ASSEMBLIES

Historians of political institutions have long been attracted to medieval assemblies, studying them for evidence of the origins of modern parliamentary bodies. Assemblies convened by princes were special gatherings, generally much larger than the small group of advisers that met frequently to conduct regular business, yet both might be called “court” or “council.”

Scholars have tended to treat assemblies as precursors of, or substitutes for, Estates or parliamentary bodies. They have made distinctions between parliaments and preparliaments, between consultative and deliberative bodies, between counsel and consent. They have argued over whether assemblies were judicial, legislative, or financial in function, whether they were representative or not, whether they were imposed on rulers or exploited by them. This entire scholarly enterprise has carried with it much ideological baggage, and the character of the inquiry has varied greatly from nation to nation. Assemblies have especially interested historians of law and politics, who have generally emphasized their function or purpose in some legal/constitutional context.

The assemblies held in medieval France were in fact so varied as to defy simple classification. With roots that lay deep in the culture of the past, they often convened for purposes that had no obvious connection with the modern constitutional model. Over time, some of them evolved their own traditions and acquired unforeseen functions that might or might not have implications for future political institutions.

Perhaps the earliest type of assembly was the convo-cation of military followers, originally a tribal war band. Great military convocations were common under the Carolingians. As ethnic distinctions blurred and royal authority became fragmented, the meetings of the 10th and 11th centuries generally were assemblies of a land or region, concerned with maintaining the fragile peace. Being concerned with maintaining or restoring order, they retained a military character but also began to exercise functions that we would describe as judicial. Both the early tribal assemblies and the later peace assemblies were occasions that might involve hard negotiating to resolve conflicts among competing interests, but such discussions took place behind the scenes and the plenary assemblies themselves were rituals of consensus. When held under the auspices of a king or great territorial lord, they were celebrations of the ruler’s majesty.

Although extraordinary and ceremonial occasions, regional assemblies that dealt with problems of a recurring nature gradually showed signs of customary procedures and institutional evolution. Those “courts” concerned with maintaining order in the south were the first assemblies in France (12th and 13th centuries) to include urban representatives.

Because the power of kings and lords long required an element of public visibility, these rulers, who were constantly on the move, continued to use assemblies of various kinds to affirm loyalty and acknowledge their power. In northern France, festival courts reinforced a royalist culture of chivalry. But as the royal government grew larger in the 13th century, it became more costly and created more political strains. As it became more difficult to celebrate a consensus and exclude partisanship, the crown made less use of assemblies for several generations. Contentious matters increasingly came before the standing body of judicial experts that became the Parlement de Paris. When Philip IV turned again to large assemblies after 1300, they served their traditional purpose of celebrating royal power and majesty, presenting a consensus in the face of his adversaries, initially Pope Boniface VIII. Philip and his sons, however, soon experimented with other uses for assemblies, although always trying to maintain control of the proceedings and use them to reinforce royal authority.

These assemblies of the 14th century now generally included the elected representatives of towns, and they began to be organized as Estates. Those who attended them were not always content with the rhetoric of consensus. Purely ceremonial assemblies did not cease to occur, but the most conspicuous gatherings of the late Middle Ages were those like the Estates, concerned with money and political policy, or the Parlement, concerned with judicial matters. When judicial questions merged with political debate, or when a ceremonial expression of royal power was called for, the kings generally preferred to use the Parlement as their forum.

John Bell Henneman, Jr.

[See also: CONSEIL; ESTATES (GENERAL); ESTATES (PROVINCIAL); PARLEMENT DE PARIS; PEACE OF GOD]

Bisson, Thomas N. “Celebration and Persuasion: Reflections on the Cultural Evolution of Medieval Consultation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7(1982):181-204.

Henneman, John Bell. “Representative Assemblies and the Historians.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7(1982):161-76.