Chinese Academy of History Hosts Book Launch for European Civilizational Process (16 Volumes) and Forum on Mutual Learning Between Chinese and European Civilizations

Editorial Office（4）

Re-examining the “Revival” of Roman Law in the Middle Ages

XU Hao（32）

Following its promulgation in the 6th century, the Corpus Juris Civilis was promptly implemented within the Byzantine Empire, but did not see widespread application in Western Europe under Germanic rule until the late 11th century. The “private law” components of Roman law were subsequently adopted and adapted by European states to varying degrees, while its “public law” elements served as instruments for consolidating sovereign power only in certain regions of the Continent. This divergent reception suggests that a genuine, uniform “revival” of Roman law, as traditionally conceived, did not occur. Previous scholarship has predominantly cast this process in a highly positive light, although more recent studies have begun to advance contrasting critiques. This divergence in assessment stems largely from the selective focus of both sides—each examining only the perceived essence or flaws of Roman law, thus presenting a partial and potentially skewed perspective. In light of this, a comprehensive investigation into the distinct trajectories of private and public law during this period of reception, alongside their differing impacts across Europe, is imperative for arriving at a scientifically grounded and accurate historical evaluation.

The “Revival” of Roman Law and Making of Marriage Patterns in Northwestern and Southern Medieval Europe

WANG Chaohua（50）

The influence of the 11th-century Revival of Roman Law on European marriage institutions exhibited significant regional variations between the Northwest and the South. In Southern Europe, Roman law was almost fully received, giving rise to the “Mediterranean Marriage Pattern”, characterized by extended households, strong patriarchy, and early marriage. In contrast, in Northwestern Europe, the impact of Roman law was limited. Under the predominant forces of Germanic customary law and canon law, a more flexible system of marital property arrangements emerged. Facilitated by a unique labor market and premarital wealth accumulation mechanisms, this led to the formation of the “European Marriage Pattern”, marked by nuclear families, late marriage, and a high rate of lifelong celibacy. An examination of this differential reception and the concomitant formation of the two marital patterns reveals the competitive and interactive dynamics among elements within a hybrid civilization, providing an analytical perspective for understanding why Northwestern European societies were the first to embark on the path toward modern transformation.

The Fate of the Roman Law Maxim “Quod Principi Placuit Legis Habet Vigorem” in England Since the 12th Century

ZHU Jian（64）

The maxim Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem constituted a fundamental principle in Roman jurisprudence. Since the 12th century, it was introduced into England during the revival of Roman law, where it was reinterpreted and harmonized with the tradition of English customary law, thereby lending conceptual support to the common law system. From the late medieval to the early modern period, Sir John Fortescue astutely recognized the political risks inherent in this principle within the English context, defining it as a legal doctrine that underpinned autocratic rule. During the reign of Henry VIII, the principle was invoked in anti-papal polemics and the construction of state sovereignty, becoming reactivated as a strategic resource in ideological debates. Due to the persistent efforts of common lawyers to impose constraints on royal authority, this principle ultimately receded from active political practice. Its trajectory serves as a microcosm of the dissemination of medieval Roman Law in England.

The Historical Disjunction Between the Development of the Jury System in Twelfth-Century England and the “Revival” of Roman Law

HOU Xinglong（80）

Following the Norman Conquest, the jury system became a pivotal mechanism for judicial governance and information-gathering in England. It fostered the development of “trial by peers” and formulated litigation procedures. In contrast, Roman law emphasized the “extraordinary cognition” (cognitio extraordinaria), where judges held complete control. Consequently, although the revival of Roman law reached England and sparked a wave of scholarly interest, its influence soon subsided. At that time, the English monarchy, utilizing the jury system to extend royal authority into local communities and establish a framework for central-local governance, had little practical need to adopt Roman law. Furthermore, the introduction of Roman law risked exacerbating ecclesiasticalsecular conflict, potentially creating a subordinate relationship with the Roman Curia and thereby threatening England’s autonomy. The twelfth century thus represents a period of convergence between the maturation of the English jury system and the continental revival of Roman law. This historical asynchrony ultimately contributed to the judicial divergence within Europe in the later medieval period.

The Historical Evolution of the “Glorious Revolution” Narrative in Britain

LU Lianchao（95）

The historical narrative of Britain’s “Glorious Revolution” has undergone a significant evolution, shifting from an emphasis on divine providence and resistance to tyranny, to its interpretation as a political revolution. These three narratives represent expressions of the Whig historiography at different stages. While the Whig perspective focuses predominantly on the conflict between Parliament and the Crown, it often neglects the element of cooperation between the monarch and Parliament within the constitutional framework. In essence, the “Glorious Revolution” established a polity of shared governance between the monarch and the political nation, premised on a common Protestant faith. It codified four constitutional principles through statute law: a Protestant monarchy, regular parliaments, governance through consultation, and an independent judiciary. This new polity and its constitutional principles represent the legalization and institutionalization of the meta-principles of European civilization. Although the label “constitutional monarchy” reflects a continuity rooted in the medieval period, it fails to capture the republican reality of the political system that emerged.

Educational Reform of the German Nobility, 1750−1850

WANG Zhihua（109）

The period from 1750 to 1850 marked a critical phase in the construction of the modern German state. The penetration of state power into local grassroots and changes in elite selection mechanisms plunged the German nobility into a crisis. In response to this transformation, they gradually embraced the concept of citizenship education and reformed the traditional knightly education model. This new paradigm adhered to the principles of child physical and mental development, prioritized rational thinking and meritocratic logic in the educational process, established the German language as the core medium of instruction, and progressively broke down existing hierarchical barriers. Through a multi-faceted survival strategy, the German nobility transformed from traditional knights into modern citizens, forming an effective synergy with the monarchy and the bureaucratic system to jointly steer the path of German modernization.

Reconstructing the “State of Propriety”: The Ryukyu Kingdom in the Mid-Seventeenth Century

PAN Ruhong（123）

During the mid-seventeenth century transition from the Ming to the Qing dynasty, the Ryukyu Kingdom also underwent a royal succession. The bestowal of investiture by the Chinese imperial court served as the foundation for the legitimacy of the Ryukyu monarch and was equally vital for maintaining the bilateral tributary-trade relationship. Consequently, Ryukyu first steadfastly upheld its ties with the Ming court and the subsequent Southern Ming regime, before swiftly realigning itself to pledge allegiance to the new Qing dynasty. After clarifying its allegiance and ending its period of ambiguity, the Ryukyu royal house and the Kumeji scholar-official class initiated a series of reforms modeled on Chinese precedents. These included overhauling the education system, compiling genealogies, drafting a national history, and standardizing tributary rituals to strengthen trade relations. Through these proactive measures of self-reinvention, the Ryukyu Kingdom successfully reconstructed its identity as a “State of Propriety”. It maintained this identity while navigating its sphere of activity within the maritime sphere of East Asia until its annexation in 1879.