[LF 1.1]

Incipiunt consuetudines feudorum et primo de his qui feudum dare possunt et qualiter acquiratur et retineatur¹

[pr.] Quia de feudis tractaturi sumus, videamus primo, qui feudum dare possunt. Feudum autem dare possunt archiepiscopus, episcopus, abbas, abbatissa, praepositus, si antiquitus fuerit consuetudo eorum, feudum dare. Marchio, comes,² qui proprie regni vel regis capitanei dicuntur, similiter feudum dare possunt.³ Sunt et alii, qui ab istis feuda accipiunt, qui proprie regis vel regni valvassores dicuntur, sed hodie capitanei appellantur, qui et ipsi feuda dare possunt. Ipsi vero, qui ab eis accipiunt, minores valvassores dicuntur.

[§ 1] Et quia vidimus de personis, videamus, qualia prius habuerunt initia. Antiquissimo enim tempore sic erat in dominorum potestate connexum, ut, quando vellent, possent aufferre rem in feudum a se datam. Postea vero eo ventum est, ut per annum tantum firmitatem haberent, deinde statutum est, ut usque ad vitam fidelis produceretur. Sed cum hoc iure successionis ad filios non pertineret, sic progressum est ut ad filios deveniret, in quem scilicet dominus hoc vellet beneficium confirmare. Quod hodie ita stabilitum est, ut ad omnes aequaliter pertineat.

[V2 1.1.2] Cum vero Conradus Romam proficisceretur, petitum est a fidelibus, qui in eius erant servitio, ut et⁴ lege ab eo promulgata hoc etiam ad nepotes ex filio producere dignaretur et, ut frater fratri sine legitimo herede defuncto in beneficio, quod eorum patris fuit, succedat.

[V2 1.1.3] Sin autem unus ex fratribus a domino feudum acceperit, eo defuncto sine legitimo herede, frater ei in feudum non succedat.⁵ Quod etsi communiter acceperint, unus alteri non succedet,⁶ nisi hoc nominatim dictum sit, scilicet ut uno defuncto sine legitimo herede alter succedat, herede vero relicto frater⁷ removebitur.

[§ 2] [V2 1.1.4] Hoc autem notandum est, quod, licet filiae ut masculi patribus succedant legibus, a successione tamen feudi removentur, similiter et earum filii, nisi specialiter dictum fuerit, ut ad eas pertineat.

[LF 1.1]

Here begin the customs of fiefs, firstly concerning those who can give a fief and how a fief is to be acquired and retained¹

[pr.] Since we are going to discuss fiefs, let us see in the first place who can give a fief. An archbishop, a bishop, an abbot, an abbess, and a provost can give a fief if it is their long-standing custom to give fiefs. A marquess and a count,² who are properly called the realm’s or the king’s ‘capitanei’, similarly can give a fief. There are also others, who receive fiefs from these, who are properly called the king’s or the realm’s ‘valvasores’, but today are called ‘capitanei’, and these as well can give fiefs. And they who receive fiefs from them are called lesser ‘valvasores’.

[§ 1] Since we have seen the persons [who can give fiefs], let us now see what sort of origins fiefs earlier had. In oldest times, indeed, it was so bound up in the lords’ power that they could take away when they wished a thing given by them in fief. Later, then, it came about that fiefs were secure for one year only. Thereafter, it was decided that this would be extended to the life of the vassal.³ But since this would not belong to sons by right of succession, it developed in such a way that it would come to sons—that is, to [the son to] whom the lord wished to confirm this benefice. And today it is established that it belongs to all sons equally.

[V2 1.1.2] However, when Conrad [II] was setting out for Rome, he was asked by the vassals who were in his service that he consider it convenient, with the promulgation of a law, to extend this to grandsons in the male line, and that a brother is to succeed his brother who had died without a lawful heir in the benefice which was their father’s.

[V2 1.1.3] If, however, one of the brothers receives a fief from the lord, and he dies without a lawful heir, his brother is not to succeed him to the fief, because even if they received it in common, one is not to succeed the other unless this has been expressly said: namely, that one having died without a lawful heir, the other is to succeed. But when an heir is left, the brother shall be excluded.

[§ 2] [V2 1.1.4] This should also be noted, that although according to the laws⁴ daughters succeed their fathers just like males, they are, however, excluded from the succession to a fief, and likewise their sons, unless it is specifically said that the fief is not to belong to daughters.

[§ 3] [V2 1.1.5] Hoc quoque sciendum est, quod beneficium ad venientes ex latere ultra fratres patrueles non progreditur successione secundum usum ab antiquis sapientibus constitutum, licet moderno tempore usque ad septimum gradum¹ sit usurpatum, quod in masculis descendentibus novo iure usque in infinitum extenditur.

[§ 4] [V2 1.1.6] Notandum est autem, quod illud beneficium, quod a regis capitaneis atque regis valvasoribus² aliis impenditur, proprie iure feudi censetur; illud vero, quod a minoribus in alios transfertur, non iure feudi iudicatur (aliter in curia Mediolanensis observatur);³ sed quando voluerint, recte auferre queunt, nisi Romam in exercitu cum illis perrexerint⁴ vel aliquid⁵ propter feudum acceperint; tunc enim nisi restituto pretio auferre non possunt.

[LF 1.2]

De feudo guardiae vel gastaldiae

[pr.] Item illud, quod datur nomine gastaldiae vel guardiae et pro mercede alicuius rei, transacto anno potest iure aufferri etiam pretio pro eo dato non restituto, nisi ad certum tempus fuerit datum.

[§ 1] Si vero gastaldi aliquid nomine proprii feudi possident,⁶ non valebunt propterea possessionem sibi defendere, nisi per pares curtis potuerint vel breve testatum probare, se, antequam gastaldi essent vel, postquam desierunt esse, investituram accepisse.

[LF 1.3]

Qui successores teneantur⁷

[pr.] Si vero archiepiscopus, episcopus, abbas, abbatissa⁸ investituram eius feudi, quod alius detineat,⁹ eo tenore alicui dederit, ut post decessum eius, qui possidet, habeat, et ante decesserit quam ille, qui feudum possidet, successores eorum non coguntur eam investituram facere vel confirmare, etiamsi pares curtis¹⁰ adsint testes vel breve testatum inde sit, nisi ille, qui investitu-

[§ 3] [V2 1.1.5] This also should be known, that a benefice does not proceed by succession to those who come from a collateral line beyond first cousins, according to the usage established by ancient experts, although in more recent times it became customary for this [to extend] to the seventh degree. By new law, this is extended ad infinitum with regard to male descendants.

[§ 4] [V2 1.1.6] It should be noted, moreover, that a benefice that is granted to others by the king’s ‘capitanei’ or the king’s ‘valvasores’¹ is properly assessed by the law of the fief; however, that which is transferred to others by lesser [‘valvasores’], is not judged by the law of the fief (it is observed otherwise in the court of Milan); but [its grantors] may rightly take it away when they wish, unless [the recipients] set out for Rome with them on a royal expedition;² or unless [its grantors] have received something in exchange for the fief, for then they cannot take it away unless payment is restored.

[LF 1.2]

Concerning the fief of castle-guard or ‘gastaldia’³

[pr.] Also, that which is given as ‘gastaldia’ or castle-guard, or as the reward for something, with a year having past can by right be taken away, even with the payment given for it not restored—unless it was given for a fixed time.⁴

[§ 1] If, however, ‘gastaldi’ possess anything as their own fief, then they shall not be able to make a defence for themselves on account of possession, unless they can prove through the peers of [their lord’s] court or a certified charter that they had received investiture before they were ‘gastaldi’ or after they ceased to be.

[LF 1.3]

Which successors are to be bound⁵

[pr.] If, however, an archbishop, a bishop, an abbot, or an abbess gives to anyone investiture of that fief which another holds,⁶ on these terms, that he is to have it after the death of him who possesses, and [the grantor] dies before the person who possesses the fief, their successors are not compelled to make or confirm that investiture, even if the peers of [the grantor’s] court are present

ram acceperit, nomine eius feudi in possessionem missus sit eo consentiente, qui detinet. Sed si ille, qui feudum possidet, prius decesserit quam ille, qui investituram fecit, iure cogitur eam ratam habere.

[§ 1] Laici vero iisdem modis omnibus, quibus supra diximus, si aliis investituram dederint, heredes eorum, si rationibus claruerit, omnimodo eam adimplere compelluntur.

[LF 1.4]

De controversia investiturae¹

[pr.] Si autem controversia inter dominum et fidelem de feudi investitura fuerit, quid iuris sit, videamus. Si² investitura facta fuerit coram paribus curiae³ aut in brevi testato, recte eum, qui investitus est, cogitur dominus mittere in feudi possessionem. [V2 1.4.1] Si vero fuerit in possessione, et mota ei fuerit controversia a domino, ei defensio detur propter possessionem. Si autem non fuerit in possessione nec supradictis modis poterit probare, tunc illius erit defensio, qui investituram dicitur fecisse.

[§ 1] [V2 1.4.2] Si vero feudum aliquis habuerit, de quo nulla controversia est, et dixerit, se investituram alterius feudi accepisse ab eodem domino, nec in possessione fuerit nec praedictis rationibus probare potuerit, licet domini esset defensio ex ordine[,]⁴ tamen, quia aliunde vasallus est, remittitur domino ex aequitate defensio.

[§ 2] [V2 1.4.3] Cum autem quis dixerit, feudum ad se per successionem pertinere, asserendo illud esse paternum, si fuerit in possessione medietatis vel alicuius partis vel cambium proprietatis nomine illius feudi habuerit vel aliis iustis rationibus illud esse paternum probare potuerit, iure obtinebit.⁵

[§ 3] [V2 1.4.4] Item si vasallus⁶ possederit castrum, quod dixerit se pro feudo tenere et e contra dominus per guardiam dixerit se ei dedisse, domini est probatio, et si poterit probare, tunc ille, qui tenet, debet domino restituere vel probare per pares curtis vel per breve testatum, postquam in guardiam suscepisset, se a domino pro feudo investituram accepisse; domino vero in probatione deficiente tunc illius erit defensio, qui possidet.

as witnesses or there is a certified charter concerning it. [This is so] unless he who receives investiture is put into possession of it as his fief with the current holder consenting. But if he who possesses the fief dies before he who made investiture, the latter is by right compelled to ratify it.

[§ 1] If, however, laymen give investiture to others in all the same ways about which we have spoken above, their heirs are in every respect compelled to fulfil it, if this is made clear by proofs.

[LF 1.4]

Concerning a dispute over investiture¹

[pr.] Let us see what the law is if, however, there is a dispute between a lord and a vassal over investiture of a fief. If investiture has been made in the presence of the peers of the court or with a certified charter, the lord is rightly to be compelled to put him who is invested into possession of the fief. If, however, he has been in possession, and the dispute is brought against him by the lord, he is to be granted a defence [by oath]² on grounds of possession. If, however, he is not in possession, nor able to make proof in the aforesaid ways, then defence [by oath] shall be his who is said to have made investiture.

[§ 1] [V2 1.4.2] If, however, anyone has a fief over which there is no dispute, and says that he received investiture of another fief from the same lord, and is neither in possession nor can make proof by the aforesaid means, even though defence [by oath] would be the lord’s by ordinary procedure, nonetheless since the person is a vassal from another source, the lord is excused the defence [by oath] out of equity.

[§ 2] [V2 1.4.3] However, when anyone says that a fief belongs to him through succession by asserting it to be ancestral, he shall obtain it by right if he is in possession of half or any portion of it, or has received property in exchange for that fief, or can prove by other proper means that it is ancestral.³

[§ 3] [V2 1.4.4] Also, if a vassal⁴ possesses a castle that he says he holds as a fief and, on the contrary, the lord says that he gave it to him by castle-guard, the lord is to make proof. And if he can make proof, then the one who holds it ought to restore it to the lord or prove through the peers of the [lord’s] court or through a certified charter, that he had received investiture as a fief from the lord after he took it in castle-guard. If, however, the lord fails in his proof, defence [by oath] shall be his who possesses.

[§ 4] [V2 1.4.5] Similiter si aliquis possederit castrum vel aliam rem, et dominus dixerit, se pro pignore ei dedisse, e contrario ille dixerit se suscepisse¹ pro feudo, si potuerit dominus probare, quod ei pro pignore dedisset, tunc ille, qui tenet, domino restituet vel probet supradicto modo, se, postquam a domino pro pignore accepit, feudi nomine accepisse, et si dominus non potuerit probare, se nomine pignoris dedisse, erit defensio illius, qui possidet.

[§ 5] [V2 1.4.6] Si quis de manso uno feudi nomine investituram acceperit et dixerit, quod omne incrementum pertineat ad eum per investituram, si dominus reservaverit sibi aliquid in ipsa curte, tunc oportebit fidelem incrementi investituram per pares curtis vel per breve testatum probare. Sed si dominus in ipsa curte nihil sibi retinuit, tunc omne incrementum iure feudi fidelis obtinebit. Si vero fidelis in possessione incrementi fuerit, non oportebit investituram probare, sed iurare.

[§ 6] [V2 1.4.7] Rursus si aliquis acceperit investituram feudi ‘cum omni incremento quod ei obveniret’, et aliquid accreverit vivente eo, a quo acceperit,² ipsius erit; et si ille, qui investituram fecit, sine herede decesserit et feudum reversum fuerit ad eum, a quo ipse tenuerit, vel ad alium, quidquid post mortem eius, qui dedit, accreverit, ad eum pertinebit, ad quem regressum fuerit.

[LF 1.5]

Quibus modis feudum amittatur

[pr.] Quia supra dictum est, quibus modis feudum acquiratur et retineatur, nunc videamus, qualiter amittatur. Si enim dominus praelium campestre habuerit et vasallus eum morantem in ipso praelio dimiserit non mortuum, non ad mortem³ vulneratum, feudum amittere debet.

[§ 1] Item si fidelis cucurbitaverit dominum, id est cum uxore eius concubuerit vel concumbere se exercuerit⁴, vel si cum filia aut cum nepte ex filio aut cum

[§ 4] [V2 1.4.5] Likewise, if anyone possesses a castle or another property, and the lord says that he gave it to him as a pledge, and he on the contrary says that he received it as a fief, if the lord can prove that he gave it to him as a pledge, then he who holds it is to either restore it to the lord or prove in the aforesaid way that he received it as a fief after he had received it as a pledge from the lord. And if the lord cannot prove that he gave it to him as a pledge, defence [by oath] shall be his who possesses.

[§ 5] [V2 1.4.6] If anyone receives investiture of one estate¹ as a fief and says that every increment belongs to him by the investiture, if the lord reserves to himself something in that ‘curtis’² [in which the estate is situated], then the vassal shall need to prove the investiture of the increment, through the peers of the court or through a certified charter. But if the lord did not retain anything for himself in that ‘curtis’, then, by the law of the fief, the vassal shall obtain the whole increment.³ If, however, the vassal is in possession of the increment, he shall not need to prove the investiture, but just swear.

[§ 6] [V2 1.4.7] Again, if anyone receives investiture of a fief ‘with every increment that will come to it’, and anything accrues while he from whom he received [it] is alive, it shall be his. And if he who made investiture dies without heir, and the fief has reverted to him from whom he held it or to someone else, whatever accrues after the death of him who gave [it] shall belong to him to whom [the fief] has reverted.

[LF 1.5]

In what ways a fief is to be lost

[pr.] Since we have said above in what ways a fief may be acquired and retained, let us now see how it may be lost. Therefore, if a lord fights on the battlefield and his vassal deserts him while engaged in that battle neither dead nor mortally wounded, he ought to lose the fief.

[§ 1] Also, if a vassal cuckolds the lord, i.e. he goes to bed with his wife, or strives to go to bed with her,⁴ or goes to bed with the lord’s daughter, his son’s

nupta filio aut cum sorore domini concubuerit—haec ita obtinent si in domo domini maneat—iure feudum amittere censetur.

[§ 2] Similiter si dominum assalierit vel castrum domini sciens¹ dominum vel dominam ibi esse.

[§ 3] Item si fratrem suum occiderit vel nepotem, id est filium fratris.

[§ 4] Aut si libellario nomine amplius medietate² dederit aut pro pignore plus medietate obligaverit, ita ut transactum permittat, vel dolo hoc fecerit,³ feudi amissione mulctabitur.

[§ 5] His omnibus casibus feudum ad dominum revertitur.

[§ 6] Rursus si fidelis minus medietate libellario nomine dederit et sine herede decesserit, et feudum ad dominum redierit vel, postquam ad libellum dederit vel pignori obligaverit, domino refutaverit, tunc ille, qui ab eo acceperit, nullo iure adversus dominum se tueri poterit.

[§ 7] Praeterea si ille, ad quem feudum per successionem iure obvenire debet, consenserit eos investire, ad quos secundum morem et rectum ordinem⁴ non pertinet, nullo modo ad eum repetendum regressum habet.

[§ 8] Item si fuerint duo fratres et unus investituram feudi acceperit, si postea feudum cum fratre diviserit et ille, qui partem accepit,⁵ postea plus medietate vendiderit et sine herede legitimo decesserit, feudum ad dominum revertitur.

[§ 9] Item si quis feudum habuerit in curte domini sui, non poterit ipsum feudum in aliqua parte libellario nomine alicui sine consensu domini sui dare vel pignori obligare. Similiter si extra curtem detinuerit et dominus districtum habuerit vel alium honorem, et⁶ si alienaverit sine domini voluntate, iure ad dominum revertitur.

[LF 1.6]

Episcopum vel abbatem vel abbatissam feudum dare non posse⁷

[pr.] Item si episcopus vel abbas vel abbatissa vel dominus plebis feudum dederit de rebus ecclesiarum, quae eis subiectae sunt et tituli vocantur, nullum

daughter, his son’s wife, or his sister—these things apply in this way if she lives in the lord’s house—it is determined by law that he loses the fief.

[§ 2] Likewise, if he attacks the lord or the lord’s castle, knowing that the lord or the lady is there.

[§ 3] Also, if he kills his own brother or nephew, i.e. his brother’s son.

[§ 4] Or if he gives more than half his fief by lease, or he ties up in pledge more than half in such a way as to allow its transfer, and he does this with deceit, he shall be punished by loss of the fief.

[§ 5] In all these cases, the fief reverts to the lord.

[§ 6] Again, if a vassal gives by lease less than half [his fief], and dies without heir, and the fief goes back to the lord, or if he renounces [the fief] to the lord after he gave it by lease or tied it up in pledge, then by no right can he who received it from him defend himself against the lord.

[§ 7] Furthermore, if the one to whom the fief ought by right to come through succession agrees to invest those to whom it does not belong according to practice and rightful procedure,¹ in no way has he a claim to seek its recovery.

[§ 8] Also, if there are two brothers and one receives investiture of a fief, if afterwards he divides the fief with his brother, and he who has received a portion then sells more than half [the fief] and dies without lawful heir, the fief reverts to the lord.

[§ 9] Also, if anyone has a fief within a ‘curtis’² of his lord, he can neither give that fief in any portion by lease to anyone without his lord’s approval nor tie it up in pledge. Likewise, if he holds it outside his lord’s ‘curtis’ but the lord has the power of distraint or some other jurisdiction over it, if he alienates it without the lord’s approval, it reverts to the lord by right.³

[LF 1.6]

That a bishop, an abbot, or an abbess cannot give a fief⁴

[pr.] Also, if a bishop, an abbot, an abbess, or the lord of a ‘plebs’⁵ gives a fief out of the properties of the churches that are subjected to them and

habet vigorem secundum hoc, quod constitutum est a Papa Urbano in sancta synodo, hoc est illud, quod post eius decretum datum fuerit; quod autem ante datum fuerit, firmiter permanere debet.

[§ 1] Idem iuris est, si praepositus¹ vel alia ecclesiastica persona, quae antiquitus non sit solita in feudum dare, scilicet ut, quod dederit, de iure non valeat.

[§ 2] Quin etiam si quis eo tenore feudum acceperit, ut eius descendentes, masculi et feminae, illud habere possint, relicto masculo ulterius feminae non admittuntur.

[§ 3] Mutus feudum retinere non potest, scilicet qui nullo modo loquitur, sed si feudum fuerit magnum, quo ei ablato se exhibere non valeat, tantum ei relinqui debet, unde possit se retinere.²

[§ 4] Et his omnibus casibus feudum amittitur et ad dominum revertitur.

[LF 1.7]

De natura feudi

[pr.] Natura feudi haec est, ut si princeps investierit capitaneos suos de aliquo feudo, non potest eos disvestire³ sine culpa, id est marchiones et comites et ipsos, qui proprie hodie appellantur capitanei.

[§ 1] Idem est, si investitura sit facta a capitaneis et maioribus valvasoribus, qui improprie hodie appellantur capitanei. Si vero facta fuerit a minoribus vel minimis valvasoribus, aliud est. Tunc enim possunt disvestiri⁴ non habita ratione culpae, nisi fecerint hostem Romae—tunc enim idem est in minimis quod in maioribus valvasoribus—vel nisi emerint⁵—tunc enim pretium restituendum est secundum antiquum et rationabilem usum. Moderni autem non ita subtiliter cernentes dicunt, idem observandum in minimis quod dictum est in maioribus.⁶

[LF 1.8]

De successione feudi

[pr.] Sequitur de successione feudi videre. Si quis igitur decesserit filiis et filiabus superstitibus, succedunt tantum filii aequaliter vel nepotes ex filio in loco sui patris nulla ordinatione defuncti in feudo manente vel valente.

are called ‘titles’, this has no effect according to what was established by Pope Urban in the holy synod.¹ This concerns what has been given after his decree: however, what was given before ought to remain securely.

[§ 1] The law is the same for a provost² or any other ecclesiastical person who has not formerly been accustomed to give in fief: that is, that what they give has no effect by law.

[§ 2] Moreover, if anyone receives a fief on these terms, that both his male and female descendants can have it, when a male is left females are no longer admitted.

[§ 3] A mute person—that is, he who does not speak in any way—cannot keep a fief. But if the fief is large and after it is taken away from him he cannot support himself, enough ought to be left to him wherefrom he can maintain himself.

[§ 4] And in all these cases the fief is lost and reverts to the lord.

[LF 1.7]

Concerning the nature of a fief

[pr.] The nature of a fief is this, that if the prince has invested his ‘capitanei’—i.e. marquesses, counts, and those who today are properly called ‘capitanei’—with any fief, he cannot dispossess them without fault [on their part].

[§ 1] The same applies if an investiture has been made by ‘capitanei’ and greater ‘valvasores’—who today are improperly called ‘capitanei’. If, however, it has been made by lesser or smallest ‘valvasores’, it is different, for then [holders] can be dispossessed without regard for the question of any fault, unless they have joined an expedition to Rome, for then the same applies for the smallest ‘valvasores’ as for the greater; or unless they bought [the fief], for then, by long-standing and reasonable usage, the price paid must be restored. The moderns, however, who do not distinguish so subtly, say that what is said in respect to the greater must be observed in respect to the smallest.

[LF 1.8]

Concerning succession to a fief

[pr.] Now it follows that we look into the succession to a fief. Therefore, if anyone dies while his sons and daughters survive, sons alone succeed in equal portions, or grandsons in the male line in place of their father, since no testamentary disposition of the deceased has standing or effect in respect to a fief.

[§ 1] Hoc quoque observatur, ut si frater meus alienaverit partem suam feudi vel fecerit investiri filiam suam, si moriatur sine herede masculo, nihilominus revertitur ad me. Et olim observabatur usque ad quartum gradum tantum secundum quosdam, hoc ideo quia postea non vocatur feudum paternum. Alii autem dicunt usque ad septimum gradum. Filia vero non succedit in feudo, nisi investitura fuerit facta in patre, ‘ut filii et filiae succedant in feudum’—tunc enim succedit filiis non exstantibus¹—vel nisi investitae fuerint de feudo paterno. In alio vero feudo, quod habuit initium tantum a fratribus, non succedit unus alteri sive in una investitura sive in duabus investituris,² nisi hoc fuerit dictum expressim, ut alter alteri succedat.

[LF 1.9]

Hic potest esse titulus qui successores teneantur³

Si quis investitus fuerit de alieno feudo ‘post mortem eius’ vel si fuerit⁴ investitus sub conditione aliqua vel tempore de quo⁵ nullus erat investitus, sive praemoriatur tenens feudum sive investitor sive investitus, investitor et heredes investitoris tenentur investito et⁶ heredi eius veniente tempore vel conditione, licet alii dicant, si moriatur investitus ante quam tenens feudum vel ante conditionem exsistentem vel ante tempus, quod heredes eius non debeant investiri. Nam si quis fuerit investitus pure de alieno feudo, non valet investitura⁷. Hoc ita est, nisi fuerit facta ab aliqua ecclesiastica persona; tunc enim si moriatur⁸ investitor ante quam feudum tenens vel conditio vel tempus existat, non obligatur successor illius, et hoc probatur per legem Lotharii de precariis⁹, et hoc intelligendum est de vasallis, qui feudi successionem non habent.

[§ 1] It is also observed that if my brother alienates his portion of a fief,¹ or has his daughter invested with it, and dies without male heir, it nonetheless reverts to me. And, according to some, this was once observed only up to the fourth degree, for the reason that a fief is not called ancestral beyond that. Others, however, say up to the seventh degree. A daughter, however, does not succeed to a fief unless the investiture was made to the father so that ‘sons and daughters may succeed to the fief’: for then she succeeds in the absence of sons; or unless they² were invested with the ancestral fief. However, in another fief which has originated only from brothers, one does not succeed the other regardless of whether [it was granted] in one investiture or in two investitures,³ unless it is expressly stated that one is to succeed the other.

[LF 1.9]

Here the title can be ‘which successors are to be bound’⁴

If anyone has been invested with someone else’s fief ‘after his death’, or if anyone has been invested pending a certain condition, or at a set time, [with a fief] concerning which nobody has been invested, regardless of whether the person holding the fief, the person who invested, or the person who was invested dies first, the person who invested and his heirs are bound to the person who was invested or his heir when the time comes or the condition occurs. However, others say that if the person who was invested dies before the person holding the fief, or before the occurrence of the condition, or before the time comes, his heirs ought not to be invested, for investiture has no effect when one is invested unconditionally of someone else’s fief.⁵ This is so unless investiture has been made by some ecclesiastical person, for then if the person who invested dies before the person holding the fief, or before the condition occurs, or before the time comes, his successor is not bound. This is proved by the decree of Lothair concerning precarial grants.⁶ And this is to be understood in respect to vassals who do not have succession to a fief.⁷

[LF 1.10]

De contentione inter dominum et vasallum de investitura feudi

[pr.] Si fuerit contentio inter dominum et fidelem de investitura feudi, per pares curiae dirimatur. Alii enim testes, etsi idonei sunt, tamen¹ admittendi non sunt. Inopia tamen probationum dirimatur per religionem clientuli possessoris feudi vel cum 12 sacramentalibus secundum quosdam. Ceterum si dominus

possideat, etiam per suum iusiurandum cum 12 sacramentalibus dirimatur. Hoc ita, nisi clientulus sit gastaldus vel actor domini; tunc enim tantum suae, id est domini, religioni statur, nisi habeat testes pares idoneos. Nam aliquando malignando multa bona auferuntur domino hoc modo et hoc colligitur per legem, quae est in titulo de acquisitione actorum regis in Lombarda.² Idem dicendum est de guardia.

[§ 1] [V2 1.11]³ Similiter si quis voluerit dicere de pignore sibi dato se investitum esse, non credatur suo iuramento, sed testibus idoneis paribus domus.⁴ Insuper sciendum est, feudum guardiae et gastaldiae quacunque hora vult aufferri posse a domino, scilicet post annum.

[LF 1.11]

[V2 1.12] De contentione inter me et dominum de portione feudi fratris mei⁵

Si contentio fuerit inter me et dominum de portione feudi fratris mei defuncti dicendo paternum esse,⁶ ille vero minime, tanquam habuerim partem meam, sive possideo sive alienavi, dabitur mihi iusiurandum, scilicet patrem meum iure investitum fuisse, licet non possideam portionem fratris mei. Si vero nullam partem habuero illius feudi, nec mihi nec domino dabitur iusiurandum, nisi propter supradictam rationem domino, non ut ego propter hoc aliud meum feudum amittam.⁷

[LF 1.10]

Concerning a dispute between a lord and a vassal over investiture of a fief

[pr.] If there is a dispute between a lord and a vassal over investiture of a fief, it is to be resolved by the peers of the [lord’s] court, for other witnesses, even if they are suitable, nonetheless should not be admitted. However, in the absence of proofs, it is to be resolved through an [individual] oath¹ of the vassal² possessing the fief or, according to some, with twelve oath-helpers. But if the lord possesses [what is disputed], it is to be resolved through his swearing with twelve oath-helpers. This is so unless the vassal is a ‘gastaldus’³ or an agent of the lord, for then just the [individual] oath of the lord has standing, if the vassal does not have suitable peer witnesses; for many goods are taken from lords this way, sometimes by malice, and this is gathered from a law which is in the Lombarda under the title ‘Concerning the acquisition of the king’s agents’ (Lomb. 2.17.1). The same should be said concerning castle-guard.

[§ 1] [V2 1.11]⁴ Likewise, if anyone wants to say that he has been invested with a pledge given to him, one is not to trust his oath but suitable witnesses who are peers of the lord’s household.⁵ Furthermore, it should be known that a fief of castle-guard and of ‘gastaldia’⁶ can be taken away by the lord at whatever moment he wishes—that is, after one year.

[LF 1.11]

[V2 1.12] Concerning a dispute between me and the lord over my brother’s portion of a fief⁷

If there is a dispute between me and the lord over my deceased brother’s portion of a fief, which I say is ancestral⁸ while he [says] it is not, as long as I have had my portion, whether I possess it or have alienated it, it shall be for me to swear, namely that my father was rightly invested, even though I do not possess my brother’s portion. But if I have had no portion of that fief, it shall be for neither me nor the lord to swear—unless for the lord, for the aforementioned reason,⁹ but not so that I may lose my other fief for that reason.¹⁰

[LF 1.12]

[V2 1.13] De alienatione feudi

[pr.] Si clientulus voluerit partem sui¹ feudi alienare, id est medium, sine domini voluntate, poterit hoc facere, ulterius progredi non potest secundum iustum et verum usum, alioquin et feudum amittit et non valebit, quod factum est. Quod dictum est alienare, intelligas de libello. Huic consuetudini derogatum est per legem Lotharii.² Mediolanenses vero irrationabiliter considerantes dicunt, clientulum etiam alienare posse totum et sine domini voluntate. Inde potest praesumi, si clientulus fecerit libellum in perpetuum de feudo suo alicui ecclesiae, non valet,³ ideo scilicet, quia nunquam reversurum esset⁴ ad dominum, cum ecclesia non desinat esse heres.

Quod observandum est in privato ex natura perpetui libelli. Sed diversum observatur in ecclesia quam in privato. Ecclesia enim, cultrix et auctrix iustitiae, non patitur contra iustitiam aliquid fieri in se vel in alterum, privatus vero saepe obviat iustitiae.

Et si clientulus fecerit libellum vel aliud de medietate feudi sine domini voluntate, eo mortuo sine legitimo herede masculo—quod verbum ita intelligendum est in feudo id est sine filio masculo—revertitur feudum ad dominum. Si vero cum domini voluntate totum vel medium alienaverit, stabilis permaneat alienatio (fratri vero vel nepoti alienatio per libellum facta).⁵

[§ 1] In feudo⁶ comitatus vel marchiae vel aliarum dignitatum non est successio secundum rationabilem usum, sed hodie est usurpatum.⁷

[LF 1.12]

[V2 1.13] Concerning alienation of a fief

[pr.] If a vassal¹ wants to alienate a portion of his fief, i.e. half, he can do this without the lord’s consent. By just and true usage, he cannot proceed further, otherwise he loses the fief and what has been done shall have no effect. The expression ‘to alienate’ should be understood as ‘by lease’. This custom was modified by a decree of Lothair.² But the Milanese, against good reason, say that the vassal can also alienate the whole, even without the lord’s consent. For this reason, it can be presumed that if the vassal makes a lease in perpetuity to some church regarding his fief, this has no effect because it is never going to revert to the lord, since the church does not cease to be an heir.³

This should be observed in respect to private persons⁴ because of the nature of perpetual lease. However, it is observed differently in relation to the church as opposed to private persons, for the church, a nurturer and originator of justice, does not suffer that anything be done contrary to justice, against itself or against another. But a private person often opposes justice.

And if a vassal makes a lease or something else regarding half of a fief without the lord’s consent, after he dies without a lawful male heir—which expression, in respect to a fief, is to be understood as ‘without a male child’,—the fief reverts to the lord. But if he alienates all the fief, or half, with the lord’s consent, the alienation is to stand—an alienation, however, made through a lease to a brother or a nephew.⁵

[§ 1] According to reasonable usage, there is no succession to a fief consisting of a county, a march, or other high offices, although today this has become customary.

[LF 1.13]

[V2 1.14] De feudo marchiae, ducatus et comitatus¹

[pr.] De marchia vel ducatu vel comitatu vel aliqua regali dignitate si quis investitus fuerit per beneficium ab imperatore, ille tantum debet habere; heres enim non succedit ullo modo, nisi ab imperatore per investituram acquisierit.

[§ 1] Si capitanei vel valvasores maiores vel minores investiti fuerint de beneficio, filii vel nepotes ex parte filiorum succedunt. Si vero unus ex his filiis vel nepotibus sine descendentibus masculini sexus heredibus mortuus fuerit, praedicti fratres et² nepotes per investituram patris et avi in beneficium succedunt; et similiter intelligendum est in consobrinis.

[§ 2] Si duo fratres simul investiti fuerint de beneficio novo et non de paterno, si unus eorum sine descendentibus masculini sexus mortuus fuerit, dominus succedit, non frater, nisi pactum [fuerit in investitura, quod frater fratri succedat. Per pactum enim frater succedit, non dominus. Quod diximus de fratribus, ut unus alii succedat per pactum, idem dicendum est de filiabus, si] hoc [pactum]³ conciliet, sic et⁴ per pactum filiae succedunt.

[LF 1.14]

[V2 1.15] An maritus succedat uxori in beneficium

Si femina habens beneficium moriatur, nullo modo succedit in beneficium maritus, nisi specialiter investitus fuerit. Et si ipsa femina filios dimiserit, dicunt quidam, filios non debere succedere in beneficium matris, nisi specialiter sit dictum vel investiti fuerint, quia secundum usum regni beneficium vocatur paternum et⁵ non maternum. Sed secundum aequitatem dicamus, filios debere

[LF 1.13]

[V2 1.14] Concerning the fief of a march, a duchy, and a county

[pr.] If anyone is invested through benefice by the emperor with a march, a duchy, a county, or any other royal office, only he ought to have it for in no way does the heir succeed, unless he acquires it from the emperor through investiture.

[§ 1] If ‘capitanei’ or greater or lesser ‘valvasores’ have been invested with a benefice, sons and grandsons in the male line succeed. But if one of these sons or grandsons has died without descending heirs of the male sex, the aforesaid brothers, and grandsons [descending from these brothers], succeed to the benefice through their father’s or grandfather’s investiture. The same is to be understood for cousins.

[§ 2] If two brothers at once have been invested with a new benefice, not an ancestral one, if one of them dies without descendants of the male sex, the lord succeeds, not the brother, unless there was an agreement in the investiture that brother is to succeed brother; for by [that] agreement the brother, not the lord, succeeds. And what we have said concerning brothers, i.e. that one succeeds the other by agreement, should be likewise said concerning daughters: if an agreement provides for this, in such a way daughters too succeed by agreement.¹

[LF 1.14]

[V2 1.15] Whether a husband may succeed his wife to a benefice

If a woman who has a benefice dies, in no way does her husband succeed her to the benefice unless he has been specifically invested. And if that woman leaves sons, some say that the sons ought not to succeed to the mother’s benefice, unless this has been specifically said, or they have been invested, because, by the usage of the realm, a benefice is called ‘ancestral’ and not ‘maternal’.² However, let us say that [her] sons ought to succeed by equity. We say this

succedere. Hoc dicimus de capitaneis et de maioribus et minoribus valvasoribus.¹ De minimis autem, id est de his, qui beneficium tenent a minoribus valvasoribus, sic servetur.²

[LF 1.15]

[V2 1.16] De feudis datis minimis valvasoribus³

Si minores valvasores beneficium tollere voluerint minimis, liceat⁴ eis, excepto si beneficium vendiderint eis. Si vero pretium de beneficio acceperint, tunc aut pretium reddant aut beneficium dimittant.

[LF 1.16]

[V2 1.17] Quibus modis feudum amittatur

Si capitanei vel maiores valvasores qui hodie vocantur capitanei, licet improprie dicantur, [vel] minores,⁵ seniores in bello dimiserint, vel si credentiam ad eorum damnum scienter manifestaverint, si valvasores seniorum uxores adulteraverint, si scienter seniores assalierint sive similes culpas commiserint, beneficio carere debent.

[LF 1.17]

[V2 1.18] Apud quem vel quos controversia feudi definiri debeat⁶

Si contentio fuerit de beneficio inter capitaneos, coram imperatore definiri debet. Si vero contentio fuerit inter minores valvasores et maiores de beneficio, in iudicio parium definiatur vel per iudicem curtis. Si aliquis de capitaneis vel de maioribus valvasoribus vel de minoribus suum beneficium sive totum sive partem alienaverit, et ipse vel heres eius sine herede decesserit, quia beneficium senioribus aperitur, totum quod fecit, revocari debet.

regarding ‘capitanei’ and greater and lesser ‘valvasores’; but regarding the smallest, i.e. those who hold a benefice from lesser ‘valvasores’, one is to observe what follows.¹

[LF 1.15]

[V2 1.16] Concerning fiefs given to the smallest ‘valvasores’²

If lesser ‘valvasores’ wish to take a benefice away from the smallest, they may, unless they have sold the benefice to them. If, however, they received a payment for the benefice, then they are to either give back the payment or surrender the benefice.

[LF 1.16]

[V2 1.17] In what ways a fief is to be lost

If ‘capitanei’, or greater ‘valvasores’ who are today called ‘capitanei’, although they are improperly called so, or lesser ‘valvasores’³ desert their lords in battle, or if they wittingly disclose confidential information to their detriment, if ‘valvasores’ commit adultery with their lords’ wives, if they wittingly assault their lords, or commit similar faults, they ought to be deprived of the benefice.

[LF 1.17]

[V2 1.18] Before whom a dispute over a fief ought to be determined

If there is a dispute over a benefice between ‘capitanei’, it ought to be determined before the emperor. But if there is a dispute over a benefice between lesser and greater ‘valvasores’, it is to be determined in a trial by peers or by a judge of their [lord’s] court. If any of the ‘capitanei’, or the greater or lesser ‘valvasores’, alienates his benefice, whether all or a portion, and he or his heir dies without heir, since the benefice becomes vacant for the lords, all that he did ought to be revoked.

[LF 1.18]

[V2 1.19] Constitutiones feudales domini Lotharii imperatoris quas ante ianuam beati Petri in civitate Romana condidit observandas¹

[pr.] Si quis ex militum ordine decesserit, qui de feudo investitus fuerit, ut constitutum habemus, observetur de beneficio et successione et de² culpis. Si unus inculpatus fuerit una de his nominatis culpis, ut habemus insertum, observetur per constitutionem domini Lotharii imperatoris, quam constituit³ tempore Eugenii Papae ante ianuam beati⁴ Petri apostoli civitate Romana per laudamentum sapientium Mediolani atque Papiae, Mantuae⁵ et Veronae, quae Bernus vocatur,⁶ et Parmae seu⁷ Luccae et Pisae et Siponti et marchionum atque ducum vel capitaneorum atque maiorum valvasorum.

Imperator Lotharius Eugenio Papae et universo populo.

[§ 1] Si quis miles mortuus fuerit sine filio masculo et nepotem reliquerit, de beneficio avi in patris vicem succedit. Et [si hic deest,]⁸ et fratrem reliquerit, in beneficium patris ipse succedat. Et si filius fratris mortuus fuerit, frater patris in beneficium avi defuncti succedat.

[LF 1.19]

[V2 1.20] De beneficio fratris et qualiter frater fratri in feudum succedat⁹

Si quis acquisierit beneficium et sine filio masculo mortuus fuerit et fratrem reliquerit, frater non succedat fratri, sed dominus habeat, nisi per investituram a domino ordinatum fuerit ‘ut frater succedat fratri, si mortuus fuerit sine herede masculo’ vel nisi¹⁰ de communibus bonis fuerit emptum utriusque nomine domino sciente, si insimul steterint vel in hoste¹¹ regis acquisierint.

[LF 1.18]

[V2 1.19] The feudal constitutions of the lord Emperor Lothair which he established before the gate of Saint Peter in the city of Rome, to be observed

[pr.] If anyone of the rank of knights who has been invested with a fief dies, what we have established concerning benefice, succession, and faults ought to be observed. If someone is accused of one of the named faults, as we have included, what is in accordance with the constitution of Emperor Lothair is to be observed, which he decreed in the time of Pope Eugenius at the gate of St Peter the Apostle in the city of Rome, with the approval of experts from Milan, Pavia, Mantua, Verona, which is called Bernus, Parma, Lucca, Pisa, and Siponto, and of marquesses, and dukes, and ‘capitanei’ and greater ‘valvasores’.

Emperor Lothair to Pope Eugenius and all the people.

[§ 1] If any knight has died without a male child and leaves a grandson, concerning the benefice of the grandfather, he succeeds in place of the father. And if there is no grandson, and [the knight] leaves a brother, he is to succeed to the benefice of their father. And if the son of the brother [also] has died, the brother of the [knight’s] father is to succeed to the benefice of the deceased grandfather.

[LF 1.19]

[V2 1.20] Concerning the benefice of a brother and how a brother is to succeed a brother to a fief¹

If anyone acquires a benefice and dies without a male child and leaves a brother, the brother is not to succeed the brother but the lord is to have it, unless through the investiture it is ordained by the lord ‘that the brother is to succeed the brother, if he dies without a male heir’; or unless it is bought out of joint resources in the name of both, with the lord knowing; or if they live on it together or acquire it on a royal expedition.

[LF 1.20]

[V2 1.21] De feudo sine culpa non amittendo

[pr.] Sancimus ut nemo miles sine cognita culpa beneficium suum amittat, si ex his culpis¹ vel causis convictus non fuerit, quas milites usi sunt nominare, quando fidelitatem faciunt dominis suis, vel² per laudamentum parium suorum, vel si dominis suis deservire noluerint.³

[§ 1] Si quis miles beneficium suum vendiderit totum sine⁴ iussu domini sui, proprium beneficium ut amittat⁵ decernimus, dominus vero habeat, vel si concubuerit cum uxore domini sui domino vivente, vel si in pugna dominum suum dimiserit et cum eo non laboraverit si potuerit.

[LF 1.21]

[V2 1.22] Quo tempore miles investituram petere debeat

[pr.] Sancimus ut nemo miles ultra annum et mensem vadat, ut investituram beneficii sui a filio vel successore domini sui non petat, vel post mortem domini sui vel patris sui vel alterius, cui succedere debet,⁶ nisi iusta causa intervenerit, quare non petierit, veluti mortis⁷ vel capitalis⁸ inimicitiae vel infantia vel infamia⁹ vel etiam¹⁰ iusta absentia; et si, ut supra dictum est, non petierit, damnetur.

[§ 1] Si quis fecerit investituram vel cambium de beneficio sui militis sine illius consensu, cuius est beneficium, pro non facto habeatur.

[§ 2] Sancimus ut nemo miles eiiciatur¹¹ de possessione sui beneficii nisi convicta culpa, quae sit laudata¹² per iudicium parium suorum, sicut supra diximus. Si autem dixerit miles, quod sui pares inique iudicassent, miles in possessione maneat per VI hebdomadas et ad nostram veniat praesentiam cum illis, qui laudamentum atque iudicium fecerunt, et ante nos diffiniemus.

[LF 1.20]

[V2 1.21] On not losing a fief without fault

[pr.] We establish that no knight is to lose his benefice without proven fault, if he is not convicted of one of those faults or reasons [for losing a fief] which knights are accustomed to name when they do fealty to their lords, or through the judgment of their peers;¹ or unless they refuse to serve their lords.²

[§ 1] We determine that a knight ought to lose his benefice, and the lord is to have it, if the knight sells all his benefice without his lord’s command;³ or if he sleeps with his lord’s wife while the lord is alive; or if he deserts his lord in battle and does not exert himself by his side if he can.

[LF 1.21]

[V2 1.22] When a knight ought to seek investiture

[pr.] We establish that no knight is to go without seeking investiture of his benefice from his lord’s son or successor more than a year and a month after the death of either his lord, his own father or another whom he ought to succeed,⁴ unless there is a just cause wherefore he did not seek [investiture], such as death, mortal enmity, infancy or ill repute, or even just absence. And if he does not seek [investiture] as said above, he is to be condemned.

[§ 1] If anyone makes investiture or an exchange regarding the benefice of his knight without the consent of him whose benefice it is, it is to be held as not having been done.

[§ 2] We establish that no knight is to be ejected from possession of his benefice unless for proven fault which has been declared⁵ through judgment of his peers, as we said above. If, however, the knight says that his peers have judged unfairly, the knight ought to stay in possession for six weeks, and come to our presence with those who made the declaration and judgment, and we ourselves shall decide.

[LF 1.22]

[V2 1.23] De contentione inter dominum et vasallum de investitura¹

Si quis miles in possessione sui beneficii fuerit et dominus investituram negaverit, miles affirmet per iusiurandum, si potuerit, quod suum sit beneficium per investituram domini sui. Et si dominus possederit et miles sic dixerit, quod investitus fuerit a domino suo, et dominus negaverit, adhibeantur pares illius, et per ipsos veritas inveniatur; et si pares non fuerint, veritas inveniatur per dominum, quia non est bonum, ut veritas denegetur.

[LF 1.23]

[V2 1.24] Quemadmodum feudum ad filiam pertineat

Si quis sine filio masculo mortuus fuerit et reliquerit filiam, filia non habeat beneficium patris, nisi a domino redemerit. Si autem dominus ei dare voluerit propter servitium et amorem patris, non revocetur ab ullo ex parentibus suis neque damnetur.

[LF 1.24]

[V2 1.25] Quibus modis feudum constitui potest

[pr.] Sciendum est, feudum sine investitura nullo modo constitui posse, etsi² domino iubente quis alicuius rei possessionem nomine feudi nanciscatur et teneat; licet tamen possessionem taliter adeptam, dum vixerit, quasi feudi nomine retinere, heredes eius in hoc iure nullo modo ei succedant³.

[§ 1] Si dominus, qui investivit, forte sit clericus et contigerit, ut ante moriatur quam vasallus possessionem feudi nanciscatur,⁴ exinanitur feudum. Quod generaliter in omnibus clericis, qui feudum dant observatur.

[LF 1.22]

[V2 1.23] Concerning a dispute between a lord and a vassal over an investiture¹

If any knight is in possession of his benefice and the lord denies the investiture, the knight is to affirm by oath, if he can, that the benefice is his by his lord’s investiture. And if the lord possesses, and the knight says the following, that he was invested by his lord, and the lord denies, the knight’s peers are to be gathered and the truth be found through them. And if there are not peers, the truth is to be found through the lord, since it is not good that the truth be denied.

[LF 1.23]

[V2 1.24] In what way a fief is to belong to a daughter

If anyone dies without a male child and leaves a daughter, the daughter is not to have the father’s benefice unless she redeems it from the lord. If, however, the lord wishes to give it to her because of her father’s service and affection, it is not to be reclaimed by any of her relatives, nor should it be condemned.

[LF 1.24]

[V2 1.25] In what ways a fief can be established

[pr.] It should be known that a fief can in no way be established without investiture, even if someone acquires and holds possession of any property as a fief by the lord’s command. However, he is permitted to retain possession obtained in this way as if it was a fief for as long as he lives, but in no way are his heirs to succeed him to this right.

[§ 1] If the lord who made the investiture is perhaps a cleric, and it happens that he dies before the vassal would acquire possession of the fief, the fief is voided. This is observed generally with respect to all clerics who give fiefs.

[LF 1.25]

[V2 1.26] Si de investitura inter dominum et vasallum lis oriatur

[pr.] Si inter dominum et vasallum de investitione oriatur contentio,¹ domino scilicet investitionem² se fecisse negante, si testibus res probari non poterit, possessoris sacramento res decidatur. Idem et in eorum successoribus observatur. Si vero testes interfuerunt et eos vasallus ad testimonium vocaverit, eorum testimonio cum sacramento credatur. Testes vero sint pares eius et qui ab eodem domino feudum teneant. Qui si tempore investitionis abfuerint, etiam extranei sunt recipiendi. Qui etiam si veritatem celare voluerint amore forte vel praemio³ vel alia qualibet ex causa, a comite vel a populo iurare compellantur, quod ex ea causa falsitatem non dicant nec vera se scientibus tacebunt⁴. His enim non cogentibus eos vasallus cum misso domini⁵ ad imperatorem ire festinet,⁶ et quod imperator iudicaverit,⁷ observetur. Si autem se venturum vel nuntium missurum vasallus promittat, ex quo promiserit usque ad annum quiete possideat. Si vero ad regem non venerit vel non miserit infra annum, domini sacramento causa finiatur.

[§ 1] Et si testes sacramento iam dicto praestito se non interfuisse dixerint, domini sacramento quaestio terminetur. Haec omnia etiam in clericorum personis locum habent, praeterquam quod de personis testium dictum est. In clericorum enim feudo aequaliter recipiuntur⁸ pares et extranei, hoc ideo quia, cum clerici quosdam de feudo investiunt, saepe absconse et sine praesentia suorum confratrum facere student.

[§ 2] Si quis se vel patrem suum ab aliquo vel patre eius⁹ de feudo investitum fuisse¹⁰ contenderit, nisi per duos pares de domo ipsius domini probaverit, quod intendit, vel alios duos idoneos testes,¹¹ tunc in electione domini est, utrum velit iurare cum 12 sacramentalibus, illum, qui feudum quaerit, per se vel patrem eius, si de hoc quaeratur, de ipso feudo investitum non fuisse. Quod si

[LF 1.25]

[V2 1.26] If a dispute arises between a lord and a vassal concerning an investiture

[pr.] If a dispute arises between a lord and a vassal over an investiture, i.e. with the lord denying having made the investiture, if the matter cannot be proved through witnesses, it is to be decided by the oath of the possessor. The same is also observed in respect to their successors. If, however, witnesses were present [at the investiture] and the vassal calls upon them to testify, one is to believe their sworn testimony. Witnesses, however, should be [the vassal’s] peers who also hold fiefs from the same lord. If peers were not present at the time of the investiture, even outsiders are to be admitted. Also, if [witnesses] wish to conceal the truth, perhaps out of affection, for a reward, or any other reason, they are to be compelled by the count or the people¹ to swear that they will not for this reason speak falsehood or be silent about what they know to be true. If [the count or the people] do not compel them, the vassal should hasten to go to the emperor together with a messenger of his lord, and what the emperor judges is to be observed.² If, however, the vassal promises that he will come or send a messenger, he is to peaceably possess the fief for a year after he promised; but if he neither comes nor sends [anyone] to the king within a year, the case is to be determined by the lord’s oath.

[§ 1] And if witnesses, after having taken the aforesaid oath, say that they were not present [at the investiture], the question is to be determined by the lord’s oath. All of this applies also in respect to clerical persons, except for what is said concerning the personal status of witnesses, since peers and outsiders are equally received [as witnesses] in respect to a clerical fief. This is so because when clerics invest someone with a fief, they often endeavour to do this secretly and without the presence of their fellow brothers.

[§ 2] If anyone contends that he or his father was invested with a fief by another or the latter’s father,³ if he does not prove what he sustains through two peers of the household⁴ of the same lord, or two other suitable witnesses,⁵ then it is the lord’s choice whether he wants to swear with twelve oath-helpers that he who claims the fief was not invested with that same fief by himself or his father, should the claim be about him. If he refuses to swear, the plaintiff

iurare noluerit, actor iuret cum 12 sacramentalibus, se vel patrem suum investitum fuisse. Quod si iurare noluerit, qui convenitur est absolvendus. Secundum enim morem Mediolanensium haec sacramenta sunt praestanda tam a filiis actoris vel rei quam ab ipsis principalibus personis.

[§ 3] Si autem aliquis in possessione feudi sit, de quo dominus dicit eum investitum non fuisse, tunc sine ulla testium probatione debet solus iurare, se vel patrem suum fuisse investitum. Haec autem sunt ita tenenda, si per unum annum domino sciente et non contradicente in possessione feudi permanserit;¹ alioquin iusta ignorantia vel parvi temporis negligentia cum iniquae possessionis periurio quandoque domino in possessione² damnum affert.³

[LF 1.26]

[V2 1.27] De feudo dato in vicem legis commissoriae⁴

[pr.] Si quis obligaverit aliquam rem pignori eo pacto ‘ut si statuto tempore pecunia soluta non fuisset, esset creditoris⁵ et eam pro feudo habeat’, potest debitor quandocunque pecuniam solvendo pacto non obstante pignus recuperare. Feudum enim non sub praetextu pecuniae, sed amore et honore domini acquirendum est.

[§ 1] Si quis investierit aliquem de feudo sui militis, viri Placentini asserunt,⁶ hanc investituram non aliter valere nisi eo consentiente, cuius erat feudum. Mediolanenses vero⁷ et Cremonenses nihil distare asseverant, utrum eo consentiente⁸ an ignorante, dummodo eo vivente nullum detrimentum de feudo suo sibi contingat. Hoc autem dicendum est de eo milite, qui feudi successores non habet.

[§ 2] [V2 1.28]⁹ Quidam obligaverat terram quandam suo militi, deinde cum filius domini post longum tempus pecuniam offerendo pignus liberare voluisset, filius militis contendebat, patrem suum a domino suo defuncto de praedicto pignore feudi investitionem accepisse. Unde viri prudentes Mediolanen-

is to swear together with twelve oath-helpers that he, or his father, has been invested; and if he refuses to swear, the defendant must be cleared. Indeed, in accordance with the Milanese practice, these oaths must be taken both by the sons of the plaintiff or the defendant, and by the main participants themselves.

[§ 3] If, however, anyone is in possession of a fief concerning which the lord says that he has not been invested, then he ought to swear alone, without any proof of witnesses, that he or his father have been invested. However, these things are to be observed [only] if he remains in possession of the fief for one year with the lord knowing and not dissenting. Otherwise, [a lord’s] justified ignorance or negligence for a short time, along with [the possessor’s] perjury concerning [his] unjust possession, [can] sometimes cause harm to the lord in his possession.

[LF 1.26]

[V2 1.27] Concerning a fief that is given in relation to a forfeiture clause¹

[pr.] If anyone ties up in pledge any property on this agreement, ‘that if money has not been paid within a fixed time it is to be the creditor’s and he is to have it as a fief’, the debtor can recover the pledge at any time by paying the money, notwithstanding the agreement. For a fief should be acquired not by reason of money but by the lord’s affection and honour.

[§ 1] If anyone invests another with the fief of a knight of his, the men of Piacenza assert² that this investiture has no effect if he whose fief it was does not consent. The people of Milan and Cremona, however, affirm that it makes no difference whether he consents³ or is unaware, provided he does not suffer any loss in respect to his fief while he is alive. However, this should be said concerning the knight who has no successors to the fief.

[§ 2] [V2 1.28]⁴ Someone had tied up in pledge some land to his knight. Then, after a long time, when the lord’s son wished to redeem the pledge by offering money, the knight’s son contended that his father had received from the deceased lord investiture of a fief regarding the aforesaid pledge. Concerning

ses interrogati laudaverunt, in electione filii militis esse, cum 12 sacramentalibus iurare, patrem suum a domino suo post investituram defuncto vel se per investituram praedictam terram tenuisse¹ ita, ut per 30 annos contestatio pignoris a parte domini adversus ipsum vel patrem suum facta non fuisset. Si autem ipse iurare noluerit, filius defuncti domini necesse habet, iurare cum 12 sacramentalibus, defunctum militem inde per feudum investitum non fuisse. Quodsi ita iurare recuset, investire ipsum debet militis filium de iam dicta terra per feudum.²

this, the Milanese experts, who were consulted, declared that the knight’s son could choose to swear with twelve oath-helpers that his father had held the aforesaid land from his lord, who died after the investiture, or that he himself had held it through investiture,¹ thus that for thirty years no formal claim of the pledge was laid from the lord’s part against him or his father. However, if he does not wish to swear, the son of the deceased lord needs to swear with twelve oath-helpers that the deceased knight was not invested in fief on that basis. And if he refuses to swear, he ought to invest the knight’s son with the aforesaid land as a fief.