An anecdote about Roman law and political legitimacy.

During the first half of the 15th century, there arose between the Crowns of Castile and Portugal a dispute about the right to conquer and settle the Canary Islands, off the northwestern coast of Africa.
The issue was raised both before the Court of Pope Eugene IV at Bologna and the Council of Basel, then in conciliarist rebellion against the Pontiff.

The territorial dispute is complicated a bit by the concilliarist-papalist question, but it suffices to say that, ultimately, ...
both kings, John II of Castile and Edward of Portugal, rejected the pretended authority of the Council over the Pope, and sought resolution of their quarrel at the feet of the Pontiff, choosing to remove, by their own authority, the issue from the Council's deliberation.
Indeed, both Crowns acknowledged the Pope's supreme jurisdiction in the question of the "dominium Mundi," and they would continue to do so in their future disputes over their respective rights of discovery and evangelization of the entire globe, as at Tordesillas in 1494.
Back to the Canaries. Castile and Portugal recognized, for this dispute, the principle that the islands, populated by non-Christians, were a "res nullius" (a thing owned by nobody) in the ius gentium, and it was proper that they be granted to the most proximate Christian prince.
The Portuguese delegation were content to push this principle, arguing that the closest Christian land was the Cape of St. Vincent, within the dominion of the Crown of Portugal.

The Castilians disagreed, and this is where the Roman legitimacy point comes in.
The brilliant Castilian delegate at Basel, Alfonso García de Santa María (a.k.a. Alonso de Cartagena), converso Bishop of Burgos and one of the great luminaries of the 15th c., drafted his "Allegationes" for the Castilian ambassador at Bologna to show that Castile was closer.
His lord don John II — he argued — is, as king of Castile and León, the successor and heir of the great restorer of Christian order in Spain, don Pelayo, first king of Asturias, who began the Reconquista against Islam.

And the title that don Pelayo claimed over the land ...
the title on on which all Christian claims had been based since the beginning, was that of the Visigothic kings of Spain, who in turn claimed their right from the grant of the Roman People and Emperors, the conquerors, civilizers, Christianizers of Spain, the "firstborn of Rome."
But of course — Alfonso continued — the jurisdiction of Roman Hispania, on which Pelayo based his claim, included all of its provinces: Hispania Betica, Lusitania, Tarraconensis, Callaecia ... and Mauretania Tingitana, across the Strait of Gibraltar.
The King of Castile claims, as all Christians acknowledge, the right to Roman Hispania. It is true — Alfonso argued — that he does not today control all of it, for it has been taken from him by violence, but one day he will also recover Mauretania Tingitana from the infidels.
And Tingis (i.e., today's Tangier), it turns out, is closer to the Canary Islands than any part of the Kingdom of Portugal. Therefore, it follows simply that the islands belong by right to the King of Castile.

Roman legitimacy, the basis of universal order, decided the matter.
Some reading about this fascinating episode here: mdc.ulpgc.es/cdm/ref/collec…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rafael de Arízaga

Rafael de Arízaga Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RafaeldeArizaga

16 Sep
A joint letter of the Spanish Episcopate to all the Bishops of the world, explaining the circumstances of the war and the reasons for the Church's decision to seek shelter with, and to give a blessing to the Nationalists, is not exactly "silence."
archive.org/details/jointl…
Nor is a letter from the Cardinal Primate of Spain to the president of the Basque government, to which dozens of Bishops publicly gave their endorsement, on the situation of the Basque people and clergy during the war, "silence."
atzoatzokoa.gipuzkoakultura.net/1937/index.php
Nor is the radio speech given by Pope Pius XII upon the conclusion of the war, congratulating himself and the people of Spain "for the gift of peace and victory, with which God has deigned to crown the Christian heroism of your faith and charity," a form of "silence."
Read 6 tweets
14 Sep
Fascinating dichotomy. Aquinas teaches that one purpose of law is to teach virtue, thereby teaching truth in practical things, too.

The "appeal to theory" is how a society deforms law: we seek the approval of the theorists instead of the judgment of authority to do things. 1/4
Butt this is a rationalist deception. Theorists can never be neutral "experts," as the liberal would have us think. Their approval is thus, in truth, a rubber stamp for the party who hired them. Law still enacts a moral vision, but under the pretense of technical neutrality. 2/4
Liberalism thereby masks its true formative character under the guise of neutral legislative technology.

Aquinas is still right: law teaches, but liberal law does it covertly. It thereby strips us of any remedy against its action. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
19 Aug 19
An anecdote on nationalism and empire:

Near the turn of the 17th century, the Neapolitan theologian Tommaso Campanella OP wrote to his ruler, Philip I of Naples (and II of Spain), asking him for suppression of the Neapolitan language and its replacement with Castilian.
He argued that by permitting a diversity of tongues in his empire, Philip was preventing a more perfect union of all peoples, and because Neapolitan (Campanella’s mother tongue) was a less extended tongue, as well as allegedly barbarous, it was ripe for annihilation.
The King replied (likely years later, with his usual bureaucratic circumspection) denying the request in the most absolute terms. He said that he was, for Campanella, not the king of Castile, but of Naples, and would rule the land in accordance with its own ancient laws & ways.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!