Invenio solutum
esse principem legibus caducariis,
Julia nempe et Papia, 1.
esse principem legibus caducariis,
Julia nempe et Papia, 1.
Thomas Carlyle
, 6 vdfios ouStfi'tav
f&iap ixtt irpbt to T*ie^to6ai i)apa rb ? 0oj,
id est lex nullam vim habet, qua
compel la t homines ut sibi pareant, nisi
eam quam assumit cx more recepto, ex
consuetudine, quae non conflatur, nisi
diurao tempore, atque adeo roc to
Demetrius legem nihil aliud esse quam
consuetudinem scriptam, consuetu-
dinem esse legem, non scriptam. "
Cf. Cujas, Opera, vol. iii. ,' De Feudis,'
Lib. ii. 1 (col. 1827).
1 Id. id. , vol. iii. , 'Paratitla in
Libros ix. Codicis,' Cod. i. 14 (col. 20):
"Ac primum quidom in hoc titulo
agitur de legibus publicia et generalibus,
quae antiqua sunt jussa populi vel ple-
bis: quales nullae feruntur hodie, pop-
uli potestate translate in principem. "
* Id. id. , vol. iii. , 'Comm. on Code,'
vi. 50 (col. 818): "Jus omne, quod
populi fuit, translatum est in princi-
pem. Populi fuit leges ferro et per-
ferre . . . hodie est principis. . . .
Populus creavit magistratum, hodie
princeps. . . . Populus indixit bella
. . . hodie princeps solus. . . . Popu-
lus a magistratibus appellabatur, hodie
princeps. . . . Bona vacantia populo
deferebantur, hodie principi. "
* Id. id. , vol. ii. ,' Comm. on Digest,'
ad L. 2 (Dig. i. 2, 2) (col. 148): "Per
partes. . . . Et lento progressu a vi
et potestate regis ad populum, a populo
ad eenatum, a senatu ad unum, non
regem, sed principem quasi in republica
et senatu primum, qui nee populi
sibi, nec senatus jus omne vindicaret,
sed cum eo partiretur. "
? ? 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
? 316
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PAHT III.
to the law, when made, that is, to his discussion of the meaning
of "legibus solutus. " In treating the passage of Ulpian
(Digest, i. 3, 31), which says, "Princeps legibus solutus est,"
he says that these words had been understood by the Greeks
as referring to "penal" laws, for the prince has no judges;
by the Latins as referring to all laws; but the truth is that
they only apply to "Leges Caducariae," not to others;
even if the prince has not sworn to observe the laws, much
more, if he has. The people was bound by the laws which
it had made, and therefore, also, the prince upon whom it
had conferred its authority. The proper meaning of the phrase
is that the prince has the power of making and unmaking
laws, but he must only use this power for a just cause and for
the good of the Commonwealth; he has also some power of
rectifying things done without law. 1 In another work,
commenting on 'Code,' vi. 23, 3, he sets out the same judgment
in much the same terms, and with special reference to his
own time. 2
1 Id. id. , vol. iv. , 'Observationes,'
Lib. xv. 30 (col. 1755): "Ad 1. prin-
ceps. De Legibus (Dig. i. 3, 31).
De legibus poenaris Graeci ita interpre-
tantur . . . quia scilicet judices non
habet. Latini, de quibuscunque
legibus, cum sit, inscriptione legis, ea
sententia tantum accipienda de legibus
caducariis, Julia, et Papia, quae satis
etiam per se odiosae erant. . . . Sed et
plerisque aliis principes soluti non
erant, licet imperii initio non jurassent
in leges, et multominus si jurassent.
Quinimo, ut populus ipse suis legibus
tenebatur, ita princeps. . . . Cadu-
cariis legibus soluti erant, ex S. C.
quodam eorum, quae facta esse Jus-
tinianus refert, et aliis quibusdam veluti
solemnibus manumissionum. . . . Quod
igitur d. 1. Princeps, et Dio 53, dicens
hoc se ex Latino sermone transferre
\tKvtTat Tttf v6fiw, non de omnibus
legibus accipiendum est. Et quod
Dio. Chrysostom. , principem esse
ruv v6ttov iw&vtii . . . et idem Jus-
tinianus in Nov. 105 (Nov. 195, 2, 3)
eo tantum pertinet, ut intelligatur
penes principem esse omnem potes-
tate m ferendarum vel abrogandarum,
aut derogandarum legum, ut Augus-
tinus ait in Epistola quadam, 'Im-
peratorem non esse subjectum legibus
qui habet in potestate alias leges ferre,
non temere quidem, sed ex just a
causa et re publica atque adeo
confirmanda etiam quae non jure facta
sunt. ' Ut principem legibus adoptionem
non jure factam confirmare . . . et
matrimonium statumque liberorum non
jure quaesitorum; et hoc quidem
solum est principem supra leges esse.
Non placet quod de Achille Horatius,
'Jura negat sibi data, nihil non arrogat
armis. '"
* Id. id. , Opera, vol. iii. , ' Comm. on
Cod. ,' vi. 23, 3 (col. 687): "Principem
non vindicare hereditatem. . . . Im-
peratorem, non item, quia defuncto
extraneus est. Et addit rationem,
? ? quia lex imperii solemnitatibus juris
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. V. ] CIVILIANS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
317
It is quite clear that Cujas refuses to admit that the Eoman
Emperor was above the law; he recognises, indeed, his legis-
lative power, but maintains very confidently that he was
vivere. Et legem imperii vocat eam
quae prunum Augusto detulit im-
perium, ut refert Dionysius Lib. 52.
Quod Augustum privilegium dicitur,
leg. un. ult. de Caduc. toll. (Cod. vi.
51 { 14, a). Quodque Dionysius
acribit se transferre ex Latino sermone
KvofTcoy tup v6pwv: id est solvuntur
legibus. Et inde D. Chrisos. in
Oratione quadam tradit principem
esse, ruv vd^itov ivdvo). Et similiter
Justin, in Nov. 15, leges niti principe,
et esse ei submissas, atque subjectas,
quod scil. in potestate sit solius
principis, ex usu reipublicae leges
forre, vel abrogare, vel derogare, et
eas ipsum quandoque sequi non posse.
Quapropter aliquando major videtur
potestas esse principis, quam populi
fuerit. Populus enim suis legibus
tenebatur, princeps suis legibus non
tenetur. . . . Ea est lex imperii,
quae Augustum solvit legibus, maxime
si non juraverit in leges initio imperii.
Non solebant enim jurare in leges, cum
Plinius scribit in Panegyrico; 'jurare
magistratus quidem in leges. sed enim
jurisjurandi verba ignota esse prin-
cipibus. ' Nisi cum magistratus cogunt
jurare in leges.
Hodie quia princeps statim initio
imperii jurant in leges, tantum abest,
ut legibus soluti sint, quin quam
maxime legibus obstringantur ex suo
jurejurando. Et ut soluti sunt prin-
cipes legibus, tamen ut inquit 1. 3
(Cod. vi. , 23, 3), nihil est tam
proprium principatus quam secundum
leges vitam degere. . . . Et eleganter
Impp: Severus et Anton, in f ult.
Inst, qui bus modis testament a in-
tirmentur (Inst. ii. 17, 8), licet,
inquiunt, soluti simus legibus, tamen
legibus vivimus. Et elegantius, 1. 4.
De Legibus (Cod. i. 14, 4), preclarum
esse et dignum vocis principis, profl-
tentis se legibus alligatum esse, et de
auctoritate legum pendere auctori-
tatem principis, et re vera majus esse
imperio legibus submittere im-
perium. . . . (Col. 688), Contra tamen
invenio in quibusdam legibus omnino,
ita esse solutos principes, ut nec secun-
dum leges vivant.
Invenio solutum
esse principem legibus caducariis,
Julia nempe et Papia, 1. quod princ.
de leg. 2 (Dig. i. , 4, 1). Si tibi re-
lictum sit legatum et hominem ex-
emeris i. mortuus fueris, antequam
dies legati cederet, caducum fit lega-
tum. Sed si legatum relictum sit
principi, et is obierit, quod omnes
obire oportet, antequam dies legati
cederet, legatum non fit caducum, sed
? ? cedit heredi principis. Et hoe est
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
? 318
[PART III.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
normally bound to obey the law so long as it was law; and
it must be observed that Cujas says in the passage last quoted
that the princes of the modern world were bound by the oath,
which they took on their accession, to obey the laws; that is,
it is dear that besides what he conceived to be the rational
and critical interpretation of the jurisprudence of the ancient
world, he had no doubt about the constitutional principle
of his own time. It may also be observed that Cujas very
emphatically asserts that it is a mere error to maintain that
the prince has "property," in the strict sense of the word,
in that which belongs to the private individual; he has
rights over it " imperio," but not " dominio. " 1
We think that it is plain that in France from Alciatus to
Cujas, a number of the most important Civilians of the
sixteenth century maintained a conception of Law and its
relation to the prince very different from that of the Italian
Civilians of the fifteenth century, and even from that of the
Civilians of the fourteenth century.
We must also observe that one of the most important
Civilians of the century in Germany, Zasius, a native of
Zurich, but for many years Professor of Eoman Law in the
University of Freiburg in the Breisgau, during the first part of
the sixteenth century, represented in some important points
the same principles as Alciatus and the French Civilians with
whom we have just been concerned. 2
principe confirmari. . . . Legimus eos
poenae veniam facero et abolere orimen
indulgentia et benignitate sua. Eos
ex oausa etiam veniam legibus facere.
Kt hoc solum est, quod dicitur princi-
pem esse supra leges: nun placet, quod
de Achille ait Horatius. 'Jura negat
eibi data, nihil non arrogat armis. '''
1 Id. id. , vol. v. ,' Observationes,' xv.
30 (Col. 1755): "Verum ne abutimur
etiam ilia sontentia 'omnes esse prin-
cipis,' ex 1. 3 C. De quadr. praesc. (Code
vii. 37, 3) cujus mens haec est, ut
omnia tam fiscalia quam patrimonialia,
de quibus in ea lege agitur, principis
esse intelligamur. At et juris civilis
Seneca hano vocem esse ait: 'omnia
regis esse, etiam quae sibi quisque
pri vat us ha bet et possidet,' quam tamen
ita excipit rectissime, 'ut omnia rex
imperio possideat, singuli dominio. '
Nec enim quae tua sunt, principis
sunt; aut certe tua sunt, aut certe tua
non sunt, quoniam dominium in soli-
dum duorum esse non potest, et com-
munia quoque esse inter se et princi-
pem dixerit nemo, et fiscalia quoque
ipsa proprie principis non sunt. "
* For an account of his life and
work cf. the excellent work of Stintzing,
? ? 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, V. ] CIVILIANS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 319
We find some important judgments in his Commen-
taries on the 'Digest,' and we have, in one of his
"Consilia," a detailed discussion of the question whether
the Emperor could interfere with a judgment of the Eeichs
Kammer-Gericht by an Imperial writ or brief.
Zasius uses the strongest terms to describe the "Potestas
immensa" of the Emperor; he is a living law, and what he
decrees as law, or decides in judgment, is held to be law.
He is " legibus solutus," and can make law " solus "; whether
Zasius meant by this that he can issue laws by his own
authority, or that he is the only person who can make law,
is not clear. 1
We must not, however, be misled by these high-sounding
phrases. Zasius goes on at once to say that the Eoman
prince, if he has made any contracts or agreements even with
private persons, is bound by them; for, though God has
placed the laws under the control of the prince, he has not
done this with contracts; they belong to the " Jus Gentium"
and are founded on natural reason. This, he maintains, is
the common doctrine of the "Juris Periti," such as Cynus
and Baldus, and he relates it to the tradition of feudal tenures. 2
Zasius returns to this question of contractual obligations in
his treatise, 'In usu feudorum. ' 3
'Geschichte der Popularen Literstur
des rOmischen und canonischen Rechts,
in Deutschland. '
1 Zasius, ' Opera Omnia,' Frankfort,
1590, vol. i. ; 'Comm. on Digest,'
i. 2, 2 (p. 124): "(Ratum esset)
Ex quo colligitur, principia Romani
potestatem esse immensam; est enim
lex animata in terris. . . . Et quid-
quid statuerit, aut sententiam dando
decreverit, ceteris paribus pro lege
servatur . . . ipso enim siout est legi-
bus solutus ita solus legem condere
potest. "
* Id. id. id. id. : "Contractus tamen
si quos princeps Romanus etiam
privatis personis perfecerit, eum obli-
gant ut fidem conventionis servare
cogatur. Licet enim Deus principi
subjecerit leges, non tamen subjecit
contractuum vincula, quae juris gen-
tium sunt, naturalique ratione con-
sistunt, et praecipue in principe bonam
fidem requirunt. Quae est communis
jurisperitorum doctrina, Bald. Cynus.
Doctor. . . . Unde nimis improvide,
no quid durius dicam, nuper quidem
exdoctor aulicis contrarium respon-
derat. Neo porro tutum mihi videtur
quod Jacobus de Sancto Georgio in
practica feudorum, in princip. asseruit,
principem Romanum auferre vasallo
feudum posse. Cum enim vim con-
tractus feuda habcant, stare coutractui
princeps tenebitur. "
4 Id. id. , vol. iv. , 'In usu feu-
dorum,' pars. vii. 56 (p. 87).
? ? 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
? 320
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT m.
He also maintains that the prince's actions must be
conformed to reason and equity, and he cites not only the
well-known stories about Trajan and Agesilaus, but also the
rescript of the Emperor Anastasius, which instructs the
administrators of the Empire that they were not to pay any
heed to rescripts or pragmatic sanctions which were contrary
to the general law or to public utility. 1
Zasius considers this question further in a passage in which
he discusses what is meant by the phrase "legibus solutus. "
Does this, he asks, mean that the prince can act contrary
to the law and annul the Civil Law? The Canonists, he
says, maintain that this was true of the Pope; it would thus
be true also of the Emperor; but this assertion, he says,
never pleased him, for various reasons, and especially because
laws (jura) are given by God through the mouth of the prince.
He considers that some laws may be suspended in particular
cases, and that this is done by a "non obstante" clause.
But again, he says, if the prince should annul a man's legal
rights without due cause, his action is null and void, even
though he does it in the form of a law or decree. This is the
law of Germany, and he says that he had heard a judgment
given against the prinoe in the prince's " consistory. " 2
1 Id. id. , vol. i. , 'Comm. on Digest,'
i. 2, 2 (p. 124): "Et in universum,
princeps nihil admittet quod rationi
obviet et equitati, ut est eligantissimus
text, in Leg. Digna Vox. (Cod. i. 14, 4).
Licet enim absoluta potest 03 legibus
non ligetur, ut supra diximus, ea
tamen potestate abuti non debet:
quantoenim est sua potestas immensior,
tanto magis aequitatem exigit et
justitiam, quam in primis colere et
colendam praescribere debet. . . . In-
signis extat D. Trajani sententia . . .
denique optime Rex Agesilaus . . .
quod et imperator Anastasius salubriter
sancivit in 1. fin. C. si quid contra jus
(Cod. i. 22, 6); quem text um utinam
dootores pro suo quisque, vel commodo
vel ingenio, non ita distorquerent. "
(The text of Code i. 22, 6, reads:
"Omnis cujuscunque majoris vel
minoris administrationis universae
nostrae reipublicae judices monemus,
ut nullum rescriptum, null am prag-
maticam sanotionem, nullam sacram
adnotationem quao generali juri vel
utilitati publicae adversa esse videatur,
in disceptationem cujuslibet litigii
patiantur proferri, sed generales sacras
constitutiones modia omnibus non
dubitent observandas. ")
1 Id. id. , Opera, vol. i. , ' Comm. on
Digest,' i. 3, 31 (p. 167): "sed quia
in L. nostra principem ab omnibus
absolvisse legibus, et lege positiva,
quaero an per hoc princeps possit
f acere contra legem: an possit tollere
jus civile: Certe Canonistae hoc
tenent do Papa, quod possit toller*
jus positivum . . . et lie etia. ni hoo
? ? 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. V. ] CIVILIANS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
321
This reference to a definite case in the Courts is of great
interest, and it seems probable that this is the case which,
as we have said, is dealt with at length in one of Zasius' " Con-
silia," which has happily been preserved. The plaintiff had,
many years before, brought a case against the defendant
in the Eeichs Kammer-Gericht, and the Court had ordered
the defendant to pay a certain sum of money to the plaintiff.
The defendant had then taken the matter to the Emperor
Maximilian, who issued a mandate, " de plenitudine potestatis
et ex certa scientia," annulling the judgment. After further
negotiations, a compromise had been arrived at, by which
the plaintiff was to receive 1000 florins, but this was never
paid. On the death of Maximilian, the plaintiff applied for
the execution of the original judgment. 1
Zasius begins by laying down two general principles, the
first that the Emperor could not override the judgment of
the Court, and the second, that the Emperor was bound by
- his oontract.
He recognises that there had been much discussion about
the effect of the use of such phrases as "ex plenitudine
potestatis" and "ex certa scientia," when employed by
the Emperor in his briefs or writs, but he is himself quite
clear that the prince could not annul "Res Judioata" by
the use of such phrases. He had always held, and still main-
tained, whatever other doctors might say, that the prince
could not, by his "plenitudo potestatis" or his "certa
scientia," or in any other way, annul the lawful right (jus)
which a man might demand, except for some great public
cause. The authority of the prince is of the largest kind,
impcratori esset pennissum. Sed mihi
nunquam placuit ista assertio, per
mult as rationes quas jam obmitto,
et maxime, quia jura sunt divinitus
per ora principum promulgate, ut
dicunt patres in decretis. Bene
credo quia aliqua jura ex causis possint
in particulari tolli, vel contra eas
indulged, quod quotidie fit per clausu-
lam non obstante. . . . Quapropter
si prince ps noceret tollendo mea jura.
hoc non valeret, causa non apparente,
etiamsi heo per modum legis, decreti,
aut statu! i faceret, contra doctrinam
Baldi in 1. 2 C. eod. : et ita servat nostra
Germania integritatem legis: et vidi
ita judicari in Consistorio Principis
contra Principem, securi quo pacto
adulentur vel Itali vel alii principibus. "
1 Id. id. , vol. vi. "Consilia" Liber
ii. 10 (p. 127).
VOL. VI.
f&iap ixtt irpbt to T*ie^to6ai i)apa rb ? 0oj,
id est lex nullam vim habet, qua
compel la t homines ut sibi pareant, nisi
eam quam assumit cx more recepto, ex
consuetudine, quae non conflatur, nisi
diurao tempore, atque adeo roc to
Demetrius legem nihil aliud esse quam
consuetudinem scriptam, consuetu-
dinem esse legem, non scriptam. "
Cf. Cujas, Opera, vol. iii. ,' De Feudis,'
Lib. ii. 1 (col. 1827).
1 Id. id. , vol. iii. , 'Paratitla in
Libros ix. Codicis,' Cod. i. 14 (col. 20):
"Ac primum quidom in hoc titulo
agitur de legibus publicia et generalibus,
quae antiqua sunt jussa populi vel ple-
bis: quales nullae feruntur hodie, pop-
uli potestate translate in principem. "
* Id. id. , vol. iii. , 'Comm. on Code,'
vi. 50 (col. 818): "Jus omne, quod
populi fuit, translatum est in princi-
pem. Populi fuit leges ferro et per-
ferre . . . hodie est principis. . . .
Populus creavit magistratum, hodie
princeps. . . . Populus indixit bella
. . . hodie princeps solus. . . . Popu-
lus a magistratibus appellabatur, hodie
princeps. . . . Bona vacantia populo
deferebantur, hodie principi. "
* Id. id. , vol. ii. ,' Comm. on Digest,'
ad L. 2 (Dig. i. 2, 2) (col. 148): "Per
partes. . . . Et lento progressu a vi
et potestate regis ad populum, a populo
ad eenatum, a senatu ad unum, non
regem, sed principem quasi in republica
et senatu primum, qui nee populi
sibi, nec senatus jus omne vindicaret,
sed cum eo partiretur. "
? ? 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
? 316
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PAHT III.
to the law, when made, that is, to his discussion of the meaning
of "legibus solutus. " In treating the passage of Ulpian
(Digest, i. 3, 31), which says, "Princeps legibus solutus est,"
he says that these words had been understood by the Greeks
as referring to "penal" laws, for the prince has no judges;
by the Latins as referring to all laws; but the truth is that
they only apply to "Leges Caducariae," not to others;
even if the prince has not sworn to observe the laws, much
more, if he has. The people was bound by the laws which
it had made, and therefore, also, the prince upon whom it
had conferred its authority. The proper meaning of the phrase
is that the prince has the power of making and unmaking
laws, but he must only use this power for a just cause and for
the good of the Commonwealth; he has also some power of
rectifying things done without law. 1 In another work,
commenting on 'Code,' vi. 23, 3, he sets out the same judgment
in much the same terms, and with special reference to his
own time. 2
1 Id. id. , vol. iv. , 'Observationes,'
Lib. xv. 30 (col. 1755): "Ad 1. prin-
ceps. De Legibus (Dig. i. 3, 31).
De legibus poenaris Graeci ita interpre-
tantur . . . quia scilicet judices non
habet. Latini, de quibuscunque
legibus, cum sit, inscriptione legis, ea
sententia tantum accipienda de legibus
caducariis, Julia, et Papia, quae satis
etiam per se odiosae erant. . . . Sed et
plerisque aliis principes soluti non
erant, licet imperii initio non jurassent
in leges, et multominus si jurassent.
Quinimo, ut populus ipse suis legibus
tenebatur, ita princeps. . . . Cadu-
cariis legibus soluti erant, ex S. C.
quodam eorum, quae facta esse Jus-
tinianus refert, et aliis quibusdam veluti
solemnibus manumissionum. . . . Quod
igitur d. 1. Princeps, et Dio 53, dicens
hoc se ex Latino sermone transferre
\tKvtTat Tttf v6fiw, non de omnibus
legibus accipiendum est. Et quod
Dio. Chrysostom. , principem esse
ruv v6ttov iw&vtii . . . et idem Jus-
tinianus in Nov. 105 (Nov. 195, 2, 3)
eo tantum pertinet, ut intelligatur
penes principem esse omnem potes-
tate m ferendarum vel abrogandarum,
aut derogandarum legum, ut Augus-
tinus ait in Epistola quadam, 'Im-
peratorem non esse subjectum legibus
qui habet in potestate alias leges ferre,
non temere quidem, sed ex just a
causa et re publica atque adeo
confirmanda etiam quae non jure facta
sunt. ' Ut principem legibus adoptionem
non jure factam confirmare . . . et
matrimonium statumque liberorum non
jure quaesitorum; et hoc quidem
solum est principem supra leges esse.
Non placet quod de Achille Horatius,
'Jura negat sibi data, nihil non arrogat
armis. '"
* Id. id. , Opera, vol. iii. , ' Comm. on
Cod. ,' vi. 23, 3 (col. 687): "Principem
non vindicare hereditatem. . . . Im-
peratorem, non item, quia defuncto
extraneus est. Et addit rationem,
? ? quia lex imperii solemnitatibus juris
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. V. ] CIVILIANS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
317
It is quite clear that Cujas refuses to admit that the Eoman
Emperor was above the law; he recognises, indeed, his legis-
lative power, but maintains very confidently that he was
vivere. Et legem imperii vocat eam
quae prunum Augusto detulit im-
perium, ut refert Dionysius Lib. 52.
Quod Augustum privilegium dicitur,
leg. un. ult. de Caduc. toll. (Cod. vi.
51 { 14, a). Quodque Dionysius
acribit se transferre ex Latino sermone
KvofTcoy tup v6pwv: id est solvuntur
legibus. Et inde D. Chrisos. in
Oratione quadam tradit principem
esse, ruv vd^itov ivdvo). Et similiter
Justin, in Nov. 15, leges niti principe,
et esse ei submissas, atque subjectas,
quod scil. in potestate sit solius
principis, ex usu reipublicae leges
forre, vel abrogare, vel derogare, et
eas ipsum quandoque sequi non posse.
Quapropter aliquando major videtur
potestas esse principis, quam populi
fuerit. Populus enim suis legibus
tenebatur, princeps suis legibus non
tenetur. . . . Ea est lex imperii,
quae Augustum solvit legibus, maxime
si non juraverit in leges initio imperii.
Non solebant enim jurare in leges, cum
Plinius scribit in Panegyrico; 'jurare
magistratus quidem in leges. sed enim
jurisjurandi verba ignota esse prin-
cipibus. ' Nisi cum magistratus cogunt
jurare in leges.
Hodie quia princeps statim initio
imperii jurant in leges, tantum abest,
ut legibus soluti sint, quin quam
maxime legibus obstringantur ex suo
jurejurando. Et ut soluti sunt prin-
cipes legibus, tamen ut inquit 1. 3
(Cod. vi. , 23, 3), nihil est tam
proprium principatus quam secundum
leges vitam degere. . . . Et eleganter
Impp: Severus et Anton, in f ult.
Inst, qui bus modis testament a in-
tirmentur (Inst. ii. 17, 8), licet,
inquiunt, soluti simus legibus, tamen
legibus vivimus. Et elegantius, 1. 4.
De Legibus (Cod. i. 14, 4), preclarum
esse et dignum vocis principis, profl-
tentis se legibus alligatum esse, et de
auctoritate legum pendere auctori-
tatem principis, et re vera majus esse
imperio legibus submittere im-
perium. . . . (Col. 688), Contra tamen
invenio in quibusdam legibus omnino,
ita esse solutos principes, ut nec secun-
dum leges vivant.
Invenio solutum
esse principem legibus caducariis,
Julia nempe et Papia, 1. quod princ.
de leg. 2 (Dig. i. , 4, 1). Si tibi re-
lictum sit legatum et hominem ex-
emeris i. mortuus fueris, antequam
dies legati cederet, caducum fit lega-
tum. Sed si legatum relictum sit
principi, et is obierit, quod omnes
obire oportet, antequam dies legati
cederet, legatum non fit caducum, sed
? ? cedit heredi principis. Et hoe est
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
? 318
[PART III.
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
normally bound to obey the law so long as it was law; and
it must be observed that Cujas says in the passage last quoted
that the princes of the modern world were bound by the oath,
which they took on their accession, to obey the laws; that is,
it is dear that besides what he conceived to be the rational
and critical interpretation of the jurisprudence of the ancient
world, he had no doubt about the constitutional principle
of his own time. It may also be observed that Cujas very
emphatically asserts that it is a mere error to maintain that
the prince has "property," in the strict sense of the word,
in that which belongs to the private individual; he has
rights over it " imperio," but not " dominio. " 1
We think that it is plain that in France from Alciatus to
Cujas, a number of the most important Civilians of the
sixteenth century maintained a conception of Law and its
relation to the prince very different from that of the Italian
Civilians of the fifteenth century, and even from that of the
Civilians of the fourteenth century.
We must also observe that one of the most important
Civilians of the century in Germany, Zasius, a native of
Zurich, but for many years Professor of Eoman Law in the
University of Freiburg in the Breisgau, during the first part of
the sixteenth century, represented in some important points
the same principles as Alciatus and the French Civilians with
whom we have just been concerned. 2
principe confirmari. . . . Legimus eos
poenae veniam facero et abolere orimen
indulgentia et benignitate sua. Eos
ex oausa etiam veniam legibus facere.
Kt hoc solum est, quod dicitur princi-
pem esse supra leges: nun placet, quod
de Achille ait Horatius. 'Jura negat
eibi data, nihil non arrogat armis. '''
1 Id. id. , vol. v. ,' Observationes,' xv.
30 (Col. 1755): "Verum ne abutimur
etiam ilia sontentia 'omnes esse prin-
cipis,' ex 1. 3 C. De quadr. praesc. (Code
vii. 37, 3) cujus mens haec est, ut
omnia tam fiscalia quam patrimonialia,
de quibus in ea lege agitur, principis
esse intelligamur. At et juris civilis
Seneca hano vocem esse ait: 'omnia
regis esse, etiam quae sibi quisque
pri vat us ha bet et possidet,' quam tamen
ita excipit rectissime, 'ut omnia rex
imperio possideat, singuli dominio. '
Nec enim quae tua sunt, principis
sunt; aut certe tua sunt, aut certe tua
non sunt, quoniam dominium in soli-
dum duorum esse non potest, et com-
munia quoque esse inter se et princi-
pem dixerit nemo, et fiscalia quoque
ipsa proprie principis non sunt. "
* For an account of his life and
work cf. the excellent work of Stintzing,
? ? 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, V. ] CIVILIANS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 319
We find some important judgments in his Commen-
taries on the 'Digest,' and we have, in one of his
"Consilia," a detailed discussion of the question whether
the Emperor could interfere with a judgment of the Eeichs
Kammer-Gericht by an Imperial writ or brief.
Zasius uses the strongest terms to describe the "Potestas
immensa" of the Emperor; he is a living law, and what he
decrees as law, or decides in judgment, is held to be law.
He is " legibus solutus," and can make law " solus "; whether
Zasius meant by this that he can issue laws by his own
authority, or that he is the only person who can make law,
is not clear. 1
We must not, however, be misled by these high-sounding
phrases. Zasius goes on at once to say that the Eoman
prince, if he has made any contracts or agreements even with
private persons, is bound by them; for, though God has
placed the laws under the control of the prince, he has not
done this with contracts; they belong to the " Jus Gentium"
and are founded on natural reason. This, he maintains, is
the common doctrine of the "Juris Periti," such as Cynus
and Baldus, and he relates it to the tradition of feudal tenures. 2
Zasius returns to this question of contractual obligations in
his treatise, 'In usu feudorum. ' 3
'Geschichte der Popularen Literstur
des rOmischen und canonischen Rechts,
in Deutschland. '
1 Zasius, ' Opera Omnia,' Frankfort,
1590, vol. i. ; 'Comm. on Digest,'
i. 2, 2 (p. 124): "(Ratum esset)
Ex quo colligitur, principia Romani
potestatem esse immensam; est enim
lex animata in terris. . . . Et quid-
quid statuerit, aut sententiam dando
decreverit, ceteris paribus pro lege
servatur . . . ipso enim siout est legi-
bus solutus ita solus legem condere
potest. "
* Id. id. id. id. : "Contractus tamen
si quos princeps Romanus etiam
privatis personis perfecerit, eum obli-
gant ut fidem conventionis servare
cogatur. Licet enim Deus principi
subjecerit leges, non tamen subjecit
contractuum vincula, quae juris gen-
tium sunt, naturalique ratione con-
sistunt, et praecipue in principe bonam
fidem requirunt. Quae est communis
jurisperitorum doctrina, Bald. Cynus.
Doctor. . . . Unde nimis improvide,
no quid durius dicam, nuper quidem
exdoctor aulicis contrarium respon-
derat. Neo porro tutum mihi videtur
quod Jacobus de Sancto Georgio in
practica feudorum, in princip. asseruit,
principem Romanum auferre vasallo
feudum posse. Cum enim vim con-
tractus feuda habcant, stare coutractui
princeps tenebitur. "
4 Id. id. , vol. iv. , 'In usu feu-
dorum,' pars. vii. 56 (p. 87).
? ? 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
? 320
THE EARLIER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT m.
He also maintains that the prince's actions must be
conformed to reason and equity, and he cites not only the
well-known stories about Trajan and Agesilaus, but also the
rescript of the Emperor Anastasius, which instructs the
administrators of the Empire that they were not to pay any
heed to rescripts or pragmatic sanctions which were contrary
to the general law or to public utility. 1
Zasius considers this question further in a passage in which
he discusses what is meant by the phrase "legibus solutus. "
Does this, he asks, mean that the prince can act contrary
to the law and annul the Civil Law? The Canonists, he
says, maintain that this was true of the Pope; it would thus
be true also of the Emperor; but this assertion, he says,
never pleased him, for various reasons, and especially because
laws (jura) are given by God through the mouth of the prince.
He considers that some laws may be suspended in particular
cases, and that this is done by a "non obstante" clause.
But again, he says, if the prince should annul a man's legal
rights without due cause, his action is null and void, even
though he does it in the form of a law or decree. This is the
law of Germany, and he says that he had heard a judgment
given against the prinoe in the prince's " consistory. " 2
1 Id. id. , vol. i. , 'Comm. on Digest,'
i. 2, 2 (p. 124): "Et in universum,
princeps nihil admittet quod rationi
obviet et equitati, ut est eligantissimus
text, in Leg. Digna Vox. (Cod. i. 14, 4).
Licet enim absoluta potest 03 legibus
non ligetur, ut supra diximus, ea
tamen potestate abuti non debet:
quantoenim est sua potestas immensior,
tanto magis aequitatem exigit et
justitiam, quam in primis colere et
colendam praescribere debet. . . . In-
signis extat D. Trajani sententia . . .
denique optime Rex Agesilaus . . .
quod et imperator Anastasius salubriter
sancivit in 1. fin. C. si quid contra jus
(Cod. i. 22, 6); quem text um utinam
dootores pro suo quisque, vel commodo
vel ingenio, non ita distorquerent. "
(The text of Code i. 22, 6, reads:
"Omnis cujuscunque majoris vel
minoris administrationis universae
nostrae reipublicae judices monemus,
ut nullum rescriptum, null am prag-
maticam sanotionem, nullam sacram
adnotationem quao generali juri vel
utilitati publicae adversa esse videatur,
in disceptationem cujuslibet litigii
patiantur proferri, sed generales sacras
constitutiones modia omnibus non
dubitent observandas. ")
1 Id. id. , Opera, vol. i. , ' Comm. on
Digest,' i. 3, 31 (p. 167): "sed quia
in L. nostra principem ab omnibus
absolvisse legibus, et lege positiva,
quaero an per hoc princeps possit
f acere contra legem: an possit tollere
jus civile: Certe Canonistae hoc
tenent do Papa, quod possit toller*
jus positivum . . . et lie etia. ni hoo
? ? 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. V. ] CIVILIANS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
321
This reference to a definite case in the Courts is of great
interest, and it seems probable that this is the case which,
as we have said, is dealt with at length in one of Zasius' " Con-
silia," which has happily been preserved. The plaintiff had,
many years before, brought a case against the defendant
in the Eeichs Kammer-Gericht, and the Court had ordered
the defendant to pay a certain sum of money to the plaintiff.
The defendant had then taken the matter to the Emperor
Maximilian, who issued a mandate, " de plenitudine potestatis
et ex certa scientia," annulling the judgment. After further
negotiations, a compromise had been arrived at, by which
the plaintiff was to receive 1000 florins, but this was never
paid. On the death of Maximilian, the plaintiff applied for
the execution of the original judgment. 1
Zasius begins by laying down two general principles, the
first that the Emperor could not override the judgment of
the Court, and the second, that the Emperor was bound by
- his oontract.
He recognises that there had been much discussion about
the effect of the use of such phrases as "ex plenitudine
potestatis" and "ex certa scientia," when employed by
the Emperor in his briefs or writs, but he is himself quite
clear that the prince could not annul "Res Judioata" by
the use of such phrases. He had always held, and still main-
tained, whatever other doctors might say, that the prince
could not, by his "plenitudo potestatis" or his "certa
scientia," or in any other way, annul the lawful right (jus)
which a man might demand, except for some great public
cause. The authority of the prince is of the largest kind,
impcratori esset pennissum. Sed mihi
nunquam placuit ista assertio, per
mult as rationes quas jam obmitto,
et maxime, quia jura sunt divinitus
per ora principum promulgate, ut
dicunt patres in decretis. Bene
credo quia aliqua jura ex causis possint
in particulari tolli, vel contra eas
indulged, quod quotidie fit per clausu-
lam non obstante. . . . Quapropter
si prince ps noceret tollendo mea jura.
hoc non valeret, causa non apparente,
etiamsi heo per modum legis, decreti,
aut statu! i faceret, contra doctrinam
Baldi in 1. 2 C. eod. : et ita servat nostra
Germania integritatem legis: et vidi
ita judicari in Consistorio Principis
contra Principem, securi quo pacto
adulentur vel Itali vel alii principibus. "
1 Id. id. , vol. vi. "Consilia" Liber
ii. 10 (p. 127).
VOL. VI.
