202 notes to pages 69–70
the Medieval Idea of Sovereignty”; and Gaines Post, “Roman Law and Early Rep-
resentation in Spain and Italy, 1150 – 1250 .”
117. Strayer, “The Laicization of French and English Society,” 76. See the epi-
logue for a fuller discussion of Kantorowicz.
118. Justinian, Digest in Corpus iuris civilis, 1. 2. 6 : “Quod principi placuit legis
habet vigorem”; Justinian, Digest, 1. 3. 31 ( 30 ): “Princeps legibus solutus est; Augusta
autem licet legibus soluta non est, principes tamen eadem illi privilegia tribuunt,
quae ipsi habent.” Pennington, The Prince and the Law, 82 ; Elshtain, Sovereignty, 32 ;
and Ewart Lewis, “King Above Law? ‘Quod Principi Placuit’ in Bracton,” Speculum
39 , no. 2 ( 1964 ): 240 – 69.
119. Brian Tierney, “ ‘The Prince Is Not Bound by the Laws’: Accursius and
the Origins of the Modern State,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5
( 1963 ): 389 – 400.
120. On historiography, see Tierney, “ ‘The Prince Is Not Bound by the Laws,’ ”
379 – 82. See also Brian Tierney, “Bracton on Government,” Speculum 38 ( 1963 ):
295 – 317 ; John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. Wilfred E.
Rumble; Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law, trans. M. Knight; and idem, General
Theory of Law and the State, trans. A. Wedberg.
121. Tierney, “ ‘The Prince Is Not Bound by the Laws,’ ” 387 – 94.
122. Justinian, Code in Corpus iuris civilis, 1. 14. 4 : “Digna vox maiestate reg-
nantis legibus alligatum se principem profiteri”; Justinian, Digest, 1. 3. 2 : “Quia om-
nis lex inventum ac munus deorum est”; Justinian, Institutes in Corpus iuris civilis,
2. 17. 18 ; Accursius’s gloss of Justinian, Institutes in Corpus iuris civilis, 1. 2. 6.
123. Tierney, “ ‘The Prince Is Not Bound by the Laws,’ ” 388 , 394.
124. See, for instance, Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, 207 : “The noble
concept of the corpus mysticum, after having lost much of its transcendental mean-
ing and having been politicized and, in many respects, secularized by the Church
itself, easily fell prey to the world of thought of statesmen, jurists, and scholars
who were developing new ideologies for the nascent territorial and secular state.”
125. William J. Courtenay, “The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and
Late Middle Ages,” in Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philoso-
phy: Islamic, Jewish and Christian Perspectives, ed. Tamar Rudavsky, esp. 243 – 56 ;
Pennington, The Prince and the Law, 106 – 11.
126. Jürgen Miethke, “The Concept of Liberty in William of Ockham,” Col-
lection de l’École française de Rome 147 ( 1991 ): 93 ; Pennington, The Prince and
the Law, 85 , 108 ; Elshtain, Sovereignty: God, State, and Self, 25 – 27 , 36 – 39 ; William
J. Courtenay, Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and
Ordained Power, 118 ; and idem, “The Dialectic of Omnipotence,” 243 : “terrifying
potential of arbitrary divine intervention.”
127. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, 151 ff; Ullmann, “The Development
of the Medieval Idea of Sovereignty”; and Lewis, “King Above Law?” 243. On
Frederick’s self- coronation, see Kantorowicz, Kaiser Freidrich der Zweite, 184 – 86 ;