Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:36:50.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideas of the State in Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century Commentators on the Roman Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Joseph P. Canning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The late thirteenth and fourteenth-century civilians made a distinctive contribution to the theory of the state, because they were seeking to apply a specific juristic language to account for the existence of contemporary territorial states. Fully worked out state concepts are to be found in the works of Bartolus and Baldus, although elements necessary for the construction of a concept of the state exist in earlier Commentators. The theories of Bartolus and Baldus are prime illustrations that the concept of the state is historically fluid: they do not possess our concept of the state; indeed their theories are highly complex, combining aspects which are distinctively late medieval with others which can justifiably be termed elements of a modern idea of the state.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 33 , December 1983 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1983

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 ‘Subiectum sive materia (legalis scicntie) nihil aliud est quam actus hominum’, ad Digestum vetus, Proem, n. 8, f. 2v (edn. Frankfurt, 1578)Google Scholar.

2 ‘Omnis ars assumit sibi naturam pro materia …sed legista pro materia assumit sibi facta hominum … Item ipsa interpretatur, et sic ius nostrum est fundatum super accidentibus, id est super casibus emergentibus … nam iura ex factis nata sunt … Communis vero materia non versatur in factis nature, sed in factis hominum’, ad D.I.I.Rubr., f. 4r (edn. Lyon, 1498)Google Scholar.

3 ‘Ius est ars boni et aequi. Cuius merito quis nos sacerdotes appellet: iustitiam namque colimus et boni et aequi notitiam profitemur … veram nisi fallor philosophiam, non simulatam affectantes’ (D.I.I.I).

4 See, for instance, Kelley, D. R., ‘Civil Science in the Renaissance: Jurisprudence Italian Style’, Hist. Jnl., xxii, 4 (1979), 783Google Scholar.

5 ‘Supponitur ethice, quia tractat de moribus, sicut et omnes libri legalis scientie’, Summa Codicis, ad v. ‘Incipit materia ad codicem’, f. 25r (edn. Speyer, 1482)Google Scholar.

6 D.14.2.9.

7 For extensive details on both cities and signori see Ercole, F., Dal comune al principato: saggi sulla storia del diritto pubblico del rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1929), esp. 273–328Google Scholar; and for signori in particular see Jones, P. J., ‘Communes and Despots: the City-State in Late-Medieval Italy’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 5th series, 15 (1965), 71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 The views of the Neapolitan jurists are extensively dealt with in Calasso, F., I Glossatori e la teoria della sovranità, (3rd edn., Milan, 1957)Google Scholar, where the text of the Proem of Marinus da Caramanico on the Liber Constitutionum of Frederick, II is provided (176–205)Google Scholar. For Oldradus da Ponte see Will, E., Die Gutachten des Oldradus de Ponte zum Prozesse Heinrichs VII. gegen Robert von Neapel (Berlin, 1917), 51–62Google Scholar, and Meijers', E. M. review of this (Etudes d'histoire du droit, ed. Feenstra, R. and Fischer, H. F. W. D., iii (Leiden, 1966), 195–6)Google Scholar. Ullmann, W. discusses the views of the Neapolitans and Oldradus in ‘The development of the medieval idea of sovereignty’, Engl. Hist. Rev., lxiv (1949) at 19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more modern treatments of the pro-Neapolitan view see Costa, P., Iurisdictio. Semantica del potere politico nella pubblicistica medievale 1100–1433, Università di Firenze pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, 1 (Milan, 1969), 333–41Google Scholar; and Paradisi, B., ‘II pensiero politico dei giuristi medievali’, in Storia delle idee politiche economiche e sociali, ed. Firpo, L., ii (Turin, 1973), 57–76Google Scholar.

9 ‘Ex hoc iure gentium introducta bella, discretae gentes, regna condita, dominia distincta …’.

10 ‘Longe ante imperium et romanorum genus ex antiquo, scilicet iure gentium quod cum ipso humano genere proditum est, fuerunt regna cognita, condita’ (edn. Calasso, 17, p. 196).

11 Edn. cit., 17, pp. 196–7.

12 This identification between ius naturale and ius gentium derived ultimately from Gaius (D.I.I.9), although Ulpian's contrary view distinguishing between the two (D.I.I.I) also found expression in the works of medieval jurists. For the origins of the Commentators' views in the theories of the Glossators and Decretists see Weigand, R., Die Naturrechtslehre der Legisten und Dekretisten von Irnerius bis Accursius und von Gratian bis Johannes Teutonicus, Münchener Theologische Studien, iii. Kanonistische Abteilung, 26 (Munich, 1967), esp., 62–4Google Scholar.

13 ‘De iure naturali primevo, nec sunt regna nee imperium … De iure gentium quod etiam naturale vocatur … de iure isto per occupationem distincta sunt dominia, et regna condita (D.I.I.5). Et sic cum de iure isto sint reges, et imperatores solum fuerunt de iure civili, quia per populum romanum, ut infra patebit reges iustiorem titulum habent, cum a iure quodammodo naturali (quod divina providentia constitutum est) semper firmum atque immutabile perseverat’, Cons., 69, n. 5, f. 24r (edn. Lyon, 1550)Google Scholar.

14 These two expressions were in origin distinct, although they were soon very often combined: see the recent highly pertinent discussion in Ullmann, W., ‘This Realm of England is an Empire’, Journal of Eccles. Hist., xxx, 2 (1979), 188, n. 48Google Scholar.

15 Edn. cit., 19, pp. 198–9.

16 ‘Cum causa rex alius poterit in regno suo quod imperator potest in terra imperii, que hodie modica est. In Italia non habet nisi Lombardiam, et illam non totam, et pattern Thuscie; et alia sunt ecclesie Romane, sicut et regnurn Sicilie. Primi domini fuerunt reges, ut dicit Sallustius, et patet (D.1.2.2.3) … in auth. “Vt preponatur imperatoris nomen” (Coll.5.3 = Nov.,47) in princ.. Reddite ergo sunt provincie (que regem habent) forme pristine habendi reges, quod de facili fit (D.2.14.27). Liberi reges tantum habent in regnis suis quantum imperator in imperio’, ad Feud., 2.56, n. 2, f. 286r (edn. Lyon, 1579).

17 See, for instance, Paradisi, , ‘II pensiero politico’, 71–6Google Scholar, and Costa, , Iurisdictio, 335–6Google Scholar.

18 The modern literature is vast. Walther, H. G., Imperiales Königtum, Konziliarismus und Volkssouveränität (Munich, 1976), 65–111Google Scholar, and 135–59, through discussing both a large amount of source material and a wide range of opinions of modern historians provides a highly useful survey of the contribution of both canonists and French publicists together with the views of Neapolitan jurists and early mainstream publicists. For the significance of the contribution of the French publicists and jurists Ullmann, ‘Medieval idea of sovereignty’, remains fundamental.

19 See Meijers, , Etudes, iii, 192–3Google Scholar, and especially Guilelmus de Cuneo ad D.I.II.I, f. IIV (Bodl., MS. Can. Misc. 472), ‘Dico quod omnes tribuni erant sub rege Romano sicut omnes reges sunt hodie sub imperatore excepto rege Francie qui non habet superiorem’ (‘I say that all tribunes were under the Roman king just as all kings are to-day under the emperor with the exception of the king of France who does not have a superior’).

20 ‘Quidam dicunt quod Francia exempta est ab imperio; hoc est impossibile de iure. Et quod Francia sit subdita imperio habes … C.1.27.2.2. Si hoc non recognoscit rex Francie, de hoc non euro’, ad Digestum Vetus, Proem, f. 2r, MS. Leiden, d'Ablaing 2 (as quoted in Meijers, , Etudes, iii, 192Google Scholar). Cp. id. ad Rubr, C.. ‘De emendatione Iustiniani Codicis’, ad v. ‘Augustus’, f. iv (edn. Paris, 1519)Google Scholar, ‘Non recognoscens superiorem de facto non prescribit dominium … Et hoc valet contra regem yspanie et regem francie qui non recognoscunt superiorem de facto. Tamen lex est expressa dicens quod ipsi sunt sub imperatore. Vnde de iure se non possunt tueri prescriptione, quia (C.1.27.2,2) ibi dicit quod imperator misit quendam ut preesset in yspaniam et franciam. Ergo de iure sunt subiecti imperio, quia semel fuerunt subiecti’ (‘He who does not recognise a superior de facto does not prescribe dominium … And this is valid against the king of Spain and the king of France who do not recognise a superior de facto. There is, however, a law which expressly says that they are under the emperor, and as a result they cannot defend themselves de iure through prescription, because (C.1.27.2,2) says that the emperor sent someone to be in authority over Spain and France. De iure, therefore, they are subject to the empire, because they were once subject’).C.1.27.2,2 provides the locus classicus for the argument that the French and Spanish kings are subject to the emperor.

21 The first words of l. Cunctos populos (C.I.I.I) — ‘Cunctos populos, quos clementie nostre regit imperium’ (edn. Venice, 1498)Google Scholar—invited the application of the de iure–de facto distinction to the relationship between the emperor and lesser rulers. Was ‘quos’ to be taken ‘declarative’, thus signifying that all peoples were under the emperor's rule, or was it to be understood ‘restrictive’ indicating that only his subjects were? In their commentaries on C.I.I.I Bellapertica, Petrus de (n. 3, p. 8, edn. Frankfurt, 1571)Google Scholar and Cynus (n. 3, f. IV, edn. Frankfurt, 1578) hold that, while the emperor is de iure lord of the world, Justinian had intended ‘quos’ to be taken in a restrictive de facto sense so as to avoid making his laws a laughing-stock through trying to apply them to peoples not worthy to be ruled by them.

22 See Baldus ad D.1.2.2,11, f. 13r (edn. Lyon, 1498); id. ad C.8.47.2, f. 323r (edn. Lyon, 1498); and Bartolus ad C.1.14.12, n. 3–4, f. 29r (edn. Turin, 1577).

23 See Baldus ad C.1.14.4, f. 50v (edn. Lyon, 1498), and ad C.7.37.3, f. 196v (edn. Lyon, 1498).

24 Ad D.49.15.24, n. 7, f. 228r (edn. Turin, 1577).

25 ‘Et item ilia dignitas suprema est a deo instituta, unde per hominem supprimi non potest. Hinc est quod imperium semper est’, ad Digestum Vetus, Proem, ad v. ‘Quoniam omnia’, f. IV (edn. Lyon, 1498)Google Scholar.

26 See Jacobus de Ravannis ad C.1.14.12, f. 36v (edn. Paris, 1519); cp. Azo, , Summa Codias, ad C.1.14 (edn. Pavia, 1484)Google Scholar, and Odofredus ad D.1.4.1, n. 1, f. 17v (edn. Lyon, 1550). For the dissensiones dominorum on this point see Cynus, ad C.1.14.12, n. 4, f. 29r (edn. Frankfurt, 1578)Google Scholar.

27 This theme runs throughout Woolf, C. N. S., Bartolus of Sassoferrato—his Position in the History of Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge, 1913)Google Scholar; but see esp. 195–6. Skinner, Q., The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (2 vols., Cambridge, 1978), iGoogle Scholar: The Renaissance, 9–12, lays considerable stress on this aspect of Bartolus' achievement.

28 ‘Respondeo omnes sunt subiecti (i.e. imperatori) de iure, et merito; sed non omnes sunt subiecti de consuetudine; et peccant sicut Francigene et multi alii reges … et licet regnum Francorum non sit de Romano imperio, tamen non sequitur, ergo imperium non est universale, nam aliud est dicere universale, aliud integrum, ut no. (D.50.16.25)’ (‘I reply all are subject (to the emperor) de iure, and rightly so; but not all are subject by custom, and they sin like the French and many other kings … and although the kingdom of the French is not of the Roman empire, it does not however follow that the Empire is not therefore universal, for it is one thing to say “universal”, and another “whole”, as (D.50.16.25) notes’), ad Feud., 2.53, f. 74r (edn. Pavia, 1495).

29 See Hostiensis ad X.1.31.3, f. 147r (edn. Paris, 1512); Jacobus de Ravannis ad C.7.33.12, f. 344v (edn. Paris, 1519); and Oldradus, Cons., 69, n. 6, f. 24r (edn. Lyon, 1550).

30 See Petrus de Bellapertica ad C.I.I.I, n. 3, p. 8 (edn. Frankfurt, 1571), and Cynus, ibid., n. 3, f. IV (edn. Frankfurt, 1578).

31 See Ullmann, W., ‘De Bartoli sententia: concilium repraesentat mentem populi’, in Bartolo da Sassoferrato—studi e documenti per il VI centenario (2 vols., Milan, 1962), ii, 707–33Google Scholar.

32 Ad D.1.1.9 (f. 9r); see also id. ad D.1.1.5 (f. 7v), and D.1.1.1,4 (f. 5v), edn. Lyon, 1498.

33 ‘Causa finalis (artis nostre) est triplex, scilicet in homine, ad hominem, et ad rempublicam. In homine, ut bonus sit; et hoc pertinet ad ethicam. Ad hominem, ut quis bene regat familiam; et hoc pertinet ad economicam. Ad rempublicam, ut respublica salubriter regatur; et hoc pertinet ad politicam’, ad D.i.i.Rubr, f. 4r (edn. Lyon, 1498).

34 ‘Si consideratur in congregatione tunc homo naturalis efficeretur politicus, et ex multis aggregatis fit populus ut (D.41.3.30). Iste populus quandoque muris cingitur, et incolit civitatem; et idem proprie dicitur politicus a polis quod est civitas’, ad C.7.53.5, f. 236r (edn. Lyon, 1498).

35 ‘Nunquid ergo homo politicus est subiectum (i.e. legalis scientie)? Hie dico quod sic, quia ideo principaliter tractatur in iure ut homo; cum gratia hominum omnia iura facta sunt, infra (D.1.5.2). Dico tamen circa hoc quod subiectum bene regatur, quia homo civiliter vivens potest dici subiectum’, ad Digestum Vetus, Proem, in Brandi, B., Notizie intorno a Guillelmus de Cunio (Rome, 1892), 111Google Scholar.

36 ‘δεῖ δ ατν (i.e. νμον) … καννα τε ειναι δικαων κα δκων κα τν ɸσει πολιτικν ζωων’.

37 ‘Lex … regula est iustorum et iniustorum et eorum que natura civilia sunt’, edn. Venice, 1494 (f. 8r)Google Scholar.

38 F. 8r (edn. Venice, 1498).

39 ‘Nota ibi, “naturalia et civilia”, quod homo naturaliter est animal civile; et lex similis debet esse homini bene composite et civili’, f. 13v (edn. Lyon, 1498).

40 ‘ ανθρωπος ϕσει πολιτικν ζωον’, 1253a.

41 Ed. Susemihl (p. 7).

42 See Canning, J. P., ‘A fourteenth-century contribution to the theory of citizenship: political man and the problem of created citizenship in the thought of Baldus de Ubaldis’ in Authority and Power: Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to Walter Ullmann on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Tierney, B. and Linehan, P.A. (Cambridge, 1980), 197–212Google Scholar.

43 See, for instance, Lucas ad C.11.59.7, n. 8, pp. 563–4 (edn. Lyon, 1597).

44 Ad D.1.8.Rubr., f. 36r (edn. Lyon, 1498).

45 ‘A populo vice imperatoris, quia in territorio suo princeps est’, ad X.I.29.41, n. 3, f. 143 (edn. Lyon, 1551)Google Scholar.

46 ‘Vicem ergo et imaginem principis habent’, Cons., 2.49, edn. Brescia, 1490 ( = Cons., 4.52, ed. Venice, 1575).

47 ‘Civitas enim francha a superis concedere potest franchisiam inferis, quia vicem principis in suo gerit solio’, Cons., 5.406, n. 5–6, f. 107r (edn. Venice, 1575)Google Scholar.

48 ‘In suo territorio vice principis funguntur’, ad X.1.2.13, n. 3, f. 28v (edn. Lyon, 1551)Google Scholar.

49 Ad C.1.14.8, f. 54v (edn. Lyon, 1498).

50 Ad Auth., ‘Sed omnino’ (ad C.4.12.4), f. 228r (edn. Lyon, 1498)Google Scholar; and ad D.1.8.Rubr., f. 36r (edn. Lyon, 1498).

51 ‘Omnis rex aut mediate aut immediate a deo eligitur vel ab electoribus inspirante deo … Et ex hoc nota quod regimen quod est per electionem est magis divinum quam illud quod est per successionem … Et ideo electio principis qui est rex universalis fit per electionem prelatorum et principum; non autem vadit per successionem … Hoc enim imperium deus de celo constituit … Reges vero particulares sunt magis ex constitutione hominum, ut (D.1.1.5)’, De regimine civitatis, n. 22–3, f. 157r (edn. Turin, 1577)Google Scholar.

51 ‘Queritur an hodie provincia possit sibi eligere regem? Et videtur quod non, nam provincie sunt sub naturali dominio imperatoris, ergo non possunt conferre alicui merum imperium, in auth., “De defensoribus civitatum” (Coll.3.2,1 = Nov.,15,1). Sed tu dic, quod sic, si est talis provincia que non subsit imperatori, ut Hispania. Nam si dominus Castelle deficeret in totum, regnicole possent sibi eligere regem de iure gentium, ut hie. Nunquid ergo iurisdictiones fuerunt introducte de iure gentium? Die quod sic, quia rex significat se habere iurisdictionem; cum ergo de iure gentium fuerint reges, ergo et iurisdictiones’, ad D.1.1.5, f. 7r (edn. Lyon, 1498).

53 As for instance ad X.1.29.38, n. 5, f. 141r (edn. Lyon, 1551).

54 Ad Feud., 2.55, f. 86r (edn. Pavia, 1495).

55 As for instance ad D.1.2.2,2, f. 12v (edn. Lyon, 1498).

56 Ad C.4.19.7, f. 241r (edn. Lyon, 1498); ad X.Proem, ad v. ‘Rex pacificus’, n. 15, f. 5r (edn. Lyon, 1551)Google Scholar; ad X.2.27.23, n. 5, f. 344r (ead. ed.); and ad X.1.33.6, n. 1, f. 158r (ead. ed.).

57 See Woolf, , Bartolus, 107–12Google Scholar.

58 ‘Quero que sit causa finalis, dico quod duplex est; una proxima et ista potest dici bonum regnum hominum, ut (C.1.14.3; Inst.Proem, 7), totus enim est finis iurium, ut bene regatur res publica … Item potest esse alia causa finalis remota, que potest dici beatitudo eterna ad quam omnes scientie ordinantur finaliter’, ad Digestum Vetus, Proem (ed. Brandi, 112).

58 Ad C.7.37.3, n. 5, f. 446r-v (edn. Frankfurt, 1598); ad D.1.1.5, n. 4 (f. 4v); and ad D. 1.4.3, n. 1 (f. 8r).

60 See Maffei, , La ‘Lectura Super Digesto Veteri’ di Cino da Pistoia. Studio sui MSS Savigny 22 e Urb. Lat. 172 (Milan, 1963), 48–56Google Scholar.

61 See Woolf, , Bartolus, 72–100Google Scholar.

62 Cons., 3.283, f. 88r, edn. Brescia, 1491 ( = Cons., 1.333, edn Venice, 1575); De Pace Constantie, ad v. ‘Hoc quod nos’, f. 90r (edn. Pavia, 1495)Google Scholar; and ad C.1.14.12, f. 55r (edn. Lyon, 1498).

63 See, for instance, Baldus ad Digestum Vetus, Proem, ad v. ‘Quoniam omnia’, f. 1r (edn. Lyon, 1498)Google Scholar, where he maintains that the hierocratic view of papal supremacy found in canonist writings, in order to be acceptable, has to be interpreted in such a way that the temporal sovereignty of the emperor is retained.

64 See Bartolus, , Ad reprimendum, ad v. ‘Per edictum’, f. 5r (edn. Venice, 1497)Google Scholar, and Woolf, , Bartolus, 99Google Scholar; and Baldus, Cons., 2.37, f. 11v, edn. Brescia, 1490 ( = Cons., 4.40, edn. Venice, 1575).

65 Ad D.49.15.24, n. 4, f 228r (edn. Turin, 1577). By common consent Bartolus' treatment of the Donation is one of the weaker parts of his political theory. Because of his caveat in two crucial passages that he wishes to please the Church in whose territories he is speaking, Domenico Maffei maintains that it is impossible to make out Bartolus' true opinion (La donazione di Costantino nei giuristi medievali, repr. Milan, 1969, 185–90).

66 Ad v. ‘Totius orbis’, f. 1r (edn. Venice, 1497)Google Scholar.

67 See for instance Baldus ad Feud., Proem, ad v. ‘Expedita’, f. 2v (edn. Pavia, 1495)Google Scholar, and ad X.2.24.33, n. 4, f 315r (edn. Lyon, 1551).

68 n. 4, f. 228r (edn. Turin, 1577), where he says of the papal patrimony, ‘In those lands the Roman Church exercises the jurisdiction which belonged to the Roman Empire, and they (i.e. the peoples of the patrimony) acknowledge this; they do not therefore cease to be members of the Roman people, but the administration of those provinces is condeded to another person’ (‘Ecclesia romana exercet illis in terris iurisdictionem, que erat imperii romani, et istud fatentur; non ergo desinunt esse de populo romano, sed administratio istarum provinciarum est alteri concessa’—I have emended ‘illas in terror’ and ‘imperio ro.’ in this edn.).

69 Cons., 2.37, f. 11v, edn. Brescia, 1490 ( = Cons., 4.40. edn. Venice, 1575).

70 ‘Publicum ius in sacris, in sacerdotibus, in magistratibus consistit’, D. 1.1.1,2 (Ulpian).

71 ‘In istis sacris et sacerdotibus magis consistit ius publicum, supra (D.1.1.1,2) … Item philosophi antiqui etiam pagani … omnem religionem diviserunt in tres partes, quarum unam sacram, aliam publicam, tertiam privatam appellaverunt, ut narrat philosophus, secundo Politicorum, iiii. c. circa medium. Non debent ergo sicut partes totius diverso iure censeri, infra (D.41.3.23). Et ideo sacerdos sicut pars universitatis debet censeri, et eius commodis uti, pro hoc (Deer. Grat., D.10.7; et Deer. Grat., C.12.q.1.c.7). Non obstat quod sacerdos et ecclesiastice persone multis privilegiis gaudeant; non enim per hoc est minus esse partem universitatis, nam et decuriones et senatores multis gaudent privilegiis, tam in personis quam in rebus, infra (D.48.19.9,11; et C.9.41.11; et C.10.53.6), et tamen sunt de universitate et populo, ut (Inst., 1.2,4), ergo et sacerdos’, n. 6–7, f. 228v (edn. Lyon, 1545).

72 Ad D.1.3.32, n. 138, f. 43v (edn. Lyon, 1545).

73 ‘Tertio queritur, nunquid consuetudo populi liget clericos? Et dicimus, quod non, duabus rationibus. Vna quia duo sunt populi, quod patet quia duo sunt iudices … Alia quia derici sunt maiores respectu laicorum … Sed statuta minorum non ligant maiores … ergo etc., nisi clerici voluerint’, n. 27, f. 525v (edn. Frankfurt, 1578).

74 Ad D.1.3.32, n. 138, f. 43v (edn. Lyon, 1545); and De statutis, 2, q. 2, ad v. ‘Ex predictis oritur’, n. 16–17, f. 28v (edn. Lyon, 1552)Google Scholar.

75 See Schulte, F. L. von, Die Summa des Stephanus Tomacensis über das Decretum Gratiani (Giessen, 1891), Introductio, 1Google Scholar.

76 See Statuti di Perugia dell' anno MCCCXLII, Corpus statutorum italicorum, 4, ed. Azzi, G. degli (2 vols., Milan, 1913–1916), ii, 451 (Lib. 4, cap. 157)Google Scholar.

77 See L. Prosdocimi, Il diritto ecclesiastico dello Stato di Milano dall'inizio della signoria viscontea al periodo tridentino (sec. XIII–XVI), repr. Milan, 1973, 24–5.

78 See N. Rubinstein, ‘Marsilius of Padua and Italian Political Thought of his Time’, in Europe in the Late Middle Ages, ed., J. R. Hale, J. R. L. Highfield, and B. Smalley (repr. 1970), 47–8.

79 ‘Item et clerici pars civitatis sunt et quidem honorabilissimum membrum, nec si omnino ab universali corpore alieni, quia auctus sit honor eorum’, Cons., 1.442, f. 134v, edn. Brescia, 1490 ( = Cons., 3.241, edn. Venice, 1575).

80 Diritto ecclesiastico, 28–9, and 288–96.

81 Ad X.1.2.7, n. 7, f. 17 (edn. Lyon, 1551).

82 Foundations, ii, 352–8.

83 For extended discussion of the political aspect of their corporation-theory see Canning, J.P., ‘The corporation in the political thought of the Italian jurists of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Hist, of Pol. Thought, i, 1 (1980), 9–32Google Scholar.

84 ‘Vniversitas nil aliud est nisi singuli homines qui ibi sunt’, ad D.3.4.7, col. 409–10 (Antwerp, 1575)Google Scholar.

85 See Wilks, M.J., The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages—the Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 2nd ser., 9 (Cambridge, 1963), 24Google Scholar; and id., ‘Corporation and representation in the Defensor Paris’, Studia Gratiana, xv (1972), 258.

86 See Canning, , ‘The corporation’, 14, and 27–32Google Scholar.

87 ‘Ipse gentes regni et ipsi populi collective regnum sunt’, Cons., 1 359, f. 109v, edn. Brescia, 1490Google Scholar ( = Cons., 3.159, edn. Venice, 1575).

88 Ibid, for full details of Baldus' theory; but see also especially Cons., 1.417, f. 129r, edn. Brescia, 1490 ( = Cons., 3.217, edn. Venice, 1575); Cons., 1.322, f. 98r, edn. Brescia, 1490 ( = Cons., 3.121, edn. Venice, 1575); and his commentaries ad C.6.51.1,6 (f. 152v), C.7.55.1 and C.7.61.3 (f. 252v), edn. Lyon, 1498.

89 See, for instance, Medieval Foundations of Renaissance Humanism (1977) 94–5.

90 See, for instance, Gilby, T., Principality and Polity: Aquinas and the Rise of State Theory in the West (1958), 253–60Google Scholar; and Lewis, E., Medieval Political Ideas (2 vols., 1954), i, 206–7Google Scholar.

91 ‘In civilibus omnes qui sunt unius communitatis reputantur quasi unum corpus, et tota communitas quasi unus homo’, ST, 1a2ae, 81, 1. (‘Leonine’ edn., Rome, 1892, 88)Google ScholarPubMed.

92 ‘Corporation and representation’, esp. 254–6.

93 See Tractatus contra Benedictum, c.8, in Guillelmi de Ockham opera politica, iii, ed. Sikes, J.G., Bennett, R.F., and Offler, H.S. (Manchester, 1956), 189Google Scholar.

94 ‘An universitas sit aliud quam homines universitatis? Quidam dicunt quod non, ut no. (D.3.4.7,1, et D.47.22.1 in fine), et hoc tenent omnes Philosophi et Canoniste, qui tenent, quod totum non differt realiter a suis partibus. Veritas est, quod si quidem loquamur realiter vere et proprie, ipsi dicunt verum. Nam nil aliud est universitas scholarium quam scholares; sed secundum fictionem iuris ipsi non dicunt verum. Nam universitas representat unam personam, que est aliud a scholaribus seu ab hominibus universitatis (D.46.1.22), quod apparet quia recedentibus omnibus istis scholaribus et aliis redeuntibus eadem tamen universitas est. Item mortuis omnibus de populo et aliis subrogatis idem est populus, et sic aliud est universitas quam persone que faciunt universitatem secundum iuris fictionem, quia est quedem persona representata, d. (D.46.1.22)’, ad D.48.19.16,10, n. 3–4, f. 200r (edn. Turin, 1577).