c) That absolute publicity shall prevail as to the methods, correspondents, personnel, and all other matters relating to the work of the department.

These reforms, or other action designed to attain the same end, are earnestly to be demanded, for reasons now fully set forth. It is for the business interests of the country to see that needed action is taken without further delay.

It may be possible to discuss, in a later study, certain special problems involved in carrying out these suggestions.

H. PARKER WILLIS.

LEXINGTON, Va.

HISTORY OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN FRANCE:

MEDIEVAL PERIOD.

LEVASSEUR'S monumental work has already been the subject of one review in this JOURNAL, at least as far as the Roman period is concerned. But inasmuch as only a fifth of the volume is occupied with Roman labor, it seems still more important to call attention to the remainder, which is devoted to the far more complex, and in certain matters vastly more difficult, period of the Middle Ages. Historical literature does not often possess a work such as M. Levasseur's. The subject, whether treated from the point of view of imperial or feudal legislation, is an exceedingly exacting one, both in regard to methods employed and results obtained. The most painstaking calculations may prove fallacious because of the peculiar nature of the sources which, as everyone may easily experience, refuse to give answers to important questions, and overflow with insignificant things. But while the reader may sometimes question the statements made, it is not for us, with no access to material such as M. Levasseur and his informers possess in abundance, to pass any hasty criticism. The patient student will find the author's views generally verified by the facts. At any rate, the book is worthy of the closest attention by historians and economists alike. The only trouble is that even a book of 600 closely printed pages cannot do justice, except in a general way, to the multitude of problems (of value even for our own time) which a minute study of medieval times brings to one's attention. The life of the nations in its various forms and phrases is fast becoming a topic of absorbing interest. M. Levasseur's book is an exceedingly great help toward a more perfect understanding of this life and a solution of its problems, and it is with the purpose of bringing before the public the merits of this important contribution to historical literature that in the following we briefly review its contents.

At the beginning of the fifth century Gaul was abandoned to the Barbarian invasions. Who were these strangers? At the time of Cæsar they were still partly nomads who lived on milk and cheese and dressed in the hides of their beasts. Even a century later Tacitus

E. LAVASSEUR, Histoire des classes ouvrières et de l'industrie en France avant 1789. Tome premier, livres ii-iv. Deuxième édition. Paris Rousseau, 1901.

found them little advanced, remaining strangers to Roman manners, arts, and institutions. Their industry was confined to the weaving and dyeing of coarse cloth, and painting their shields in bright colors, while their commerce consisted in buying from strangers such things as they needed but could not themselves make. But 400 years later, when their institutions again came under observation, associations (which may have existed in embryo when Tacitus wrote) enjoyed already an established existence. We hear of fraternities, guilds, whose members were sworn to mutual assistance and protection. The institution probably had its origin in the old custom of brotherhood established between military men, who blended blood to signify how close and interdependent was their relation. As times became less turbulent, and town life progressed, the need of mutual reliance expressed itself in brotherhoods on a broader basis, with the economic purpose more clearly defined. That Roman institutions, known as they were over the larger part of Europe, may have entirely influenced the make-up of the guild, is possible, although lately the guild has come to be looked upon as a purely Germanic institution. It is difficult to see how the guild as a mere social gathering could justify its existence, while as an industrial race the Germanic nations amounted to almost nothing until after the crusades. Be that as it may, M. Levasseur, as little as any other authority, can solve the question until some inscription or other sign from the far past helps to throw light on the origin of the guild. But that Charles the Great so vigorously condemned the guilds from fear of conspiracy appears to us to point to a danger from the rising of the subject Roman population rather than to fear of turbulence on the part of the Germans, who were agriculturists rather than artisans.

M. Levasseur thinks that the invasions left nothing but universal destruction and desolation behind them; that the hordes of Germanic warriors, being brutal and greedy, ate the land bare as would a swarm of locusts. The big cities were the ones most frequently sacked, and although the majority of the population remained Gallo-Roman in possession of their property, an economic revolution took place which utterly changed the life of the conquered provinces. The country was thrown hundreds of years back in development, and as after an inundation weeds take the place of grain, so Roman institutions were superseded by German. Having no inducement to commerce on any large scale, no center toward which its energies might be attracted, the city, the Roman municipium, became merged in the pagus, and

economy changed from commercial to rural. The Frankish villa or domainial farm, as an expression of the decentralization of political and economic energy, takes the place of the town, which was now only the seat of a fitful and rapacious government and maintained influence only through the administrative ability of the functionaries of the church. The count M. Levasseur calls a new magistrate; but if the office was new, the name is at least a very old one. The count had no interest in the town as such, no understanding of its ancient rights. His chief interest lay in the organization of successful raids, in making the bishop submit to his commands, and in extorting what wealth there remained from the unhappy inhabitants. The system of taxation so efficiently organized by the Romans, was, on the whole, appreciated and kept up under the supervision of the graf; but now that commerce had dwindled and every household restricted itself to what it produced, the system could not possibly prove as remunerative as before. It is probable that this general condition of affairs underwent no change. until the first dissolution of the Frankish empire. Charles the Great, after so many generations of dismal experience, understood better the functions of government. While he cared nothing for cities, he saw at least how greatly the development of rural economy might further the national strength. Himself a great land owner, he set an example for the other great lords in the management of his estates. Building probably on methods tried and found profitable by the church, the only institution which understood and practiced economy on a large scale, he published the ordinance for all the farms belonging to his palaces which is so favorably known in medieval history. Due to such orders and example, but probably still more to the necessity of centralization, the rural estate developed into a concern of mighty dimensions, the nucleus of future principalities from which sprang new forms of the economic life, industry, town life, and commerce.

M. Levasseur's account of industry at this early stage, as managed on the large estates of the church and of the baronage, is extremely interesting. The feudal lord in his castle or the abbey, with the houses and huts of merchants and artisans clustering against the walls and the farms distributed over the flat land, was in more cases than one the founder of a new town. Constant demand for provisions, the necessity of having the makers of new articles close at hand, made of the castle and the monastery a center of industry and of exchange, and finally under its very shelter a thriving community grew up which existed by its own efforts. Even the large cities which had survived

the time of political insecurity took a new lease on life and, protected by the large immunities granted the church or the great lord, rose once more into prominence. Stagnation was past; civilization began once

more.

The laboring classes were made up of unfree, half-free and free. Concerning the unfree M. Levasseur has not much to say, and it is probably true that the number of slaves engaged in industry as in agriculture was constantly dwindling. The number of free laborers, too, was constantly decreasing, many becoming tenants and even serfs under the stress of changing economic conditions. On the other side there was the freedman, the litus, and the colonus, all half-free, with whom the country estates were populated. Every lord, lay or ecclesiastic, every town and every village, had its staff of unfree and halffree laborers who were either attached to the soil or to the owner's household. Certain large estates, such as the enormous domains of the abbey St. Germain-des-Prés in Paris, had a perfect army of laborers. For the regulation of their holdings and their contributions the marvelous Polyptyque of abbot Irminon was drawn up, which is for our understanding of the management of ecclesiastical property what the De Villis of Charles the Great is for the lay. M. Levasseur justly goes into particulars concerning the Polyptyque, which, although incomplete, represents the abbey as possessing 1,717 servile holdings divided between 2,859 households and inhabited by 10,282 persons of all ages, altogether an area of 42,050 acres out of a total of perhaps 172,977. And the abbey of St. Germain was by no means the richest of the monasteries within the Frankish empire. The supplies which each household was expected to furnish are minutely accounted for in the Polyptyque. M. Levasseur includes some general statements for illustration. Thus the 1,430 homesteads were every year to furnish: 4 horses, 554 oxen, 5 heifers, 1,079 sheep, 2,132 liters of wheat, 50,979 liters of spelt, 4,005 liters of oats, 572 liters of mustard, 2 wagons and 111⁄2 wooden footboards, 105 laths, 40,978 shingles, 20,133 narrow boards, 372 staves, 186 barrel hoops, 350 horseshoes, 4,891 chickens, 25,318 eggs, etc. As for the required labor to be done for the abbey by 25 homesteads, the term corvée (forced labor) is too indefinite to give any clear understanding of how little or how much might be demanded in day or week work; but such as it is, there were 125 to be done each season; 300 rods to be plowed, harrowed, and sown; 75 days' week work at times when there was no forced labor; 50 long cartages and 225 rods to fence. The dues and duties were very unevenly