WAMESIUS, Cl. I.C. Ioannis VVamesii … Responsorum sive consiliorum de iure pontificio : tomus I.

l

Johannes Wamesius (1524-1590) – Jean de Waimes – was born in Liège, studied law in Leuven and became a professor of law at the Leuven university from 1555 until his death in 1590. First, he was an ordinary professor of civil law, as of 1570 he held the first chair in canon law. He was very active in Antwerp legal life and experienced the commercial heydays of that city, as well as its sharp decline at the end of the 16th century. He remained at the Leuven university during the turbulent years of religious conflict and war. He was often asked for his expert opinion on concrete legal cases. Two volumes of (altogether) 600 so-called consilia de iure pontificio were published posthumously by his successor and son in law Étienne Weyms (Weymsius, 1553-1633). This is the first of two volumes. In his preface (epistola), which was directed at Ferdinand of Bavaria (1577-1650), then bishop-coadiutor of Cologne and Liège, as of 1612 prince-bishop, Weyms explained why these 600 consilia de iure pontificio by Wamesius deserved to be published. First of all, he stressed the importance of judicial practice in legal education. Students had to learn how they could apply the ius commune in concrete cases, both on the secular and on the ecclesiastical forum. Secondly, he pointed at the value of responsa in legal cases: according to Weyms, judges often rendered their judgments based on those texts. Thirdly, many would have asked Weyms to publish the consilia, so that they could also profit from Wamesius efforts. At the same time, Weyms was fully conscious of the resistance against such volumes of consultations. The Italian polemical debate between Andrea Alciato (1492-1550) and Tiberio Deciani (1509-1582) on the scientific value of consilia is well-known. Alciato was contra, Deciani pro. Alciato condemned the publication of such consilia – not specifically the consultation practice as such (in which Alciatus was, by the way, also involved). Critics, like Alciato, stated that, driven by emotions or love of gain, counsellors tried to construct arguments that were diametrically opposed to the clearest legal principles and case law. Some considered responsa as the corruptela of the true and impartial doctrine and jurisprudence. In his epistola, however, Weyms seemed convinced that this criticism did not apply to Wamesius, who would always have written honest consultations. See also Wouter Druwé, Loans and Credit in the Canon Law Consilia of Wamesius, KuLeuven, 2015. Druwé concludes: Wamesius consilia display his remarkable familiarity both with the learned sources of the ius commune (canon and civil law) and with the ius proprium of the Southern Low Countries. In his canon law consultations he interpreted several ordinances by Charles V, as well as a concordate on the division of competences between the ecclesiastical and the worldly forum. Sometimes, he even went into discussions on very local practices (e.g. on pawnhouses). Several contractual stipulations and many questions of proof were dealt with as well. At times – although to a more limited extent – Wamesius referred to non-legal, moral theological sources. Altogether, those consilia tell us how learned lawyers tried to deal with the multilayered reality of law in the early modern period. It goes without saying that such a varied system also allowed a great deal of creative and flexible thinking. To learned lawyers who wanted to defend their (paying) clients, that was undoubtedly a welcome feature.