We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
A fact little appreciated by American political scientists is the relatively early emergence of federalism as a working concept of political theory in the Holy Roman Empire of the seventeenth century. But although these federal theories run ahead of corresponding theories elsewhere, it must be pointed out that political and legal conditions peculiar to the medieval Empire retarded an even earlier appearance. For centuries, the constitution of the Empire had retained its feudalistic structure. Many conspicuous changes, however, had taken place in the course of its development and had filled that structure with an entirely different content. The main result of the Empire's constitutional evolution had been its gradual transformation from an originally fairly unitary state into a federalistic organization of de facto sovereign states. It might be supposed, therefore, that the highly articulated territorial organization of the Empire would have easily served as fertile soil on which contemporary political theorists and jurists might have founded an elaborate theory of federalism.
1 It is true that Aristotle was well aware of interstate relations approaching a federalistic character, such as defensive and commercial unions; but he appreciated them only in so far as he wanted to prove that such unions did not create a new state, i.e., a perfect and self-sufficient polis. Cf. Rehm, H., Geschichte der Staatsrechtswissenschaft (Freiburg, 1896), 82.Google Scholar
2 Bornhak, C., Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1934), 1.Google Scholar The best short description of the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire from the point of view of federalism may be found in LeFur, L. and Posener, P., Bundesstaat und Staatenbund in geschichtlicher Entwicklung (Breslau, 1902), 75–89.Google Scholar These authors conclude that the Empire was a “species of federal state.” Freeman, E. A., History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy (2nd ed., London, 1893), 622–3Google Scholar, writes: “Long before that kingdom was formally dissolved, the relation between its several members had become much more truly a federal one than anything else.”
3 The literature on the emergence of the German territorial states is vast. Cf. Hartung, F., Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1922), 37–61Google Scholar; here is also found a good critical list of the literature on the subject. Also: Below, G. v., Vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit (Leipzig, 1924), 22–44Google Scholar; Spangenberg, H., Vom Lehnstaat zum Staendestaat (Muenchen, 1912), 116–126Google Scholar; Bluntschli, J. C., Deutsche Staatslehre (2nd ed., Noerdlingen, 1880,) 249–60.Google Scholar
4 Gierke, O., Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht (Berlin, 1881), III, 141.Google Scholar
5 Puetter, J. St., Literatur des deutschen Staatsrechts (Goettingen, 1776), I, par. 16Google Scholar; Stobbe, O., Geschichte der deutschen Rechtsquellen (Leipzig, 1860–1864), II, 123.Google Scholar Cf. Koehler, W., “Die deutsche Kaiseridee am Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 149 (1933–1934). 35–56.Google Scholar
6 Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, III, 198–202Google Scholar; cf. his Johannes Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorien (3rd. ed., Breslau, 1913), 229–232.
7 These universilates were given more or less the attributes of the Roman state: “habet merum imperium in seipsa et tantam potestatem habet in populo quantam Imperator in universo”; Bartolus, 1.7 D. 48, nr. 14, as quoted by Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, III, 382Google Scholar, note 118; Althusius, 231, note 14.
8 Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, III, 355–6, 420, 640.Google Scholar
9 Stintzing, R., Geschichte der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft (Muenchen, 1880), I, 719–21.Google Scholar
10 Dominicus Arumaeus (1579–1673) is said to have been the founder of the modern study of constitutional law in the Empire. A collection of monographs and dissertations, written by himself and others, was published in five volumes under the title Discursus academici de jure publico (1616–23). The first comprehensive and systematic commentary on the constitution of the Empire proper was published by Johann Limnaeus (1592–1663) as Jus publicum Imperii Romani Germanici (Strassburg, 1629–32), 3 vols. Limnaeus was the first scholar who used exclusively Germanic constitutional documents in his system of constitutional law; cf. Stintzing, op. cit., II, 211–20. On the constitutional importance of the capitulations, see Hartung, F., “Die Wahlkapitulationen der deutschen Kaiser und Koenige,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 107 (1911), 306–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Hermann Conring (1606–81) was a professor at Helmstadt, first of medicine, afterwards of law. He wrote on many subjects. The work in question here is his De origine juris Germanici (1643). Stobbe, op. cit., II, 418–19, considers Conring the real founder of historical jurisprudence in Germany.
12 Hippolithus a Lapide (pseudonym for Philipp Bogislaus von Chemnitz, 1605–78) was a writer and publicist who in his De ratione status in imperio nostro Romano-Germanico (1640) accepted Bodin's concept of sovereignty, which he attributed to the territorial princes as a whole. This forced him to classify the Empire as an aristocracy, the Emperor being merely its executive organ. Cf. the thorough study of Weber, F., “Hippolithus a Lapide,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 29 (1873), 254–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Bodin himself pointed out that at first he considered the territorial princes and cities to be sovereign and therefore jure foederis ac societatis inter se obligati; but later he declared the Empire to be an aristocratic unitary state in view of the jura majestatis exercised, in his opinion, by the Imperial Diet; cf. De republica libri six (2nd Latin ed., 1591), bk. ii, ch. 6. Concerning Bodin's acceptance and influence in the Empire, cf. Stintzing, op. cit., II, 34–5.
14 One hundred forty years later, Puetter, J. St. wrote in his Historische Entwicklung der heutigen Staatsverfassung des Teutschen Reiches (Goettingen, 1786), III, 214–15Google Scholar: “Alles zusammengenommen, was ich von der Verfassung des Teutschen Reichs bisher historisch zu entwickeln gesucht habe, ist dieselbe in der Hauptsache noch jetzt ebenso, wie ich sie von den Zeiten des Westphaelischen Friedens geschildert habe.”
15 Hartung, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 94–102Google Scholar; Bornhak, , Verfassungsgeschichte, 46–54, 134–42.Google ScholarMeyer, G., Lehrbuch des deutschen Staatsrechts (5th. ed., Leipzig, 1899), 55Google Scholar, points out that the Peace of Westphalia, by granting treaty-making rights to the territorial states, implied their complete victory, and he maintains that since 1648 the dissolution of the Empire was a decided matter. While Meyer, ibid., 59, describes the Empire after 1648 as a disintegrating feudal state, denying its federalistic character altogether, Brie, S., in his Theorie der Staatenverbindungen (Stuttgart, 1886), 126Google Scholar, calls it a “federal state.” This latter view is rejected by Westerkamp, J. B., Staatenbund und Bundesstaat (Leipzig, 1892), 452Google Scholar, who classifies the Empire after 1648 as a “confederation.” Cf. Korman, K., “Die Landeshoheit in ihrem Verhaeltnis zur Reichsgewalt im alten deutschen Reich seit dem westfaelischen Frieden,” Zeitschrift fuer Politik, Vol. 7 (1914), 139–70Google Scholar; Feine, H. E., “Zur Verfassungsentwicklung des Heiligen Roemischen Reiches seit dem westfaelischen Frieden,” Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung fuer Rechtsgeschichte, Germanische Abteilung, Vol. 52 (1932), 65–133.Google Scholar The authors of The Federalist, whose discussion of the Empire in No. 19 is excellent, regarded the Empire as a “confederation.”
16 Stintzing, op. cit., II, 38–54: “Der Streit um die Souveraenitaet und die staatsrechtlichen Schulen”; Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, IV, 209–23.Google Scholar
17 The various theories of sovereignty as expounded in the Empire are well described in Dock, A., Der Souveraenitaetsbegriff von Bodin bis zu Friedrich dem Grossen (Strassburg, 1897).Google Scholar
18 Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, IV, 227Google Scholar; Althusius, 25–6.
19 Friedrich, C. J., in his introduction to Politica Methodice Digesta of Johannes Althusius (Cambridge, 1932), lxxxvii.Google Scholar The Politica was first published at Herborn in 1603. Professor Friedrich's introduction precedes a reprint of the third (1614) Latin edition.
20 Ibid., ch. 27, par. 27–9.
21 Ibid., par. 30.
22 Gierke, , Althusius, 245.Google Scholar The quotation is taken from the translation of this work by Freyd, B., published as The Development of Political Theory (New York, 1939), 267.Google ScholarHoenonius, P. H. (1556–1640) taught law at Herborn and published Disputationum politicarum liber (3rd. ed., Herborn, 1615).Google Scholar
23 Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, IV, 228Google Scholar; Althusius, 245. Christoph Besold (1577–1638) was a jurist and voluminous writer on legal and ecclesiastical subjects. Lack of access to the works of these and other writers forced this writer to rely on Gierke's work and notes, and made it impossible to verify the latter's exposition of the theories of the authors under consideration.
24 Gierke, , Development, 288–9Google Scholar, note 49.
25 Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, IV, 228, and note 89.Google Scholar J. Lampadius (1593–1649) was a jurist and minister in the duchy of Brunswick. Gierke, refers to his De republica Romano-Germanica (1634).Google Scholar
26 Gierke, , Genossenschaftsrecht, IV, 229.Google Scholar B. C. Carpzov (1595–1666), a jurist. Gierke, refers to his Commentarius in Legem Regiam Germanorum, sive capitulationem Imperatorium (1640).Google Scholar Carpzov held, however, that the territorial authorities are unconditional subjects of Emperor and Empire, not of the Emperor alone. The territorial supremacy is a mere exercitium of the Imperial sovereignty which proprio jure belongs to the whole Empire; cf. Gierke, ibid., note 90.
27 Hugo, Ludolph (1630–1704), Dissertatio de statu regionum Germaniae et regimine principum summae Imperii reipublicae aemulo (Helmstadt, 1661).Google Scholar Since Hugo's work is not available in the United States, this writer freely used Brie's exposition of Hugo's ideas in Brie, S., Der Bundesstaat (Leipzig, 1874), 17–20.Google Scholar Brie seems to believe that Hugo's book was forgotten in the following century, and that he redis covered it. This is not quite true. Moser, J. J., Von Teutschland und dessen Staatsverfassung ueberhaupt (Stuttgart, 1766), 528Google Scholar, indicates that the work was generally known. Eichhorn, K. F., the historian of German constitutional law, used it in his Deutsche Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte (5th ed., Goettingen, 1844), IV, 376–8, par. 551.Google Scholar It should be pointed out, however, that all these writers were looking only for what the title promised: the regionum status. They did not realize that the status regionum was determined by a new insight in the status Imperii.
28 Brie, , Bundesstaat, 17.Google Scholar
29 Jastrow, J., “Pufendorfs Lehre von der Monstrositaet der Reichsverfassung,” Zeitschrift fuer Preussische Geschichte und Landeskunde, Vol. 19 (1882), 46Google Scholar, maintains that Hugo acquired his inductive historical method from Aristotle: “Was er von Aristoteles gelernt hat, das ist die wahrhaft historische Methode, in der Politik niemals mit der Theorie, sondern stets mit den historisch gegebenen Verhaeltnissen zu beginnen und aus ihnen erst die Doktrin abzuleiten.”
30 Brie, , Bundesstaat, 18.Google Scholar
31 That Hugo clearly distinguished between territorial states and simple provinces is implied, for instance, in the unequivocal statement that the former “suo munere tamquam proprio funguntur,” as quoted by Brie, , Bundesstaat, 18Google Scholar, note 7.
32 In the composite state there is a societas foedere contracta civitatum domina, while in a confederation there are ipsae civitates foederum dominae, as quoted by Jastrow, op. cit., 377, note 3.
33 Brie, , Bundesstaat, 19.Google Scholar
34 It must be pointed out, however, that the principle of a division of powers was for Hugo of secondary importance. He simply utilized it to prove the kinship of the Landeshoheit with the summa potestas of the Empire; cf. ibid., 18, note 10.
35 “Diviso quodammodo inter summam et inferiores Respublicas civili imperio, illa quidam ea, quae ad communem omnium, hae autem, quae ad singularum Regionum salutem pertinent, gubernant.” As quoted ibid., 19, note 11.
36 Ibid., 19.
37 Ibid., 20.
38 Idem.
39 Jastrow, op. cit., 378.
40 Treitschke, H. v., “Samuel Pufendorf,” Preussische Jahrbuecher, Vol. 35 (1875), 634–5Google Scholar, discussing Hugo's work in connection with Pufendorf, is not only excessively polemical, but obviously unjust and mistaken when he accuses Hugo of “humble pussyfooting, lack of juristic precision, playing with unclear pictures.”
41 Gierke, , Althusius, 246.Google Scholar
42 Cf. Brie, , Bundesstaat, 21Google Scholar, notes 19 and 21; Gierke, , Althusius, 246Google Scholar, note 50, on the acceptance and elaboration of Hugo's theory by Vitriarius, Boeder, Brueggemann, Oldenburger, and others.
43 Cf. the introduction of Klopp, O. to his edition of Die Werke von Leibniz (Hannover, 1865), IV, 4–8.Google Scholar On G. W. Leibniz (1646–1716), see Dr.Bresslau, , “Leibniz als Politiker,” Zeitschrift fuer Preussische Geschichte und Landeskunde, Vol. 7 (1870), 317–48Google Scholar; Hecht, F., “Leibniz als Jurist,” Preussische Jahrbuecher, Vol. 43 (1879), 1–25.Google Scholar
44 Bluntschli, J. K., Geschichte der Neueren Staatswissenschaft (3rd. ed., Muenchen, 1881), 182Google Scholar, concluding his discussion of Leibniz' concept of sovereignty, writes: “Man sieht, sein Souveraenitaetsbegriff ist nur ein relativer, der Beschraenkung und der Grade faehig, kein einfacher und absoluter.”
45 Caesarinus Furstenerius, in Klopp, op. cit., 57.
46 Idem.
47 Leibniz knew that his theory of federalism was quite unorthodox. He gave an excellent summary of the effect of orthodox theories of sovereignty on federalist constructions in the following sentence: nam, admissa unitale Reipublicae, credidere sublatam in singulis membris libertatem sive suprematum; vel concessa singulorum membrorum libertate, non unam Rempublicam, sed unum foedus constitui sunt arbitrati; ibid., 58.
48 Suprematus, in Leibniz' meaning, is not the same as “sovereignty,” although it implies more than the traditional superioritas territorialis (Landeshoheit). Leibniz severely criticized the absolute sovereignty theory of Hobbes because it could not be applied to the German Empire: Scio, quae hie a me disseruntur de natura Reipublicae, non posse conciliari cum sententiae accuratissimi viri Thomae Hobbii Angli … sic Hobbium audiemus non erunt apud nos [i.e., in the Empire] nisi Anarchiae merae; idem.
49 Cf. the statement of Hert, the editor of Hugo's and Pufendorf's works, that Hugo, in the conflict between the supporters of the Emperor and those of the Princes, insigni mediae sententiae temperamento reipublicae genus describit, veteribus ignotum et quod apud iuniores nomen nondum invenil; as quoted by Jastrow, op. cit., 378.
50 The work was published under the pseudonym Severinus de Monzambano Veronensis, De Statu Imperii Germanici ad Laelium fratrem, dominum Trezolani liber unus (1678).
51 Nihil ergo aliud restat, quam ut dicamus Germaniam esse irregulare aliquod corpus et monstre simile; as quoted by Jastrow, op. cit., 335.
52 Pufendorf's “Monzambano” has been thoroughly studied in all its aspects by J. Jastrow in the already cited article, “Pufendorf's Lehre von der Monstrositaet der Reichsverfassung,” supra, 13, note 29; cf. Treitschke's article on Pufendorf, supra, 18, note 40.
53 Especially in the dissertations “De Systematibus Civitatum” and “De Republica Irregulari,” collected in Dissertationes academicae selectiores (London, 1675). This work was not available to the writer of this study. But Pufendorf's main ideas on the subject under consideration were repeated in his great work on natural and international law, infra, 24, note 55.
54 Preuss, Hugo, in his famous work on federalism, Gemeinde, Staat, Reich als Oebietskoerperschaflen (Berlin, 1889), 16Google Scholar, explains the fundamental disagreement between Pufendorf and Hugo in terms of their different methods. He points out that this first controversy concerning the constitutional nature of the Empire, which centered in the problem of federalism, demonstrated the delicate alternative either to deny the theoretical possibility of a federal state, and thus to offend against historical and political reality, or to affirm this possibility and therewith to contradict prevailing political theory. Preuss believes that Hugo and Pufendorf occupy a permanent, prototypical position in this controversy because all later authors differed chiefly in accordance with their attitude towards the historical-political or the philosophical-critical method as already accepted by these two forerunners.
55 Pufendorf, S., De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo, bk. viiGoogle Scholar, ch. 4: “On the parts of supreme sovereignty and their natural connexion”; and ch. 6: “On the characteristics of supreme sovereignty.” This writer used the translation of the 1688 edition prepared by Oldfather, C. H. and Oldfather, W. A. for the series “The Classics of International Law” (Oxford, 1934).Google Scholar On Pufendorf's political theory in general, see Bluntschli, , Geschichte, 136–58Google Scholar; Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 19–23.Google Scholar
56 Pufendorf, op. cit., bk. vii, ch. 5, par. 12–3.
57 Ibid., par. 16–7.
58 Ibid., par. 18.
59 Ibid., par. 19, 21.
60 Ibid., par. 20.
61 Brie, , Bundesstaat, 23–4.Google Scholar
62 Cf. the names mentioned by Gierke, , Althusius, 248Google Scholar, note 54; Ebers, G. J., Die Lehre vom Staatenbunde (Breslau, 1910), 24–9.Google Scholar
63 Gierke, , Althusius, 248Google Scholar, notes 55–6.
64 Ibid., note 57.
65 Johann Nicolaus Hert (1652–1710) was a leading jurist and professor of law at the University of Giessen; cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 62–3.Google Scholar
66 Jastrow, op. cit., 391; Gierke, , Althusius, 248Google Scholar, note 58; Brie, , Bundesstaat, 24Google Scholar, note 37.
67 Moser, op. cit., 517, 549.
68 Christian Thomasius (1655–1728) was a professor at Leipzig and Halle, a philosopher, a man of general culture, and a jurist who bitterly attacked Aristotle and scholasticism; cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 71–111.Google Scholar
69 Institutiones jurisprudentiae divinae (1687), bk. iii, ch. 6, par. 57–59; as cited by Gierke, , Althusius, 248Google Scholar, note 57.
70 Gottlieb Gerhard Titius (1661–1714) was a law lecturer and professor at Leipzig; cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 138–41.Google Scholar
71 Specimen juris publici Romano-Germanici (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1705), bk. vi, ch. 7, par. 34: civitas composita sive systema civitatum est corpus civile ex pluribus civitalibus ita compositum, ut unaquaegue civitas summum ac plerumgue etiam plenum imperium habeat, sed ila limitatum, ut quaedam eius partes coniunctim ab omnibus sint exercenda; as quoted by Ebers, op. cit., 28–9. The same ideas were expressed by Boehmer, J. H., Introductio in jus publicum universale (2nd ed., Halle and Magdeburg, 1726)Google Scholar, and Gundling, N. H., Jus naturae et gentium, (Halle, 1728).Google Scholar
72 Johann Gottlieb Heineccius (1681–1741), law professor at Halle and one of the greatest eighteenth-century Gernran jurists; cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 179–198.Google Scholar
73 Elementa juris naturae el gentium (Halle, 1737), bk. ii, par. 14, 119, 127.
74 Joachim Georg Daries (1714–1791) was a professor of moral and political philosophy at Jena and Frankfurt an der Oder. He wrote many works on metaphysics, ethics, law, and politics; cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 284–5.Google Scholar
75 Institutiones jurisprudentiae universalis (2nd. ed., Frankfurt, 1754), par. 768–72.
76 Daniel Nettelbladt (1719–1791) was one of the greatest German teachers of natural law in the later eighteenth century, a student of Wolff; cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 288–99.Google Scholar
77 Systema elementare universae jurisprudentiae naturalis (5th. ed., Halle, 1785), par. 1160: respublicae diversae quae simul constituunt unam Republicam, cujus potestati civili subjectae sunt; as quoted by Gierke, , Althusius, 249Google Scholar, note 60. Nettelbladt's work is not available in this country. But good use may be made of the extensive and detailed notes of Gierke in his Althusius, loc. cit., and Genossenschaftsrecht, IV, 540, notes 190–91; also in his Development, 291, note 60.
78 Systema elementare, par. 1172–73.
79 Ibid., par. 1183.
80 Ibid., par. 1175–76.
81 Puetter, J. St., Historische Entwicklung der heutigen Staatsverfassung des Deutschen Reichs (Goettingen, 1786), II, 156–7.Google Scholar
82 Puetter (1725–1807) was undoubtedly the greatest student and teacher of constitutional and public law in eighteenth-century Germany. Cf. Stintzing, , Geschichte, III, 331–53Google Scholar; Mohl, R. v., Die Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften (Erlangen, 1856), II, 425–38.Google Scholar
83 Puetter, J. St., Beytraege zum Teutschen Staats-und Fuerstenrecht (Goettingen, 1777)Google Scholar, Beytrag ii, “Von der Regierungsform des Teutschen Reichs und einigen davon abhaengenden Grundsaetzen des Teutschen Staatsrechts,” par. 3.
84 Ibid., par. 1–4; Historische Entwicklung, II, 159–60.
85 Institutiones juris publici Germanici (Goettingen, 1770), par. 32: regnum divisum est in plures respuhlicas plane diversas quae tamen adhuc unitae sunt in modum reipublicae compositae sub communi supremo imperio monarchico restricto electicio; as quoted by Brie, , Bundesstaat, 28, note 17.Google Scholar
86 Puetter, , Beytraege, Beytrag ii, par. 9–14.Google Scholar
87 Ibid., par. 18–21, 35–40; Historische Entwicklung, II, 160–61.
88 Beytraege, Beytrag ii, par. 25.
89 Ibid., Beytrag xvii, Bestimmungen der Landeshoheit aus dem gemeinsamen Reichsbande, and Beytrag xviii, Bestimmungen der Landeshoheit aus der Subordination unter Kaiser und Reich.
90 Ibid., Beytrag ii, par. 15–17.
91 Ibid., Beytrag iii, Ob und wie weit den Teutschen Reichsstaenden ein Mitregierungsrecht an der kayserlichen Regierung beygelegt werden koenne.
92 Ibid., par. 16–18; Geschichtliche Entwicklung, II, 162–65.
93 Beytraege, Beytrag iii, par. 19–30.
94 Ibid., par. 27.
95 Gierke, , Althusius, 250.Google Scholar
96 Cf. Brie, , Bundesstaat, 28–29Google Scholar, notes 18–22, for authors who accepted Puetter's general scheme of federalism. Also Koch, J. B., Nikolaus Thadaeus von Goenners Staatslehre (Leipzig, 1905), 173–81Google Scholar: “Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen.”
97 Brie, , Bundesstaat, 29.Google Scholar
