https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9065-8871
![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Contract law was one of the main subjects discussed in the early modern legal genre of differentiae iuris civilis et canonici (‘differences between civil and canon law’). Similar topics were covered in both late medieval and early modern differentiae – hence this genre offers a good opportunity for comparative historical research dedicated to selected topics of contract law (such as those discussed here: the actionability of bare agreements, stipulation for the benefit of a third party, overreaching in contract formation and the lease of a house to a scholar). An examination of the sources proves that the authors of early modern differentiae applied the comparative method in their works. This involved the presentation of sources and rationales from the two bodies of law, the interpretation of sources and arguments in favour of the solutions offered, references to the then-current legal literature and practice and most importantly the preferred method of reconciliation for conflicting laws.
Acknowledgements
Preliminary drafts of this paper were presented on 31 January 2022 at Roma Tre University in Rome at the meeting of the PRIN 2017 research group: Precetto religioso e norma giuridica and on 18 February 2022 during an online meeting hosted in Augsburg at the Third Postgraduate Conference in Comparative Legal History. It has also been presented in its final form at a meeting of the Department of Roman Law, Legal Traditions and Cultural Heritage Law in the author’s host institution on 30 January 2024. I am grateful to all who have shared their comments and remarks during these meetings and on other occasions, to the two anonymous reviewers of this work and to the journal editors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Klaus-Peter Nanz, Die Entstehung des allgemeinen Vertragsbegriffs im 16 bis 18 Jahrhundert (Schweitzer 1985); John Barton (ed), Towards a General Law of Contract (Duncker & Humblot 1990); James Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (Clarendon Press 1991) 69–133; Italo Birocchi, Causa e Categoria Generale del Contratto: Un Problema Dogmatico nella Cultura Privatistica dell’età Moderna (Giappichelli 1997) vol 1; Wim Decock, Theologians and Contract Law: The Moral Transformation of the Ius Commune (c 1500-1650) (Brill 2013); Paolo Astorri, Lutheran Theology and Contract Law in Early Modern Germany (c 1520-1720) (Ferdinand Schöningh 2019).
2 I thank Wojciech Dajczak for this remark.
3 The working catalogue of the early modern differentiae iuris civilis et canonici containing further details about these works as well as their authors is available at: https://bit.ly/differentiaeiuris.
4 Piotr Alexandrowicz and Maria Kola, ‘Differentiae iuris civilis et canonici: The Methodological Premises of an Early Modern German Legal Genre’ (2021) 18 Glossae: European Journal of Legal History 171.
5 Heinz Mohnhaupt, ‘Die Differentienliteratur als Ausdruck eines methodisches Prinzips früher Rechtsvergleichung’ in Bernard Durand and Laurent Mayali (eds), Excerptiones Iuris: Studies in Honor of André Gouron (The Robbins Collection 2000) 439; Heinz Mohnhaupt, ‘Formen und Konkurrenzen juristischer Normativitäten im “Ius Commune” und in der Differentienliteratur (17/18 Jh)’ (2017) 25 Rechtsgeschichte 115.
6 Mohnhaupt, ‘Die Differentienliteratur’ (n 5) 441; Werner Heun, ‘Die Entdeckung der Rechtsvergleichung’ in Werner Heun and Frank Schorkopf (eds), Wendepunkte der Rechtswissenschaft: Aspekte des Rechts in der Moderne (Wallstein 2014) 10, n 9. Cf Heinz Mohnhaupt, ‘The Object of Interpretation: Legislation and Competing Normative Sources of Law in Europe During the 16th to 18th Centuries’ in Yasutomo Morigiwa, Michael Stolleis and Jean-Louis Halperin (eds), Interpretation of Law in the Age of Enlightenment: From the Rule of the King to the Rule of Law (Springer 2011) 61–89: 81.
7 Helmut Schnitzer, ‘Differentienliteratur zum kanonischen Recht: Eine unbekannte Literaturgattung als Beleg zur dialektischen Kraft des kanonischen Rechts in der Privatrechtsentwicklung der Neuzeit’ in Walter Wilburg zum 70 Geburtstag Festschrift (Leykam 1975) 335–53: 342–53; Luigi Prosdocimi, ‘Il diritto canonico di fronte al diritto secolare nell’Europa dei secoli XVI-XVIII’ in Bruno Paradisi (ed), La Formazione Storica del Diritto Moderno in Europa: Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale della Società Italiana di Storia del Diritto (LS Olschki 1977) vol 2, 431–46: 433; Luigi Moccia, ‘Historical Overview on the Origins and Attitudes of Comparative Law’ in Bruno de Witte and Caroline Forder (eds), The Common Law of Europe and the Future of Legal Education: Le Droit Commun de l’Europe et l’Avenir de l’Enseignement Juridique (Kluwer 1992) 609–20: 616.
8 Jaakko Husa, A New Introduction to Comparative Law (Hart Publishing 2015) 58–95.
9 Giorgio Resta, ‘The “Comparative Method” at the Roots of Comparative Law’ in Helge Dedek (ed), A Cosmopolitan Jurisprudence: Essays in Memory of H Patrick Glenn (CUP 2021) 44–63: 44–45.
10 Husa (n 8) 63.
11 On the late medieval differentiae see Jean Portemer, Recherches sur les Differentiae Juris Civilis et Canonici au Temps du Droit Classique de l’Eglise (Jouve 1946); Jean Portemer, ‘Bartole et les différences entre le droit Romain et le droit canonique’ in Danilo Segoloni (ed), Bartolo da Sassoferrato: Studi e Documenti per il VI Centenario (Giuffrè 1962) vol 2, 399; Gero Dolezalek, ‘Differentienliteratur’ in Albrecht Cordes, Heiner Lück and Dieter Werkmüller (eds), Handwörterbuch zur Deutschen Rechtsgeschichte vol 1 (Erich Schmidt Verlag 2008) col 1059–61; Mario Ascheri, ‘Differentiae inter ius canonicum et ius civile’ in Orazio Condorelli, Franck Roumy and Mathias Schmoeckel (eds), Der Einfluss der Kanonistik auf die europäische Rechtskultur vol 1 (Böhlau 2009) 67–73.
12 Paolo Napoli, ‘Le droit, l’histoire, la comparaison’ in Olivier Remaud, Jean Frédéric Schaub and Isabelle Thireau (eds), Faire des Sciences Sociales: Comparer (Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales 2012) 127–60: 136.
13 Portemer, Recherches sur les Differentiae (n 11) 139–40.
14 Alexandrowicz and Kola (n 4).
15 Thomas Duve, ‘Konrad Rittershausen’ in Neue Deutsche Biographie vol 21 (Duncker & Humblot 2003) 670–71.
16 Schnitzer (n 7) 339; Nanz (n 1) 109; Mathias Schmoeckel, Das Recht der Reformation: Die epistemologische Revolution der Wissenschaft und die Spaltung der Rechtsordnung in der Frühen Neuzeit (Mohr Siebeck 2014) 73–74; Alexandrowicz and Kola (n 4) 179–86.
17 Alexandrowicz and Kola (n 4) 187–97.
18 Konrad Rittershausen, Differentiarum Iuris Civilis et Canonici seu Pontificii Libri Septem (Strasbourg 1668) introduction, fol 10; cf Schnitzer (n 7) 341; Nanz (n 1) 109.
19 Schnitzer (n 7) 344–45.
20 For a general overview see Udo Wolter, Ius Canonicum in Iure Civili: Studien zur Rechtsquellenlehre in der neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte (Böhlau 1975); Udo Wolter, ‘Die Fortgeltung des kanonischen Rechts und die Haltung der protestantischen Juristen zum kanonischen Recht in Deutschland bis in die Mitte des 18 Jahrhunderts’ in Richard Helmholz (ed), Canon Law in Protestant Lands (Duncker & Humblot 1992) 13; John Witte, Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge University Press 2002); Schmoeckel (n 16).
21 See the working catalogue of the early modern differentiae iuris civilis et canonici (n 3).
22 The other work that discussed contract law from a broad perspective was: Fortun García de Ercilla y Arteaga, Tractatus de Ultimo Fine Iuris Civilis et Canonici, de Primo Principio et Subsequentibus Praeceptis, de Derivatione et Differentiis Utriusque Iuris, et quid Sit Tenendum Ipsa Iustitia (Köln 1585). It was first published in 1514 and can be considered as an example of differentiae, but it differs in several ways from both late medieval and early modern works in terms of structure and method. For these reasons it does not fit the objectives of this paper.
23 Cf Reinhard Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996) 537–49, 576–78.
24 See Hermann Dilcher, ‘Der Typenzwang im mittelalterlichen Vertragsrecht’ (1960) 77(1) Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 270; Birocchi, Causa e Categoria Generale (n 1) 45–54, 63–67; Raffaele Volante, Il Sistema Contrattuale del Diritto Comune Classico: Struttura dei Patti e Individuazione del Tipo: Glossatori e Ultramontani (Giuffrè 2001) 99–194.
25 See François Spies, De l’Observation des Simple Conventions en Droit Canonique (Librairie du Recueil Sirey 1928); Jules Roussier, Le Fondement de l’Obligation Contractuelle dans le Droit Classique de l’Église (Domat-Montchrestien 1933); Melchiorre Roberti, ‘L’influenza cristiana nello svolgimento storico dei patti nudi’ in Melchiorre Roberti and Emilio Bussi (eds), Cristianesimo e Diritto Romano (Società editrice ‘Vita e pensiero’ 1935) 85–116; Pio Fedele, ‘Considerazioni sull’efficacia dei patti nudi nel diritto canonico’ (1937) 11 Annali dell’Università di Macerata 115; Piero Bellini, L’Obbligazione da Promessa con Oggetto Temporale nel Sistema Canonistico Classico: con Particolare Riferimento ai Secoli XII e XIII (Giuffrè 1964); Peter Landau, ‘Pacta sunt servanda: Zu den kanonistischen Grundlagen des Privatautonomie’ in Mario Ascheri (ed), Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert: Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr (Köln-Weimer-Wien 2003) 457–74; Fabio Scigliano, ‘Spunti per una riconsiderazione del principio canonistico ex nudo pacto oritur actio’ (2007) 58(1) Studi Urbinati, A – Scienze giuridiche, politiche ed economiche 123.
26 Cf Raoul Naz, ‘Pacte’ in Raoul Naz (ed), Dictonnaire de Droit Canonique vol 6 (Librairie Letouzey et Ané 1954) col 1181–84; Henri Roland and Laurent Boyer, Adages du Droit Français (Editions L’Hermès 1986) no 199, 716; Richard Hyland, ‘Pacta Sunt Servanda: A Meditation’ (1993-1994) 34 Virginia Journal of International Law 405–33: 415–18: Anthony Jeremy, ‘Pacta sunt servanda: The Influence of Canon Law upon the Development of Contractual Obligations’ (2000) 144 Law & Justice: Christian Law Review 4–17: 6-10; Agnieszka Kacprzak, ‘La regola “pacta sunt servanda” e la nascita della libertà contrattuale’ (2019) 19 Zeszyty Prawnicze 203; Piotr Alexandrowicz, ‘Pacta sunt servanda: Canon Law and the Birth and Dissemination of the Legal Maxim’ (2021) 38 Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 193; Kaius Tuori, ‘Pacta sunt servanda’ (2023) 2(1) Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 44.
27 Galvano da Bologna, ‘De differentiis legum et canonum’ in Tractatus Universi Iuris vol 1 (Venice 1584) no 67, fol 189vb.
28 Pseudo-Bartolus de Saxoferrato, ‘Tractatus de differentia inter ius canonicum et civile’, in Bartolus de Saxoferrato, Omnia, quae Extant, Opera vol 10 (Venice 1590) no 70, fol 149rb. On the authorship of this work, see Portemer, ‘Bartole et les différences’ (n 11).
29 Battista da Sambiagio, ‘Tractatus insignis et rarus contradictionum iuris canonici cum iure civili nominasissimi doctoris’ in Tractatus Universi Iuris (n 27) no 3, fol 185ra.
30 Prosdocimo Conti, ‘De differentiis inter ius canonicum et ius civile’ in Tractatus Universi Iuris (n 27) nos 117–18, fol 195vb; Gerolamo Zanettini, ‘De differentiis inter ius canonicum et civile’ in ibid differentia 54, no 83, fol 202rb.
31 On condictio ex canone see Spies (n 25) 72; Scigliano (n 25) 134–35. On denuntiatio evangelica see Roussier (n 25) 157–75; Fedele (n 25) 43–45; Charles Lefebvre, ‘Contribution a l’étude des origines et du développement de la “denunciatio evangelica” en droit canonique’ (1950) 6(1) Ephemerides Iuris Canonici 60; Bellini (n 25) 421–22, 444–68; Landau ‘Pacta sunt servanda’ (n 25) 469–71.
32 The issue of contract law in early modern differentiae was briefly addressed by Schnitzer (n 7) 342–53 and Wolter, Ius Canonicum (n 20) 100–03.
33 Johann Emerich von Rosbach, De Comparatione Iuris Civilis et Canonici, in quo utriusque Differentia, seu Diversa Constitutio Ostenditur (Frankfurt 1601) book 2, title 9, comparison 1, nos 1–21, fols 69–72.
34 Rittershausen (n 18) book 3, ch 1, fols 82–85; cf Schnitzer (n 7) 343–44; Wolter, Ius Canonicum (n 20) 100–01.
35 Italo Birocchi, ‘Tra tradizione e nuova prassi giurisprudenziale: la questione dell’efficacia dei patti nella dottrina italiana dell’età’ moderna’ in Barton (n 1) 249–366: 255–56.
36 Johann Strein, Summa Iuris Canonici vol 5 [Antinomia iuris pontificii et caesarei per CCL differentias plurium doctorum auctoritate probatas, singulari studio in certas classes reducta, discussa et explicata] (Köln 1658) title 4, § 28, differentia 1, nos 1–3, fols 39–40.
37 Matthäeus Joseph Reichel, Dis- et Concordantia Canonum et Legum seu Disputatio Inauguralis de Differentiis inter Iura Communia, Canonicum et Civile Universum (Prague 1683) thesis 6, differentia 16, fols 74–79.
38 Jacob Brandmüller, Manuductio ad Ius Canonicum ac Civile iuxta Seriem Alphabeticam Enucleata Meditationibus Historico-Politicis Digesta aliorum Iurium Accessionibus Illustrata: eiusdem Authoris Sumptu Procurata. E qua quae Fuerint olim Sint Hodie non tam Sint quam Esse Videantur utriusque Iuris Differentiae et cui Iuri Propius Sit Accedendum Legum ac Diversarum Artium Consecraneis Perspicuitate Facili Sit Manifestum (Basel 1661) sv pactum fols 266–70.
39 Ibid sv pactum omne est legitimum fol 270.
40 Ibid sv stipulatio non differt a pacto fols 491–92.
41 Johann Friedrich Böckelmann, Tractatus Postumus de Differentiis Iuris Civilis, Canonici et Hodierni (Cornelius van Eck ed, Utrecht 1694) ch 34, nos 1–3, fols 80–81.
42 Italo Birocchi, ‘La questione dei patti nella dottrina tedesca dell’Usus modernus’ in Barton (n 1) 139–95: 150–55.
43 For a broader account on third-party stipulations, see David J Ibbetson and Eltjo J H Schrage, ‘Ius quaesitum tertio: A Comparative and Historical Introduction to the Concept of Third Party Contracts’ in Eltjo J H Schrage (ed), Ius Quesitum Tertio (Duncker & Humbolt 2008) 1–34; Jan J Hallebeek and Harry Dondorp (eds), Contracts for a Third-Party Beneficiary: A Historical and Comparative Account (M Nijhoff 2008).
44 Cf Zimmermann (n 23) 34–45; Jan Hallebeek, ‘Ius Quaesitum Tertio in Medieval Roman Law’ in Schrage (ed), Ius Quesitum Tertio (n 43) 61.
45 Hermann Lange, ‘“Alteri stipulari nemo potest” bei Legisten und Kanonisten’ (1956) 73(1) Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 279; Harry Dondorp, ‘Ius Quaesitum Tertio in Medieval Canon Law’ in Schrage (ed), Ius Quesitum Tertio (n 43) 109.
46 See Portemer, Recherches sur les Differentiae (n 11) 139.
47 Galvano da Bologna (n 27) no 68, fol 189vb; Pseudo-Bartolus de Saxoferrato (n 28) no 53, fol 149ra; Battista da Sambiagio (n 29) no 4, fol 185ra.
48 Gerolamo Zanettini (n 30) differentia 54, nos 84–90, fols 202rb–202va.
49 See Jan J Hallebeek and Harry Dondorp, ‘Chapter Two: Medieval Legal Scholarship’ in Hallebeek and Dondorp (n 43) 21–46: 22–29; Dondorp (n 45) 119–27.
50 Gerolamo Zanettini (n 30) differentia 80, nos 140–42, fol 204rb.
51 Rosbach (n 33) book 2, title 10, comparison 1, nos 1–5, fols 76–77.
52 Rittershausen (n 18) book 3, ch 6, fols 92–93.
53 Cf Schnitzer (n 7) 345, n 61.
54 Strein (n 36) title 4, § 29, differentia 2, nos 1–2, fols 40–41.
55 Cf Schnitzer (n 7) 345, n 61.
56 Reichel (n 37) thesis 6, differentia 17, fols 79–80.
57 Brandmüller (n 38) sv stipulatio alteri fols 490–91.
58 Diego de Covarrubias y Leyva, ‘Constitutionis secundae ex Rubrica de pactis, lib VI, cuius initium Quamvis pactum inscribitur, non inutilis interpretatio’ in Diego de Covarrubias y Leyva, Relectio Capituli Quamvis Pactum, De Pactis, Regula Possessor Malaefidei, Libro Sexto et Clementinae, Si Furiosus, De Homicidio (Lyon 1558) pt 2, § 4, nos 6–11, fols 99v–104r.
59 Böckelmann (n 41) ch 36, nos 1–7, fols 87–88.
60 Rosbach was often unclear about his preferred solution to the discrepancies between the two bodies of law. Based on the reading of his work, I hypothesise that in cases where he preferred the canon law solution, he stated so expressly. Otherwise, it may be assumed that he adhered to the civil law solution.
61 See Andreas Wacke, ‘Circumscribere, gerechter Preis und die Arten der List (Dolus bonus und dolus malus, dolus causam dans und dolus incidens) unter Berücksichtigung der §§138 Abs II und 123 BGB’ (1977) 91(1) Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 184; Zimmermann (n 23) 256–58.
62 See Rudolf Kaulla, Staat, Stände und der gerechte Preis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Kritik des ökonomischen Wertproblems (Verlag von Julius Springer 1936); John W Baldwin, ‘The Medieval Theories of the Just Price: Romanists, Canonists, and Theologians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’ (1959) 49(4) Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 3; Winfried Trusen, ‘Äquivalenzprinzip und gerechter Preis im Spätmittelalter’ in Franz Mayer (ed), Staat und Gesellschaft: Festgabe für Günther Küchenhoff zum 60 Geburtstag am 21 August 1967 (Schwartz 1967) 247; Herbert Kalb, Laesio enormis im gelehrten Recht: kanonistische Studien zur Läsionsanfechtung (VWGÖ 1992); Decock (n 1) 519–35.
63 Pseudo-Bartolus de Saxoferrato (n 28) no 66, fols 149ra–149rb.
64 Battista da Sambiagio (n 29) differentia 105, fols 187ra–187rb.
65 Gerolamo Zanettini (n 30) differentia 131, no 207, fol 206rb.
66 Ibid differentia 226, no 303, fol 207vb.
67 Cf Schnitzer (n 7) 345.
68 Rosbach (n 33) book 2, title 8, comparison 2, nos 2–6, fols 66–67.
69 Rittershausen (n 18) book 3, ch 9, fols 96–97.
70 Ibid book 3, ch 10, fols 97–99.
71 Strein (n 36) title 4, § 36, differentia 9, fol 46.
72 Reichel (n 37), thesis 13, differentia 59, fols 255–58.
73 Peter Landau claimed that this decretal was issued by Lucius III and not by Clement III as indicated in the inscription: Peter Landau, ‘Papst Lucius III und das Mietrecht von Bologna’ in Stephan Kuttner (ed), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Toronto, 21–25 August 1972 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1976) 511. See also John T Noonan, ‘Catholic Law School – AD 1150’ (1998) 47(4) Catholic University Law Review 1189–205: 1205; James A Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians and Courts (University of Chicago Press 2008) 225.
74 The canonists discussed why the excommunication was to be issued only against the tenants and not the landlords. Most likely, it was due to the more extensive jurisdiction of the Church in their case. Interestingly, before reaching this conclusion, Alanus noted in his gloss that one could speculate that the lack of penalty for the landlords resulted from the permitted scope of overreaching of the parties to contract, which is an explicit link to the above-discussed difference: Landau (n 73) 515, n 18.
75 Pseudo-Bartolus de Saxoferrato (n 28) no 100, fol 149vb; Battista da Sambiagio (n 29) differentia 124, fol 187va; Gerolamo Zanettini (n 30) differentia 146, no 222, fol 206va.
76 Cf Schnitzer (n 7) 345.
77 Rittershausen (n 18) book 3, ch 13, fols 101–02.
78 Cf Schnitzer (n 7) 345, n 64.
79 Strein (n 36) title 4, § 34, differentia 7, no 1, fols 44–45.
80 Reichel (n 37) thesis 13, differentia 71, fols 261–63.
81 Böckelmann (n 38) ch 40, nos 1–3, fol 94.
82 Schnitzer (n 7) 345, nn 65–66.
83 Ibid 345–49.
84 Piotr Alexandrowicz, Kanonistyczne Uzasadnienie Swobody Umów w Zachodniej Tradycji Prawnej (Adam Mickiewicz University Press 2020) 178–204.
85 Christian Friedrich von Glück, Ausführliche Erläuterung der Pandecten nach Hellfeld ein Commentar (Verlag von Palm & Ente 1867) vol 4, pt 1, Dig 2.14, § 312, 281, n 37.
86 Alan Wijffels, ‘Law and Religion in Early-Modern Europe: Some Tentative Conclusions’ in Wim Decock, Jordan J Ballor, Michael Germann and Laurent Waelkens (eds), Law and Religion: The Legal Teachings of the Protestant and Catholic Reformations (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2014) 265–75: 272.
87 For more details on this point, see Piotr Alexandrowicz, ‘Differentiae on quarta Trebellianica: Legal Practice and the Scholarly Discourse of Ius Commune’ in Mark Vermeer, Wouter Druwé and Maciej Mikuła (eds), Testamentary Freedom, Ius Commune and Particular Law (c 1400-1620) (Peeters 2023) 131.