In later volumes of The Story of Civilization, France will become a predilection of Durant. Indeed, if we were to take him as our sole source of history, we would be inclined to the view that we owed nearly all of the graces of modern life to France.
In The Age of Faith, France takes its first strides toward greatness, and in the present section, France experiences its first taste of world preeminence as an independent power. Philip Augustus, king of France from 1180 to 1223, was primarily responsible for this rise. The subsequent decline – at least in relative influence – during the Renaissance can probably be attributed to the disastrous kingships of his successors Louix IX, Philip III, and Philip IV. Philip Augustus conquered new territories for France, Louix IX gave that territory away to appease his neighbors and emptied the treasury for charity, Philip III tried to conquer new territory but failed through misfortune and incompetence, and Philip IV went to war with the Pope, the Jews, and the Templars in an effort to restore the treasury.
The most remarkable of these kings is Louix IX “The Saint”. The quotation marks are unmerited, as after his death, the Catholic Church made him an official saint. It is said that when one of his subjects complained that his religious devotion made him unfit to be king, he merely agreed with her, showing the same complaisance that he showed to the hostile neighbors snapping up his territories. Aside from the money he spent on the poor, he spent vast sums purchasing forged Christians relics (e.g. Jesus’ crown of thorns, miraculously preserved for a millenium) and on two pointless crusades. The true Christian would not be fit to be a king.
The last several chapters have been a bit of a drag. Durant has passed through the history of nearly every European country from Portugal and Ireland all the way to Russia, Hungary, and Byzantium, detailing the major political developments in each country from 600 – 1000. I would dare so almost nothing of great interest happened during these Dark Ages. Having completed the cycle, Durant has begun it again, reciting the political history from 1000 – 1300. Can anything be gleaned from this recitation of wars, kings, and laws?
There is one generality that I have observed: most government is monarchy, although the Pope directly controls some areas, and some cities achieve the status of free communes, or even, in some cases, oligarchies (cf. Venice). Monarchy being the most abundant form of government, Europe of this time experiences it in all gradations from the weak feudal king to the absolute tyrant. What is interesting is that in not one of these governments – not the strong kings, the weak kings, the communes, nor the oligarchies – not in one is there any mention of divine right. In this most religious of times, most governments based their claim to power on frankly on might, commercial advantage, or political connection. Portugal, for example, was the product of a naked power grab by a Burgundian knight, Henry, who was involved in the crusade against the Moors in Spain. Henry sought independence, and over several generations, the matter was disputed, until it was submitted to the papacy for arbitration. The Pope initially decided against Portuguese independence, until the Portuguese king offered Portugal as a papal fief. Under the influence of this bribery, the Pope declared Portugal independent. In this way Henry, by strength of arms, and the Pope, for political considerations, created a new kingdom.
I find it interesting that not only is God not cited in the political history, but neither is the good of the people. Between the divine right of kings, and the divinely-granted rights of the people (cf. our own Declaration of Independence), most political theory after 1700 ultimately traced the origins of government back to the rights of either kings or people. But in the Middle Ages we hear nothing of this. Perhaps the people of this age were simply more practical, or too busy to care. In the Middle Ages, as at every other time in history, there were many poor, few rich, and an ambitious middle class; what does the form or shape, of the government matter? The oligarchy of Venice was the result of a totally illegal move by the merchant class wherein it declared itself alone able to hold Venice’s offices, and then murdered the leaders of the opposition. Nonetheless, it ruled as well as, if more venally than, any other government of the time.
As a student of political history, and an eternal idealist, I would like to believe that political philosophy, and the ideas underlying a government, matter very much. The Middle Ages do not support my case nearly so well as the histories of Greece and Rome. Perhaps the firey idealism and vigorous political cultures of these older civilizations are the reason that, in the popular imagination, history is a vast dross from Caesar to George Washington.
On Behalf of Catiline 