By: Hegel (Simple)

Hegel (Simple) — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:37:42 +0000

§ 62: No empty lord next to the owner

You can use a thing for a time or in part. If you rent an apartment, you use it as long as the contract runs. Still, the apartment does not belong to you. Here use and property really are different.

It is different when the whole use lies with me forever. Should someone else still be the owner then? That does not fit together. My will would fill the thing completely. At the same time a foreign will would stand in it that no longer does anything. That is a contradiction. You could almost speak of a madness in property.

That is why this holds: Property is free and full.

A look at Roman law:

The Romans knew the usufruct. Someone may use another person’s thing and harvest its fruits. The property stays with the other person. So that the property would not become useless, they laid down a rule: The usufruct ends at some point. That sounds as if it had been a free whim. But a property without any use would no longer be property at all.

And in the feudal system?

In the past there were estates with two lords. The overlord owned the land in name. The peasant farmed it. In return he paid dues. Because of these dues, there really are two owners. As soon as the overlord only counts his income, it shows: What counts is the benefit, not empty lordship.

A look at history:

For about 1,500 years Christianity has taught the freedom of the person. The freedom of property has held only for a short time, and only here and there. That is how long spirit needs to understand itself. This speaks against any impatience.

Summary: Only a limited use can be separate from property. An owner without any use is an empty lord. True property is free and full.

By: Hegel (Notes)

Hegel (Notes) — Wed, 27 Nov 1822 08:10:32 +0000

[zu § 62 Anm.] Lordship here [is] nothing but a dependence on another in the use of my property. – Consent to sell it, without the other having any benefit –
Restriction of two kinds: α) co-ownership – with respect to the utile, β) mere empty will
Restriction with respect to the …
R[es] Manc[ipi,] Hein[eccius, Antiquitatum Romanarum liber I (1772),] p. 439, 1. praedia in Italico solo, 2. jura praediorum rusticorum, velut actus, via, aquaeductus, 3. servi mancipio dati, 4. quadrupedes quae dorso collove domantur, asini, equi, non bestiae ut elephanti, cameli, 5. hereditas s. familia – a special mode of sale by mancipation, qua more solenni tradebantur res, quinque testes*) , among whom one [was the] lipripens, who had to hold the bronze scale, – sons were likewise emancipated in this way. The father mancipated the son to another, this one remancipated him to the father – only then, after a threefold mancipation, did the father manumit him –
Domini Quiritarii re usucapta vacui erant a litibus; quod secus se habebat in dominis bonitariis, Hein. p. 452. (usucapio – res immobiles biennio, mobiles anno usucapiebantur. p. 475. ) Only in Italy res mancipi; in the provinces fundorum provincialium proprietatem nunquam adquirebat privatus, sed populus, adeoque in iis non procedebat usucapio. **)
α) Abolition of the empty lordship
β) Division of the lordship that has passed into a share.
Non-redeemable – inalienable – at the arbitrary will of the other – who can remit it to me – is contrary to private property, see above – as α) contrary to free, full property; – yet the non-redeemability too, [and] the inability to make property into private property, is unfreedom of property – according to that same determination – In division it is difficult to determine the share, when the yield is contingent, as grounded merely in the lordship, – lod, Lob, laudemium, Handlohn
Emphyteusis, Hein. Antt. Vol. II, p. 140. – agri permissi municipiis, ut ex eorum reditu onera municipiorum sustinerentur, aedesque publicae sartae tectaque conservarentur. – Pensio, vectigal.
Et inculti agri hac lege fruendi, redeuntia inde vectigalia emphyteuseos et canonis nominibus insigniebantur. ***)
– Dispute as to which of the two is the owner – hereditary fief, hereditary rents – inheritance, alienation –
Now comes § 64.
and § 63 on C. Value –
After § 64, prescription [Verjährung] – to speak of the universal as inner – see margin next to § 62 [see p. 136 on § 63].
Here the whole, my skill, proficiency; –
*) "1. Landed estates, only in Italy, 2. Rights of agricultural estates such as the right of driftway, way, and aqueduct, 3. Slaves acquired by purchase, 4. Four-footed animals that are yoked at the back or neck, donkeys, horses, but not wild animals such as elephants, camels, 5. Inheritance (see?) family." – "Mancipation, whereby things are handed over with a solemn ceremony, five witnesses … "
**) "The holder of a Dominium Quiritarium (res mancipi), once he had acquired the thing by prescription, was free of all litigation; it was otherwise with the holder of a Dominium Bonitarium (res nec mancipi). – Acquisition by prescription: for movable things after two years, for immovable ones after one year." – In the provinces "ownership of land and soil was never acquired by a private person, but by the community, and therefore there was no acquisition by prescription here."
***) Emphyteusis (= the right of usufruct of an immovable thing on condition of improvement and an annually payable due) – "fields granted by the communities, so that from their revenue the community's obligations could be met and the public buildings maintained in repair. Payments, dues.
The uncultivated fields that were used under this right, and the revenues arising from them, were designated by the names emphyteusis and canon."

Comments on: 62

By: Hegel (Simple)

By: Hegel (Notes)