Vallejo Power Hierarchies

8/13/2019 Vallejo Power Hierarchies

1/30

rus COMMUNE

Zeitschrift fr Europaische Rechtsgeschichte

Verffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Institutsfr Europische Rechtsges chichte

Frankfurt am Main

XIX

Herausgegeben vonDI ETER SIMONund MICHA EL STOLL EIS

SONDERDRUCK

Vittor io Klosterm ann Frankfurt am Main1992


2/30

1. The aim of this inve stigation is to reduce t o precise limits one of th econcepts which has played a more pro minent role in the history of politi-cal thought , of administ ration and of legal pr ocedure: that is the conceptof hierarchy . If we link to it t he pheno menon of power , we will findimmediately an image of reality w hich is quite understandable for ourcontempor ary minds , but perhaps not so close to that reality which w emust understand as hist orians. It is but another effect of a danger w ellknown to historian s i n general, and which we can never be sure of avoid -ing com pletely: t hat is th e risk of app lying to t he past concepts and id easwhich only belong to the presento S uch co ncepts or ideas can be d e-scribed as historical for that reason alone, and cannot be indiscrimi -nately applied t o the past .'

It is rather frequent in the field of institutional histor y that realit y ismore fluid than the terms that designate it; 2 the habit of transfering tothe past, more or less consciously, modern institutions which shar e buttheir name with their medieval fore- runners , and thus of obscuring th e

JESS VALLEJO

Power Hierarchies in M edieval Jur idical Th ought

An Essa y in R einterpretation *

This present work , in part based on wider investigations to be pub lished shortl y,brings together, with no other modifications than the addition of n otes, the l ecture give nby the author at the Max -Planck -Institut f r europiiische R echtsg eschichte , Frankfu rt amMain, on Jul y 2nd, 1990,through the kind in vitation ofProf essor Dr . Di eter Simon and D r.Johannes Michael Scholz . The translat ion into English was done b y Anton io and G iannel-la Snchez.Rele vant suggestions wer e made by Magnus R yan. T o all of them th e authorwants to express his gratitude.

1 For the proposal of channels ofinvestigati on wh ich could solve the problems that weconsider in these introductory passages , see La stor ia dell e dottr ine politiche: un di scorsosul m todo , by MAUROBARBE RIS,n: Materiali per una Stor ia della Cultura Giuridica 20 /1(1990) , pp. 155-188 , especially pp . 158-168, in which this author an alyses the methodol ogi-cal concepts of Quentin Skinner . MARGAR ETESLIE 'Seflections (In D efence of Ana chro-nism , in: Political Studies 18/4 [ December 1 970) pp. 433 -447) , also ba sed on Skinn er's

works , try to prove th at it is not a lways possi ble or even a ppropriate to eliminate ana chro-nism totally from the fiel d of historical st udies.2 For these questions the sta ndard work o f reference is still MAR CBLOCH'SApol ogie

pour l 'h istoire ou mtier d'historien , (Cahiers des Annales 3) , (1st ed. 1941) , 6th ed. , Pari s:Armand Colin 1967, pp. 79 ff. ; attent ion must be drawn to the natur e of his exampl es, inmost cases institutional . Focusing his attention on juridical histor y, P. W. A . IMMIN CK,atransformat ion des concepts en histoir e, in: Tijd schrift voor R echtsg eschiedenis 24 (1956) ,pp. 1-47, faces the problem of the elaboration on the part of the historian of a conceptform el o f the institution forming the object of his interest appr opriate to the chron ologyof his investigation.


3/30

2 Jess Vallejo

historical institution with the modern one, is so frequent that manyexamples could be mentioned of monographs whose authors have beenunable to avoid the traps set by the object of their study.

There is a further obstacle facing the historian in the field of termi-nolog y, a more subtle one. The histor ian must communicate his findings,show his hypothesis, let his know ledge become known . He is forcedtherefore to describe phenomena for which he sometimes has no con-temporary term warranted by his sources, or presumes that the one hehas found might be inexpressive for his readers without subsequentexplanation.' It is easy to imagine, in such cases, how modification oflanguage , if not its invention, produces modification, and sometimes theinv ention as well , of realit y itself.

2. There would be no need to bring all this to mind if not for the factthat, in our case , all these difficulties are present to a greater or lesserextent, and in order to try to avoid them there is no choice but to adoptthe most adequate epistemological options available . These options,conditioned by the object of the research, will also determine its results .

Our objective is now to study a specific aspect of the conceptionsprevalent about political power in the territory ofwestern Christendom ,in the central decades of the late Middle Ages .

3 Especiall y treacnerous in the field of juridical histor y, in which th e idea of a sub-stantial continuit y ar .I perman ence of the phenomena whi ch constitut e the ob jects of itsstudy has traditionall y prevailed: ANT6NIOMANUELHESPANHA ,Une nouvelle histoire dudroit?, in: Storia so cial e e dimensione giuridica. Strumenti d 'indagine e ipotesi di lavoro(Att i dell'incontro di studio, Firenze, 26 -27 aprile 1985) , a cura di PAOL OGROSSI,(Per lastoria del pensi ero giuridico moderno 22), Milano : Giuffr 1986, pp. 315-340, especiall ypp. 318-319 for the diagnosis ; it is an old concern of the author: ANT6NIOMANUELH ESPAN-HA,A hist ria do d ireito na histria social, Lisboa: Livros Hor izonte 1978, pp . 9-14, inwhich he analyses the gauses in detail . From a convincing sociological standpoint, JOHA N-NES-MICHA ELCHOLZ ,Elments pour une histoire du dro it moderne , in: JOAQ uNC ERDRUIZ-FuNEs, PABL OSALVADOR ODER CHeds.) , I Seminario de Historia del Derecho y Dere-cho Privado. Nuevas tcnicas de investigacin , Bellaterra: Universidad Autnoma d e Bar-celo na 1985, pp. 423-524, especially pp . 424-434. The results to which this tradition - stillin force to a great extent - leads can be better discerned in h istoriographic visions of thewho le; for instance , that of JOHANNEs-MI CHAELCHOLZ ,Acer ca de la historia d el derechoen Espaa y Portugal , in: Revista Crtica de Derecho Inmobiliar io, ao 58 , n? 550 (ma yo-junio 1982), pp. 633-661, especially p . 636 (translated into Spanish by Mariano Peset ; origi-nally, Zum Forschungsstand der neueren Rechtsgesch ichte Spaniens und Portugal s, in:Zeitschrift f r neuere Recht sgeschichte 3 -4 (1980), pp. 164 -187), and, with more attentionpaid to the problem, although in a more restricted objective scope, JESSVALLEJ O,Historiadel proces o, procedimiento de la historia. Diez aos de historiografa procesal en Espaa(1979-1 989), in: Hispania. Entre der echos propios y dere chos nacional es. Atti dell'ln controdi St udio. Firenze - Lucca 25, 26 , 27 maggio 1989 , a cura di BARTOL OMLAVERO,PAOLOGROSSI, FRANCISCO OMS VALI ENTE ,Per la storia del p ensiero giuridi co moderno 3 4/35),Milano: Giuffr 1990 , pp. 885-921.

4 Again, see MAR c BLO CH,Apolog ie pour l 'histoir e (note 2), pp. 82 ff.


4/30

Power H ierarchies 3

Our subject is the spec ific form of the rela tions pr evailing b etweenthe several and diverse holders of political pow er, all o f whom op eratedsimultaneousl y. Since these authorities exer cised power o ver sph ereswhich were totally or partially coincident from a t erritorial and p er-sonal point of view, but, objectively, exercised it in varying magn itud es,we might assume that amongst these authoritie s certain pr inciple s ofpriority and subord inat ion pre vailed which made poss ible the mor e orless pacif ic coex istence of such a plurality of pow er holder s. Bu t sincethese powers tended time and again towards conflic t, weshould su rely

assume the opposite: the establishment of such an ord er can be at trib-uted to none of them. For none of the existing holders of politic al po werwas it pos sible to constitut e unilaterally a new form of r elationsh ipaffecting all ofthem universally, None ofthem disposed ofth e necessaryconst ituen t powers . The legitimacy of each one 's posit ion had d iversepremises (l ineag e or tradit ion fo r the lay nobil ity, divi ne will in themonarchic and the eccles iastical inst itution s, c orpo rative represen ta-tion in universitates and coll egia) , but in all cases the result ing so cialconformation was a datum: it could not be disposed of, not ev en by tho secentres of power with recognizabl y superior r ank.

The holders of political power also produced law s - although w e sha llnot go into details concerning their diverse t ypes and chara cteristics .

From what has been said it is ob vious that th e ex amina tion of suchsources will g ive only part ial results concerning our p resent topi c. In theroyal laws , for instance, we sometimes come acros s ordinan ces wh ichappear to define the prerogatives of , amongst o thers, clerg y, lay nobil ity,towns , or universitates within the kingdom , and b y appor tion ing s epa -rate power s amongst them , to def ine their mutual re lati ons. Such consti-tutions must be treated as a reflection of the monar ch's desi deratum

5 Thi s is an issue of sp ecial s ignificanc e even for p eriods later than the one whichconcerns us her e. It is perhaps in the deba te abou t the conception o r existence of th eModern St ate where the quest ion has achieved more signific ance. For o ur purposes , thetwo m ost notable contributions to that discussion ar e ma de by BARTO LOMLAVER OInstitucin poltic a y derecho: desvalimiento del Esta do mo derno, in: BARTOLOMLAV ERO,

Tant as personas co mo estados. Por una an tropologa poltic a de la historia europ ea,Madri d: Tecno s 1986, pp. 13-25 (a revised version o f Institucin poltica y derech o: acercadel concepto historiogrfico de Estado Moderno, i n: Revist a de Estudios Po lticos (Nue-va E poca) 19 (enero- f ebrero 1981), pp. 43- 57) - and S ALUST IANOE DIOS- Sobre la gnes isy carac teres del Estado absolutista en Castilla , in: St udia Hi storica. Hi storiaModerna HI /3 (1985) , pp. 11 -46 -. Th e positions ofthe two authors are not in a ll respectsthe same, but the non-exi stence, before th e bourg eois revolutions, of a co nstituent powercapable of determining the juridical ordination i n for ce, fo rmulated by Clavero as decisivefor h is particu lar e xposition (p. 21), is accepted by S alustiano de Dios without di fficul ty(pp. 21 and 2(:ff .).


5/30

4 Jess Vallejo

rather t han as establishing a concrete order of relations among the cen -tres of power existing in his territory. There are similar reasons to bedistrustful of the statements by popes and emperors relating to theordering of lower jurisdictions. the case of the commands proceedingfrom those centres with an inferior position to that of the king, it ismuch harder to find analogous attempts to define the distribution ofpower within the relevant jurisdiction.

Not onl y are these partial sources , but their jo int consid eration doesnot give us the desired results. We would obtain an accumulation of

points of view without gaining a coherent image. The most acceptablesolution , in this case as in others, is to adopt the position of an observerwho is not involved, at least formally, in the scheme of centres of politi-cal pow er that we intend to study. The jur idical literature can provid esuch a point of view , for it combines the benefit of distance with the no tincons iderable advantage that its authors were endowed w ith the ade-qua te instrumen ts (terms , concepts and argumentations) to analyse thephenomenon we are interested in. Such instrum ents are contemporar ywith the facts, and that is the guarantee of their acceptabilit y; since the yare of a strictly technical nature, they have precision ; they are the resultand the reflection of a mentality, and he rein lies their inte rest as a bas isfor an investigation.

We must be fully aware that exclusi ve reliance on these sources canalso lead to distortions, above all thanks to the political commitmen ts ofmany jurists, for reasons of nationality or pay . I believe that such a riskcan be avoided if attention is paid to the body of the jurisprudentialsource s as a whole, rather than to particular authors. By doing this , weachieve a specific representation of reality , not a precise image of therea lity itself ; that representation created b y the medieval jurists is incertain respects arbitrary since it is not exclus ivel y determ ined b y theactual facts: a conceptual network is drawn b y the jurists in an attemptto rationalize their contemporary environment; but other terms andcon cept s could have been used for the same purpose, at least in theo ry.The representation, however, is not entirely arbitrar y. The theor y was aresp onse to specific options, fulfilled a determined function within th esociety t hat fost ered it, served a determined sociallogic . To this exten t itwas capable of conditioning that reality, by creating, consolidating andrepro duc ing a specific way of reflecting on it.

6 Afirst re ference here to a work on which these pages depend to a great exten t, de-spite o ne or t wo commentaries hereafte r: ANTNIO MA NUEL H ESPA NHA, Reprs entation


6/30

Power Hierarchies 5

Consequently, this study remains quite purposefully within the scopeof the history of mentalities, not as a speciality or specific branch orHistory , but as a method of contributing to the comprehension of thesocial paradigm, through the study of ius commune literature in thechosen coordinates of time and place.'

Special attention will be paid, for reasons of availability of sources, tothe works of the Italian and French jurists. With regard to the chro-nology, although some earlier authors will be quoted as well , the presentwork concentrates on the period between the works of Accursius and

Bartolus de Sassoferrato, which basically coincides with th e periodbetween the mature epoch of the Decretalists and the works of Johan-nes Andreae. This is a period whose limited jurisprudencial productionis sufficiently compensated by its importance within the wide t emporar yprevalence of the system which we call ius commune.

3. Pietro Costa was able to demonstrate some years ago , in an und er-valued monograph, the central role played by the term iurisdic tio in thelanguage used in the late Middle Ages to describe different locat ions ofpower, His study of the semantics of power focused on the meaning ofthe concept by way of a linguistic analysis of the contexts in which theword iurisdictio appeared. The effectiveness of his attempt arose mainl yfrom the fact that the medieval definitions of iurisdictio by no means

reflected the scope of its real content: they remained on the abstractplaneo Costa showed the term iurisdictio to express the link betwe ensubjects of different degrees, who were thus situated in a power relation-ship which referred to a judicial vision of political power: a particularlyindividual finds himself in a subordinate situation in relation to anoth-

dogmatique et projets de pouvoir . Les outils conceptuels des juristes du ius commune da n sle domaine de l 'administration , in: ERKVOLKMARHEYEN(Hrsg .), Wiss enschaft und R echtder Verwaltung seit dem Ancien Rgime. Europ ische Ansichten , (Ius C ommun e. Sond er-hefte 21) , Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann 1984, pp . 3-28, especiall y now pp . 5-7and 12-15. .

? 1accept , therefore , despite som e reservations , the basic epistemol ogic al outlines foromulated by BART OLM~CLAVERO ,His toria y antropologa : hallazgo y recobro del derechomoderno, in : BJ.\RTOLOM~LAVERO, Tantas personas (note 5 ), pp. 27 -52 (earlier pub lished

as Historia y antropologa . Por una epistemologa del derecho mod erno, in: JOAQuNCERDRUlZ-FuNES,PABLOSALVADOROD ERCHeds .), 1Seminario (note 3), pp . 9-35; see a lso theminor advance in Clavero 's contribution to the volume Stor ia sociale e dimensione giuri-dica (note 3) , pp. 239-243), even with his reservations on the Middle Ages , from wh ich thework's title itself moves awa y - not so much the contento Also drawing atten tion to th e mentalities and history of law , ANTNIOMANUELHESPANHA ,Une' nouvell e histoire?(note 3), p. 315 .

8 PIETROC OSTA,urisdictio . Semantica del potere polit ico n ella pubbl icistica medieva -le (110~1433) , (Universit di Firenze . Pubblicazioni della Facolt di Giuris prudenza 1),Milano : Giuffr 1969 .


7/30

6 Jess Vallejo

er, to whom he is politically subjected inasmuch as the superior has theright to judge him (iudicare) , and he, the inferior, can be judge by thesupe rior (iudicari) . By means of its linkage with the term imperium ,iur isdictio expresses coercive power . The further context iurisdic-tio -administratio indicates the exertion of power in particular circum-stances. Lastly iurisdictio is also a concept to which late medieval juridi-cal literature links the phenomenon of the genesis of norms throughexpress ions such as facere statuta or legem condere

How ever , Costa does not limit himself to the analysis of an alien lan -guag e; he also invents one of his own. Process of power is one of itsbasic e lements . Using this expression Costa attempts to embrace intheir e ntirety the plurality of situations established within the comp li-cate d structure of power relations in medieval societ y. Valid and effect ive are the terms which qualif y the process ofpower . The processof p ower will be all the more valid the more closely it harmonizes with asymbolic system used as a reference point: in our case the Corpus Iuris.The high est level of effectiveness of the process of power will beachieve d using the hypothesis in which it is conceived on the fringe ofsuch a symbolic referential system. Both possible modal ities of the pro-cess of powe r are complementary: it is inconceivable that a process ofpowe r can be qualified as effective without the simultaneous existenceof a sy mbolic system that might validate it.'?

We w ill later have the opportunity of investigating the usefulness ofthis te rminology and also of discussing some of its implications. As amatte r of fa ct, in Pietro Costa's analysis the valid process of power (thatis to say, that which foIlows from the requirements of the Corpus Iurisand i s ex pressed by t he use of the terms and concepts that the Corpus asa sy mbolic system provides) is presented as a vertical structure , com-pose d of pow er relationships which can be defined, in oppos ition toothers, as i nferior or superior; and this vertical process of power come sfrom the i dea of hierarch y.' The link between the concept of hierarch yand that of jurisdiction ha s many facets. We will onl y draw attent ionhe re to one o f those pointed out by Costa: the one relating to the c lassifi-cation of diffe rent speci es of jurisdiction , as made b y med ieval jur ists.

A more rece nt study of the same subject has provided u s with a newoutlook on the problem. This is the work of Antnio Manuel He spanha

9 PIETRO COSTA, Iurisdictio , pp. 101-124 a nd 134-1 64.10 PIETRO COS TA, Iurisdi ctio, pp. 84-9l.11 PIETRO COSTA, Iurisdic tio, pp. 125 ff .


8/30

Pow er Hi erarchi es 7

on dogmatic representation and power projects . It is also concern edwith the relationship between jurisdiction and hi erarch y. Som e of h iscontentions will be discussed here .

4. As has been pointed out earlier, the defin ition of jurisdiction g ener-ally accepted by medieval jurists is not always ver y expr essive, and thisholds true not only for us but also for them: Iurisdictio est potestas d epublico introducta cum necessitate iuris dic endi et aequitatis s tatuen-dae ; that was the definition almost unchanged since its f irst formul a-tion (Irnerian , as it appears) until its definit ive establishment in B arto-lus ' work. By contrast a series of divisions established by the juristswith regard to the generic concept of jurisdiction clarifie s much more.lThus the distinction could be made , firstly, b etwee n a iur isdictio ordin a -r ia and a iurisdictio d e le gatai secondl y a iuri sdi c tio volun ta r ia and aiurisdictio contentiosa = and las tly, a iurisdictio pl e na or pl e n iss ima anda iurisdictio minus plena X These are three classific ation s which corre-

12 See note 6.13 On the d efinition of iurisdi ctio, the first important works w ere those of MARTINI EN

VAN DEKERCKHOVE ,a notion d e jurid ictio n chez les Dcretistes et les premi ers Dcretali-stes, in: tudes Franc iscaines 49 (Juillet-Ao t 1939 ), pp. 42 0-455, a nd FRANCESCOALAS SO,Iurisdi ctio nel diritto comune cla ssico , in: Annali di Stori a de l Diritto 9 (1965) (= Scritti diFrancesco Cala sso), pp . 89-110 (pre viously in: Stud i in On ore di Vinc enzo Ar angio-Rui z,vol. IV, Nap oli, 1953 , pp_420-443)_ See also PIETROCOSTA ,urisdictio , (note 8) , pp. 99 -101 ;CLAUD IOSCHWARZEN BERG,iurisdizione (diritto i nterm edio) , in: E nciclopedia del Diritto ,vol . XIX (1970), pp. 200-217 ; BRI ANTI ERNEY ,Religion, Law, and the Growt h of Constitu-tional Though t, 1150-1650 (19 82), Cambr idge: Cambr idge U niversity Press 1983 (rep .),pp. 31 ff.

14 Precisely ca rried out to clar ify o r put in o rder th e diff erent se nses of t he term in th eCompilation of Justinian , according to JOHNW . PERRI N,Azo, Roman Law and Sover eignEuropean Sta tes, in: St udia Grat iana 1 5 (1972), pp. 87-101, es pecia lly p . 95. Wheth er or notit was t he aim, it is indeed one of its results ; however, others are not to be excl uded , bein gmore substantial and p rojecte d be yond the R oman text: read on this poin t ANTN IOMA NU-EL HESP ANHA,e prsen tation d ogma tique (note 6), passim.

15 We will la ter draw atten tion to this distinc tion; see belo w, notes 24 to 27 and th ecorresponding texto

16 This is the distin ction which has undergon e the least change throughout histor y:see, for instance, Azzo, Summa super Codice (facsimil e edition Corpus G lossator um lurisCivi lis, 11 , curan te lur is Itali ci Historiae Instituto Taurinensis Universitatis , rectore a cmoderatore MARI OVIORA,Augu stae Taurinorum: ex Officina Erasmiana 1966) , De iuri s-dict ione omn ium iudicum et de foro comp etenti (C 3,13), p. 68b.

17 Az zo, Summa (no te 16) , De iuri sdicti one omnium iudic um et de foro comp etent i

(C 3, 13),p . 67b . On th e distinct ion, s ee the rather comp licated interpretatio n by GIOVANN IDE VERGOTI INI,Lezion i di Stor ia del diritto italiano. 11d irit to pubblico ita liano nei seco-li XII -XV, vol. 1, (1st ed. 1950) , 3rd ed., Milano: Giuffr 1960, p. 242, w ho analyses it with inthe exposition of th e meaning of th e formul a rex superiore m non recognos cens. Th edenomi nation might vary (plena/ non pl ena , as in the case of the O rdo Invocato Chri stiNornine , attributed to B encivenne da Siena and ed ited by LUDWIG WAH RMUND ,Quell enzur G eschichte des romi sch-kan onisch en Pr ozesses im M ittelalter, VIII, He idelberg: CarlWinter s Univer sitii tsbuchhandlung 1931,D e iuri sdictione, p. 52; or pl e na lse m ipl e n a, as inthe case of GUI LLAUMEDURAND ,Speculum luris , cum loann. An dreae, Ba ldi, re liquior um


9/30

8 Jess Vallejo

spond to different aims and needs. We shall not discuss them here .Another divisio iurisdictionis, precisely the one which achieves thehighest importance among the jurists in the period with which we areconc erned, is that which follows from the links, clearly discerned in thecompilation of Justinian, between iurisdictio and imperiumP The basis

.of these links was a text inc luded in the Digest (D 2 ,1,3) which turnedout to be difficult to interpret especially after the manipulations of postclassical jurista. On the basis of D 2,1,3 and related texts, the juristsidentify several different kinds of jurisdiction, which vary depending onthe quantum of power attrib uted to the holder of each one.

Th e first task of the jurists is to individualize and define the contentsof every species of the genus iurisdictio . The efforts made by Azzo andAccursius, decisive for subsequent literature, provide our starting point;by examining them we can obtain some knowledge of the status quaes -tionis in the first half of the thirteenth century.

Th ere are four kinds of jurisdiction, as defined at that time (seeschema 1): merum imperium, mixtum imperium, modica coercitio andiurisdictio, the latter is, as can be seen, homonymous with the genus,and is therefore referred to, in order to avoid misunderstanding, as iuris-dictio in speci e sumpta or iurisdictio simplexP Merum imperium is thehigh est possible level of jurisdiction, the accepted definition being that

que clarissimorum i. v. doctorum visionibus hactenus addi solitis. Pars Prima, Lugduni:sumptibus Philippi Tinghi Florentini 1577, De iurisdictione omnium iudicum, fo. 60rb), butnot its basic layout, which is always connected, within the canonistic sphere - see againthe Ordo Invocato - with the papal plenitudo pot estatis .

18 Unavoidably, these being issues so closely related one toanother, the different divi-sions are often dealt with jointIy, their connection sometimes arising through theconsideration of some of them as a subdivision of others. Thus the different types of impe-ri um can be considered, in certain cases, withiniurisdictio contentiosa: ODOFREDUS,Lectu-ra in Primam Digesti Veteris Partem, Lugduni: excudebant Petrus Compater BlasiusGuido (facsimile edition, Opera Iuridica Rariora, selecta cura et studio DOMINlcl MAFFEI,ENNIICORTESE, GUIDONISROSSI,II/1, Bologna: Forni Editore 1967), ad 1.imperium, ff. Deiurisdictione (D 2,1,3), fo. 38rb; GUILLAUMEDURAND,Speculum Iuris (note 17),1. 1, p. 1, Deiurisdictione omnium iudicum, fo. Glvb. All this together with the fact that, in some cases,and with arguments by no means feeble, the validity of the division between ordinary anddelegated jurisdictions can be challenged - CYNUS OF PISTOlA,In Digesti Veteris LibrosCommentaria, Francofurti ad Moenum: apud Ioannem Feyerabendt 1578 (facsimile edi-tion, Torino: Bottega d'Erasmo 1964), ad 1.imperium, ff. De iurisdictione (D 2,1,3), fo. 23vb(p. 680b) - , does nothing but emphasize the progressively growing importance of the link,in its different degrees, between iurisdictio and imperium,

19 FRANCESCODE MARTlNO,La giurisdizione nel diritto romano, Padova: CEDAM 1937,pp. 147-148.

20 Azzo, Summa (note 16), De iurisdictione omnium iudicum et de foro competenti(C 3,13), p. 68b; ACCURSIUS,Glossa in Digestum Vetus, Venetiis: per Baptistam de Tortis1488 (facsimile edition, Corpus Glossatorum (note 16), VII, 1969), gl. 'mixtum est', ad l.imperium, ff. De iurisdictione (D 2,1,3), fo. 22rb (p. 41b).


10/30

Power Hierarchies 9

of D 2,1,3: Merum est imperium habere gladii potestatem ad animadv er-tendum facinorosos homines, quod etiam potestas appellatur . The hold-er of merum imperium has the power of the sword , and he is attributedwith necessary p owers, first to deal with those cases involving offencesfor which the punishment is death, mutilation or deprivation of fr eedomor citizenship; secondly, to impose such penalties through the appro -priate judicial decision; and finally, to dictate rules in which su chpunishments are prescribed for certain offences. The des ignationmerum imperium can be understood by its basically penal contents:merum stands for what is pure, a nd this means that no judge whosejurisdiction extends only to financial matters can claim it .21

D 2,1,3did not provide us with any definition of mixtum imperium. Th etext only points out the jurisdictional nature of mixtum imperium , andonly one of its ap plications was drawn attention to : mixtum est impe-rium, cui etiam iurisdictio inest, quod in danda bonorum possessioneconsistit . This fact would determine the position of medieval jurispru-dence, which would only.be concerned with, at least in this first periodthat we are analysing, the contribution of successive examples wh ichbelong to this kind of jurisdiction: questions of bonorum possessio incases of transference mortis causa, administration by the tutor of thepupil's property, etc. These are applications defined, unlike thos e of

merum imperium, by their obvious economic content. PIurisdictio simplex and coercitio modica are lesser species of jurisdic-

tion, on a lower level than the former ones. Some consideration of th efirst was obligatory because of the curt final passage of D 2 ,1,3,whichexpressed less and was less definite than the passage concerned withmixtum imperium: iurisdictio est etiam iudicis dand i licentia . Iur isdic-

21 zzo and ACCURSIUS, lococit . in not e 20. Other important t exts in Just inian's co mpi-lation for determining the penal content of merum imperium are D 4 8,1,2 and N 1 28,20 (=A 9,14). In his exposition , less strictl y bound to the texts of Rom an Law th an Azzo's, ROF-FREDUS BENEVENTANUS refers to amputar e capita and impon e r e m e mbr i ab scis si o n e m aspowers belonging to the holder of merum imperium: Tractatus Lib ellorum , Lugdun i: perMathiam Bonhome 1538,Qui possunt esse iudicis ordinarii vel d elegati , fo. 1vb; this text is

also studied, for different p urposes, byPIETRO COSTA,

Iurisdictio (note 8), p .213. Oth erpenalties, such as confiscation, have a special regimen: Az zo , Summa (note 16) , Ne sineiussu principis certis iudicibus liceat confiscare (C 9,48) , p. 344b . And despit e the nature ofthose penalties most definitive of merum impe r ium , tbis one wa s a co ncept also used in thecanonistic sphere: on the canon law version of m e rum imp e rium , based on the considera-tion of a mors spiritualis , see, for all, JOHANNES ANDR EAE, In Quartum De cretalium Libru mNovella Commentaria, Venetiis: apud Franciscum Franciscium Senensem 1581 , ad C. pervenerabilem, Extra , Qui filii sint legitimi (X4,17,13), fo . 58ra --BOrb .

22 Azzo, Summa (note 16), De iurisdictione omnium iudicum et de foro comp etent i(C 3 ,13), p. 69a; ACCURSIUS, loco cit. in note 20 .


11/30

1 Jess Vallejo

tio simpl ex designated be minimum level of jurisdiction held by magis -trates of lesser author ity appointed to hear cases concerning minorsums.

Modica coercitio is a more complex case , which was to disappear inlater y ears as an independent species. The reason for this disappearancecan be observed in the works of Azzo and Accursius. In order to under-stand it, we need to make brief a reference to another classification ofjuri sdiction which distinguishes between ordinary and delegated juris-diction. The first pertains, by his own right (suo iure), to every magis-trate who has received it by the law or by the Prince in order to exert itover a universality of cases in a determined territorial and personalscope which sets the boundaries of his competence. The delegate exertsjurisdiction alieno iure, having been given by its ordinary holder theass ignment to judge and decide upon a particular case , or an order toexer t jurisdiction temporarily within the holder 's circumscription. Thesys tem and regulation of delegation was the subject of a specific title inthe Digest (D 1,21), in which medieval jurists could also find severaltrea tments of the different species of jurisdictiori corresponding to thediv ision mentioned above. First, they found that merum imperium is notliabl e to delegation; secondly, that imperium is the quality of jurisdic-tion that enables the magistrate to impose coercively his decisions, andthat without coercion, iurisdictio nulla est (D 1,21,1and 5) . The r esult

3 Azzo a nd A CCURSIUS ,ococit . in note 20. On the importance of the Accur sian tr eat-ment of iur isdictio strict e sumpta ( l' insieme dei poteri che spettano ad ogni magistrato inquanto tale ), and, in general, on the difficulty of determining mixtum imp erium, ANTO NIOPADOA SCHIOPP A,Giurisdizione e statuti dell e arti nella dot trina del diritto comun e, in:Storia e t Do cumenta Historiae et luris 30 (1964) , pp. 179-234, especiall y note 43 in p. 193and p . 192 (and not e 42), respectively .

4 Azzo, Summa (not e 16), De iurisdictione omn ium iud icum et de foro competen ti(C 3,13), p. 67b; on Azzo in particular, see JOHNW . PERRIN , Azo , Roman Law (note 14),pp. 96-9 7. ACCURSIU Sed. cit. note 20), g1 .'quaecumque', g1 .'specialiter', and g1 .'qui manda -tam', al l of them ad 1 .quaecumque specialiter, ff. De officio eius , cui mandata est iurisdic-tio (D 1,21,1), fo. 21r (p. 39).These are concepts that remain in force throughout the periodunder ou r consid eration, and even later within the canonistic sphere : JOHANNES ANDR EAE,Comme ntarii Insignes, vulgo Novella, in Sextum Decretalium, Lugduni : apud Haered eslacobi Gi untae 1550, ad c. cum episcopus , VI, De offic io ordinarii (VI 1 ,16,7), fo. 43ra. Per-haps t he most int eresting characteristic of the juridi cal regulati on of th ese forms of exer-tion of j urisdic tion is the pos sibility of subdelegation , valid only in part icular cases : onthis questio n there are some pertinent commentaries in PIERREMI CHAUD-Q UANTIN,ni -versitas. Ex pressions du mouvement communautaire dans le Mo yen Age lat in, Paris :J. Vri n 1970, pp . 43-44 and 252 , and Jos MARAGARCAMARN ,El ofi cio pbl ico en Cast illadurante la Baja Edad Media, Sevilla: Publicaciones d e la Universidad d e Sev illa 1974 ,pp. 40 ff. On furth er developments of this distin ction, se e al so ANTONI OPADO AS CHIOPPA ,Ricerc he sul l'appello nel diritto intermedio , vol. 11: I glossatori civilisti , Milan o: Giuffr1970, pp. 11 6 ff., and ANTNIOMANUELHESPANHA ,Reprs entation dogmatiqu e (note 6),pp. 14-15 a nd 1 9-21.


12/30

Power Hierarchi es 11

of these two conditions was that if the ord inary hold er of m e rum imp e -rium. delegated his jurisdiction, the delega te, who co uld not receiveimper ium. from him , had no possibilit y of ex erting i t effectively. This iswhere mod ica coercitio operates , inseparable from the juri sdiction w ithwhich the delegate receives it . this way Azzo and Accu rsius ' unclearviews of modica coercitio can be understood . The first auth or does notfind an independent place for it within the s cope of l eve ls of j urisdictionthat he defines, linking it inst ead with m ix tum imp e r ium F For thesecond author mod ica co e rcitio means the d egree of coercio n needed for

the exertion of iurisdict io simplex, whos e holders a re give n no im perium.whatsoe ver. 5.Through Azzo and Accursius w e have been abl e to obs erve the fun-

damental questions arising from the comb ined treatment of iur is d ictioand imperium, which was to surv ive for som e centuries : the co nceptionof the classification of the differ ent levels of jur isdiction; the diff icultyof defin ing them ; the penal delimitation o f me r u m im p e r ium, and theregulation of delegation.

the decades after the appearance of the Accurs ian glo ss, there is anobservable tendency towards the clarification of species of jurisdi ctio n,one of the f irst results of wh ich was to b e the abandonm ent of t he mostcategories which were hardest to ind ividuali se. Ap art f rom exceptionalcases , for instance the works of Jacobus de Ar ena, only three species ofjurisdiction are considered (see schema II) : m e rum imp e r ium , mixtumimperium and: iurisdictio, which express from th e highest t o the lowest ,three different levels of public power , respectivel y designat ed summ a,media , and modica potestas. 8 There are several att empts to define thesespecies , especiall y in the two lesser levels , without r esortin g to the tech-

25 z zo Summa (note 16), De iurisdi ctione omnium iudicum e t de foro compet enti(C 3,13) , p. 69a .

26 ACCURSIUSed . cit. in not e 20), g1 .'imperium' , ad 1.quaecumqu e specia liter, ff . De offi-cio eius , cui mandata est iurisd ictio (D 1 ,21,1), fo. 21va (p . 40a); g 1. 'etiam i mperium', ad 1 .manda tam, eo. tit. (D 1 ,21,5), fo. 21vb (p . 40b) .

27 On the latter , see the outstand ing wor k, wher e the position of Acc ursius on the dele -gation of merum imperium is clearly expressed, by MYRONPIPERGILMO RE,Arg ument fromRoman Law in Political Thought , 1200 -1600 , Camb ridge (Mass .): Harvard UniversityPress 1941, pp. 26---31,also including refer ences to Azzo.

8 OOO FREDUS,Lectura (no te 18), ad 1. imperium, ff . De iurisdictio ne (D 2 ,1,3), fo . 37vb.The exposit ion by Guillaume Durand is pecul iar. Whe reas he only pays in dividual atten-tion to thre e species , the last one being , indifferentl y, modica coerc itio (Specu lum Iuris(note 17), 1. 1, p. 1 , De iurisdi ction e omnium iudi cum, fo. 60vb), or iur isdict io (ibid .,fo. 61vb ), he sometimes respects th e initi al fourfold part ition (ibid., fo. 61vb as well) . OnDurand 's posit ion, though without r eference to the above mentio ned nuances, see MYRONPIPERGILM ORE,Argument (note 27) , pp. 32-33.


13/30

12 Jess Vallejo

nique of enumeration to describe their contents. The purpose of otherattempts was to achieve a clear individualization of each one of therecognized species ofjurisdiction. Due to the lack of agreement betweenthese different attempts, as well as the frequent refusal of some juriststo recognize the contributions of others, we can conclude that therewere no spectacular achievements in this area.

It was by no means an easy task (see schema III). Despite the basi-cally penal characteristics of merum imperium, it was not distinguishedfrom mixtum imperium according to the simple distinction between civil

and criminal cases, although the pertinent terminology existed and wason o ccasion used for that purpose. Apart from the possibility of penal-ties doubtfully attributable to either species of imperium (for instance,relegatio) , the offences meriting solely economic penalties could not beconceived as falling within the competence of the holders of merumimperi um, Mixtum imperium includes, in fact, not only the cognizance ofmajor case s outside the limits of the prosecution of crimes but also ,within p recisel y those same limits, cognizance of some other offenceswhich did not involve the serious penalties characterizing merum impe-r iu m , but were nevertheless still criminal offences. But it did not includethose criminal offences, the penalties for which were so slight that theycould be imposed by inferior judges, holders only of iurisdictio simplex.As a re sult, the boundaries of mixtum imperium can only be determinedresidually and this was one ofthe main obstacles faced by jurisprudencein clarifying this distinction: if it was difficult to define each category ofjurisdiction , it was equally difficult to distinguish the juridical regimeapplicable to each one ..9

29 ODOFRE DUS,Lectura (note 18) , ad 1 . imperium, ff . De iurisdicti one (D 2,1,3),fo. 3Bra-b; JACO BUSDEARENA ,Commentarii in Universum Ius Civil e, Lugdun i: Stephanu sRufo et Johannes Au sultus 1541 (facsimile edition, Opera Iuridica Rariora (note lB) , XVI ,1971) , ad ea. l., fo.67va --6Bra ; GUILLAUMEDURAND ,Speculum Iuris (note 17) ,1.1, p. 1, Deiurisdictione o mnium iudi cum, fo. 60vb -61rb , especiall y interesting in the case of relega -tio . Besides, t he location of confiscation is still problematical: JA CQUESDERVIGNY,Lectu-ra super Codice, Parrh isiis : apud Galleotum du Pr 1519 (facsimile edit ion, Opera IuridicaRariora ( note 18),1, 1967), ad 1 .nulli , C Ne sine iussu principis .. . (C 9 ,48,1), fo. 406vb , in asimilar se nse to the passage in Azzo mentioned in note 21 . Jacobus de Ar ena's pos ition isclearly coherent - a characteristic which would give it a special significance in laterworks, es pecially thos e of Bartolus - ; he maintains the partition into four sp ecies. Therelations hip between the two inferior ones is analogous to that of the two superior ones: itcan be state d that, in his particular conception , coercitio is to iurisdi ctio what merumimperium is to mixtum imp erium, Rather more confusing, the work of Odofr edus takes upthe defi nitive anal ysis of the genus iurisdictio at the point at which it corresponds to itshomonymo us inferior degree . In any case, the obstacle that we have mentioned in the textwould b e per manent, as is pointed out by GIAN CARLOALLONE, urisdictio domin io Introdu -zione a Matteo d'Afflitto ed alla cultura giuridica meridionale tra Quattro e Cinquecento,


14/30

Power Hierarchies 13

6. Since the works of Pierre de Belleperche at least , jurisprudenc etook another direction which was to maintain its hegemony until th emid-fourteenth century . Belleperche took on the restatement of th ewhole problem of the relationship between iurisdictio and imperium ,and he proposed a new disposition for the classification, delimiting th ecriteria on which the different kinds of jurisdiction were based anddefining each one of the resulting concepts.

In his arrangement of the classification (see schema IV) Belleperch eadheres strictly to the method of successive subdivision of the conc eptsunder discussion , reaching each progressive definition b y accumulat ingthe characteristics of each fresh criterion. His first st ep was, therefor e,to define iurisdictio in genere and reject the prevailing tripartition:iurisdictio in genere had to be divided into two different species, impe-rium and iurisdictio stricte sumpta , the criterio n for the di vision b eingthe dependence (in the case of imperium) or not (in the cas e of iur isdic-tio s tricte sumpta) from the power , office or authorit y of th e judg e. Thejudge with imperium can proceed without following a specific action; thejudge who has iurisdictio stricte sumpta can noto Imperium is subdivid edinto another two species, magnum and modicum, depending on wheth erthe holder exerts the power by means of noble or mercenar y off ice .There are two kinds of imperium magnum, which ar e merum and mix-tum, depending on whether the magistrate exerts h is nobl e offic e ali-quid (first case) or nihil (second case) parti applicando .

The drawbacks of this procedure are obvious , and w e must dr awattention to them in order to clarify any doubts before proceeding. Th emain problem lies in the criteria to which the successive subdivision sanswer. First, the difference between the criteria thanks to which imp erium and imper ium magnum are subdivided is uncl ear. Secondl y, it isdifficult to see how the criterion which divides iurisd ictio in g enere andthus creates the first subdivision can be distinguished from the oth ertwo criteria which lead successively to the division of imperium intomagnum and modicum, and of imperium magnum into merum and mix-tum. In fact the three criteria are variations on the sam e theme , which is

Lecce: Milella 1985 , pp. 21-22. On e can tak e or leav e the opinion of Myron Piper Gilmor e,but from what we have seen so far we cannot c onsid er it completely unfounded: T he ideaswhich wer e sket ched in the Gloss of Accursius and th e work of Dur andus were most comopletel y elaborated in the work of Bartolus of Sassof errat o. Confu sion gav e place to cerotaint y . . . (Argument (note 27) , p. 36).

30 The following explanation, in PIERRE DE BELLEPERCHE, Quaesti ones Aur eae, Lu gduni:Syrnon Vin cent 1517 (facsimile edition, under the mor e suitable title Quaestiones ve l Dis-tinctiones, Op era Iurid ica Rariora (note 18),XI , 1970) , qua e stio 85, fo. 23vb-25ra.


15/30

1 4 Jess Val lejo

the deg ree of connection between the exercise of jurisdictional powersby t he judge on the one hand, and action by the plaintiff on the other.This, I bel ieve, basicalIy summarises the three criteria , because nobleoffice is, as opposed to the mercenary one, a form of jurisdictional exer-tion t hat is ass um ed by its holder either independently of the a ction b ythe p laintiff, or through the participation of a p erson who asks for hisinterv ention - a lthough this person does not have to take a part in th eprocess event ualIy initiated ; that is to sa y, an intervention ex offc io by

the ho lder of jurisdiction. In the event , only this second criterion,which disti nguishes betw een the noble and m ercenar y offi ce of the hold-ers , would be folIow ed by subsequent au thors, who would r eject wh at-eve r other n uances there might have be en. Onl y the dete rminat ion toach ieve the sy mm etry of the classification b y means of successive s ubdi -visions , never vio lating a norm cl early dete rmin ed before the divisionnor d etermine d by i t, forces BelIeperche t o distinguish three c riteriawith such rema rkabl e subtlety an d obscurity.

Final ly, iu r isdict io s trict e sump ta could b e ma ior or m in im a,acc ording to a n unproblematic cr iterio n wh ich distingu ishes betweenan amount o f mor e or less than thr ee hundr ed aur e i. Aft er establisingthe frame work for his exposition, B elIeper che fills it out b y exam ining

the mec hanics of delegation of the different t ypes r esulting from hisclassif ication , a question which had alwa ys pla yed an essential part indefini ng the various grades of jurisdiction. In broad outlin e his treat-ment o f the matter is as folIows: iurisdictio minima can be d elegat edwith no limitations; iurisdictio maior can be del egated only e x c au sa ,the a bsence of which implies that only th e Prince ha s such abilit ybeca use es t legibus solutus ; mixtum imp e rium can b e delegated withsome limi tations, and only the Prince can d elegate m e rum imp e r ium.

31 In an obvious te rminologic al connectio n, the judge's officiu m itself was desc ribed asmerum (or purum) when exerted wi thout the need of an action being brought, in the workof HENRICUSDE SEGUS IO Hostiensis), Lectura in Qu inque Decret alium Gre goria narumLibros , Parrhisiis : Thielmann K erver 1 512, super prim o dec retalium , ad c . perniciosa m,Extra, De offi cio iudic is ordin arii ( X 1,31,1), s. v. i nquirere, fo . 146ra. On the relatio n iur is-dictio -officium. iud icis, and officium. iudi cis-ac tio, see FRA NCESCOC ALASSO ,uri sdictio(note 13) , pp. 103 -109. For the jurists aft er Belleperche who acc ept the distinction , see:ALB ERICUSEROSATE,n Primam D igest i Veteris Partem C ommentar ia, Venetii s 1585 ( fac-simile edition , Opera Iuridi ca Rari ora (note 18), XXI, 1974), ad 1 .ius dicentis, f f. De iuris -dictione (D 2 ,1,1), fo. 89va; BART OLUSDESAS SOFERRATO,n Pr imam Dig esti Vete ris Pa rtemPraelectiones, Lu gduni: ad Canden tis Salamandr ae Insignae, in vi co Mercenario promer-cales habentur 1546, ad ea. l., fo. 48ra. S ee, with specific reference to Bartolus, ANTN IOMAN UELHESPAN HA,Reprsentation d ogmatiqu e (note 6), p. 10 and no te 19 .

~ ~


16/30

Power Hi erarchi es 15

Considered as a whole , it is clear that th e resulting classific ation hasappreciable advantages comp ared to the on e examin ed earl ier. T he firstis that the different t ypes of ju risdiction can b e identified without refer -ence to the particular and ext ernal consequen ces when ever j urisdictionwas exercised, and without having to describ e their cont ent b y the tech -ni que of enumer ation. P In this way, it is enough t o consider the charac-teristic details of an y facult y recognised as ju risdic tional in o rder toclassify i t according to the t ypes mentioned ab ove. T he seco nd advan-tage is that this classification provided , as a result , a sca le of degrees of

jurisdiction (from merum imperium to minima iur isdictioy of greaterbreadth and possible sh ades of m eaning th an other class ificat ions pre-vailing until th en.

However , the classificator y mod el prov ided by Belleperc he, even afterits acceptance b y Cynus of Pistoia , would enjoy little success in theworks of subsequent jurists. P It is difficult to sa y why, but it m ight havebeen due to Belleperche 's inabilit y to resol ve a dequa tely the problem ofthe relation betw een iurisdi ctio and imperium, As it t urns out, by virtueof the ordinances of D 1 ,21, mentioned ear lier, which state t hat everyholder of jurisdiction has , to a certain extent, the pow er of coercion ,Belleperche is forced to admit, using the c ategories which he defines,that even the inferior judges , holders of iur isdictio str icte sump ta maio r

or minima , exert imperium modicum. The dis ruptive e ffects oft his arnbi-guity for the classification as a whole ar e immediat e and can be betterobserved in schema V.

As we can see, as soon as the possibility aris es of assigning imperiummodicum to two positions in the sch ema, anoth er classif ication app ears ,the reverse of the other one , whose genus is no longer iurisd icti o in gene -re , but imperium , However , we know that imper ium is a species and not agenus, for which reason such an inverse classification w ould have t o becompleted again to include iurisdictio stricte sumpta . The result wouldbe, inevitably , an endless chain of linked classi fications , which co uld beread eith er from left to right or right to left . This is the result of thefailure to find an adequate response to the probl em w e mentioned ear-

32 That is what Antonio Pad oa Sc hioppa seems to be refe rring to , when he distin-guishes a sy stematic criterion which pre vails over the c riterion dell e singole attri buzio-ni (Gi urisdiz ione (note 23 ), notes 49 and 50 in pp . 194-195) .

33 See CVNU S OF PIST OlA, Commen taria (note 18), ad 1 .ius dice ntis, ff. De iurisdi ctione(D 2,1, 1),fo . 20vb (p. 674b) , and ad 1.imperium, eo.tit o (D 2,1,3), fo. 23v b ff. (pp. 68 0b ff .). Th esmall differ ences of Cynus' exposition might b e due to th e fact that he does not fo llow theabove men tioned qua e stio of Bellep erche 's, but p erhap s this author's Lect ura Codicis.


17/30

16 Jess Vallejo

lier of the relation bet ween iu risdictio and imperium, which emerges asboth genus and specie s, at once the whole and the parto

7. One of the possibl e ways of sorting out the difficulty , consciously ornot, is shown in the works ofAlbericus de Rosate. He avoids the obstacleposed by th e difficult location of an imperium simpliciter et principalitersum p tum within the partitions ofjurisdiction by the strategy of makingtwo parallel tripartitions coincide , the first based on imperium , theseco nd on iurisdictio , in such a way that for every level of iur isdictiothere is a corresponding level of imperium . The isomorphic disposition

of both classifications is represented in schema VI .Imp e rium is, consequently, a facult y added to jurisdiction , not onl y at

the hig her levels, but also at the lowest level of iurisdictio s impl e x; thelevel of im pe r ium corresponding to this one can be designat ed c oerc it iomod ica, returning in a way to the initial Accursian la yout. The prob-lem thus solved , Albericus does nothing less than offer his own classi fi-cation of the species of jurisdiction , notably different from B elle-perche 's (see sc hema VII).

The most s trik ing difference is the subd ivision of m e rum and m ix tumimperi um , a contribution taken on board b y Albericus from the work s ofJacob us Butrigarius. Depending on the degr ee of coercion implied,meru m imp er ium can be maximum, m e dium or modicum. Within mi xtum

imperium two subspecies appear , depending on the higher or low erdegree of c ognizance cognitio) required b y the case. The contributionof Butr igarius has a special significance for the delegation of the differ-ent species of iuri sdictio, since it is no longer necessary to look for com -plicate d di stinctions that determine in which cases merum imperiumand mixtu m imp e r ium can be delegated. Only in their minor deg ree canthey be delegated. Whether merum and mixtum imperium can bedelegated or not is th erefore drastically rejected as a means of defini-tion .

34 ALBERICUS DE ROSATE, Commentaria (n ote 31), ad imperium , ff. De iurisdictione(D 2 ,1,3),fo . 91ra ff .

35 Jaco bus Butr igarius ' position is difficult to det ermine in resp ect o f the classifica tioninto species of iur isdi etio. Hi s guid es being Guil elmu s de Cun eo and Jaco bus de Ar ena, hedo es not mainta in a clear stance o n th e locatio n of the modiea eoereitio - Guilelmu s deCun eo's contrib ution on this point, ackn owledged by Butr igarius and Al beric us, meansthe inclusion of modiea eoe reitio within merum imp erium - and iuri sdietio in s peeie sump-ta - since o ne of t he pos sibl e developm ents of Jacobu s de Ar ena'swork m ight lea d to it s.inclusion w ithin mixtum imp erium - in th e division that w e are anal ysing : JACOBUS BUTRI-GARIUS, In Primam et Secundam Vet eris Dig esti Partem, R omae: Typ is Lepidi Fat ii 1606(facsimile edition, Opera Iurid ica Rariora (not e 18) , XIV -1 and 2 , 197 8), ad imperium , ff.De iurisdi ctione (D 2,1,3 ), fo. 54a-56a , and ad magi stratibu s, eo. tito (D 2 ,1,12), fo. 62a-b.


18/30


8.However the differences between Albericus' and Belleperche's clas -sifications are not merely differences of form; some of them .are moresubstantial .

The Orleans jurist's classification was susceptible of other forms ofdevelopment beyond the one we have just considered. It could be used asa starting point for the construction of a real hierarchy of levels ofjuris-diction. The criteria used by Belleperche for the subdivision of impe-rium resulted in a number of mutually exclusive species, successivebipartitions with properties defined by the fulfilment or otherwise of aspecific condition. The same thing happened to the inferior degrees ofiurisdictio stricte sumpta. The predictable result was the construction ofa hierarchy of cases or situations, the various degrees of which could beattributed to different holders, and which contained in consequence thepotential origin of a hierarchy of magistrates with different jurisdic-tional powers. This use of mutual exclusion could not prevent therebeing, simultaneously, both a holder of mixtum and merum imperium,but the sole holder of mixtum imperiurti would clearly be in an inferiorposition in relation to the holder of merum. imperium, and so onthroughout the lower levels.

This direction, implicit in Pierre de Belleperche's classification, isabandoned byAlbericus de Rosate. The Bergamo jurist's classificationcannot meet the conditions necessary for the establishment of a hierar-

chically ordered succesion of magistrates. This is due basically to thesubdivision of the superior degrees of jurisdiction and the utilization ofcriteria which admit of indistinct application: the criteria Albericususes in order to subdivide both species of imperium are not mutuallyexclusive, since they could neither prevent the level of coercion being

36 The position represented by Belleperche seems to appear , however, in the work ofother jurists who order the division of both types of imperium by virtue of a criterion thatwe have seen pointed out before, although not in such a decisiv e manner : the criteri o nreferring the civil/penal distinction. It appears in the work of Oldradus de Ponte , whoseposition is close to that of Jacobus de Arena: OLDRADUS DEPONTE, Consilia seu Respon sa,et Quaestiones Aureae , Venetiis: ex Officina Damiani Zenari 1585, consilium 10, fo. 5ra.But such a disposition cannot be decisive as a guiding criterio n for the whole of the classi-fication , even from positions nearer to Belleperche's, e. g . Cynus of Pistoia's. In Albericu sde Rosate's approach to the question, the irrelevant nature of the distinction can be mor eeasily appreciated: criminaliter agere is not always merum imp erium ; civiliter ag ere is notalways mixtum imperium (CYNUSOFPISTOlA, Commentaria (note 18), ad 1 .imperium , ff. deiurisdictione (D2,1 ,3), fo. 24va (p . 682a); ALBERlCUSEROSAT E,Commentaria (note 31 ), adea. 1., fo.91rb). The real uselessness - or , rather, impracticability - of the ci vil/penaldistinction can be appreciated with special clarity in the practi cal spher e as well ; or, moreexactIy , in the connection between practice and jurisprudential exegesis : for a convincingand acute portrayal of the problem, see GIANCARLOALLONE ,urisdictio domini (note 29) ,pp. 21-25 and 30 -31.


19/30

1 8 Jess Vallejo

validly applicable to mixtum imperium , nor the application of cogni -zance to merum imperium,

It is evident that in order to qualify as hierarchic or not a par-ticular disposition of elements depends only on what we understandas hierarchy. One simple and clear concept, specifically establishedfor the study of the phenomenon of power, the one we are now using,is offe red by the work of Max Weber ; If we adapt it to our case , wecan define hierarchy as an order of elements fulfilling two condi-tions: each element has specific characteristics or potentialities of

ac tion which its inferiors lack; each element, in relation to its infe-riors, can influence decisively their scope of action. Therefore , in ajuri sdictional hierarchy, it can be said that a particular holder isgive n a position hierarchically superior in relation to another if heis invested with powers lacked by the latter, therehy enjoyingpowersof control over the latter's action with the capacity, through theexercise of certain mechanisms (in general appeal and avocation), ofmodif ying his decisions.

Since superior degrees of mixtum imperium and inferior degreesof m e rum imp e rium are established in Albericus ' classification ,not hing pr events a holder of the first from having a position supe-rior to tha t of a holder of merum imperium modicum . Whereas b y

vir tue Albericus ' division of imperium there is a possible hierarch ybetween the degrees (1) to (3), by the next subdivision this hierarch yis violat ed, and the scale (a) to (f) cannot then be considered hier -arc hly ordered. This contradiction is even clearr in the well known

37 Despite t he option that 1 am to examine , 1 am a ware that on e of the main themes ofthis expositio n might be vulnerable to a critique proceeding fr om a d ifferent conception o fhierarc hy. It is not outlandish to consider the concept of hi erarch y, as man y others in t hefield o f soci al sciences, as w ithin the alread y consol idated cat egory of e ssential ly co n-tested co ncepts, which in cludes all those whose appli cation is in i tself uncer tain and p eromanently liab le to dispute: 1 translate the definition from MA UROBARBERIS,a s toria delledottri ne (note 1), p. 173, who also provides bibliograph y on the subject.

38 In his well-known lecture on the different types of possible dominat ion (Wir tschaftund Gese llschaft . Grundri/3 d er versteh enden Soziologie , ed. J. WIN CKELMANN ,oln, B erlin1964, p. 161). As a fundamental problem with regard to appeal, that of hierarchy is ernpha-size d from th e outset of his investigations by ANTONIOPADOAS CHIOPPA ,Ricerch esull'appello (note 24), vol. 1, 1967, pp. 2-6. There is little to be gained, as far as our pr esentanalysis is co ncerned, from medieval theories of hierarchy formulated outsid e the strictl yjuristic mil ieu. AEGIDI USROMANUSDe ecclesiastica potestate, 2,13; ed. RI CHARDS CHOLZ(1929), Neudruck Aalen Scientia: 1961, pp. 120-128) constructs his theor y according to theangelic hie rarchy, but only goes into detail with respect to the e cclesiastical s tructur e; i nlaicis , he describes only the prima hierarchia without completing the scale becau se dehoc non s it nobis cure . Neith er in the celestial model nor in its earthl y manife station d owe find prec ise criter ia for the interaction of the elements in the scales which he defines .


20/30

Pow er Hi erarchies 19

classif ication of Bartolus de Sassof errato, the arb or iur isdic-tionum. P

This classification (see schema VIII) would b ecom e the most influ en-tial in the later history of jurisprudenc e. The difficulties pos ed by Belle-perche 's subdivi sion are now avoid ed by the exclu sion o f imperiummodicum , which had caus ed so man y problems . Imperium is the juri s-dict ion exerted offic io iudi cis nobil e; iurisd ictio simple x is exer ted offi-cio mercenar io. The following criterion is ba sed on th e cons ideration ofthe public utilit y (merum imperium) or the privat e util ity (mixtum impe-

rium) of the faculti es exerted b y the holder of juri sdict ion. Iur isdictiosimpl ex also responds to private utility . With such criteria the threedefinit ions can be constructed. After that , Bartolus skilfull y es tabli shesthree succe sive subdivisions into six levels ac cording to rather di ffe rentcriteria ,'? which concern not onl y the natur e of th e facult ies re leva nt toeach one, but also their holders and wheth er these faculties can bedelegated: the eighteen r esulting l evels respond to the applicatio n of cri-teria as disparate as the scope of application , gre ater or lesser, of therules dictated b y the holder , the gravity of th e penalties imp ose d for theoff ences that he is enabl ed to judge , and the economi c importance o f thecases that he undertak es, These eighteen l evels do not conf orm strictlyto a hierarch y: mixtum imp erium ma ximum pertains so lely to the Prince,

whereas merum imperium minus and minimum . can be held b y any infe-

39 In contrast to the co ntrib utions of other aut hors, Barto lus' is sufficiently w ell-known. A clear synthesis is p rovided by MYRON PIPER GILMORE, Arg ument (note 27),pp. 36-44; another one, more co ncise, with a g ood schema whic h includes definitions foreac h type, is by CECIL N. SIDNEY WOOLF, Bartolu s of Sasso ferrato. His Positio n in theHis tory o f Mediev al Political Th ought, Cambrid ge: Cambridge University Press 1913,pp. 405-407; t he exp osition by ANTNIO MANUEL HESPANHA, Rep rsentation dogmatique(note 6), pp. 16 ff., is of mor e interest, with lucid r emark s about the meanings a nd conse -quences of the classificat ion. As i t is known , that of Bartolus has an ear ly graphic repre-sentation, in the form of a tr ee-diagram , usuall y print ed in the editions of h is work; per -haps a par t of the subj ect und er consideration he re depends to some exten t on the graphicreprese ntat ion itself: from th e ve rtical natur e ofth e schema reprod uced, a hierarc hy couldbe expecte d; the desce nding br anches of the arbor iurisd ictio num do not lend t hemselvesso c learly to such a vis ion. The co mm entar y by BARTOLUS (Prae lectiones (note 31), ad l .

imperium, ff. D e iur isdictione (D 2 ,1,3),fo. 46v ff .) begins with some diffin itiones et decla -rationes iurisdictionum (fo. 47r) whi ch are a later a dditio n, although they do not differessential ly from th e original con struction ( on these , CECIL N. SIDNEY WOOLF, Bartolus,note 1 in p . 406 ).

40 A man oeuvre pointed out by ANTNIO MANUEL HESPANHA, Rep rsentation dogma ti-que (note 6), who evaluat es Bartolus ' crit eria in pp . 17-18. T his see ms to have escapedMYRON PIPER GILMORE, Ar gument (note 27 ), for wh om B artolus, w hile examining t he qu es-tion of the delegation of merum imp erium , discov ers th at there are six grades of merumimperi um (p. 40).Aswi ll be pointed out shortly, that is an insuff icient criterion for the sixdegrees; moreover , we would d o well to consider it an invention, ra ther than a discovery .


21/30

2 Jess Vallejo

rior magistrate. A hierarchic order could exist within each group of sixspecies so d efined, as well as in the three subdivided genera of merumimp eri um, mixtum imperium and iurisdictio, but not between group andgro up, ge nus and genus, since there is always the possibility of comb in-ing diff erent degrees in unique entitlements which cut across the groupand genus b oundaries: it would be almost impossible to infer from Bar-tolus' dat a a unitar y hierarchy by combining the three scales , andmea nwhil e assume that merum imperium has a superior rank to that ofm ixtu m . Hi erarchized interpretations of Bartolus' arbor are possible ,nevertheless, assuming that each one of the eighteen final levelsactuall y shows functions that can be accumulated rather than independ-ent entiti es. In fact we know of several cases, from medieval juri spru-dence itself, of conflicts generated precisely because of the concurrence,in a specific territor y, of holders of different degrees of jurisdiction whofind thems elves in conflict because they consider that the powers the yare trying to exert pertain to their unique competence . There is noneed, mor eover , to refer to jurisprudence to realiz e that these con flictswere quite frequent in the juridical and politicallife of the Middle Ag es.

9. Fro m th e abstraction of pure theory, we have observ ed the diffi-culties p rese nted by the attempts, if they are such , to put into a hi erar -

chi c order the different situations of power in force in medieval society ,situati ons which were in fact irreducible to such analysis. Pietro Cos-ta's st udy is weakened by the imposition of his own s ystem of t erms andconc epts i nto that of medieval jurisprudence , which it f inally substi-tutes. T he valid process of power in Costa's work may be h ierar chic,wher eas the medieval jurists' representation of reality is definit ely notSO.43

41 A rather sig nificant example, in ALB ERICUS DE R OSA TE, In Primam C odic is PartemCommentar ii, Venetiis 1586 (facsimile edition , Opera Iuridi ca Rari ora (n ote 18), XX VII,1979) , ad 1. periniquum , C D e iurisdiction e omnium iudi cum et de for o competent i(C 3,13,7), fo. 153v b.

42 How ever , it has hitherto b een a comm onplac e in his toriograph y to sp eak, above a llwith regard to Ba rtolus ' classification , of h ierarch y, but with out suffi cient explanationabout what was expressed by it . In addition to th e next r eferences, see MYR ON Pl PER GI L-MORE, Argument (not e 27), pp. 41-42: I n summary, this wh ole exposition b y Bartolus ofthe grades of jurisdiction represents a car eful at tempt to expla in four teenth centur y domi-nium in terms of the Roman Law . By dividing th e categori es of merum and mixtum imp eri-um and iur isdictio s impl ex into six d egrees each and a ssigning t o each of tho se degreesspecifi c powers, take n either from the Roman constitution or from contemp orary practic e,Bar tolus achieved a hierarchy of sup erioriti es, wherein each superior ha d what m ight becalled a proper ty right in his power .

43 PIETRO COSTA, Iurisdict io (note 8), p. 162 , with re gard to Bartolu s: la 'misurabilit'del proce sso di potere 'iurisdictio', il suo disporsi in una l nea verticale , in una gi erarchia


22/30

Power Hi erarchies 21

At the beginning of this study we ment ioned the interpr etation ofAntnio Manuel Hespanha without dweIling on its details. Th is inter-pretation still needs to beexplained . According to H espanh a, the m edie -val doctrines culminating, as we have seen, in Bartolus ' work, have onlyinstrumental interest , particularly from a chronological point o f view .For Hespanha , the arbor iuri sdictionum do es not r eflect a hierarchyacross the different levels of the exercis e of pow er wh ich, at the sametime , could impl y a hierarchic scale amon gst th e hold ers of politicalpower thanks to the later attribution of these levels to differe nt magis-tratures . What Hespanha is most concerned to stress is t he fact that ,through the creation b y the medieval juri sts of a sp ecific co nception ofreali ty by means of the classifications that w e hav e see n, one specificform of representing the r ealit y of pow er would b e comm only acceptedfor as long as the system of ius c ommun e remain ed valid (until it s crisisin the eighteenth century), and would pr epar e first the conception andthen the appearance of the contemporar y admini stration, based, as it is ,on hierarchic criteria. The problem then is that h e anal yses the classifi -cation in forms of jurisdict ion , drawing attention as he does s o to theprojection of this classi fication into th e futu re ( hence p rojects ofpow er in the title of his work) , and not to the historica l coordi nates inwhi ch it aris es, to our unde rstanding of whi ch he makes b ut a smallcontr ibution. v'

10.Thus far we have discovered what it is that we ar e unable to obtainfrom the classifications we have been analysing . We ha ve ach ieve d anegative determination and now we need the positiv e one. What c an themedieval representation of the reality of pow er sh ow u s? Obviously wecannot undertake a stud y of intentions , beca use the true motiv ations, ifthere are an y, of the medieval jurists will alwa ys be unkn own to US.45Nei ther can we make do with the conclusion , as frequent as it is easy,

di situa zioni di potere ... 44 ANT6N IO MAN UELH ESPANH A,Reprsent ation d ogmatique (note 6), passim; but

note ca refull y, in relation to th e content of th e last two notes, t he fo llowing passag e onp. 19: Apartir d e ce point il e st possible d 'tablir un e hirarchisation de magi strats et d econstruir e dogmatiqu ement la fa cult, pour le sup rie ur, d'evoquer les ca uses de l'inferi-eur. A mor e accurate approa ch, unencumbered b y proj ections of the future, can be foundin another w ork by the same au thor: ANT6NIOMANUELHESP ANH A,'espace po litique dansl'ancien rgime, in: Boletim da Fa cultade de D irei to. Universidade de Coim bra 58 (1982)(= Estudos em H omenagem aos Pr ofs. Doutores M. Paulo Mera e G. Braga da Cruz ,vol . I1), pp. 455-510, especiall y pp. 478-479.

45 They p rovide, in any case, an object of study which is not to be taken up he re. On th epossibilities o f such a s tudy, MAuRo BARB ERIS ,a storia delle dottrine (note 1), p. 166(andnote 21), and 168 ff .


23/30

22 Jess V allejo

that t he jurist s' constructions responded merely to a sort of academ icexercise wi th no connections with the reality from which the y were irre-deemab ly distant because of their teaching activity, their book cultur eand their desk work. To draw such a conclusion would b e to evad e theproblem we a re dealing with , and to den y the importance not only of thisstudy b ut also that of the numerous works which h ave att empt ed to gainan in sight into the past through the stud y of the literature of th e iuscommune.

One co nsequence of wider import concerns the coherenc e of thetheory of j urisdiction taken as a whole, for this theory had man y mor efacets tha n thos e whi ch have occupied us up till now. Not onl y in th easpects we hav e considered here, but al so in a more general sense , me-dieval juris prud ence frequently assumed the existence of succ essivegradat ions, ord erings or classifications of jurisdict ion fo r the fulfilmentof d iffere nt objectives. By assigning to each of these el ements a c ertainvalue fro m th e quantitative or qualitative point of view , it wa s poss ibleto order them from higher to lower, thus clas sifying them in categorieswhich co uld easily correspond mutually. In fact , by doing thi s, juri spru-dence co nstructed the so called ordin es iudi cum or ordine s magi stra -tuum, which do not aim at the ordering of power situations o r applica-tions of p ower, but of power holders, assembling them into the catego-ries of super illustr es, illustr es, spectabil es, clarissimi and simplic es. Theindicatio n of each one 's objective competenc e could be achiev ed bymaki ng eac h group coincide with the different types of juri sdiction ,already defi ned.t? Another development , one of the most int erestin g ofjuris dictio nal theor y, concerns the link betwe en the concept s of iur isdic-tio and dominium: such a relation was especially useful when it carn e todescribing a nd analysing a feudal link. Both concepts had a g enericnature, w hich meant they could b e subdivided into different t ypes (in thecase o dominium, the operating distinction was that betw een direc tumand utile) which, in turn, could b e subdivided , re flectin g in law th e co m-plex chain of fe udal vass alic rela tions existi ng in fact, for th e res ulting

.u

46 This sort o f assert ion can be found even in p artichlarly rigorous mo nographs: forinstance, S US A N R EYNOL D S, Kingdoms and C ommun ities in W estern Europe, 900 -1300(1984), Oxf ord: Clarendon Pr ess 1986 (r ep.) ; for an an alysis of w hich, see my re view, in :Anuario de Hist oria de l Derecho Espa ol 57 (1987) , pp. 1040 -104 5.

47 See, for al l, G U ILLAUME D U RAND , Speculum Iu ris (note 17) , 1.1,p. 1, De iurisdictioneomnium iudi cum, fo. 6 0rb -vb.


24/30

Powe r Hier archies 23

scales of dominium and iurisdictio could be made to corr espon d. Aspecific anal ysis of each ofthese categories, not all ofwhich ar e immun eto criticism, would certainly be fruitful but would prolong thi s studyundul y.

There are further implications of greater importance. Th ey r elat e tothe influence which the theory exerted over contemporar y realit y. Weshall focus on two ofthem: one which affected the Prince's pos ition , andone which contributed to the consolidation of a determined form of r ela-tion between different political powers .

It is often argued, all the more in general commentaries , tha t the

Prince (that is to say , the emperor in the valid process of pow er, the kingin the effective process, in the terms of Pie tro Costa) acqu ired in thisepoch a clear positioh of political supremac y, thanks pr ecisely to thedoctr inal elaboration of the ius commun e, but the discurs ive st rategiesthat made th is possible a re scarcel y dealt with in a sp ecifi c way. Ourpresentation might enlighten one of those strategi es. Since the Princewas accorded the highest position on the scale of poli tical p ower h old-ers , the translation of such a position to jurisdictional th eory leads tothe conclusion that he is a holder of merum imp e rium. Sin ce ea rly times,the kings in western Christendom claimed the exclusivit y of such a p osi-tion but they failed in their stru ggle as a consequenc e of th e real d istri -bution of political power, which could only be rational ized ac cord ing to

the models in the Corpus Iuris , by admitting a plural ity of hold ers ofmerum imperium, There is a famous anecdote from the end of th e twelfthcentury in which the emperor Henry VI asked two jurist s, Azzo andLothari us, who had merum imperium ; Azzo replied in t erms of i ts sharedpossession, whereas Lotharius flattered the emperor w ith th e answertha t he expected ; the latter jurist re ceived a horse a s a gift , while th eformer w ent awa y empt y handed b ut with the cle ar conscience of a good

48 See , for all, MARINUS DE CARAMAN ICO, Prooemi um in Con stituti ones Regni Sici liae,edition b y FRANCESCO CALASSO, 1 glossatori e la teoria d ella so vranita, Studi o di d irittocornune pubblico, (1st ed . 1945) , 3rd ed., Milano: Giuffr 1957 , pp. 175 -205, particul arly thepass age between par agraphs XII an d XVI of the indicated ed ition (pp. 190-1S6). On thequoted parag raphs by Marinus de Carama nico, see GIANCARLO VALLONE , Iuri sdictio dor ni-ni (note 2 9), p . 51 a nd n ote 53 i n pp. 51-52 , quickly passing thro ugh them wh en his analysisrnoves int o the field of t he coha erentia terr itorio of jurisdiction , a po int of view f rom w hich,in rny opinion, sorne of the potential of Mar inus' disco urse is lost; even m ore briefly, PIERREMICHAUD-QUANTIN, Unive rsitas (n ote 24) , p. 33, with the object of def ining th e object of hisstudy; i n an analysis nearer to that which interests us here , BRUNO PARAD ISI, Il pensieropolitico dei giuristi medievali, in: LUIGI FIRPO (dir.), S toria delle idee politi che, econornichee socia li, vo l. II (Ebra ismo e Cristianesimo. Il Med ioevo), t . 2 (I l Medioevo) , Torino : UnioneTipo grafico -Editrice Torinese 1983, pp. 2 11-366 , espec ially pp. 277 ff.


25/30

24 Jess Vallejo

jurist. The subsequent evolution of jurisdictional theory op ened theway to the admission of subdivisions within merum imperium, and thuspermitted the attribut ion to the monarch of the exclusivity of the supe-rior levels and the s ubsequent recognition of areas of poltical actionwhich would become unattainable for any other holder of jurisdiction .Had we followed the contemporary evolution of the diverse ordin esma gistr a tuum, we would have witnessed a similar phenomenon: whereasthe Prince was at first mcluded among the magistrates of superior level(so called sup erillustr es), his position became superior to that of the restof them, especially after the early fourteenth century, and from then onit would be unique and not shared. And so on in other aspects of jurisdic-tional theor y.

Th e moulding of this theory into structures whose substantial rigidit ywas not troubled by the accidental variations produced in jurisprud encemade its violation difficult. Its legitimacy was , first, assured by itssubstan tial coincid ence) with the validating sy stem offered by the Cor-pus Iur is (here again the most serviceable elements from Costa 's exposi -tion), and s econd augmented by the added prestige of its utilization inthe work s of successive jurists who did not abandon the pre -establishedstructures. Th e paralysing effect of this on the representation of realit ywas then projected onto the reality itself, s ince the situations of powerlikely to occur within it would be considered the more legitimate themore they approximated to the order consolidated as valid by the tradi -tion. Th e theory of jurisdiction therefore became a factor of stability ,and contributed to the reproduction of the relations of power in force .

11.So, instead of concentrating on the implications within the jurist s'own work of the various systems of classification, we must turn to th evalue of juristic discussion as a source for a wider histor ical under-standing of the realty the jurists were attempting to explain .

Th e jurisdictional theory is the best expression available to us if weare to und erstand, as a whole, the phenomenon of power in medievalsoc iety. If such a theory arises to explain the reality, to represent it , theparallel developmen t of the theory and practice of power can b eadva nced as a hypothesis. Observing the former, we can get to know th e

49 Th ere is a cop ious bibl iograph y on this anecdote . Suff icient h ere to quot e, be cause ofits plentiful inform ation , UGO N COLlNI ,La propriet , il prin cipe, e l 'espro priazione p erpubbli ca utilit. Studi sulla dottrina giuridi ca intermedia, Milano : Giuff r 1952 ( rist.),pp. 94 ff., and B RUNO PARADISI ,1pensiero politico (n ote 48), pp. 272 ff .

50 ANT6N IOMAN UELHESPANHA, Reprsentation dogmatique (n ote 6), pp . 6-7. By thesame author , Une nouvelle histoire ? (note 3), pp. 328 ff .


26/30


latter, of which it would be a reflection. In the period on which we hav efocussed our attention the theory is in the process of construction; theformulated hypothesis once accepted, we would be lead to admit that th ereal relations of power were not completely settled either . A stratifica-tion of power situations can be admitted, in the sense that from the firstestablished classifications, some of these situations admit to being con -sidered in a higher position than others of less significance. Ther e areclearly relations of subordination and supraordination . The theory effi-ciently places every titleholder in his due position within the generalconfiguration, and this is what would contribute to the aforementionedstability.

But there is also a factor of permanent potential conflict . Becaus e weare dealing with a stratification and not an hierarchy, the mechanismsare lacking which would permit the unitary int egration of all th e ele-ments which result from the classifications previously studied. P er-haps the most evident of these mechanisms is the appeal, an indisp en-sable characteristic of any scale of jurisdiction holders responding t ohierarchical principles.P However, as a monograph by Antonio PadoaSchioppa has shown, the concept of appeal in the incipient m edievalcivil doctrine does not reveal the workings of any such principles , whichwere far from the mentality of its formulators . It seems that it wa sdifferent in the canonistic sphere, but that was not enough to alter th eglobal composition of powers, in view of the close interconne ctionsbetween the secular and ecclesiastical structures in medieval soci ety.

51 Once again , conceptual precision is required here in dealing with hierarchy , a termnow conflated with stratification . Now that we have made ol ear what w e wish to expressby the former, the latter term does not have any implications for the purpos es of this w orkbeyond those just mentioned in the text o The definition and use of both terms , as well a stheir links and differences, takes on, in the sphere of anthropology, nuances an aw arenessof which is as useful in gaining an understanding of them as it is superfluous in our case:see LoUISDUMONT, Horno hierarchicus. Ensayo sobre el sistema d e castas (1st ed ., Par is:Gallimard 1967), translation by Rafael Prez Delgado , Madrid: Aguilar 1970 , especia llychapter three, on the concept of hierarchy (pp . 84 ff .), and Apndi ce A (orig inallypublished in: Cahiers interno de Sociologie 29 (1960), pp . 91-112), on hierar chy and str atifi-cation (pp . 307 ff .).

52 For a sociological perspective , see BURTONATKINS,ntervention and Pow er in Judi -cial Hierarchies: Appellate Courts in England and the United States, in : Law and So cie tyReview 24 /1 (1990), pp. 71-103 , especially pp. 74 -78, where he express es the most conce ptu-al elements of his dissertation.

53 ANTONIOPADOASCHIOPPA ,icerche sull'appello (note 24), p . 112 : le qu estioni legatealla gerarchia degli appelli - questioni spesso scottanti anche sul pi ano polit ico - rimaserosostanzialmente estranee alla elaborazione dei glossatori . From a more g eneral and b asicpoint of view, an excellent and accurate starting point for this entire subj ect is provided byBARTOLOMLAVERO, Derecho comn, (Temas de Historia del Der echo), 2nd ed. , Sev illa:Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla 1979, pp . 75-76 .


27/30

26 Jess Vallejo

The re sult of this situation was the definition of scopes of power that ,althought qualified as lower or inferior, were zealously and effec tivel ydefe nded by their holders from the interference of those who held supe -rior power. Historians have recognized that the latter espoused as amatter of course a policy of decisive interference in inferior spheres ofpower, although they should also recognize that these attempts were notalways s uccessful . The efficiency of the defence put up by the inferiorjurisdictions can be explained not only by merely factual reasons, suchas the precarious nature of the central apparatus of power. The centralpowe r fought against a mentality, and perhaps it may be necessary toreinterpret, from the point of view of that mentality , such a permanent

policy i tself. The literature of the ius commune still constitutes an excel-lent st arting point for that purpose.

SCHEMA I: FOURFOLD OF IURISDICTIO

Iu risdictio {

Merum imperiumMixtum imperiumMcdica coercitioIurisdictio simple x (Iur. in specie sumpta)

SCHEMAII: TRIPARTITION OF IURISDICTIO

Merum imperiumMixtum imperium1urisdictio sim plex

--... Summa potestas--... Media potestas--.... Modica potestas

1urisdictio


28/30

Power Hierarchies

SCHEMA IlI : DIFFI CULTIES O F DELINEATINGBETWEEN DEGREES OF IURISDICTIO

Merum imperium - L

L --- + - __ (r_e_le_g_a_t_io_)_ -+----'- : -~:: : y~ d

2 7

Mistum imperiumb

Iurisdictio simplex

- - - - - - - - - - - - --

a) Cases of crime liable to death penal ty, mu tilation or

loss of the status of liberty or citizensh ip.

b) Cases of crimes liable to other pen alties, ba sically ofeconomic contento

e) Cases of crimes whose attribution to e ither Court isdoubtful . Grave offenses liable to incid ental penal ties ofeconomic content o

d) Civil cases of higher amount .

e) Civil cases of lower amount .


29/30

28 Jess Vallejo

Iuridictio

{

Imperium

Iurisdictio

{

MagnUm

Modicum

{Maior

Minima

{Merum

Mixtum

SCHEMA IV: PIERRE DE BELLEPERCHE'S CLASSIFICATION

~~

erumj

~

mperium Ma~um Mixtum Magnum, , , (Modicum)

Iuridictio ~ Imperium1 isdi Maioruris cto Modicum

Minima

SCHEMA V : ANOMALIES WITHIN PIERRE DE BELLEPERCHE 'SCLASSIFICATION

{

qUO d causas maximas = merum imp,}Imperium quo ad causas medias = mixtum imp, Iurisdictio

quo ad causas minimas = iurisdictio

SCHEMA VI: RELATION BETWEEN IURISDICTIO-IMPERIUMACCORDING TO ALBERICUS DE ROSATE

~ ~==~~======~~~==== = = = = = = = ==========


30/30

Pow er Hierarch ies

SCHEMA VII: ALBERICUS DE ROSATE'S CLASSIFICATION

{

MaximumMediumModicum

{MaiUS

Min imum

a(b) e

d

e

f

29

(1) Merum imperium

Iurisdictio (2) Mixtum imperium

(3) Iurisdictio

SCHEMA VIII: BARTOLUS DE SASSOFERRATO'S ARBOR IURISDICTIONUM

Merum

Max imum

MaiusMagnumParvumMinusMinimu mImperium

Mixtum

Max imumMaiusMagnumParvumMinusMin imum

Iurisdictio

Iurisdictio

Max imaMaio rMagnaParvaMinorMinima

Documents

Vallejo Power Hierarchies