Look into Machiavelli's history of Castracani, the
tyrant of Lucca and Pistoia, in the time of Emperor
Louis of Bavaria, and you will find that the very
same designs, and the same successes, fortunate or
unfortunate, make the history of Italy. A private
family of Verona, named Scala, seized upon the
government about the end of the thirteenth century,
and kept possession of it for almost a hundred years.
In the year 1330 they subdued Padua, Vicenza, Tre-
viso, Parma, Brescia, and several other territories.
But in the fifteenth century there did not remain the
least vestige of their power. The Visconti and the
Sforzas, dukes of Milan, passed somewhat later in
review ; and disappeared also, never to return again.
Of that number of lords who divided among them
the territories of Romagna, Umbria, and Emilia,
there are at present but two or three families remain-
ing, and those subject to the pope.
1J2 Ancient and Modern History.
If you examine the annals of the Italian cities, you
will find that there was not one in which conspir-
acies were not carried on with as much art as that
of Catiline. It was impossible in those petty states
for the discontented to rise up in revolt, or defend
themselves by force of arms. Instead, they had
recourse to assassinations and poison. One mutiny
of the people raised up a new prince, and another
pulled him down. Thus, for example, the city of
Mantua passed successively from the hands of one
tyrant into those of another, till the establishment
of the family of Gonzaga in 1328.
Venice is the only one of these states that has con-
stantly preserved her liberty. This she owes to her
watery bulwarks, and the wise form of her govern-
ment. Genoa, the rival of Venice, frequently
engaged and at length triumphed over her toward
the end of the fourteenth century. But Genoa soon
afterward fell into decay, while Venice continued
rising till the reigns of Louis XII. and Emperor
Maximilian, when we shall see her filling all Italy
with dread, and the powers of Europe with jealousy ;
who all conspired for her destruction. Of all the
governments in Europe, that of Venice was the best
regulated, the most settled and uniform, and had
only one fundamental error, which, however, was
not considered as such by the senate: I mean, the
want of a counterpoise to the power of the nobles,
and a proper encouragement for the common peo-
ple. In Venice, a private citizen could never hope
State of Europe. 273
to rise by his merit, as in ancient Rome. It makes
the principal merit of the English government, since
the house of commons has had a share in the legisla-
tive power, that such a counterpoise is provided, and
the road to honor and dignity left open to all who
deserve them.
Pisa, which is at present only a depopulated city,
dependent on Tuscany, was in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries a famous republic and sent fleets
to sea as considerable as those of Genoa.
Parma and Placentia belonged to the Visconti;
the popes, after being reconciled to that family, hav-
ing granted them the investiture, as they would not
at that time ask it of the emperor, whose power in
Italy was daily diminishing. The house of Este,
which had produced Countess Mathilda, so famous
for her benefactions to the holy see, was possessed
at that time of Ferrara and Modena ; the former of
which it held of Emperor Otho I. ; but the holy see
still asserted a claim to it, and sometimes granted the
investiture of this as well as of several other states in
Romagna, which furnished an inexhaustible source
of trouble and confusion.
It happened that during the transmigration of the
holy see from the banks of the Tiber to those of the
Rhone, there existed two imaginary powers in
Italy the emperors and the popes from whom
all the other powers received the diploma which de-
termined their rights or their usurpations ; and even
after the holy see was again established in Rome,
Vol. 2518
274 Ancient and Modern History.
it remained without any real power ; and the emper-
ors continued practically forgotten till the time of
Maximilian. No foreign power at that time had any
territory in Italy ; for we cannot give that name to
the houses of Anjou and Aragon, the former of
which was established on the throne of Naples in
1266, and the latter in Sicily ever since the year 1287.
Thus Italy, rich and full of flourishing cities, and
moreover abounding with men of genius, might have
put herself in a condition to have rejected the yoke
of any nation. She had one advantage over even
Germany, which was, that no bishop, except the
pope, exercised any sovereign authority, and that,
the several states being governed by secular mas-
ters, were consequently much fitter for taking the
field.
If Italy was troubled with those divisions which
are sometimes the consequences of public liberty,
Germany was not in a more tranquil state, while the
lords were continually making pretensions to one
another's office. But as we have already observed,
Italy never formed a body, and Germany did. The
German phlegm has hitherto kept the constitution of
the state sound and entire; whereas Italy, though
as extensive as Germany, has never been able so
much as to form a constitution ; and merely from the
consequences of a superior understanding and cun-
ning, has suffered itself to be divided into a number
of weak states, which have been subjected by foreign
nations.
State of Europe. 275
Naples and Sicily, which, under the Norman con-
querors, made a formidable power, after the Sicilian
Vespers became two separate states, envious of each
other, and continually striving to injure each other.
The weakness of Joan I. first ruined the kingdom of
Naples and Provence, of which she was likewise
sovereign ; and the still more scandalous failings of
Joan II. completed its destruction. This princess,
who was the last of the race which St. Louis'
brother had transplanted into Italy, was, as well as
her kingdom, in a very low degree of credit during
her whole reign. She was sister of that Lancelot
who had made Rome tremble during those times of
anarchy which preceded the Council of Constance.
But Joan herself was far from being formidable.
Her amours and court intrigues proved the scandal
and ruin of her dominions. James of Bourbon, her
second husband, who had more than once experi-
enced her infidelity, was imprisoned for attempting
to complain, and thought himself very happy to
make his escape, and retire to conceal his grief, or,
as it is called, his shame, in a convent of Franciscan
friars, at Besangon.
This Joan II. proved, without her foreseeing it, the
cause of two great events. The first was the raising
of the Sforzas to the dukedom of Milan ; the other,
the war carried into Italy by Charles VIII. and Louis
XII.
The advancement of the Sforzas is one of those
caprices of fortunes which show us that this world
ij6 Ancient and Modern History.
belongs to those who can make themselves masters
of it. A country fellow, called Giacomuzzo, who had
taken arms as a soldier, and changed his name to
Sforza, became the queen's favorite, constable of
Naples, and standard-bearer of the Church, and
acquired such an immense fortune that he left money
enough to one of his bastards, wherewith to conquer
the duchy of Milan.
The second event, which proved most fatal to Italy
and France, was brought about by adoptions. We
have already seen that Joan I. adopted Louis I. of the
second branch of the house of Anjou, and brother
of Charles V., king of France. These adoptions,
which were relics of the old Roman laws, conferred
the right of succession on the person adopted, who,
by virtue of such adoption, took place of the natural
heir, but not without the consent of the barons, which
in such cases was always necessary. Joan II. at first
adopted Alphonso V., king of Aragon, surnamed by
the Spaniards, the Wise and the Magnanimous. But
no sooner did this wise and magnanimous prince
see himself acknowledged as heir to the queen of
Naples than he divested her of all authority, and
even wanted to deprive her of her life. Francis
Sforza, son of the illustrious peasant Giacomuzzo,
first signalized himself in arms on this occasion, and
by delivering his father's benefactress, proved him-
self deserving of the honors he afterward attained.
Joan, after her deliverance, adopted Louis of Anjou,
grandson of that Louis who had been so vainly
France and England. 277
adopted by Joan I. This prince dying, in 1435, she
declared Rene of Anjou, his brother, her heir and
successor. This double adoption proved a double
firebrand of discord between France and Spain ; and
Rene of Anjou, who had been called to the throne
of Naples by an adoptive mother, and to that of
Lorraine in right of his wife, proved equally unfor-
tunate in both these kingdoms. He took the title of
" King of Naples, Sicily, and Jerusalem, Aragon,
Valencia, and Majorca, and duke of Lorraine and
Bar ; " and yet he was neither of these. The mul-
tiplicity of empty titles assumed without either foun-
dation or consequence, has thrown a confusion into
our modern histories which frequently renders them
disagreeable, and even ridiculous to the reader. In
short, the history of Europe is an immense proces-
verbal of marriage contracts, genealogies, and dis-
puted letters, which make the subject appear both
dry and obscure, by suppressing great events, and
hindering us from coming at the knowledge of the
laws and manners of nations; objects far more
worthy our attention.
CHAPTER LXIII.
FRANCE AND ENGLAND, IN THE TIME OF PHILIP OF
VALOIS AND EDWARD III.
ENGLAND recovered its strength under Edward I.
toward the end of the thirteenth century. This
prince, who succeeded his father, Henry III., was
278 Ancient and Modern History.
indeed obliged to give up Normandy, Anjou, and
Touraine, the patrimonies of his ancestors, but
he still retained the province of Guienne, and
likewise made himself master of the princi-
pality of Wales. He knew how to restrain the
impetuous tempers of the English, and animate
them to noble purposes; he rendered their com-
merce as flourishing and extensive as the nature
of the times would permit. The royal house of
Scotland being extinct in 1291, he had the glory of
being chosen arbitrator, by the pretenders to that
crown. His first step was to oblige the Scottish par-
liament to acknowledge that their crown was depend-
ent on England ; and afterward he nominated Baliol
as king, whom he made his vassal. At length he
claimed the kingdom of Scotland for himself, after
having won several battles, but was unable to retain
it. Then began that antipathy between the natives
of England and Scotland, which, notwithstanding
the union of the two crowns, is not yet entirely extin-
guished.
Under this prince it began to be perceived that the
English would not long continue tributaries to the
see of Rome ; they made use of various pretences to
excuse their non-payment of the taxes imposed on
them by that church, and artfully evaded an author-
ity they dared not yet openly attack.
In the year 1300 the English parliament began to
take a new form, nearly the same with that it now
wears. The titles of baron and peer were granted
France and England. 279
only to those who sat in the upper house, and the
house of commons began to regulate the supplies.
Edward resolved to give a weight to the lower house
sufficient to balance the power of the barons ; and this
prince, who had steadiness and dexterity sufficient to
manage, and not to fear them, formed that kind of
government which includes all the advantages of
monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy ; but which at
the same time had not the inconveniences of all three,
and can never subsist but under a prudent king.
His son proved not to be such, and England was
rent in pieces.
Edward I. died as he was going to attempt another
conquest of Scotland, which he had already thrice
invaded, and which had as often rebelled. His
son, a youth of twenty-three years of age, though
at the head of a numerous army, abandoned his
father's designs to devote himself to pleasures
which appear more unbecoming in a king of Eng-
land than in the sovereign of any other nation. His
favorites had displeased the nation, especially the
queen, daughter of Philip the Fair, a wanton and
imperious woman, jealous of her husband, whom
she betrayed. The public administration was now
a scene of fury, confusion, and weakness, and a pre-
vailing party in the parliament caused a favorite
of the king's, whose name was Gaveston, to be
beheaded. The Scots took advantage of these troub-
les, defeated the English, and Robert Bruce, being
made king of Scotland, restored that monarchy.
Ancient and Modern History.
1316 It is impossible to act with more impru-
dence, and consequently more unfortunately, than
Edward II. He suffered his queen, Isabella, not-
withstanding the provocation he had given her, to
go to France with her son, who was afterward the
happy and famous Edward III.
Charles the Fair, brother of Isabella, and at that
time king of France, followed the general policy of
all kings, which is to sow discord among their
neighbors, and encouraged his sister to make war
against her husband.
Thus, under pretence that the king of England
was held in a shameful subjection by a young favor-
ite named Despenser, his wife prepared to wage war
against him. While she was in France, she mar-
ried the young prince, her son, to a daughter of a
count of Hainault and Holland, and persuaded that
count to lend her troops. At length she returned
to England, and with an armed force joined the
enemies of her husband. Her gallant, Mortimer,
attended her, and commanded her troops, while the
king and his favorite, Despenser, fled before them.
1316 The queen, being arrived at Bristol,
ordered this favorite's father, an old man of ninety,
to be hanged, and afterwards inflicted the same
death on the favorite himself, who fell into her
hands at Hereford; and it is said they tore from
him while he hung upon the gallows, those mem-
bers which it was pretended he had made a criminal
use of with his monarch.
France and England. 281
After this the king, abandoned by everyone, and
a fugitive in his own kingdom, is taken prisoner,
carried to London, insulted by the populace, con-
fined in the Tower, tried by the parliament, and
deposed in a solemn manner. His crown was then
given to his son, a youth of fourteen years of age,
and the queen is invested with the regency, and
a council appointed to assist her. In fine, a pen-
sion of about sixty thousand livres of our present
money was allowed the king during life.
Edward II. did not survive his disgrace more
than a year. At his death there were no marks of
violence found upon his body, but it is said that
he was killed in 1327 by means of a red-hot iron,
which was thrust up his body through a pipe made
of horn.
His son, Edward III., soon avenged him. This
young monarch was yet a minor; but being impa-
tient to grasp the reins of government, which he
thought himself able to manage, he one day seized
his mother's gallant, Mortimer, earl of March, in
her own presence. The parliament condemned this
favorite, as it had done Despenser, without hear-
ing him ; and he died by the hands of the common
hangman, in 1331, not for having dishonored his
king's bed, and for having deposed and murdered
him, but for having been guilty of extortion and
misdemeanors, crimes which ministers of state are
always accused of. The queen was confined in a
castle, with a pension of five hundred pounds ster-
282 Ancient and Modern History.
ling, where she remained in solitude, and lamented
her misfortunes more than her crimes.
Edward being now master, and soon after abso-
lute master of the kingdom, began his reign by
invading Scotland ; but now a new scene was opened
in France, and all Europe stood in suspense to
see whether Edward would acquire this kingdom
by right of blood or by right of conquest.
France, which comprehended neither Provence,
Dauphiny, nor the Franche-Comte, was still a
formidable kingdom ; but its king was not yet pos-
sessed of much power. The large demesnes, such
as Burgundy, Artois, Flanders, Brittany, and
Guienne, which were held as fiefs of the crown,
always contributed more to the uneasiness than to
the grandeur of the prince.
The demesnes of Philip the Fair, with the imposts
on his immediate subjects, amounted to eighty thou-
sand marks. When he went to war with the
Flemings in 1302, and almost all the vassals of
France contributed toward the expense of that war,
a tax of one-fifth was laid on the revenues of all
secular persons, who, on account of their callings,
were exempt from attending the campaign. If the
people were unhappy, the royal family was still
more so. Nothing is better known than the infamy
to which the three sons of Philip the Fair sub-
jected themselves at the same time, by accusing
their wives of adultery in open court, who were
thereupon all three ordered into close confinement.
France and England. 283
Louis Hutin, the eldest of Philip's sons, strangled
his wife, Margaret of Bordeaux. The gallants of
those princesses were condemned to suffer a new
kind of punishment that of being flayed alive.
1316 After the death of Louis Hutin (or Louis
X.) who, like his father, annexed Navarre to the
crown of France, the public attention was wholly
engrossed by the question concerning the Salic law.
This king had left only one daughter, and it had
never been questioned in France whether females
had a right to inherit the crown. Laws are always
made for the present occasion. They had no knowl-
edge at that time of the ancient Salic laws; but
had supplied the want of them by established cus-
toms, and these customs were perpetually changing
in France. The parliament under Philip the Fair
had adjudged the county of Artois to a female, in
prejudice to the next male heir. The succession of
Champagne had been decided sometimes in favor
of the females, and at other times taken from them.
Philip the Fair possessed Champagne wholly in right
of his wife, by whom the princes of the family were
excluded.
These examples show us that right varied with
fortune, and that it was far from being a funda-
mental law of the state to exclude the daughter from
her father's throne. To say, with a number of
authors, that " the French crown is so noble that
it cannot admit of women," is in my opinion a
puerile assertion; and to say with Mezeray, that
284 Ancient and Modern History.
" the weakness of their sex does not permit women
to reign," is doubly unjust; besides, the articles of
this ancient law which deprives the females of all
right of inheritance in Salic land seems to be
founded on this, that every Salic lord was obliged
to appear in arms at the public assemblies of the
nation. Now a queen is not obliged to bear arms,
the nation does it for her. Hence we may fairly
infer that the Salic law, in other respects so little
known, related to the other fiefs, and not to the
crown; and so little was it esteemed a law with
respect to kings, that it was ranked under the head
de allodiis, or of allodials. Besides, if this law was
made by the ancient Salians, it must have been made
before there were any kings of France, and con-
sequently could not relate to these kings.
Again, it is beyond a doubt that there were several
fiefs not subject to this law, and by a much stronger
reason might it be said that the crown ought not
to be subject to it. These arguments were for some
time maintained by the duke of Burgundy, uncle
of the princess, daughter to Louis X., and by sev-
eral princesses of the blood. Louis Hutin had two
brothers, who, within a short time, succeeded one
after another. The elder was Philip the Long, and
the younger Charles the Fair. Charles at that time,
not thinking he was so near to the crown, opposed
the Salic law out of jealousy of his brother.
Philip the Long took care to have it declared
at a meeting of barons, prelates, and burghers of
France and England. 285
Paris, that females ought to be excluded from the
crown of France. But had the opposite party pre-
vailed, doubtless they would have enacted quite a
contrary law.
This Philip, who is known for little else than
having excluded the bishops from a seat in par-
liament, died after a short reign, and left only
daughters behind him. The Salic law was then con-
firmed the second time; and Charles the Fair, who
had so strongly opposed it, succeeded to the crown
without the least dispute, and excluded his brother's
daughters.
Charles the Fair, at his death, left the same cause
to be again decided. He had left his queen with
child, and a regent was required. Edward III. pre-
tended to the regency, as grandson of Philip the
Fair by the mother's side, and Philip of Valois took
possession of it in quality of first prince of the blood ;
which was afterward solemnly conferred upon him,
and, the queen being brought to bed of a daughter,
he ascended the throne with the general consent of
the nation. It appears then that this Salic law,
by which all females were excluded from the crown,
was a law of the heart, and had become a funda-
mental law by ancient and universal agreement.
There are indeed no others, since all laws are made
and abrogated by men. And can anyone doubt that,
if it should ever happen that the blood royal of
France should become wholly extinct, excepting
in one princess, and she worthy of reigning, the
286 Ancient and Modern History.
nation might not, and ought not, to confer the
crown on her ?
At that time Philip of Valois had the surname
of " the Fortunate " given him by the people ; he
might also for a while have been called " the Just
and the Victorious," for the count of Flanders, who
was his vassal, having oppressed his subjects, they
revolted against him, upon which Philip marched to
the assistance of that prince, and when he had
quelled the rebellion, he advised the count " to take
care not to cause any more revolts by his ill
conduct.
He might moreover be called " the Fortunate,"
when at Amiens he received the solemn homage
yielded to him by Edward III. But this homage
was soon followed by a war ; Edward disputing the
crown with Philip, after he had acknowledged him-
self his vassal.
A brewer of the city of Ghent was the principal
promoter of this famous war, and the person who
determined Edward to take the title of king of
France. This brewer, whose name was Jacob van
Artevelde, was one of those subjects whom princes
should either ruin or keep fair with. The vast
credit he had obtained among his countrymen made
him a necessary instrument to Edward; but he
would not exert his credit in behalf of the English
monarch unless he would take the title of king of
France, in order to make an irreconcilable breach
between the two kings. Edward and the brewer
France and England. 287
signed this treaty at Ghent long before hostilities had
been commenced against France.
I shall spare myself the trouble of entering into
a detail of wars, which are mostly alike, and confine
myself to those things which serve to reveal the
manners of the times : and here I must take notice
that Edward challenged Philip de Valois to single
combat, which the latter refused, saying, " It was not
for a sovereign prince to fight with his vassal."
1341 In the meantime a new event happened
which seemed again to overturn the Salic law. Brit-
tany, a fief of the crown of France, had been lately
adjudged by the court of peers to Charles of Blois,
who had espoused the daughter of the last duke, and
the count de Montfort, this duke's uncle, had been
disinherited. The laws and private interest were
here in contradiction. The king of France, who,
one would think, should have maintained the Salic
law in the count de Montfort's cause, sided with
Charles of Blois; and the king of England, who
should have supported the rights of the females
in Charles of Blois, declared in favor of the count
de Montfort.
Upon this occasion the war was renewed between
France and England. At first Montfort was sur-
prised in the city of Nantes, and carried prisoner to