^{page 281 note 1} Kantorowicz’s article, in American Historical Review (= AHR) 56 (1951) 472–92; Koht, , ‘The Dawn of Nationalism in Europe,’ ibid. 52 (1947) 265-80. Koht gives as examples for the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Suger's love of France (Suger was himself called pater patriae), the Chanson de Roland (French valor and dulce France), Peter of Blois, Geoffrey of Monmouth (for Britain), Vincent of Cracow for Poland (defense of the common patria), Saxo Grammaticus for Denmark, Snorri Sturluson for Norway, and Walther von der Vogelweide for Germany. But one cannot call this feeling nationalism until one learns whether there was at the same time some legal definition of it in association with the idea of kingdoms within Christendom but outside and independent of the universalism often attributed to the Holy Roman Empire. In this essay and in the following one I hope to show that there was indeed some legal background for nationalism and national patriotism in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. — A number of pertinent texts recently published by Stickler, Father A., ‘Sacerdotium et regnum nei decretisti e primi decretalisti,’ Salesianum 15 (1953) 575-612, came too late to my knowledge to be utilized here. It is unusual, but in this case obligatory, to thank one of the editors of Traditio, Professor Stephan Kuttner, for his corrections, constructive suggestions, and generous contribution of references.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 2} Chase, W. J., The Distichs of Cato (Madison 1922) 12. I find no other source for the exact words pugna pro patria, although they are implied by passages in the Roman law. Traditio Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 3} Lear, Floyd Seyward, ‘The Public Law of the Visigothic Code,’ Speculum 26 (1951) 9; other examples in this Code, ibid. 5, 7, 11. See also Kantorowicz, , AHR 56.476 n.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 282 note 4} Leges Langobardorum 3.13 de his qui ad patriam defendendam ire neglexerint (etc.) cc. 1 and 3; also, 1.37.2 — Charlemagne, , ‘de armis intra patriam non portandis.’ Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 5} Decretum C. 23 q.8 c.15 Si nulla urget: JE 2812.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 6} C.23 q.8 C.9 Omni timore: JE 2642. Kantorowicz refers to this from the Decretum of Ivo of Chartres, but attributes it to Nicholas I; AHR 56.481.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 7} On the general theory of the just war, see Regout, Robert La doctrine de la guerre juste de saint Augustin à nos jours d'après les théologiens et les canonistes catholiques (Paris 1935); Kuttner, Stephan, Kanonistische Schuldlehre von Gratian bis auf die Dekretalen Gregors IX. (Città del Vaticano 1935) 251ff.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 8} Summa Coloniensis (ca. 1169), in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 14997, fol. 141 — to 23 q.8 c.9: Only public authorities can wage war; ‘inevitable and urgent necessity’ makes a war just ‘pro defensione tam sua quam patrie’; it is just to fight for the faith and defend the Church, , ‘ut cum orientales nostri contra sarracenas arma ferunt.’ On this Summa see Kuttner, Stephan, Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140-1234), I (Città del Vaticano 1937) 170f.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 9} Summa, in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3892, fol. 265^ra to 23 q.1 c.1; on the Summa , Kuttner, 155–160. Also the Summa Parisiensis (ca 1260-70), to 23 q.1: ‘Sed aliud est ob tuitionem patriae et ob necessitatem hostesque repellendos; aliud propter praedam militare,’ ed. McLaughlin, Terence P. (Toronto 1952) 210; and Faventinus, Joh., to 23 q.2 Quod autem: ratione Two Notes on Nationalism in The Middle Ages rei, a war is unjust ‘si non est de repetendis rebus, vel pro defensione patriae…,’ quoted in the Glos. ord. of Joh. Teutonicus.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 10} Paris, B.N. MS lat. 15393, fol. 195^va (on Laurentius’ Apparatus, see Kuttner, 76–80) ad v. patrie: ‘Multa enim licent pro defensione patrie que alias non licent, quia ille qui pro patria defendenda patrem interficit non punitur, immo etiam remuneratur ff. de religio. minime [D. 11.7.35]. la.’ Laurentius adds, to c.15 Si nulla (Nicholas I), ad v. patriae: ‘Magnus est favor patrie defendende, C. de infamibus [= ex quibus causis infamia irrogatur], neminem [C. 2.12.9], C. libro X, de latoribus, ex varia [C. 10.11.4], lau.’ On the words of St. Ambrose, ‘Fortitude is full of justice when in war it defends the patria from the barbarians’ (23 q.3 c.5), the Glos. ord. of Joh. Teutonicus has this: ‘Hoc casu non tenetur, qui patrem proprium interficit, ut ff. de reli. 1. minime.’ Note again the appeal to Roman law.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 11} The Apparatus ‘Ius naturale,’ to 11 q.3 c.94 Iulianus (in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 15393, fol. 138^ra): ‘Iulianus imperator et apostata milites habebat sub se Christianos; et si precipiebat eis, ut idola colerent, vel alia mala facerent, non obediebant ei. Si vero precipiebat, ut contra hostes pro re publica dimicarent, obediebant.’ Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 12} Glos. ord. to 6 q.1 c.17 Infames: ‘Tales fugientes sunt rei laesae maiestatis, ut ff. ad le. iul. ma. lege tertia [D. 48.4.3], et capite puniuntur, nisi quando dominum defendere non potuerunt…’ (To D. 48.4.3, Accursius has this: whoever incites the enemy against the res publica is guilty of laesa maiestas.) Again, to Dist. 1 c.10 Ius militare, ad v. deseratur: ‘Secundum canones, qui fugit in bello publico infamis est, ut vi.q.i. Infames. Secundum leges capite punitur, ut ff. de re militari, omne § qui in acie. Joan. Teutonicus.’ Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 13} Joh. de Deo (Brit. Mus. MS Royal 11 B.V, fol. 139^vb) Bk. VI, c. De penitentia simplicium militum et cui debeant confiteri: ‘…Peccant etiam quia quandoque impungnant propriam patriam, et non servant fidem proprio domino, contra sacros canones, ut probatur xxiii. q. i. c. qui(d) culpatur [c. 4], et c. summa milicis (militiae) laus est [c.7], et xxii. q. v. de forma [c.18].’ To 22 q.5 c.18 De forma fidelitatis, Joh. Teutonicus says that a vassal cannot aid his lord against his patria propria even if he has taken oath to aid him in all suits and against all enemies: ‘et licet generaliter iuret vasallus domino, scilicet quod in omnibus causis iuvabit ipsum, et contra quemlibet, tamen contra propriam patriam non iuvabit ipsum, ut ff. de rel. 1. minime; nec contra papam…’ Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 14} Summa, in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3913, fol. 77^vb-78^ra; I have not consulted the partial edition by von Schulte, J. F. (Giessen 1891); see Kuttner, 133–6. Johannes Faventinus copies Stephen in relating the story, Paris, B.N. MS lat. 14606, fol. 97^vb ; Kuttner, 145.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 15} In the Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino,’ Paris, B.N. MS lat. 14997, fol. 109 (cf. Kuttner 170f.), to 15 q.6 c. Alius; I am not sure of the authorship, for the comment is in the form of a gloss to words used by the author of the Summa, ad v. Zacharias: ‘Legitur in historia francorum, quod karolus tudes, cum esset princeps militie cuiusdam regis francorum, qui molles et effeminatus otio torpebat, hostes fortiter debellabat. Unde a tundendo hostes sic dictus est, quem ob eandem causam usque hodie francigene martelum, vulgariter appellant. Iste remissam regis ignaviam attendens, domino apostolico scripsit, ut responsis suis docere vellet, quis regno dignior haberetur, qui deliciis luxurie vacaret an qui acie pro quiete patrie laboraret. Cumque rescriptum esset eum corona regni digniorem esse, qui pro communi salute bella gereret, ignavum illum de regno expulit, et pro eo filium proprium pipinum, postea caroli magni patrem, coronavit.’ Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 16} See my little essay, ‘The Theory of Public Law and the State in the Thirteenth Century,’ Seminar (An Annual Extraordinary Number of The Jurist) 6 (1948) 55ff.; also my ‘Plena potestas,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 397ff; and Le Bras, G., L'Immunité réelle (Paris 1920) 21-30, 49-148.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 17} Bras, Le, op. cit. 21-30, observing that the papal legislation on the subject (1179 and 1215) envisaged the Italian commune, finds no extension to kingdoms until the mid-thirteenth century. But the gloss I found is in an early Apparatus to Comp. I (see Kuttner, , Repertorium 323, 338) tit. De iure patron. c. Preterea (3.34.29) and specifically mentions the regnum: ‘… tamen in necessitate, puta pro tuitione regni, potest rex a suis hominibus auxilium postulare; moderate tamen…, infra, de immunitate, non minus’ (Paris, B.N. MS lat. 15398, fol. 253^vb). This gl. was written before 1215, since the Non minus of 1179 but not its extension in the Adversus of 1215 is mentioned, and after 1188-92, the date of Comp. I. See Decr. Greg. IX, 3.49.4 and 7. In 1226 Honorius III permitted Henry III to tax the English clergy for the necessity of war, and thereafter it was assumed that kingdoms as well as civitates were covered by the Canon law on taxation and necessity.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 18} Vinc. (Bamberg, MS Can. 20 [P.II.7], fol. 160^va), Apparatus to Comp. III (cf. Kuttner 356, 360) tit. De censibus et exactionibus c. Cum instantia (3.37.2; Decr. Greg. IX 3.39.17): ‘Ultra facultates enim ecclesie ab aliquo procuratio exigenda non est, x. q. iii. illud [c.4]. Si enim tenuis est patria tua, extraordinario iuditio est iuvanda, C. ne nova vec. 1. i. [C. 4.42.1]. Immo a paupere non debent eam exigere…, nec tenuis vite homines sub pretextu adventus officialium vel militum brevi suppellectili ad eorum usus translata iniuriis vexentur.’ Note the word iuditio (for iudicio); it is probably the copier's error and should be auxilio. Joh. Teut., Apparatus to Comp. III (cf. Kuttner 357) in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3930, fol. 183^va c. cit. ad v. pregravari: ‘Ultra facultatem enim ecclesie ab aliquo procuracio non est exigenda… Si enim tenuis est patria tua, extraordinario auxilio iure iuvanda est, C. ne nova vectigalia, 1. i. …’ Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 19} Paris, B.N. MS lat. 4543, fol. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 20} Summa Codicis (Lyons 1564) fol. 122^v .Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 21} To Inst. 1, 2 § 1 ad v. omnes gentes utuntur: ‘Ut est religio erga deum, ut parentibus et patriae pareamus, ut contra violentiam resistamus…’ (for the Glossa ordinaria of Accursius I have used the Lyons 1604 printing of Godefroy’s edition of the Corpus juris civilis). See D. 1.1.2, Pomponius: ‘Veluti erga Deum religio, ut parentibus et patriae pareamus.’ To this the Glos. ord. ad. v. parentibus: ‘Nota, filium debere patri obedire…;’ ad v. patriae: ‘Pugna pro patria, ut hic, et C. de aboli. 1. fallaciter [C. 9.42.3], et infra, ad leg. Iul. maie. 1. pen. [D. 48.4.10].’ The right of self-defense is sometimes made a principle of natural law as well as of jus gentium by the canonists; below, n.62.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 22} To D. 32.1.99 ad v. scripsit: ‘Hic sequitur Graecum [the Greek words quoted by Scaevola], cuius interpretatio incipit, patriae meae dulcissimae… Et nota, cuilibet suam patriam dulcissimam, sic supra, de of. prefec. urb. 1. 1. § pen. Accurs.‘ The reference is to D. 1.12.1 § 13 Et Urbe, where it is said that the prefect of Rome can forbid to anyone the city of Rome or Italy or his own province; on which a gloss, ad v. provincia: ‘Si hoc expresse dicat…, patria sua ei interdici videtur, ut inf. de interd. et rele. 1. relegatorum § Constitutum est, que est contra.’ Here the reference is to D. 48.22.7 § 15, where it is said that if anyone is forbidden his own patria, he is forbidden Rome too; but if forbidden Rome, ‘patria sua interdictum non videtur;’ on this, the glosses ad v. patria: ‘scilicet sua propria’; ad v. patria sua: ‘Ut pote minori’ (that is, one’s own patria or civitas other than Rome is inferior to Rome, which, as appears in other glosses, is the communis patria; see the following gloss and below where I discuss the scope of patria); and ad v. etiam ab urbe: ‘Roma, per excellentiam…, quae et sua patria est, et quidem maior…’ The point is that if a man is exiled from Rome, he is not also exiled from his local patria unless it is specifically named by the praetor; if exiled from his own patria, he is, however, forbidden Rome.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 23} To D. 1.1.2 (on obedience to parents and patria) ad v. patriae: ‘Pugna pro patria ut dixit Cato…;’ to C. 9.43(42).3 § 4 Sin autem, on torture in cases of ‘violata maiestate aut patria oppugnata, vel prodita,’ ad ν. prodita: ‘Et iste incidit in crimen laesae maiestatis…, et Cato, Pugna pro patria;’ to C. 2.12.9 (dishonor, infamia, shall attend no one who defends the public business of his patria) ad v. ob defensa: ‘In libro Martini est ob non defensa; et est plana. Videbatur enim quedam infamia, cum Cato dicat, pugna pro patria… Sed alii habent ob defensa…’ Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 24} Glos. ord. to Inst. 1.25 pr. § Et constat, ad v. per gloriam vivere: ‘Nota, mortuum vivere per gloriam, ut ff. ad leg. aqui. 1. qua actione § si quis in colluctatione [D. 9.2.7.4]. Et econtra quis fingitur mortuus, qui vivit per vituperium, ut deportati…’ The same thought is expressed in the gl. ad v. gloriae causa, D. 9.2.7.4: ‘Per gloriam occiditur, ut hic [that is, killed in publico certamine — in this case, tournaments or other combats for public entertainment, as the gloss interprets these words]: et ideo per gloriam vivere potest: licet sic mortuus dicatur, ut Inst. de excu. tut. § j…’ Finally, to D. 3.2.25 (Papinian: ‘…Si quis in bello ceciderit, etsi corpus eius non compareat, lugebitur’), Accursius says, ad v. ceciderit: ‘Qui per gloriam vivere intelligitur, ut Inst. de accusation. tut. in prin.’ (On tournaments, of course, since they were prohibited by the Church, the canonists taught otherwise.) Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 25} To D. 11.7.35 ad v. occidisset: ‘Scilicet, se defendendo: alias tenetur lege Pompeia de parricidiis… [D. 48.9.1] …Accursius.’ Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 26} Glos. ord. to C. 9.43(42).3 § 4 Sin autem, ad vv. violatele maiestatis, aut patria oppugnata, vel prodita: ‘Et iste incidit in crimen laesae maiestatis…; et Cato, Pugna pro patria.’ Cf. D. 48.4.10, on the crimen maiestatis for betrayal of the city.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 27} To C. 10.37.1 (curiales shall not desert their civitates; in escaping from their patria they are impii) ad v. demonstraverint: ‘Et ita notari posset hic, quod impium est, relinquere propriam patriam.’ Cf. D. 49.15.19 § 4 Transfugae, ‘Nam qui malo consilio, et proditoris animo patria relinquit, hostium numero habendus est.’ Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 28} ‘Casus… Et sic habes, quod quis magis astringitur patriae quam parenti… Nam ubi agitur de statu publico, bene praefertur patria parenti, ut hic…’ Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 29} D. 50.2.12, and Glos. ord. ad v. petere: ‘id est habere. Nec enim honores peti debent, sed offeri…; vel forte in casu loquitur ut patriae necessitas hoc exigeret…’ Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 30} C. 2.42.1: ‘scilicet quod urgentibus patriae necessitatibus decurio minor annis creatus sit;’ gloss ad v. urgentibus: ‘Quia deficiebant idonei: alias minores non admittuntur’ — again patria is not used by the glossator, but obviously he has it in mind.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 31} See these passages and the glosses, especially to Inst. 1, 25 § 15 Item Romae, ad v. grammatici; and to D. 27.1.7; cf. C. 10.52.11.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 32} Glossa super pace Constantie, ad vv. ‘qui nec contra civitatem, nec nostram maiestatem’: ‘Nota ar. quod ille est bonus civis qui patrie iura tueatur, ut ff. de abol. 1. fallaciter [C. (not D.) 9.42.3], de relig. minime [D. 11.7.35].’ I consulted Odofredo’s glosses to the Peace of Constance in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 5414A, fol. 14^r. In his gloss as quoted in the commentary of Baldus to the same there is the addition of the idea of the bonus civis in government: ‘No. arg. quod bonus civis est, qui patriae iura tueatur, et ille ad regimen eligendus, non autem qui est contra patriam. Odof.’ (Venice edition, 1592, of the Corpus juris civilis, V 505).Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 33} To C. 10.48.3 (on the duty of all, in time of need, to help in building walls and furnishing grain): Odofredo, on the Tres Libri Codicis (Lyons 1550) fol. 46^vb; cf. 10.48.2.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 34} To 22 q.5 c.18; cf. also de Deo, Joh., Liber poenitentiarius VI, c. De penitentia simplicium militum; both texts quoted above, n.13.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 35} This is the passage, referred to above n.25 (and repeatedly by canonists and legists), on the right of a son to kill his father in defense of the patria .Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 36} The law in the Code reads: ‘Neminem sequitur infamia ob defensa publica negotia patriae suae.’ Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 37} One who is a delator to the fiscus in the name of the res publica is not guilty of infamia. Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 38} Odofredo, , Summa in usus feudorum (Compiuti [Alcalà de Henarez] 1584) fol. 76^v; I consulted the same treatise under the title, Rationes usus feodorum, in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 16008, fol. 86^rb-86^va; I offer here the text of this title, ‘Contra quos tenetur vassalus iuvare dominum, et contra quos non,’ chiefly from the MS, with corrections from the edition of 1584: ‘…Sed quero, nunquid contra patrem tenetur vassallus adiuvare dominum? Et videtur quod non, quia tunc pater filium, et filius patrem potest interficere, ff. de relig. et sumpt. fun. 1. minime [D. 11.7.35]. Si ergo contra patrem potest esse filius pro patria, multo plus vassallus potest [‘est’ in ed.; om. in MS] contra dominum; et enim [‘et cum’ in ed.] iusta bella, que fiunt pro patria defendenda, unde omni tempore possunt fieri, ut in Decretis xxiij. q. 8, cap. si nulla [c. 15 — Pope Nicholas I, cf. n.5 above]. Nec enim infamatur qui iura patrie defendit, C. de infam. 1. nemine [C. 10.57; but the correct reference is in the edition, ‘C. ex quib. cau. infa. irrog. 1. neminem’ = C. 2.12.9]. Sed et pro re publica licet quod alias non liceret, ff. de iure fisci. 1. ii. in prin. [D. 49.14.2], et Cato, « Pugna pro patria. » Nec distinguo contra quem; et alias filius debet preponere salutem Rei publicae [‘Rei publicae’ omitted in MS] contra patrem, ut ar. in Auth. ut cum de app. cognosce. § causas vero. vers. si eas pro et contra [Auth. 8.12 § Causas autem, ver. ‘si eos in criminalibus’ = Nov. 115]; sed ar. ff. de fam. 1. fi. in prin. et § 1 [D. 10.2.1 § 1 — this ref. not in the ed.]; arg. ff. de his qui notant. infa. 1. fin. § 1 [D. 3.2.25 § 1 — this ref. not in MS]. Odofre.’ Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 39} (Ed. Woodbine, ) II 19-59, especially p. 28: the waging of war ad tuitionem patriae belongs to the prince; and p.32: the king associates with himself magnates and knights, and girds them with swords, ‘ut cum rege… militent, et defendant patriam et populum dei;’ for the sword ‘significat defensionem regni et patriae.’ Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 40} The text of Jean de Blanot's Tractatus super feudis et homagiis is published by Acher, J., ‘Notes sur le droit savant au moyen âge,’ Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et étranger 30 (1906) 125–78, especially pp. 160-2; see also Calasso, F., I glossatori e la teoria della sovranità (2nd ed. Milan 1951) 112-21. The treatise actually is a chapter from Jean's, De actionibus, see Meijers, E. M., Responsa doctorum Tholosanorum (Haarlem 1938) vi n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 41} de Tourtoulon, Pierre, Les oeuvres de Jacques de Révigny (Jacobus de Ravanis) d’après deux manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris 1899) 48–50. Tourtoulon edits a part of the text from MS lat. 14350.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 42} He refers here to D. 49.15.19 § 7, ‘quia disciplina castrorum antiquior fuit parentibus Romanis quam charitas liberorum.’ The Glos. ord. interprets charitas as patria potestas, introduced into the civil law because of the love of children.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 43} I am unable to identify the Carses. Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 44} For most of this theory I have consulted the Paris, B.N. MS lat. 14350, fol. 185^rb-185^va; here Jacques de Révigny is commenting on Inst. 4.6 § 13 Praeiudiciales: ‘Sed pone Carses ingrediuntur Burgundiam, et ego sum homo ducis. Dux… scribit pro me, et rex pro me. Quid erit in hoc casu, ad quem vadam ego? Utrinque versatur utilitas publica. Si dicas, tenetur ire ad regem, et permittet destruere filios suos et terram suam et bona sua perire, hoc esset durissimum; hec esset separatio durissima, que vitanda est. Nunc dicerem non ire ad regem…; et pugna pro patria. Ipsi dicunt contrarium…, quia Roma est communis patria, sic corona regni est communis patria, quia caput. Ego quesivi. Alias Roma vocat te. Ad quem ibis? Patria vocat te. Ad quem ibis? Roma caput est mundi… Dico quod stabis in patria tua. Dices quod Roma est communis patria, et patria tua est propria. Nunc debes preferre patriam propriam patrie communi… Item lex dicit, si lex scripta deficit, inspicienda est consuetudo loci propria; ergo et patria propria preferenda est, ar. 1. ff. de leg. et sen. con. 1. de quibus, circa prin. [D. 1.3.32]. Et ideo hic primo defendet terram propriam.’ Some hold that ‘deterius quod caput orbis subiugeretur hostibus imperii quam pars; ideo teneris defendere patriam communem, scilicet Romam, quam patriam propriam. Dico tamen contrarium, ut dixi.’ Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 45} See below, n.54.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 46} Quoted by Kämpf, H., Pierre Dubois und die geistigen Grundlagen des französischen Nationalbewusstseins (Leipzig and Berlin 1935) 91: ‘Si firent de Paris leur Rome Ou Saint Pierre oncques ne sist.’ Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 47} Summa Codicis (Lyons 1594), to C. 4.62.1: ‘Argumentum, quod villa vel collegium non possit indicere collectas, nec barones ob necessitatem patriae… Quod verum est de collegio et universitate super extraneis, sed super illis de sua universitate sic… Sed de barone non credo… Et hoc tenet Hostiensis, videlicet, quod nullus possit indicere, nisi princeps… Item dic, quod nec princeps potest indicere, nisi ob necessitatem vel utilitatem publicam, quin peccet…’ Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 48} see Part II, n. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 49} See Part II, at nn. 38, 44, 108.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 50} See D. 27.1.7 § Romae, D. 49.1.33 (‘Roma communis patria nostra est’), and Inst. 1.25 § 15 Item Romae, and the Glossa ordinaria thereto; I have referred to some of the glosses above in another connection. As for res publica used for kingdoms and cities, the evidence is too abundant and well known to be mentioned here.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 51} AHR 56.477 n.18.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 52} See Part II, n.22.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 53} So in a letter of Guillaume le Maire, bishop of Angers, to Philip IV in 1299; Port, Célestin (ed.), Le Livre de Guillaume le Maire (Paris 1874) 179. The bishop, sending the grievances of his clergy, naturally holds that the prince is subject to divine and human law; otherwise he is a tyrant; and he refers to John of Salisbury, Policraticus 4.1. Pater patriae had been expressed earlier; see Koht, , in AHR 52.266; Kantorowicz, AHR 56.474, 476.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 54} In Paris, B.N. MS lat. 4488, fol. 192^vo: ‘…nam quemadmodum in imperio excellentior et communior est civitas romana, ita in regno francie communior et excellentior civitas est parisius.’ (Cf. Joh. de Deo, below, II, n.58: ‘nisi esset in regno aliqua principalis civitas, que esset caput regni, in qua rex iste habuisset domicilium principale.’) Hence, just as in the empire, a case involving parties in any civitas, say Chartres, may be brought to Paris, because it is the common city and there the king's superior jurisdiction is exercised, but the local customs of Chartres should be respected. Pierre concludes, however, that the judge in Paris has the right to decide whether the customs of Chartres should carry weight. Respect for the customs of the local patria or civitas was a principle of Roman law, and it was repeated in the Decretum of Gratian, Dist. 4 c.2 (Isidore of Seville): ‘Erit autem lex…. et secundum consuetudinem patriae loco temporique conveniens…;’ on which a gloss, ca. 1200: ‘Ut scilicet concordet bonis moribus patrie in qua statuitur…’ (Paris, B.N. MS nouv. acq. lat. 1576, fol. 21^va).Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 55} In a treatise attributed to Egidius, , An et quomodo possint reges bona regni ecclesiis elargiri, Paris, B.N. MS lat. 6786, fol. 22-41^v, especially 24^v-25^v: ‘…Potestates enim terrene sunt ministri dei et serviunt hiis quibus prefiunt, in hoc ipsum videlicet patriam deffenden do… Reges serviunt hiis qui sunt in regno patriam deffendendo… Oportet quod in necessitate habeat omnia illa [property] ad subventionem…’ On the authenticity of this treatise see Bruni, C., Le opere di Egidio Romano (Florence 1936) 136, n° 57.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 56} Ed. Cologne 1575, fol. 277-279, 278^rb. See below, II to n. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 57} Com. in Tres Posteriores Libros Codicis (Lyons 1597) to C. 10.31.52; 10.37.1; 10.43.2.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 58} Ed. Fruin, R. and Molhuysen, P. C. (The Hague 1900) 36–41, esp. 38 (casus VI).Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 59} An princeps pro suo succursu, scilicet guerrae, possit recipere bona ecclesiarum, etiam invito papa , ed. Offler, H. S. and Snape, R. H., in Guillelmi de Ockham Opera Polictia, ed. Sikes, J. G. (Manchester University Press 1940) I 258–60, 269. Ockham, of course, simply presents what had been the law of the Church itself since 1215, that in case of necessity the Church should aid the state with a subsidy, but only after the pope consented; Ockham, like some of the polemics who supported Philip IV against Boniface VIII, would make the consent of the pope unnecessary — as it already was in practice. It is interesting that Ockham refers to Cicero and Aristotle, as well as the two laws, in the discussion. His statement of the maxim, quod omnes tangit, needs no comment.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 60} See below, Part II, nn. 14-18.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 61} To Clem. tit. de iureiur. c. Romani (2.9.1) ad v. apicem: ‘…Sed forsan favor patrie, que loco carnis et sanguinis est, hoc sibi revelavit…’; Paris, B.N. MS lat. 16902, fol. 183; see Schulte, , Quellen II 197. For the context, below, II n. 66.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 62} Quoted in Histoire littéraire de la France 35 (1921) 329. He is repeating a principle of natural and civil law as well as the distich of Cato. Licitum est vim vi repellere and similar formulas go back to D. 43.16.1.27 (‘Vim vi repellere licere Cassius scribit…’) and D. 9.2.45.4 (Paulus: ‘Vim enim vi defendere, omnes leges, omniaque iura permittunt’); cf. Kuttner, , Kanonistische Schuldlehre 336. To D. 1.1.2, ad v. tripertitum (threefold origin of private law), the Glos. ord. of Accursius: ‘…idem tamen dico de publico, quod est tripertite collectum, secundum Io. et sunt eadem exempla: ut liceat reipublicae vim vi propulsare.’ See also Decretum, Dist. 1, c.7 Ius naturale, and C. 23 q.1.Google Scholar

^{page 296 note 63} Quoted by Kantorowicz, , AHR 56.479 n.26, from G. de Lagarde; see Lagarde, , ‘La philosophie sociale d’Henri de Gand et Godefroid de Fontaines,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 14 (1943-45) 101 n. 1. See also above, to n. 42,Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 1} Gierke, , Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht III 198–210, 267, 350-60, 381-90; Calasso, , Glossatori ² (I n.40 above), also for bibliography; Woolf, , Bartolus of Sassoferrato (Cambridge 1913) ch. III and pp. 369-83.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 2} Ercole, Francesco, Da Bartolo all’ Althusio (Florence 1932) 70–104, 157-217; Onory, Sergio Mochi, Fonti canonistiche dell'idea moderna dello stato (Milan 1951); specific pages will be referred to on particular topics.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 3} Onory, Mochi, Fonti 174–77; Meijers, E. M., book review, in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 20 (1952) 123; Kuttner, , ‘Papst Honorius III. und das Studium des Zivilrechts,’ in Festschrift für Martin Wolff (Tübingen 1952) 97 n.80.Google Scholar

^{page 297 note 4} For example, to the Libri Feudorum 2.53.1, ad v. imperio: ‘Et ita videtur quod lex ista non habet locum nisi inter illos qui ei subditi sunt. Sed nunquid tenet Francigenas, et alios ultramontanos, qui ei non sunt subditi? Videtur quod non, ex eo quod hie sublicit, « nostro subiecti imperio, etc. » Sed dicas, quod eos similiter tenet; quoniam licet ei non sint saermento subditi, sunt tamen ratione imperii Romani, sub quo esse debent, cum ipsi fuerint de imperio Iustiniani…’ That is, the French are not vassals of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, but they are his subjects because they were in the Roman Empire of Justinian! Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 5} To C. 11.19 (18).1: ‘Hodie imperium est scissum, et studium multis locis fit, maxime Bononiae, quae legalis studii obtinet monarchiam.’ This is from Pillius’ continuation of the unfinished Summa of Placentinus on the Tres Libri (published as Azo’s, Venice 1584) 982: ‘Verum, cum imperium modernis temporibus scissuram senserit, istę quoque civitates duae [i.e., Beirut and Constantinople] dominationem perdiderint, coeperunt quoque iura quovis loco tradi, et Bononiae maxime, quae legalium studiorum monarchiam tenuit, nec non Mutinae…’ But Pillius no doubt has in mind the division of the Empire into the Greek and Western, and would hold that the Roman Empire in the West was a unity, embracing the western kingdoms. Consider also the gloss to Inst 1.9.2. ad v. Romanorum: ‘Id est, omnium qui sunt de Rom. imp. Aliae vero gentes quaedam ut servos tenent filios, ut Sciavi; aliae ut prorsus absolutos, ut Francigenae…’ Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 6} Quoted by Savigny, F. C. v., Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter (2nd ed. 1834-50) VI 76 n.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 7} See the discussion by Calasso, , Glossatori ² 36–9; full text ed. Landsberg, E., Die Quaestiones des Azo (Freiburg-i.-B. 1888) 86.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 8} Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht III 199, 201, 210, 356-60.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 9} On Joh. Teutonicus see Kuttner, , Repertorium 93–99, 357, 370-71, 374-5, and in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (Città del Vaticano 1946) V 608-34.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 10} Appar. to Comp. III tit. de elect. c. Venerabilem (1.6.19; Decr. Greg. IX, 1.6.34): Schulte, , ‘Literaturgeschichte der Compilationes Antiquae,’ in Sitzungsber. d. kais. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Wien, Philos.-histor. Kl. 66 (1870) 130–31; Post, G., in Archiv f. kathol. Kirchenrecht 117 (1937) 407-8. Here I gave a version from a MS in which the words excepto regimine hyspanie were interpolated: ‘Sic enim regimen mundi, excepto regimine hyspanie, translatum est ad teuthonicos.’ This is in a copy of the Appar. of Tancred to Comp. III. But other MSS of the Appar. that I have seen do not have the words; more important, the Appar. of Joh. himself, with the full gloss, in Brit. Mus. MS Royal 11.C.VII, contains no such interpolation. Onory, Mochi, Fonti 236, is wrong in stressing these words as belonging to Joh. Teut. and indicating that even he weakened the universalism of the empire by making an exception of Spain; he failed to observe that I showed that the words were probably a later insertion, Arch. kath. KR 117. 407 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 11} The words, ‘et dicit lex ipse enim est princeps mundi et dominus,’ are in Bamberg MS Can. 19, fol. 132^v, as given in Tancred’s Appar. to Comp. III. In the Appar. of Joh. himself, in MS Royal 11 C. VII, the words are deep in the margin and do not show clearly in my photograph. Hence I took them from the Bamberg MS.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 12} Aliquis regum in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3930, fol. 107. In MS Royal 11 C. VII the words are hidden in the margin, but one can make out regnum. Perhaps aliquod regnum is the better reading.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 13} Falsum in MS Royal 11 C. VII; acefalum in MS lat. 3930.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 14} As indicated in the preceding notes, I have taken the text chiefly from two MSS, Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3930, and Brit. Mus. MS Royal 11 C. VII, in both of which one finds the Appar. of Joh. Teut. to Comp. III, the decretals of Innocent III; partly also from the Appar. of Tancred to the same in Bamberg MS Can. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 15} Appar. to Comp. III, tit. Qui filli sint legit, c. Per venerabilem 4.12.2 (Decr. Greg. IX, 4.17.13), ad v. recognoscat: ‘De iure tamen subest romano imperatori, ut vii. q. i. in apibus [c.41]. ut dixi supra, de elec. venerabilem.’ Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 16} Glos. ord. to Dist. 1 c.12. This passage is on the idea that the Roman law, ius Quiritum, deals with legacies, wardships, contracts, etc.; Joh. ad v. quod nulli: ‘…Nam imperator est princeps totius mundi… Sed in diversis provinciis diversi reges sub eo constituti sunt… Qui ergo non vult esse sub Romano Imperio, nec haereditatem habere potest, nec alia quae hic de iure romano enumerantur…’ Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 17} To Dist. 63 c. 22 Adrianus, ad v. per singulas provincias: ‘…Fateamur ergo Imperatorem esse dominum mundi… Obstat quod reges Hispaniae, cum non subessent Imperio, regnum ab hostium faucibus eruerunt.’ See above, n.10.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 18} Loc. cit.: ‘Ergo in Francia et in Hispania. Unus enim imperator…; quod concedo nisi probent se exemptos ab imperatore, ut xxiii. q. viii. c. si in morte § ecce. Unde adhuc de capite suo dabunt tributum imperatori omnes, cum non probent se exemptos ab imperatore, ut ff. de censi. 1. ult. Si enim dicunt se non subesse Romano imperio, per consequens dicunt se non habere aliquid proprii, ut infra [for supra], dist. j. ius quiritum [see above, n.16]. Fateamur, etc.’ Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 19} Summa to Decretum, Dist. 1 c. 12 Ius Quiritum; Causa 6 q.3 c.2 Scitote; 7 q.1 c.41 In apibus, and 15 q.6 c.3 Alius. I have consulted the work in the Paris, B.N. MS Iat. 3892, but do not need to repeat the passages, for they are in large part quoted by Koschaker, Paul, Europa und das römische Recht (Munich and Berlin 1947) 75; Onory, Mochi, Fonti 155, 174-6; Kuttner, , in Festschrift Wolff 93, 96 n.74; and Ullmann, W., ‘The Medieval Interpretation of Frederick I's Authentic « Habita »,’ Studi in Memoria di Paolo Koschaker (Milan 1953) 102 n.5. Ullmann exaggerates in saying that late twelfth-century doctrine maintained the unity of the Empire. We shall soon see how Peter the Chanter, and Richard de Mores (Anglicus) held the opposite; and the fact that Alanus in the early years of the thirteenth century believed in the independence of certain kings indicates a background in the twelfth century.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 20} Onory, Mochi, Fonti 155.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 21} See Kuttner, , Repertorium 59–66.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 22} Paris, B.N. MS nouv. acq. lat. 1576, fol. 21, to Dist. 1 c.12 Ius Quiritum, ad v. proprie sunt romanorum: ‘…Roma communis omnium subiectorum patria, quia eodem iure debent uti, ut Insti. prologo, in principio. Unde iudei qui sunt subiecti romanis vivunt more romano, ut C. de iudeis, iudei [C. 1.12.2 — but more likely 1.12.4 Iussio]. Immo omnes latini debent istis legibus uti, quia unus tantum debet esse imperator, ut vii. q. i. in apibus [c.41]. Omnes subesse debent illi imperatori… Odie tamen non fit, quia non sunt omnes sub imperatore, sed ecclesia…’ Also in Kuttner, , in Festschrift M. Wolff 96 n. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 23} MS nouv. acq. lat. 1576, to Dist. 2 c.5: ‘Quod tamen rex in regno suo, quia quilibet rex in regno suo potest aliquid statuere… Leges autem generales solo imperatori licet condere…’ And to Dist. 4 c.3 In istis temporalibus : ‘Loquitur secundum antiqua tempora, quando plebs poterat legem condere. Odie solus imperatur…’ Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 24} Kuttner, , in Festschrift M. Wolff 96 n.74; Onory, Mochi, Fonti 174-6.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 25} Below to n.55.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 26} I am following here the convincing interpretation of the Super speculam by Kuttner, in Festschrift M. Wolff 79–101.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 27} Ibid. 98 n. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 28} Ibid. 98 n. 81; Bernard adds that the emperor ‘dominus mundi est,’ in gloss to Decr. Greg. IX 5.33.28.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 29} Brit. Mus. MS Royal 11 C. VII fol. 269^v. On this Appar. see Kuttner, , Repertorium 383. I have not been able to consult the glosses of others to Comp. V. Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 30} To tit. De censibus (al. de immunitate ecclesiarum) c. Gravi nobis 3.26.5 (not in Decr. Greg. IX): ‘Sed quare papa allegat legem imperatoris ipsi regi [of Portugal], cum ei non subsit? Respondeo, licet ei non subsit, subesse debet tamen… Item lex ista intelligitur esse postquam est per ecclesiam approbata… Et est ar. in decretali ista, quod omnes reges debent subesse imperatori;’ in Brit. Mus. MS Royal 11 C. VII fol. 266^v. Note that Jacobus uses an argument of Huguccio, that at least by reason of approval by the Church, the Roman law may be valid in regions of customary law.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 31} MS Royal 11 C. VII col. 257^v, to Comp. V tit. De iudeis et saracenis, c. Intellecto 5.3.1, ad v. lege perpetua: ‘Ita habes quod rex potest facere in terra sua similiter. Prefectus pretorio potest facere legem quam omnes servare tenentur, dummodo non sit legi et constitutioni contraria…’ Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 32} Kuttner, , in Festschrift M. Wolff 98 n.81; Onory, Mochi, Fonti 277-8.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 33} See Merriman, R.B., Rise of the Spanish Empire I (New York 1918) 90–1; Menendez Pidal, R., El Imperio hispánico y los cincos reinos (Madrid 1950) chs. I-V, VII.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 34} Ganshof, F. L., ‘Le roi de France en Flandre en 1127 et 1128,’ Rev. hist, de droit franç. et étr. ⁴ 27 (1949) 7 n.2.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 35} John of Salisbury, Ep. 239 (PL 199.271): Henry II ‘adeoque gloriatur ut palam dicat se nunc demum avi sui consecutum privilegium, qui in terra sua erat rex, legatus apostolica, patriarcha, imperator, et omnia quae volebat.’ Holtzmann, W., ‘Das mittelalterliche Imperium und die werdenden Nationen,’ Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Westfalen 7 (1953) 19, points this out.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 36} Barraclough, G., ‘Law and Legislation in Medieval England,’ Law Quarterly Review 56 (1940) 88.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 37} Schulz, Fritz, ‘Bracton on Kingship,’ EHR 60 (1945) 150–151.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 38} Smalley, Beryl, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1941) 172 n. 1: ‘Sed si pares non habentes superiores, ut rex Francorum et imperator bellent, periculum est. Ad papam enim recurrendum esset, ut ad maiorem.’ Was Innocent III, in the Per venerabilem, acquainted with Peter the Chanter's words? Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 39} On his career and works, see Kuttner, , Repertorium 67–75, 325; supplementary notes in Traditio 1 (1943) 289 and 7 (1949-51) 339.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 40} Schulte, , ‘Literaturgesch. d. Comp. Ant.,’ Sitzungsber. d. kais. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Wien, Philos.-histor. Kl 66 (1871) 89–90; Onory, Mochi, Fonti 191 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 41} Apparatus ‘Ius naturale’ (see Kuttner, , Repertorium 67–75; Trad. 1.289 n.52; 7.339 ii.84) in Paris, B.N. MS lat. 15393, fol. 70. Compare with the last portion of the gloss published by Schulte and Mochi Onory (see preceding note): ‘…Sed numquid papa materialem gladium sibi posset retinere? Resp. non, dominus enim gladios diuisit, ut XCVI di. cum ad verum. et praeterea ecclesia ex hoc plurimum turbaretur. Et quod dictum est de imperatore, dictum habeatur de quolibet rege vel principe, qui nulli subest. Unusquisque enim tantum juris habet in regno suo, quantum imperator in imperio. Divisio enim regnorum de jure gentium introductum (a) a papa approbatur, licet antiquo jure gentium imperator unus in orbe esse deberet. A.’ This gloss belongs to the years 1207-10 (Kuttner, , Trad. 1.289 n.52); the gloss to the Decretum to about 1210-15. Both glosses, therefore, may be influenced by Innocent III's Per venerabilem, although Alanus does not cite the decretal.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 42} To Dist. 2 c.5 Constitutio: ‘Cum lege regia… imperio lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem concessit… Idem et de rege et regno suo.’ There is here no sense of the emperor’s delegating the power of legislation to the king as head of a province. Also to Dist. 8. c. 2 Quo iure ad v. regum iura: ‘Ar. quod reges habeant potestatem condendi leges, sicut et imperatores…’ on the words of St. Augustine, who speaks of imperatores et reges as equals.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 43} To 23 q.1 c.4 Quid culpatur, ad vv. penes principes sit: ‘De iure mero ille habet potestatem indicendi bellum, qui supra se non habet secularem potestatem. Alii autem, quantumcumque magni fuerint, sine superioris auctoritate non possunt, ut infra, q. prox. [23 q.2 c.1], et q. v. miles [c.12]. Consuetudo quorumdam locorum etiam aliis principibus, qui supra se habent dominos, concedit ius indicendi bellum sua auctoritate, et in civitatibus ytalie, et pro eis facit c. infra, e.q.ii. dominus [c.2]’; MS lat. 15393, fol. 181.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 44} To 23 q.1 c.1 Iustum, ad v. ex edicto: the princeps ‘habet ius indicendi bellum…; sine edicto licite gerit bellum, in quo est specialissimum, quod potest iniuriam suam vindicare…, si aliter iustitia consequi non possit… Et secundum opinionem nostram, quod dominus papa est iudex ordinarius [‘dominum papam esse iudicem ordinarium’ MS] principum, quo ad spiritualia et quo ad temporalia, ad eum antequam indicat bellum tenetur recurrere, ut per eum iustitiam consequatur si potest, vel eo auctoritatem prestante bellum indicat.’ Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 45} See the full text in Onory, Mochi, Fonti 253, from Gillmann, , Arch. kath. KR 107.672 n.1. On Richard see Kuttner, , Repertorium 223-25, 324; and Kuttner, and Rathbone, Eleanor, ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century,’ Traditio 7 (1949-51) 329-33, where the earlier identification with Richard de Lacy (Repertorium 223) is withdrawn; the latter actually flourished in the late thirteenth century, see Meijers, E. M., Tijdschr. voor Rechtsgesch. 20 (1952) 89-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 306 note 46} Quoted by Kuttner, , in Festschrift M. Wolff 96 n.73.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 47} Above, nn. 14, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 48} Above, nn. 15, 16.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 49} Vinc. to Comp. III 4.12.2 (Decr. Greg. IX, 4.17. 13), ad v. recognoscat: ‘De facto, jo. Immo de iure, supra, de iudic. novit, 1. e.;’ in Bamberg MS Can. 20 (P.II.7); also in Onory, Mochi, Fonti 282.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 50} To Comp. III 2.1.3, ad v. cum hoc regnum: ‘Sic et gallicana ecclesia maior aliis, supra, de magistris, quanto [Comp. I 5.4.3 = Decr. Greg. IX 5.5.3: Alexander III praises the Gallican Church as greater than others]. Immo per hoc colligitur quod hispania est maior aliis provinciis. Cum enim Carolus vellet cum omnibus francigenis intrare hispaniam, ispani ingressu ispanie obviaverunt eis, et superaverunt eos in bello, et occiderunt .xii. pares… Vincentius’; Bamberg MS Can. 20, fol. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 51} Gillmann, Fr., in Arch. kath. KR 113.101: ‘Similiter dicitur in nobili yspania…’; and p. 100: ‘Facto, ut ispanus, non autem verbis, ut francigena…’ Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 52} A fuller account of this will soon appear in Speculum. On Vincentius see Kuttner, , Repertorium 374 n.2, 356.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 53} See Schulte, , Quellen I 191–2; Gillmann, , Arch. kath. KR 113.99-107; Kuttner, , Repertorium 374 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 54} See above to n.14, for the full text of the comment of Joh. Teut.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 55} I have copied the gloss from the Paris, B.N. MS lat. 3967 (see Kuttner, , Repertorium I 374 n.2) fol. 21; the gloss is to Decr. Greg. IX 1.6.34 Venerabilem, ad v. in germanos: ‘…Nec aliquod regnum potuit eximi ab imperio, quia illud esset acephalum…, et esset monstrum sine capite suo. Debent tributum imperatori nisi in hoc sint exempti… Omnia enim sunt in potestate imperatoris… Fatetur ergo quod theotonici virtutibus prom[er]uerunt imperium… Io. theutonice, excipe ipso iure exemptos Yspanos, qui karolum non admiserunt, nec eius pares. Sed ego Vinc. dico, quod theutonici per busnardiam perdiderunt imperium… Quodlibet enim thigurium sibi usurpat dominium, et quelibet civitas de dominio cum eis contendit. Sed soli Yspani virtute sua obtinuerunt imperium et episcopos elegerunt, lxiij. d. cum longe. Nonne in francia et in anglia et in theotonica et in Constantinopoli Yspani dominantur beate [beate in margin] domine Yspanie, qui dominium pariunt, et dominantes audacie et probitatis virtutibus expandunt. Iuvantur ergo Yspani meritis et probitate, nec indigent corpore prescriptionum vel consuetudinum sicut theotonici. Quis valeat numerare, Yspania, laudes tuas? Divis equis, preclara cibis auroque refulgens, Parca fuge, prudens et cunctis invidiosa, Iura sciens, et stans sublimibus alta columpnis. Vine.’ Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 56} Siete partidas 2.1.5 and 8; Especulo 1.13. See Carlyle, , Medieval Political Theory V 148; Calasso, , Glossatori ² 39 n.52.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 57} Brit. Mus. MS Royal 11 B. V fol. 138, cap. VI, De penitentia imperatoris et cui debeat confiteri. Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 58} Fol. 138^v, c. De penitentia regum et cui debent confiteri: ‘Dicunt quidam quod rex, qui non habet alium super ['sub’ MS] se debet confiteri domino pape, vel de eius licentia sibi eligere providum confessorem, sicut imperator; et habere volunt per decretalem, extra, qui filii sint legitimi, per venerabilem abbatem [Decr. Greg. IX, 4.17.13]. Alii dicunt quod debet confiteri metropolitano per illud capitulum vi. q. iij scitote [c.2], ubi dicitur, ‘Scitote quod certa est provincia que habet decem episcopos et unum regem et unum metropolitanum, etc.’ [The passage actually reads, ‘Scitote certam esse provinciam, quae habet decem aut undecim civitates, et unum regem… et unum metropolitanum….’] Tercii dicunt quod debet confiteri cuicumque voluerit, dum est sanus, sicut dictum est de imperatore, nisi esset in regno aliqua principalis civitas, que esset caput regni, in qua rex iste habuisset domicilium principale. Tunc enim ab episcopo illius civitatis debuisset petere licentiam; quod satis poterit sustineri.’ Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 59} See Glorieux, P., La littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320 (Le Saulchoir-Kain 1925) 111–27.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 60} Paris, B.N. MS lat. 16405 fol. 119 (the reference is 2 King’s [Sam.] 12).Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 61} Fol. 49^r .Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 62} See Ercole, , Da Bartolo 174 n.1, 86 n.3, 184 n.3; Calasso, , Glossatori ² 115 n.92, 116.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 63} Ercole, 181 n.4.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 64} To Liber VI 1.8.2 Grandi, ad v. regis. Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 65} Paris, B.N. MS lat. 9634, fol. 23; Jesselin, in MS lat. 16902, to the same decretal. On these canonists see Schulte, , Quellen II 199–201, and, for corrections on Etienne Troche and Pierre d’Estaing, Fournier, P., ‘Notes complémentaires pour l’histoire des canonistes du XIV^e siècle,’ Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et étranger 43 (1919) 637-44.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 66} Paris, B.N. MS lat. 16902, fol. 183^ra to Clem. 2.9.1 ad v. apicem: ‘Excedit autem [princeps or emperor] in temporalibus de iure omnes alios… Quod est verum de illis qui sunt de imperio, quia secus de aliis… Et sic nedum de facto, ut… per venerabilem; imo de iure rex francie et quidam alii imperatorem in suum superiorem minime recognoscunt, maxime cum karolus magnus, in cuius personam fuit translatum in germanos imperium, non videtur verisimiliter suum speciale patrimonium, quod erat regnum francie, velle alicui subiecisse; quod si forsan aliquibus temporibus fuerit possessio, tamen est per diuturnitatem temporis interversa, ut dicit c. per venerabilem.’ For the remark about Joh. Teut. see above I n.61.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 67} De legibus Angliae (ed. Woodbine, ) II 3. For Bracton on kingship see in detail Schulz, F., in Eng. Hist. Rev. 60 (1945) 136-76, on rex imperator esp. p. 150f.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 68} De leg. II 109.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 69} Ibid. II 110.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 70} Ibid. III 43.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 71} Ibid. II 172–4.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 72} Ibid. II 160: the king has ordinary jurisdiction and dignitas and potestas over all in the kingdom, ‘habet enim omnia iura in manu sua, quae ad coronam et laicalem pertinent potestatem et materialem gladium qui pertinet ad regni gubernaculum.’ I cannot enter into the problem here, except to say that the iura may mean laws as well as rights; and this means in general that the king like the emperor, having all laws and rights in his possession that pertain to the crown and the secular or material sword, is absolute in the public sphere of interpreting the law and enforcing it. Cf. McIlwain, C. H., Constitutionalism and the Changing World (New-York 1939) 73-94, 79, 83. Schulz does not discuss this point.Google Scholar

^{page 311 note 73} Gillmann, Fr., ‘Romanus pontifex iura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere,’ Archiv f. kathol. KR 92 (1912) 3–17 and 106 (1926) 156-74. The source is in C. 6.23.19. The legists were well aware of the principle, e.g., Odofredo, , Com. on the Tres Libri (Lyons 1550) 9^v, to C. 10.1.9.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 74} Keeney, Barnaby C., ‘The Medieval Idea of the State: the Great Cause, 1291-2,’ Univ. Toronto Law Journal 8 (1949) 48–71, 60-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 312 note 75} See Declareuil, J., Hist. générale du droit français (Paris 1925) 427–35; Koschaker, , Europa und das römische Recht 75-8; Ercole, , Da Bartolo 157-217; Calasso, , Glossatori ² 31-2, 45-6, 112-25, 152.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 76} Ercole, , Da Bartolo 157, 184-5; Calasso, , Glossatori ² 113-4, 118-25 Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 77} Calasso, , Glossatori ² 31–3, 45-7, 152; Woolf, , Bartolus 373-5.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 78} Tractatus super feudis et homagiis, ed. Acher, loc. cit. (I n. 40 above) 159–62; discussed by Calasso, , Glossatori ² 112-15, and Ercole, , DaBartolo 184.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 79} ‘Nam sicut omnia sunt imperatoris quantum ad iurisdictionem, cum sit mundi dominus, sic omnia, que sunt in regno, sunt regis quantum ad iurisdictionem, ut C. de qua. pres. 1. bene a Zenone (C. 7.37.3), ff. ad 1. ro. de iactu 1. deprecatio (D. 14.2.9).’ See the famous gloss of Accursius to C. 7.37.3 ad v. omnia principis: ‘Etiam quo ad proprietatem, ut dicit M[artinus] principi apud Roncaliam, timore vel amore… Sed Bulga[rus] contra etiam ibidem, et hic expone, ad protectionem vel jurisdictionem… Accur.’ Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 80} Commentary on the Code , in Paris B.N. MS lat. 14350 fol. 221^v .Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 81} Ibid. fol. 206^v-207^r .Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 82} Ibid. fol. 219^v .Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 83} See above, to nn. 38, 44; below to n.108.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 84} Calasso, , Glossatori ² 31 n.35, 46; Ercole, , Da Bartolo 167.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 85} Calasso, 31 n.35; Ercole, 167.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 86} de Tourtoulon, Pierre, Les oeuvres de Jacques de Révigny (Paris 1899) 48–50.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 87} Ercole, , Da Bartolo 164, 165 n.2, 166 n.2, 189-90 n.3; Calasso, , Glossatori ² 32.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 88} Lectura on the Inst. (Paris 1513) 30^v-31: ‘Illi qui non habent superiorem: tales de imperio licite adinvicem possunt debellare: ubi debitor meus vult fugere cum non habeo copiam iudicis, possum ipsum auctoritate propria capere. Ergo cum unus de imperio alii velit rem aufferre cum non habent iudicem adinvicem possunt debellare… Istud posset concedi, si diceremus quod non habent superiorem. Canoniste dicunt quod interim vacante imperio papa habet iurisdictionem…’ Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 89} Lectura Inst. 4^v-5^v .Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 90} Ibid. 6: ‘Et ideo in regno francie nullus prescribit quin sit subiectus regi.’ Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 91} Ibid. 6: ‘Et ideo ille civitates in lombardia male faciunt quod non recognoscunt regem nostrum: quia nostro regi subiecte sunt…’ Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 92} Below, to n.111.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 93} McLaughlin, (ed.) Summa Parisiensis xix, 10, 56, 155; Dist. 10 c.9 De capitulis; Dist. 63 C.23 In Synodo, c.30 Ego Ludovicus; C. 11 q.3 c.104 Antecessor. See n.66, above.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 94} Above, I, to nn. 45, 54.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 95} See Calasso, , Glossatori ² 62.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 96} Com. in Cod. (Lyons 1594) 3 no.8 to C. 1.1 Cunctos populos. Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 97} Loc. cit. Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 98} Ibid, to C. 1.17.2 Legislatores: ‘…quo iure creantur doct. legum in regno Franciae, cum nec ad Papam pertineat ex brachio suo spirituali, cum sit scientia temporalis et imperialis… Item nec ex seculari, cum regnum Franciae quo ad temporalitatem non habeat superiorem, ut c. per venerabilem… Sed potest dici, quod cum omnis scientia sit a Deo…, quod ad eius vicarium qui maior est in terra pertineat dispensatio scientiae etiam huiusmodi…’ Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 99} Aurea practica libellorum (Cologne 1575) 272–3, nos. 15-18.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 100} Op. cit. 274 no.21.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 101} Op. cit. 277 no.38.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 102} Op. cit. 278 no.40.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 108} Op. cit. 277-8 nos.38, 39, 40, 42.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 104} Op. cit. 278, cap. XII; see also above I, at n.56.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 105} Op. cit. 287-9 nos. 43, 44.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 106} See Kämpf, , Pierre Dubois 33–53, on the healing powers of the king and his sacred character.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 107} Op. cit. 280-1, 286, nos. 99-100. For the term malatolta see Ducange s. v. Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 108} Op. cit. 278-9, nos. 46, 47.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 109} Ercole, , Da Bartolo 193–217; Calasso, , Glossatori ² 127-64; Woolf, , Bartolus 208-383.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 110} Ercole, 214–5. Ullmann, W., The Medieval Idea of Law as Represented by Lucas de Penna (London 1946), does not treat this subject.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 111} See the summary of his thought by Langlois, Ch.-V., in Lavisse, , Histoire de France… jusqu'à la Révolution III ² 284–90; Langlois observes also how Jean de Jandun said that the monarchy of the world belongs to the kings of France (290); also Kämpf, , Pierre Dubois 23-6, 45-53, 99. Kern, Fritz, Die Anfänge der französischen Ausdehnungspolitik bis zum Jahr 1308 (Tübingen 1911), refers here and there to the importance of Pierre de Belleperche in helping shape or carry on the foreign policy of Philip IV, but says nothing of Pierre’s legal thought and statement about the disobedient Lombards (above to n.91); on Pierre Dubois, 31-4.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 112} McIlwain, C. H., Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York 1932) 268.Google Scholar