Thanks, Lucky!

The idea that the administrators were subject to the law not the makers of law is from the Greek cities. Citizens served in any number of political roles, but the Assembly made the laws. In Rome, even as the later emperors corrupted the Senate, they still kept to the form. The title "emperor" (imperator, in Latin), meant only "military commander." Marc Antony had the title, but was never the head of state, try as he did, though. The emperor was chosen by the Senate. He had offices and appointments, such as Pontifex (bridge maker). Traditionally, the emperor issued silver (and gold) coins, nominally from his own personal treasury, while the standard bronze sestertii carried SC for Senatus Consulto. The point is that they had what we easily understand as a constitutional form of government, a government of laws, not of men. OTOH, the Code of Hammurabi was top-down and applied to everyone else.

For the Germanic tribes, might was right. They did have folkways, but the king was the law. If you scrape away the later Latin, lex/rex is easy to see, so it is a deep tradition that the Germans still had, through the Romans evolved a more complex social structure for laws.

The "Divine Right of Kings" was _not_ a medieval idea. It was articulated by James VI of Scotland (James I of England) in book form in 1597 and then delivered as an address to Parliament. He was a Renaissance man, as was Machiavelli.

Despite the above, whatever else he was, the medieval king was NOT seen as an agent of God.

(BTW China had a similar interplay of forces over time, but it did not affect our traditions.)

I wish all of the justices would wake up!!! What dirt does the o have on them?