Conclusion
This chapter began by dividing the topic of the canon law’s relation to Roman law into three parts: the existence of mutual influence, the preservation of Roman law, and the creation of the ius commune.
What has the cumulation of evidence shown about each? The first was consideration of the extent to which the resources of the Corpus iuris civilis were used in formulating the canon law. Here, it seems clear that the connections were vital in several respects. From the earliest days, the church fathers had assumed that Roman law stated good law, although not in every area of human life. When, several centuries later, it came time to compile a systematic law for the church, its Corpus followed organizational patterns found in the Roman law books, incorporated parts of the individual Roman laws into its titles, and relied on Roman laws to interpret its own collections of canons and papal decretals. The church was not compelled to follow the civil law, and indeed it rejected some civil law doctrines as incompatible with the Christian religion. Overall, however, the instances of dependence were greater than those of rejection.About the second area raised at the outset - an assessment of the canon law’s role in preserving the heritage of the ancient Roman law — the picture is more clouded. That the church did help preserve the inheritance of Roman law is not open to doubt. By ‘canonizing’ so much of the ancient law and making repeated use of it in the centuries when the church dominated much of human life, the church did aid in the civil law’s survival into the modern world. However, it is one thing to show that the church supported the ancient law. It is another to attribute Roman law’s survival to the church. The revival of study of Roman law began more than a century before Gratian compiled the Decretum, and at first the civilians regarded the canon law with some disdain.
The civil law was always more comprehensive and more sophisticated than that of the church. It could stand on its own. Would its influence have been what it was without the church? Probably yes; it would have been, in some measure. The most one can say is that without the canon law Roman law would not have been quite as pervasive a force in European history as it turned out to be.How and why it happened that the two laws became blended together to form the ius commune, the third subject, is only a little less difficult to estimate accurately than the second. That it happened is a fact. That it was a reflection of the medieval belief in the interdependence of the spiritual and secular sides of life is also a live possibility. That the two were the products of the same revival of legal study in the twelfth century furnishes an additional reason for the fusion that occurred. The two were taught side by side in most European universities and many aspiring lawyers studied both. This could of course be either a cause or an effect of their interdependence. A familiar maxim of earlier centuries held that ‘A legist without the canons is worth little; a canonist without the civil laws nothing at all.’75 If we cannot quite explain the deep reasons for this fusion, we can at least be sure that this was a maxim every lawyer once knew.
Notes
1. For abbreviations used in this chapter see the table of abbreviations, and note that in this chapter while C. i.i.i refers (as elsewhere) to Justinian’s Code, C. i q. i c. i refers to the Decretum of Gratian, Causa i, quaestio i, canon i.
2. J. Witte and F. Alexander, eds., Christianity and Law: An Introduction (Cambridge, 2008), 1—17.
3. See A.
Van Hove, Prolegomena ad codicem iuris canonici (Mechelen and Rome, 1945), 163—76; C. Gallagher, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium: A Comparative Study (Aldershot, 2002).4.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Henricus de Segusio (Hostiensis) (d. 1271), Summa aurea, Proem. no. 12 (Venice, 1574), 8.
5. D. 48.5.1—45; C. 9.9.1—35; X 5.16.1—7.
6. See DD at X 5.26.2.
7. E.g. D. 44.1.1—24; C. 7.33.1—12.
8. X 2.26.1—20.
9. Lat. IV, c. 41 in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. N. Tanner (1990) vol. 1, 253.
10. Gl. ord. adX 2.26.20: ‘etideo canon voluit propter periculum animarum in hoc leges corrigere’.
11. E.g. Andreas Gail (d. 1587), Observationes practicae imperialis camerae (1595), lib. II, obs. 18, nos. 6—7: ‘quia secundum canones et communem atque in camera imperiali saepius approbatam opinionem, malae fidei possessor nullo unquam tempore praescribit’.
12. Nov.
137.1—6.13. Nov. 140.1.
14. Gl. ord. ad X 3 47.1: ‘ [S]i mulieres post partum voluerint ecclesiam intrare acturae gratias Deo, nullum est peccatum, nec aditus ecclesiae illis est denegandus’.
15. M. Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, 2nd edn. (London, 2001) paras. 5.57, 144.
16. R. Fraher, ‘The theoretical justification for the new criminal law of the high middle ages: Rei publicae interest, ne crimina remaneant impunita’, University of Illinois Law Review (1984): 577—95.
17. X 5.39.1—60.
18. Sext. 5.11.1—24.
19. F.D. Logan, Excommunication and the Secular Arm in medieval England (Toronto, 1968).
20. DD at X 5.7.19.
21. E.g. A. Gauthier, Roman Law and its Contribution to the Development of Canon Law (Ottawa, 1996), 4—5.
22. J. Gaudemet, La formation du droit seculier et du droit de l'eglise aux IVe et Ve siecles, 2nd edn. (Paris, 1979), 216—30.
23. See lex Ribuaria c.
58 § 1, in Lex Ribuaria et lex Francorum Chamavorum, ed. R. Sohm (Hannover, 1883), 79.24. P. Vinogradoff, Roman Law in Medieval Europe, revd. edn. (Cambridge, 1968), 11—41.
25. C. 12 q. 1 c. 7.
26. C. G. Fürst, ‘Ecclesiavivitlege Romana?’ ZSS (KanonistischeAbteilung) (1975): 27—30.
27. C. i.6.i—3.
28.size=1 face="Times New Roman"> Nov. 83.1: ‘secundum sacras et divinas regulas, quas etiam nostrae sequi non dedignantur leges’.
29. E.g. Letter (494) ofPope Gelasius to the bishops ofSicily approving application ofthe Roman law of prescription to possession of church property, in Epistolae Romanorum pontificum, ed. A. Thiel (Braunsberg, 1868), vol. 1, 381—82.
30. Gaudemet (n. 22), 227.
31. E.g. C. 8.38(39).2.
32. E.g. B. Ferme, Introduction to the History of the Sources of Canon Law: TheAncientLaw up to the Decretum of Gratian (Montreal, 2007), 19—21.
33. W.
Hartmann, Kirche und Kirchenrecht um 900: Die Bedeutung der spätkarolingischen Zeit für Tradition und Innovation im kirchlichen Recht (Hannover, 2008), 143—77.34. See Libri duo de synodalibus causis, ed. F. G.A. Wasserschleben (Leipzig, 1840), 525.
35. Anselmi episcopi Lucensis collection canonum, lib. II, cc. 2—3, ed. F. Thaner (Innsbruck, 1915), 76.
36. Van Hove (n. 3), 239-40.
37. Collectio canonum trium librorum, ed. J. Motta (Vatican City, 2008), 375—76.
38. A. Winroth, The Making of Gratian's Decretum (Cambridge, 2000); C. Larrainzar, ‘La formacion del Decreto de Graciano por etapas’, ZSS (Kanonistische Abteilung) 118 (2001): 5—83.
39. Dist. 12 cc. 6—7, taken from Inst. 1.2.9; C. 8.52(53). 1; and see, generally, J. M. Viejo- Ximenez, ‘La reception del deerecho Romano en el derecho canonico’, Anales de la Tradition Romanistica’ 2 (2005), 139—69.
40.New Roman"> D. p. Dist. 10 c. 6.
41. C. 3 q. 7 c. 1, taken from D. 3.1.1.
42. C. 30 q. 3 c. 6, taken from D. 23.2.17.
43. C. 25 q. 2 cc. 15—16, taken from C. 1.19.3 and C. 1.19.7.
44. E.g. X 1.2.10.
45. X 5.33.28: ‘occurrunt raro’.
46. O. Cassola, La recezione del Diritto Civile nel Diritto Canonico, 2nd edn. (Rome, 1969), 39—52.
47. See Gauthier (n. 21), 101—6.
48. C. 4.20.18.
49. X 2.21.1—11.
50. X 2.12.5.
51. D. 50.17.1—178 (de diversis regulis iuris antiqui). See Gauthier (n. 21), 107—17.
52. D. 22.6.6.
53. Reg. 13 in Sext, tit. De regulis iuris.
54. Gl. ord. ad id., v. ignorantiafacti.
55. G. Dolezalek, Scotland under Jus Commune (Edinburgh, 2010), 3.
56. See M. Bellomo, The Common Legal Past of Europe 1000—1800, trans. L. Cochrane (Washington, D.C., 1995), xii; A. Lefebvre-Teillard, ‘Le role des canonistes dans la formation d’un ‘Droit Commun’ romano-canonique’, Revue d'histoire desfacultes de droit et de la culture juridique 28 (2008): 215—26.
57. Vinogradoff (n. 24), 119—30.
58. X 3—30.1—35.
59. X 3.30.28, andgl. ord. ad id. v. nisi cum onere.
60. D. 18.1.67.
61. X 5.4.5.
62. D. 18.1.7 andgl. ord. ad id. v. alieno arbitrio.
63. C. 17 q. 4 c. 29.
64. D. 50.17.2.
65. Gl. ord. ad id v. foemina.
66. See, e.g.,gl. ord. ad C. 3.1.14, v. iudices, citingX 2.28.61.
67. Ordo iudiciarius, Pt. I, tit. 6 § 8,in Pillius, Tancredus, Gratia, Libri de iudiciorum ordine, ed. F. C. Bergman (Göttingen, 1842), 114-23.
68. De probationibus, III, concl. 1232, no. 1 (Venice, 1593), 197.
lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;line-height: 105%'>69. Dec. 49 (1589), in Franciscus Mantica, Decisiones Rotae Romanae (Rome, 1619), 64-66.
70. Dec. 114 (1590), ibid. 140-41.
71. E.g. A. Wijffels, Qui millies allegatur: les allegations du droit savant dans les dossiers du Grand Conseil de Malines (causes septentrionales, ca. 1460—1580) (Leiden, 1985).
72. A version was ascribed to Bartolus, and is printed in Bartolus de Sassoferrato, Commentaria, IX (Rome, 1996), fol. 145v-49v, but the accuracy of the ascription is doubtful. See J. Portemer, Recherches sur les ‘Differentiae juris civilis et canonici' au temps du droit classique de l'Eglise (Paris, 1946).
73. De differentiis iuris canonici et civilis, lim. 4 (1640).
74. De differentiis inter ius canonicum et civile, in TUI, vol. 1, fols. 197v-208.
75. F. Merzbacher, ‘Die Parömie Legista sine canonibus parum valet, canonista sine legibus nichil’, Studia Gratiana 13 (1967): 275—82.
20
More on the topic Conclusion:
- Conclusion
- Conclusion and Future Prospects
- Conclusion
- Conclusion
- Conclusion
- Adverse Consequences
- Hare C., Neo D. (eds.). Trade Finance: Technology, Innovation and Documentary Credit. Oxford University Press,2021. — 417 p., 2021
- Fligstein Neil. The Banks Did It: An Anatomy of the Financial Crisis. Harvard University Press,2021. — 334 p., 2021
- Contents
- FIVE COMPONENTS OF LEGAL COMPETENCIES