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
Medieval france: an encyclopedia 146