Steiner's account of how Roman law, carried by Latin clerical administration, absorbed the free medieval towns into the country-based modern state after the fifteenth century.
Roman Law and the Modern State in Anthroposophy is Rudolf Steiner's account, given in Lecture II of European Spiritual Life in the 19th Century (GA 325, Dornach, 16 May 1921), of how the political form Europe now takes was assembled out of two currents. One current ran over people's heads: Roman law clothed in Latin, spreading through the Roman priesthood into villages and then towns. The other ran in the hearts of the folk, where thinking was first born through a person's own activity around the fifteenth century. Steiner traces how the proud, individualistic towns lost their independence when the medieval princes took leadership of the village communities that opposed them, and the country then drew the towns into a wider administrative structure. Roman law entered that structure. The modern state, in his description, is made up of country parishes governed by a Latin legal form the folk never spoke.
Roman law and the modern state name a single historical process in Steiner's spiritual history of Europe: the absorption of the medieval free town into a legal order it did not create. He dates the decisive turn to the fifteenth century, when the newborn power of independent thinking met an administrative machinery already centuries old, and the machinery won.
In Steiner's Own Words
In the towns people were proud of their individualism, of their freedom. One can see this in the portraits painted at that time. But the village communities were shut off from all this. Then the medieval princes rose to power. And those who outside in the villages gradually came to be in opposition to the towns, found in the princes their leaders. And it was from the country, from the villages that the impulse came which drew the towns into the wider administrative structure, into which then came Roman law.
The sentence that follows completes the picture: there arose the modern state, in Steiner's phrase “made up of the country parishes”, and the country conquered the towns again.
What it Means Today
Legal historians reached a structurally similar conclusion from documents rather than from spiritual observation. Harold J. Berman, who taught at Harvard Law School and later at Emory, argued in Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Harvard University Press, 1983) that the West's first modern legal system was built in the century following Gregory VII's Dictatus Papae of 1075. The Papal Revolution, as Berman named it, needed a professional bureaucracy, and the tools were ready: the law school at Bologna had begun teaching Justinian's Digest, and canon lawyers carried the Roman categories of contract, property, jurisdiction, and corporate personality into church government. Secular princes then borrowed the same apparatus for their own territories. Berman's second volume, Law and Revolution II (2003), follows that borrowing through the Protestant Reformations into the German and English states.
Steiner and Berman describe the same machinery and weigh it differently. Berman sees a real achievement of order, the birth of a tradition that made rights thinkable. Steiner sees an order that arrived from outside the life it governed, so that village and town alike were administered in a language they had never thought in.
Thalira synthesis: what Steiner is naming is not a case against law but a diagnosis of distance, the gap between where thinking is born and where it is authorised. Anyone who has read a municipal bylaw or a terms-of-service page has felt that gap without having a word for it.
Where to Read More