THE EARLY MODERN HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE OF THE GERMAN NATION (1495–1806): A MULTi-layered LEGAL SYSTEM Karl Härter The Composite Reichssystem: Constitutional Order and Multi-layered Legal System After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century ce, the legal his- tory of Europe evolved in the context of the sovereign nation-state, in which legislative and judicial powers were, over time, monopolised and centralised, and homogeneous legal systems were established. However, recent research has drawn quite a different picture of early modern legal history and state-building, framing them in terms of the transnational ius commune and supranational empires.1 How are these two models to be reconciled? The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in its early modern shape (1495–1806) appears as an exemplary case for study:2 it comprised various members with differ- ent languages, religions and cultures (from northern Italy to Denmark, from Burgundy to Bohemia), legally associated through feudal relations and the Reichsstandschaft under the universal power of the Imperium manifested in the supreme authority of the Emperor—the Kaiser.3 In the early modern period some members, such as the Swiss Confedera- tion or the Dutch Republic, had separated from or remained only loosely bound to the ‘imperial federation’ (Reichsverband). The Imperial Estates (Reichsstände)—seven to ten Prince-Electors, far more than two hundred Principalities (most of them ‘territorial states’) and about fifty Imperial Cities—formed the nucleus of the Empire. They possessed the right to participate through ‘seat and vote’ in the Imperial Diet (Reichstag), the 1 Manlio Bellomo, The common legal past of Europe, 1000–1800 (Washington DC, 1995); Manlio Bellomo, Europäische Rechtseinheit. Grundlagen und System des Ius Commune (Munich, 2005); Paolo Grossi, A history of European law (Oxford, 2010), 33–35, 43, 99. 2 Lauren Benton, A search for sovereignty. Law and geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge, 2010), 3–9. 3 For a recent overview see R.J.W. Evans/Michael Schaich/Peter H. Wilson, ed., The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806 (Oxford, 2011); for the new perspective on the history of the Empire cf. Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin, Das Alte Reich 1648–1806, 4 vols. (Stuttgart, 1993–2000). 112 karl härter pivotal constitutional and political institution of the Empire, as well as to wield independent powers concerning legislation and jurisdiction in their immediate territories—the so-called Landesherrschaft (territorial rule).4 The composite imperial system (Reichssystem) was heterogeneous, polycentric and diverse, in terms of both rights and legal cultures. It was predominantly based on a conglomeration of imperial law, i.e. tra- ditional, customary and feudal law, privileges, treaties and agreements, leges fundamentales, imperial legislation as well as conventional legal and constitutional practice, political rituals/proceedings and customs (Reichsherkommen), which all together formed a constitutional system— the Reichsverfassung.5 As successor of the Roman Empire the early- modern Empire ‘of the German Nation’ was also embedded in the Roman law tradition and deeply integrated in the European ius commune to which it contributed substantially in the early modern period, notably in the field of public law.6 Though the roots of the imperial legal culture can be traced back to the Middle Ages, the legal system of the Empire developed in its entirety between the late 15th and the early 16th cen- turies. This development was marked by such fundamental processes as the reception of Roman law (Rezeption),7 based on the idea (or myth) of the translatio imperii and driven by the establishment of law faculties as well as the practice of jurists. The reception gave rise to a burgeon- ing jurisprudence of the ius commune—the learned law (gelehrtes Recht). It also led to the formation of professionally trained jurists as a new 4 Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation. Vom Ende des Mittelalters bis 1806 (Munich, 2006); Peter Claus Hartmann, Das Heilige Römische Reich deutscher Nation in der Neuzeit 1486–1806 (Ditzingen, 2005); Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806 (Houndmills, 1999). 5 Bernd Roeck, Reichssystem und Reichsherkommen. Die Diskussion über die Staatlich- keit des Reiches in der politischen Publizistik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1984); Heinz Duchhardt, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte 1495–1806 (Stuttgart et al., 1991); Karl Härter, ‘Das Recht des Alten Reiches: Reichsherkommen, Reichsgesetzgebung und “gute Policey”’, in Stephan Wendehorst/Siegrid Westphal, ed., Lesebuch Altes Reich (Munich, 2006), 87–94. 6 Helmuth Coing, ed., Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte. Vol. II: Neuere Zeit. Das Zeitalter des gemeinen Rechts (1500–1800) (Munich, 1976/77). 7 Peter Stein, Roman law in European history (Cambridge et al., 1999), 88–92. Still of relevance is the extensive research of Helmut Coing; cf. the surveys in English: ‘The Roman law as ius commune on the continent’, The law quarterly review (1973), 505–517; ‘Roman law and the national legal systems’, in R.R. Bolgar, ed., Classical influences on Western thought AD 1650–1870 (Cambridge, 1979), 29–37; ‘European common law: Historical foun- dations’, in Mauro Cappelletti, ed., New perspectives for a common law of Europe (Leyden, 1978), 31–44..