西洋立憲主義と中世の法思想・政治思想 : 公会議主義の評価をめぐって
2002 年 39 巻 1 号 p. 148-160
詳細
2002 年 39 巻 1 号 p. 148-160
In the history of Western constitutionalism, Conciliarism or the consiliarmovement in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century was a significant chapter. According to The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350-c.1450(1988), Conciliarism may be divided into three phases: (i)1378-83, when its advocates drew exrensively on Marsiglio and,especially, Ockham; (ii)1408-18, when a quasi-patristic of power-sharing between pope and bishops-in council was dominant; (iii)1432-50, when unlimited sovereignty was claimed for an internally democratic coucil. Maybe the first author who suggested the importance of Conciliarism in the history of Western constitutionalism was John Neville Figgis. He wrote in his Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius 1414-1625(1907): "Probably the most revolutionary official documents in the history of the world is the decree of the Council of Constance asserting its superiority to the Pope, and striving to turn into a tepid constitutionalism the Divine authority of a tho0usand years". Among the decrees of the Counsil of Constance, Haec sancta (1415) and Frequent (1417) are important.The thesis propounded by Figgis, expanded by many scholars in two direction: (i)detailed study of the major and minor theorists and pamphletters contributed to the conciliar theory of Constance and its era; (ii)the basic precepts of conciliar thought were themselves rooted in a tradition of canon law that dated as foa as the twelfth-century decretists. This is mainly Brain Tierney's discovery. I think thst the core assertion of the constitutionalism is limitation of powers by law or restriction of arbitrary power-exercised by the power-holders. So,the separation of power-holder and decision-maker is a essential element of conctitutionalism. Form this point of view, conciliarism that asserted superiority of the Council to the Pops has a constitutionalistic character, but conciliarism that claimed unlimited sovereignty for the Council might not be combined with constitutionalism.
