¹ M. Stickler, A., ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum nei decretisti e primi decretalisti: Considerazioni metodologiche di ricerca e testi,’ Salesianum 15 (1953) 572–612.Google Scholar

² Ullmann, W., Medieval Papalism: The Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists (London 1949).Google Scholar

³ The concept of natural law in Gratian and the early Decretists has attracted much attention recently. See Gaudemet, J., ‘La doctrine et les sources du droit dans le Décret de Gratien,’ Revue de droit canonique 1 (1951) 5–31; Villey, M., ‘Sources et portée du droit naturel chez Gratien,’ ibid. 4 (1954) 50-65; Delhaye, P., ‘Morale et droit canonique dans la Summa d’Étienne de Tournai,’Studia Gratiana 1 (Bologna 1953) 435-49 at 440f.; F. Arnold, ‘Die Rechtslehre des Magisters Gratianus,’ ibid. 450-482 at 460f.; Wegner, A., ‘Über positives göttliches Recht und natürliches göttliches Recht,’ ibid. 503-18; Composta, D., ‘Il diritto naturale in Graziano,’ ibid. 2 (to be published); Kuttner, S., ‘New Studies on the Roman Law in Gratian's Decretum,’ Seminar 11 (1953) 12–50 at 42f.Google Scholar

⁴ Dr. Ullmann strongly emphasizes an ideological conflict between civilians and canonists, the one school exalting the emperor, the other the pope. The theme is developed further in his article, ‘Honorius III and the Prohibition of Legal Studies,’ The Juridical Review 60 (1948) 177–86. For another interpretation of Honorius’ attitude see Kuttner, S., ‘Papst Honorius III und das Studium des Zivilrechts,’ Festschrift für Martin Wolff (Tübingen 1952) 79-101.Google Scholar

⁵ To the present writer the weakest point in the whole argument is the lack of canonistic documentation for these assertions.Google Scholar

⁶ Maccarrone, M., Chiesa e stato nella dottrina di papa Innocenzo III (Lateranum N.S. 6 iii-iv; Rome 1940). Maccarrone argues that all Innocent III's claims on behalf of the papacy and all his interventions in secular affairs were consistent with the dualist doctrine taught by Huguccio. His views were accepted by Fliche, A., in La Chrétienté romaine (1198–1274) (Fliche and Martin, Histoire de l’Église 10; Paris 1950) 30-43. Maccarrone has also discussed the expression Vicarius Christi, much emphasized by Ullmann, and concludes that, for Innocent III, it did not imply a claim to temporal power, though it acquired a hierocratic connotation later in the thirteenth century, ‘Il papa « Vicarius Christi »,’ Miscellanea Pio Paschini (Rome 1949) 427-500; Vicarius Christi: Storia del titolo papale (Lateranum N.S. 18 i-iv; Rome 1952). On papal plenitudo potestatis see Ladner, G., ‘The Concepts of « Ecclesia » and « Christianitas » and Their Relation to the Idea of Papal «Plenitudo Potestatis» from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,’ Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 18 (Rome 1954) 49-77. Ladner maintains that in the papal letters of the thirteenth century plenitudo potestatis referred to the universal spiritual authority of the pope, together with his indirect power in temporal affairs and his direct lordship over the Papal States, but that it did not refer to direct universal temporal authority, as Ullmann claims. Le, G. Bras has argued that even Boniface VIII took up a moderate and balanced position on the temporal power of the pope: ‘Boniface VIII, symphoniste et modérateur,’ in Mélanges d'histoire du moyen âge… Louis Halphen (Paris 1951). On the other hand, De Vergottini, G., like Ullmann, emphasizes the growing insistence on a direct power of the pope in temporal affairs in the decretals of the thirteenth century, Il diritto pubblico italiano nei secoli XII-XIV 1 (2nd ed. Milan, 1954) 79-104. The development of the claim to lordship over all islands in the letters of the medieval popes has been traced by Luis Weckmann, Las Bulas Alejandrinas de 1493 y la Teoria Politica del Papado Medieval (Mexico 1949).Google Scholar

⁷ M. Stickler, A., ‘Concerning the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists,^’ Traditio 7 (1949–51) 450-463.Google Scholar

⁸ e.g. that Dr. Ullmann has misunderstood the canonistic doctrine on papal dispensation in his chapter on ‘The Pope and Natural Law’; that he has strained the meaning of his texts in presenting the canonists as merely contemptuous of temporal power and of the laity in general; that he has misrepresented the papal and canonistic teaching on appeals from a secular court to an ecclesiastical one.Google Scholar

⁹ In this connection Fr. Stickler points out that ‘the characteristic utterances of Unam Sanctam can be found verbatim in two of Gratian's contemporaries, Hugh of St. Victor and Bernard of Clairvaux…’ (p. 457).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Mochi Onory, S., Fonti canonistiche dell’ idea moderna dello stato (Milan 1951). Mochi Onory died soon after his book was published, and it is an invidious task to criticize the work of a scholar who can no longer reply. But works of synthesis often advance our knowledge as much by the discussions they stimulate as by their own immediate contribution. Mochi Onory, with his enthusiasm for the canonists and their works, would surely have wished the discussion to continue.Google Scholar

¹¹ Dist. 22 c.1.Google Scholar

¹² Fonti 87; ‘Celeste imperium celestium militum i.e. clericorum universitatem cum his, que ad eos pertinent, dicit; terrenum vero regnum vel Imperium seculares homines secularesque res appellat: per hoc ergo videtur, quod summus pontifex, qui beati Petri est vicarius, habet iura terreni regni’ (Summa ad Dist, 22 c.1). On Peter Damian's meaning see Maccarrone, , Chiesa e Stato 64-5, referring to the views of Rivière, Voosen, and Arquillière.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. ‘Ipse vero princeps post ipsum auctoritatem habet seculares regendi et preter ipsum officium amministrandi; etenim nec apostolicum secularia nec principem ecclesiastica procurare oportet…’Google Scholar

¹⁵ Fonti 110 (Summa ad Dist. 22 c.1). 15 q.6 c.3 Alius referred to the ‘deposition’ of Childebert, king of the Franks, by Pope Zacharias,Google Scholar

¹⁶ Fonti 111: ‘Nota, qui primam tenent sententiam, dicunt quod summus pon(tifex) utrumque habet gladium: alterum non admin(i)stratione, set tantum auctoritate, ut materialem: celestem vero et ecclesiasticum plena auctoritate.’Google Scholar

¹⁷ Fonti 110-1: ‘Alii dicunt in contrarium et hiis rationibus: ante enim erant imperatores quam summi pon(tifices) et tunc habebant potestatem, quia omnis potestas a deo est. Item nonne potest uti gladio quem consequitur in electicne populi, quia populus ei et in eum omne ius et potestatem transfert? Item quomodo posset ei papa dare potestatem vel executionem gladii, cum non habeat, nec habere vel exercere possit… Quod ergo hic dicitur quod habet utrum(que) gladium, id est tam super clericos, quam super laicos imperium habet spirituale, ut quem ligat in terra, ligatus sit in celis. Regem autem deposuisse dicitur papa, cum ipsum pro sua contumacia excommunicaret et ita subditos ab eius obedientia subtraxit, cum nulli debeant domino excommunicato obedire… Item quid ergo accepit a papa cum inungitur imperator? Confirmationem potestatis vel ut ei tanquam imperatori hec liceant.’Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a judicious discussion of Huguccio's views see also Maccarrone, Chiesa e Stato 68-78. On his alleged Ghibellinism see Catalano, G., ‘Contributo alla biografia di Uguccio da Pisa,’ Il diritto ecclesiastico 65 (1954) 3–67 at 49-60.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Fonti 149: ‘Set queret aliquis uter utro sit maior? Et quidem in spiritualibus papa maior est imperatore, imperator maior papa in temporalibus… Set aliter, et aliter; papa sic est maior in spiritualibus, quod habet iurisdictionem in spiritualibus super imperatorem, ut in eis possit eum ligare, condempnare … sed imperator non sic est maior papa in temporalibus … nullam enim iurisdictionem vel prelationem habet imperator super papam: set dicitur esse maior in temporalibus quam ille quia maiorem potestatem et iurisdictionem habet in eis quam ille, non tamen super eum.,’ (Summa ad Dist. 96 c.6).Google Scholar

²⁰ Fonti 155: ‘Set numquid papa potest deponere imperatorem vel regem qui non subest imperatori? Sic, si de voluntate principum coram eo accusetur et convincatur, et convinctus et admonitus nolit satisfacere, tunc debet excommunicare, ut si sic non respicit recte sententiam depositionis percellitur a papa vel a principibus de voluntate pape, est enim papa maior ei et preest ei… Sed nonne principes et barones si coram eis convincatur possunt eum deponere? credo quod sic, set habeant assensum pape, aliter non, cum iudex superior, id est papa, invenitur’ (Summa ad 15 q.6 c.3); Fonti 153: ‘Principaliter, ergo neutrum pendet ex aliquo, verum est quo ad institutionem, sed in multis imperialibus (sic!) potestas pendet ex pontificali, rationem, de negligentia habita circa eos corrigendos, nam si negligentes fuerunt in corrigendo eos luent penas pro suo delicto ut XVII q.II cognovimus, et quia gravius, nosti itaque et infra pendere, quo ad spiritualia, et in secularibus etiam papa imperatorem iudicare potest, si alterius iudicium subire nolit…’ (Summa ad Dist. 96 c.10). (In some of the passages transcribed from Huguccio it seems that either Mochi Onory's manuscripts or his readings are at fault.) Huguccio's idea of the pope as iudex superior is by no means identical with the idea of an indirect influence of the spiritual power in temporal affairs, ratione peccati,Google Scholar

²¹ Fonti 156 (Summa ad 15 q.6 c.3).Google Scholar

²² Fonti 166: metropolitanus non est iudex Ordinarius nisi in parrochia sua, et licet sit iudex Ordinarius suorum episcoporum non tamen illorum qui subsunt episcopis … in papa tamen speciale est, qui est iudex Ordinarius omnium, scilicet maiorum et minorum prelatorum et subditorum … ipse enim solus habet plenitudinem potestatis…’ (Summa ad 6 q.3 c.2).Google Scholar

²³ Fonti 191-2: ‘Verius est quod gladium habeat a papa. Est enim corpus unum ecclesiae, ergo unum solum caput habere debet. Item, dominus utroque gladio usus est… Sed Petrum vicarium suum in terris in solidum constituit ergo utrumque gladium ei reliquit… Item si quoad temporalia imperator sub papa non fuisset, ergo de eis sub papa respondere non teneretur, at in neutra princeps a papa depositus, ut XV q.VI alius. Propter hoc dicatur, quod gladium materialem habet a papa. Canonica tamen canonicorum electio sibi tribuit. Si ergo papa iudex Ordinarius est…’ (Gloss ad Comp. I 2.20.7).Google Scholar

²⁴ Fonti 194.Google Scholar

²⁵ It will be seen that there is a direct conflict on this point between Mochi Onory and Ullmann. Ullmann, relying on MS Aug. XL, Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe, wrote: ‘The pope if he wished could use both swords: «Utroque gladio uti potest»’ (Medieval Papalism 149). These words do not occur in Mochi Onory's version (Schulte's transcription from MS Ye.52, Universitätsbibliothek, Halle). The nearest parallel is ‘dominus utroque gladio usus est,’ but there dominus referred to Christ. That Mochi Onory's text reflects Alanus’ true viewpoint is proved by a recently printed text from Alanus’ apparatus on the Decretum (Ius Naturale), ‘Sed nunquid papa posset materialem sibi retinere si vellet. R(espondeo) non, quia dominus gladios divisit, ut hic, et ecclesia ex hoc plurimum turbaretur’: Gaines Post, ‘Two Notes on Nationalism in the Middle Ages,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 281–320 at 304.Google Scholar

²⁶ In the Gregorian Decretals respectively 4.17.13, 2.2.10, 2.1.13, 1.6.34.Google Scholar

²⁷ Medieval Papalism 194.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hence, the conclusions of the medieval canonists are not likely to prove very relevant in the discussion of the same problems against the backgrounds of quite different societies.Google Scholar

²⁹ Modern partisans of the dualist theory too readily interpret the texts asserting that the temporal power was not derived from the spiritual as excluding any sort of direct hierarchical subordination; their adversaries too readily see in the claims that the pope did confer authority on the emperor an assertion of the unqualified subjection of the temporal power.Google Scholar

³⁰ Thus, some canonists held that temporal power was subordinate to spiritual, yet not derived from it. This was not a unique relationship; writers like Huguccio and Joannes Teutonicus were by no means certain that, within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, a bishop's authority was derived from the pope, but they had no doubt that the bishop was hierarchically subordinate to the pope. (The point is discussed in my forthcoming book, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory.) Again, we have seen how Huguccio borrowed an analogy from within the ecclesiastical hierarchy to explain the position of the pope in relation to the subjects of a temporal king; if he had turned to the temporal sphere he would have found similar examples in the relations of lords to sub-vassals. Bayley, C. C. has recently shown how Innocent III, in developing his doctrine on the powers implied by his right to confirm the election of the emperor, closely followed the law relating to confirmation of episcopal elections (The Formation of the German College of Electors in the Mid-Thirteenth Century [Toronto 1949] 124-8). So too, the whole papal argument concerning vacancy of the empire or negligence of the emperor is paralleled in the canon law relating to devolution of authority to superiors in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. And here, again, the claim that a ruler who did not normally exercise jurisdiction over the subjects of his subordinates could do so on a complaint of denial of justice, was a commonplace in the sphere of secular government.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Il potere coattivo materiale della Chiesa nella Reforma Gregoriana secondo Anselmo di Lucca,’ Studi Gregoriani 2 (1947) 235–85; ‘Il gladius nel Registro di Gregorio VII,’ ibid. 3 (1948) 89-103; ‘Il « gladius » negli atti dei concilii e dei RR. Pontefici sino a Graziano e Bernardo di Clairvaux,’ Salesianum 13 (1951) 414-45.Google Scholar

³² ‘De ecclesiae potestate coactiva materiali apud magistrum Gratianum,’ Salesianum 4 (1942) 2–23, 97-119.Google Scholar

³³ There was a distinction here between effusio sanguinis and vis armata. A cleric could not exercise the first power even indirectly; he could not, that is, delegate the jurisdiction of the Church to a lay judge with the demand that death or mutilation be inflicted. He could, however, exercise the vis armata indirectly by summoning lay rulers to make war on behalf of the Church.Google Scholar

³⁴ ‘Magistri Gratiani sententia de potestate ecclesiae in statum,’ Apollinaris 21 (1948) 36–111.Google Scholar

³⁵ Dr. Ullmann has expressed sharp disagreement. See ‘The Medieval Interpretation of Frederick I's Authentic « Habita »,’ Studi in memoria di Paolo Koschaker 1 (Milan 1953) 101–36 at 106.Google Scholar

³⁶ ‘De potestate gladii materialis ecclesiae secundum « Quaestiones Bambergenses » ineditas,’ Salesianum 6 (1944) 113–140; ‘Der Schwerterbegriff bei Huguccio,’ Ephemerides iuris canonici 3 (1937) 201-42.Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘Sacerdotium et Regnum,’ Salesianum 15 (1953) 577 n. 2. The article is to appear in the centenary Festschrift of the Institut für österreichische Geschichtsforschung (1954). See infra, Additional Note.Google Scholar

³⁸ Before a new synthesis is undertaken it seems desirable that other expressions prominent in the controversy should be subjected to the same sort of stringent analysis that Fr. Stickler has applied to the allegory of the swords. We would suggest especially potestas clavium, still very obscure when applied to the public power of the pope in spite of the work of Van de Kerckhove, La notion de juridiction dans la doctrine des décrétistes et des premiers decretalistes (Assisi 1937); and, above all, that much-misunderstood term plenitudo potestatis, for which a beginning has just been made in Dr. Ladner's article cited n. 6 above.Google Scholar

³⁹ See his articles, ‘The Origins of the Ottonianum,’ Cambridge Historical Journal 11 (1953) 114–28; ‘Cardinal Roland and Besançon,’ Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 18 (Rome 1954) 107-125; ‘Frederick's Opponent, Innocent IV, as Melchisedek,’ in Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi Federiciani (Palermo 1952); ‘Cardinal Humbert and the Ecclesia Romana,’ Studi Gregoriani 4(1952) 111-27; ‘Nos si aliquid incompetenter…’, Ephemerides Iuris Canonici 9 (1953) 279-287.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The best recent survey of the whole subject is that of von, F. A. F. der Heydte, Die Geburtstunde des souveranen Staates (Regensburg 1952). The author has based his study mainly on the theologians, publicists, and civilians of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. He mentions the canonists incidentally but was not able to use the recent work emphasizing the importance of their contribution. — Dr. Rolf Most, who was killed in the recent war, was working up to the time of his death on ideas cocerning the empire and national statehood in the glosses of the canonists. His only published work in this field was a study on Lupoid of Bebenburg, in which he compared the historical and juristic approach of Lupoid with the theological basis of Ockham's thought, ‘Der Reichsgedanke des Lupoid von Bebenbuig,’ Deutsches Archiv für Geschichte des Mittelalters 4 (1940) 444-85. He lett unfinished a projected thesis, Studien zur abendlandischen Geltung des deutschen Kaisertums im ausgehenden Mittelaller, insbesondere in Spanien. On his work see Heimpel, H., Deutsches Archiv 5 (1941-42) 511-13.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For the bibliography of this controversy see Onory, Mochi, Fonti 9 n, 1.Google Scholar

⁴² Calasso, F., I glossatori e la teoria della sovranità (Milan 1945). In subsequent notes references are given to the second edition, Milan 1951.Google Scholar

⁴³ I glossatori 35 (Summa ad Dist. 2 c.4). Stephanus was explaining that either the word rex in his text meant a local king who could issue only local edicts or else the word rex was used to designate the emperor. He did not mean that every local king had imperial power.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ I glossatori 35 (Gloss ad Comp. I 2.20.7). The gloss continued: ‘Divisio enim regnorum de jure gentium introductum a papa approbatur, licet antiquo jure gentium imperator unus in orbe esse deberet’ (cit. Fonti, 192).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Le problème de l'église et de l'état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain-Paris 1926) 424–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ I glossatori 38.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Fonti 65-7. Mochi Onory points out that Azo, in his final decision on the case, did not accept the principle of the text cited.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Post, Gaines, ‘«Blessed Lady Spain » - Vincentius Hispanus and Spanish National Imperialism in the Thirteenth Century,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 198–209 at 199, referring to I glossatori 172f.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ MS 676, Caius College, Cambridge ad Dist. 11 c.2: ‘Plena potestas consistit in precepto, necessitate observantie, generalitate. Quilibet episcopus duo istorum habet in sua diocesi scil. preceptum et necessitatem observantie. Summus vero pontifex habet tres, scil. preceptum, necessitatem et generalitatem.’ (On this MS see Kuttner, S. and Rathbone, E., ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century,’ Traditio 7 [1949–51] 279-339 at 317f.). There are similar passages in Huguccio and the Glossa Palatina ad Dist. 11 c.2.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ 7 q.1 c.41 and 6 q.3 c.2.Google Scholar

⁵¹ M. Meijers, E., Bock Review, Tijáischrift voor Reehisgeschiedenis 20 (1952) 113–25.Google Scholar

⁵² Fonti 164. Mochi Onory discusses at some length Huguccio's use of plena potestas and plenitudo potestatis (158-61), but none of the texts cited apply plenitudo polestatis to royal authority.Google Scholar

⁵³ Fonti 165, 167 (Summa ad 7 q.1 c.41, Dist.2 c.4). Mochi Onory's misinterpretations of these texts were noticed independently by Meijers, art. cit. 123 n. 2 and by Kuttner, ‘Papst Honorius und das Studium des Zivilrechts’ (supra n. 4) 97 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Fonti 165 (Summa ad 7 q.1 c.41).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Fonti 175 (Summa ad Dist.1 c.12).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Supra n. 51.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Fonti 253. The text was also cited by Ullmann, , ‘The Development of the Medieval Idea of Sovereignty,’ English Historical Review 64 (1949) 1–33. In this article Dr. Ullmann analyzed the contributions of the French school of jurists emphasized by Ercole and of the Italian school emphasized by Calasso, and showed how their ideas flowed together in the work of Oldradus da Ponte.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Mochi Onory followed Tancred in attributing this gloss to Laurentius. It is in fact almost certainly by Joannes Galensis. See Gillmann, F., ‘Des Johannes Galensis Apparat zur Compilatio III in der Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen,’ Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 118 (1938) 179–80, 180 n. 2, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ He upheld the same point of view in his glossa ordinaria on the Decretum ad Dist. 63 c.22. Mochi Onory notes that he made a special exemption in the case of Spain, but Post, G. has pointed out that the words referring to Spain may be a late interpolation, as was definitely a similar phrase in Joannes’ apparatus to the Comp. III: ‘Two Notes on Nationalism’ (cited supra n. 25) 299 n. 10, 300,Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Fonti 282.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The attitudes of subsequent popes varied according to the political situation. De Vergottini has pointed out that in 1220 at a moment of rapprochement, Honorius III regarded Frederick II's legislation on the defense of the Church as valid for the whole of Christendom, Studi sulla legislazione di Federico II in Italia: Le leggi del 1220 (Milan 1952) 159–66. In another work De Vergottini has restated at length the arguments of Mochi Onory, with modifications suggested by recent criticisms of them: Il diritto pubblico (cited supra n. 6) 210-36.Google Scholar

⁶² Cited supra n. 25, n. 48. Post's own conclusion is that, for the twelfth and most of the thirteenth century, ‘Mochi Onory goes too far, Calasso not far enough, in finding expressions of independence of the greater kingdoms from the Empire’ (‘Two Notes on Nationalism’ 319).Google Scholar

⁶³ ‘«Blessed Lady Spain ».’ The texts printed in this article are valuable, but Professor Post's interpretations seem to require some emendations. In the following notes the Latin text is given first, then his comment, then our own comment. (1) ‘Et si vinco vincentem te, vinco te, ff. de diver. et temp. prescrip. de accessionibus (Dig. 44,3) Vinc.’ (‘The last sentence is not clear… The reference to the Digest 44,3 seems to have no bearing on the words 203 n. 28). The meaning seems clear enough though the argument is a little naive. The pope had praised the French above the other provinces, but the Spaniards had defeated the French; therefore Spain was greater than the other provinces — because ‘if I beat someone who beats you, I beat you.’ The Roman law text is Dig. 44.3.14.3 and does refer to this principle. (2) ‘Nec aliquid regnum eximi potuit ab imperio, quia illud esset acephalum.’ (‘… the empire would be a headless monster if any kingdom were independent of it… ‘: 206). Evidently it is not the empire that would be made headless by the defection of a single kingdom, but the kingdom that would lose its proper head in being cut off from the empire. (3) ‘Sed ego Vinc. dico quod theutonici per busnardiam perdiderunt imperium. Quodlibet enim thigurium sibi usurpat dominium, et quelibet civitas de dominio cum eis contendit.’ (‘For every hut usurps lordship (dominium) for itself and every city contends with others for the same’: 206). The true meaning is that every city contends with the Germans, not with other cities. (A) ‘Iuvantur ergo Yspani meritis et probitate; nec indigent corpore prescriptionum vel consuetudinum sicut theutonici.’ (‘Unlike the Germans they have no need of a body of prescripts and customs’: 206; ‘Presumably because the Spanish have the Roman law. But is Vincentius obivious to the customary law in Spain?’ 206 n. 43). Vincentius would not have argued that the Spanish were independent of the empire because they had Roman law; that argument was always used by the canonists in just the contrary sense. The text means, ‘Nor do they lack a body of prescripts and customs…’Google Scholar

⁶⁴ ‘The Theory of Public Law and the State in the Thirteenth Century,’ Seminar 6 (1948) 42–59. On the argument from necessity in Roman and canon law see also C. Bayley, C., ‘Pivotal Concepts in the Political Philosophy of William of Ockham,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 10 (1949) 199-218.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ H. Kantorowicz, E., ‘Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation Oath in the Thirteenth Century,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 488–502. David, M. also has studied the influence of the canonistic doctrine on oaths and promises on the coronation oaths of medieval kings, ‘Le serment du sacre,’ Revue du moyen âge latin 6 (1950) 5-272, especially at 158-80.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ C. Bayley, C. has used a somewhat similar approach in showing how canon law doctrines influenced the organization and procedure of the thirteenth-century German college of electors, op. cit. supra n. 30.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ ‘Roman Law and Early Representation in Spain and Italy,’ Speculum 18 (1943) 211–32.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ ‘Plena Potestas and Consent in Medieval Assemblies,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 355–408.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ ‘A Romano-Canonical Maxim, “quod omnes tangit,” in Bracton,’ Traditio 4 (1946) 197–251.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Or, as Post points out, the initiative might well have come from the knights themselves. In his most recent article (a revised version of a paper read at the meeting of the American Historical Association in 1949) Professor Post has applied these conclusions to an analysis of the terminology of the Statute of York, ‘The Two Laws and the Statute of York,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 417-32.Google Scholar

⁷¹ ‘Intellectual History and its Neighbours,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 15 (1954) 339–368.Google Scholar

Additional Note. — Since this article went to press, two new papers by Father Stickler have become accessible, in which he further develops his arguments, ‘imperator vicarius Papae,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 62 (1954; 165-212; ‘Sacerdozio e regno nelle nuove ricerche attorno ai secoli XII e xIII…,’ Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 18 (1954) 1–26. There has also appeared an important book by Father Kempf F., S. J., Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innozens III. (Miscell. hist. pont. 19; Rome 1954). This work will require detailed assessment in some future Bibliographical Survey. Like Maccarrone, Fr. Kempf denies that Innocent III claimed direct temporal power for the papacy, and he has used the numerous texts published by Fr. Stickler to present Innocent's position against a detailed background of contemporary canonistic theory.