Seeundo supponondum est, quod in
ilia communitate jure naturali est
potestas quaedam qua licite illos,
quorum vita est in perturbationem
ejus, potest a corpore praescindere,
etiam per mortem, et istud deducitur
a priori ex ratione Sancti Thomae,
ii.
ilia communitate jure naturali est
potestas quaedam qua licite illos,
quorum vita est in perturbationem
ejus, potest a corpore praescindere,
etiam per mortem, et istud deducitur
a priori ex ratione Sancti Thomae,
ii.
Thomas Carlyle
Id.
id.
, July 1501 (p.
27>>):
"Nous avons receu l'humble supplica-
tion de chiers et bien amez gens des
Trois Estats de Languedoc. . . . Par
la tenure de ces pre? sentes, de notre
grace especial, plein pouvoir et auc-
torite? royal, statuons et ordonnons
par edict, statut, et ordonnance per-
? ? petuelle et irrevocable, que desormais
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 238
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PART III.
Perhaps, however, the most significant reference to the
nature and source of law in France is contained in the Ordin-
ances of Charles VJJUL. and Louis XII. , providing for the
collection and publication of the customs of the different
parts of the kingdom. Charles VIII. in 1497 appointed a
Commission to collect, correct, and adapt these customs,
but they were to be collected with the advice of the men of
all classes in each district, and to be published with the con-
sent of the three Estates of each district or the larger and
wiser part of them. 1 In 1505 Louis XII. again appointed
a Commission to carry this out, for it apparently had never
been completed. The three Estates were to be called together
in each Bailliage, and the king declared by his full power and
royal authority that the customs, as agreed upon by these
Estates, should be perpetually kept and observed as laws. 2
This treatment of the customs of different parts of
France, as determined by the representatives of the different
en tous et chacune des villes, lieux
et places de not mlit pays de Languedoc,
soit use? desdits poix de balance, &c. "
1 Id. , vol. xxi. , September 1497
(p. 7): "Eussions despiec? a`, mande?
aux bailiffz, seneschaux et autres
juges de notre royaume, appelez
avec eux chacun en sa jurisdiction
los gens d'Eglise, nobles, nos officiers,
praticiens et aultres gens de bien en ce
cognoissans, ils vissent et visitassent
lesdites coutumes; et ioelles, en-
semble leur ad vis, de ce quil leur
semblera y debvoir estre corrige? ,
adjute? , diminue? , nous envoyassent, ce
que est ete? fait. . . . Et assemblable-
ment en a este? donne? conclusion sur
votre dit advis, et ne reste qua les
faire publier en chascun desdits
baillages, senechausse? es et jurisdic-
tions. . . . Et ne? anmoins s'en faisant
ladicte publication y survenant aucune
difficultez, nous, desirous ycelle estre
vuyde? es, vous avons donne? et donnons,
et a` ceux ainsi que vous esleuz pour
faire ladicte publication, pouvoir,
puissance et auctorite? de les accorder,
du consentement toutes voyes desditz,
trois Etats de ohaques baillage, sone-
schausse? e et jurisdiction, ou de la plus
grante et saine partie d'iceulx. "
? Id. , vol. xxi. , March 4, 1506
(p. 332): "Et neantmoins voulons
tous et ohascuns les articles qui seront
accordez par les-dits des Etats assem-
blez, comme dit est, ou la plus grande
et saine partie d'iceux, et ceux d'entre
vous qui serez commis a` la publication
desdits coustumos estre publiez, et de`s
maintenant pour lors, et de`s lors pour
maintenant les coustumes contenus en
iceux articles accordez en la manie`re
dessusdite, de nostre science, propre
mouvement, pleine puissance et auc-
torite? royale, nous avons de? cret*>>
et auctorise? , decretons et auotorisons
par ces pre? sents, et icelles voulons
inviolablement estre garde? es et obser-
ve? es, sans enfraindre, comme loi
perpetuelle, sans qu'aucun doresnavant
? ? soit rec? u a` poser ni prouver coustumes
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, n. ] THE SOURCE AND AUTHORITY OF LAW. 239
localities and acknowledged as laws by the king, would seem
to show that in France, even in the sixteenth century,
the source of legislation must not be thought of as being
simply the royal authority.
We must, however, notice that we find some indications
of another conception of the relation of the King of France
to the law. There is a well-known declaration of the Presi-
dent of the Parlement of Paris made in the year 1527 at a
"Lit de Justice" held by Francis I. The occasion of this
was a complaint made by the Parlement about the evocation
of cases, which had been brought before it, to the Great Council
of the king. The President maintained that this was an
innovation of the reign of Louis XI. , which had been con-
demned by the States General of Tours in 1484; but, he went
on to say, the Parlement did not intend to throw any doubt
upon the royal authority; this would be a kind of sacrilege,
for they knew well that the king was above the laws, and
that laws and ordinances could not constrain him. They
did, however, intend to say that the king ought not to do
anything that he had the power to do, but only that which
was reasonable, good, and equitable--that is, Justice. 1 The
king commanded the Parlement not to meddle with anything
except matters of justice, and not to impose any modifications
upon royal ordinances, edicts, or briefs.
We find, however, another example of the relation of
the King of France to the law, in a letter of Louis XII.
of December 1499, which expressly forbade the Parlements
of Paris, Toulouse, and other Courts to pay attention to
any dispensation which he might grant from the terms
of the Ordonnance for the administration of justice, which
he had issued in March 1499. They were to ignore such
dispensations, and in virtue of the authority of this Declaration,
1 'RecueQ des Lois Anciennes,' vol. oontraindre, et n'y Stro oontrainct par
12, No. 145 (July 1527): "Nous ne puissance co-active; mais entendons
voulous revoque? s en doute ou en dire que vous ne devez, ne voulez pas
dispute de votre puissance, ce serait devoir, tout ce que vous pouvez, ains
espece de sacrilege, et savons bien eeulement, ce qui est en raison, bon et
quo vous etes pose sur les iois, et que equitable qui n'est autre chose que
les lois et ordonnances ne vous peuvent justice. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 240
THE EABLIER SIXTEENTH CENTUB. Y. [pabt ra.
to annul them, as he himself now declared them annulled and
revoked. 1 This is clearly parallel to similar provisions in
Spain.
1 'Ordonnancee,' vol. xxi. , December
1499 (p. 217): "Nous voulons et
ordonnons que a` telles lettres on n'ait
aucun regard, et de? fendons expresse? -
ment a` nos arme? s et feaux les gens
tenons nos cours de Parlement a`
Paris, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Dijon,
oschiquier de Normandie, et sem-
blablement a` tous nos justiciers et
officiers, que, par vertu ou sous couleur
de telles nos lettres de dispense, ils ne
contrarient ou contreviennent, fassent,
souffrent, ni permettent contrarier, ou
contrevenir a` nos dites ordonnances,
en quelque manie`re que ce soit, sur
peine d'estre eux-mesmes repute? s a`
nous disobeissans et infracteurs d'icelles
ordonnances; mais nos dites lettres de
dispense et derogeantes, en usant de
notre presente declaration et intention,
cassent annuitant et declarent nulles,
et de nul effet et valeur; lesquelles a`
cette fois pour quelconque cause qu'elles
soyent expedie? s, nous, de`s maintenant
et pour lors, avons casse? es revoque? es et
adnulle? e? s. "
Cf. 'Ordonnances,' vol. xxi. , March
1499, 40.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 241
CHAPTER III.
THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY
OF THE RULER.
With the principles of the nature and supremacy of the Law,
which we have considered in the last chapter, in our minds,
we can now turn to the conception of the source and nature
of the authority of the Euler or Eulers, as we find it in
the earlier part of the sixteenth century in France, in Italy,
in Spain, and in England.
One of the most interesting writers, for our purpose, is
James Almain of Sens, whose work seems to us to have been
somewhat overlooked. Little seems to be known of him,
except that he was a teacher in the College of Navarre in
the University of Paris, and that he received the Doctor's
degree in 1511 and died in 1515. 1
In various treatises he dealt not only with the particular
question with which we are now concerned but with the whole
nature of political society and authority, and in order to do
justice to his principles we must take some account of his
political theory as a whole.
He distinguishes between that "Dominium Naturale"
which was given to men by God over all things, and the
"Dominium Civile" which was added after sin came into
the world, by which man has "civil" property and "juris-
diction," that is, the authority to use the material sword. 2
1 "Biographie Universelle," from 'Opera,' ed. 1606. Prima Pars):
'Dupin, Biblioth6que dee Autours 'De Dominio Naturali Civili et Ec-
Eccleeiaetiques. ' olesiastico' (col. 687).
* Jacobus Almain (in J. Qerson, "Dominium naturale, quod homini
VOL. VI. Q
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 242
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [past III.
It is interesting to observe that Almain represents the Stoic
and Patristic conception of the origins of political society, for
he thinks of political authority and property as consequences
of sin.
This does not, however, mean that Almain denied that
political society and authority were of Divine institution.
On the contrary, he insists dogmatically in another treatise
that the lay power was just as truly derived from God as
the ecclesiastical. 1 The sacred character of political insti-
tutions was not confined to Christian communities, and he
repudiates contemptuously and as savouring of heresy the
theory, which he attributes to Innocent, that there was no
legitimate political authority outside of the Church. 2 Political
society and authority were then in the view of Almain con-
sequences of sin, but also, as the Patristic tradition held, a
Divine remedy for sin.
Almain had, however, no belief in the absolute King, or
in tho "Divine Eight" of the monarch. On the contrary,
he develops the conception of the constitutional authority
of the Community very dogmatically. In the treatise which
we cited first he maintains that a Community of men,
united with each other to form one body, has by natural
law the power of removing, even by death, any person who
disturbs the Community; and no Community can abdicate
this power any more than the individual can renounce his
right of self-preservation; the prince cannot slay any man
convenit ex dono Dei, simpliciter est
inabdicabile quantum ad cuncta;
similiter et quantum ad certam
speciem cibi ct potus in omni eventu:
rui dominio post peccatum conveniens
fuit superadds re dominium civile pro-
prietatis, similiter et jurisdiction is;
quo fungentes, executionem gladii
materials habent. "
1 Id. , ' De Potestate Ecclesiastica et
Laica,' Q. i. 1 (col. 752): "Hac occasione
quaeritur, utrum talis potestas laica
sit a Deo; et videtur quod sit, ad
Rom: xiii. 'Omnis anima sublim-
ioribus potestatibus subjecta sit,' et
scquitur in textu, 'Non est potestaa
nisi a Deo,' ideo talis potestas laica est
aequo bene a Deo, sicut potest as
spirituals. "
? Id. id. , Q. ii. 12 (ool. 8415): "Et
ad verba Innocontii, si intelligantur
quod extra ecclesiam null us habet
legitimam potestatem qua utatur
gladio materiali, ilia sapiunt haeresim;
nam et apud fideles et apud infideles,
est vera potestas laica, idem parum
cum rid um est do auctoritate Innocent ii
in proposito. "
(Innocent IV. in his 'Apparatus'
says the opposite. Ct. vol. v. p. 34. )
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER.
243
by his own authority; as William of Paris had said: the " dom-
inium jurisdictionis" of the prince in relation to the Com-
munity is a ministerial authority, as the authority of the
priest is in relation to God. The Community cannot renounce
the authority which it possesses over the prince whom it
has established, and by this authority it can depose him if his
rule is not for edification, but for destruction, and he cites
a gloss on the "Decretum" of Gratian. He concludes that
the Community cannot in any case bestow a monarchy,
"pure regalis," that is, a monarchy in which one alone
rules, and is subject to none. 1
The same conception of political authority, as not merely
derived from, but inherent in the Community, is repeated
by Almain, in the first chapter of his work, 'De Auctoritate
1 Id. , 'De Dominio Naturali Civili
et Ecclesiastico' (col. 689): "Tertia
pars conclusionis est, quod conveniens
fuit tam dominium civile propriotatis
quam jurisdictionis superaddi dominio
naturali. Pro cujus probatione;
quaolibot communitas ad invicem
conversantium est velut unum corpus
cujus singuli alter alterius sunt membra,
juxta illud dictum Pauli ad Rom: xii.
Seeundo supponondum est, quod in
ilia communitate jure naturali est
potestas quaedam qua licite illos,
quorum vita est in perturbationem
ejus, potest a corpore praescindere,
etiam per mortem, et istud deducitur
a priori ex ratione Sancti Thomae,
ii. 2. Q. 84. . . . Secundum corol-
larium nulla communitas perfecta
hanc potostatom a so abdicare potest,
sicut neo singularis homo potestatem
quam habot, ad se consorvandum in
ease.
Tertium corollarium, Princeps non
occidit auctoritate propria, nec illam
potestatem potest ei conferre res-
publica. Hinc dicit Oulielmus Paris-
iensis, quod dominium jurisdictionis
Principum est solum ministeriale in
ordino ad communitatem, sicut dom-
inium sacerdotis, respectu re mis-
sionis peccatorum, est solum minis-
teriale in ordine ad Deum.
Quartum corollarium, non potest
renunciare communitas potestati quam
habet super suum Principem, ab ea
constitutum, qua scilicot potestate eum
(si non in aedificationem sed de-
structionem regat) deponere potest,
cum talis potestas sit naturalis: ot
istius sententiae est glossa xxiii. Q. iii.
Can: ostendet; (Gratian, Decretum,
C. xxiii. Q. iii. 11) ubi dicit, "populus
habet jurisdictionem, licet, dicat lex,
quod eam transtulit in imperatorem. "
Nam, si civitas vel populus non haberot
jurisdictionem, quare puniretur propter
dolictum judicis, xxiii. ii. 2. Can:
Dominus (Gratian, Dec: C. xxiii.
Q. ii. 2), ubi dicitur sic, "Gens et
civitas petonda est bello, quae vel
vindicare neglexerit quod a suis
improbe factum est; non enim puni-
? ? endus foret civitas nisi jurisdictionem
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 244
[PART III.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
Ecclesiae,' where he adds a more developed statement of the
principle that the prince has no authority of himself, nor
from God immediately, but only from the Community. 1
In the first chapter of his work, 'De Potestate Ecclesiastica
et Laica,' he affirms in more general terms that the secular
power is derived from the people, whether it passes by heredi-
tary succession or by election; in some exceptional cases
God may have bestowed it upon some man, but, regularly,
God does not do this. 2 In another place in this work he
asserts, incidentally, that the legitimate kingdom in France
was established by the agreement of the people. 3
These conceptions of Almain are obviously very significant;
he does not merely repudiate the theory of what we call the
"Divine Eight," but he looks upon political authority as
properly inherent in the Community, in such a sense that
it is really inalienable, and that an absolute monarchy cannot
properly be created by the Community. The Community
always has such authority over the prince whom it has created
that it can depose him if his rule is for destruction, otherwise
it would not have power adequate for its self-preservation.
It was this authority which the Community of the Gauls
1 Id. , 'De Auotoritate Ecclesiae,' I.
(col. 707): "Communitas confert
principi auctoritatem occidendi eos,
quorum vita in perniciem reipublicae
cedit; ergo ilia auctoritas est per
prius in communitate, cum nemo
alteri dot quod non ha bet et ante-
cedens notum est, cum princeps a se
auctoritatem illam non habeat, neo
habet eam immediate a Deo, saltem
ut in pluribus. Nam. ut dicunt doctores,
praesertim Durandus in Tractat. De
Jurisdictione Ecclesiastica, non est
intelligendum quod auctoritas regis
secularis sit a Deo sic, quod eam
immediate alicui commiserit regulariter,
sod quia secundum rectam rationem
quam Deus hominibus indidit, est
alicui commissa. Et non videtur
(cum non sit a Deo immodiate com-
missa) a quo sit principi collata nisi
ab ipsa communitate. "
1 Id. , 'De Potestate Ecclesiastica et
Laica,' Q. i. cap. 1 (col. 752): "Sed
potestas laica sive secularis est potestas
a populo, ex successione hereditaria,
vel ex electione alicui vel aliquibus
tradita regulariter, ad aedificationem
communitatis, quantum ad res civilee
secundum leges civiles, pro consequ-
tione habitationis pacificae. Primo
tangitur causa emciens et origo hujus,
scilicet 'a populo regulariter' et
licet aliquando Deus specialiter dederit
aliquibus hanc potestatem laicam, ut
Sauli . . . et Davidi . . . et aliquibus
qui utebantur ista potestate super
Israel, ut patet Judicum I. , tamen
regulariter nominem Deus instituit. "
* Id. id. , Q. i (col. 871): "Dico
quod incoepit esse legitimus rex in
Gallia, ex consensu populi, quia con-
? ? sensit populus in aliquem ut regeret. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER.
245
used when they deposed the king (Chilperic), not so much
for any crime as because he was incapable. And it was the
same authority which the Israelites used against Eehoboam,
for even when God had given authority immediately, as seems
to have been the case with Saul and David, such princes
remained subject to the whole Community if they used their
authority to the destruction of the Community. 1
This does not mean that Almain was an enemy of monarchy.
In another treatise he cites the usual definition of the various
forms of government, but adds that of these the best is the
monarchy, the worst what he calls the "Censupotestas. "
And again he adds that there is no form of government which
may not be changed into another, for the form of government
belongs to the " Jus Positivum. " 2 A little further on, he goes
some way towards defining what he understood by the
monarchy. A monarchy is that form of government in which
normally one man rules, but this does not mean that there
is no assembly which is over him, and can depose him, but
while in the "Communitates" the assembly is constantly in
being, and ruling, that is not so in the monarchy. 3
1 Id. , 'De Auctoritate Eoolesiae,' I.
{col. 708): "Secundum corollarium
est, nulla communitas perfect a hanc
potestatem a so abdicare potest. . . .
Tertium Corollarium, tota communitas
potostatom habet super principem ab
ea constitutum, qua eum (si non
in aedificationem sed in destructionem
politiae regat) deponere potest, alias
non esset in ea suffieiens potestas se
conservandi : ot ista potostate Oallorum
communitas quondam usa, regem
suum deposuit, non tam pro criminibus,
quam pro eo quod tantao regimini
inutilis osset, ut habet glossa Can. alius
15 Q. 6 (Gratian Decretum, C. 15 Q. 6),
ubi dicitur quod Zacharias Regem
Francorum deposuit, habet glossa, id
est, deponentibus consensit. Hao
eadom potostate usi, filii Israel re-
ceeserunt a Rehoboam. . . . Et
quam vis super aliquem populum a Deo
acceperint aliquam jurisdictionem
civilem immodiate, ut videtur probabile
de Saule et Davide, nihilominus semper
toti coramunitate fuerunt subjecsti,
casu quo in destructionem com-
munitatis regerent. "
* Id. , 'De Potestate Ecclesiastica et
Laica,' Q. i. 5 (col. 766): "Et inter
has, summa et ultima est regnum,
innma autem censupotestas. . . .
Ultra supponitur quod nulla est
politia pure civilis, et nulla regalis,
quin posset mutari in aliam speciem,
puta timocratiam vel aristocratiam,
quia quaelibet talis est instituta jure
pure positivo, ergo quaelibet potest in
aliam mutari. "
Cf. Id. , Q. iii. 7 (col. 867).
? Id. id. , Q. i. 16 (col. 824): "Sed ilia
(politia) dicitur regalis, quando unus
solus dominatur, et non plures;
verum est regulariter, nam in civilibus
non dicitur politia regalis ex eo quod
? ? nulla congregatio sit super regem.
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 246
[PABT HI.
THE EAKLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
In a later passage he sums up some of the functions and
limitations of the best prince. He is to render to every man
what belongs to him, that is, to administer justice, to establish
law, to appoint the inferior judges and officers, but especially
to correct and punish the transgressors. The prince must
rule for the common good, he must remember that he reigns
over free men and not slaves; it is inconsistent with the best
princely authority that he should have absolute power
(plenitudo potestatis), that is, that he should have authority
to transfer one man's property to another, without fault
or cause, or to do whatever he pleases, so far as it does not
conflict with the laws of nature and of God. 1
It is perhaps worth while to notice that Almain in the same
chapter represents the person whom he cites as "Doctor"
as saying that it was not inconsistent with the best
"principatus" that there should exist in the Community
a juridical (legal) authority, which in no way depends upon,
or is created by, the Supreme Prince; and he mentions, as
an illustration of this, that, in some countries, in Aragon,
as it is said, there are jurisdictions which the king does not
create but which descend by hereditary succession; the
nam congregatio nobilium politiae
civilis, immediate est super regem,
et pro idonietato possunt deponi
reges, ut patet in Childerico et Zach-
aria. Non vocatur ergo regalis, eo
quod nulla congregatio sit super
ilium qui gubernat. Sed in com-
munitatibus est congregatio super
regem, et semper manet in esse con-
gregatio. Sed in politia regali non
sio est, quia non est semper congregatio
nobilium congregata, quae sit super
regem. "
1 Id. id. , Q. iii. 6 (col. 865):
"Consequent er restat inquirer* quae
possunt adesse et abesse optimo
principatui; et broviter dicitur quod
ad optimum principatum spectat uni-
ouique quod suum est reddere, hoc
est justitiam ministrare, leges condere,
judices inferiores et alios officiales,
delegcre et constituent, operationes
quarumcunque virtutum praecipere;
et quilibet princeps ex officio ad ista
tenetur: sed tamen ad hoc videtur
esse principalissime constitutus ut
corrigat et puniat delinquent c. <. . . .
Ex his patet quae sunt optimo prin-
cipatui necossario annexa, et quae
incompossibilia et quae impertinent ia,
et dictum est quod ad optimum prin-
cipatum necesse est quod sit ad bonum
commune, et quod principans princi-
pei m- liberis, et non servis, et quod
sit unus principans et non plures.
Item repugnat optimo principatui
habere plenitudinem potestatis, puta
quod possit ad placitum suum trans-
ferre rem meam in alterum, sine
quocunque meo peccato, vol cauaa,
et facere quidquid non repugnat juri
naturae et di vino; et visum est otiam
quo modo praecipuus actus principalis
? ? est malorum punitione intendere. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER. 247
sons succeed the fathers as judges and the king cannot deprive
them of their authority; rather, they are over the king, in
respect of this jurisdiction. 1
The whole position of Almain is exceedingly interesting.
He has the same preference for the monarchy as that which
we normally find in the mediaaval world, but he is also quite
clear not only that the source of political authority is the
Community, but that the ultimate authority always remains
in it and must in the nature of things do so, and though the
monarchy is the best form of government, it is strictly
limited by the purpose for which it exists, the furtherance
of the common good and the maintenance of justice; an
absolute monarch is to him impossible.
The character of the political theory of John Major is
very close to that of Almain; indeed, it would seem that
he was either directly influenced by Almain or that they were
both under the influence of some common tradition. John
Major was a Scotsman, but taught for many years in the
University of Paris, and the work with which we are now
dealing was apparently published in 1518. It is primarily
concerned, like those of Almain, with the ecclesiastical questions
of the relation between the Pope and the General Council,
but we are here only concerned with its political principles.
The king has no authority except that which is derived
from the kingdom, for he himself or his first predecessor was
elected by the people; the king is over every individual
person in the kingdom, but he is not over all the kingdom,
"regulariter et casualiter," he is "regulariter" over the
1 Id. id. id. (col. 868): "Jam
Doctor infert aliqua corollaria--Primo
Don repugnat Optimo principatui su-
premo, optimo ordinate aliquem esse
potefttatem juridicam alicujus, vol
aliquonim de communitate ilia, quae
nullo modo ab ipso supremo princi-
pante dependeat, et quae non eit
ab ipso instituto, hoc est, quae non
dependeat ab ipso, nec quoad insti-
tutionem noc ad destitutionem saltem
regulariter
Hinc est quod in aliquibus regnis,
ut fertur in regno Arragoniae, rex non
habet instituere jurisdictiones, imo
est aliqua potestas juridica, quae
habetur ex succeesione parentum.
Ita quod post patres, filii sunt judices
. . . nec illos rex potest destituere,
imo sunt supra regem quantum ad
iliam jurisdictionem. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 248
[PAET III.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
whole kingdom, while the kingdom is over him " casualiter. " 1
This is sharply stated, but the principle is even more com-
pletely expressed in another passage. The King of France
is over all France, but the "praecipua pars" from which
he derives his authority is over him, and can depose him for
reasonable cause. The people is "virtualiter" over the
king, and in difficult matters the three Estates of the Bealm
are called together and direct him, and a free people has
the power, for reasonable cause, to alter the form of the
Constitution. 2
He expresses the same principle again in another place.
In France and Scotland it may be said that the supreme
power is in the king, but it would be better to say that there
are two powers of which one is supreme and more unlimited
than the other. In the kingdom and in the whole free people
1 John Major, 'De Auctoritate
Concilii super Pontificem maximum. '
(In J. Gerson, Opera, vol. i. , ed. 1606)
(col. 881): "Rex utilitatem reipublicae
dissipans et evertens incorrigibiliter,
est deponeadus a communitate cui
praeest. .
"Nous avons receu l'humble supplica-
tion de chiers et bien amez gens des
Trois Estats de Languedoc. . . . Par
la tenure de ces pre? sentes, de notre
grace especial, plein pouvoir et auc-
torite? royal, statuons et ordonnons
par edict, statut, et ordonnance per-
? ? petuelle et irrevocable, que desormais
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 238
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PART III.
Perhaps, however, the most significant reference to the
nature and source of law in France is contained in the Ordin-
ances of Charles VJJUL. and Louis XII. , providing for the
collection and publication of the customs of the different
parts of the kingdom. Charles VIII. in 1497 appointed a
Commission to collect, correct, and adapt these customs,
but they were to be collected with the advice of the men of
all classes in each district, and to be published with the con-
sent of the three Estates of each district or the larger and
wiser part of them. 1 In 1505 Louis XII. again appointed
a Commission to carry this out, for it apparently had never
been completed. The three Estates were to be called together
in each Bailliage, and the king declared by his full power and
royal authority that the customs, as agreed upon by these
Estates, should be perpetually kept and observed as laws. 2
This treatment of the customs of different parts of
France, as determined by the representatives of the different
en tous et chacune des villes, lieux
et places de not mlit pays de Languedoc,
soit use? desdits poix de balance, &c. "
1 Id. , vol. xxi. , September 1497
(p. 7): "Eussions despiec? a`, mande?
aux bailiffz, seneschaux et autres
juges de notre royaume, appelez
avec eux chacun en sa jurisdiction
los gens d'Eglise, nobles, nos officiers,
praticiens et aultres gens de bien en ce
cognoissans, ils vissent et visitassent
lesdites coutumes; et ioelles, en-
semble leur ad vis, de ce quil leur
semblera y debvoir estre corrige? ,
adjute? , diminue? , nous envoyassent, ce
que est ete? fait. . . . Et assemblable-
ment en a este? donne? conclusion sur
votre dit advis, et ne reste qua les
faire publier en chascun desdits
baillages, senechausse? es et jurisdic-
tions. . . . Et ne? anmoins s'en faisant
ladicte publication y survenant aucune
difficultez, nous, desirous ycelle estre
vuyde? es, vous avons donne? et donnons,
et a` ceux ainsi que vous esleuz pour
faire ladicte publication, pouvoir,
puissance et auctorite? de les accorder,
du consentement toutes voyes desditz,
trois Etats de ohaques baillage, sone-
schausse? e et jurisdiction, ou de la plus
grante et saine partie d'iceulx. "
? Id. , vol. xxi. , March 4, 1506
(p. 332): "Et neantmoins voulons
tous et ohascuns les articles qui seront
accordez par les-dits des Etats assem-
blez, comme dit est, ou la plus grande
et saine partie d'iceux, et ceux d'entre
vous qui serez commis a` la publication
desdits coustumos estre publiez, et de`s
maintenant pour lors, et de`s lors pour
maintenant les coustumes contenus en
iceux articles accordez en la manie`re
dessusdite, de nostre science, propre
mouvement, pleine puissance et auc-
torite? royale, nous avons de? cret*>>
et auctorise? , decretons et auotorisons
par ces pre? sents, et icelles voulons
inviolablement estre garde? es et obser-
ve? es, sans enfraindre, comme loi
perpetuelle, sans qu'aucun doresnavant
? ? soit rec? u a` poser ni prouver coustumes
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, n. ] THE SOURCE AND AUTHORITY OF LAW. 239
localities and acknowledged as laws by the king, would seem
to show that in France, even in the sixteenth century,
the source of legislation must not be thought of as being
simply the royal authority.
We must, however, notice that we find some indications
of another conception of the relation of the King of France
to the law. There is a well-known declaration of the Presi-
dent of the Parlement of Paris made in the year 1527 at a
"Lit de Justice" held by Francis I. The occasion of this
was a complaint made by the Parlement about the evocation
of cases, which had been brought before it, to the Great Council
of the king. The President maintained that this was an
innovation of the reign of Louis XI. , which had been con-
demned by the States General of Tours in 1484; but, he went
on to say, the Parlement did not intend to throw any doubt
upon the royal authority; this would be a kind of sacrilege,
for they knew well that the king was above the laws, and
that laws and ordinances could not constrain him. They
did, however, intend to say that the king ought not to do
anything that he had the power to do, but only that which
was reasonable, good, and equitable--that is, Justice. 1 The
king commanded the Parlement not to meddle with anything
except matters of justice, and not to impose any modifications
upon royal ordinances, edicts, or briefs.
We find, however, another example of the relation of
the King of France to the law, in a letter of Louis XII.
of December 1499, which expressly forbade the Parlements
of Paris, Toulouse, and other Courts to pay attention to
any dispensation which he might grant from the terms
of the Ordonnance for the administration of justice, which
he had issued in March 1499. They were to ignore such
dispensations, and in virtue of the authority of this Declaration,
1 'RecueQ des Lois Anciennes,' vol. oontraindre, et n'y Stro oontrainct par
12, No. 145 (July 1527): "Nous ne puissance co-active; mais entendons
voulous revoque? s en doute ou en dire que vous ne devez, ne voulez pas
dispute de votre puissance, ce serait devoir, tout ce que vous pouvez, ains
espece de sacrilege, et savons bien eeulement, ce qui est en raison, bon et
quo vous etes pose sur les iois, et que equitable qui n'est autre chose que
les lois et ordonnances ne vous peuvent justice. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 240
THE EABLIER SIXTEENTH CENTUB. Y. [pabt ra.
to annul them, as he himself now declared them annulled and
revoked. 1 This is clearly parallel to similar provisions in
Spain.
1 'Ordonnancee,' vol. xxi. , December
1499 (p. 217): "Nous voulons et
ordonnons que a` telles lettres on n'ait
aucun regard, et de? fendons expresse? -
ment a` nos arme? s et feaux les gens
tenons nos cours de Parlement a`
Paris, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Dijon,
oschiquier de Normandie, et sem-
blablement a` tous nos justiciers et
officiers, que, par vertu ou sous couleur
de telles nos lettres de dispense, ils ne
contrarient ou contreviennent, fassent,
souffrent, ni permettent contrarier, ou
contrevenir a` nos dites ordonnances,
en quelque manie`re que ce soit, sur
peine d'estre eux-mesmes repute? s a`
nous disobeissans et infracteurs d'icelles
ordonnances; mais nos dites lettres de
dispense et derogeantes, en usant de
notre presente declaration et intention,
cassent annuitant et declarent nulles,
et de nul effet et valeur; lesquelles a`
cette fois pour quelconque cause qu'elles
soyent expedie? s, nous, de`s maintenant
et pour lors, avons casse? es revoque? es et
adnulle? e? s. "
Cf. 'Ordonnances,' vol. xxi. , March
1499, 40.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 241
CHAPTER III.
THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY
OF THE RULER.
With the principles of the nature and supremacy of the Law,
which we have considered in the last chapter, in our minds,
we can now turn to the conception of the source and nature
of the authority of the Euler or Eulers, as we find it in
the earlier part of the sixteenth century in France, in Italy,
in Spain, and in England.
One of the most interesting writers, for our purpose, is
James Almain of Sens, whose work seems to us to have been
somewhat overlooked. Little seems to be known of him,
except that he was a teacher in the College of Navarre in
the University of Paris, and that he received the Doctor's
degree in 1511 and died in 1515. 1
In various treatises he dealt not only with the particular
question with which we are now concerned but with the whole
nature of political society and authority, and in order to do
justice to his principles we must take some account of his
political theory as a whole.
He distinguishes between that "Dominium Naturale"
which was given to men by God over all things, and the
"Dominium Civile" which was added after sin came into
the world, by which man has "civil" property and "juris-
diction," that is, the authority to use the material sword. 2
1 "Biographie Universelle," from 'Opera,' ed. 1606. Prima Pars):
'Dupin, Biblioth6que dee Autours 'De Dominio Naturali Civili et Ec-
Eccleeiaetiques. ' olesiastico' (col. 687).
* Jacobus Almain (in J. Qerson, "Dominium naturale, quod homini
VOL. VI. Q
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 242
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [past III.
It is interesting to observe that Almain represents the Stoic
and Patristic conception of the origins of political society, for
he thinks of political authority and property as consequences
of sin.
This does not, however, mean that Almain denied that
political society and authority were of Divine institution.
On the contrary, he insists dogmatically in another treatise
that the lay power was just as truly derived from God as
the ecclesiastical. 1 The sacred character of political insti-
tutions was not confined to Christian communities, and he
repudiates contemptuously and as savouring of heresy the
theory, which he attributes to Innocent, that there was no
legitimate political authority outside of the Church. 2 Political
society and authority were then in the view of Almain con-
sequences of sin, but also, as the Patristic tradition held, a
Divine remedy for sin.
Almain had, however, no belief in the absolute King, or
in tho "Divine Eight" of the monarch. On the contrary,
he develops the conception of the constitutional authority
of the Community very dogmatically. In the treatise which
we cited first he maintains that a Community of men,
united with each other to form one body, has by natural
law the power of removing, even by death, any person who
disturbs the Community; and no Community can abdicate
this power any more than the individual can renounce his
right of self-preservation; the prince cannot slay any man
convenit ex dono Dei, simpliciter est
inabdicabile quantum ad cuncta;
similiter et quantum ad certam
speciem cibi ct potus in omni eventu:
rui dominio post peccatum conveniens
fuit superadds re dominium civile pro-
prietatis, similiter et jurisdiction is;
quo fungentes, executionem gladii
materials habent. "
1 Id. , ' De Potestate Ecclesiastica et
Laica,' Q. i. 1 (col. 752): "Hac occasione
quaeritur, utrum talis potestas laica
sit a Deo; et videtur quod sit, ad
Rom: xiii. 'Omnis anima sublim-
ioribus potestatibus subjecta sit,' et
scquitur in textu, 'Non est potestaa
nisi a Deo,' ideo talis potestas laica est
aequo bene a Deo, sicut potest as
spirituals. "
? Id. id. , Q. ii. 12 (ool. 8415): "Et
ad verba Innocontii, si intelligantur
quod extra ecclesiam null us habet
legitimam potestatem qua utatur
gladio materiali, ilia sapiunt haeresim;
nam et apud fideles et apud infideles,
est vera potestas laica, idem parum
cum rid um est do auctoritate Innocent ii
in proposito. "
(Innocent IV. in his 'Apparatus'
says the opposite. Ct. vol. v. p. 34. )
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER.
243
by his own authority; as William of Paris had said: the " dom-
inium jurisdictionis" of the prince in relation to the Com-
munity is a ministerial authority, as the authority of the
priest is in relation to God. The Community cannot renounce
the authority which it possesses over the prince whom it
has established, and by this authority it can depose him if his
rule is not for edification, but for destruction, and he cites
a gloss on the "Decretum" of Gratian. He concludes that
the Community cannot in any case bestow a monarchy,
"pure regalis," that is, a monarchy in which one alone
rules, and is subject to none. 1
The same conception of political authority, as not merely
derived from, but inherent in the Community, is repeated
by Almain, in the first chapter of his work, 'De Auctoritate
1 Id. , 'De Dominio Naturali Civili
et Ecclesiastico' (col. 689): "Tertia
pars conclusionis est, quod conveniens
fuit tam dominium civile propriotatis
quam jurisdictionis superaddi dominio
naturali. Pro cujus probatione;
quaolibot communitas ad invicem
conversantium est velut unum corpus
cujus singuli alter alterius sunt membra,
juxta illud dictum Pauli ad Rom: xii.
Seeundo supponondum est, quod in
ilia communitate jure naturali est
potestas quaedam qua licite illos,
quorum vita est in perturbationem
ejus, potest a corpore praescindere,
etiam per mortem, et istud deducitur
a priori ex ratione Sancti Thomae,
ii. 2. Q. 84. . . . Secundum corol-
larium nulla communitas perfecta
hanc potostatom a so abdicare potest,
sicut neo singularis homo potestatem
quam habot, ad se consorvandum in
ease.
Tertium corollarium, Princeps non
occidit auctoritate propria, nec illam
potestatem potest ei conferre res-
publica. Hinc dicit Oulielmus Paris-
iensis, quod dominium jurisdictionis
Principum est solum ministeriale in
ordino ad communitatem, sicut dom-
inium sacerdotis, respectu re mis-
sionis peccatorum, est solum minis-
teriale in ordine ad Deum.
Quartum corollarium, non potest
renunciare communitas potestati quam
habet super suum Principem, ab ea
constitutum, qua scilicot potestate eum
(si non in aedificationem sed de-
structionem regat) deponere potest,
cum talis potestas sit naturalis: ot
istius sententiae est glossa xxiii. Q. iii.
Can: ostendet; (Gratian, Decretum,
C. xxiii. Q. iii. 11) ubi dicit, "populus
habet jurisdictionem, licet, dicat lex,
quod eam transtulit in imperatorem. "
Nam, si civitas vel populus non haberot
jurisdictionem, quare puniretur propter
dolictum judicis, xxiii. ii. 2. Can:
Dominus (Gratian, Dec: C. xxiii.
Q. ii. 2), ubi dicitur sic, "Gens et
civitas petonda est bello, quae vel
vindicare neglexerit quod a suis
improbe factum est; non enim puni-
? ? endus foret civitas nisi jurisdictionem
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 244
[PART III.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
Ecclesiae,' where he adds a more developed statement of the
principle that the prince has no authority of himself, nor
from God immediately, but only from the Community. 1
In the first chapter of his work, 'De Potestate Ecclesiastica
et Laica,' he affirms in more general terms that the secular
power is derived from the people, whether it passes by heredi-
tary succession or by election; in some exceptional cases
God may have bestowed it upon some man, but, regularly,
God does not do this. 2 In another place in this work he
asserts, incidentally, that the legitimate kingdom in France
was established by the agreement of the people. 3
These conceptions of Almain are obviously very significant;
he does not merely repudiate the theory of what we call the
"Divine Eight," but he looks upon political authority as
properly inherent in the Community, in such a sense that
it is really inalienable, and that an absolute monarchy cannot
properly be created by the Community. The Community
always has such authority over the prince whom it has created
that it can depose him if his rule is for destruction, otherwise
it would not have power adequate for its self-preservation.
It was this authority which the Community of the Gauls
1 Id. , 'De Auotoritate Ecclesiae,' I.
(col. 707): "Communitas confert
principi auctoritatem occidendi eos,
quorum vita in perniciem reipublicae
cedit; ergo ilia auctoritas est per
prius in communitate, cum nemo
alteri dot quod non ha bet et ante-
cedens notum est, cum princeps a se
auctoritatem illam non habeat, neo
habet eam immediate a Deo, saltem
ut in pluribus. Nam. ut dicunt doctores,
praesertim Durandus in Tractat. De
Jurisdictione Ecclesiastica, non est
intelligendum quod auctoritas regis
secularis sit a Deo sic, quod eam
immediate alicui commiserit regulariter,
sod quia secundum rectam rationem
quam Deus hominibus indidit, est
alicui commissa. Et non videtur
(cum non sit a Deo immodiate com-
missa) a quo sit principi collata nisi
ab ipsa communitate. "
1 Id. , 'De Potestate Ecclesiastica et
Laica,' Q. i. cap. 1 (col. 752): "Sed
potestas laica sive secularis est potestas
a populo, ex successione hereditaria,
vel ex electione alicui vel aliquibus
tradita regulariter, ad aedificationem
communitatis, quantum ad res civilee
secundum leges civiles, pro consequ-
tione habitationis pacificae. Primo
tangitur causa emciens et origo hujus,
scilicet 'a populo regulariter' et
licet aliquando Deus specialiter dederit
aliquibus hanc potestatem laicam, ut
Sauli . . . et Davidi . . . et aliquibus
qui utebantur ista potestate super
Israel, ut patet Judicum I. , tamen
regulariter nominem Deus instituit. "
* Id. id. , Q. i (col. 871): "Dico
quod incoepit esse legitimus rex in
Gallia, ex consensu populi, quia con-
? ? sensit populus in aliquem ut regeret. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER.
245
used when they deposed the king (Chilperic), not so much
for any crime as because he was incapable. And it was the
same authority which the Israelites used against Eehoboam,
for even when God had given authority immediately, as seems
to have been the case with Saul and David, such princes
remained subject to the whole Community if they used their
authority to the destruction of the Community. 1
This does not mean that Almain was an enemy of monarchy.
In another treatise he cites the usual definition of the various
forms of government, but adds that of these the best is the
monarchy, the worst what he calls the "Censupotestas. "
And again he adds that there is no form of government which
may not be changed into another, for the form of government
belongs to the " Jus Positivum. " 2 A little further on, he goes
some way towards defining what he understood by the
monarchy. A monarchy is that form of government in which
normally one man rules, but this does not mean that there
is no assembly which is over him, and can depose him, but
while in the "Communitates" the assembly is constantly in
being, and ruling, that is not so in the monarchy. 3
1 Id. , 'De Auctoritate Eoolesiae,' I.
{col. 708): "Secundum corollarium
est, nulla communitas perfect a hanc
potestatem a so abdicare potest. . . .
Tertium Corollarium, tota communitas
potostatom habet super principem ab
ea constitutum, qua eum (si non
in aedificationem sed in destructionem
politiae regat) deponere potest, alias
non esset in ea suffieiens potestas se
conservandi : ot ista potostate Oallorum
communitas quondam usa, regem
suum deposuit, non tam pro criminibus,
quam pro eo quod tantao regimini
inutilis osset, ut habet glossa Can. alius
15 Q. 6 (Gratian Decretum, C. 15 Q. 6),
ubi dicitur quod Zacharias Regem
Francorum deposuit, habet glossa, id
est, deponentibus consensit. Hao
eadom potostate usi, filii Israel re-
ceeserunt a Rehoboam. . . . Et
quam vis super aliquem populum a Deo
acceperint aliquam jurisdictionem
civilem immodiate, ut videtur probabile
de Saule et Davide, nihilominus semper
toti coramunitate fuerunt subjecsti,
casu quo in destructionem com-
munitatis regerent. "
* Id. , 'De Potestate Ecclesiastica et
Laica,' Q. i. 5 (col. 766): "Et inter
has, summa et ultima est regnum,
innma autem censupotestas. . . .
Ultra supponitur quod nulla est
politia pure civilis, et nulla regalis,
quin posset mutari in aliam speciem,
puta timocratiam vel aristocratiam,
quia quaelibet talis est instituta jure
pure positivo, ergo quaelibet potest in
aliam mutari. "
Cf. Id. , Q. iii. 7 (col. 867).
? Id. id. , Q. i. 16 (col. 824): "Sed ilia
(politia) dicitur regalis, quando unus
solus dominatur, et non plures;
verum est regulariter, nam in civilibus
non dicitur politia regalis ex eo quod
? ? nulla congregatio sit super regem.
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 246
[PABT HI.
THE EAKLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
In a later passage he sums up some of the functions and
limitations of the best prince. He is to render to every man
what belongs to him, that is, to administer justice, to establish
law, to appoint the inferior judges and officers, but especially
to correct and punish the transgressors. The prince must
rule for the common good, he must remember that he reigns
over free men and not slaves; it is inconsistent with the best
princely authority that he should have absolute power
(plenitudo potestatis), that is, that he should have authority
to transfer one man's property to another, without fault
or cause, or to do whatever he pleases, so far as it does not
conflict with the laws of nature and of God. 1
It is perhaps worth while to notice that Almain in the same
chapter represents the person whom he cites as "Doctor"
as saying that it was not inconsistent with the best
"principatus" that there should exist in the Community
a juridical (legal) authority, which in no way depends upon,
or is created by, the Supreme Prince; and he mentions, as
an illustration of this, that, in some countries, in Aragon,
as it is said, there are jurisdictions which the king does not
create but which descend by hereditary succession; the
nam congregatio nobilium politiae
civilis, immediate est super regem,
et pro idonietato possunt deponi
reges, ut patet in Childerico et Zach-
aria. Non vocatur ergo regalis, eo
quod nulla congregatio sit super
ilium qui gubernat. Sed in com-
munitatibus est congregatio super
regem, et semper manet in esse con-
gregatio. Sed in politia regali non
sio est, quia non est semper congregatio
nobilium congregata, quae sit super
regem. "
1 Id. id. , Q. iii. 6 (col. 865):
"Consequent er restat inquirer* quae
possunt adesse et abesse optimo
principatui; et broviter dicitur quod
ad optimum principatum spectat uni-
ouique quod suum est reddere, hoc
est justitiam ministrare, leges condere,
judices inferiores et alios officiales,
delegcre et constituent, operationes
quarumcunque virtutum praecipere;
et quilibet princeps ex officio ad ista
tenetur: sed tamen ad hoc videtur
esse principalissime constitutus ut
corrigat et puniat delinquent c. <. . . .
Ex his patet quae sunt optimo prin-
cipatui necossario annexa, et quae
incompossibilia et quae impertinent ia,
et dictum est quod ad optimum prin-
cipatum necesse est quod sit ad bonum
commune, et quod principans princi-
pei m- liberis, et non servis, et quod
sit unus principans et non plures.
Item repugnat optimo principatui
habere plenitudinem potestatis, puta
quod possit ad placitum suum trans-
ferre rem meam in alterum, sine
quocunque meo peccato, vol cauaa,
et facere quidquid non repugnat juri
naturae et di vino; et visum est otiam
quo modo praecipuus actus principalis
? ? est malorum punitione intendere. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THE AUTHORITY OF THE RULER. 247
sons succeed the fathers as judges and the king cannot deprive
them of their authority; rather, they are over the king, in
respect of this jurisdiction. 1
The whole position of Almain is exceedingly interesting.
He has the same preference for the monarchy as that which
we normally find in the mediaaval world, but he is also quite
clear not only that the source of political authority is the
Community, but that the ultimate authority always remains
in it and must in the nature of things do so, and though the
monarchy is the best form of government, it is strictly
limited by the purpose for which it exists, the furtherance
of the common good and the maintenance of justice; an
absolute monarch is to him impossible.
The character of the political theory of John Major is
very close to that of Almain; indeed, it would seem that
he was either directly influenced by Almain or that they were
both under the influence of some common tradition. John
Major was a Scotsman, but taught for many years in the
University of Paris, and the work with which we are now
dealing was apparently published in 1518. It is primarily
concerned, like those of Almain, with the ecclesiastical questions
of the relation between the Pope and the General Council,
but we are here only concerned with its political principles.
The king has no authority except that which is derived
from the kingdom, for he himself or his first predecessor was
elected by the people; the king is over every individual
person in the kingdom, but he is not over all the kingdom,
"regulariter et casualiter," he is "regulariter" over the
1 Id. id. id. (col. 868): "Jam
Doctor infert aliqua corollaria--Primo
Don repugnat Optimo principatui su-
premo, optimo ordinate aliquem esse
potefttatem juridicam alicujus, vol
aliquonim de communitate ilia, quae
nullo modo ab ipso supremo princi-
pante dependeat, et quae non eit
ab ipso instituto, hoc est, quae non
dependeat ab ipso, nec quoad insti-
tutionem noc ad destitutionem saltem
regulariter
Hinc est quod in aliquibus regnis,
ut fertur in regno Arragoniae, rex non
habet instituere jurisdictiones, imo
est aliqua potestas juridica, quae
habetur ex succeesione parentum.
Ita quod post patres, filii sunt judices
. . . nec illos rex potest destituere,
imo sunt supra regem quantum ad
iliam jurisdictionem. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 248
[PAET III.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
whole kingdom, while the kingdom is over him " casualiter. " 1
This is sharply stated, but the principle is even more com-
pletely expressed in another passage. The King of France
is over all France, but the "praecipua pars" from which
he derives his authority is over him, and can depose him for
reasonable cause. The people is "virtualiter" over the
king, and in difficult matters the three Estates of the Bealm
are called together and direct him, and a free people has
the power, for reasonable cause, to alter the form of the
Constitution. 2
He expresses the same principle again in another place.
In France and Scotland it may be said that the supreme
power is in the king, but it would be better to say that there
are two powers of which one is supreme and more unlimited
than the other. In the kingdom and in the whole free people
1 John Major, 'De Auctoritate
Concilii super Pontificem maximum. '
(In J. Gerson, Opera, vol. i. , ed. 1606)
(col. 881): "Rex utilitatem reipublicae
dissipans et evertens incorrigibiliter,
est deponeadus a communitate cui
praeest. .
