[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Lawyers and Absolutism (was: Re: I'll probably etc.)

Greetings fromn Leifer.

Regarding the premise quoted prior to the Yorkist/Lancastrian business (who
cares which Frankish chieftan sits on the throne in some barberous island at
the far end of the world?),  I find it unlikely that lawyers "created"
absolutism.  Certainly not in England, were lawyers opposed it as utter
nonesense and a Papist (read, civil law) plot.

The root of absolutism may stem from legal theory, but not from lawyers.  In
this, it seems to me, we have a clear break between civil and common law.
 Civil Law begins with the Roman texts, which state as a basic principle "The
will of the Prince is the force of law."  Roman legal theory sees the central
government as the source of law, and that law is the primary *responsibility*
of government.  (Consider that Justinian is remebered for his codex as well
as his conquests.)

Common law legal theory, when it develops, focuses much more on the
reciprocity of of the feudal relationship as the basis of legal theory.
 Consider that the seminal texts, Litleton, Brachton, etc. were written after
Magna Charter (which sets limits on the monarchy in favor of the aristocracy.
 However, even by Littleton's time, the idea that MAgna Carter protected the
*people* rather than the aristocracy was beginning to gain credibility).

If nothing else, consider how the English lawyers resisted the Stewarts'
attempts to impose absolutism.