TRADITIO STUDIES IN ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL

HISTORY, THOUGHT, AND RELIGION

Editors

EDWIN A. QUAIN BERNARD M. PEEBLES

CHARLES H. LOHR RICHARD E. DOYLE R. E . KASKE

Edi lors Emeriti

STEPHAN KUTTNER ANSELM STRITTMATTER

VOLUME XXIX

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW YORK

1973

CONTENTS

AnTI CLES

Cicero, Pompey, and the Rise of the First Triumvirate THOMAS N . MITCHELL 1

Evangelicalism as the Informing Principle of Cynewulf's ' E lene' CATHAm NE A. REGAN 27

The English and Byzantium : A Study of Their Role in the Byzantine Army in the Later Eleventh Century . JoNATIIAN Sn EPARD 53

Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries, Authors: Robertu s- Wilgelmus CHARLES H . Lmrn, s.J. 93

The 'Karolinus' of Egidius Parisiensis M. L. COLKER 199

Medieval Explanations and Interpretations of the Dictum that 'Nature Abhors a Vacuum' EDWARD GRANT 327

MISCELLANY

'Legatus' in Medieval Homan Law J o11 N W . PmrnIN 357

Gerald of Wales : A Reassessment on the 750th Anniversary of His Death Mrc HA EL Rrc1-1TER 379

BIBLIOGRAPHI CAL sunVEY

La tin Manuscript Pontificals and Benedictionals in England and Wales J. BROCKMANN 391

MISCELLANY

'LEGATOS' IN MEDIEVAL HOMAN LAW

Th e lega te and legation have long in terest ed m edievalists, t he general focus being on papal lega tion approached by pontificat e, b y region , or b y historical era. Although stud y has fluc tuated over the years, the past decade has wit nessed a renewed interes t.1 T his recen t work un derlines t he subtlety and t he complexity of medieval though t concern ing both legation and t he larger topic under which it m ay b e subsum ed, representa ti on . Am ong recent students of papal lega tion is Professo r F rances Underhill , who J1 as inspec ted t he administra tive devices utilized by papal legat es in E ngland during the r eign of H enry II I.2 Of special interest is t he work of Professor R icha rd Schmu tz, who has examined the classification of legat es b y earlier students of papal representation and has fo und t heir categoriza-

1 Among th e studies which have co me to m y attention arc the fo llowin g, lis ted in chrono­logical order of publication. H. K . Luxard o, D as piipslliche Vordecretalen-Gesandlschafls­rechl (d issertation , Inn sb1 uck 1878) . A . Pokorny, D ie W irksamke il tier Le!Ja /en des Paps/es llonorius I I I . in Frankreich w ul De11tsch/a11d (I< rems 1886). 0. Fromme!, Die piips lliche Le!Ja lionsgewa ll im deu tschcn Heiche wiihrend des 10., 11 . um / 12. J ahrlwndcr/s (dissertat ion, Heidelb erg 18()8) . A . Grosse, Der R om arws lcgal11s n ach der Auff assung Gregors V I I. (disser­ta tion, Halle 1()01) . J . Massino, Gregor V I I . im Verhii //nis z 11 seinen Lcga lcn (dissertation , Greifswald 1()07). K. H ucss, D ie rcchl/ichc S /el/ung der pii ps llichcn L ega ten bis JJonifaz V I I I .

(Paderborn 1()12) . 0. Schum ann , Die piipsllichen L egalen in De11<sch/and w r Z eil H einrichs I V . und He inrichs V., 1056-1125 (disserta tion, Marburg 1912). J. Bachmann, D ie piipsl­lichen Legalen in Dwlschland und Skandinau ien , 11 25-11 59 (HisLorischc Studien 115; Berlin 1913) . 0. E ngelm ann, Die p iipsl/ichrn L egaten in D eutsch/and bis w r M ille des 11 . J ahr­l111nderls (dissert a tion, Marburg 1()13) . H. Zimmermann, D ie pii psllichc L egation in tier crslen H ii lflc des 13. J ahrl111nderls, uom R e1J ierw1gsanlrill Jnnocenz' I I I. bis zum T ade Gregors I X. , 1 198-1241 (Paderborn 1913). H . Tillmann , Die piipsllichcn L egalen in E ngland bis z11r JJeendigung dcr L egation Cua /as, 1218 (dissertation, Bonn 1926) . W. Ohnsorge, Die L ega len A lexanders I I I . im crs len J ahrzelrnl seines Pontifikals , 1159-1109 (Historischc SLudicn 175; Dcrlin 1928) . I. F ricdlacnder, D ie pii psllichen L egalen in Dw lschland und lwlien am E nde des X II . Jahrl111n derls, 1181-1198 (Historische Studicn 177; Berlin 1928). G. Dunk en, Die politische Wirk sam keil der piips llichen L egalcn in der Z eil des /(amp/es zwischen J(a iserh1m 11nd P apsllwn in Oberilalien 1mler F riedrich I . (Historischc Studicn 20() ;

Berlin 1931). T. Sch ieffer , D ie piipsllichen L ega len in F rankrcich uom Verlrage uon Nleersen (870) bis Zllm Schism a uon 1130 (I-Iist orische S tudien 263 ; Berlin 1935) . G. Paro, The Hight of Papa l L ega tion (Washington 1947). W. J anssen, Die piips llichen L ega ten in Frank­reiclz uom Schism a ,1naclels II . bis zwn T ade Coe /es /in s Ill., 1130-1198 (Cologne 196 l) . Ad­ditional references, par ticu larly to periodical literatu re, may be found both through these works and through the items cited in the foll owing three fo otnotes .

2 F rances A . Underhill, 'Papal Lega tes t o E ngland in the Heign of H enry III, 1216-1272 ' (unpublished P h .D . dissertation, Indiana University 1965) .

358 TH A DITIO

t ion of legates wanting.3 Secul ar legation has received some no tice as well . p rofessor Donald Queller, for example, h as reaffirm ed and expand ed hi s earli er suggestions t ha t lcga tin e practices did n ot play a promincnL rol e in developing secular diplom acy and th a t th ere was a sharp legnl di slinc lion ll e twcen am­b assadori al nuncii and procuralores as regards lega l volition and power.4 In add ition , some attention h as been directed lat ely to th e problem of legal terminol­ogy and to the place that terminology has in descriptions of power and in de­scriptions of the transfer of powcr.5 Most of these lcga lin e studies di scuss to a greater or lesser degree bolh t he theory and t h e pr actice of lega ti on . Man y consider , however curso rily , t he possible influences which Ilom an prac tices and R oman legal theory m ay h ave had both on the theory and on lhc practi ce of papal an d secular legation in medieval W est ern E urope. Yet none has t aken up in detail either the cha racter of the legate or the theory of legation in m edieval Rom an law. It is accord ingly the purpose of this p ap er to analyze lcgalus both in the Corpus Juris Civilis and in Accursius' synthesis of legistic opinion and interpret a tion, the Glossa ordinaria.6

There are several reasons for b eginning an analysis of legation in m edieval Homan Jaw and in the legists with an inves tigat ion of lcgalus in the Corpus Ju ris Civilis of Ju stinian . For one thing, that compilation was the single source of the Jegis ts' knowledge of Homan law. And, aside from a very few references to canon Jaw, it is the only authority cited by glosses which interpret and explain the R oman law on legat es and on the sp ecialized legal t erminology which de­scribes the delega tion or mandate of power . A second reason is that v arious text s of the Corpus overlap. They often seem either to contradict one another or to conflic t with one another . This was probably the result both of th e la pse in time between composition and compilation - a lapse which witnessed a ch ange in the original m eaning of many t erms - and of th e speed with which so ambitious a project was complet ed. Of interes t is t he m anner in which the legis ts went about solving these t extual dilemm as . As Ch arles Homer H askins and Brian Tierney h ave indicated , a m odern s tudent of the law would approach th e problem hi storically . The legist s did not. Both by training and by frame of mind, they were more at ease in dialectical argumentation than in historical research, and they sought their answers in logic and analysis.7 A third reason for an initial considera tion of the t exts of the law is this, that wh a t the law does not say may

3 H. ichard A . Schmulz, 'The Foundalions o[ Medieval Papal H.epresenlation' (unpublished Ph .D . disserta tion, University of Southern California l!J66).

4 Donald E . Qu eller, The Office of A mbassador in the JY!iddlc .Ages (Princelon 1967). 5 J ohn A. \.Valt, The Theory of Papal M onarchy in the Thirteenth Century, The Contribution

of the Canonis ts (New York 1965), especially Part Two; and my own 'Lega lu s, the L awyers and th e Terminology of Power in Homan Law, ' S ludia Graliana 11 (1 967) 461-490.

6 In order t o facilita le and to shorten reference, tex ts and their citation from the Corpus will conform with P . Krueger, T. Monnnsen, el a l ., edcl ., Corpus Juris Civilis 3 vols. (Berlin 1889-95), with the followin g abbreviations employed : D. for Digest, C. for Codex, J. for In­stitu tes and N . for N ovels. I have consultee! two editions of the G/ossa ordinaria, Lyons 1569

and Lyons 1584. 7 C. H . H askins, The Renaissance of Ille Twelf th Century (Cambridge, Mass . 1927) 20,1-205;

an d Brian Tierney, •"The Prince Is Not Bound by the Laws." Accursius and the Origins of the l\fodern Sta te,' Cornpara1ive S tudies in S ociety and History 5 (1962-63) 386.

LEGATUS IN MEDIEVAL HO~!AN LAW 359

often prove as significant as wh at it does say. Th e Hom a ns had a seemingly careless d isregard fo r legal defi nition, in sp ite of the great complexity of their legal language.8 Consequently , in the absence of acknowledged definition, the m edieval Homan lawyers often proceeded to construct their own. More often than not, however, these legist s did not spell out their unders tanding and inter­pretation of t h e Lex ts of Homan law in detailed, explicit discussions. It is necessary to follow t he interconnected webbing of comments mid references in their glosses from one section of lhe Corpus Juris Civilis to a noth er in order to comprehend the full meaning of their argumenls and to recrea le their analyses of Homan law and of Roman legal theory. Consequently, before I can b egin an analysis of lega lus in the t h ought of the legists, I must consider the content of t he Homan law itself.

There is a threefold d iv ision of legates in t h e Corpus Juris Civilis, a nd the generic t erm legalus appears in each category. A representa tive styled simply as legalus could be the agent of a city or of a province, and he might be engaged generally in ambassadorial duties at Home. The m ore precise lega lus proconsulis was a m ember of the administrative and judicial staff of a provincial proconsul. A third type of legate was known generally as the legalus Cacsaris pro praelore, although h e is called lega li1 s Caesar is in the Corpus. D uring t he early empire he was a frontier provincial governor and military commander who held his office directly from the emperor and acted in the emperor 's name.

The first category of legate, the simple lega lus, appears both in t he Diges t and in the Codc.9 Generally speaking, the laws deal with the qualifications, restric­tions, duties a nd burden s of legation and cover legations undertaken on behalf of the state (res publica) as well as those undertak en specifically on behalf of a municipality. The onerous character of imperial public service is apparen t in the requirem ent Lhat men of a certain order or class (ordo) were bound to under­t ak e legations, if they were called, at leas t once every two years.10 Th ese legations might b e gratuitou s, with the legate paying all expenses, or they might be so near home as not to earn the usual two-year exemption.11 A legat e could appoint a vicar in his place, but that person had to be the legat e's own son, ·who might not earn in his own n am e the two-year exemption from legatine duty.12 The duty of legation as a public service excused a citizen from other civil burdens and enjoined him from p ersonal activities,13 except when personal injury or the

8 Fritz Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (Oxford 1936) 44.

D D . 50.7 and C. 10.65. 10 D. 50 .7.9.1 : • Impcralorcs Antonius ct Severus Augusti Germano Silvano. Lcgatione

functis biennii vacalio conccditur: nee interest, utrun1 Jegatio in urbe an in provincia agenti­

bus nobis mandala sit. ' 11 D . 50.7 .3 : 'His, qui non graluitam legationem susceperunt, legativum ex fornia resli­

tuatur. ' C. 10.65.3 : 'Transmarina legatione apud nos perfunetos conslitutum est biennii vaca tionem munerum civilium et honorum habcre, non eos, qui de proximo obsequium rei publicae videntur exhibuisse.' This seems contradictory to the blanket Mcalio quoted above,

n. 10. 12 D. 50.7.5.4: • Legati viearios dare non alios possunt nisi filios suos.' D . 50.7.14: 'Viearius

alieni muneris volunlale sua datus ordine suo legationem suscipere non admissa biennii

praescriptione cogetur. ' 13 Even counts and governors were excused from civil burdens if on a public legation.

Sec C. 10.65.4: • Universi omnino ex comitibus vel ex pracsidibus, qui suffragio perccperint

-

360 THADITIO

• • • <1

affairs of a female ward were involvcd.14 The Code gives a particularly mtngmn., example of this public function of legation, in wh ich legates provided a form ~f provincial representation at Rome or Ravenna or wherever the emperor ~r !~is palace happened to be. Such legates often carried petitions from provincial councils directly to the emperor, as some matters requiring extraordinary counsel emanated from the councils, and such matters were not to be considered by a_n ordinary judge, the governor. In the settlement of peti lions touching th~ public utility, opinions were to be set forth in a public place; and petitions w!uc~l had the support of the majority (maior pars) of a provincial council would be affirmed by established authority, the emperor.is Although one may be tempted to ~s­sume that the simple lega lus - as in this case /ega ti from provincial com~ci~s - exercised some form of agency with powers to represent the will of the ma1_ori­ty, nothing specific is said in the Corpus about the power such representa~ives held, how they acquired it, or in what manner they could use it. It is those ideas in which I am especially interested in this study of lega lus in medieval Roman Jaw, and those ideas first appear in relation to the last two categories of lega tL~s in the Justinianian compilation, the legate of a proconsul (the lega lus proco~sulzs of D. 1.16) and the imperial legat e (the lega lus Caesaris of D. 1.18). The pertinent content of the Corpus can be summ arized rather briefly, and then a few remarlcs about problems raised by those texts will be in order.

The second category of legate, the proconsular legate, had no power of his_ 0 ''."n, which is to say he had no power by right of the office he h eld. His commisswn to act, called jurisdiction in the law, was mandated to him by the proconsu!.

16

Usually this mandate of illrisdic lio was made to the intended legate by ~he proconsul after entering the province.17 Although it was with in the discretwn

dignitatcs, civilibus oncribus muncribusque teneantur adstricli, ne commoda publica cum umbratili suffragiorum pactione laccrentur. Eos tamen a pracdictis oncribus excipi oportebit'. qui in legationibus publicis versati sunt.' This should be compared with D . 50.7.15: 'Qm libera lcgatione ahest, non videlur rei publicac causa abcsse: hie cnim non publici commodi causa, sed sui abcst.

14 D. 50.7.16: ' Is, qui legat ione fungitur, libellmn sine permissu principis de a liis suis negotiis dare non potest.' D. 50 .7.12 .1: •Qui lega lionis officio fungitur, lice t suum negotium curare non protest, Magnus tamcn Antoninus pcnnisit ei pupillac nominc ct instruere et defendere causam, Iicet lcgationi, quam susccpit, nonclum renuntiaverit, praccipuc cum parti­cipcm officii ipsius absentem csse clicebat. •

15 C. 10.65.5: 'Si quod extraord inarium concilium postulalur, cum vel ad nos est mittenda legatio vcl veslrae sedi a liquid intimandum, id, quod inter omnes communi consilio tractatu­que convenerit, minime in examen cognitoris ordinarii referatur. Provincia lium cnim deside­ria, quibus nccessaria sacpe fortuitis rcrncdia deposcuntur, vobis agnoscere atque explorare permiltimus, ut sit examinis tui, quae ex his a uxilio tuo prolinus implenda sunt, ct quac clcmentiae nostrae auribus intimanda vidcantur. In loco au tem publico de communi utilita­t e provincialium sententia proferatur, atque id, quod maioris partis probaverit adsensus, sollcmnis firmet auctoritas . '

16 D. 1.16.13: 'Lcgati proconsulis nihil proprium habent, nisi a proconsule eis manda ta fueril iurisdictio.' But D. 1.21.4 (pr) mentions legali with • propriam iurisdictionem.'

17 Special occasion, such as unavoidable delay in en tering the province, might lead to an earlier commission of iurisdiclio to a legate, but the legate was considered to hold it only from the time of the proconsul's en trance into his assigned province. D . 1.16.5 : 'Aliquando mandare iurisdictionem proconsul potest, etsi nondum in provinciam pervenerit. quid enim

LEGATUS IN MEO I EVAL HOMAN LAW 361

of the procon sul wheth er to m andate iurisdiclio to a lega te,18 it was customary to give a lega te lhe cognilio of prison ers. After this first hearing, the prisoners were sent on to the procon sul , th at th e innocent could be freed and the guilty sentenced. A pparentl y l.hi s preliminary hearing by a proconsular legate acting under a grant of cogni lio app li ed equally to civil and to criminal matters . But the senlenlia h ad lo b e ha ndl ed b y the proconsul himself.19 Any grant of senlenlia by a proconsul to hi s legate was con sidered cxlraordinarium, b ecause the power of th e sword, or any other sort of coercion or penalty, once mandated - in this case appa renlly initially to th e proconsul - could not be transferred.20 Legates of a proconsul coultl appoint guardi ans and judges, and the co.gnilio of cases concerning su spect gua rdians came under their mandate of iurisdiclio from the proconsul.21 But proconsul ar legates could not h andle cases of adoption. Nor could manumissions be transacted before them , because they lacked the neces­sary iurisdiclio. 22 Fin ally, som e rules of procedure were set down . Just as a proconsul could withhold a commiss ion of jurisdiction to hi s lega te, so also could he remove a commission from his legate, although h e was not to do so without consulting the emperor. 23 A proconsular legate was not to consult the emperor about problems arising under his iurisdiclio, but rather he was to consult his

si nccessariam moram in ilincre pa li atur, maturiss ime autem legatus in provinciam perven­turus sit ?' D. 1.16.·1.6: ' .. . set\ si e t an Le feccrit et ingrcss us provinciam in cadem voluntate fu crit, crcclcnclum est v icleri lcgal11111 haberc iurisclic tionem, non cxinde ex quo mandata es t, scd ex quo provinciam proconsul in gressus es t.'

· 18 D. 1.16.6. l : 'Sicut autem manclarc iuriscl ic t ioncm vcl non mandare est in arbitrio

proconsulis . . . . ' 19 D . 1.16.6 (pr): 'Solent cliam euslocliarum cognitioncm mandare lega tis, sci licct ut

praeautlilas eustotlias ad se remittanL, ut innoccntcm ipse liberet. ... ' C. 1.:35 .1 : 'Legati non solum civiles, sec! etiam criminales causas aucliant, ita ut, si scnlenlia m in reos fercndam per­viderint, ad proconsulcs cos transmittere non morentur.'

20 D. 1.16 .6 (pr): ' ... sec! hoc genus ma ncla ti cx lraortl inarium cs l: nee enim potest quis gladii potestatcm sibi tl a tam vel cuius altcrius coercitionis at! a lium transferrc, nee libcrandi igilur reos ius, cum accu sari apucl cum non possint. ' Another lex in the same title required Lhat a proconsular legate refer cases requiring major punishment to the court of the proconsul , because Lhe legate did not have the right of punishment by imprisonment or by harsh whip­ping. D. 1.16.11: 'Si quid erit q uot! maiorem animadvcrsioncm exigat, rcicere lcgatus apud proconsulem debet: neq ue cnim animadvcrtcndi coerccndi vel atrociter vcrbcrandi ius

habet. ' 21 D. 1.lG.15: 'Et lcgati proconsu lum tutorcs dare possunt. ' D. 5.1.12.1: ' ... is quoque

cui mandala est iurisdictio iutliccm dare potes t: ut sunt lcgali proconsulum .. .. ' D. 1.21.4 (pr): ' . .. Cum propriam iuristlic tionem lcgatis tu is dccleri s, conscqucns es t, ut ctiam de suspcctis tutoribus possint cognoscere.' J . 1.2G.1 s ta tes that in provinces proconsular legates have the right of removal: 'Datum es t a utem ius removencli suspcctos tutores Romae prae­

tori et in provinciis praesidibus earum et legato proconsulis. ' 22 D . 1.16.3: 'Nee adoptare potest: omnino enim non est ap ud eum legis actio.' D. 1.16.

2.1.: 'Apud legatum vero proconsulis nemo manumittere potest, quia non habet iurisdictio­nem talem.' This clear denial of the power of a proconsular legate to manumit appears compromised by D . 40.2.17: 'Ap ucl proconsulem, postquam urbem egressus es t, vindicta manumittere possumus: sed et aputl legatum cius manumittere possumus. '

23 D . 1.16.6.1: ' ... ita a tlimere manclatam iuristlictionem Iicct quidem proconsuli, non

autem clebet inconsulto principc hoc facere.'

362 THADITIO

own proconsul, and the latter was expected to answer his legate. At the expira­tion of the proconsul's term of office, he was not to send his legate out of the province ahead of himself.24

The third category of legate, the lcgalus Caesaris, is dealt with in a Lille devoted to governors (pracsides). The term praescs is a generic lerm, and in addition to the imperial legate includes proconsuls, senators and all provincial rulers.25

As a result of this, the legatus Caesaris often loses his explicit individuality in the Corpus Juris Civilis. That in turn raises the question whether all the attri­butes of a praeses, within which general category the imperial legate is placed, are fully applicable to the imperial legate. Fritz Schulz points out that the distinction between imperial and senatorial provinces was abolished by Dio­cletian's reorganization of the empire. There were still 'proconsuls,' but they were subject, as the legatus Cacsaris earlier had been, directly to the emperor. The change was so well understood that it was not necessary to place the term praeses provinciae in the texts of lhe law as a replacement for the term pro­consul. 26 Following Schulz's line of thought, one might assume that all three possible categories of provincial ruler had been absorbed into the generic praeses by the time of Justinian, and that this should be the meaning assigned to the t exts of the Justinianian compilation. For the present I shall treat the problem in that manner, although I shall identify the lcgalus Cacsaris whenever the law does. For in the last analysis the important aspect, after surveying the content of the law, is the manner in which the legists understood and interpreted the matter.

Compared with the first two types of legates the third category, the pracses or legalus Caesaris, emerges as a very powerful functionary . Not only did he ~old iurisdictio and cognilio, but he also held imperium, which he had by mandate from the emperor. So long as he remained within his assigned province, he exe~·cised it over all men - even criminals from anolher province.27 This im­perwm was styled as maius, which put the praeses in his assigned province before all others except the emperor in possession of power.2B The iurisdiclio held by a praeses was much more extensive than lhat of a proconsular legate. The praeses

24 D. 1.16.6.2: 'Lega tos non oportct principcm consulcre, sed proconsulem suum, ct is ad

consultationes legatorum <lcbebit respon<lere. ' D. 1.16.10.1: • Legatum suum nc ante sc <le provincia dimittat, ct lege Julia repclundarum el rescripto divi Ha<lriani ad Calpurnium Hufum proconsulem Achaiae a<lrnonetur '

25 ?· _l.l8.1: ' PraesiLlis nomen general~ est coquc ct proconsules ct legati Cacsaris et omncs provmcias regenles, licct senatores sint, praesides appellantur: proconsulis appcllatio specialis est.'

26 Fritz Sch J· fJ · ' u z, t1slory of Roman L egal Science (Oxford 1946) 245 and n.4. E. Mary Smallwood, 'Atlicus, Legate of Judaea under Trajan,' J RS 52 (1962) 131, contends lhat the terms legalus consula ·, d . . • • "ti t r1s an upal1kos were used m the general sense of governor, w1 1ou regard to rank befo th

27 ' re c encl of the second century. D . 1:18-3: 'Praeses provinciae in suae provinciae homines lantum imperium habet, et

hoc dum 111 provincia est : nam si exccsscrit, privatus est. habet inler<lum imperium et adver-sus cx traneos homines 5·1 "d . . t t · d t" · · t ul , qm 1nanu comm1scrm : mun e m man a 1s prmc1pum es , curet is, qui provinciae praeest, malis hominibus provinciam purgare, nee distinguuntur undc sint. '

28 D. 1.18 .4: 'Praeses provinciae maius imperium in ea provincia habet omnibus post

principem.'

LEGATUS I N MEDIEVAL HOMAN LAW 363

undertook l he positions a nd du lies or a ll the magistrates at Rome, altho ugh he was allowed a much freer hand. He was not to follow t he examples of the m agis­tra tes of th e city of Rome, b u t ra lher to consider what ought to be done in the provincial contex t. All pe titi on s, which h ad various judges a t Rom e, b elonged t o the praeses, and h is cognilio was equal lo t hat of all Lhe m agistrates at R om e. Thus the praeses acled as magistrate and j udge, and h e could with some exception s m andate hi s iurisdiclio.29 T he prnescs had a wide range of p unitive powers. The most impor tant of these p owers were the right or power of t he sword (iu s or poles las gladii ) and the power to send crim inals into t he mi nes. Beyond t hat h e had a genera l m anda le to seek out and t o p unish evil men, as well as the righ t to restrain their coll a borators. He h ad th e r ight of very severe punishment over an erring st eward and th e righ t of seizure and p uni shment of those perpetrating fraud or causing un rest in hi s p rovince. He could even compel owners, provided there were acknowledged cause, to repair their buildi ngs, and a rem edy was authorized aga inst refu sal.30 A provincial praeses p erformed bo th adoptions and manumissions, an d h e rem oved suspec t guardians. Al thou gh he could not appoint himself as a gua rdi an or as a special j udge, h e app oin t ed judges who rem ained even a fte r hi s depart ure from offi ce and whose judgm ents were pre­served. Although t he praescs was accustom ed to advise judges who were doubt­ful about m atters of ius, h e was not to impose his cou nsel in m atters of fact.31

29 D. 1. 18.12: 'Sed Ji cct is, qui prov inciae pr aces t, omn ium Romae magistratuum vice et officio fun gi dcbcat, non La mcn spcctandum es t q uid Romae facLum est, quam quid fi eri debcat. ' D. 1.1 8.11: 'Omnia cnim provi nciali a dcsidcria, q uac Romae varios iudices ha bcnt, ad officium pracs iclu m pcrlincn l. ' D. 1. 18. 10: 'Ex omn ibus cau sis, de quibus vet pracfectus urbi vel pracfcctus praclorio itemqu c consules ct prac Lorcs ccLcrique Romae cognoscunt, corrcctoru m ct praes iclum prov incia rum csL no lio. ' D. 1.21.2. 1: 'Si tu tores vcl curatores velint pracdi a vendcrc, causa cognita id praetor vcl pracscs pcrmiLLa t : quod si mandaverit iurisdictionem, ncquaqu am po LcriL mandala iur iscl icLi onc cam quaes li oncm transfcrrc. '

ao D . 1.18.6.8: 'Qui universas provin cias rcgu n t, iu s glaclii habcnt ct in metallum dandi polestas cis permissa es t. ' D . 1.1 8.13 (pr): 'Congruit bono ct gravi pracsidi cura re, ut pacata atquc quicla provincia si L quam rcgit. q uod non difficile ob tinebit, si sollici tc aga t , ut malis hominibus provincia carcat eosqu e conqui ra t : nam et sacrilegos la Lrones plagiarios fures conquirere debeL ct prou t qui squc dcliqu crit in cum animadvcrtere, rcccpLoresquc eorum coercere, sine quibus lalro d iu tius lalcre non pot est.' D . 1.1 8.21: ' Praeses cum cognoscat de servo corrupto ve t ancilla dev irgi nala vet servo sLu prato, si ac Lor rerum agcnlis corruptus esse dicctur vcl eiusmodi homo, u t non ad solam iacturam adversus substantiam, sed ad totius domus evcrsioncm perLin ca L: scverissime debct animadvcrtcre.' D . 1.18.6.3: ' Illicita minis tcria sub praeLcx Lu adiuvanlium miliLarcs viros ad conculicnclos homincs proccdentia proh ibcre cl dcprehcnsa coerccrc pracses provinciae cure t , el sub specie tributorum illici tas exactiones fi cri pro hi beat.' D. 1.18. 7: 'Praescs prov inciac inspeclis aedificiis dominos co rum causa cognita refi cerc ea compellat ct advcrsus det racLanLem competcnti remedio deformitati auxilium fera t. ' In a very real sense, the praeses was the legal conscience of the province, who should ac t to protect the lesser men of his province . D. 1.1 8.6.2 : 'Ne potentiores viri humi­liores iniuriis adficiant ncve defcnsorcs eorum calunrniosis criminibus inscctentur inno­centes, ad religionem praes idis provinciae pertinent. '

31 D . 1.18. 2 : 'Pracses a pud se adoplarc po tcst , quemadmod um ct emancipare filium et manumitcrrc servum po tes l. ' And D. 1.18. 17 : ' Si for te praescs provinciac manumiseri t vel tutorcm dedcrit , prius quam cognoverit successorem advenisse, erunt haec rata. ' J . 1.26.l:

364 Tl\AOJTIO

Finally, the law contains some provisions regulating the behavior of a praeses. While he was not forbidden to associate with provincials, the law reminded him that close familiarity was unacceptable, because contempt for dignity was born out of the conversation of equals. The possibility of influence exerted through gift-giving was also recognized, since it was licit that a pracses accept only eatables or potables which could be consumed within a few days. The province was his place of duty, and he who ruled a province should not leave, except to offer prayer. Even then he should be gone only one da y, and he should not spend the night beyond the bounds of his provincc.32

This brief survey of the legal texts which refer to the last two categories of the legate, the legalus proconsulis and the lcga lus Caesaris or praescs, has dealt with the nature of their power, the source of their power, their duties and their limita­tions. In addition to broadening the scope of the investigation, this survey has made the investigation more complex, because the legate and legatin e power are associated with and described through specific legal terminology, the definition and significance of which are not immediately apparent. Among the terms are iurisdictio, imperium, impcrium maius, cognitio and cognitio ex lraordinaria. These terms must be reviewed in the context of the Corpus Juris Civilis, even though the Roman law often does not contain explicit definitions of terms like imperium - perhaps for the alleged reason that the classical writers, whose writings comprise the Digest and influenced the rest of the Justinianian law, never attempted such definition. What may be found, even if no more than an approxi­mation, should be considered before proceeding to the Gloss of Accu rsius.

The Digest seems to define iurisdiclio as the office of saying right; that is, the power to give decisions.33 Beyond that the Corpus attempts only to set guide­lines for the recognition of the presence of iurisd iclio. So iurisdiclio is held by one judging a dispute between parties only because he al ready llcads some tribunal or holds another jurisdiction.34 In other words, the agreement of private parties does not create iurisdiclio. Some legal and territorial restrictions are set. For one who holds iurisdic lio ought not to exercise it over his family or immediate

see text above, n. 21. D. 1.18.5: 'Pracses provinciac non magis tutorem quam specialcm iudicem ipse se dare potcst.' D . 5.1.19.1: 'Indices a pracsitle dati solcnt ctiam in tempus successorum cius durarc et cogi pronuntiarc easque scnlcnlias scrvari. ... ' See also D . 1.18.8 and 9. D. 5.1.79 .1 : 'ludicibus de iurc dubitantibus pracsidcs respondcre solent: de facto consulentibus non debcnt praesid es consilium impertire . . .. '

32 D. 1.18.19 (pr): ' .. . unde mandatis adicitur, ne praesiclcs provinciarum in ulteriorem

familiaritatem provinciales admittant: nam ex convcrsalione aequali contemptio dignitatis nascitur. ' D. l.18.18 : 'Pkbiscito continctur ut ne quis pracsidum munus clonum caperct nisi esculentum potulentumve, quod intra dies proximos procligatur.' D. 1.18.15: 'Illud observandum est, ne qui provinciam regit fines eius cxcedat nisi voti solvendi causa, dum tamen abnoctare ei non liceat.' The praeses who left his assigned province became a private citizen; see D. 1.18.3, quoted above, n. 27. At the same time, this title on the praeses gives expression to the Homan notion that the person of a magistrate and his magisterial power of office were not easily separated one from the other; so D. 1.18.20: 'Legatus Caesaris, id est praeses vel corrector provinciae, abclicando se non amilti t imperium.'

33 D. 2.1.1: 'Ius dicentis officium la tissimum est . . .. ' The last line of D. 2.1.3 is too

narrow for definition: ' .. . iurisdiclio est ctiam iudicis dandi lieentia.' 34

D. 5.1.1: 'Si sc subiciant aliqui iurisdictioni et consentiant, inter consentientes cuiusvis iudicis, qui trihunali pracest vel aliam iurisdictionem habet, est iurisdictio.'

l.EGA T llS JN lV!EDlE\' AL no"TAN LAW :365

company. And iurisd ictio is restricted to its assigned province, a restriction as binding as the competency of jurisd iction i tsclf.35 This suggested fra gm entation and stratification of iurisd iclio is confirmed by o th er parts of the Corpus, for jurisdic­tion may be held by right of office or by m andate from another. Jurisdiction held by right of office can be mandated to ano ther , subj ect to certain conditions; but jurisdiction held by mandate cannot be transferred lo anoth er .36 On the other hand, jurisdiction received frorn the emperor (principalilcr) or granted by the law itself apparently can be mandated.37 F in ally, we read th at a proconsul has plenis­sima iurisdiclio and consequently has in his province mai11s impcrillm suited to all purposes and exceeded only by that of the emperor.38

The relationship between iurisd iclio and imperium fi gures in many passages of the Corpus Juris C ivil is. In two instances, the appointment of a judge and the exercise by a praetor of the izzrisd ictio of another, izzrisd ictio and imperium appear to be equal and inlerchangeablc.39 ln another passage iurisdictio and imperium appear to have separate but necessary and mutual roles to play.10 As is the case witb iurisdic lio , impcriwn is stratified. Som e imperiwn is maius: a praeses h as maius imperiizm in all things in hi s province which is exceeded only by that of the emperor, and one holdin g maius imperiwn can end a judgment anywhere in that iurisd iclio.41 lmperium may also be either mernm or mix lum, with consequent limitations of the severity of penalties and the character of cases to which it is appropriate.12 Beyond this the law says that even in iurisdictio mandated to a private person, an imperiwn not merwn is m andated, because iurisdiclio without moderate coercion is nothing. Finally, we read that merum imperium mandated by law cannot be transferred.43

35 D. 2.1.10: 'Qui iurisdictioni praccs t, neque sibi iu s di ccrc debct ncqu e uxori vel liberis suis nequ c libertis vel cete1·is, quos sccu m habet.' D. 2.1.20: 'Extra Lcrritorium ins dicenti impune non paretur. id em est, et si supra iurisdi ctionem suam vclit ius dicere.'

36 D. 2.1.5: 'More rnaiorum ita comparatum es t, ut is demum iuriscl ictionem manc\are possit, qui earn suo iure, non alieno bcncficio habet:' and D. 1.21.1 (pr): ' ... quae vero iure magistratu s competu nt, rnandari possunt .... '

37 The sense of the Diges t is a little obscure, since Lhc opinions o( two jurisconsults are placed in conjunction with th e syntax sugges ting a continuity. So D. 2 .1.5, noted immediat e­ly above, is followed b y D. 2.1.6: 'ct quia nee principaliter ci iurisdiclio data est nee ipsa lex dcfert, sed confirmat mandatam iurisdictionem .... '

38 D. 1.18.4: ' Pracscs provinciae m ains imperium in ca provincia habet omnibus post principem. '

:m D. 5.1.12.1: 'Iudicem dare possunt ... qu i bus id rnorc conccssum es t propter vim im­perii, sicut praefectus urbi ce tcriqu e Romae magistratus.' D . 1.21.3: 'Et si praetor sit is, qui alienam iurisdictionem exsequitur, non tamcn pro suo impcrio agit, sec\ pro eo cuius mandatu ius elicit, quotiens partibus cius fun gitur."

40 D. 2.1.4: ' . . . in posscssionem mittcre imperii magis est quam iurisdictionis.' 41 D. 1.18.4: cited above, ri. 38 . D. 5.1.S8: 'Judicium solvitur ... eo qui mains imperium

in eadem iurisdictione ha bct .. . . ' 12 D . 2.1.3: ' Imperium aut merurn aut mixtmn es t. mcrum es t in>perium haberc gladii

potcstaten1 ad animadverlcndum facinorosos homines, quod etiam potes t as appcllatur. mixtum est imrierium, cui e tiam iurisdictio incst, quocl in clanda bonorum possessione con­sistit. iurisdic tio est etiam iudicis dandi liccntia . '

43 D. 1.21.5.1: 'Manda la iurisdictionc privato etiam imperium quod non est mcrum vide­tur mandari, quia iurisdictio sin e mo<lica coercitionc nulla est.' To which D. 2 .1.2 adds:

366 TRADITIO

The Corpus h as more to say about mandated i11risdiclio and the ab ility to mandate or to transfer iurisdic lio. Praetors are accustomed to m andating it, either in its entirety or in parl,'1'1 althou gh grants h eld specifica lly by law, by senalus cons111lum , or by imperial constitu t ion are not transferred wit h a juris­dictional mandate.'15 One who receives a jurisdictional m andate acts through the power of t he person who mandated and not through his own.46 Praesides and pro­consuls also can mandate iurisdiclia.47 F inally, m andated iurisdiclio cannot be mandated by a recipient to another,48 suggestin g that t he jurisdiction received by a legate from his proconsul must have been held by the latter iure magis lralus .49

In classical Hom an law, cognilio was ch arac lerized either as ordinaria or as ex lraordinaria. Cognilio ordinaria encompassed the first h earing of a matter before one holding jurisd ic tion. If after this hearing in ius fur ther proceedings were required, a second stage, apud iudicem , was entered. A judge (iudex, arbiter) , agreeable to both parties and authorized to pronounce judgment (iudica­lio) , was ass igned to reso lve the issues agreed to in advance as outstanding. Cognilio cxlraordinaria, on the other hand, combined before one person the first hearing of a case (iurisdiclio) and trial and judgment (iudicalio); the ex lra­ordinaria is exp lained by the fact that the normally sepa rate proceedings in ius and apud iudicem were combined in an order or m an n er outside the usual or customary.50 The procedure cognilio ex lraordi rwria cam e to prevail in the imperial period as judgment became more a m atter of pub lic law and less a matter of private proceeding - to the point th at the agreement of private parties no longer created iurisdiclio.s1 The Corpus does not dwell on this chang­ing cognilio procedure; the Jnslilules note merely that the change had occurred.52

'Cui iurisdiclio data es t, ca quoque conccssa cssc videnlur, sine quibus iuri sd ictio ex pli cari non potuit.' \Vith regard t o the t r ansfer of m crum impcrium, n. 1. 2 1. 1. l: ' . . . sed merum imperium quod legc da tu r non posse transire .. .. '

44 D. 2.1.1 6: 'Solct praetor iurisdictionem mandare: ct aut om nem mandat aut spc­cicm unam . . .. ' And D. 2. 1.17 : •Praetor sicut univcrsam iurisdict ionem mandare alii polest .... '

45 D. 1.21.1 (pr): 'Quaecumq uc spcciali ter lcgc vel senatus consulto vel cons titulione principum t ribuuntur, manda la iuri sdi ctione non Lransferuntur . ... '

46 D. 2.1.16: '. .. et is cui rnand ala iurisd iclio est fungctur v ice eius qui mandavit, non sua. '

47 D. 1.21.2: 'Mandala iurisdic lionc a praesicle ... . ' D. 1.1 6.5: 'A liquando mandare

iurisdiclioncm proconsul potest .... ' D . 1.1 6.6.1: • Sicut autcm mandare iurisdi clionem vel non mand are es t in arb itrio proconsulis .... '

48 D. 1.2 1.5 (pr): 'Mandatam sibi iurisdiclioncm man da re altcri non posse 1rn111 ifcs lum est.' 4

" D. 1.16. 13: 'Lcgati proconsulis nihil proprium habent, n isi a proconsule cis mandala fucrit iurisd ictio .'

50 1-1. P. Jolowicz, llis lorica l Introduction to the S tur/11 of Roman Law (2nd ed. Cambrid ge

1952) 46, 406-408, 416-417. F . Schulz, Class ica l /?om~n Law (Oxford 195 1) 13- 17. Pora fuller treatm ent of this and of other of Lhc rela ted classical backgrounds of t he terminology of power in Iloman law, see my article in S t11dia Gratiana 11 (1967) 470-472.

51 See above, n . 34. 52

J. 1 .15.8 : 'De 01dine cl vetcri exi tu inlerdiclorum supcrvacuu m est hodie dicerc: nam quolicns extra ordincm ius dicitur, qua lia sunt hodie omnia iudi cia .... ' And J . 3. 12 (pr): '· · · quando iudicia ordinaria in usu fu erunl: sed cum ex traordinar iis iudiciis posteritas usa es t ... . '

LEGATUS IN MEDIEVAL ROMAN L AW 367

The reader may b e excused at this point if h e cannot see that thi s review of the terminology of power in Homan law - t erms such as iurisclic tio and im­perium - has in any way advanced the case . . . if for no other reason than the fact that I am t empted to join him in that opinion ! Still, a few generalizations and observations are in order. luriscliclio, the public power to give decisions - indeed, the public power of office itself - may b e h eld by mandate from another, by right of office, or b y law; and it m ay itself b e mandated under cer­tain conditions. There are then many forms and competencies to jurisdiction, which in turn are associated with imperiwn, either as an equal and interchange­able attribute of office or as a separate but mutually necessary public power of office. At the same time, impcrium itself is stratified, with consequent compe­tencies appropriate to each category and with further restrictions laid upon t he licit mandate of such public power. In all of this, the position of the various categories of the lega ius as a power-bearing public office is furth er complicated. If nothing else , our app reciation of the m ental dex terity of the medieval Roman lawyers m ay b e enhanced by resolution of this great tangle. That said, it is time to turn to Accursius and his Great Gloss, the Glossa ordinaria.53

In an introductory gloss to the Digest titl e De iurisdic lione, Accursius dis­tinguishes two major treatments of iuriscliclio in the Digest. The title De iuris­dictione is said to deal generally with the worth or stren gth of all iurisdictio , considering jurisdiction as genus. On the other hand, an earlier title which is concerned with mandated iurisclielio deals only with a species of j urisdiction.54

The Gloss defines the genus iurisdiclio as the established public power which is indispensable for pronouncing judgment and establishing justice.55 Accursius himself disputes any definition of jurisdiction as simply the license of appointing a

53 The problem of gloss attribut ion in the G/ossa ordi11aria is manifold. Even a cursory reacling of kgi stic materi a ls written prior lo the co mpilation of the Grea t Gloss alerts one to the fact that many of the op inions an d analyses presented there originate in the intellectual process which b egan over a century earlier. The legis ls put no grea t. s tock in originality, and consequently the application to a gloss of one's own s igla, or th a t or a predecessor or of a contemporary, was a rather casual business. Althou gh t he Gloss docs contain many attri­butions or ideas and opinions to other legis ts and docs have many glosses bearing the s igla

of Accursius, we must, p ending the completion of a l'ull s tudy of the complete !WSS tradition and pr inted record, take those attributions cum grano sa /is . \Ve cannot even be certain that the last opinion or interpretation given in a gloss bearin g the sigla of Accnrsius is his own . Con sequently, in tracing the interpretation ol' the terminology of power and the position of the legal11s in t he Glossa ordinaria, I shall cite Accursiu s as source when the Gloss docs and simply refer the other opinions, which are unat tributed, to the Gloss itself.

54 D. 2.1. vv. De iurisdiclione : ' Hactcnus p er sin gula de officiis Jocutus est, designando quod proprium officium uniuscuiusquc sit: nunc communiter de omni iu risdiction c dicil. Sed quae est diffcrentia inter hunc tit. ct ilium supra [D. 1.21 ]. cum ct tibi lam de ordinariis quam de delegatis tractetur'I H cspon. ibi principaliter tractatur de iure delcgandi, quod contrahilur ex ipsa delegatione ordinaria vel delegatac iurisdictionis, id es t iurisd ic lionis quac habelur in dclegando, hie in cognosccndo, vel hie gcncraliter de omni virtutc iurisdiclionis: quasi hie genus: ibi species : vel ibi de delegato princip aliter. vel die aperlius supra dictum est scparatim de iurisdiclione ordinaria et delcgala: nunc communitcr. Accur.'

55 D. 2.1.1 v. poles!: ' ... Est cnirn iurisdictio polestas de publico inlroducta, cum necessi­tate iuris dicendi, et aequilatis s tatucndae.'

368 TR AD ITIO

judge. Following Irnerius h e call s that a gene ric predicat ion, a spec ies, an effect of iurisdiclio.sG

Accursius and the Gloss identify three types of iurisdiclio. Th e first is conten­tious and vo luntary jurisdiction. Contentious administers justice upon an un­willing person; voluntary administ ers justice only between volenlcs.57 The second type of iurisdiclio is ordinary and delegated . Ord inary juri sdiction is that given in all ca uses in some geogra phica l area, and singul ar causes ca n I.J c delegated by one who holds it. Delegated jurisdiction deals with one particular cause and cannot be delegated by one who receives it.58 Sources of ordinary jurisdiction include the emperor , the pope (in ordaining bishops), law, th e consent of a zzniversilas, and the consent of those who are of the sam e profession; the latter is to be distinguished from the consent of private p ersons, which docs not grant jurisdict ion . Delegated jurisdiction i!l grant ed by all who ca n give ordinary, and any ordinary whosoever ca n himself give delegated jurisd iction.59

The third type of iurisdiclio is imperiwn. At various points both Accursius and the Gloss define imperiwn, merum imperium and mix /um imperium as elements of iurisdiclio or as equivalents of iurisdiclio .GO

Although I have cat egorized the relationship between iizrisdiclio and impcrium as a third type of iurisdiclio, Accursius himself prefers to call this a discussion of iurisdiclio as genus, perhaps for the reason that the relationship bet ween iurisdic-

56 D. 2.1 .3 v. iurisdiclio: ' id es t de iuriscl ic tion e sua es t. n am ut ail Ir[ncriu s] non ponit definitioncm, sed generis praedicationcm, vcl nomen spcciei ponit, vcl effccLum .. · · Ac­cursius. '

57 D. 1.16.2 vv. omnes. con ten tiosam : 'Contcntiosa diciLur quac rcddilur in invilum. · · voluntaria vero dicitur, qu ac inlcr volcnlcs tan Lum .... '

58 D . 2.1.3 v. iurisdiclio: ' ... Sed cum dclcgatus iudex saltcm habcat dclegalam iurisdic­tionem. · · ib i, vcriu s es t c lc. ergo delegarc polcsl: quocl est l'a lsum . .. sed die cum non habcre gencralcm iurisd iclionem, sec! spcciem iurisdi clioni s. Si aulcm un ivers italcm iuri s­dictionis haberet, unam causam delcgarc posset. ... Ve! die, de iurisdict.ionc, scili ccl ordina­ria. Accursius.' The territoria l charac ter of i11rislliclio as genus and as species appears a l D. 2-1.16 vv. specicm unam: ' id est unam universitalcm eausnrum in aliqua v illa vcl castro, sibi in aliis locis servata .... ,

50 D. 2.1.6 v. principa/i/cr: ' ... cl hoc int clli ge de inrisdic lion e data a p rin cipc, uL faciat

eum orclinarium cui datur . . .. ' D. 2. 1. 6 vv. ncc ipsa /ex : 'irl es t consueLudo, fJU ac iuri sdic­tionem orcli nariam dat: ut IC. 8.48. 1 a nd 2] . .. . EL nola hie brcviter quis dal ordinari am vel dclega tam iurisdic lionem. ordinariam cla t papa ordin ando cpiscopos. Hem imperator

· · · · Item lex scripta . . . . Item consens us universita lis, Jicct a prcfec lo con firmari cl e­bcat. · · · Item consensus a liqu orum qui sun t de cad em profess ion e .... non au tern privato­rum consensus . · · . Delcgatam autcm iuriscli c tion em dal omnis qui dare potcst orclinariam. item quilibe t ordinarius dat delegatam ..... '

00 02 1 3 .. , . . . ' · · · v. wns1 1c l 10: ' id es t de natura iurisdiclionis es t, non de sua tant11m. Accursrns . D. 1.18.20 v. imperium: ' id es t iurisdiclionem . Accursius.' D. 1.2.1. l v. iurisdiclioncm: ' h ie nota cliam mcro impcrio iurisdic lion cm incsse.' D. 1. 2 1. :3 v . imperio: 'id es t pro sua iuris­dictionc. ' D. 2.1.3 v. eliam : 'quasi d icit n on solum merum impcrium . Accursius.' D. 2 .1.3 vv.

mix /um es t: '· · · ct die quod nomine iurisdic lionis ct mcrum impcrimn contincri videtur: sicut ex significatione vocabuli apparel. dicitur cnim iurisdictio a dition e, quod es t potes tas: cl iuris quasi dicitur lcgilima potcstas. cl sic manifeslc probatur supra [D . 1.21.1 ]. ibi, iuris­

cli clionem suam mandant. nam de m ero imperio dicit, cum de publicis criminilms dicat. · · · Accursius.'

LEG .-\TUS I N ~ I EDIE\',\L l~O\!A :--l !..\ \\' 36\"l

Lio and impcrium affect~ all types of iurisdic fio. 61 In his discussion of genus i11risdiclio Accursiu s di stinguishes four grades of iurisd iclio; one is mcr11m im­perium, anoth er mix lum imp crium , til e third rnorlcrnte coe rcion , and the fourth grade rema ins in its own name and is call ed iurisd iclin, which I slrnll call simple jurisdiction in an effort to avo id con fusion. Any worldl y cause can be judged un­der one of th ese four grades of jurisd iction. J1!lcrwn imperiwn covers causes con­cerned with a person, his citizenship, his liberty or t he loss of any of those. l \!lix lum imperium covers ca uses not numbered under mcrwn and also ca uses concerning the possession of goods . Si mp le iuri :;cliclio co ntains a ll those things which by right b elong to t he magistracy, pertaining to civil rather than to petty criminal causes. Moderate coercion is conta in ed in this iurisd ic lio.6~ The Gloss notes the fact t ha t some tilink m ix /um irnperium the equivalent of m oderate coercion, and it is quick to disagree. Thus t he imperium described as coh ering to iurisdic­lio is defined as m oder ate coercion , and the imperium not menzm m andated as iurisdictio to a private person is moderate coercion - castigation - as the law itself adds immed ia t el y. 6~ Ge neri c jurisd iction therefore contains four grades of imperium ; the three grades merwn impcriwn , mix lwn irnperiwn and moderate coercion are distingui shed in detail ; the exact distinction b etween moderate coercion and simple jurisd iction rem ains som ewhat obscure.

The four grades of jurisdiction arc attributed to the four orders of magistrates. who in descending order of im portan ce are the illuslrcs, the speclabiles, the clarissimi and sim ple magistrates . To the high er three are attributed those causes or m atters w ilich arc the concern of mcr11m or of mix lum imperivm.64

61 Sec above, n. 54. 62 D. 2. J. 3 vv. mix l11m es t: ' ... D ie ergo qu atuor esse grarlu s iurisdictionis . mun alias

m crum, ali as mi x lum, ali as eocrcili o modica, a li as rcmanct in suo nomin e, et iurisdi clio appclla tur .... E t onrn cm causam quae sil in munclo, imlica sub ali quo istorum, hoc modo: Sub mero imperio dieinrn s contincri qu anclocunq ne Lractatur de Lribns capilulis quae habe­mus, vid elicet de persona, item de civ ilatt', ilem de libertale, ul hi e: vel ul allerum hornm amilla mu s. n am scnlcnlia dicilur capita lis .... Su b mixlo autcm dicimn s eontincri quando duo intcrvcniun t. Prim um scilicet, quod non sil de numero t rium supradictorum . Sccunclum, qu od cu m causae cognilione dicalu r cssc cognosccndnm: ut patct in exemplo hie posilo. nam cul\1 causac cogn ilion e da lur bonorum possessio .. . . Sub iurisdictione es l omne id quocl con1peti t iure magistralu s. Qu ae a utpm ilia sint tam in civilibns quam in criminalibus levi­bus . ... Coercilio a utem modica hui c iurisdictioni incst. ... Accur. ' Substantially the same description is repea t.ell by Lil e Gloss at N . 15. 3 v. i11risdiclione. Were not the evidence for thi s interpre tation or grades ol' imperiwn wilhin a generic i1.1risdiclio so overpowering, the attempt made in D. 1.16. 7.2 vv. cum plcnissimam to grade i1.1risd iclio to match a graded imperium might be considered support for an inlcrpretation or th e two as separate and di stinct powers .

63. D . 1.21.1.1: ' ... cl imp erium quod iuri sdiclioni cohaeret. . . . 'D. J.21.1.1 v. imperium : 'id es t modicam cocrcitionem .' And v . cvlraer el: ' hie q uida m clicunt esse mixtum imperium, icl ·es t moclicam coercition em: nos conlra . . .. ' D. 1.21.5.1: 'Manda la iurisdictione privato etiam imperium quod non es t merum v idetur mandari, quia iurisdictio sine modica coerci­lione nulla esl.' D . 1.2 1. 5.l vv. eliam imperi1.1m: ' non dicas merum vel mixtum imperium: licet hpe quidam clicant : quia illucl delcgari non poles t. . , . scd modicam coercitioncm: id

est cas tiga tionem, ut s tatim supponil. ... ' .64 D. 1.21.l v . lrib1.1unl11r: 'hie no ta quatnor esse ordines magistratuum: illustres, spec­

tabiles c t clariss imi, ct simplex m agislratus. primis tribus tribuuntur hacc quae snnt de mero

370 THADITIO

Neither merwn nor mixtum imperium may be delegated by the first three orders of magistrates, says Accursius, not even to the ext·ent of the delegation of cog­nitio. Relying upon his grading of iurisdictio, Accursius denies that simple jurisdiction and mixlum imperum are the same, that one without the other cannot be, and that consequently whatsoever is of mixlwn imperium can be delegated, since it would be the same as, and of, jurisdiction. Accursius rather contends against such Iegists as Placentinus and Guilielmus that the command (imperium) necessary to make the lowest grade of jurisdict ion operative is moder­ate coercion, not mixlum imperium. In line with this, a praeses does not delegate a money cause above the value of 300 aurei, for such civil causes are of mixlwn imperium and cannot be delegated. Finally, Accursius remarks, it cannot be delegated because it docs not belong in right to any magistrate.66

And so arises the problem of the delegation of iurisdiclio considered in its four grades of merum imperium, mixlum imperium, moderate coercion and simple iurisdiclio, a problem because to delegate or to mandate merum or mix lum imperium seems clearly forbidden by the Corpus Juris Civi /is. Accursius and the Gloss approached the problem through the terms iure magislralus, suo iure, specialiter and alien benefit , as those terms appear in t he two Digest titles which deal with iurisdiclio. The relevant texts can be summarized quickly. vVhatever (quaecumque) is specifically attributed by law, by senatus consultum or by consti­tution is not transferred by mandated jurisdiction, although that belonging iure magislralus can be mandated. Jurisdiclio mandated to oneself cannot be man­dated to another; the custom of ancestors provides that he only can mandate illrisdictio who has it by his own right. Although jurisdiction held by alien benefit cannot be mandated, iurisdiclio held from the emperor (principaliter) or from the law, apparently can be mandated.66 The interpretation given these

vcl mix lo imperio. nam dantur pracsidi provinciac, ut supra [ n. 1. t 8.6.8[ qui cs l clarissi­rnus. · · . ergo nnrllo magis spcctahilibus, cl forlius illuslrilrns .. . . ' This is rcpra t·e<I al D. 1.18.6.8 vv. ius g/arlii.

65 D. 2.1.3 vv. mix/um cs l: ' . .. Prima duo non dclcgan lur, e liam quoad cognilioncm . . .. .

Quidam tamen dixcrunt ut diximus, ut P[lacentinus] et Guil[ielmus] quod iurisdictio, ct mixtum imperium idem eranl: ct unum sine a ltero cssc non possel, ex eo quod legitur supra [ D. 1.21.5.1 I et secundum eos quicquid cssct de mix to impcrio, dclr.gari pot.est: cum idem essct et de iurisdictione: quod est aperle falsum. ct ind. I. fi. [D.1.21.5.1 ] impcriu m ponitur pro modica cocrcitione: non pro mixto impcrio. Ex his igitur patct, quod eliam pccuniariam causam ultra ccc. aurcos pracscs non delegat. . .. quia non competit iure cniuslihrt magis­lratus. Accur.'

It should be noted at this poin t that after attempting lo distinguish between the terms 'delegate' and 'mandate,' the Gloss ad mils that the two words are generally used and understood in the same force and meaning. D. 1.21.t.1 vv. qui mandalam: ' mandala ct dclcgata iurisdictio idem est. vet die, mandari, quando universitas causarum: scd delegari, quando species una commiltitur . . . . unum tamen quandoquc pro alio ponilur.'

66 D · 1.21.1: ' Quaccumque speciali tcr lcge vel scnalus consul lo vel conslitu lione principum

trihuuntur, mandala iurisdictionc non transferuntur: quac vero iure magislralus competunt, mandari possunt. . . . ' D. 1.21.5: 'Mandatam sibi iurisdictioncm mandarc alteri non posse manifeslum est. ... ' D. 2.1.5: 'More maiorum ita comparatum est, ut is dcmum iurisdic-tioncm mandare possit, qui earn suo iurc, non alieno bcneficio habct:' which text seems to be

~omplcted by the next lex, D. 2.1.6: 'et quia nee principalitcr ci iurisdictio data est nee ipsa lex defcrt. .. . 'With regard to this ambiguity, sec above, n. 37.

LEGATUS IN MED IEVA L HOMAN LAW 371

passages b y Accu rsius and by the Gloss set s fo rth the attitude toward the transfer of power and represents our last an alys is preliminary to considering the legate in medieval Rom an Jaw.

The Gloss understands the quaecnmquc of D . 1.21.l to refer to merum and mixlum impcrium, because those forms of command are delegat ed specifically (spccialiter) to the higher magistrates, the maiorcs. It is true that iurisdictio may be intrusted through law and, because it is intrustecl through Jaw, it can be intrusted to another. This is possible b ecause iurisdiclio , as iurisdictio, is not attributed spec ialitcr to anyone.67 The Gloss continues to the effect that this argument applies only to the higher magistrates and is certainly not to be applied to municipal m agistrates, even though to some extent they do hold some things spccialiler. A distinction is drawn b etween som ething mandated specifically to a lesser as opposed lo som ething specifically united to him. For m erwn and mix lum imperium are specifi cally united to the higher magistrates - specif­ically andr in privilege. As proof the Gloss cites a passage in which anything more than moderate coercion is forbidden to municipal magistrates, who are of the fourth rank, simple m agis lralus.68 Unless, therefore, a m agistrate is of the firs t three ranks, who hold iurisdiclio in one or both of its two higher forms, a magistrat e is n ot specifica lly allowed to hold m crwn or mixlum imperiwn, and none who hold it can delegate it.

lure magis lralus is und erstood to m ean the power of any magistrate, so that something said to belong to someone in right of magistracy belongs to the office, which is true even of the most common little magistracy (vilissimus magislra­liimculus) . Consequ entl y, the merum impcrium which legally may belong only to the maiores - th e illu.slrcs, speclabilcs or clarissimi - belongs to the magis­tracy itself, to the orfice .69 By this we should understand that power, whether

67 D. 1.21.l v. q110cc 11111q11c: ' hoc signum, quaccunquc, comprehcndil ca quac spcctant ad merum imperium vcl mi x lum: quia hacc spccialitcr lll andantur maioribus. iurisdictio cnilll ct si demanclelur per lcge m, imo quia per legcm demandatur, a ltcri dclcgatur ut [D. 2.1.5

and 6] quia non spccialitcr mandalur alicui.' 68 n. 1.2·1.1 v . lrib1.111nl11r: ' . . . Die ergo tribuunlur, ut maioribus magislratibus: sccus

vcro si muni cipalibus magis tralibu s qui minillli sunt, aliquid c liam specialiler dcmandetur: sicut cis mandatur in [N . 15.3, 4 and (i.1). lune enim clcrnandatur, quia iurc magistratus compctit: ut hie elicit. vcl <lie melius, c liam si aliquid manclctur minimis specialitcr, non ta men dicitur speeialiler commitli, ut diccmus infra [D. 1.21.1 vv. q11ae vero iurc magislrat11s].

et sic die spccialiler, sci li ee t in priv ilcgium. Sed ubi causac mcri vel mixti imperii spccialiter v el in privilcgiulll comrniltunlur ? Hespon. co ipso, quod inferioribus n cgatur, ut infra ID. 2 .1.12] . ... ' And to the same lex, vv. q11ac CJcro i11re m agislralus: ' ... si vcro quia de maioribus est, aliquid habet in privilcgiulll spccialitcr lcge vel scnatuscon. sibi iniunclum, illucl non demandat. spccialilcr idco dixi, qui a si non specialiler alicuiu s rci cognilio, scilic­ct in p1·ivilcgium (alii dicunt id es t expressim ct singularitcr in privilegium) sec! gcneraliler omnium causarum discussio alicui iudici etiam maximo, pula quaes tori , dcmancl ctur, secus es t: quia demanclat de his quae non spectant ad mcrum vel mixtum impcrium ... vis ergo est faci cnd a in illo verbo, specialiter , quasi elicit commillunlur in privilegium: el quia de maioribu s est . ' The t ext of D. 2.1.12 runs as follow s: 'Magistralibus municipalibus supplieium a servo sumcrc non licct, modica autcm castigalio cis non es t deneganda. '

69 D. 1.21.1 vv. quae vero i11re magis/ra/11s : ' id est propler vim magistratus cuiuslibet. . . dicitur ergo iure magis tratus aliquicl alicui competcrc, quod competit co ipso quod magis­tra lus es t: hoc es t id haberet e tiam si vilissimus esset magistratiunculus. licet ergo et merum

-

372 T TIAD ITI O

given by custom , b y law, b y th e em peror or b y senalvs consu llum , can be de­scribed as held b y r ight of m agistracy. But t hat power ca nnot be m a nda ted if it fall s with in t he definit ion of t hose th ings att ributed spec ia lilcr t o m aiores - if it is a matter either of merum or of mi.xlwn imperiwn.

Something held suo iure is classed in t he sam e m ann er. Any power held in one's own r ight may be delegat ed, provided it is not conce rned wit h m erum or mix lum imperivm. Accordin gly, Accursi us glosses t he .mo iure of D . 2.1.5 as 'clearly ordina ry'; and the Gloss distinguishes bet ween ordina ry jurisdi ction intr ust ed specifically in privil ege (as to a m aior) a nd ordin ary jurisdi ction in­t rusted genera lly. Th e former cannot be delegated , the latter can be delegat ed.70

F ina lly, d ifficult ies concerning what belongs by a lien benefit, and consequently cannot be d elegated, a re discussed by Accursius . He underst ands t hi s t o mean t ha t a de legate cannot delegat e. But are 11ot til e emperor and ordin aries both delegates? Each holds iurisdiclio from another - the emperor from the R om an people, an ordinar y from the emperor - yet each delega t es . Accursius declares thi s possib le because both t he emperor and hi s ordinary hold by law. The em­peror holds b y the lex regia, even thou gh t he peo ple gave it ; his o rdina ry holds from the li ving law on earth, from the emperor as lex animala.n

T he interpret at ion by Accursius and the Glosrn ordinaria of iurisdiclio and imperium in the Corpus Juris Civilis can be summarized in the follo wing m anner. Jurisdiclio is identifi ed both as a genus and as a species. Under the genus iurisdic­lio fall the powers of governm ent, and that genus is divided into four grades : m erum imperium , mix lum in'lperiwn, moder a te coercion and simple iurisdiclio . iV!enzm imperium is concerned with a ll causes involving capul, which is to say all causes invo lv in g citizenship and freedom and punishment by th e power of t he sword. M ix lum imperium is concerned with matters below thi s level of serious­ness and involves the possess ion of goods, th e assignment of gua rdia ns to est at es valued at more than 50 so lidi , or civil m atters of a valu e greater tha n 300 aurei. JV!erum a nd mix lum imper ium belong to th e three upper ord er s of m agistrat es : the ii lus tres , the spec labi/es and the clariss imi. Because those grades of iurisdic­lio are a ttributed h y law spec ia/ilcr t o these magistra t es, and because they a re expressly d enied to the fo urth order of magistrates, the simple m:.lgis t rat e, t hey cannot be d elega t ed - except by the emperor, who is li ving Jaw. A sharp dis­tinction b etween mix lum impcriwn and moderate coercion is m aintained by Accursius a nd b y th e Gloss. Moderat e coercion is commonly associat ed with simple iizrisdiclio. In fact it acco~panies every grant of simple iurisdiclio, whether gra nted b y law, by delcgat10n or by wha tever agency . This iurisdiclio is held b y simple m agistra tes . Even th ough it may be held expressly from Jaw _ in fa ct b eca use it is given by law - it ca n be delegat ed ; because simple iuris-

. . n p c• t a t cuilibc t illusLri ct cla riss imo, co ipso quod est in co m agis tratu- n on 11nperium co1 • . . . tam en compctit nisi eis m aioribus. mun non mini mis . .. . •

70 D. 2

_1

_5 v v . . m o i11rc: ' sc ilicct ordin::t r io . Accurs ius . ' D . 2.1.6 vv. n ee ipsa /e.1:: ' ... et

I. t · , .

111 srJecia liLcr deferaL in p rivi lcgium, ut 1n a iori : ut tune non delcgat. an gcne-

tun c c 1s m gue • , . t L c 51· t · u t su1Jra [D . 1. 21.1]. r ah tcr, c · un · . . , . .

71 2.1.S vv. alien o bene/1cw: ac s1 d1ccrct, dclcga tus dclegare n on pot es t : nt supra

D. _ ( )] Sed nonne impcra tor habet iurisdic tioncm alicno b eneficio. id es t a populo [ O. 1.21.:> pr . · 1· · t 1· t t' I d .

I., 011 h a bere ex lege r cgia c 1c1 ·ur, 1cc · e ·1am p opu us de er1t . ... Jt em nonne

R omano'? -..esp · . . . . . d

. ·ius h ab et ben cfl c10 pnnc1p1s, et tamen dcman da t ? sed clic quod princeps es t quilibet or mar . ,

. . t crri s . .. . Accursms. Jex an11nata I11

LEGATUS IN MEDIEVAL HOMAN LAW

diclio is not specifically delegated to any particular class of magistrate. Many magistrates hold it, specialilcr and otherwise.

Iurisdiclio identified as species by Accursius and by the Gloss is delegated iurisdiclio. Although any type of iurisdiclio - ranging in grade from merum imperium through simple iurisdiclio - may be held by magistrates suo iure or iure magislralus and thus appear delegatable, matters involving merum and mixlum imperiwn cannot be delegated. This is because they have been specifical­ly (specialiler) attributed to the maiores by law. Only the two lower grades of iurisdiclio - moderate coercion and simple iurisdiclio, held .mo iure or iure mayislralus - can be delegated, because they are not specifically attributed to anyone. The prohibition on the mandate of iurisdiclio by one who holds by alien benefit applies neither to the emperor nor to his ordinary delegates, for each holds by law. The emperor holds by the lc:i; regia, and his ordinary delegates hold from the emperor as Jiving Jaw. Simple delegates are properly said to hold iurisdiclio, which is not ordinary jurisdiction but delegated jurisdiction.

The consideration of the texts and the Great Gloss of the m edieval Roman law is completed. Given this understanding of the medieval Roman law, its terminol­ogy of power and the use and meaning of that terminology, it is time to consider the legate, in the three categories of simple legalus, legalus proconsulis and legalus Caesaris or praeses . I shall begin with the latter.

Both Accursius and the Glossa ordinaria comment on the general nature of the term praescs . Accursius says that pracses is a name used in general on behalf of anyone who holds imperium according to the usual order. The Gloss attempts to define the term at three levels - accurately, as in the title on the office of praeses, where the implication is that a praeses is the governor of a province (praeses provinciac); more copiously, as in the first lex of that title, where the term is said to apply to proconsuls, to imperial legates and to all provincial rulers, even though they are senators; and most copiously, for without the .addition of the term provincire, the name is very general.72

Under the hand of Accursius and the Gloss, the praeses em erges a powerful magistrate. He holds mcrum imperium, since the Gloss interprets the qui uni­versas of D. 1.18.6.8 as clear reference to the governor of a province. The praeses also holds mixlum imperium, and in civil matters with a value less than 300 aurei he can delegate both cognilio and definilio to his own representative.73

Although the praescs holds merum imperium specifically (specialiler) from law, he can delegate cognilio in m atters involving mcrwn imperium, provided he is necessarily absent from the province - a provision quite foreign to the normal dictates of the Corpus as interpreted by Accursius and the Gloss. 74

72 C. 3.3.2 vv. in praesidum: 'nomen generale est pro quolibet ordinario habente impcrium [D. 1.18.1) . Accursius.' D. 1.18.1 vv. et proconsulis: ' ... et sic tribus modis dicitur praeses : strictc: ut in hoc titu. largius: ut hac lex. largissime: ut in glossa parva quae incipit, scilicet provinciae [vv. praesidis nomen].'

73 D. 1.18.6.8 vv. qui universas: 'id est universi qui regunt provincias, scilicct praesides vel proconsules, vel quicunque sint, ut supra [D. 1.18.1). secus in magistratibus municipalibus, ut infra [D. 2.1.12).' For the mix/um imperium of a praeses, see above, n. 65.

74 D. 5.1.12.1 vv. a Lege : ' ... pone cxemplum in Silaniano senalusconsulto quod permittit delegari cognitionem, si contingit praesidem abesse. supra [D. 1.21.1.1] .. .. ' D . 1.21.1 vv. poss it eam: ' scilicet cognitioncm tantmn, non ctiam dcfinitionem, maxime in ca pi tali causa vel membri abscissione .... ' To the same lex, v. proficiscalur: 'id est ex necess.itate contingat

374 Tl1ADITIO

The ~loss has more of interest to say about a praescs and his imper!um. It is no.t p~ss1ble for a pracsf's to abdicate his impcriwn, unless he has the nght to do thrs given him by the emperor.75 When he is outside his assigned province, the praeses is considered a privatus by the law; that is, he has only the rights and powers of an ordinary citizen. But the Gloss indicates that he is a privalus in cont~ntious matters only and that he can manumit and adopt while outside his ?rovi~ce. The Gloss compares the pracses who is outside his province to an mterdicted priest and to the king of England when he is outside the country of a ~:te~dent people. The praesf's, like these two, does not lose the power ~ f his

h . ice, he loses the exercise of that office Also while outside the boundan cs of IS pr . . ' . · ·

F ovmce, a praescs can send a representative in from the outside to Judge. 76

or as Accursius comments, his own punitive po\.vcrs are not operative, but he

dc~n .order a delegate to judge and can give that delegate the appropriate juris-1ct1on. 77

There are at I · t l l I b "d . . eas two reasons why a praescs and a proconsu cou c e cons1 -~1

eel equivalent. The law places proconsuls within the meaning of the general

1 ~rm pra.eses, and the law also indicates that both the praeses and the proconsul lclVe mams i · · s · f ti . t mpenum after the emperor in their assigned provmce.7 In spite o ia ' the Gloss · "th the le . resists grouping proconsular legates in the same category w1 ·

!Jro gates of a praeses or with a praeses considered as Caesarian legate. Formerly, consular Iegat . · p es were created only after the proconsul had entered !us provmce.

rom the time of J · · f cot ustmian, however, it was possible for proconsuls as a matter o irse to create I egates before entering their provinces and to mandate appro------

curn abcsse ' . . D 1 2 · · · · · At other tunes a n exception might be made in Lhc interest of a ward, as

· · 1.4 suggested. 75

D. 1.18.20 · · ,. . . . . . . separ v. abdicando: 1d est volcns se ab impcrio, id est, rnr1sd1ct10nc abd1carc, 1d est

arc non po test. . .. f .. . . . . . . . . ' 76 D · n1s1 ac1at 1n rnanu prmc1p1s a quo habct. tune cnun posset. .. .

· 1.l8 .3 vv prae•·es · l · · · d" L" darn · " · prwa us esl: 'quantum ad contcnLwsam rnns 1c wncm exerccn-' non quantun . d . . . . .

cxequ· 1 a voluntar1am, ut supra [D. 1.Hi.1 and 2j. item hoc, s1 volcbat a hqmd i extra provi . . . . . .

vinci . nciam, puLa dcmandarc scntcnLiam cxccutwm de re ex1stcntc extra pro-arn, Vel mtra . •. . . . . ,

plusqu·i . 'per sc. scd per delcgatum sic potest, uL supra [D. 1.12.3). quod non potcst imperi~1:. ptritiva~us. · · · non au Lem dico si cxicrit, uL ob hoc vidcatur in provincia amisisse V · dicunt Vascones · d" A i· · · · · · asconi . . . ' qui 1cunt sc non Lcncri sub rcgc ng me n1s1 1pse sit 111

a. a has nolunt · . male intclr ci serv1rc: sed dicunL cum privaLum: e L non csse eorum rcgcm. scd cium lioc tigunt. nam non est privatus: sicut nee saccrdos desinit csse, cui inLerdicitur offi-. arnc dicendis . n_~st quod non habct cxcrcitium iurisdictionis extra provinciam suam : quia in

sen ten Lus m . . gare et· orem suorum mawrum dcbeL scrvarc . . .. potcsL Lamcn ct dcbcL dclc-

1am extra ut cl I . 77 D. l.l2 3 '. e c~aLus mtra provinciam cognoscat: ut tlixi supra [ D. 1.12.3 v. iubere].'

ut ID. 1.21 ;1

v . IU.be~e: · ·. sed cum es t extra, non punicndi, scd iudicandi cL delcgandi sic; ut infra Io".

1". ;u .die 1t1 qualibct causa: quia si est extra fines suac iurisdic tionis, privatus est:

rem, qu 8

·31· unde non potcsL iudicarc. Hem quia non poLest servare morcm maio-cm scrvarc d l

ct hacc su t . c )Cl. · · . scd delcgare potcs t, ct iubere delegato ut iudicct, ut hie. 78 n Vera conLcnt1'0 · · · ct· · · · A · ' D. 1.18 l · , sa rnris 1ct1one, 111 volunta11a secus .... · ccurs1us.

· · Praes· 1· ornncs 1 . . ic is nomen gencralc est coque et proconsulcs c t lcgati Cacsaris et Jrovmc1as re , . specialis est., D ~cntcs, hcct scna torcs sint, praesides appellanLur: proconsulis appcllatio Pcm.' And D · l.l6.8: 'ct idco maius impcrium in ca provincia habct omnibus pos t princi­post Prine· · 1. l 8.4: 'Pracses provinciac maius imperium in ea provincia habct omnibus

ipern.' A. • . . D. 1.18 4 v

1 ccurs1us rnadc a note refcrrmg the last two texts one to the other; see

· v. ~raeses · · · post pr111c1pem.

LEGATUS IN MEDIEVAL nOMAN LAW 375

priatc iurisdiclio to them.70 Since proconsular legates are not to be confused with the legates of a praescs, the Gloss says that there arc two things which are particu­lar (speciale) in a proconsular legate. First, he can judge and remove a suspect guardian, whereas the legate of a praeses can only judge co ncerning such matters. The second special aspect of t he proconsular legate is the fact that he has cognilio of all crime, civil and criminal; but he cannot sentence. No other legat e, with the exception of a praetor's, has such vast powers of cogniliu. This, the Gloss com­ments , is the lone exception to the rule against the m andate of iurisdictio by one who himself holds that iurisdiclio b y mandate; for a lthough the proconsul holds by mandate , he can still m andat e complete cognilio to his legat e in civil and in criminal matters.so

Two disparate passages in the Digest ra ise the question whether the proconsul­ar legate has iurisdiclio of his own, or whether he exercises the iurisdiclio of another. One passage says that a proconsular legate has nothing of his own, except that given him by the proconsul. Another passage speaks of proconsular legates in North Africa havin g propriam iurisdictionem. The Gloss suggests that this is propria only after delegation. Accursius specifically denies that this iurisdiclio becomes their own. It is, rather, delegated iurisdiclio.81 Yet a third passage of the Corpus implies that a proconsular legate has his own jurisdiction, as he is among those able to a ppoint a judge.82 The best answer that the Gloss can offer is to say that this is speciale in the legate of a proconsul. Although he has neither the right of definilio nor the right of harsh punishment, as a result of the jurisdiction he holds, the proconsular legate does exercise moderate coercion.83

70 J . 1.26.1 vv. legato proconsulis : ' . .. Sed dicunt quidam nomen µra esidi s il>i generalc esse, ut etiam lrnnc delegatum, et sic om ncm delegatum comprehendat, ut [ D. 1.18.1). Sed vcrius es t in hoc legato duo cssc spccialia ... . ' D. 1.16.5 vv . a liq11 ando . necessariam : 'ct sic spccialis erat hie casus olim. alias non, ut [D. 1.16.4.6]. sed hodic vicarium sivc dclcgatum sivc legatum constituit, cum ipsc nondum vcnit: vel si potcst, exit de provincia: quia omnia potes t quac ipsc proconsul, prac ter mortis illa tionern , ct mcmbri al>scissioncm .... '

80 J . 1.26.l v . praelori: ' .. . Scd dicunt quidam quantum ad cognitioncm non quantum ad remotionem: et dicunt tantum csse spcciale in legato a proconsulc, ut ipsc possit removcrc: non sic in legato a praeside, sed cognoscerc Lantum potcst. ' To the sam e lex, vv. legato pro­consu/is: ' .. . Seel verius es t in hoc legato duo csse spccialia. 1mum es t, ut de hoc criminc possit cognosccre et dcfinire: ut hie et [D. 26 .10.1.1 and D. 1.2JA]. Item ct aliud ut de omni crimine cognoscat, licet non pronuntict, ut [D. 1.16.6). Rcstat ergo ut per alium delcgatum hoc ficri non possit, ni si per is tum, et praetoris, ut supra dixi [v . praeloriJ.' Also D. 5.1.74 vv. de quare cognoveril: ' .. . scd specialc est in legato proconsulis, ut de criminibus cognos-cat, licet non pronuntiet. ... ' D. 1.16.() v. coercilionis: 'c tiam ad cognoscendum , nisi in hoe legato: ut dixi. sed in alio legato transit modica eoercitio, ut [D. 1.21.5.1). non quae sit merum vel mix tum imperium: ut hie.'

81 D. 1.16.13: 'Legati proconsulis nihil µroprium hal>ent, nisi a proconsule eis mandata fuerit iurisdictio.' D. 1.21.4: ' . . . Cum propriam iurisdictionem legatis tuis dcderis .... ' D. 1.16.13 v. proprium: ' ... Ve! die, habet il>i propriam post dclegalionem, ut hie subiicit.' D . 1.21.4 vv. cum propriam: 'id es t quae crat tua propria, non quac fiat eorum propria ... . Accursius.'

82 D. 5.1.12. 1: ' .. . is quoquc cui mandala est iurisdictio iudicem dare potest: ut sunt Jegati proconsul um ... . ' D. 1.16.12 vv. legalus. liabel : ' si hal>es, ius hal>et: concordat infra [D. 5 .1.12.1 ). sed contra [C. 3.1.5). Sol. spccialc est in legato proconsulis . . . . '

83 D. 1.16.11 vv. s i quid eril. alrocicer: 'sed modicc: ut [D. 1.21.1 and 5 .1).'

376 TCTADITIO

The third category of representative, simple leya lus, receives the same short treatment with regard to the terminology of power in the Glussa ordinaria as it did in the law. A gloss to the Code title De lega lionibus points out that many people and many universilales send and receive legates . As in t he law itself there is no attempt to relate simp le lcgalus to the more specifically empowered representatives known as pracses or as lega lus procunsulis.81

By way of summary and conclusion, I offer these observations. Accurs iu s and his Glossa urdinaria present a series of general principles w hich are interpreta­tions of texts of the Corpus Juris Ciuilis applied to those same disparate t exts. With regard to the three categories of legates to be found in the Corpus, two sets of general principles are apparent . Paramount is the ordering of the con­fused, ill-defined and confusing t erminology of power in Homan Jaw. A relation­sh ip is established between iurisdiclio and impcrium - both in general and in variously graded manifestations. The competence of subsequent grades of this indispensable public power, the level of magistracy to which each is appro­priate, the manner in which it is held, and the consequent extent or degree to which it can be mandat ed, delegated or transferred to a subordinate - those things are harmonized, ordered, regularizet.l. So on t11e one hand the princeps emerges as the superior magistrate in a hierarchy of power reaching downto th\! vilissimi magislratiunculi. In a recognized fiction, the emperor is not a delegate of the populus but holds by law; the most powerful of hi s delegates, whose iurisdic­tio is plenissima and whose imperium is maius after the emperor 's, hold from him as living law; and the delegatability of such iurisd iclio ordinaria, attributed specia liler to maiores, ends at that point. JYie rum and rni:dum imperiwn, then, emerge as the exclusive province of the maiures. They, like the emperor, hold by law but are distinguishable as his delegates who hold lesser kinds of plenissima iurisdictio and of maius imperiwn, unspecified either by the law or by Accursius and his Glossa ordinaria. On the other hand, this apparently neat schema frays somewhat in two places: at its juncture with a second set of general principles, developed from the various categories of legates, and at the point one inquires of other ordinaries, other holders of iurisd iclio ordinaria .

The threefold division of legat es in the Corpus Juris Ciui/is was preserved by Accursius, and the application of the general principles of the terminology of power of Homan law to legates and to their textually specified powers provided some difficult moments. At the root of one problem was the declaration that merum imperium mandated by law cannot be transferrecl.s5 The princeps had escaped the onerous status of delegate of the people through Accu rsius' affirma.­tion that the emperor held by law, the lex regia. But given that situation, it would seem impossible for his own most powerful delegates, the proconsuls and the praesides, to hold menzm imperium; for the emperor, holding merum im­perium by law, would be unable subsequently to mandate or to delegate it. Aside from being unworkable practically, that proposition is countered by texts of the law which declare that proconsuls and praesidcs have and exercise merum imperium. Accursius solved the dilemma by recalling that the emperor is lex animala in terris; his delegates therefore also hold merum imperium from

84 C. 10.65 vv. De legalionibus: '. · . . et dicitur Iegatus, qui a civitate vel provincia mittitur ad principem, vel ad alium: ut hoc ti. alias legatus proconsulis ul [D. 1.16.'1.1 and 16]. alias legatus eeclesiae ad papam .. .. alias qui mittilur a principc, vel papa . ... '

86 See above, n. 43 .

LEGATOS IN MED IEVAL ROMAN L AW 377

law - in this case the emperor as living law on carth .86 Olher conflicts between the schema of power, the schema of legation and extant specifications of power were not so easily or so adroitly avoided. In at least three instances I have touched upon, Accursius and the Gloss abandoned general principles of power in order to adhere to the texts of the Corpus Juris Civilis. In this regard, a praeses necessarily absent from his province could delegate to his legate the cognilio of cases involving mcrum imperiwn; the vast cognilio powers of a proconsular legate were an exception to the rule that one who holds something by mandate cannot himself mandate it to another; and the power of a proconsular legate to appoint a judge was speciale.87

The second fraying of the schema of public power used by Accursius occurs with regard to iill"isdiclio ordinaria, which is defined as that given in all causes in some geographical area.88 The empowering command of such iurisdiclio includes the highest forms of imperiwn, merum and mixlum. It would seem then that one holding iurisdiclio ordinaria holds an imperium equal to that of the emperor, or at least one called by the same name and capable of the same actions. It is clear that delegates or legates of the princeps are magistrates inferior to their principal; however plenissima their iurisdiclio may be, however maius their imperium may be, their public power is such only after the i!mperor, ranking them below their hierarchically superior principal. At the same time, the ultimate form of impcrium is merum, and that is part of the command of all ordinaries; the emperor is but one among many, as well as source of other, iurisdicliones ordinariae. For there are other ordinaries in the world, magistrates who are not creatures of the emperor; and there are other sources than the princeps of ordi­nary, of general, delegatable iurisdiclio. Among those sources are custom, law (lex scripla) and the consent of an universilas.89 Be that as it may, this is neither the time nor the place to argue multiple sovereignty in the legal theory of Ac­cursius, but I think that what I have said helps to confirm that it is difficult to present the medieval legists as unambivalent, monolithic imperialists, although the tendency is still to disparage the legists as ivory-tower men, secure from and innocent of the harsh realities of medieval life and politics.

Yet the evidence of the Glossa ordinaria suggests otherwise by fleeting and tantalizing references to other legal systems and to concerns of the temporal world. So the canonical notion of office is recognized and paralleled to the Roman law: the office of an ordained priest, like impcrium, never ends - al­though its exercise may be interdicted. In something of the same vein, the Vas­cones are corrected with regard to their mistaken view of the non-efficacy of the imperium of their absent prince, the rex .Angliae.90 These references are tanta­lizing because, as with the Emperor Frederick's concessions to the Lombards, Accursius offers these examples and then rushes off. In the same manner, the

so See above, n. 71. 87 Sec above, nn. 74, 80 and 82. SB Sec above, n. 58. 89 Sec above, n. 59. In a summary comment on iurisdiclio, imperium and their location and

competence as public power at N. 15.3 v . Iurisdiclione, the Gloss reaffirms custom as a source of merum and mix/um imperium and adds a contemporary touch about the emperor as source: ' . . . tum ex consuetudine; tum quia quibusdam civitatibus hoc concessum est a principibus quandoque, ut a Friderico Lombardis.'

uo See above, n . 76.

378 T RADITIO

. , f t he forest, are legists recognized and affirmed t h at all m en , except t hose 0 undane

d . 1 10r the m ruled.91 And t he legists th emselves escaped neither t hat zc um 1 ho }lad context of its enforcement . So wh en Bulgarus t he Goldenmouth-W·versUas

. . 11 t t <l by t he unz married a widow an<l t aken t h e one-day honeymoon a o e 0 11 thC t · . lectures

to professors at Bologna- h ad t he misfort une to r esume ns .. 1 11an.u2

. . l . it of t 1e Codex at the text R em non novam , his students laughed nm ot b .. ire and ' . b . . the o set f h e legists m ay appear t o be m en of the forest as they la 01 111 rays . . d f m the sun difficult t exts of t he R oman law, but they were not sh ade ro and the moonbeams of worldly affairs.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln J H T PEHHIN · on N v> •

· es ' 91 ·1vest res 11om111 ·

D . 1.1.9 v . reguntur : 'scd qui sunl illi qui non rcguntur '1 Rcspon. 51 . . in

· . 1 olar1bns cum 92 C. 3 .l.12 vv. Rem non novam: 'Hie fuit dcrisus Bulg[ arus} a suis sc 1

nocte duxissel uxorem viduam, ct m ane inciperet legem is tam.'