Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Interpretation of Law in the Age of Enlightenment pp 21–43Cite as

Legal Interpretation in France Under the Reign of Louis XVI: A Review of the Gazette des tribunaux

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 966 Accesses

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 95))

Abstract

This chapter examines judicial interpretation of the law during the final years of France’s Ancien Regime: in particular, the 15 years of Louis XVI’s reign that preceded the French Revolution. I shall explore this interpretation through the lens of a periodical law report from the period, called the Gazette des tribunaux. To this end, first it will be necessary to present this publication’s political and legal context. Second, I shall analyse the evolution of methods of publishing judgments, before proposing hypotheses about the evolution of legal interpretation itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Paul Hazard, La Crise de la conscience européenne 1680–1715, Paris, Boivin et Cie, 1935, pp. 186–197.

  2. 2.

    Through the word “legicentrism”, some French legal historians want to describe the ideology (supposed to dominate from 1789 onwards) of strict submission of judges towards statute law, with the obligation to give reasons (law of the 16th and 24th August 1790), the institution of référé législatif (the judge must ask for a legislative interpretation in case of doubt about the meaning of the statute law, according the same 1790 law) and the creation of the Tribunal de cassation (Law of the 27th of November – 1st of December 1790) to control the respect of laws by the judges.

  3. 3.

    Michel Antoine, “Sens et portée de la réforme Maupeou”, Revue Historique, vol. 288/1, 1992, pp. 39–59; Julian Swann, Politics and the Parlement of Paris under Louis XV 1754–1774, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 352–368.

  4. 4.

    François Saint-Bonnet, “Louis XIV, les parlements et la souveraineté” in Gauthier Aubert, Olivier Chaline (eds.), Les Parlements de Louis XIV. Opposition, coopération, autonomisation?, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2010, pp. 173–183.

  5. 5.

    Jacques Krynen, L’État de justice. France XVIII e –XX e siècle. L’idéologie de la magistrature ancienne, Paris, Gallimard, “Bibliothèque des Histoires”, 2009, p. 157.

  6. 6.

    Nicola Picardi, Introduzione, Code Louis, Ordonnance civile, Testi e documenti per la storia del processo, Milano, Giuffrè, 1996, p. XXVIII.

  7. 7.

    Paolo Alvazzi del Frate, L’interpretazione autentica nel XVIII secolo. Divieto di interpretatio e “riferimento al legislatore” nell’illuminismo giuridico, Torino, Giappichelli, 2000, pp. 63–64.

  8. 8.

    The cassation recourse before the Conseil du Roi was conceived to make the royal ordinances respected, although it was not impossible to quash a decision of a Parlement for violation of Roman or customary law.

  9. 9.

    Claude de Ferrière, Dictionnaire de droit et de pratique, 3rd ed., vol. II, V° Interpretation, Paris, 1749, pp. 83–85 and V° Loy, p. 140. The author considers that almost every law needs an interpretation, and that this interpretation can be found in the reason (i.e. the decisive reason for the legislator) and the spirit of the law, without making distinctions in front of a silent law or interpreting clear and precise articles.

  10. 10.

    Claude-Joseph de Ferrière, Nouvelle Introduction à la Pratique, Paris, vol. II, 1745, pp. 75–76.

  11. 11.

    Joseph-Nicolas Guyot, Répertoire universel et raisonné de jurisprudence civile, criminelle, canonique et bénéficiale, Paris, Panckoucke, vol. 32, 1779, V° Interprétation, p. 371.

  12. 12.

    Especially from D. 14, 1, 1, 20 (interpretation according the black letter of the law), D. 35, 1, 64 (favorable interpretation of the law), D. 50, 16, 219 (intention more important then the expressions of the Law) or C. 1, 14, 5 (importance of the spirit of the law).

  13. 13.

    Traité des lois, Chapter XII, 7.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., Chapter XII, 17. This idea, coming from D. 1, 3, 12 (all cases cannot be foreseen in the statutory law), is repeated by all the legal writers during the 18th century.

  15. 15.

    Ibid. Chapter XI, 1–11 (especially the idea that many arbitrary laws are consequences of natural laws, which provokes the coexistence of two laws inside one arbitrary law).

  16. 16.

    Jean Domat, Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel, vol. I, tit. I, sect. II, especially n. 1 and 12, éd. Héricourt, Paris, chez Nyon, 1777, pp. 4–10.

  17. 17.

    Jeanne-Marie Tuffery-Andrieu, La discipline des juges, les Mercuriales de D’Aguesseau, Paris, LGDJ, 2007, especially pp. 84, 99–100, 130–131.

  18. 18.

    For example the 41st pleading (1697 about donations made by a father who was married twice) in D’Aguesseau, Oeuvres, vol. 4, 1764, pp. 25–41.

  19. 19.

    Marie-France Renoux-Zagamé, “Lumières de la pensée juridique: le Chancelier d’Aguesseau”, conference at the Court of Cassation, 28th of November 2006.

  20. 20.

    Jeanne-Marie Tuffery-Andrieu, op. cit., p. 99. Furthermore, in his Pensées (that were not published during the 18th century), Montesquieu wrote that the Parlement was in the same time the slave of the letter of the law and the repository of the spirit of all laws (Pensées, n. 2266, ed. Louis Desgraves, Paris, Robert Laffont, 1991, p. 658).

  21. 21.

    Paolo Alvazzi del Frate, op. cit., p. 116.

  22. 22.

    Voltaire, Dictionnaire philosophique, V° Des lois civiles et ecclésiastiques, Paris, ed. Garnier, 1967, p. 290.

  23. 23.

    Serge Dauchy, Véronique Demars-Sion, “La non-motivation des décisions judiciaires dans l’ancien droit: principe ou usage?”, Revue Historique de Droit français et étranger, 82(2), 2004, pp. 223–239.

  24. 24.

    Serge Dauchy, “Les recueils privés de ‘jurisprudence’ aux Temps Modernes”, in Alain Wijfells (ed.), Case Law in Making, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1997, vol. I, pp. 237–247 about Louet, a member of the Parlement de Paris at the end of the 16th century.

  25. 25.

    Gerhard Walter in Helmut Coing, Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen Privatrechtsgechichte, Munich, 1976, Band II, Teilband II, p. 1223; Serge Dauchy, Véronique Demars-Sion (dir.), Les recueils d’arrêts et dictionnaires de jurisprudence, XVI e –XVIII e siècles, Paris, La Mémoire du Droit, 2005.

  26. 26.

    Christian Chêne, “L’arrestographie, science fort douteuse”, Recueil des travaux et mémoires publiés par la Société d’histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays de droit écrit, 1985, pp. 179–187; Nicolas Derasse, “La mise en valeur des recueils d’arrêts et des dictionnaires de jurisprudence à travers leurs préfaces”, in Serge Dauchy, Véronique Demars-Sion, op. cit. (note 25), pp. 41–68.

  27. 27.

    Joseph Nicolas Guyot, op. cit., vol. I, 1775, V° Arrêt; Encyclopédie méthodique. Jurisprudence, Paris, Panckoucke, vol. 5, 1785, V° Jurisprudence, p. 365; Antoine-François Prost de Royer, Dictionnaire de jurisprudence et des arrêts, Lyon, vol. VI, 1787, v° Arrêt, pp. 720–728 reporting a debate among Metz lawyers 20 years before.

  28. 28.

    David Avrom Bell, Lawyers and Citizens. The Making of a Political Elite in the Old Regime France, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994, has shown that the Order of Parisian Barristers, created only at the end of the 17th century, has developed from the years 1720 onwards (and the so-called “affaire des avocats” about memoires defending Jansenist priests) a clear strategy of publicizing judicial affairs, pp. 150–183.

  29. 29.

    Hans-Jürgen Lüsenbrik, Kriminalität and Literatur im Frankreich des 18. Jahrhunderts, Munchen-Wien, Oldenbourg, 1983, p. 105.

  30. 30.

    Sarah Maza, Private Lives and Public Affairs. The Causes célèbres of Prerevolutionary France, Berkeley-Los Angeles,-London, The University of California Press, 1995, p. 25.

  31. 31.

    Causes célèbres, curieuses et intéressantes de toutes les Cours souveraines du royaume, vol. I, 1773, p. 6.

  32. 32.

    Mars was a former advocate before the Royal Council (“avocat aux Conseils”) and seigniorial judge of the duke of Bouillon. The Gazette des Tribunaux was published in Paris, Le Jay, rue Saint-Jacques.

  33. 33.

    One finds some of the well known titles of the new legal literature: Guyot’s Répertoire universel, the journal of the Causes célèbres, Boncerf’s Inconvénients des droits féodaux,

  34. 34.

    Gazette des tribunaux, vol. 27, 1788, n. 13, p. 196 alluding to the help of a lawyer to take notes of the conclusions of the Advocate General in the Parlement de Dauphiné.

  35. 35.

    For an example of avowed presence in the audience of the Court, Gazette des tribunaux, vol. 8, 1779, n. 37, p. 164.

  36. 36.

    Gazette des tribunaux, vol. 1, 1775, n. 5, p. 65.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., vol. 8, 1779, n. 27, p. 7.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., vol. 13, n. 22, p. 339 (with the use of the formula “attendu que” which began to be the common one until today in the decisions of French judicial courts).

  39. 39.

    For example, Augeard, Arrêts notables des différents tribunaux du royaume, Paris, vol. I, 1710 alternates very short and longer notices, in many cases with the name of the Advocate General and the indication that the decision was “conform” to the conclusions of the Public Ministry.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., vol. 7, 1779, n. 8, p. 127.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., vol. 4, 1777, n. 27, p. 6.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., vol. 20, 1785, n. 41, p. 231; the two last ones were, during the Revolution, members of the Convention who voted the death of Louis the sixteenth.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., vol. 3, 1777, n. 21, p. 321; vol. 15, 1783, n. 20, p. 324; vol. 16, 1783, n. 46, p. 306 (speaking of 30 years of triumph in the arena of Eloquence) . Also about Hérault de Séchelles and his eloquent discourses attended by a large and applauding audience, Ibid., vol. 23, 1787, p. 132.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., vol. 16, 1783, n. 31, p. 74.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., vol. 8, n. 37, p. 170.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., vol. 27, 1789, n. 13, p. 196.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., vol. 10, 1780, n. 31, p. 67 speaking expressly of the “reasons of the judgment”.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., vol. 5, 1778, n. 11 and n. 12, pp. 167 and 180–185.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., vol. 21, 1786, n. 17, p. 257.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., vol. 26, 1788, n. 33, pp. 58–59.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., vol. 26, 1788, n. 29, pp. 37–39 with the very political discourse of Séguier (24th of September 1788) against the Lamoignon’s reforms of May 1788. This discourse is very closed to the ideas developed by Montesquieu about the continuity of the legal corpus through the different reigns of the monarchs.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., vol. 26, 1788, n. 33, p. 56.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., vol. 20, 1785, n. 37, p. 170.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., vol. 4, 1777, n. 34, p. 118 and, about the general customary law of France, vol. 12, 1781, n. 32, p. 83.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., vol. 1, 1775, n. 5, p. 73; vol. 2, 1776, n. 31, p. 69; vol. 27, 1788, n. 16, p. 246 with the examples of the pleadings of the advocates Lacretelle, Montigny and Fossey invoking the signification of the law and the intention of the legislator.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., vol. 2, 1776, n. 43, p. 264.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., vol. 3, 1777, n. 23, p. 354: however, in this case, the Court did not agree with Séguier’s conclusions and his “natural” interpretations of the texts.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., vol. 3, 1777, n. 10, p. 149 (Séguier saying that one must understand the royal ordinance of 1670 according a clear distinction between different offences).

  59. 59.

    Ibid., vol. 8, 1779, n. 27, p. 7.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., vol. 12, 1781, n. 49, p. 359.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., vol. 14, 1782, n. 31, p. 67.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., vol. 17, 1783, n. 23, p. 357.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., vol. 18, 1784, n. 38, p. 179; there is no reason to distinguish between the conclusions of the Public Ministry and a pleading from Treilhard (a future member of the revolutionary assemblies) saying that the Court had to “judge as the Law”.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., vol. 19, 1785, n. 14, p. 221; only the initials M. S. D. R. are indicated, but one can suppose that the Advocate General is Savoye de Rollin, whose other texts are quoted in the Gazette des tribunaux.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., vol. 5, 1778, n. 7, p. 98.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., vol. 26, 1788, n. 33, p. 56.

  67. 67.

    Joseph, Michel, Antoine Servan, Oeuvres, ed. X. de Portets, Paris, vol. I, 1822, pp. 13–67: these conclusions of the Public Ministry, developed in more than 50 pages, do not discuss the laws prohibiting the Protestant religion in France but invoke principles of natural law (and Pudendorf’s works) about compensation of damages provoked by a fault.

  68. 68.

    Gazette des tribunaux, vol. 5, 1778, n. 12, p. 184.

  69. 69.

    About this affair, David D. Bien, “Catholic Magistrates and Protestant Marriages in the French Enlightenment”, French Historical Studies, vol. 2, 1962, n° 4, p. 416.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., vol. 6, 1778, n. 39, p. 199. Later, in the 1828 edition of the Répertoire universel by Merlin (vol. 9, V° Légitimité, p. 584), the conclusions of de Cambon were lauded as a courageous act coming from a royal officer.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., vol. 1, 1775, n. 5, p. 73.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., vol. 6, 1778, n. 39, p. 193.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., vol. 22, 1786, p. 234. About this criminal affair, Edmond Seligman, La justice en France pendant la Révolution, Paris, vol. 1, 1901, pp. 98–103.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., vol. 26, 1788, n. 28, p. 17.

  75. 75.

    Gazette des nouveaux tribunaux, vol. I, 1791, pp. 4–5.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École Normale Supérieure, UMR 7074 “Centre de Théorie et Analyse du droit”, Paris, France

    Jean-Louis Halpérin

Authors
  1. Jean-Louis Halpérin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Louis Halpérin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University, Furo-cho 1, Nagoya, 464-8601, Aichi, Japan

    Yasutomo Morigiwa

  2. Max-Planck-Institut fuer europaeische Re, Hausener Weg 120, Frankfurt/Main, 60489, Hessen, Germany

    Michael Stolleis

  3. , EHESS, Ecole Normale Superieure, boulevard Jourdan 48, Paris, 75014, France

    Jean-Louis Halperin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Halpérin, JL. (2011). Legal Interpretation in France Under the Reign of Louis XVI: A Review of the Gazette des tribunaux . In: Morigiwa, Y., Stolleis, M., Halperin, JL. (eds) Interpretation of Law in the Age of Enlightenment. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 95. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1506-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation