Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/63

 1920 65 Roman Law and the New Monarchy in France THE light which has been thrown upon that period of history in which the modern nation states took shape has brought into full notice the part played by the revived study of the Roman law. Writing thirty years ago ^ Mr. Armstrong, for example, speaking of the rise of the new monarchy in France, said that in so far as its new- won power could be traced to any theoretical basis it rested on the authority of Roman law. It is common knowledge that the work of Maitland, Pollard, Figgis, and others has illustrated with a variety of illuminating examples the application of this truth. If, however, it is beyond dispute that each fresh application of European scholars to the study of Roman law was accompanied by political results of moment, it is also true that there is a danger in generalization. The civilians in France, for example, were not men of one type, and their division into various schools provoked the comment of Hotman^ in 1567. In 1453 King Charles VII of France, by the advice of the legal reformers of his day, thought fit to ordain * que les coutumes, usages et stiles de tous les pays du royaume soient rediges et mis en ecrit, accordes par les coutumiers, practiciens et gens de chacun desdits pays du royaume '. ^ Over a hundred years later Denys Godfrey (1549-1622) in editing the Consuetudines Parisienses, Biturenses, Aurelianenses, Turonenses arranged them according to a classification by title, section, gloss, &c., in the order of the matters treated in the Pandects. In his glosses he was faced with not a little difficulty of definition, for words like nobilitas do not too easily conform to classic standards.* Something had certainly ' Ante, iv. (1889) 14. ' ' en no8 Universitez de maintenant il se void deux sortes et comme partialitez de Legistes : dont les uns sont hommes chafiEourreurs, Bartolistes et barbares ; les autres humanistes purifiez et grammairiens ' : Antitribonian. ' The ordinance of Montils-les-Jours. hia judgement, Denys Godfrey quotes the definition of Bartolus with only moderate approval, preferring his own : ' Nobilitas conceditur a principatum tenente. Sed plerumque expresse et plerumque tacite. Expresse autem ut per instrumenta vel vivae vocis organo, et ista dicitur nobilitas cum charta ; tacite autem et in consoieuti*
 * After dismissing definitions of nobilitas which do not commend themselves to