François Hotman and the Critique of Gratian’s Decree: From the Investigation of Early Councils (De statu primitivae Ecclesiae, 1553) to the Rewriting of Europe’s Legal History (Antitribonian, 1567)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Należy zmienić wyrażenia "I have" (linijka 44 i 46 artykułu) na stronę bierną.

Author Response

Hi,

Many thanks for the review.

I believe my translation is correct: 

I have countless notes against canon law, in which I have laid bare, in part, the stupidity of the Roman Antichrist in his knowledge of civil law, in part, his deceits, fakery and incredible lies. I have compared the Greek Councils and the more recent Latin Councils with that hodgepodge of Gratian.

Habeo contra jus Canonicum notas innumerabiles, quibus Antichristi Romani partim stuporem in Civilis Juris scientia, partim imposturas, fraudes, falsitates incredibiles patefeci. Concilia Graeca et Latina recentiora cum illa Gratiani farragine contuli.

All verbs are in the active form in Latin and thus should be translated in the active form in English. It is however possible I misunderstood your review. Please do tell me if I did.

Many thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that you first of all refer "ad fontes", i.e. to the text of the works of François Hotman, and then to the works of those who have written about him and his works, since the text of your paper shows that you are indebted only to the latter, from which you also seem to have taken excerpts from the author's works.

The title should be rephrased because François Hotman criticizes only Gratian's Corpus juris canonici and papal conciliar law, not the "jus canonicum" of the ecumenical Church of the first millennium.

 

Author Response

Hi,

Many thanks for your review.

Comment 1: I do not fully understand your point here. My paper is mostly based on a text about which little more than 10-15 pages have ever been written (the DSPE). The only paper directly concerned with the DSPE is Gabriel 2011: I agree with most of his analysis, but my papers goes in a different direction. My concern is more with the practice, form, and meaning of the study in early modern Europe of the counciliar tradition as represented by Gratian's Decree; whereas Gabriel insists more on a broader context of Gallican writings questioning the Pope's primacy and thus presents Hotman as the most radical French jurist of his generation on this particular matter. I do not believe I have misrepresented Gabriel's interpretation, but I am willing to highlight it more clearly, if you believe it to be necessary. More generally speaking, I relied on a wider set of literature mostly to produce a rich context in which to present my analysis. If your comment referred to such broader use of the literature, I must admit I do not understand what you want me to change in my text and would welcome more detail.

Comment 2: As the paper will be published in a special issue on the Swiss Reformation, I believe that the reference in my title to "a critique of canon law" is fairly transparent and clearly refers to the work done by Protestant jurists on the corpus of Gratian. However, if you believe it to be misleading, I could amend it in the following manner: 'François Hotman and the Critique of Gratian's Decree. From the In-vestigation of Early Councils (De statu primitivae Ecclesiae, 1553) to the Rewriting of Europe’s Legal History (Antitribonian, 1567)'. However, Hotman does criticize some statutes of canon law produced during the period of the ecumenical Church. Furthermore, I do believe that the original title captures more accurately the understanding by leading Protestant jurists of the whole canon law-tradition as a popish fraud. 

Best regards