1920 NEW MONARCHY IN FRANCE 59 distraherentur animi in diversas sententias, atque hoc modo aut tandem nihil statueretur certi ; aut si quid fieret serius, interim res et bene gerendi opportunitas elaberetur.^ In the figure of Cujas is to be found the grandest personality of the French commentators and the most massive qualities of intellect. In him detachment is a passion, and not even Brisson, the legal lexicographer, is more scholarly aloof from current issues ^ than is Cujas in his comments upon the Digest, book 1, title xvi {De verborum significatione), ' Bona civitatis abusive publica dicta sunt, sola enim ea publica sunt quae populi Romani sunt.' In his comment upon these words of Ulpian Cujas proceeds to an elaborate catalogue with a distinction of goods into portables, &c. His purpose is antiquarian, legal. His mind is set on undoing Tribonian, not on undoing erroneous theories as to the monarchy of France. As to monarchy he, too, took a lofty but a utilitarian view.^ Nam ius quod princeps facit, necessitas fecit. Nam non ob aliam rem creamus principem, quam ut decreta faciat et iura det, ut est aperte scriptum . . . et rectissime dicetur ab Accursio rem a populo venisse ad Senatum, et a Senatu ad principem, per partes, per vices, paulatim, pedetentimque. Quid vero inquit, per partes venit ? Ut, inquit, necesse esset Reipublicae per unum consuli. Nam senatus non potuit sufficere omnibus provinciis regendis ; ob id constitutus princeps, qui rerum omnium esset dominus quique potestate caeteros omnes praepoUeret.* In the interests of that centralization in which he conceived efficiency to lie he was ready to drive the argument home to the ' De iure civili, i. 7. This ia of course Sir Robert Berkeley's argument in the Ship Money Case : ' We must consider that it (parliament) is a great body, moves slowly : sudden despatches can not be expected in it. Besides though Parliament cannot err, parliament- men may de facto : every particular member of the House hath his free voice ; some of them may chance to make scruples where there is no cause ; it is possible some of them may have sinister ends ; these things breed delays, so they may disturbances. . . . These matters are considerable in such cases as ours is. Wherein apparently 3Iora trdhit periculum, and to follow the rule, Festina lente, is most dangerous.' This, like Doneau's, may be an argument for royalty, but it is argument based on expediency and therefore cuts both ways.
- In defining the word ' king ', for instance, Brisson dwells upon the Roman practice
of giving that title to certain barbarian chieftains ; quotes Cicero, Pro Deiotaro, Livy, book xxxi, anent the practice ; and discusses the insignia of kingship. Brisson's death may indicate a man of Uke poUtical passions with ourselves, but in his purely legal books one would not think him such. ' It is worth noting that in commenting in 1585 (the year after the death of the duke of Alen9on made the direct right to the throne of Henry IV indisputable) upon the Decretals of Gregory IX, he writes, ' Nam rex Francorum in spiritualibus alium Buperiorem non agnoscit quam Romanum episcopum, in temporalibus neminem, nee Romanum episcopum nee Imperatorem. Quod privilegium etiam habere regem Hispa- niarum scholiastes tentat in c. Adrianus, 63 dist. et aUi.' It is significant that he includes in this immunity from external temporal control also the republic of Venice (Recit. solemn, ad Decretalium Gregorii IX libros, 4 ; Ad cap. Per venerabilem, xiii).
- Ad tit. Digest, de lustit. et lure : Ad leg, vii.
