(BEING CONTINUED FROM 22/11/11)
Key One: The French Dark Ages up to 1789.5
0a) 85% of the population of France were still slaves when Its Revolution began in 1789.
These 22,525,000 Gallo-Roman slaves belonged to either the smaller group of vilains or to the larger group of serfs.
A little before the outbreak of the French Revolution the King of France had ordered a census of the population as part of his preparation for convoking the Estates General which was composed of 1) the Higher Clergy, almost all of them noble, 2) the lay Nobility and 3) the Middle Class. The total of this Estates General would be composed of an assembly of 300 members of each group for a total of 900.
The census thus taken revealed approximately the following results:6 1) The Nobility numbered 530,000 or Two (2%) Percent of the population, 2) the Middle Class numbered 3,445,000 or Thirteen (13%) Percent of the total and 3) the Serfs and Vilains numbered 22,525,000 or Eighty Five (85%) Percent of the population. The grand total was some 26,500,000.7 The slave population of vilains and serfs numbered some 22,525,000 and were guarded from escape by the castellani (châtelaines) of some 40,000 fortresses.8
The Middle Class revolted at the start of the Assembly Constituante demanding a total of 600 members (which finally became 700) to counterbalance the 600 Clergy and Lay nobles. Their revolt paid off making a grand total of 1,200 or 1,300 seats, Noble and Middle Class, the latter of which finally included 38 farmers and only one real vilain.9 This single vilain was supposed to be representing 22,525,000 Gallo-Roman slaves, i.e. vilains and serfs. There was not one serf delegate to represent the serfs.
One can clearly see from these statistics why the history of the France up to 1789 was considered the tail end of the Dark Ages and of the Ancient Regime.
b) This official census of the population of France just before the Revolution completely contradicts the claim that the Gallo-Romans and Franks of France had become one nation. This is so especially since these serfs and vilains became French in 1789.10
This 1789 figure of 85% serfs and vilains, guarded from escape by the castellani (Châtelaines) of 40,000 castles, completely belies the claim of modern historians that the Franks and Romans of Merovingian Gaul had already become one nation going into the age of the Carlovingian Franks which officially began in 751.
This position about the fusion of the Frankish and Gallo-Roman races is supported by such British Noble Historians as Sir Samuel Dill in his book “Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age,” Macmillan, London 1926. It is also supported by such American specialists as Gerald Simons and the Editors of Time-Life Books in their volume entitled BARBARIAN EUROPE, 1968. In his introduction to this volume Prof. Karl F. Morrison, of the University of Chicago, observes that, “For a long time, it was usual to think of the six centuries that followed (i.e. the Teutonic conquest of the West Romans) as an age of gloomy and static barbarism. We know now that it was instead an age of great challenges and magnificent achievements, a time when the most essential elements of Western civilization-and indeed the very ethnic composition of Europe-hung in the balance…By the mid-11th Century the die was cast. Europe had passed from a conglomeration of wandering tribes to stable kingdoms, and it was on the verge of carrying its hard-won cultural and political dominion overseas, through the Crusades.”
c) Was it by their First Crusade that Teutonic barbarians carried their “hard won cultural and political dominion overseas…”?
Indeed the First of these Crusades was the Norman conquest of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror. He and his bishops condemned all native Saxon, Irish, Welsh and Scottish bishops as heretics and schismatics and sentenced them to life in prison where they died of torture and starvation.11 These native bishops of England were condemned because 1) they had not accepted the Popes who had been forced upon the Papacy by the German Emperors after 1014 and because 2) these bishops of England had been abiding by the faith of the Seventh (786/7) and Eighth (879) Roman Ecumenical Councils. Both these Roman Councils were condemned by two Frankish Councils, that of Frankfurt (794) against Icons and that of Aachen (809) which condemned those who refuse the Frankish addition of the Filioque to the Roman Creed of 381.12
From its very birth Frankish theology and dogma came into existence as an attack weapon against the Roman Empire. During the first of these Frankish doctrinal attacks against the Roman Empire in 794 the very the first Frankish theologian in history, Rabanus Maurus (776-856), was 18 years old and during this second doctrinal attack in 809 he was 33 years old..13 Rabanus had been a student at Charlemange’s Palatine School directed by the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin (735-804).
It was this Alcuin who evidently composed the Libri Carolini which calls the Imperium Romanum pagan and heretical. Then the Franks realized that it is not good policy to degrade the name Romania in this way since this was the name of the Papal States, but also South Italy, being attacked by the Arabs, was also called Romania because still part of the Roman Empire of New Rome. So Charlemagne decided to call the Roman Empire by the name The Heretical Greek Empire in order to exclude Papal Romania from this accusation of heresy and thus promote the lie that the Roman Papacy sided with him.
So from its very beginning Frankish theology and dogma was simply an anti Roman weapon disguised under the name anti Greek heresy.
The fact remains that 85% of the population of France were still “slaves” in 1789. These slaves were neither not yet even French, nor even anywhere near to participating in these great achievements of Western Civilization. For in 1788 the gloom and the barbarism of the Dark Ages were still working against them and began dissipating only in 1789 when they were freed from slavery and made part of this nation of Franchised Gallo-Roman by becoming the middle class along with the noble Franks.14 The very verb Franchised (Affrancie) means that one has become free by becoming a Frank who were alone free until the middle class began to be created about the 11-12th century and in 1789 when the free peasant class began to be created. They are still called peasants, but no longer serfs and vilains. The nobles themselves were either nobles of the sword, descended from the original conquerors, or nobles of the robe, Franks by royal adoption.
d) The Sealed Letters15of the King of France united the nobility and the middle class in demanding the rule of law agreed to by elected legislative assemblies.
The nobility and middle class enjoyed relative freedom and wealth when compared to the serfs and vilains. Yet they lived in fear, however, that someone may manage to get the king, or the king may on his own initiative, issue a Royal Sealed Letter naming a certain individual. This individual would be taken into custody by the police and made to disappear. In other words the King had a similar power over the individual members of the nobility and the middle class as the nobles had over their serfs and vilains in the heyday of Feudalism.
Lady Germaine de Stael, the daughter of the French King’s Finance Minister Necker, writes the following about these letters: “The sealed letters permit the royal power, and consequently the ministerial also, to exile, to banish, to deport, to imprison for life, without judgment, any individual whoever he may be. Such a power, wherever it exists, constitutes despotism itself: It must need be annihilated the day when the deputies of the nation will be reunited in France.16” One can see why the French Revolution began as a common struggle of the nobility and the middle class against the absolutism of the king’s power. The French historian Jules Michelet (1798-1874) gives some interesting details in this footnote below about this tradition of Royal Sealed Letters in his Histoire de la révolution française.17
e) But the nobles and middle class were divided over whether to have a British type Parliament with two houses, one for Lords and one for Commoners, or one mixed one.
Having a single house parliament in mind the middle class schemers, led by the Abbot Emanuel Sieyes and inspired by the medical doctor Jean Paul Marat, both of whom wrote classical works against the British type democracy. 18 Inspired by these two men the middle class held out in their demand for the additional 300 seats and won. The middle class leadership knew in advance some of members of the clergy and the nobility who will join them against the adoption of the British model.
f) The “Catonistes à la Robespierres”
The danger of real Roman history for this Frankish establishment, as well as for the Empire of Great Britain, is demonstrated by the use of the Roman historian Porcius Cato during the French Revolution.19 85% of the population were Gallo-Romans. There was even a movement of the “Catonistes à la Robespierres20”who, like their leader, had their own Roman idea about the future of not only of France, but also of the liberation of former territories of the Roman Empire occupied by not only Teutonic conquerors of Western Europe, but also by Moslems in South Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In Cato the Gallo-Roman revolutionaries had in hand the ancient genealogy of not only the Gallo-Romans now in revolt, but also that of most former Roman citizens of the Roman Empire also enslaved to other royalties and nobilities, both Christian and Moslem. In other words Romans must be in revolt not only against the Franks in France, but everywhere in Western Europe, including the Papal States, and against Islam.
The Government of Robespierres even supported plans to provoke a revolution of East Romans within the Ottoman Empire coordinated by an underground movement established in Constantinople New Rome with branches in key places of Rumeli. One reason underlying this development was that “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon was being translated into French under the loan name (Leclercq de Sept-Chênes) of King Louis XVI himself,21 as the French Revolution was about to begin. Reading about their own history in Gibbon’s masterpiece the Gallo-Romans realized that the heretical Greeks (now baptized Byzantines) Empire of Frankish propaganda is in reality their own Roman Empire.
It was the solution of this very dangerous threat that the French and Russian Empires, joined by the British Empire, were obliged to find a solution. Indeed the problem was compounded by the fact that Ottoman Eastern Europe was officially called Rumeli (land of the Romans) and Romania in Greek and Latin and that all Orthodox Christians within the Moslem world were and are still called and call themselves “Romans.” They call their Church “Roman Orthodox” in Arabic and Turkish. But then the Russians, French and British managed to get illiterate Orthodox to believe, or even force them to accept, that the Arabic and Turkish name Rum means Greek. The East Romans, Arabs and Turks had always refused Charlemagne’s decision of 794 that the Romans East of Italy must be called Greeks in their own languages. But being on the whole illiterate, Arab speaking Orthodox fell for the French, British and Russian lie that the name Rum means Greek and that these Rum are their enemies. The Russian Empire established 120 schools in the Middle East to teach the Rum there that they are not Rum but Arabs. But the real Arabs are Moslems and knew well the Romans they had conquered. The Arabs knew well that what the Vatican and Protestants wanted was to get the Arabs accustomed to the idea of the existence of Arab Christians. The problem was partly solved by Balkanization imposed by the three Empires of France, Russia and Great Britain who replaced Romans with Romanians, Serbians, Bulgarians and Greeks. The exact same principle has been applied to the Arabs.
g) Napoleon, the New Charelemagne.
The Greco-Romanizing “Catonistes à la Robespierres” were finally outmaneuvered by the Tuscan Frank Napoleon who dreamed about the reinstitution of the Empire of Charlemagne. At the ceremony of his coronation as emperor he had placed two large statues in the portico of Notra Dame, one of Clovis and another of Charlemagne. Not only did he call himself Charlemagne, but even his spies in the field referred to him in their missiles by the Turkish code name Son of Charlemagne, i.e. ‘Carolosmanoglou.’ Napoleon had a theory that the ancient Greeks still survived in places like Sparta. There was a community of them is Corsica who were his friends. One of them, Dimo Stephanopoli, was a botanist who had been sent in 1797 with his nephew Nicolo to the South Balkan area by the French government in search of a rare herb for ‘medicinal’ purposes. Now as the general of the Army of Italy Napoleon sent Diimo and his nephew back, but this time to meet with the leaders of the underground Roman revolutionary society in the port of Maratonisi. 22 Some of its key leaders came to this port town from Albania, Macedonia, Crete and nearby Leibadia. One of the key leaders not present was Regas Feraios who was a member of Napoleon’s staff during his negotiations with the Austrians which ended with the treaty of Campo Formio in Oct. 17, 1797 which ceded to France the Ionian Islands, chief of which was Corfu from which the French would pass over to Turkey to begin the revolution. The Romans at Maratonisi suggested that only 6,000 French troops were all that were needed, the Roman secrete army would do the rest. .But in the mean time Regas had been captured with five companions by the Austrians at the port city of Triest in December 1797 as they were preparing to embark to begin the revolution against the Turks. Regas and his collaborators were arrested by the Austrian police in Triest about to embark loaded with their revolutionary pamphlets on their way to begin the revolution. They had a boy companion with them who was set free because of his youth. For years as he grew old no one believed him that Regas had been a collaborator in touch with Napoleon. The problem was kindly solved for by C. M. Woodhouse quoted in the footnote.23 The French Consulate was not allowed to see Regas even though the latter was a French subject. General Bernadotte, under the command of Napoleon in the army of Italy and the future king of Norway and Sweden, was slated to replace Napoleon as the general of the army of Italy. Instead he was sent to the surprise of evreyone as French Ambassador to Vienna January 1778, i.e. shortly after the capture of Regas and his companions. He finally left this post in Vienna April 14. It would have been his responsibility to support the planed Roman revolution against the Turks crossing over from the Ionian Islands into Turkey. It was Benardotte who adived Tsar Alexander how defend Moscow against Naoleon and was at the battle of Waterloo with his Norwegan and Sweedish army waiting his turn to pounce on Napoleon. There was something about Napoleon which evidently made him enjoy working for the downfall of his one time commander.
As it turned out the Naoleon’s Greeks as Maratonisi turned out to be Romans who sang songs and danced about their “Land of the Romans (Rumeli) inhabited at one time by the ancient Greeks.” The revolutionary leaders at Maratonisi called themselves the genos (gens) of the Romans (τò γένος των Ρωμαίων).24 Dimo and his Nephew sailed to Corfu and arrived there as the Ionian Islands were being taken over by the French army as part of the settlement at Campo Formio while Austria was compensated with the Republic of Venice. Josephine’s son Beauharnais had come to Corfu for the incorporation ceremonies by which the Ionian Islands became part of the French Republic and indeed on the feast day of St. Spyridon, the patron saint of the Island, Dec. 12, 1787. Dimo and his nephew left Corfu with the same warship with Beauharnais. He debarked at the small port of Manfrentonia to travel to Naples and they went on to Venice. However Napoleon had left Milan, so they tried to catch up with him but ended up seeing him in Paris. Dimo reported to Napoleon personally in writing what he knew Napoleon had wanted to hear, i.e the “Greeks” were waiting to welcome him as their liberator. However, the text of said song recorded told Napoleon otherwise. The botanist Dimo brought back proof that Napoleon’s Spartans turned out to be a bunch of Romans. Evidently Napoleon already knew this from his specialists, but also from the Austrians who had been making official translations whereby the Greek name for Romans (Ρωμαιοι) was being officially translated into German as Griechen25 according to the lie of Great Father Charlemagne. Regas and his companions were finally turned over to the Turks for execution. The Austrians carefully covered up the traces of Napoleon’s involvement in the affair of Regas.
Napoleon refused to be sent to Ireland with a small French army to organize an Irish army to invade England. Instead he asked and was sent to conquer Egypt. His advisor on Ottoman affairs, Adamntius Koraes, the future Father of the Neo-Hellenism of Greece, sent an appeal on his behalf to the said army, ready to liberate ‘Rumeli’ from the Turks, to send fighting men to Egypt to help the ‘glorious’ French army there. At the same time he argues in this same appeal that the Romans of Rumeli are not really Romans, but descendants of the Ancient Greeks who simply call themselves Romans because of so any centuries under Roman and Turkish rule. Yes indeed they were so, because the primitive Romans were indeed a collection of Greek speaking tribes but called themselves by the Greek name Romans and their capital Rome. This the Catonistes à la Robespierre had understood very well.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
by ©John S. Romanides
[ 5 ] Dionysius, Ibid I, xvii-xxx, 5.
[ 6 ] Plutarch’s Lives, Romulus, XVI “Now the Sabines were a numerous and war like people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them, since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless.”
[ 7 ] Diosysius of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These “hierais deltois” are usually understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome’s beginnings do not vary substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3 traditions. 1) “Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders of Rome , were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albans sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its ancient name.”
[ 8 ] Just quoted.
[ 9 ] During a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Jews in Bucharest, Rumania in 1979, the Jewish scholars revealed the fact that the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification is still the practice of the Hasidim Jews.
[ 10 ] John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and Society,”, pp. 25-31.
[ 11 ] Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12, Migne, P.L. 136, 815.
[ 12 ] Including perhaps the majority of the Orthodox still under the influence of Peter the Great’s so-called reforms and all the theological schools established to Westernize, i.e. Augustinianize, the Orthodox.
[ 13 ] An example of this is the book of Professor George Mantzarides, “Theosis According to St. Gregory Palamas (in Greek and English).” Misled by this book, American Orthodox in dialogue with American Lutherans agreed that the teaching about theosis is mainly Patristic and not clearly a Biblical teaching.
[ 14 ] St. Gregory the Theologian, Theological Orations, 2.4.
[ 15 ] John S. Romanides, “Ancestral Sin,” (in Greek) Athens 1957, p. 82, note 7 wherein St. Gregory Palamas explains how one cannot become reconciled to God without participating in the mystery of the Cross which operates in all who reach Glorification in both the Old and New Testaments till today.
[ 16 ] Augustine’s letter CLXXIV.
[ 17 ] See his De Trinitate, Books II and III.
[ 18 ] To which we will return to in part 30.
[ 19 ] Being a Neo-Platonist, Augustine believed and practised the tradition whereby one becomes united to the uncreated universals in the essence of God when one’s soul transcends his body and becomes united with these uncreated realities.
[ 20 ] For a typical Augustinian misunderstanding of Mk 9:1ff see “Promise and Fulfillment, The Eschatological Message of Jesus,” by W. G. Kummel, p 25-28, 44, 60 f., 66f., 88, 133, 142, 149.This so-called kingdom promised by Christ does not yet exist when He pronounces this promise, but will come into existence sometime in the future.
[ 21 ] Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, De Deo Uno, q. 26.
[ 22 ] Rom. 9:3. According to Thomas Aquinas, Paul had believed this before his baptism. Summa Theologica.
[ 23 ] We will deal with this at length in some detail later.
[ 24 ] John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and Society,” pp. 63-64.
[ 25 ] According to Father Florovsky, Father Alexander Schmemann’s book, “The Historical Road of Orthodoxy,” is an example of history written from the viewpoint of Panslavism, which Father Florovsky attacked along with its daughter Slavophilism.