Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:51:53.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Richard Hooker and the European IUS Commune

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Richard Helmholz
Richard Helmholz
Affiliation:
Professor of Law in the University of Chicago
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Placing Richard Hooker (d 1600) within the history of European thought has never been easy. The work of this Elizabethan defender of the English Church seems to defy exact categorisation. Publication in the Folger Library Edition of Hooker's complete works has, however, made knowledge about him easier to acquire than it once was, and in particular it makes possible a more accurate assessment of a question of interest to readers of this Journal. How much did he know about the ius commune, the amalgam of Roman and canon laws that governed practice in the tribunals of the Church? More than that, because the Folger Edition includes all Hooker's surviving writing—even his sermons and autograph notes—it is possible to discover more about the ways in which Hooker made use of the legal sources at his disposal, including those from the Roman and canon laws.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 28 , January 2001, pp. 4 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2001

References

1 See Kirby, W. J. Torrance, Richard Hooker's Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy (Leiden 1990) pp 5–29.Google Scholar

2 The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, Hill, W. Speed ed, 7 vols (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Tempe, Arizona, 1977–98)Google Scholar. (Citations given hereafter by volume and page number of Works, with references to the original text following in parentheses. The spelling of Hooker's text has been modernised throughout.) In citing the texts of the Corpus iuris civilis and the Corpus iuris canonici, I have used the following abbreviations:

Dig 1.1.1 Digestum Justiniani, Lib 1, tit 1, lex 1

Cod 1.1.1 Codex Justiniani, Lib 1, tit 1, lex 1

Inst 1.1.1 Institutiones Justiniani, Lib 1, tit 1, lex 1

Dist 1 c. 1 Decretum Gratiani, Distinctio 1, can. 1

C 1 q 1 c 1 --------------------, Causa 1, quaestio 1, can. 1

X 1.1.1 Decretales Gregorii IX, Lib 1, tit 1, cap. 1

Sext 1.1.1 Liber sextus, Lib. 1, tit 1, cap 1

Extrav Extravagantes (in Corpus iuris canonici)

3 Barton, J. L., ‘The Faculty of Law,’ in History of the University of Oxford, vol 3, McConica, James ed (Oxford 1986) pp 271–272.Google Scholar

4 See Stewart, Pamela, Diocese of Salisbury: Guide to the Records of the Bishop, the Archdeacons of Salisbury and Wiltshire and other Archidiaconal and Peculiar Jurisdictions (Bradford-on-Avon: Wiltshire County, Council, 1973) pp 25, 100.Google Scholar

5 1 Works, p 41 (Lawes, Preface 8.4). See, however, Walton, Izaak, The Lives of Dr John Donne, Sir Henry Wooton, Mr Richard Hooker, Mr George Herbert, and Dr Robert Sanderson (1825 ed) p 180Google Scholar, noting that Hooker had studied ‘the Philosophers, Casuists, and Schoolmen; and with them the foundation and reason of all Laws, both Sacred and Civil.’

6 See eg Neelands, W. David, ‘Hooker on Scripture, Reason and “Tradition”’, in Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community, McGrade, Arthur S. ed (Tempe, Arizona, 1997) pp 75–94, esp pp 77–78Google Scholar; Forte, Paul E., ‘Richard Hooker's theory of Law,’ 12 Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies (1982) pp 133–157.Google Scholar

7 See eg Thompson, W. D. J. Cargill, ‘The Philosopher of the “Politic Society”’: Richard Hooker as a Political Thinker,’ in Studies in Richard Hooker. Essays Preliminary to an Edition of his Works, Hill, W. Speed ed (Cleveland and London 1972), pp 3–76Google Scholar, describing at pp 21–22, Hooker's debt to scholastic theologians without any mention of any debt to scholastic lawyers. See also Munz, Peter, The Place of Hooker in the History of Thought (London 1952)Google Scholar; D'Entrèves, A. P., The Medieval Contribution to Political Thought: Thomas Aquinas, Marsilius of Padua, Richard Hooker (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Marshall, John, Hooker and the Anglican Tradition (Sewanee, Tennessee, 1963), pp 66–74.Google Scholar

8 3 Works, p 424 (Lawes VIII:8.3)(Inst 4.17 pr); 3 Works, p 254 (Lawes VII: 18.2)(Cod 1.4(7)34); 3 Works, p 349 (Lawes VIII:3.4)(Dig 1.2.2.11); 3 Works, p 268 (Lawes VII:20.4)(Nov 6 pr). There is a fuller list in the Folger Edition's Index: see 7 Works, pp 65–66.

9 5 Works, p 335.

10 2 Works, p 276 (Lawes V:62.10)(Cod Th 16.6).

11 See eg ‘Hooker's Autograph Notes’ in: 3 Works, pp 463–538. The rude comment is found in Gibbon, Edward, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch 44 (Everyman, ed 1910) vol 4, p 374.Google Scholar

12 eg 2 Works, p 313 (Lawes V:65.14)(d p Dist 63 c. 28); 3 Works, p 394 (Lawes VIII:6.8)(X 2.1.13);3 Works, p 418 (Lawes VIII.7.5)(Sext 1.6.3–4).

13 2 Works, p 79 (Lawes V:20.10)(Extrav Johannis XXII 7.1).

14 eg 3 Works, p 470 (Autograph Notes)(gl ord ad X 2.13.13).

15 eg 3 Works, p 520 (Autograph Notes)(Pope Innocent I from C 9 q 3 c 13); 3 Works, p 31 (Lawes VI.4.7)(St Augustine from De Pen Dist 1 c 85).

16 2 Works, p 266 (Lawes V.61.4)(Azo); 3 Works, p 482 (Autograph Notes)(Guido de Baysio commonly called Archidiaconus); 3 Works, p 470 (Autograph Notes)(Hostiensis and Innocent IV); 3 Works, p 482 (Autograph Notes)(Joannes Andreae); 3 Works, p 538 (Autograph Notes)(Fulgosius); 2 Works, p 42 (Lawes V.9.1)(Panormitanus).

17 His Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae) was mentioned numerous times in Hooker's writings: see the list in 7 Works, p 170.

18 3 Works, p 397 (Lawes VIII.6.9)(Bodin); 3 Works, p 417 (Lawes VIII.7.5)(Duarenus); 2 Works, p 250 (Lawes V.58.3)(Lancellotus); 2 Works, p 37 (Lawes V.7.3)(Tiraquellus); 3 Works, p 417 (Lawes VII.7.5)(Costalius).

19 See McGrade, A. S., ‘Constitutionalism Late Medieval and Early Modern—Lex Facit Regem: Hooker's Use of Bracton,’ in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Bononiensis: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, Schoeck, R. J. ed (Binghamton. NY, 1985) pp 116–121.Google Scholar

20 6 Works, p 353–354 (Smith); 3 Works, p 486 (St German).

21 1 Works, p 325 (Lawes IV.12.7).

22 This point was made by A. S. McGrade in an editor's footnote in Hill, W. Speed, ‘Richard Hooker in the Folger Edition: An Editorial Perspective,’ in Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community (above note 6), p 18Google Scholar, n 41. Hill's contribution accorded greater weight to Hooker's use of Roman and canon law sources than McGrade would have allowed.

23 There is a list in Duncan, J. Derrett, M., Henry Swinburne (?1551–1624) Civil Lawyer of York (York: Borthwick Institute, 1973) pp 34–47.Google Scholar

24 eg 2 Works, p 313 (Lawes V.65.14)(citing the Decretum, d p Dist 63, c 28, in which the canons allowing the emperor a role in the election of bishops were reformed, or rather abolished, because the practice was said to have led to abuses and the selection of unworthy pastors).

25 3 Works, p 394 (Lawes III.6.8).

26 3 Works, p 6 (Lawes VI.3.1).

27 3 Works, p 241 (Lawes VII. 15.14).

28 3 Works, p 386 (Lawes VII.6.1).

29 1 Works, p 235 (Lawes III.8.16)(citing C 25 q 1 c 5). I have sought to explore this question in ‘The Canons of 1603: The Contemporary Understanding,’ in English Canon Law: Essays in Honour of Bishop Eric Kemp, Doe, Norman, Hill, Mark, and Ombres, Robert eds (Cardiff 1998), pp 23–35Google Scholar

30 2 Works, p 458 (Lawes V.79.14)(Inst 2.1.7).

31 2 Works, p 405 (Lawes V.73.7)(Dig 25.7.4; Dig 32.1.49.6; Dig 39.5.1).

32 2 Works, p 276 (Lawes V.62.10)(Cod 1.6.2).

33 2 Works, p 381 (Lawes V.71.9)(Cod 3.12.3,9).

34 3 Works, p 508–509 (Autograph Notes)(C 2 q 7 c 41). See also 3 Works, p 394 (Lawes VIII.6.8)(X 2.1.13)

35 See Ferme, Brian Edwin, Canon Law in late Medieval England: A Study of William Lyndwood's ‘Provinciate’ with particular reference to Testamentary Law (Rome 1996)Google Scholar, and id ‘Lyndwood and the Canon Law,’ in English Canon Law (above, note 29), pp 13–22.Google Scholar

36 1 Works, p 165 (Lawes 11.5.7).

37 3 Works, pp 475–476 (Autograph Notes)(citing Lyndwood, the Codex, and the Gregorian Decretals as well as English authorities).

38 See eg, 3 Works, p 507 (Autograph Notes).

39 3 Works, p 393 (Lawes VIII.6.7–8)(citing Dist 96.1–16; X 5.31.1—18; gl ord ad Dist 96.4).

40 eg 2 Works, pp 79–80 (Lawes V.20.10)(citing Extrav Johannis XXII 7.1).

41 1 works, p 119 (Lawes 1.12.1)(Dist 1 c 1); 2 Works. p 258(Lawes. V.60.5)(citing Dig 1.3.18).

42 2 Works, p 270 (Lawes V.62.4)(citing Inst 1.21.1 and Dig 6.1.9).

43 3 Works, pp 469–470 (Autograph Notes)(citing X 2.1.4; X 5.1.32).

44 1 Works, p 88(Lawes. 1.8.7)(citing Cod 3.28.11 and Dig 43.24.1.1).

45 A parallel expression by a common lawyer is found in John Doderidge (d 1628), The English Lawyer (1631) p 158, finding harmony between civil law and common law maxims entirely natural, because ‘all laws are derived from the law of Nature and do concur and agree in the principles of Nature and Reason.’

46 See McCauliff, C. M. A., ‘Law as a Principle of Reform: Reflections from Sixteenth-Century England,’ 40 Rutgers Law Review (1988) pp. 429–65.Google Scholar

47 1 Works, p 241 (Lawes 111.10.2)(C 1 q 1 c 41).

48 3 Works, pp. 507–508 (Autograph Notes (citing X 1.6.41 as well as theological treatises by Thomas Stapleton and Wolfgang Musculus)).

49 See eg 5 Works, pp 335–336 (Sermons).

50 3 Works, pp 221–222 (Lawes VII. 14.6)(Dist 24 c 5 ad fi).

51 2 Works, p 283 (Lawes V.62.16)(citing Dig 39.1.5.5 [recte si plurium] and Dig 28.5.45).

52 2 Works, p 42 (Lawes V.9.1)(citing Panormitanus, Commentaria ad X 3.13.8).

53 Cosin, Richard, Apologie for sundrie proceedings by Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical (1st ed 1591)Google Scholar and Ridley, Thomas, A View of the Civile and Ecclesiasticall Law (1st ed 1607).Google Scholar

54 See McGrade, A. S., ‘The Three Last Books and Hooker's Autograph Notes,’ in 6 Works, pp 233–246.Google Scholar