Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T00:05:52.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paridis de Puteo: A Fifteenth-Century Civilian’s Concept of Papal Sovereignty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

Diana Perry
Get access

Extract

Sovereignty—suprema potestas—in the later Middle Ages was not blessed with Austinian simplicity: it was a complex and contradictory thing. Held by the ecclesiastical and lay powers, held by pope, emperor, king, and city-state, few populi were subjected to one authority alone. Not only did there exist a hierarchy of sovereign powers in the Western community, de iure and de facto, but the suprema potestas was in itself limited. It was the extent of this limitation and the degree of sovereignty possessed by the various governments which exercised, to a very large extent, the minds of later medieval and Renaissance jurists. A major reordering of the relationship between the spiritual and secular authorities was occasioned with the propounding of the via media by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Thomistic doctrine did much to promote and enhance the importance of civil government at the expense of hierocratic theories, but, as Michael Wilks observes in his fundamental study of medieval sovereignty, it proved to be almost as dangerous to the concept of the societas humana as to that of the societas christiana. Quite simply, as long as moral standards were applied to earthly government, political evaluation was forced into the theological sphere, and so, to some degree, into the realm of papal determination. And to Thomistic influences, as Michael Wilks again remarks, the civilians nearly all succumbed. Laying their claims very largely upon the bases of Roman law and Aristotle, legists expounded a profoundly secular philosophy; but the seemingly logical conclusion—logical, that is, to the modern mind—that secular man was freed from the theological order was not reached. The pope retained both a unique degree of dignitas and a superior degree of authority; he was head of the populus christiana, and this awesome position bestowed upon him certain ultimate rights and responsibilities in the affairs of secular corpora, even though these corpora were sovereign entities. In other words, papal sovereignty, although increasingly restricted and relegated to the realm of theory as the early modern State evolved, none the less remained a potent force; indeed, as it will be seen, in a particular aspect it fulfilled for the jurist a critical need of the young State.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 9: The Church and Sovereignty c.590-1918 , 1991 , pp. 369 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1987 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wilks, Michael, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1963), p. 148.Google Scholar

2 Ullmann, Walter, The Medieval Idea of Law as Represented by Lucas de Penna (London, 1946), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

3 A brief commentary on Paridis’ life and work is to be found in Giannone’s, P. monumental 5-volume Dell’istoria civile del Regno di Napoli (Naples, 1723), 3, XXVIII, iv-v, pp. 481–6Google Scholar, a work which did much to perpetuate Paridis’ reputation. Also, Giustiniani, L., Memorie istoriche degli scrittori legali del Regno di Napoli (Naples, 1787), 3, pp. 76–83.Google Scholar

4 In Tractatus universi iuris, 18 vols (Venice, 1584) [hereafter TUI], 7, fols 141r-5r.

5 Ibid., 4, fols 36r-50r.

6 Ibid., 7, fols 227r-332r.

7 I have used the Nuremberg 1677 edition of this work, in which is also bound the Breve compendium, a collection of excerpts from Andreas de Isernia’s treatise on feudal law, as well as Paridis’ treatise.

8 In TUI, 16, fols 386r-428v.

9 Dell’istoria civile, 3, XXVIII, v, pp. 485-6.

10 On the medieval theory of sovereignty with particular reference to Sicily and the Sicilian legists, Calasso, F., I Glossatori e la teorie della sovranità, 3rd edn (Milan, 1957).Google Scholar

11 Particularly useful is Cervone’s, A. edition of the Constitutions regni Siciliae (Naples, 1773)Google Scholar, which also contains the prooemia of Marinus Caramanicus (pp. 33-40) and Andreas de Isernia (pp. 17-32), as well as several commentaries and glosses of the Sicilian legists. Also see Powell’s, James M. modern edition, with introduction, The Liber Augustalis (New York, 1971).Google Scholar

12 The Roman law references which drew forth comment were Dig. 1.1.1—12;Inst. 1.2.1-2; and Inst. 2.1.1-48. Roman law citations are from the Corpus iuris civilis, ed. Mommsen, T., Krueger, P., Schoell, R., and Kross, W., 3 vols (Frankfurt, 1968-70).Google Scholar

13 De re militari, An Reges contenientes pro regno possint guerram expedire per pugnam, n. 3, fol. 407r; and cf. Desiniicatu, Rexautem, n.16, fol. 229V. Paridis owes much to Andreas de Isernia on this matter, e.g., Commenlaria in ususfeudorum (Naples, 1571), praeludia, n.30, fol. 4r-v, as he does to Baldus, e.g., Commentarla in Digestum Vetus (Lyons, 1562), Dig. 1.1.1—5, fols 8r-10v.

14 The importance of the lex regia in the development of medieval political theory is noted by ullmann, W., Medieval Foundations of Renaissance Humanism (London, 1977), p. 133Google Scholar. The main Roman law texts are Dig. 1.4,1,1; Cod. 1,17,1,7; Inst. 1,2,6.

15 On the formula and for further references, Tierney, B., ‘Some recent works on the political theories of the medieval canonists’, Traditici, 10 (1954), pp. 612–19Google Scholar, repr. in Church Law and Constitutional Thought in the Middle Ages (London, 1979), 1.

16 De re militari, An liceal Regi pugnare cum Imperatore pro regno, n. 5, fol. 407V.

17 E.g., Penna, Lucas de, Super 1res libros Codicis (Paris, 1509)Google Scholar, Cod. 11.50.1, fol. 209r; Bartholomew of Capua, Constitutiones regni Siciliae, ad v. post mundi machinam, pp. 5-6; and the statements on independence made by both Marinus Caramanicus and Andreas de hernia in their prooemia which must lay claim to being amongst the first legal treatises on the modern idea of sovereignty.

18 The idea of Empire was to enjoy a notable renatus with the election of Charles V; on this, Perry, D., ‘“Catholicus opus imperiale regiminis mundi.” An early sixteenth-century restatement of Empire’, HPT, 2 (1981), pp. 227–52.Google Scholar

19 For this passage, De re militari, nn. 1-6, fol. 407r-v.

20 On the hierocraric thesis that the secular prince was a necessary auxiliary organ of papal government, Ullmann, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 4th edn (London, 1978), esp. pp. 57ff.Google Scholar

21 CMH, 8, pp. 182-201.

22 In another passage Paridis stresses that it was the duty of the emperor to recover the Holy Land, to fight the Infidel, and to go on crusade; failure to take seriously these principal imperial duties could lead to deposition. De sindicato, Et primo, nn. 1-2, fol. 227V.

23 Ibid., n. 1, fol. 227V.

24 The importance of Pastorali! cura has been much discussed as it gave support to the concept of territorial sovereignty and the maxim ‘rex in regno suo imperator’; Ullmann, , Principles of Government, p. 325, n. 292, and Law and Politics in the Middle Ages (New York, 1975), pp. 185–6Google Scholar; also Bowsky, W., Henry VII in Italy (Nebraska, 1960), pp. 178ff.Google Scholar

25 Ad Reprimendum, col. 172, in Corpus iuris civilis (Lyons, 1627), V: ‘… non dicitur directo in eius maiestatem committere … commisit crimen laesae maiestatis esse papalis, cui subditus est; et hoc crimen committit in eum esse principem: ut sic non directo, sed per quamdam consequentiam laeserit maiestatem Papae: et tunc vera est sententia Imperatoris.’

26 Ullmann refers to Pastoralis cura as ‘one of the most fateful papal decrees’, Principles of Govern ment, p. 325, n. 292, whilst Diana Wood confirms it to be a ‘blunder’, one which Clement VI attempted to right, Clement VI. The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 146-9.

27 Ullmann discusses theocratic kingship at length, e.g., Principles of Government, pp. 117ff.

28 Frequent comment was also made on Cod. 1.1.1; Cod. 1.17.1; Cod. 1.17.2.18; Cod. 7.37.3.5; Nov. t.praef; Nov. 73, praef. 1.

29 Nov. 73, 1, ad v. de coelo, in Corpus iuris civilis, V.

30 Faber, Johannes, Super Institutionibus (Lyons, 1543)Google Scholar, Inst. 1.2.6, n. 1, fol. 6r. Cf. Cynus of Pistoia, , Commentarla in Digesti Veteris libros (Frankfurt, 1578)Google Scholar, prooemium, n. 8, fol. 2v: ‘Causa vero efficiens est ipse Deus, cuius Romanus populus in hoc suum organum’, and Baldus, Commentario in Digestum Velus, Dig. 1.14.3, n. 11, fol. S2r:’Principem dico ferisse permissive non formaliter sicut deus permittit tamen deus non facit.’

31 Oldradus de Ponte was in a minority when he arbitrarily denounced any notion that the imperium was of divine origin: Consilia (Venice, 1490), cons. 69:‘Nee obstat quod dicit quod imperium fuit a deo constititur quia hoc ego non invento per legem novam neque veterem.’

32 De re militari, Quis possit indicere, vel concedere licentiam pugnae gerendae inter aliquos diffiiatos, n. 2, fol. 390V.

33 As Paridis makes clear in ibid., An Reges contendentes, n. 3, fol. 407r.

34 Ibid., n. 5, fol. 407V.

35 E.g., ibid., Quis possit indicere, vel concedere licentiam, n. 2, fol.390v; ibid., An Reges contendenles, n. 5, fol. 407V, n. 10, fol. 408r. Cf. with De sindicam, An si index, n. 14, fol. 281r, and De re-assumptione instrumenlorum, n. 28, fol. 40V.

36 Note Ryder, A. on this and his comment that Alfonso had no objection to the principle ‘princeps legibus solutus’ being incorporated into hisjurisdictional decisions. TheKingdom of Naples under Alfonso lhe Magnanimous (Oxford, 1976), p. 31.Google Scholar

37 De sindicala. Post, n. 45, fol. 228v: ‘perfectum animal est homo, separatum a iustitia pessimum est omnium.’

38 Ibid., Post, nn. 1-78, fols 227V-8V.

39 The Thomistic argument is discussed by Wilks, , The Problem of Sovereignty, pp. 205–20.Google Scholar

40 Other texts frequendy referred to included Dig. 4.8.4; Dig. 4.4.51; Dig. 2.1.14; Cod. 1.14.12.

41 See De sindicatu, Post, nn. 29-30, fol. 228r and nn. 51-3, fol. 228V. For Andreas de hernia see, e.g., prooemium, p. 20, col. 2-p. 21, col. I, where he writes ‘Quanquam princeps debet uri ordinaria potestate, alias peccat mortaliter, tamen quia potest tollere legem, potest in una causa revocare appelarionem, puta, si aliter tumultus sedari non posset… Absolutam non debet exercere, nisi ex causa. Alias peccat mortaliter.’

42 De sindicato, Exedunt, n. 786, fol. 220r. Paridis again can refer to the authority of Andreas; e.g., Constitutiones regni Siciliae, I, xxxi, p. 81. The popular etymological definition ‘rex a recte regendo’ which derived from Cicero through Augustine, and the related maxim ‘rex eris si recte facies, si non facias, non eris’ which was referred to by Horace as a child’s jingle, were already tenets of political faith in the early Middle Ages. On this, Balogh, J., ‘Rex a recte regendo’, Speculum, 3 (1928), pp. 580–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 De sindicatu, Post, n. 59, fol. 228V.

44 See De re militari, An Principes iure belli teneantum, nn. 2-3, fol. 390r. Paridis also refers to Cod. 5.17.8; Dig. 43.24.15.2; as well as to Prov. 34.

45 De sindicato, Rex autem, n. 15, fol. 229V.

46 On the background to the theory of inalienation and for further references, Post, Gaines, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 1100-1322 (Princeton, 1964), pp. 415–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ullmann, W., ‘A Note on Inalienability in Gregory VII’, SGrc, 9 (1972), pp. 117–40, repr. in The Church and the Law in the Earlier Middle Ages (London, 1975), no. X.Google Scholar

47 See De re militari. An Reges contendentes, nn. 1-11, fols 407v-8r, and cf. De sindicam, Excedunt, nn. 77-8, fol. 229r.

48 The fusion between princeps and res publica goes back to John 14.10: ‘I am the Father, and the Father is in me.’ The background of this concept is discussed by Kantorowicz, E. H.. The King’s Two Bodies: a Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton, 1957), pp. 214–18.Google Scholar

49 Cod. 2.53(54)4: ‘Res publica minorum iure uri solet’ Again see Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, pp. 372-83. These ideas can be compared to the earlier Germanic concept of guardianship, spelled out in detail by Ullmann, Walter, e.g.. The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship (London, 1969), pp. 122–4.Google Scholar

50 See De re militari. An Reges contendentes, nn. 5-10, fol. 408r. Paridis relies heavily upon Andreas de Isemia, e.g., Commentanti in ususfeudorum, II, Iii, n. 1, fol. 232F, and prooemium, p. 32, col. 1; and cf. with Lucas de Penna’s examination of the whole cluster of arguments against inalienation. Super tres libros Codicis, Cod. 11.59(58), 7, fol. 225r.

51 For Baldus, , Commentaria in usus feudorum (Lyons, 1550)Google Scholar, prooemium, n. 32, fol. 4V, and cf. with Consilia, 3 vols (Venice, 1575), I, cons. 327,11. 7, fol. loiv and cons. 271, nn. 2—3, fol. 81 v.

52 Paridis obviously knew chat Alfonso had not sworn a coronation oath; he had received papal investiture but had dispensed with the coronation ceremony. No doubt Alfonso reasoned that, already crowned in Aragon, it was an unnecessary procedure, one that would merely underline papal suzerainty. The lack of coronation did not represent a problem for Paridis, who makes his position evident when he observes that King Alfonso, though uncrowned, had possessed the right to engage in battle with the crowned King René. De re militari, An Rex non coronatuspossitpugnare cum Rege coronato, nn. 1—6, fol. 408r—v:‘corona non praebetsibi novam dignitatem, sed est diadema, et signum Regis, non tamen Regem facit… nam corona non auget dignitatem regiam, quia isti Reges, qui coronantur non habent maiorem dignitatem, vel potestatem quam non coronad …’.

53 De sindicatu, Rex autem, nn. 16-17, fol. 229V. For the rex inutilis, Peters, E., The Shadow Prince: Rex inulilis in Medieval Law and Literature, 751-1327 (London, 1970), pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

54 For example, I Pet. 13-14; Prov. 8,15-16; I Sam. 8.10-22; Ps. 104.15; Rom. 13.1-5; Hos. 13. 11.

55 De re militari. De iuslitia singularis certaminis sive pugnae, n. 2, fol. 388V: ‘Princeps populum suum inobedientem, vel rebellum iuste opprimat.’

56 De sindicatu, Post, n. 59, fol. 228v: “Cor regis est in manu Dei, cor tyrannis non: quia non est rex cuius proprium est facere iustitiam.’ Cf. with Andreas de Isernia, Commentario in usus feudorum, II, Ivi, n. 59, fol. 300r, for the same sentiment. The scriptural formula was to be found in Prov. 21.1, and this was incorporated into Roman law, Cod. 1.18.3.

57 Frequently Cicero’s declarations in De officiis (e.g., ii, 23; iii, 10; iii, 21) to the effect that the tyrant deserved to be deprived of his office since he had desolated the res publica were called upon. See, e.g., Paridis, , De sindicato, An liceal, n. 15, fol. 2307.Google Scholar

58 Particularly ibid., An liceal, nn. 1-17, fols 229v-3or; ibid., Post, n. 59, fol. 228v; ibid., Excedunt, nn. 65-6, fol. 229r; ibid., Rex autem, n. 19, fol. 229V.

59 Ibid., Post, n. 58, fol. 228v; ibid., Rex autem, n. 18, fol. 229V.

60 John of Salisbury’s very clear doctrine to be found in Policraticus, viii, 18-20 is discussed by Dickinson, J., The Statesman’s Book of John of Salisbury (New York, 1963), pp. lxvi—lxxx.Google Scholar

61 Summa Theologien, II, ii, 42, 2 ad 3, and II, ii, 64,3.

62 De sindicato, An liceal, nn. 13-14, fol. 230r Paridis is quoting Lucas de Penna, Superites libros Codicis, Cod. 10.32.47, fol. 65r-v.

63 Ibid., Cod. 12.63.i, fol. 406r-v, and fol. 414r.

64 De sindicato, An liceal, n. 17, fol. 230r; and for Aquinas, De regimine principum, i, 6. The murder of die Duke of Orleans which eventually resulted in the edict issued by the Council of Constance was a matter, full of deep political consideration, which the papacy did all it could to sidestep. The incident and its aftermath is summarized in CMH, 8, p. 11.

65 On the remedy of disobedience, Breve compendium, XLVI, p. 111, col. 1, also XLVIII, p. 92, col. 2.

66 Paridis would have been well aware of Andreas de lsernia’s emphasis on the point that the lex regia must necessarily have entailed a transference of power which could only be revoked in extreme cases of abuse. Peregrina lectura (in Constitutiones regni Siciliae), I, xxxi, ad v. lex regia transtuleruntregnum, p. 81.

67 See, e.g., De sindicatu, Et primo, n. 10, fol. 227V. Referring to Baldus, Paridis observes: ‘Sed istud quod populus potest deponete imperatorem insufficientem, vel mente captum… Bald, tenet contrarium, quod licet ohm potest, hodie non potest.’ For Baldus on papal deposition and revocation of the lex regia, see Canning, Joseph, The Political Thought of Baldus de Ubaldis (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 37–40, 55ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 These decrees are discussed in some detail by Wan, John A., The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1965), pp. 34-58, 97–105.Google Scholar

69 De sindicam, An liceal, nn. 15-17, fol. 230r, and cf. ibid., Et primo.n. 10, fol. 227V.

70 Ibid., Post, n. 58, fol. 228V.

71 Breve compendium, LXXl, p. 194.

72 De sindicatu, An liceal, n. 15, fol. 230r.

73 Commenlaria in usus feudorum, II, lv, nn. 80-3, fols 280r-lv.

74 Super tres libros Codicis, Cod. 10. 40(39).9, fol. 90v.

75 De finibus feudorum, XXXI, n. 22, p. 43.

76 De re militari, An contendentes, n. 11, fol. 408r.

77 Ibid., Quis dicatur iudex competem in pugna, n. 6, fol. 390V; ibid., De die statuta inter Regem Carolum, et Regem, nn. 1-11, fols 395v-6r; also ibid.. An certamina, et duella passint concedi in terris ecclesiae, nn. 4—5, fol. 389r.

78 Particularly see on this, Fowler, L., ‘Rccusatio iudicis in Civilian and Canonist Thought’, SGra, 15 (1972), pp. 717–85Google Scholar. And for the application of the principle with regard to the French prince, Frederick Cheyette, L., ‘The Royal Safeguard in Medieval France’, ibid., pp. 631–52Google Scholar.

79 The problem of Portugal is discussed at some length by Peters, , The Shadow Prince, pp. 135–69.Google Scholar

80 Legists referred to Dig. 4.8.51 which held that no one could be an arbiter in his own case since coercive commands could not be issued to oneself. On this subject Dig. 2.1.14 and Dig. 4.8.4 were also mentioned. See, e.g., Paridis, Breve compendium, XXXV, p. 73, and Andreas de Isernia, Commentarla in ususfeudorum, II, lv, n. 87, fol. 281 v.

81 Super Codice (Venice, 1493), Cod. 1.3.33.

82 On this note the comments by Baldus, De pace Constantiae (in Commentarla in ususfeudorum), ad v. corona, fol. 126r. Paridis, who frequendy calls upon Baldus, must fully have concurred with the cautionary observation concerning deposition: ‘Sed si papa deponit imperator dolo vel ambinone, sine legitima et ardua cause, deposido ipso iure est nulla.’ As Andreas de Isernia had put it, the pontiff must proceed as God who was truth: Prooemium, p. 23, col. 1.

83 Ryder, , The Kingdom of Naples, p. 371.Google Scholar

84 De re militari. An conlroversiae armorum sint decidendae, nn. 1-7, fol. 386r-v.

85 Ibid., De modo provocationis ad pugnam, n. 1, fol. 386V.