Let no one here misunderstand and pervert me.  I am not exalting the ignorance and brutality of the feudal ages.  I am not decrying the superior advantages of our modern times.  I only state that ignorance and brutality were the necessary sequences of the wars and disorders of a preceding epoch, but that this very ignorance and brutality were accompanied by virtues which partially ameliorated the evils of the day; that in the despair of slavery were the hopes of future happiness; that religion took a deep hold of the human mind, even though blended with puerile and degrading superstitions; that Christianity, taking hold of the hearts of a suffering people, taught lessons which enabled them to bear their hardships with resignation; that cheerfulness was not extinguished; and that so many virtues were generated by the combined influence of suffering and Christianity, that even with ignorance human nature shone with greater lustre than among those by whom knowledge is perverted.  It was not until the evil and injustice of Feudalism were exposed by political writers, and were meditated upon by the people who had arisen by education and knowledge, that they became unendurable; and then the people shook off the yoke.  But how impossible would have been a French Revolution in the thirteenth century!  What readers would a Rousseau have found among the people in the time of Louis VII.?  If knowledge breaks fetters when the people are strong enough to shake them off, ignorance enables them to bear those fetters when emancipation is impossible.

The great empire of Charlemagne was divided at his death (in A. D. 814) among his three sons,—­one of whom had France, another Italy, and the third Germany.  In forty-five years afterwards we find seven kingdoms, instead of three,—­France, Navarre, Provence, Burgundy, Lorraine, Germany, and Italy.  In a few years more there were twenty-nine hereditary fiefs.  And as early as the tenth century France itself was split up into fifty-five independent sovereignties; and these small sovereignties were again divided into dukedoms and baronies.  All these dukes and barons, however, acknowledged the King of France as their liege lord; yet he was not richer or more powerful than some of the dukes who swore fealty to him.  The Duke of Burgundy at one time had larger territories and more power than the King of France himself.  So that the central authority of kings was merely nominal; their power extended scarcely beyond the lands they individually controlled.  And all the countries of Europe were equally ruled by petty kings.  The kings of England seem to have centralized around their thrones more power than other European monarchs until the time of the Crusades, when they were checked, not so much by nobles as by Act of Parliament.