Explicit liber primus. Incipit secundus¹

[LF 2.1]

De feudi cognitione

[pr.] Obertus de Orto Anselmo filio suo² salutem. Causarum, quarum cognitio frequenter nobis committitur, aliae quidem³ dirimuntur iure Romano, aliae vero legibus Longobardorum, aliae autem secundum regni consuetudinem. Quae quam sint varia,⁴ quamque secundum diversorum locorum aut curiarum mores sint diversa,⁵ nec breviter potest dici nec hoc libello facile comprehendi,⁶ usum tamen feudi, qui in nostris partibus obtinet, prout possibile est, tibi exponere necessarium duxi. In iudicio etenim, quo de feudis agitur, illud legibus nostris contrarium dici solet. Legum autem Romanarum non est vilis auctoritas, sed non adeo vim suam extendunt, ut usum vincant aut mores. Strenuus autem iurisperitus, sicubi casus emerserit, qui consuetudine feudi non sit comprehensus, absque calumnia uti poterit lege scripta.

[§ 1] Sciendum est itaque,⁷ feudum sive beneficium non nisi in rebus soli aut solo cohaerentibus aut in his,⁸ quae inter immobilia computantur⁹—veluti cum de camera aut de caneva¹⁰ feudum datur—posse consistere ac feudum neminem posse acquirere nisi investitura aut successione.

[LF 2.2]

Quid sit investitura

[pr.] Investitura proprie quidem dicitur possessio, abusivo autem modo dicitur investitura, quando hasta vel aliud corporeum quodlibet porrigitur a domino,¹¹ se investituram facere dicente. Quae si quidem ab eo¹² fiat, qui alios habet

Here ends the first book. Here begins the second¹

[LF 2.1]

Concerning cognisance of a fief

[pr.] Obertus de Orto sends his greetings to his son² Anselm. Of the cases of which cognisance is frequently entrusted to us,³ some indeed are resolved by Roman law, some by the laws of the Lombards, but some others according to the custom of the realm. Although it can neither be stated briefly nor easily encompassed in this little book how varied these [customs] are, and how they are different according to the practices of different places and courts,⁴ I nonetheless thought it necessary to explain to you, insofar as it is possible, the usage of the fief that holds in our regions. Certainly, in a trial which concerns fiefs,⁵ it is common to say what is contrary to our laws:⁶ indeed, the authority of Roman laws is not negligible, but they do not extend their force so far as to override custom or practices. However, when a case emerges that is not encompassed by the custom of the fief, the quick-minded lawyer may use the written law without objection.

[§ 1] And so it should be known that a fief or benefice can only consist of things of the soil, or adjoined to the soil, or those things that are reckoned as immoveables, e.g. when a fief is given ‘de camera’ or ‘de caneva’.⁷ And [it should be known that] no one can acquire a fief unless by investiture or succession.

[LF 2.2]

What investiture is

[pr.] Investiture is properly called possession. However, it is called investiture in an improper way, when a lance or another corporeal object is handed over by the lord while he says he is making an investiture. And, certainly, if it is made

vasallos, saltem coram duobus ex illis sollemniter fieri debet, alioquin, licet alii intersint testes, investitura minime valet, nisi per breve testatum secundum quosdam.¹ Si enim domino adhuc in possessione constituto, an facta sit investitura, quaeratur, non debet probari nisi per pares² illius domus vel per publicum instrumentum a tribus vel duobus paribus confirmatum. Nam si instrumentum defecerit vel quia factum non fuerit vel quia amissum sit, tunc, qui probare desiderat, pares illius curiae, qui interfuerunt, offerat. Qui si denegaverint,³ corrupti forte odio vel gratia seu pretio et dicant, se non interfuisse, cum investitura fieret,⁴ vel non reminisci, tunc domino cogente iurent tactis sacrosanctis scripturis, quod huius rei veritatem nesciant, et tunc actor aut alios producat pares aut iurisiurandi electio detur domino, ut proinde iuret, investituram factam non esse, aut sacramentum vasallo referat, et ille aut iuret aut quiescat.⁵ Quodsi iurare pares aliqua ex causa recusant⁶ nec dominus eos iurare compellat, liceat vasallo etiam per extraneos probare investituram, testibus vero deficientibus iurisiurandi electio detur domino.

[§ 1] Si vero vasallus quidem possideat vel si feudum camerae aut canevae in duabus seu tribus quietis acceptionibus quasi possideat, dominus autem feudum esse negans rem suam petat, vel quod de camera vel de caneva bis vel ter, sicut diximus, iam solutum est, deinceps solvere renuat, tunc non est opus probatione, sed possidenti data electione aut iuret, suum esse feudum rectum, aut domino referat iusiurandum. [V2 2.2.2] Si autem investitura ab eo, qui vasallos non habebat, dicatur facta, per quoslibet idoneos testes seu per publicum instrumentum probari potest, aut inopia probationis emergente res decidatur per iusiurandum.

[§ 2][V2 2.2.3] Praeterea si tenor aliquis praeter communem feudi rationem in investitura a domino dicatur intervenisse, vel si dicatur feudum sub tali conditione dedisse ‘ut vasallus in festivis diebus vadat ad ecclesiam cum uxore sua’ omni facultate probandi domino ademta habeat vasallus potestatem se defendendi per sacramentum.

by him who has other vassals, it ought to be made before at least two of them according to due form; otherwise, even though other witnesses are present, the investiture lacks force—unless, according to some, [it is made] through a certified charter.¹ For if the lord still remains in possession and there is a dispute concerning whether investiture has been made, proof ought to be made only through the peers of that household or a public instrument confirmed by three, or two, peers. If indeed there is no instrument, because it was not made or has been lost, then he who wants to make proof is to present the peers of that court who were present [at the investiture]. If they deny it, corrupted perhaps by hatred, favour, or payment, and say that they were not present when the investiture was made, or that they do not remember, then, compelled by the lord, they are to swear on the Holy Scriptures that they do not know the truth of this matter. Then, either the plaintiff is to produce other peers or the lord is to be given the choice to take an oath, so that he can either swear that investiture has not been made or hand over the oath to the vassal and [in that case] the latter is to either swear or leave the matter be. If the peers, for any reason, refuse to swear and the lord does not compel them to swear, the vassal may prove investiture even through outsiders [i.e. people other than peers]. If there are no witnesses, the lord is to be given the choice of taking an oath.

[§ 1] If, however, the vassal possesses a fief, or if he has quasi-possession of a fief ‘de camera’ or ‘de caneva’² after peaceably receiving two or three [pecuniary or in-kind] payments, and the lord denies it is a fief and claims back his property—or, as we said concerning fiefs ‘de camera’ or ‘de caneva’, he has made payment two or three times and refuses to pay thereafter—then there is no need of making proof, but the possessor should be given the choice to either swear it is his rightful fief or hand over the oath to the lord. [V2 2.2.2] If however it is said that investiture was made by someone who had no vassals, proof can be made through any suitable witnesses or through a public instrument; otherwise, in the absence of proof, the matter is to be decided through oath-taking.

[§ 2] [V2 2.2.3] Furthermore, if it is said that some terms contrary to the common notion of a fief were introduced by the lord in the investiture,³ or it is said that he gave the fief on this condition ‘that the vassal is to accompany his wife to church on festive days’, any capacity to make proof is taken away from the lord, and the vassal shall have the capacity to defend himself through an oath.

[§ 3]¹ Item si vasallus pactum speciale contra feudi consuetudinem allegat, velut de filiarum successione, liceat ei tenorem si potest sicut investituram probare. Quodsi in probatione defecerit vel cessaverit, concedatur domino hoc denegare iureiurando praestito.

[LF 2.3]

Per quos fiat investitura et per quos recipiatur

[pr.] Investitura autem aut de veteri beneficio fit aut de novo. Quae de veteri fit, etiam a minore potest fieri. Sive autem a minore sive a maiore fiat, non de omni possessione vasalli, sed de iusta tantum facta intelligitur, nisi aliud nominatim dicatur. Novi vero feudi investitura non ab alio recte fit, nisi ab eo, qui legitime suorum bonorum administrationem habet. Qui enim qualibet ratione aliquid de bonis suis impeditur alienare, is nec per feudum poterit investituram facere. [V2 2.3.1] Sed etiam res, cuius alienatio prohibetur, nec per beneficium dari conceditur, nisi in casu ut ecce² si quis ex agnatis tuis rem, quae a communi parente per successionem ad eum pervenerit, alienare voluerit, non permittitur ei etiam secundum antiquam consuetudinem alii eam vendere nisi tibi vel alii proximiori pro aequali pretio accipere volenti; per feudum tamen cuilibet dare³ potest, nisi fiat in fraudem nostrae consuetudinis vel legis novae bonae memoriae Lotharii imperatoris.⁴ Tunc enim rescissa investitura, reddito a te vel ab alio proximiore secundum⁵ antiquam consuetudinem pretio, si quod dederit, is, qui investituram accepit, compellatur rem tibi restituere.

[§ 1]⁶ Personam vero investituram accipientis non distinguimus; nam etiam servus investiri poterit, nisi ignorantia praetendatur. Sed utrum ipse an alius pro te investituram faciat vel suscipiat, nihil interesse putamus. Potest enim hoc negotium et per procuratorem ab utraque parte expediri.

[§ 2] Feminam quoque etiam novi feudi investituram facere posse, plerique consentiunt.

[§ 3] Nulla autem investitura fieri debet ei, qui fidelitatem facere recusat, cum a fidelitate feudum dicatur vel a fide, nisi eo pacto acquisitum sit ei feudum ‘ut sine iuramento fidelitatis habeatur’.

[§ 3]¹ Also, if the vassal cites a specific agreement contrary to the custom of the fief, such as one concerning succession of daughters, he may prove, if he can, its terms, just as investiture. And if he fails or defaults in his proof, the lord shall be allowed to deny this after taking an oath.

[LF 2.3]

By whom investiture is to be made and by whom it is to be received

[pr.] Investiture indeed is made either with an old benefice or with a new one. The one that is made with an old [benefice] can also be made by a minor. However, whether it is made by a minor or an adult, it is not considered to be made regarding every possession of a vassal, but only regarding his lawful possession, unless it is expressly said otherwise. On the other hand, investiture with a new fief is not rightly made by anyone except by him who lawfully has the management of his own estates, for he who is for any reason prevented from alienating something from his estates, cannot make an investiture by fief. [V2 2.3.1] But also property the alienation of which is prohibited may not be given as a benefice, except for the case which follows: if any of your agnates wants to alienate some property that has come to him by succession from a common relative, he is not permitted, also by long-standing custom, to sell it to anyone except you, or a closer relative, willing to receive it for an equal price. Nonetheless, he can give it as a fief to anyone if this is not done in fraud of our custom or of the new law of the dearly remembered Emperor Lothair.² For then, once investiture has been rescinded and you, or a closer relative, according to long-standing custom have restored its price, if it was paid, he who received investiture is to be compelled to restore the property to you.

[§ 1]³ We do not make distinctions as to the person who receives investiture, for even a slave can be invested unless ignorance [of this status] is pleaded [by him who makes investiture]. But we think that there is no difference as to whether you yourself or another on your behalf makes or receives investiture, for such a transaction can be performed by either party even by proxy.

[§ 2] Many agree that a woman too can make investiture of a new fief.

[§ 3] However, no investiture ought to be made to him who refuses to do fealty, since ‘fief’ derives its name from ‘fealty’ or ‘faith’, unless he acquires the fief on the agreement that it can be had without an oath of fealty.

[LF 2.4]

Quid praecedere debeat, utrum investitura an fidelitas

[pr.] Utrum autem investitura praecedere debeat fidelitatem an fidelitas investituram,¹ quaesitum scio. Et saepe responsum est, investituram debere praecedere fidelitatem.

[§ 1] Fidelitatem² dicimus iusiurandum, quod a vasallo praestatur domino.

[LF 2.5]

Qualiter vasallus iurare debeat fidelitatem

Qualiter autem debeat iurare vasallus fidelitatem, videamus:³ ‘Iuro ego ad haec sancta Dei evangelia, quod a modo⁴ ero fidelis huic, sicut debet esse vasallus domino, nec id, quod mihi sub nomine fidelitatis commiserit,⁵ pandam alii ad eius detrimentum me sciente’. [V2 2.5.1] Si vero domesticus, id est familiaris, eius sit, cui iurat, aut si ideo iurat fidelitatem, non quod feudum habeat sed quia sub iurisdictione eius sit, cui iurat, nominatim vitam, membrum, mentem, et illius⁶ rectum honorem iurabit.

[LF 2.6]

De forma fidelitatis

In epistola Philiberti episcopi in Decretis causa .xxii.⁷ De forma fidelitatis aliquid scribere monitus haec vobis, quae sequuntur, breviter ex librorum auctoritate notavi. Qui domino suo fidelitatem iurat, ista sex in memoria semper habere debet: incolume, tutum, honestum, utile, facile, possibile. Incolume, ne sit in damno domino suo de corpore suo; tutum, ne sit ei in damno de secreto suo vel de munitionibus suis, per quas tutus esse potest; honestum, ne sit ei in damno de sua iustitia vel de aliis causis, quae ad honestatem eius pertinere noscuntur; utile, ne sit ei in damno de suis possessionibus; facile vel possibile, ne id bonum, quod dominus suus facere poterat leviter, faciat ei difficile neve id, quod possibile ei erat, faciat impossibile.

[LF 2.4]

What ought to come first, investiture or [the oath of] fealty?

[pr.] I know that it is asked whether investiture ought to come before [the oath of] fealty, or [the oath of] fealty ought to come before investiture, and it has been often answered that investiture ought to come before [the oath of] fealty.

[§ 1] We call ‘fealty’ the oath that is sworn by a vassal to a lord.

[LF 2.5]

How a vassal ought to swear fealty

Let us see how a vassal ought to swear fealty:¹ ‘I swear on these Holy Gospels of God that I shall henceforth be faithful to this man as a vassal ought to be faithful to a lord, neither shall I wittingly reveal to anyone, to his detriment, that which he has entrusted to me on invocation of fealty’. [V2 2.5.1] However, if the oath-taker is a member of the household, i.e. a personal servant, of him to whom he swears, or if he swears fealty not to have a fief but because he is under the jurisdiction of him to whom he swears, he shall swear expressly [to protect] his life, body, mind, and rightful honour.

[LF 2.6]

Concerning the form of [the oath of] fealty

From the letter of Bishop Fulbert, in Causa 22 of Gratian’s Decretum (Decr. C. 22, q. 5, c. 18). Being urged to write something about the form of [the oath of] fealty, I have briefly noted for you, from the authority of books, these things which follow. He who swears fealty to his lord ought always to bear in mind these six [words]: unharmed, safe, honourable, profitable, easy, and possible. Unharmed, as he should not harm his lord with regard to his body. Safe, as he should not harm him with regard to his secrets or the defences through which he can be safe. Honourable, as he should not harm him with regard to his justice or other matters that are known to relate to his honour. Profitable, as he should not harm him with regard to his possessions. Easy or possible, as he should not make difficult the good which his lord can easily do, nor make impossible what is possible for him.

Ut fidelis haec documenta¹ caveat, iustum est. Sed quia non sufficit abstinere a malo, nisi faciat quod bonum est, restat, ut in sex praedictis consilium et auxilium domino praestet, si beneficio vult dignus videri et de fidelitate esse salvus, quam ei iuravit.² Dominus quoque in his omnibus vicem fideli suo reddere debet. Quod si non fecerit, merito censebitur malefidus, sicut ille, qui in eorum praevaricatione vel faciendo vel consentiendo deprehensus fuerit perfidus et periurus.

[LF 2.7]

De nova fidelitatis forma

[pr.] Est et alia de novo super fidelitatis iuramento forma inventa et utentium approbata consuetudine, quae hodie in omni fere curia videtur obtinere, haec scilicet: ‘Ego Titius iuro super haec sancta Dei evangelia, quod ab hac die³ inantea usque ad ultimum diem vitae meae ero fidelis tibi Caio, domino meo, contra omnem hominem excepto imperatore vel rege.’ Quod verbum, si recte intelligatur, nulla quidem indiget adiectione, sed integram et perfectam in se continet fidelitatem.

Sed propter simplices et nominis significationis ignaros ad illius verbi interpretationem hoc adiici solet. ‘Id est iuro, quod nunquam scienter ero in consilio vel in auxilio⁴ vel in facto, quod tu amittas vitam vel membrum aliquod vel quod tu recipias in persona aliquam laesionem vel iniuriam vel contumeliam vel quod tu amittas aliquem honorem, quem nunc habes vel inantea possidebis. Et si scivero vel audivero de aliquo, qui velit aliquid istorum contra te facere, pro posse meo, ut non fiat, impedimentum praestabo, et si impedimentum praestare nequivero, quam cito potero, tibi nuntiabo et contra eum, prout potero, tibi meum auxilium praestabo. Et si contigerit, te rem aliquam, quam habes vel habebis, iniuste vel fortuito casu amittere, eam recuperare iurabo⁵ et recuperatam omni tempore retinere. Et si scivero, te velle iuste offendere aliquem et inde generaliter vel specialiter fuero requisitus, meum tibi, sicut potero, praestabo auxilium. Et si aliquid mihi de secreto manifestaveris, illud sine tua licentia nemini pandam vel, per quod pandatur, faciam. Et si consilium mihi super aliquo facto postulaveris, illud tibi dabo consilium, quod mihi vide-

It is just that a loyal man¹ be mindful of these teachings.² However, since it is not sufficient to abstain from evil if one does not do what is good,³ it remains that he is to give counsel and aid to his lord concerning the aforesaid six [things] if he wishes to be considered worthy of the benefice and reliable concerning the fealty which he swore to him. The lord also ought to reciprocally behave toward his loyal man in respect of all these. If he does not, he shall be deservedly considered unfaithful, just as he who is deemed disloyal and a perjurer for disobeying them, whether by doing or consenting to them.

[LF 2.7]

Concerning the new form of [the oath of] fealty

[pr.] There is also another form concerning the oath of fealty which has been recently conceived and approved by the custom of those who use it, which today seems to hold in nearly all courts, i.e.: ‘I, Titius, swear on these Holy Gospels of God that from this day onwards until the last day of my life I shall be faithful to you, Caius, my lord, against all men except the emperor or the king.’ This sentence, if correctly interpreted, does not require any addition, but contains within itself a full and complete [oath of] fealty.

However, for the sake of simple people and those who do not know the meaning of that term [i.e. faithful], it is usual to add what follows to explain that sentence. ‘I.e., I swear that I shall never wittingly provide counsel or aid or activity so that you lose your life or limb, receive any personal harm, injury, or insult, or lose any honour which you now have or will henceforth possess. And if I know or hear of anyone who wants to do any of these things against you, I shall prevent it from being done to the best of my ability. And if I am not able to prevent it, I shall inform you as soon as I can and make available to you my support against him to my full capacity. And if it happens that you lose, unjustly or fortuitously, anything that you now have or will have, I shall help⁴ you to recover it and to retain perpetually what has been recovered. And if I know that you wish to attack someone on just grounds, and thence I am summoned, whether in general or particular terms, I shall offer you support to my full capacity. And if you reveal to me anything secret, I shall not disclose it to anyone without your permission, nor do anything through which it might be disclosed. And if you require my counsel concerning any matter, I shall give

bitur magis expedire tibi. Et nunquam ex persona mea aliquid faciam scienter, quod pertineat ad tuam vel tuorum iniuriam vel contumeliam.’

[§ 1] Investitura vero facta et fidelitate subsecuta omnimodo cogatur dominus, investitum in vacuam possessionem mittere. Quod si differat, omnem utilitatem ei praestabit.

[LF 2.8]

De investitura de re aliena facta

[pr.] Cum de re aliena vel alii obligata fiat investitura, illud distingui debet,¹ utrum scienti an ignoranti facta sit. Qui enim rei alienae sciens investituram suscepit,² nisi pacto speciali sibi prospexerit, de evictione agere non potest,³ ignorans vero recte agit, ut aliud eiusdem bonitatis seu quantitatis ei praestetur. Sed in eo nulla est differentia, qui investituram fecit, utrum sciverit an ignoraverit.

[§ 1] Rei autem per beneficium recte investitae vasallus hanc habeat potestatem, ut tanquam dominus possit ab omni possidente quasi vindicare⁴ et, si ab alio eiusdem rei nomine conveniatur, defensionem opponere. Nam et servitutes eiusdem rei debitas⁵ petere potest et retinere. [V2 2.8.2] Quid ergo si pretio vel dolo vel incuria servitutem rei beneficiariae imponi patiatur et ad dominum ex aliqua causa⁶ postea beneficium revertatur, an ex eo praeiudicium domino generetur quaesitum fuit. Et responsum est, ut vasallo quidem, donec feudum tenet, possit obesse, domino autem, etsi per longa tempora servitus perseveraverit, non noceat.⁷

[§ 2] [V2 2.8.3] E contrario,⁸ si quid feudo a vasallo additum sit, si quidem tale sit,⁹ quod per se subsistere possit, id est ut per se censeatur, ut praedium, id non accrescit feudo. Si vero per se non possit subsistere, ut servitus, plerisque placet, feudo accedere et sicut partem feudi disponendam esse. Meliorem namque feudi conditionem facere potest, deteriorem vero sine domini voluntate vel eorum agnatorum, ad quos per successionem pertinet, facere non potest.

you the counsel that I believe to benefit you most. And I shall never wittingly do anything on my own account that might aim at harming or insulting you and yours.’

[§ 1] However, once investiture has been made, and [the oath of] fealty has followed, the lord is to be by all means compelled to put the grantee into unimpeded possession. If he delays, he shall pay him all profits.

[LF 2.8]

Concerning investiture that is made of someone else’s property

[pr.] When investiture is made regarding something that belongs to another or has been tied up in pledge to another, one ought to distinguish whether it is made to someone who knows or is ignorant of it. For he who wittingly has received investiture of someone else’s thing cannot bring an action for eviction unless a specific agreement provides for it. However, he who [receives it] unwittingly can rightly bring an action to be given another [thing] of the same quality and extent. However, with respect to this matter, there is no difference as to whether he who made the investiture knows of it or is ignorant of it.

[§ 1] A vassal, rightly invested with something as a benefice, is to have the capacity to quasi-vindicate¹ it from any possessor as if he were its owner and, if he is brought to court by another person on account of that same thing, to mount a defence [against him]. Indeed, he can also seek and retain the easements that are due to that thing. [V2 2.8.2] What, therefore, if an easement is allowed to be imposed on the thing granted in benefice, either for a price, by deceit, or neglect, and afterwards, for any reason, the benefice reverts to the lord? It was asked, can any prejudice to the lord result from this? And it was answered that [this easement] may certainly damage the vassal as long as he holds the fief, but it is not to be harmful to the lord, even though the easement has persisted for a long time.

[§ 2] [V2 2.8.3] Conversely, if something is added to a fief by the vassal, if indeed it is of such kind that it can subsist on its own—i.e. which is to be assessed as self-standing, like a piece of land—it does not accrue to the fief. However, if it cannot subsist on its own, as with an easement, many agree that it is added to the fief and must be managed just as a part of the fief. For [a vassal] can improve the condition of a fief but cannot worsen it without the consent of the lord and those agnates to whom the fief belongs by succession. [V2 2.8.4]

[V2 2.8.4] Quamvis enim per beneficium¹ ad eum pertineat, tamen proprietas ad alium spectat; et ideo quartae sive tertiae ratione, quae a Lombardis seu Romanis viris uxoribus fieri solet, post mortem viri ad uxorem nihil pertinet. Nam nec pignus, quod consultum dicitur, ex feudo fieri potest.

[LF 2.9]

Qualiter olim feudum poterat alienari

[pr.] Est autem optima consuetudine interdicta feudi alienatio. Super qua multae et diversae sententiae dabantur in singulis civitatibus seu curiis, donec imperator divae memoriae Lotharius tertius super hoc novam promulgavit constitutionem, quae posita est in titulo de beneficiis.² [V2 2.9.1] Necessitate namque suadente poterat olim vasallus domino inscio vel invito feudi partem vendere retenta videlicet alia parte. [V2 2.9.2] Si vero vel totum vel partem volebat per feudum aliquem investire, licebat hoc ei sine fraude facere. Sive autem dissentiente domino vendebat sive per feudum investiebat—quod et ipsum sincere hodie et sine fraude licet ei facere—si tamen sine herede masculo descendente decedebat vel feudum in manu domini refutabat aut alia ratione, culpa forte intercedente,³ amittebat, tunc omnis feudi alienatio ad irritum devocabatur,⁴ eo excepto quod ille, qui secundo loco beneficium acceperat, non amittebat, si priori domino servire et ab eo feudum recognoscere volebat.

[V2 2.9.3] Donare autem aut pro anima iudicare vel in dotem pro filia dare nullius curiae poterat consuetudine, licet posset locare, nisi locatio esset fraudulenta alienatio, sicut est per libellum, ut dicatur,⁵ venditio. Quis enim dubitat, quod libellario nomine sub vilissima duorum denariorum pensione perpetuo conceditur⁶ utendum, in fraudem esse alienatum? Porro sive de bona consuetudine sive de prava quaeramus, concessa erat domino pro equali pretio redemptio, nisi hoc beneficium amiserit per refutationem⁷ vel annali silentio, ex quo sciverit, computando. Praescriptione autem triginta annorum submo-

For although it belongs to him through benefice,¹ nonetheless its ownership pertains to another. And for this reason, on account of the fourth or third portions [of wealth] that Lombard and Roman men respectively are accustomed to bestowing on their wives, after a husband’s death nothing [of his fief] belongs to the wife. Nor, indeed, can the pledge that is called consultum be made out of a fief².

[LF 2.9]

How a fief could be alienated formerly

[pr.] Furthermore, alienation of a fief is forbidden by an excellent custom. On this matter, many and diverse opinions used to be given in each city or court, until Emperor Lothair III, of blessed memory, promulgated a new constitution about this, which was placed under the title ‘Concerning benefices’ (Lomb. 3.8.[5]). [V2 2.9.1] Indeed, if pressed by necessity, a vassal used to be able to sell a portion of a fief with the lord not knowing or unwilling, while retaining the remaining portion. [V2 2.9.2] If, however, he wished to invest all or part as a fief, he was permitted to do so without fraud. Moreover, regardless of whether he sold it or invested it as a fief with the lord dissenting—which today he is permitted to do openly and without fraud³—nonetheless, if he died without a male heir descending from him, or renounced the fief into the hands of the lord, or lost it for some other reason, perhaps by his own fault, then the whole alienation of the fief was declared invalid. This exception was made that he who had in the second place received the benefice did not lose it if he was willing to serve the prior lord and acknowledge holding the fief from him.

[V2 2.9.3] However, by the custom of no court could he donate it, or bestow it for the salvation of his soul, or give it in dowry for a daughter, although he could give it on lease—unless the lease were a fraudulent alienation, like the so-called ‘sale by lease’. Because who doubts that what is granted by way of lease for perpetual use against payment of an insignificant rent, such as two ‘denarii’, is sold with deceit? Furthermore, no matter if we inquire on the basis of good or bad custom, re-purchase was granted to the lord for an equal price, provided that he had not lost the benefice by renouncing it or staying silent for one year, counted from the moment he knew [of the alienation]. However, on the grounds of thirty-year prescription,⁴ he could be turned down regardless of

vebatur tam sciens quam ignorans. In prohibendo autem vel redimendo potior erat proximi agnati quam domini conditio, si tamen feudum erat paternum.

[§ 1] [V2 2.9.4] De illa vero feudi alienatione, quae a domino fit, si dubitetur, lex imperatoris Conradi consulatur, quae posita est in iam dicto titulo de beneficiis.¹

[LF 2.10]

Quis dicatur dux, marchio, comes sive capitaneus vel valvasor

Qui a principe de ducatu aliquo investitus est, dux solito more vocatur. Qui vero de marchia, marchio dicitur. Dicitur autem marchia quia cara, id est collocata, et iuxta mare plerumque sit posita.² Qui vero de aliquo comitatu investitus est, comes appellatur. Qui vero a principe vel ab aliqua potestate de plebe aliqua vel plebis parte per feudum investitus est, is capitaneus appellatur, qui proprie valvasor maior olim dicebatur. Qui vero a capitaneis antiquitus feudum tenent, valvasores sunt. Qui autem a valvasoribus feudum, quod a capitaneis habebatur,³ similiter acceperint, valvasini, id est minores valvasores, appellantur. Qui antiquo quidem usu nullam feudi consuetudinem habebant. Valvasore enim sine filio mortuo feudum, quod valvasino dederat,⁴ ad capitaneum revertebatur. Sed hodie eodem iure utuntur in curia Mediolanensi, quo et valvasores. Ceteri vero, qui ab antiquis temporibus beneficium non tenent, licet noviter a capitaneis seu valvasoribus acquisierint, plebeii nihilominus sunt. Nam et hi, qui soldatam acceperunt vel habuerunt,⁵ per eam nullum paradegium⁶ sed nec feudi usum acquirunt.

[V2 2.10.1] Soldata autem est praestatio quaedam annua et gratuita, quae a neutra parte transit in heredem. Morte enim dantis vel accipientis finitur.⁷ Soldata vero dicitur, quia plerumque in solidorum datione consistit, quandoque enim in vino et annona consistit.

whether he knew [of the alienation] or was ignorant of it. Also, in both prohibiting and buying back, the legal position of a close agnate was stronger than the lord’s, if the fief was ancestral.

[§ 1] [V2 2.9.4] But if doubts arise concerning the alienation that is made by a lord, one should consult the decree of Emperor Conrad [II], which has been placed in the aforesaid title ‘Concerning benefices’ (Lomb. 3.8.4).

[LF 2.10]

Who is to be called a duke, a marquess, a count, a ‘capitaneus’, or a ‘valvasor’

He who has been invested by the prince with any duchy is traditionally called a duke. And he who has been invested with a march is called a marquess, and a march is so called because it is often situated next to the sea [Lat. ‘mare’].¹ And he who has been invested with any county is called a count. And he who has been invested in fief by the prince or any other public authority with some ‘plebs’,² or part of it, is called a ‘capitaneus’—who was once rightly called greater ‘valvasor’. And they who have held a fief from the ‘capitanei’ since times of old are ‘valvasores’. Moreover, they who in a similar way receive from ‘valvasores’ a fief that the latter had from ‘capitanei’, are called ‘valvasini’, i.e. lesser ‘valvasores’. By old usage, they had no custom of fiefs,³ for when a ‘valvasor’ died without a son, the fief he had given to a ‘valvasinus’ reverted to his ‘capitaneus’. But today, in the Milanese court, they [i.e. ‘valvasini’] enjoy the same right as ‘valvasores’. Indeed, others who have not held a benefice from earlier times, even though they have recently acquired one from ‘capitanei’ or ‘valvasores’, are nonetheless commoners. Indeed, also those who received or had a ‘soldata’ do not acquire through it noble rank, nor the usage of fiefs.

[V2 2.10.1] A ‘soldata’ is an annual and gratuitous payment that is not transmitted to the heir by either party, as it ends with the death of either the giver or the receiver. However, it is called ‘soldata’ because it most often consists of bestowal of money (‘solidi’); sometimes, however, it consists of wine or crops.

[LF 2.11]

De gradibus succedendi in feudum¹

Per successionem quoque sicut per investituram beneficium ad nos pertinet. Mortuo enim eo qui beneficium tenebat, prima causa liberorum est. Filiis enim existentibus masculis vel ex filio nepotibus vel deinceps per masculinum sexum descendentibus ceteri removentur agnati. Ad filias vero seu neptes vel proneptes vel ex filia nepotes seu pronepotes successio feudi non pertinet. Proles enim feminini sexus vel ex feminino² sexu descendens ad huiusmodi successionem adspirare non potest, nisi eius conditionis sit feudum vel eo pacto adquisitum.

His vero deficientibus vocantur primo fratres cum fratrum praemortuorum filiis, deinde agnati ulteriores. Quod ita intelligendum est, si feudum sit paternum, hoc est si fuit illius parentis, qui eius fuit agnationis communis. Si enim Titii avus de novo beneficio fuerit investitus, Titio sine legitimo herede masculo defuncto, eius feudi successio non pertinet ad eiusdem Titii patruum magnum nec ad prolem ex eo descendentem, immo revertitur ad dominum. Ad cognatos autem beneficii successio non pertinet.³

Si vero dominus vel alius beneficium defuncti novum esse dicat, agnatus autem illius proximus paternum esse contendat, tunc onus probationis incumbit illi, qui novum dicit. Sed scio, aliter pronunciatum esse. Bonus autem iudex causa cognita diligenter intuebitur, cuius potius iureiurando dirimenda sit haec quaestio, utroque scilicet in probatione deficiente.

[LF 2.12]

De fratribus de novo beneficio investitis

[pr.] Si duo fratres de novo beneficio et non de paterno simul investiti fuerint, uno sine herede defuncto, ad alterum non pertinet eius portio,⁴ nisi facta sit eo pacto investitura.

[LF 2.11]

Concerning the degrees [of relationship] for succeeding to a fief¹

A benefice belongs to us through succession just as through investiture. For once he who held a benefice has died, the strongest claim is that of his children, for when sons are left, or grandsons from his sons, or further descending heirs through the male sex, the other agnates are excluded. But succession to a fief does not belong to daughters, granddaughters, great-granddaughters, or to grandsons or great-grandsons through the female line. For the offspring of the female sex, or descending from the female sex, cannot aspire to such succession unless the fief is of that condition or has been acquired according to such an agreement.

When no [descendants] are left, brothers and sons of deceased brothers are first called [to succeed], and then the more distant agnates. This is to be understood if the fief is ancestral, i.e. if it was of an ancestor belonging to the same patrilineage. For if Titius’s grandfather is invested with a new benefice, when Titius dies without a lawful male heir, succession to his fief does not belong to Titius’s great-uncle nor to the offspring descending from him, but it reverts to the lord. Furthermore, succession to a benefice does not belong to relatives in the female line.²

However, if the lord or anyone else says that the benefice of the deceased is new, but the latter’s closest agnate contends that it is ancestral, then the burden of proof falls upon the one who says it is new—but I know that this matter has been judged differently. Furthermore, a good judge, after taking cognisance of the case, shall thoroughly consider by whose oath this question should be better decided when both parties fail in their proof.

[LF 2.12]

Concerning brothers invested with a new benefice

[pr.] If two brothers are invested at the same time with a new benefice, not an ancestral one, when one has died without heir, his portion does not belong to the other unless investiture is made according to that agreement.

[§ 1] Si duo fratres in casa communi¹ post mortem patris remanserint, id est simul habitaverint,² et unus eorum feudum acquisierit, plerique dicunt, ad alium non pertinere, neque vivente eo, qui acquisierit, neque post mortem eius;³ fructus tamen erunt communes, donec simul habitaverint. Quodsi cum equis et armis communibus vel pecunia communi sit acquisitum, adhuc idem dicunt, ne forte invitus dominus alium, quam quem voluerit, sibi acquirat vasallum, dum tamen meminerimus, id quod de communi expensum est, alteri pro parte competenti esse restituendum.

[LF 2.13]

De investitura, quam Titius accepit a Sempronio

A Sempronio talem feudi investituram accepit Titius,⁴ ‘ut haberet ipse heredesque sui legitimi masculi et his⁵ deficientibus feminae’. Porro Titius superstite tantum filia decessit. Ipsa a domino investita fuit et feudum in dotem dedit maritoque superstite sine liberis decessit. Quaerebatur, si ad maritum successio feudi pertineat. Responsum est, non pertinere.

[LF 2.14]

De vasallo decrepitae aetatis, qui beneficium refutavit, ut filii investirentur

Quidam vasallus, cum decrepitae aetatis esset, feudum suum in manu domini ad hoc refutavit, ‘ut Sempronium et Seium, filios suos, de eodem beneficio investiret’. Vasallo mortuo Sempronius sine legitimo herede Seio adhuc superstite decessit. Lis est inter dominum, tanquam novum feudum sibi delatum esse dicentem, et Seium paternum esse contendentem. Et eorum sententia praevalebit,⁶ qui dixerunt, hoc feudum, quamvis refutatum, nihilominus esse paternum.

[§ 1] If two brothers reside in the same household after their father’s death, i.e. they live there together, and one of them acquires a fief, many say that it belongs to the other neither while he who acquired it is alive, nor after his death;¹ its fruits, however, shall be shared for as long as they live together. They still say the same even if it has been acquired with common horses and arms or with joint wealth, lest the lord acquires, possibly against his will, a vassal different than the one he wanted. Nonetheless, we shall keep in mind that what is paid out of joint wealth must be restored to the other in proportion to his share.

[LF 2.13]

Concerning investiture that Titius received from Sempronius

Titius received investiture of a fief from Sempronius on such terms that he and his legitimate male heirs were to have it and, in their absence, females. Afterwards, Titius died with only a daughter surviving. She was invested by the lord, gave the fief in dowry [to her husband], and died without children, with the husband surviving. It was asked whether succession to the fief belongs to the husband. It has been answered that it does not belong to him.

[LF 2.14]

Concerning a vassal of old age who renounced his benefice so that his sons be invested

A certain vassal, being of old age, renounced his fief into the hand of the lord so that he would invest his sons Sempronius and Seius with the same benefice. After the vassal died, Sempronius died without a lawful heir with Seius still surviving. [Now] there is a dispute between the lord, who says that as a new fief it passed back to him, and Seius, who contends it is ancestral. The opinion has prevailed of those who said that this fief, although it has been renounced, is nonetheless ancestral.

[LF 2.15]

De investitura in maritum facta

Vasallus una tantum filia superstite decessit,¹ illa vero maritum accepit, cui dominus accepta pecunia partem feudi, quod pater puellae habebat, retenta sibi alia parte dedit. Sed² nunc quidam agnatus defuncti cum marito agit dicendo³ totum hoc feudum esse paternum et ideo⁴ ad se devolutum. Econtra maritus contendit, hanc partem, quam ipse habet, novum esse feudum et ideo domino apertum. Quaeritur igitur, utrum apud eundem dominum et in eius curia cogatur agnatus defuncti litigare an apud agnati iudicem vel arbitrum utriusque consensu electum hoc esse debeat. Et mihi et aliis placet, potius apud iudicem ordinarium vel arbitrum, quam apud eundem dominum hoc litigium fore⁵ terminandum.

[V2 2.15.1] Item placet, agnatum non semper cogendum probare, hoc feudum esse paternum, sed ab adversa parte novum esse probandum; qua deficiente in probatione tunc agnato, ut supra diximus, causa cognita detur electio, quatenus vel iuret, esse paternum, vel alteri parti referat iusiurandum, et ille aut iuret aut taceat. Illud tamen sciendum est, quod si inter duos, qui dixerunt,⁶ se esse vasallos, de feudo fuerit dubitatio, alter alterum invitum non potest trahere ad dominum vel eius curiae iudicium. Si vero dominus cum sua curia vocaverit eos, nemini eorum licet illius domini vel eius curiae examen dedignari.⁷

[LF 2.16]

De controversia feudi apud pares terminanda

Si inter dominum et vasallum de feudo orta fuerit contentio, per pares illius domus, sicut lex Conradi dicit, dirimatur, si tamen pares habeat. Et si quidem dominus et vasallus consentiant in eligendis paribus, nulla dubitatio est. Si vero

[LF 2.15]

Concerning investiture made to a husband

A vassal died with only one daughter surviving, and she took a husband to whom the lord, having received money, gave part of the fief that the girl’s father had, retaining the other part. Now, however, a certain agnate of the deceased brings an action against the husband, saying that all this fief is ancestral and, therefore, has devolved to him. The husband contends to the contrary that this portion that he has was a new fief and, therefore, had become vacant for the lord.¹ It is consequently asked whether the agnate of the deceased is to be compelled to bring the case before the same lord and in his court, or whether this ought to be before the [ordinary] judge of the agnate² or an arbitrator chosen with the consent of both parties. And it seems correct both to me and to other judges that this case shall be determined before an ordinary judge or an arbitrator rather than before the same lord.

[V2 2.15.1] It also seems correct that the agnate should not always be compelled to prove that this fief is ancestral, but the other party should prove that it is new. If the latter fails in making proof, then, as we have said before, once cognisance of the case has been taken, the agnate is to be given the choice to either swear that it is ancestral or hand over the oath to the other party, and this one is to either swear or stay silent. This must be known, however, that if there is uncertainty over a fief between two persons who say that they are vassals, one cannot bring the other against his will before the lord or to the judgment of his court. But if the lord with his court summons them, neither may refuse the trial of that lord or his court.

[LF 2.16]

On determining a dispute over a fief before the peers

If a dispute has arisen between a lord and a vassal over a fief, it is to be resolved, as Conrad’s decree states, by the peers of that household, if, actually, [the vassal] has peers. And if indeed the lord and the vassal agree on the peers to be

dissenserint,¹ tunc quid faciendum sit quaeritur. Sed praevaluit eorum sententia, qui dixerunt dominum debere eligere prius, quem aut quos voluerit, et vasallus similiter hoc faciat secundum numerum a domino comprobatum. Ille tamen vasallus, qui fidelitatem domino non iuravit, domino vel vasallo dissentiente, pro pari non est eligendus.

[LF 2.17]

De eo, qui sibi et heredibus suis, masculis et feminis, investituram accepit

Qui ‘sibi vel heredibus suis masculis et his deficientibus feminis’ per beneficium investituram feudi accepit, una tantum filia superstite, nullo alio descendente relicto, decessit. Haec marito paternum feudum in dotem dedit et duobus filiis ex eo procreatis obiit, quorum unus duas filias reliquit, alter vero uno filio masculo superstite defunctus est.² De praedicto itaque feudo ingentem vidimus quaestionem, masculo quidem hoc feudum totum sibi, quia solus eius, qui primo investituram accepit, heres masculus sit, vindicante, feminis vero totam sui patris partem sibi defendentibus, quia ex eo nullus exstitit masculus.

Cumque inter sapientes saepe super hac quaestione sit disputatum, tandem pro masculo pronuntiatum est. Non enim patet locus feminae in feudi successione, donec masculus superest ex eo, qui primus de hoc feudo fuerit investitus. Nam et illud iudicatum scio, si ille, qui proprium suum feudum militi per beneficium³ dedit, duobus filiis relictis decesserit, quorum unus filia tantum relicta obiit, alter vero filio masculo superstite decessit,⁴ quod miles non debet feudum suum per feminam recognoscere, donec superest masculus ex eo, qui primam investituram fecit. Alii dicunt, per filiam debet cognoscere.⁵

chosen, there is no uncertainty. If, however, they disagree, then it is asked what should be done. The opinion prevailed of those who said that the lord first ought to choose the one or ones whom he wishes, and then the vassal is to do the same, following the number [of peers] approved by the lord. However, such a vassal who has not sworn fealty to the lord must not be chosen as a peer, should either the lord or the vassal dissent.

[LF 2.17]

Concerning him who has received investiture for himself and his heirs, male and female

Someone who received investiture of a fief through benefice ‘for himself and his male heirs and, in their absence, his female heirs’ died with only one daughter surviving, with no other descendant left. She gave the ancestral fief in dowry to her husband and passed away after giving birth to two sons from him. One of these sons left two daughters, but the other one died with one surviving son. We have looked into a remarkable question concerning the aforesaid fief: the male claims the entire fief for himself because he is the only male heir of him who first received investiture; the females, however, defend all their father’s portion because there is no extant male born from him.

Since there has often been dispute among experts over this question, it was ultimately pronounced in favour of the male, for there is no opening for a woman in the succession to a fief as long as a male survives from him who was first invested with this fief. Indeed, I know it has also been judged that if he who gave his own fief in benefice to a knight died leaving two sons, one of whom passed away leaving only a daughter, and the other died with a surviving son, then the knight ought not to acknowledge holding his fief from the female as long as a male survives from him who made the first investiture. Others say that he ought to acknowledge holding the fief from the daughter.¹

[LF 2.18]

De duobus fratribus a capitaneo investitis

Duo fratres, Titius et Seius, a quodam capitaneo de novo beneficio simul investiti sunt eo videlicet tenore, ‘ut quamdiu ipsi vel eorum heredes masculi viverent et masculis deficientibus feminae, si superessent, feudum haberent’. Ex his fratribus unus una filia relicta, altero adhuc vivente, decessit. Quaeritur de portione defuncti, cui deferatur,¹ utrum filiae an fratri. Respondetur, filiae. Unusquisque enim sibi suisque heredibus videtur prospexisse. Si tamen is, qui filiam reliquit, sine herede decessisset, propter tenorem investiturae insertum eius pars fratri, non domino est quaesita.²

[LF 2.19]

An removeri debeant testes qui pares esse desierunt

Ex facto quaesitum esse scio, si inter dominum et fidelem de investitura feudi contentio emerserit, quia factam eam dominus neget, si vasallus afferat³ eos testes, qui tempore quidem investiturae pares erant, sed postea qualibet ex causa pares esse desierunt, an ideo sint removendi, quia nunc non sint pares? Sed quamvis alii aliud⁴ sentiant, mihi tamen et quibusdam aliis videtur sufficere, eos tempore investiturae saltem pares fuisse. Quid enim peccavit, qui investituram accepit, si illi, quos eo tempore utpote idoneos adhibuit, postea pares esse desierunt?

[LF 2.20]

De controversia inter episcopum et vasallum

Ex eo, quod scriptum est, si inter dominum et vasallum de feudo nascatur quaestio, quod per pares eiusdem curiae sit dirimenda, quaesitum est: si quis dixerit, se a quodam, fortassis episcopo iam defuncto,⁵ de annua praestatione aut alia qualibet re per feudum investituram accepisse, et cum successore eius agat, et ille respondendo neget, hunc esse vasallum, utrum per pares eiusdem curiae sit iudicandum super hac quaestione?

[LF 2.18]

Concerning two brothers invested by a ‘capitaneus’

Two brothers, Titius and Seius, were invested jointly with a new benefice by a certain ‘capitaneus’ on these terms, that is: that they would have the fief as long as they or their male heirs lived and, in the absence of males, females, if any survived. One of these brothers died leaving one daughter, with the other brother still alive. It is asked to whom the portion of the deceased is to be transferred, whether to the daughter or the brother. It is answered to the daughter, for each [brother] is expected to provide for himself and his heirs. Nonetheless, had he who left a daughter died without heir, by the terms included in the investiture his portion would be assigned to the brother, not the lord.¹

[LF 2.19]

Whether witnesses who ceased to be peers ought to be rejected

I know the question has been asked emerging from a real case: if a dispute over investiture of a fief arises between a lord and a vassal² because the lord denies having made it, and the latter presents as witnesses those who were certainly peers at the time of investiture, but afterwards, for some reason, ceased to be peers, are they to be rejected because they are not peers now? Even though others are of a different opinion, nonetheless, to me and some others, it seems sufficient that they were peers at least at the time of the investiture. After all, did he who received investiture commit any offence if they whom he called as suitable [witnesses] at that time ceased to be peers afterwards?

[LF 2.20]

Concerning a dispute between a bishop and a vassal

From what has been written³—i.e. that if a question concerning a fief emerges between a lord and a vassal it should be resolved by the peers of the same court—it has been asked: if someone says that he has received investiture as a fief of an annual payment or something else from, suppose, a bishop who has already died, and he brings an action against his successor, who answers by denying that he is his vassal, should judgment over this question be made through the peers of that court?

Opponit enim vasallus, quod dominus negat, suum esse vasallum¹ et ideo in ea curia pares non habet. Item dicit vasallus, quod prius de suo recto feudo debet investiri, quam a nemine iudicari. Domino respondente, quod, quidquid inter eos sive de investitura sive de fidelitate sive de principali causa est agendum, per suam curiam est expediendum. Sed laudatum saepe scio, pares illius curiae secundum praefatum modum esse prius eligendos, ad quorum spectat officium, ut eum prius de suo recto feudo investiri faciant, sed fidelitatis iusiurandum differatur, donec de principali causa cognoscatur. Ex illo enim apparebit, utrum iurare debeat an non, quod totum expeditae quaestionis est.

[V2 2.20.1] Sed si constiterit, vasallum aliquid aliud praeter id, de quo quaeritur, ab eodem domino pro feudo tenere, tunc enim,² quin debeat de suo recto feudo investituram accipere et fidelitatem iurare et sic ad principalem causam accedere, non est dubitandum.

[LF 2.21]

De vasallo milite qui arma bellica deposuit

Miles, qui beneficium tenebat, cum esset sine liberis, venerabilem domum intravit et saeculo renuntiando arma bellica deposuit habitumque religionis assumpsit et sic conversus effectus³ est. Hic, donec vixerit, feudum retinere conatur, quod dominus vel agnatus sibi⁴ pertinere contendit. Sed iudicatum est, domini vel agnati potiorem esse conditionem. Quia enim factus est miles Dei, desiit esse miles saeculi,⁵ nec beneficium pertinet ad eum, qui non debet gerere officium.

[LF 2.22]

De milite vasallo qui contumax est

[pr.] Dominus vocat militem, qui ab eo feudum possidebat, dicendo, eum in culpam incidisse, per quam feudum amittere debeat. Hic non respondet. Quaeritur, quid faciendum sit domino. Respondeo, eum ad curiam vocari debere, et si non venerit, iterum eum debere vocari usque in tertio⁶ spatio, septem vel

For the vassal counters that since the lord denies that he is his vassal, he therefore has no peers in that court. The vassal then says that he ought to be invested with his rightful fief before being judged by anybody. The lord answers that whatever case is to be brought between them, whether about investiture, fealty, or the principal question [in dispute], it must be dealt with through his court. However, I know that it has been often decided that, in the first place, some peers of that court must be chosen in the aforesaid way,¹ to whom belongs the duty that they first make him be invested of his rightful fief. The oath of fealty, however, is to be deferred until cognisance of the principal question has been taken, for thereby it will be evident whether he ought to swear or not, which is the entire issue in the [principial] question, which has been dealt with.

[V2 2.20.1] However, if it results that the vassal holds as a fief from the same lord something else besides the thing in dispute, then it must not be doubted that he ought to receive investiture of his rightful fief, swear fealty, and thus proceed to the principal question.

[LF 2.21]

Concerning a vassal knight who laid down the battle weapons

A knight who held a benefice, being without children, entered a holy house and, renouncing the secular world, laid down his battle weapons and took on the religious habit, and so he was made a lay brother. He attempts to retain for as long as he lives the fief which the lord, or an agnate, contends belongs to him. However, it has been judged that the legal position of the lord or the agnate is stronger, because the man was made a knight of God and ceased to be a secular knight,² and a benefice does not belong to him who ought not to perform its duties.

[LF 2.22]

Concerning a vassal knight who is contumacious

[pr.] A lord summons a knight who possessed a fief from him, saying that he has made himself guilty of a fault for which he ought to lose the fief. This one does not answer. It is asked what should be done on the lord’s part. I answer that he [i.e. the knight] ought to be summoned to court and, if he does not come, he ought to be summoned again until a third time, with intervals of seven to ten

decem dierum arbitrio eiusdem curiae determinando. Quodsi neque venerit ad tertiam vocationem, hoc ipso feudum amittat, et ideo debet curia dominum mittere in possessionem. Sed si intra annum venerit, restituitur ei possessio; alioquin et beneficium et possessionem amittit, ut in Lombarda, de his qui ad placitum¹ venire contempserint l. Si cuiuscumque.²

[§ 1] Si vero vasallus de domino quaeritur,³ forsan quia feudum malo ordine intravit, domino perperam respondente, quid vasallo faciendum sit, quaeritur. Respondeo: ipse curiam vocare debet⁴ et in ea⁵ curia de domino conqueri. Curia⁶ debet adire dominum eumque salva reverentia competenter cogere, ut vel possessionem restituat et acquiescat vel iudicio curiae se committat. Quod si ter admonitus facere noluerit,⁷ tunc liceat vasallo ad aliam maiorem potestatem ire et sibi consulere; et si dominus ei iustitiam facere noluerit, poterit eum depraedare.

[LF 2.23]

In quibus causis feudum amittatur

Obertus de Orto Anselmo filio suo salutem. Cogis me et super hoc saepe scribendo multum urges, ut causas, quibus beneficium amittatur, enumeratas tibi significarem. Quod ideo distuli, quia saepius circa nostrae reipublicae curam occupatus et multis privatorum causis aliisque rerum innumerabilium impedimentis detentus onus illud subire non valebam. Et⁸ ne videar preces tuas parvi pendere et studium discendi tibi imminens⁹ negligere, quid mihi super hoc videatur paucis verbis¹⁰ explicabo, dummodo memineris, causas illas sub aliqua certa regula aut definitione rotunda non posse comprehendi.

Nam sicut de probationibus in Digestis scriptum reperimus,¹¹ sic et de his causis sine calumnia dicere possumus. Si quis enim dixerit, quae causae quemadmodum alicui domino ad ingratitudinem alicuius vasalli probandam possint sufficere, nullo certo modo posse definiri, non erraverit.¹²

De illa tamen ingratitudine loquor, per quam beneficium amittatur. Non enim ad hoc sufficit omnis occasio, per quam fidelis accepti beneficii videatur ingratus. Sed sunt quaedam, ut ita dixerim, egregiae ingratitudinis causae, quibus beneficium secundum mores curiarum solet adimi. Quomodo enim vasal-

days to be determined at the will of the same court. And if he does not appear even at the third summons, for this reason he is to lose the fief and, therefore, the court ought to put the lord into possession. However, if he appears within a year, possession is restored to him; otherwise, he loses both the benefice and possession, as in the Lombarda, ‘Concerning those who refuse to appear at a plea’, law ‘If anyone’ (Lomb. 2.43.3).

[§ 1] If, however, a vassal complains about the lord, perhaps because he occupied the fief improperly, and the lord answers wrongly, it is asked what should be done on the vassal’s part. I answer that he ought to summon the court and complain about the lord in that court. The court ought to approach the lord and, with due reverence, compel him in appropriate manner either to restore possession and leave the matter be or to entrust himself to the judgment of the court. If he refuses to do this¹ after being notified three times, then the vassal is permitted to go to another higher authority and seek counsel. And if the lord refuses to do justice to him, he can forcibly dispossess him.

[LF 2.23]

On what grounds a fief is to be lost

Obertus de Orto greets his son Anselm. By writing often about this matter, you compel and greatly urge me to explain to you, one by one, the grounds on which a benefice is to be lost. I delayed doing this because, being very frequently busy taking care of our commonwealth and detained by many disputes among private persons and by other impediments of innumerable matters, I have been unable to undertake that task. Lest I seem to attach little importance to your requests and neglect the eagerness to learn that impels you, I am going to explain in a few words what seems useful to me concerning this matter, as long as you keep in mind that those grounds cannot be subsumed under any precise rule or simple definition.

In fact, what we find written in the Digest concerning proof (Dig. 22.5.3.2), we can also say, without objection, concerning these grounds, for if one said that it is not possible to define in any precise way what grounds could suffice for a lord to prove a vassal’s ingratitude, one would not be wrong.

However, I speak of that ingratitude for which a benefice is to be lost, because not every occasion on which a vassal would seem ungrateful in respect of the benefice he has received is sufficient for this. But there are some, so to speak, outstanding grounds of ingratitude on which a benefice is usually taken away, according to the practices of [different] courts. For how humbly,

lus, quam humiliter, quam devote, quam benigne, quam fideliter erga dominum suum debeat se habere, potius ex naturali¹ et bonis curiarum consuetudinibus potest percipi, quam aliqua lege² aut scripto aliquo possit comprehendi.

[V2 2.23.1] Imprimis illud te scire oportet, beneficii illius, quod est genus, talem esse definitionem: beneficium nihil aliud est, quam benevola actio, tribuens gaudium capientibus capiensque tribuendo in id, quod facit prona et sponte sua parata.³ Huius autem generis species quaedam est beneficium illud, quod ex benevolentia alicuius ita datur,⁴ ut proprietate quidem rei immobilis beneficiatae penes dantem remanente ususfructus⁵ illius rei ita ad accipientem transeat, ut ad eum heredesque suos masculos sive feminas, si de his nominatim dictum sit, in perpetuum pertineat, ob hoc,⁶ ut ille et sui heredes fideliter domino serviant, sive servitium illud nominatim, quale esse debeat, sit expressum sive indeterminate sit promissum.

[LF 2.24]

Quae fuerit prima causa beneficii amittendi

[pr.] Prima autem causa beneficii amittendi haec fuit et adhuc in plerisque curiis est, sed in nostra Mediolanensium⁷ non obtinet, quod si vasallus per annum et diem domino suo mortuo steterit, quod heredem domini sui investituram petendo, fidelitatem pollicendo non adierit, tanquam ingratus existens beneficium amittit, et e converso si domino superstite vasallus decesserit et filius eius per iam dictum tempus neglexerit, petere investituram, beneficio se cariturum agnoscat.⁸

[§ 1] Est et alia ingratitudo notanda, si dominus investituram pollicendo vasalli fidelitatem petierit et illo non praestante dominus tribus vicibus conveniente tempore, forte septem dierum spatio interposito,⁹ ad curiam suam super hoc proclamaverit¹⁰ et vasallus tribus vicibus a suis paribus citatus iurare noluerit, si tamen beneficium tale sit, unde¹¹ iusiurandum fidelitatis fieri debeat. Sunt enim quaedam feuda ita data, ut pro his fidelitas non sit praestanda.

[§ 2] Item qui dominum suum, cum quo ad praelium iverit, in acie periclitantem dimiserit, beneficio indignum se iudicavit.

devotedly, benevolently, and faithfully a vassal ought to behave towards his lord is a matter that can be better perceived from natural reason¹ and the good customs of the courts than it can be expressed in any law or writing.

[V2 2.23.1] In the first place, you need to know that the definition of ‘benefice’, as a general category, is as follows: a benefice is nothing but a benevolent act which gives joy to them who receive it and receives it from giving, and which in doing so is well-inclined and voluntarily prepared.² Moreover, a specific type of this general category is that benefice which is given out of someone’s benevolence³ so that, whilst the ownership of the immoveable property that is given in benefice remains with the giver, the usufruct⁴ of that property is transferred to the receiver in such a way that it should belong perpetually to him and his male heirs, or female if express mention is made of them. [And it is given] so that he and his heirs serve the lord faithfully, regardless of whether that service is expressed precisely as to what it ought to be or is promised indeterminately.

[LF 2.24]

What is the first ground for losing a benefice

[pr.] However, the first ground for losing a benefice was, and in many courts still is—but it does not hold in ours in Milan—this one: if a vassal remains for a year and a day after his lord has died without going to the lord’s heir to seek investiture and promise fealty, he loses the benefice as he shows himself to be ungrateful. And, conversely, if a vassal dies with the lord surviving, and his son neglects to seek investiture for the aforesaid period, he should know that he shall be deprived of the benefice.

[§ 1] There is another ingratitude which should be noted; if a lord, by promising investiture, seeks a vassal’s [oath of] fealty and, with the latter not taking it, the lord announces this to his court on three occasions at the appropriate time, perhaps at intervals of seven days, and the vassal refuses to swear after being summoned three times by his peers. However, [this is so] only if the benefice is such that an oath of fealty ought to be made for it, for some fiefs are given in such a way that [the oath of] fealty should not be taken in return for them.

[§ 2] Also, he who abandons his lord, with whom he has gone to battle, while he is still in danger on the battlefield, proclaims himself unworthy of the benefice.

[§ 3] Praeterea si vasallus praescierit quemlibet¹ contra dominum suum assaltum mortem, captionem aut grandem patrimonii iacturam molientem, debet dominum super hoc, quam citius potest, certiorare, ut proinde dominus sciens prudensque periculum valeat declinare. Quod si forte fidelis qui esse debuerit, dolosus vel negligens super hoc inventus fuerit, se beneficio cariturum agnoscat.²

[§ 4] Rursus si domini vel dominae filiae vel nurui aut sorori in domo adhuc manenti, quae in capillo dicitur, sese immiscuerit, feudo, quo se monstravit indignum, carere debet.

[§ 5] Porro si dominum, ut ita loquar,³ assalierit vel vicum, in quo est, per vim aggressus fuerit vel impias manus in personam domini ubicunque iniecerit⁴ vel alias graves et inhonestas iniurias intulerit vel morti eius veneno vel gladio vel aliter insidiatus fuerit, beneficium amittat.

[§ 6] Item qui domino suo iustitiam facere noluerit, feudum perdit.⁵ [V2 2.24.6] Sed non est alia iustior causa beneficii auferendi, quam si id, pro quo⁶ beneficium datum fuerit, hoc⁷ servitium facere recusaverit, quia beneficium amittit.⁸ Aliud est, si forte ideo non servierit, quia non potuerit; tunc enim feudum non amittit.

[§ 7] Sed et qui⁹ delator domini sui exstiterit et per suam delationem grave dispendium eum sustinere fecerit, vel si cognoverit, dominum inclusum et eum, cum potuerit, non liberaverit, indignationem domini non evitabit.¹⁰

[§ 8] Praedictis modis beneficium debere amitti tam naturalis quam civilis ratio suadet,¹¹ quod¹² potest colligi, si quis novam constitutionem,¹³ iustas exheredationis causas enumerantem et alias constitutiones veteres¹⁴ iustas ingratitudinis et repudii causas, quibus matrimonia recte contracta solvuntur et donationes recte factae¹⁵ revocantur, subtiliter sciscitatus fuerit. [V2 2.24.9] Sed quia natura novas deproperat edere formas,¹⁶ potest multis modis contingere, ut aliae emergant causae, quibus videatur iuste adimi posse beneficium,¹⁷ ideoque iudex sollers et discretus et aequitati obsecundare sollicitus

[§ 3] Furthermore, if a vassal knows in advance that someone is devising any assault, murder, kidnapping, or severe loss of patrimony against his lord, he ought to inform the lord about it as soon as he can, so that the lord, made aware and watchful, should consequently be able to avoid the peril. If perhaps he who ought to be faithful is found deceitful or negligent on this matter, he should know that he shall be deprived of the benefice.¹

[§ 4] Again, if he has intercourse with his lord’s or lady’s daughter, daughter-in-law, or sister, still living in the house in the condition of unveiled maiden,² he ought to be deprived of the fief, of which he has proved himself unworthy.

[§ 5] Then, if he, so to speak, assaults the lord, or attacks by force the village in which he is, or anywhere lays impious hands on the lord’s person, or inflicts any other serious and dishonourable offences on him, or plots his death by poison, sword, or other means, he is to lose the benefice.

[§ 6] Also, he who refuses to do justice to his lord, loses the fief.³ However, there is no more just grounds for taking away a benefice than if [a vassal] refuses to do the service in return for which the benefice was given—because he loses the benefice.⁴ It is different if, suppose, he does not render service because he is not able to, for then he does not lose the fief.

[§ 7] However, also he who reveals himself to be an informant against his lord and through his informing causes him to sustain severe harm, or if he is aware that his lord has been captured and does not free him when he could, he shall not avoid the lord’s anger.⁵

[§ 8] Both natural and civil reason⁶ recommend that a benefice ought to be lost in the aforesaid ways. This can be gathered if one thoroughly searches the new constitution enumerating the just grounds for disinheritance (Nov. 115.3–4) and the other old constitutions concerning the just grounds for charging someone with ingratitude, and for repudiation, on which rightly contracted marriages are dissolved and rightly performed donations are revoked (C. 8.55; C. 5.17). [V2 2.24.9] However, since nature hastens to bring forth new forms, it can happen in many ways that other grounds arise on which it would seem that a benefice can be justly taken away. Therefore, a judge who is diligent, cautious,

cuncta subtiliter dispensans provideat, si qua fuerit antiquioribus causis similis seu maior, ut proinde sciat, utrum beneficium sit amittendum an nihilominus retinendum. [V2 2.24.10] Illud enim est certum, quod non ex omni causa, ex qua opinio vasalli gravatur, beneficium amittitur. Nam et saepe deierat et beneficium nihilominus retinet; utputa qui beneficii portionem absque domini scientia alienat, beneficium quidem retinet, sed fidem promissam servare non videtur.

[§ 9] [V2 2.24.11] Denique saepe quaesitum est, vasallo propter iustam causam¹ a feudo cadente utrum ad dominum an ad successorem vasalli beneficium pertineat. Sed talis² distinctio tam ratione quam moribus comprobata est, ut, si quidem vasallus ita in dominum peccaverit, ut feudum amittere debeat, non ad proximos sed ad dominum beneficium revertatur, ut hanc saltem habeat suae iniuriae ultionem. Si vero non in dominum sed alias grave quid commiserit, sicut ille qui fratrem suum interfecit, vel aliud grave crimen, quod parricidii appellatione continetur, commiserit, feudum amittit, et non ad dominum sed ad proximos pertinet, si tamen fuerit paternum. Sic enim saepe pronunciatum scio.

[§ 10] [V2 2.24.12] Si vasallus contra constitutionem bonae memoriae Lotharii imperatoris³ beneficium alienaverit, quia dominum contemnere videtur ad dominum beneficium pertineat; scriptum est enim, ut pretio ac beneficio se cariturum agnoscat.

[LF 2.25]

Si de feudo vasallus ab aliquo interpellatus fuerit et dominus eum defendere noluerit

Negotium tale est: quidam vasallus a domino tenebat feudum, de quo ab alio⁴ interpellatus fuit, et sic⁵ dominum vocavit ut eum defenderet; domino renuente ad iudicem venire vasallus amisit causam per sententiam. Nunc vero vasallus cambium feudi a domino petit, ad quem dominus respondens sic⁶ ait, illum nunquam ab eo feudum tenuisse nec ab eo investituram accepisse. Contra quem vasallus dicit, se hoc feudum ab eo tenuisse et investituram recepisse

and prompt in pursuing equity, by thoroughly assessing every circumstance, is to establish whether some grounds are similar to the previous ones,¹ or of greater importance, and hence know whether a benefice should be lost or nonetheless retained. [V2 2.24.10] For it is certain that a benefice is not lost on all grounds on which a vassal’s reputation is damaged, as in many cases he breaks the oath² and nonetheless retains the benefice. For instance, he who alienates a portion of the fief without the knowledge of his lord does indeed retain the benefice, but he does not seem to keep the faith he promised.

[§ 9] [V2 2.24.11] Finally, it has been often asked, when a vassal is stripped of a fief on just grounds, whether the benefice belongs to the lord or the vassal’s successor. But the following distinction has been approved by both reason and practice. If indeed the vassal commits an offence against his lord in such a way that he ought to lose the fief, the benefice is to revert not to his close relatives but to the lord, so that he has at least this retribution for his injury. However, if he commits any serious offence not against the lord but someone else,³ as in the case of him who has killed his own brother or commits another serious crime which falls under the definition of parricide, he loses the fief and it belongs not to the lord but to his close relatives, if indeed the fief is ancestral; for I know that it has been often judged in this way.

[§ 10] [V2 2.24.12] If a vassal, contrary to the decree of the dearly remembered Emperor Lothair (LF 2.52.1), alienates a benefice, since he is [thereby] considered to have shown contempt to the lord, the benefice is to belong to the lord. For it has been written that he should know he shall be deprived of the payment [received for the alienation] and the benefice.

[LF 2.25]

If a vassal is sued by someone concerning a fief and the lord refuses to defend him

The case is as follows. A certain vassal was holding a fief from a lord, in respect to which he was sued by another; hence he called upon his lord to defend him. The lord refused to appear before the judge and the vassal lost the case through final judgment. Now, however, the vassal seeks from the lord an exchange for the fief; in response to him the lord says that he has never held a fief from him, nor has he received investiture from him. Against the lord, the vassal says that he held this fief from him and received investiture and asked him that he would

et ab eo petivisse, ut eum in iudicio defenderet, nec tunc temporis infitiebatur¹ illius esse, quod totum idoneis testibus probat vasallus.

[V2 2.25.1] Super negotio isto,² quod litteris insinuastis,³ tale est sapientium nostrae civitatis consilium, videlicet Oberti de Orto et Gerardi Cagapisti, ut, si vasallus, cum de feudo interpellabatur, auctorem suum, id est dominum, ut eum defenderet, vocavit et hoc probare possit, et⁴ si in eo iudicio vasallus fuerit victus⁵ de re aliena investitum fuisse, ut dominus vasallo eiusdem aestimationis, quod erat tempore rei iudicatae, feudum restituat vel nummos in feudum dandos numeret. Et hoc cum certum est, vasallum de feudo victum fore. Sed si dominus neget, hoc feudum nunquam⁶ ab eo tenuisse nec ab eo domino ipsum vasallum vel eius antecessores nunquam⁷ investituram accepisse, et hoc vel per instrumentum publice confectum vel per pares curtis vasallus potuerit probare, dominus ad restitutionem feudi tenebitur; alioquin dominus sacramentum subire cogetur, istum, qui in causa est, vel eius antecessores a se vel a suis antecessoribus nunquam hoc feudum tenuisse vel investituram accepisse; quo facto dominus absolvendus erit.

[LF 2.26]

Si de feudo controversia fuerit⁸

[pr.] Si de feudo defuncti militis contentio sit inter dominum et agnatos defuncti, domino novum feudum, agnatis vero paternum esse contendentibus, agnati in possessione feudi, de quo quaeritur, constituendi sunt. Quo⁹ facto super principali quaestione cognoscendum est, utroque autem deficiente in probatione electio iurisiurandi agnatis danda est.

defend him in the trial, and that, at that time, [the lord] did not deny that the fief was his—all of which the vassal proves through suitable witnesses.

[V2 2.25.1] In respect to this case, which you submitted to us by letter, such is the counsel of the experts of our city, namely Obertus de Orto and Gerardus Cagapistus. If the vassal, when he was sued in respect to the fief, called upon his warrantor, i.e. the lord, to defend him, and can prove this, and if in that trial the vassal was defeated as having been invested with someone else’s property, then the lord is to restore to the vassal a fief of the same value it had at the time when the matter was adjudged.¹ Alternatively, he is to give an equivalent amount of money in fief.² And this [applies] when it is certain that the vassal would be defeated [in a trial] concerning the fief. However, if the lord denies that he has ever held this fief from him, and that this vassal or his ancestors had ever received investiture from him, i.e. the lord, but the vassal can prove this either through a public instrument or through the peers of the [lord’s] court, the lord shall be bound to restore the fief. Otherwise, the lord shall be compelled to undertake the oath that neither that person, who is in the case, nor his ancestors, ever held this fief or received investiture from him or from his ancestors. When this has been done, the lord must be cleared.

[LF 2.26]

If there is a dispute over a fief³

[pr.] If there is a dispute over the fief of a deceased knight between the lord and the agnates of the deceased, with the lord contending it is a new fief and the agnates contending it is ancestral, the agnates must be put in possession of the fief over which the dispute arises. When this has been done, one must take cognisance of the principal question; but if both fail in their proof, the option of taking an oath must be given to the agnates.

[§ 1] Inter filiam defuncti et agnatos eius de quodam praedio quaestio mota est, agnatis feudum, filia vero allodium sive libellarium esse asserentibus. Super possessione, apud quem manere debeat, quaerebatur. Responsum est, apud filiam possessionem interim esse collocandam, deficientibus vero hinc inde probationibus per iusiurandum causa cognita res decidatur, electione danda agnatis.

[§ 2] Defuncto milite inter dominum et filiam illius super quodam fundo¹ quaerebatur, domino feudum filia allodium sive libellarium esse allegante. Filia in possessione feudi manere debet,² donec de eo iudicetur, probatione vero hinc inde cessante electio iurisiurandi filiae danda est.

[§ 3] Moribus receptum est, dominum de feudo sui militis, quod post mortem ipsius ad dominum reverti sperabatur, in alium militem investituram facere posse. Quae investitura tunc demum capiet effectum, cum feudum domino sive heredi suo fuerit apertum. Secus est in ecclesiasticis personis. Nam si ecclesiastica persona talem faciat investituram, non aliter valebit, nisi sibi, non etiam successori suo, feudum aperiatur, et in tali investitura consensus eius, de cuius feudo sit, exquiri non oportet.

[§ 4] Vasallus, si feudum partemve feudi aut feudi conditionem ex certa scientia inficiatus fuerit³ et inde convictus fuerit, eo, quod negaverit, feudo eiusve conditione exspoliabitur,⁴ alius autem vasallus, quamvis hoc sciens non patefaciat, feudum tamen retinet, aut si aliam rem domini celaverit vasallus, feudum tamen non amittit.

[§ 5] Si quis per triginta annos rem aliquam ut feudum possedit et servitium domino exhibuit, quamvis de ea re nunquam⁵ sit investitus, praescriptione tamen triginta annorum se tueri potest.

[§ 6] Qui clericus efficitur aut votum religionis assumit, hoc ipso feudum amittit.

[§ 7] Etsi vasallus omni anno domino se non repraesentet,⁶ feudum tamen non amittit.

[§ 1] Between the daughter of a deceased man and his agnates a case was raised over some estate, with the agnates asserting it was a fief and the daughter asserting it was allodial or leased property. It was asked, with respect to possession, with whom it ought to remain. It was answered that possession must be assigned in the meantime to the daughter. However, in the absence thereafter of proofs concerning this, once cognisance of the case has been taken, the matter is to be decided through an oath, and this option must be given to the agnates.

[§ 2] After a knight died, a question arose between the lord and the knight’s daughter over some piece of land, with the lord alleging it was a fief and the daughter alleging it was allodial or leased property. The daughter ought to remain in possession of the fief until the matter is adjudged. However, in the absence thereafter of proof concerning this, the option of taking an oath must be given to the daughter.

[§ 3] It has been accepted by practice that a lord can invest a knight with a fief of his [other] knight which was expected to revert to the lord after the latter’s death. This investiture shall take effect only when the fief has become vacant for the lord or his heir. It is different for ecclesiastical persons, for if an ecclesiastical person makes such an investiture, it shall have effect only if the fief has become vacant for him, and not [if it has become vacant] for his successor. And in such an investiture it is not necessary to seek the consent of the person whose fief it is.

[§ 4] If a vassal knowingly denies a fief, or a part of a fief, or the condition of a fief, and he is then convicted of this, he shall be dispossessed of the fief or its condition on the grounds that he denies [them].¹ However, another vassal who, although knowing this, does not declare it openly,² nonetheless retains the fief; or, if a vassal conceals some other property of the lord, he does not, however, lose the fief.

[§ 5] If anyone has possessed some property as a fief for thirty years, and has performed service to the lord, even though he has never been invested with that property, he nonetheless can defend himself on the grounds of thirty-year prescription.³

[§ 6] He who is made a cleric or takes religious vows loses the fief by that very fact.

[§ 7] Even if a vassal does not present himself to the lord each year, he nonetheless does not lose the fief.

[§ 8] Omnes filii eius, qui feudum acquisivit¹ fidelitatem facere debent, maxime si indivisum habent. Quodsi feudum ex divisione ad unum tantum pervenerit, ille solummodo faciet fidelitatem.

[§ 9] Adoptivus filius in feudum non succedit.

[§ 10] Mulier habens feudum relictis filiis ex duobus matrimoniis decessit. Inter quos feudi quaestio aliarumque rerum maternarum vertebatur. Obtinuit, filios prioris matrimonii tam in feudo quam in ceteris potiores esse.

[§ 11] Naturales filii, licet postea fiant legitimi, ad successionem feudi nec soli nec cum aliis vocantur.²

[§ 12] Si minori datum fuerit feudum, fidelitatem facere non cogitur,³ donec venerit in maiorem aetatem;⁴ feudum tamen retinet.

[§ 13] Si quis decesserit impubere⁵ relicto, fidelitatem nec ipse nec alius pro eo facere cogitur. Idem de servitio personali, alius tamen pro eo faciens servitium admittetur.⁶

[§ 14] Titius, filios masculos non habens, partem suam feudi Seio, partem eiusdem feudi possidenti, agnato suo, concessit. Sempronius, proximior agnatus, mortuo demum Titio partem illam feudi nullo dato pretio recuperare potest. Quodsi Titius filios haberet, pretio reddito etiam vivo Titio. Quodsi consensit alienationi vel per annum, ex quo scivit, tacuit, omnimodo removebitur.

[§ 15] Si facta de feudo investitura poeniteat dominum, antequam possessionem transferat, an praestando interesse vasallo liberetur, quaesitum fuit. Responsum est: praetermissa illa condemnatione, dominum possessionem feudi, de quo investituram fecit, tradere compellendum.

[§ 8] All the sons of him who acquired a fief ought to do fealty, especially if they have it undivided. And if the fief, after a partition, comes to only one of them, he alone shall do fealty.

[§ 9] An adopted son does not succeed to a fief.

[§ 10] A woman who had a fief died leaving sons from two marriages. A question arose between them regarding the fief and other properties of their mother. It was decided that the sons from the earlier marriage had a better claim to both the fief and the other properties.

[§ 11] Illegitimate sons, even if they are later made legitimate, are not called to succeed to a fief,¹ neither alone nor together with others.

[§ 12] If a fief is given to a minor, he is not obliged² to do fealty until he comes of age;³ nonetheless, he retains the fief.

[§ 13] If anyone dies leaving a son below the age of puberty, neither the son nor another on his behalf is compelled to do fealty. The same [applies] concerning personal service; nonetheless, another who provides service on his behalf shall be admitted.

[§ 14] Titius, who had no sons, granted his portion of a fief to his agnate Seius who possessed [another] portion of the same fief.⁴ [Titius’s] closer agnate Sempronius, once Titius has died can recover that portion of the fief without giving any payment; but if Titius had sons, he could [recover it] by giving back its price even with Titius alive.⁵ And if he consented to the alienation or has remained silent for a year after he knew of it, he shall be in every way excluded.

[§ 15] If a lord, after making investiture of a fief, regrets [doing so] before he transfers possession, it has been asked whether he would be released by providing compensation to the vassal. It was answered: leaving aside that [possible] conviction, the lord must be compelled to transfer possession of the fief of which he made investiture.

[§ 16] Filii nati ex ea uxore, cum qua matrimonium tali conditione contractum est, ne filii ex ea nati patri ab intestato succedant, et in feudum non¹ succedunt. Nam, quamvis ratione improbetur talis conditio, ex usu admittitur.²

[§ 17] Licet vasallus domino servitium non offerat, quantocunque tempore steterit, dummodo domino petenti servire paratus sit, beneficium non amittit; si tamen sciat, ei magnum periculum imminere, ultro adiutorium suum ei debet praebere. Inde quaesitum est, si dominus in periurium incidat, quia dare non valeat, quod dare iuraverat, et vasallus eum liberare possit suam pecuniam dando et non faciat, an beneficium amittat. Et responsum est, non amittere.

[§ 18] Si vasallus culpam committat, propter quam feudum amittere debeat, neque filius neque eius descendentes ad id feudum vocabuntur, sed agnati, qui quarto gradu sunt, dummodo ad eos pertineat.

[§ 19] In generali alienatione vasalli non continetur feudum, nisi nominatim dictum sit.

[§ 20] Si vasallus feudum alienaverit ignorans, non domino sed ipsi vasallo feudum restituendum est. Ad interesse vero emptori ignoranti condemnandus est vasallus.

[§ 21] Vasallus feudum, quod sciens abnegavit, amittat,³ ignoranti vero subvenitur. Quodsi dubitat,⁴ dubitanter respondere debet.

[§ 22] Beneficium a vasallo in feudum, si nihil in fraudem legis fiat, recte dari potest, dum tamen militi detur.

[§ 23] Si vasallus de feudo⁵ suo agat vel conveniatur, sive obtineat sive non, licet ignorante domino fiat, omni tempore firmum erit illud iudicium. Nam et transigere recte poterit nec, quod accepit transactionis nomine, feudum erit.

[§ 24] Domino committente feloniam, ut ita dicam, per quam vasallus amitteret feudum, si eam committeret, responsum est, proprietatem feudi⁶ ad vasallum pertinere, sive peccaverit in vasallum sive in alium.

[§ 16] Sons born of a wife with whom marriage was contracted on such a condition that sons born of her should not succeed the father on intestacy,¹ do not succeed to the fief either. For although such a condition should be rejected by reason, it is admitted on the basis of usage.

[§ 17] Even if a vassal does not offer service to the lord, however long he remains [without offering service], he does not lose the benefice, as long as he is prepared to serve the lord when he requests. Nonetheless, if he knows that great peril threatens the lord, he ought to provide him with his assistance of his own accord. It has been asked regarding this: if the lord incurs perjury because he is not able to give what he had sworn to give, and the vassal could clear him by giving his own money and does not do so, is he to lose the benefice? And it has been answered that he is not to lose it.

[§ 18] If a vassal commits a fault because of which he ought to lose the fief, neither his son nor his descendants shall be called [to succeed] to that fief, but the agnates to the fourth degree shall be, provided that it is to belong to them.

[§ 19] In a general alienation made by a vassal, his fief is not included unless it has been expressly mentioned.

[§ 20] If a vassal alienates a fief not knowing [that it is a fief], the fief must be restored not to the lord but to that vassal. The vassal, however, must be condemned to pay compensation to the unwitting purchaser.

[§ 21] A vassal is to lose the fief which he wittingly denied [being a fief], but assistance is offered to him who did so unwittingly. And if he is in doubt, he ought to respond with doubt.

[§ 22] A benefice can be rightly given in fief by a vassal if nothing is done to circumvent the law, provided that it is given to a knight.

[§ 23] If a vassal brings, or is the defendant in, a case concerning his fief, regardless of whether he wins or not, that judgment shall hold for all time even if it is made with the lord unaware. Indeed, he can also rightly come to a settlement, and what he has received on account of the settlement shall not be a fief.

[§ 24] When a lord commits a felony, so to speak, for which a vassal would lose a fief if he were to commit it, it has been answered that the ownership of the fief belongs to the vassal², regardless of whether [the lord] committed the offence against the vassal or against another.

[§ 25] Feudum ea lege datum ‘ut ipse heredesque sui, masculi et feminae, et cui dederit habeant’, iisdem culpis amittitur, quibus et aliud feudum. Quodsi vasallus alienavit, feudum esse desinit apud emptorem.

[§ 26] Titius cum Sempronio fratre suo, feudum paternum possidente, pactum fecit de eo feudo non petendo a Sempronio heredibusve suis. Sempronio sine filio¹ masculo defuncto inter Titium et Seium fratrem suum de eo feudo quaestio orta est,² et responsum est, pactum non obstare Titio.

[LF 2.27]

De pace tenenda et eius violatoribus³

Fredericus, Dei gratia Romanorum imperator, semper augustus episcopis, ducibus, comitibus, marchionibus et omnibus, ad quos literae istae pervenerint, gratiam suam et pacem et dilectionem.

[pr.] Quoniam divina praeordinante clementia solium regiae maiestatis conscendimus, dignum est, ut, cuius praecellimus munere, illi omnino pareamus in opere. Inde est, quod nos tam divinas quam humanas leges in suo vigore manere cupientes et ecclesias sive ecclesiasticas personas sublimare⁴ et ab incursu et invasione quorumlibet defensare intendentes, quibuscunque personis ius suum conservare volumus et pacem diu desideratam et antea toti terrae necessariam per universas regni partes habendam regia auctoritate indicimus. Qualiter autem eadem pax sit tenenda et servanda, in subsequentibus evidenter declarabitur.

[§ 1] Si quis hominem infra pacem constitutam occiderit, capitalem subeat sententiam, nisi per duellum hoc probare possit, quod vitam suam defendendo illum occiderit. Si autem omnibus manifestum fuerit,⁵ quod non necessario sed voluntarie illum occiderit, tunc neque per duellum neque quolibet alio modo se excusabit,⁶ quin capitali damnetur sententia.

[§ 2]⁷ Si vero violator pacis a facie iudicis fugerit, res eius mobiles a iudice in populo⁸ publicentur et dispensentur, heredes autem sui hereditatem, quam ipse tenebat, recipiant, tali conditione interposita, ut iureiurando spondeant, quod ille violator pacis nunquam de cetero ipsorum voluntate aut consensu aliquod emolumentum inde percipiat. Quodsi heredes neglecto postmodum iuris

[§ 25] A fief that is given on this provision that ‘he himself, and his heirs, male and female, and they to whom he will give it, are to have it’, is lost for the same faults as any other fief. And if a vassal has alienated it, it ceases to be a fief in the hands of the purchaser.

[§ 26] Titius made an agreement with his brother Sempronius, who possessed an ancestral fief, that he would not claim that fief from Sempronius or his heirs. When Sempronius died without a son, a question arose between Titius and his other brother Seius over that fief.¹ And it has been answered that the agreement does not obstruct Titius.

[LF 2.27]

On keeping the peace and its violators

Frederick, by the grace of God the ever august emperor of the Romans, [sends] to the bishops, dukes, counts, marquesses, and all whom these decrees reach, his favour, peace, and affection.

[pr.] Since we ascend the throne of royal majesty by the preordaining divine mercy, it is fitting that we obey altogether in our actions Him by whose gift we are placed in power. Therefore, desiring that both divine and human laws remain in their force, and endeavouring to glorify² churches and ecclesiastical persons and defend them from anyone’s assault and invasion, we wish to guarantee to every person their right and proclaim, by royal authority, a long-desired peace, of which the entire land has hitherto been in need, to be held in all parts of the realm. In what manner, moreover, this peace must be kept and preserved will be clearly declared in what follows.

[§ 1] If anyone kills a man under the established peace, he is to undergo the death sentence, unless he can prove through a duel that he has killed him in defending his own life. If, however, it is manifest to everyone that he has killed him not out of necessity but at his own will, then he shall not clear himself either through a duel or in any other way, but he is to be condemned with a death sentence.

[§ 2]³ If, however, a violator of the peace escapes from the presence of the judge, his moveables are to be confiscated and sold by the judge. His heirs, however, are to receive the inheritance he held, with the following condition being imposed, that they are to promise by oath that this violator of the peace will never henceforth, by their will or consent, receive any profit from it. And if the heirs, having later neglected the rigour of law, grant him the inheritance, the

rigore hereditatem ei dimiserint, comes eandem hereditatem regiae ditioni assignet, et a rege iure beneficii recipiant.¹

[§ 3] [V2 2.27.2] Si quis alium infra pacis edictum vulneraverit, nisi in duello, quod vitam suam defendendo hoc fecerit, probaverit, manus ei amputetur et, sicut superius dictum est, iudicetur et iudex in causa ipsum et res eius secundum rigorem iustitiae strictius consequatur.

[§ 4] [V2 2.27.3] Si quis aliquem ceperit et absque sanguinis effusione fustibus percusserit vel crines eius aut barbam expilaverit, decem libras ei, cui iniuria illata esse videtur, per compositionem impendat et iudici viginti libras persolvat. [V2 2.27.4] Si vero temerarius absque percussione eum invadat, quod² vulgo dicitur cisteros³ et calida manu, ac verberibus contumeliisque male tractaverit, quinque libras pro tali excessu componat et iudici pro tali excessu decem libras persolvat.

[§ 5]⁴ Quicunque iudici suo pro excessu viginti libras invadiaverit, praedium suum pro pignore illi tradat et infra quatuor septimanas invadiatam pecuniam persolvat. Quodsi infra quatuor septimanas praedium suum solvere neglexerit, heredes sui, si voluerint, hereditatem recipiant et comiti infra sex septimanas viginti libras persolvant. Si autem comes eandem hereditatem regiae potestati consignet, proclamatori etiam damnum restituat et praedium a rege beneficiali iure obtineat.

[§ 6] [V2 2.27.5] Si clericus de pace violata pulsatus fuerit, id est notatus aut proscriptus fuerit,⁵ aut pacis violatorem in contubernio suo habuerit, et de his in praesentia sui episcopi sufficiente testimonio convictus fuerit, comiti, in cuius comitatu idem clericus hoc perpetraverit, viginti libras persolvat et de tanto excessu secundum statuta canonum episcopo satisfaciat. Si autem idem clericus inobediens exstiterit, non solum officio et beneficio ecclesiastico privetur, verum etiam tanquam proscriptus habeatur.

[§ 7] [V2 2.27.6] Si iudex clamore populi aliquem pacis violatorem ad castrum alicuius domini secutus fuerit, dominus, cuius castrum id esse cognoscitur, ad faciendam iustitiam illum producat. Qui⁶ si de sua fuerit diffisus

count is to assign the same inheritance to the royal authority, and they should receive it from the king by right of benefice.¹

[§ 3] [V2 2.27.2] If anyone wounds another under the proclamation of peace, if he does not prove in a duel that he did this in defending his life, his hand is to be cut off, and he is to be judged as has been said above; and in the trial, the judge is to prosecute him and his properties very strictly, in accordance with the rigour of justice.

[§ 4] [V2 2.27.3] If someone seizes another and beats him with a club without bloodshed, or tears off his hair or beard, he is to pay ten pounds as compensation to him on whom injury appears to have been inflicted and pay twenty pounds to the judge. [V2 2.27.4] But if a reckless one attacks him not with a blunt instrument but, as it is commonly said, with a threatening and hasty hand, and mistreats him with blows and insults, for this transgression he is to give five pounds as compensation and pay the judge ten pounds for the same transgression.

[§ 5]² Anybody who gives as gage twenty pounds to a judge for his transgression is to hand over to him his estate as a pledge and pay within four weeks the money that he gaged. And if he fails to release his estate within four weeks, his heirs, if they wish, may receive the inheritance but pay twenty pounds to the count within six weeks. If, however, the count assigns that inheritance to the royal power, he is to restore the damage to the plaintiff and obtain the estate from the king by right of benefice.

[§ 6] [V2 2.27.5] If a cleric is accused of having violated the peace—i.e. he is publicly censored or outlawed—or harbours in his home a violator of the peace, and he is proved guilty of these [faults] in the presence of his bishop on sufficient testimony, the same cleric is to pay twenty pounds to the count in whose county he committed this, and make satisfaction for such transgression to the bishop, in accordance with the provisions of the canons. If, however, the same cleric remains disobedient, not only is he to be deprived of his office and clerical benefice, but he is also to be held as an outlaw.

[§ 7] [V2 2.27.6] If a judge, on account of the outcry of the people,³ has pursued some violator of the peace up to the castle of some lord, the lord to whom the castle is known to belong is to hand him over so that justice be done. Should

innocentia et ante conspectum iudicis venire formidaverit, si mansionem in castro habet, dominus eius omnia bona mobilia sub sacramento iudici repraesentet et eum de cetero in domo sua tanquam proscriptum non recipiat. Si vero mansionem in castro non habuerit, dominus eius secure eum adducere faciat et postmodum iudex cum populo eum tanquam pacis violatorem persequi non desistat.

[§ 8] [V2 2.27.7] Si duo homines pro uno beneficio contendunt, et unus super eodem beneficio investitorem producit, illius testimonium, cum investitor donum investiturae recognoscit, comes primo recipiat; et si idem probare poterit idoneis testibus, quod absque rapina hoc idem beneficium habuit, remota controversiae materia illud¹ obtineat. Quodsi de rapina praesente iudice convictus fuerit, rapinam dupliciter solvat, beneficio vero careat, nisi iustitia et iudicio dictante illud in posterum requirat.

[§ 9] [V2 2.27.8] Si tres vel plures contendunt de eodem beneficio producentes utrinque diversos investitores, iudex, in cuius praesentia causa ventilatur, a duobus requirat boni testimonii hominibus, in provincia eorundem litigatorum commorantibus, per sacramentum, quod iuraverint, quis illorum absque rapina eius beneficii possessor exstiterit, et cognita ex ipsorum testimonio rei veritate possessor beneficium suum quiete obtineat, nisi iudicio et iustitia dictante alter de manu sua illud eripiat.

[§ 10] [V2 2.27.9] Si rusticus militem de violata pace pulsans manu sua iuraverit, quod non voluntarie sed necessitate hoc faciat,² manu militari se miles expurgabit. [V2 2.27.10] Si miles rusticum de violata pace pulsaverit et manu sua iuraverit, quod non voluntate sed necessitate hoc fecit, de duobus unum rusticus eligat, an divino an humano iudicio innocentiam suam ostendat, aut septem testibus idoneis, quos iudex elegerit, se expurget.³ Si miles adversus militem pro pace violata aut aliqua capitali causa duellum committere voluerit, facultas pugnandi ei non concedatur, nisi probare possit, quod antiquitus ipse cum parentibus suis natione legitimus miles existat.

[the violator] distrust his own innocence and be afraid of appearing in the presence of the judge, if he has his residence in the castle, its lord, under oath, is to surrender all [the violator’s] moveables to the judge and henceforth not allow him to his own house as an outlaw. If, however, he has no residence in the castle, its lord is to have him brought safely to court and then the judge, together with the people, should not desist from prosecuting him as a violator of the peace.

[§ 8] [V2 2.27.7] If two men contend for one benefice, and one produces the grantor with regards to the same benefice, the count, if the grantor acknowledges the bestowal of investiture, is to receive the testimony of this one first. And if this one can prove through suitable witnesses that he has had this benefice without invasion, as the matter of dispute is removed, he is to obtain it. And if, in the presence of a judge, he is proved guilty of invasion he is to pay twice as much as the damage of that invasion and lose the benefice—unless, if justice and judgment so determine, he may seek it in the future.

[§ 9] [V2 2.27.8] If three or more [persons] are contending over the same benefice and each of them produces a different grantor, the judge in whose presence the case is discussed is to require from two men of good reputation, residing in the same province as these litigants, that they swear through an oath as to which of them is in possession of that benefice without invasion. Once the truth of the matter is known from their testimony, the possessor is to obtain his benefice undisturbed—unless, if justice and judgment so determine, one of the others may wrest it from his hands.

[§ 10] [V2 2.27.9] If a peasant accuses a knight of having violated the peace and swears alone¹ that he does not do so deliberately but out of necessity, the knight shall clear himself through a knight’s oath.² [V2 2.27.10] If a knight accuses a peasant of having violated the peace and he swears alone³ that he has not done so deliberately but out of necessity, the peasant is to choose one of these two options. He is to either prove his innocence through divine or human judgment or clear himself through seven suitable witnesses whom the judge will choose. If a knight wants to challenge another knight to a duel for having violated the peace or another capital matter, he is not to be granted the opportunity of fighting [the duel] unless he can prove that he and his relatives have long been rightful knights by birth.

[§ 11] [V2 2.27.10bis] Post natale¹ sanctae Mariae unusquisque comes septem boni testimonii viros sibi eligat et de qualibet provincia cum his habendis² sagaciter disponat, et quanto pretio secundum qualitatem temporis annona sit vendenda, utiliter provideat. Quicunque vero contra deliberationem ipsius infra anni terminum altius modium et carius vendere praesumpserit, tanquam violator pacis habeatur et totidem viginti libras comiti persolvat,³ quanti modios sive maldios altius vendidisse convictus fuerit.

[§ 12] [V2 2.27.11] Si quis rusticus arma vel lanceam portaverit vel gladium, iudex, in cuius potestate repertus fuerit, vel arma tollat vel viginti solidos pro ipsis a rustico recipiat.

[§ 13] [V2 2.27.12] Mercator negotiandi causa per provinciam transiens gladium suum suae sellae alliget vel super vehiculum suum ponat, non ut quem laedat innocentem, sed ut a praedone se defendat.

[§ 14] [V2 2.27.13] Nemo retia sua⁴ seu laqueos aut alia quaelibet instrumenta ad capiendas venationes tendat, nisi ad ursos, apros vel lupos capiendos.

[§ 15] [V2 2.27.14] Ad palatium comitis nullus miles arma ducat,⁵ nisi rogatus a comite.

[§ 16] [V2 2.27.15] Publici latrones et convicti antiqua damnentur sententia.

[§ 17] [V2 2.27.16] Quicunque advocatiam suam vel aliquod aliud beneficium enormiter⁶ tractaverit et a domino suo admonitus non resipuerit, et in sua perseverans⁷ insollertia⁸ ordine iudiciario tam advocatia quam beneficio exutus fuerit, si postmodum ausu temerario advocatiam vel beneficium invaserit, pro violatore pacis habeatur.

[§ 18] [V2 2.27.17] Si quis quinque solidos valens⁹ vel amplius furatus fuerit, laqueo suspendatur; si minus, scopis et forcipe excorietur et tundatur.

[§ 11] [V2 2.27.10bis] After the day of St Mary’s nativity ⟨8 September⟩, each count is to choose seven men of good reputation, and wisely make arrangements with them for each province, and advantageously decide for what price grain must be sold according to the conditions of the season. And anybody who, contrary to his deliberation, within the term of one year presumes to sell a bushel of grain at a higher and dearer price, is to be deemed a violator of the peace and pay the count twenty pounds for each bushel which he is proved to have sold at a higher price.

[§ 12] [V2 2.27.11] If some peasant carries weapons—a spear or a sword—, the judge under whose authority he is found is to either seize the weapons or receive from the peasant twenty ‘solidi’ for them.

[§ 13] [V2 2.27.12] A merchant who travels through a province to carry out trading is to tie his sword to his saddle or place it on his cart, not to harm the innocent but to defend himself from robbers.

[§ 14] [V2 2.27.13] No one is to set his nets, snares, or any other game-catching instruments unless for catching bears, wild boars, or wolves.

[§ 15] [V2 2.27.14] No knight is to carry weapons to the comital palace unless he is asked by the count.

[§ 16] [V2 2.27.15] Public robbers, who are found guilty, are to be condemned according to old sentence.¹

[§ 17] [V2 2.27.16] Anyone who manages his office of advocate or any other benefice disregarding the rules and, admonished by his lord, does not mend his ways and, persevering in his insolence, is stripped of both office and benefice by due process, if afterwards, with reckless daring, he usurps the office or benefice, he is to be deemed a violator of the peace.

[§ 18] [V2 2.27.17] If anyone steals anything worth five ‘solidi’ or more, he is to be hanged by a noose; if less, he is to be beaten and shaved with twigs and shears.²

[§ 19] [V2 2.27.18] Si ministeriales alicuius domini inter se guerram habuerint, comes sive iudex, in cuius regimine eam fecerint, leges et iudicia exinde¹ prosequatur.

[§ 20] [V2 2.27.19] Quicunque per terram transiens equum suum pabulare voluerit, quantum propinquius secundum viam stans in loco amplecti potuerit ad refectionem et respirationem² equi sui, impune ipsi equo porrigat. Licitum sit etiam, ut³ herba et viridi silva sine vastatione et noxa quilibet⁴ utatur pro sua commoditate et usu necessario.

[LF 2.28]

Hic finitur lex. Deinde consuetudines regni incipiunt⁵

[pr.] Domino guerram facienti alicui, si sciatur, quod iuste aut cum dubitatur, vasallus, ut eum adiuvet, tenetur.⁶ Sed cum palam est, quod irrationabiliter eam facit, adiuvet eum ad eius defensionem. Ad offendendum vero eum⁷ adiuvet, si vult. Sed si eum adiuvare noluerit, non tamen feudum perdet. Obertus et Gerardus.⁸ Alii vero sine distinctione dicunt, semper debere eum adiuvare. Sed Obertus et Gerardus eo utuntur argumento, quod, quemadmodum dominum excommunicatum vel a rege bannitum non est obligatus vasallus ad adiuvandum vel servitium ei praestandum, immo solutus est interim sacramento fidelitatis, nisi ab ecclesia vel a rege fuerit restitutus, ita nec istum iniuste guerram alicui facientem.

[§ 1] Ad hoc quantocunque tempore steterit vasallus, quod domino non servierit, secundum usum Mediolanensium beneficium non amittit, nisi servitium facere renuerit vel nisi a domino ei denunciatum fuerit et ille, cum potuerit, diu steterit, quod servitium nullum ei fecerit. Bonus tamen iudex varie ex causis

[§ 19] [V2 2.27.18] If the noble servants of some lord¹ wage war among themselves, the count or judge in whose jurisdiction they are doing this is to follow the laws and judicial procedures relating to that matter.²

[§ 20] [V2 2.27.19] Anyone who, while travelling by land, wishes to graze his horse, may with impunity give his horse, for its refreshment and rest, what he can reach while staying in a place reasonably close to the road. It should also be permitted that anyone may use grass and green wood for their convenience and necessary use, without waste and damage.³

[LF 2.28]

Here ends the decree. Hereafter the customs of the realm begin.

[pr] When a lord wages war on anyone, if it is known that he does so justly, or when this is uncertain, a vassal is bound to assist him. But when it is manifest that he is waging it unreasonably, the vassal is to assist him only for his defence. He may, however, assist him in offensive actions, if he wishes; nonetheless if he does not wish to assist him, he is not to lose the fief, [according to] Obertus and Gerardus. However, others say, without distinction, that he always ought to assist him. But Obertus and Gerardus use this argument, that just as a vassal is not bound to assist or render service to a lord who is excommunicated or is outlawed by the king—but rather he is temporarily released from the oath of fealty until [the lord is] reinstated by the church or the king—so this one is not [bound to a lord] who wages war against someone unjustly.

[§ 1] On the same matter, however long a vassal remains without serving the lord, by the usage of the Milanese he does not lose the benefice unless he refuses to do service or, after he has been given notice by the lord [to that end], he remains for a long time without rendering any service while he can. A good judge will nonetheless decide in various ways according to the circum-

personisque diffiniet. Finge, vasallum remotum esse vel propinquum, paratum esse vel non, dominum guerram habere vel non utrumque magnam vel parvam, et an nunciavit ei dominus vel non—haec omnia vertuntur in cognitione causae et promptiores sumus ad absolvendum quam ad condemnandum.¹ Tamen scias, quod, si vasallus sciverit,² dominum obsideri vel alias ei mortem imminere et, cum potuerit etiam³ sine nuntio eum non adiuverit, feudo privabitur.

[§ 2] Si vasallus in feudo aliquod aedificium fecerit vel ipsum sua pecunia melioraverit et contigerit postea, ut vasallus sine filio masculo decedat, dominus aut patiatur aedificium auferri aut solvat pretium meliorationis. Idem dico, si pretio servitutem fundo⁴ acquirat. Quidam alii dicunt, omnino ad dominum pertinere.

[§ 3] His consequenter dicitur, quod si vasallus decedat et contingerit⁵ feudum ad dominum reverti, sic distinguitur: ut⁶ si ante Martium, omnes fructus eius⁷ anni ex feudo provenientes ad dominum pertineant,⁸ si vero post kalendas Martii usque ad Augustum, fructus,⁹ qui interim percipiuntur, ad heredes vasalli pertineant, si vero post Augustum, omnes fructus anni percipiet dominus. Quidam tamen dicunt, quocunque tempore anni decedat, omnes pendentes¹⁰ ad dominum pertinere.

[§ 4] Contra omnes debet vasallus dominum adiuvare, etiam contra fratrem et filium et patrem, nisi contra alium dominum antiquiorem; hic enim ceteris est praeferendus.

[LF 2.29]

De filiis natis de matrimonio ad morganaticam contracto

Quidam habens filium ex nobili coniuge, post mortem eius non valens continere aliam minus nobilem duxit. Qui nolens existere in peccato eam desponsavit ea lege, ut nec ipsa nec filii eius amplius habeant de bonis patris, quam dixerit tempore sponsaliorum, verbi gratia decem libras vel quantum voluerit dicere, quando eam sponsat,¹¹ quod Mediolani dicitur¹² ‘accipere uxorem ad morganaticam’ alibi ‘lege Salica’. Hic filiis ex ea susceptis decessit. Isti in proprietate¹³ non succedunt aliis exstantibus sed nec in feudo etiam aliis non

stances and persons. Say, whether the vassal is far away or nearby; whether he is ready or not; whether the lord is engaged in a war or not and whether the war is great or small; and whether the lord notified him [about this] or not. All these [circumstances] are considered in the cognisance of the case, and we are more inclined to acquit than condemn. You should nonetheless know that, if a vassal knows that the lord is under siege or that he faces imminent death in some other way, and he does not help him when he can, even without being informed [by him], he shall be deprived of the fief.¹

[§ 2] If a vassal makes any building on his fief or improves an existing one at his own expense, and it thereafter happens that the vassal dies without a son, the lord shall either allow the removal of the building or pay the price of the improvement. I say that the same [applies] if [a vassal] acquires an easement relating to a piece of land² with money. Some others say that [such improvements] belong wholly to the lord.

[§ 3] Following on from these matters, it is said that if a vassal dies³ and it happens that the fief reverts to the lord, the following distinction is made. If he dies before March, all the fruits coming from the fief in that year are to belong to the lord. But if he dies after the first day of March up to August, the fruits collected in that period are to belong to the vassal’s heirs. But if he dies after August, the lord shall collect all the year’s fruits. However, some say that, at whatever time of the year he dies, all the ungathered produce belongs to the lord.

[§ 4] A vassal ought to assist the lord against everyone, even his own brother, son, and father, but not against another prior lord, for he must be preferred to all others.

[LF 2.29]

Concerning sons born of a morganatic marriage

Someone had a son from a noble wife and, not being able to restrain himself after her death, took another less noble wife. As he did not want to live in sin, he married her with a clause that she nor her sons were to have more of the father’s goods than what he stated at the time of the betrothal—for example ten pounds, or however much he wishes to state⁴ when he betroths her. In Milan, this is called ‘taking a wife in morganatic marriage’, elsewhere ‘by Salic law’. He dies with sons born from her. These do not succeed to his property if there are other extant sons [from the first marriage], nor in his fief, even

exstantibus, quia¹ licet legitimi sint, tamen in beneficio nullatenus² succedunt. In proprietate vero succedunt patri prioribus non exstantibus, succedunt etiam fratribus sine legitima sobole descendentibus³ secundum usum Mediolanensem.

[LF 2.30]

De beneficio feminae

Si femina habens beneficium⁴ decesserit, quia femineum est feudum et sine pacto speciali, deficientibus filiis masculis ad filias pertinebit. Obertus et Gerardus. Alii vero dicunt, nisi per pactum speciale ad eas non pertinere, sicut si datum esset masculo, quia, si ideo, quod est femineum, sine pacto transit in feminas, eadem ratione, quia est femineum, transire debet in femineam prolem, etiam masculis exstantibus, quod falsum est. Ex hoc illlud descendit, quod dicitur, clericum nullo modo in beneficium paternum succedere,⁵ etiamsi postea hunc habitum postposuerit. Idem in omnibus, qui habitum religionis assumunt ut conversi. Hi enim nec postea in feudo succedunt et, si quod habent, perdunt.

[LF 2.31]

Si vasallus feudo privetur, cui debeat deferri⁶

Vasalli feudum delinquentis licet ad agnatos quandoque pertineat, filius tamen ad id nullatenus aspirabit, nisi id iterum a domino conquirat, scilicet⁷ gratiam faciente, verbi gratia si non sunt alii ex latere, quibus aperiatur. Ad cuius⁸ petitionem admittuntur, qui quarto gradu sunt remoti ab eo, qui id acquisivit, et etiam usque in infinitum, dum tamen hos constet ab eo per masculos descendisse.

without other extant sons, because although they are legitimate, however, they by no means succeed to the benefice. But they do succeed the father to his property when there are no extant prior sons; they also succeed [their] brothers dying without legitimate offspring,¹ according to the Milanese usage.

[LF 2.30]

Concerning the benefice of a woman

If a woman who has a benefice dies, since the fief is ‘feminine’,² in the absence of sons it shall belong to daughters and without a special agreement [to that effect], [according to] Obertus and Gerardus. However, others say that it does not belong to them unless by special agreement, just as if it had been given to a male, because if it passes to females without a special agreement for the reason that it is ‘feminine’, [then] by the same reasoning—that it is ‘feminine’—it ought to pass to the female offspring even when males are extant, which is false. From this derives what is said of a cleric, that he in no way succeeds to an ancestral benefice even if he then renounces the religious habit. The same [is true] for all those who take the religious habit as lay brothers, for thereafter they do not succeed to a fief, and if they have one, they lose it.

[LF 2.31]

If a vassal is deprived of a fief, to whom it ought to be transferred

Even though the fief of a vassal who has committed an offence sometimes belongs to his agnates, however, his son shall by no means aspire to it unless he seeks it again from the lord, who, that is, pardons him³—for instance, if there are no other collateral relatives for whom it is to become vacant. To claim which fief, relatives are admitted who are removed in the fourth degree from him who first acquired it, and even ad infinitum, so long as it is clear that they descend from him through males.

[LF 2.32]

Qui testes sint necessarii ad probandam novam investituram¹

Sive clericus sive laicus sit dominus, ad probandam novam investituram semper pares curtis² sunt necessarii; et si sine eis facta sit investitura, etiamsi dominus confiteatur factam, quia tamen sine hac sollemnitate facta est, non valet, etiamsi probari possit per breve testatum. Sed alii³ contra testantur, etsi dominus confiteatur factam, decurrens postea ad sollemnitatem consuetudinis non audiatur, sed tale habeatur ac si pares adfuissent. Sed alii, etiam si probari possit per breve testatum, ut Obertus et Gerardus, nisi a paribus⁴ fuerit confirmatum.⁵ Consules tamen Mediolanenses nuper quibusdam omnia⁶ contra rescripserunt, in quo fere omnes Mediolanenses consenserunt et consentiunt, ut breve testatum non a paribus sed ab aliis confirmatum sufficiat ad probandam novam investituram.

Novam investituram dico, quando feudum primo quaeritur. De veteri autem beneficio investiturae, quae fit a domini successore vel vasalli successore, etiam extranei recipiuntur ad testimonium, praeter feminas secundum usum Mediolanensium. Istae enim nec in causis feudi nec aliorum recipiuntur ad testimonium, ceteri autem in omnibus recipiuntur, quae ad causas feudi pertinent, praeterquam de nova investitura.

[LF 2.32]

What witnesses are necessary to prove a new investiture

Regardless of whether the lord is a cleric or a layman, the peers of his court are always necessary to prove a new investiture. And if an investiture has been made without them, even if the lord acknowledges that it was made, nonetheless, since it has been made without this formality, it has no effect even if it can be proved through a certified charter. However, others testify against this; if the lord, although he acknowledges that [the investiture] was made, then resorts to the [defect of] customary formality, he is not to be heard¹ but [the matter] is to be considered as if peers had been present. But others, such as Obertus and Gerardus, [hold that] even though an investiture can be proved through a certified charter, [it has no effect] if it is not confirmed by peers.² Nonetheless, the Milanese consuls have recently answered in a rescript to certain persons³ contrary to all these [opinions]—and nearly all the Milanese have agreed and still agree with them on this—that a certified charter confirmed not by peers, but others, is to be sufficient to prove a new investiture.

I call it a new investiture when a fief is sought for the first time. On the other hand, at an investiture concerning an old benefice, which is made either by a lord’s successor or to a vassal’s successor,⁴ even outsiders are accepted to testify, but not women, according to the usage of the Milanese people. For the latter are accepted to testify neither in cases about fiefs nor in cases about other matters; the former, on the contrary, are accepted in all that concerns cases about fiefs, except concerning a new investiture.

[LF 2.33]

De consuetudine recti feudi

[pr.] Sciendum est itaque, feudum acquiri investitura, successione vel eo, quod habeatur pro investitura, ut ecce si dominus alicui coram curia¹ dixerit: ‘Vade in possessionem illius fundi et teneas ipsum² pro feudo’. Licet enim non intercessisset investitura, tamen tale est ac si intervenisset,³ quia ille eius voluntate possessionem feudi⁴ nactus est feudi nomine.

[§ 1]⁵ Inde etiam dicitur, quod, si aliquis probaverit, se aliquid nomine beneficii aliquo tempore tenuisse domino praesente et non contradicente et servitium eius quasi a vasallo recipiente, licet non probet investituram, veruntamen obtinebit praestito iuramento, nisi aliud contra inducatur. [V2 2.33.1] Quod autem dictum est, ut per pares probetur investitura, dictum est⁶ de eo domino, qui alios habet vasallos, ceterum sufficiunt extranei[.] Nec dicatur ideo investituram, ubi sine paribus facta est, non valere, quoniam tunc temporis pares aberant, quia, etiamsi absint, tamen exspectandi sunt.

[§ 2] Sacramentum non semper est dandum possidenti sed quandoque possidenti, quandoque petenti, quandoque neutri; et cum alicui eorum⁷ datur, ita demum datur, si aliquid pro eo sit, quod iudicem moveat. Ubi nihil est, quod faciat pro aliquo eorum praeter possessionem solam, tunc, secundum quod iudici melius visum fuerit, aut possidenti dabitur sacramentum aut actore non⁸ probante qui convenitur, etiamsi nihil praestiterit, obtineat.⁹

[LF 2.33]

Concerning the custom of rightful fiefs

[pr.] It should be known, therefore, that a fief is acquired by investiture, succession, or what is to be considered as an investiture, as when a lord says to someone in the presence of his court, ‘Go into possession of that piece of land, and you are to hold it as a fief’. Because, although no investiture took place, it is nonetheless just as if it had taken place since he has obtained possession of the piece of land as a fief by the lord’s will.

[§ 1]¹ Hence, it is also said that if anyone proves he has held something at some time as a benefice, and the lord is present, does not contradict him, and receives his service as if from a vassal, although he does not prove investiture, he will nonetheless obtain the benefice after taking an oath, unless evidence is produced against it. [V2 2.33.1] And what has been said, i.e. that investiture is to be proved through peers, is said concerning that lord who has other vassals; otherwise, outsiders are sufficient. One is not to say, for this reason, that an investiture that took place without peers has no effect because peers were away at that time, because even if they are away, they must nonetheless be awaited.²

[§ 2] The oath³ should not always be given to the possessor, but sometimes to the possessor, sometimes to the plaintiff, and sometimes to neither. And when it is given to any of them, it is only given if there is anything in their favour that sways the judge. When nothing is in favour of any of them besides possession alone, then, according to what seems best to the judge, either the oath will be given to the possessor or, should the plaintiff fail in his proof, the defendant wins the case even without taking an oath.

Et cum datur, aut datur a iudice aut a parte. Si a parte, aut subeat cum duodecim sacramentalibus secundum inferiorem distinctionem aut referat pars, cui delatum est; si a iudice, iuret ille, cui delatum est, cum duodecim vasallis,¹ cum sex parentibus, ceteros vero,² si vult, habeat extraneos; dominus vero, si vult, cum parentibus aut cum vasallis solis aut cum parentibus³ vel cum extraneis mixtis parentibus vel vasallis. Et iurabit vasallus semper sine mentione conscientiae, dominusque de suo facto similiter, de facto vero patris vel avi aut alterius ascendentis iuramento conscientiam solam apponet.⁴ Quidam tamen dicunt, non quidem conscientiam esse apponendam.⁵

[§ 3] In quibusdam⁶ etiam causis sacramentum calumniae a domino non exigetur. Quod nuper rex Fredericus in Roncalia fecit. Constituit enim, ut⁷ vasallus sacramentum calumniae a domino non exigat. Quod etiam a parte domini intelligendum est, ut ‘quod quisque iuris in alterum statuit, ipse eodem iure utatur’.⁸

[§ 4] Similiter vasallus dominum accusare vel testimonium contra eum reddere non potest⁹ in civili causa modica¹⁰ aut criminali. Quidam tamen dicunt, in criminali non licere, in civili¹¹ licere. In quibus si contra fecerit, feudo privabitur.

[§ 5] Item¹² si inter dominum et vasallum controversia sit de beneficio, domino possidente et vasallo in probatione deficiente, qui convenitur nullo praestito iuramento absolvatur; vasallo vero possidente et actore in probatione

When [the oath] is given, it is given upon request either by the judge or one party. If upon request by one party, the party to which it is assigned is to either undergo it with twelve oath-helpers according to the distinction that follows or hand it over. If [it is given] upon request of the judge, he to whom it is assigned is to swear with twelve vassals, [or] with six relatives,¹ but as for the remaining ones, if he wishes, he may have outsiders. But the lord may swear, if he wishes, with relatives alone, or vassals, alone or with relatives, or with outsiders combined with relatives or vassals. And the vassal shall always swear without mentioning [that this is to the best of] his knowledge.² And the lord similarly in respect to his own actions; but concerning the actions of his father, grandfather, or any other ancestor, he will add in his oath that this is to the best of his knowledge [of those actions].³ However, some say that [the reference on] the best of his knowledge should not be added.

[§ 3] Also, in some cases, a lord shall not be required to take an oath of calumny.⁴ King Frederick [I] recently decided this in Roncaglia, for he decreed that a vassal is not to require an oath of calumny from his lord. This must be understood [to apply] also on the lord’s part, for ‘each one must himself use the law which he has established for others’.⁵

[§ 4] Likewise, a vassal may not accuse or testify against his lord in a minor civil case or a criminal case. However, some say that it is not permitted in a criminal case but is permitted in a civil case.⁶ If he acts to the contrary in these [cases], he shall be deprived of his fief.

[§ 5] Also, if there is a dispute over a benefice between a lord and a vassal, with the lord possessing and the vassal failing in his proof, the defendant⁷ is to be cleared without taking an oath. However, if the vassal possesses and the plaintiff⁸ fails in his proof, and the vassal has been in possession for a long

deficiente, si longa sit vasalli possessio, eius iuramento causa finiatur. Ubi vero nova est possessio, sacramentum ei non praestabitur, sed domino deferetur, nisi aliud pro possidente faciat.

[LF 2.34]

De lege Conradi

[pr.] Lex Conradi de beneficiis, quae dicit ‘Si inter capitaneos controversia sit, coram rege finiatur, si inter valvasores, coram paribus curiae’, Mediolani non tenetur, sed talis distinctio ibi observatur, quod,¹ si inter duos, quicunque fuerint, de beneficio regali controversia sit,² quorum uterque a rege se asserit³ investitum esse, tunc causa coram eo decidatur, ceterae vero causae apud pares curiae.

[§ 1] Si inter pares duos de aliquo beneficio controversia sit, quorum uterque suum feudum proprium esse dicat, sive asserant eundem investitorem sive diversos, coram iudice vel arbitro finiatur. Sed cum unum producunt investitorem, si possidenti sine fraude dominus guarentare voluerit, ipse obtinebit, nisi adversarius contra aliquid induxerit.

[§ 2] Ex eadem lege descendit, quod dominus sine voluntate vasalli feudum alienare non potest. Quod Mediolani non obtinet. Ibi enim sine curia etiam totum beneficium recte alienatur, dum tamen aut aequali domino aut maiori vendatur. Inferiori vero sine voluntate vasalli non licet, nec licet partem alienare⁴ etiam maiore retenta alia parte feudi; verbi gratia est vasallus, qui ab eodem domino in pluribus locis feudum tenet; si partem feudi in uno loco vendat, in alio sibi retineat, iste non debet emptori servire, sed per priorem dominum totum beneficium cognoscere.⁵ Cum curia vero cuicunque benefi-

time, the case is to be determined by his oath. However, when the possession is recent, the oath is not to be offered to him but assigned to the lord, unless there is anything else in favour of the possessor.

[LF 2.34]

Concerning Conrad’s decree

[pr.] The decree of Conrad concerning benefices, which says ‘If there is a dispute among ‘capitanei’, it should be determined before the king, if among ‘valvasores’, before the peers of the court’, does not hold in Milan. Rather, the following distinction is observed that, if there is a dispute over a royal benefice between two persons, whoever they may be, and both of them assert that they had been invested by the king, then the case is to be decided before him. However, every other case is to be decided before the peers of the court.

[§ 1] If there is a dispute over some benefice between two peers, both of whom declare it to be his own fief, regardless of whether they assert the same grantor or different ones, the dispute is to be determined before a judge or an arbitrator. However, when they produce only one grantor, if this lord wishes to act, without deceit, as a guarantor for the possessor, [the possessor] shall win the case, unless the opponent produces something against it.

[§ 2] It derives from the same decree that a lord cannot alienate a fief without the vassal’s consent—which does not hold in Milan, for here, even an entire benefice is rightly alienated independently of the ‘curia’¹ [to which the benefice belongs], provided that it is sold to a lord of equal or higher status. However, it is not permitted to sell it to a [lord] of lower status without the vassal’s consent. Nor is it permitted to alienate a portion of it, even retaining the other, greater portion of the fief. For example, a vassal holds from the same lord a fief located in different places; if the lord sells a portion of the fief located in one place and retains [a portion located] in another place, the vassal ought not to serve the buyer [of the first portion] but acknowledge that he holds the whole benefice from the prior lord. On the other hand, if [a lord alienates a fief] together with the ‘curia’ [to which the fief belongs], he can alienate it to anyone, even a peasant, and without the vassal’s consent, provided that he alienates the entire

cium, etiam rustico, et sine vasalli voluntate potest, dum tamen totum alienet.¹ Obertus. Quidam alii dicunt, et² Gerardus, non valere, si fiat inferiori.

[§ 3] Similiter nec vasallus feudum sine voluntate domini alienabit. In feudum tamen recte dabit, si secunda persona talis sit, quae feudum servire possit, ut, si dans miles est, et ille qui feudum accepit, miles inveniatur ad hoc, ut feudum, si contigerit, domino similiter servire ut prior³ possit. Et hoc ut dare liceat in infinitum. In quibusdam tamen curiis ultra tertiam personam feudi consuetudo⁴ non extenditur, ut, cum feudum pervenit in quartam personam, dominus ei auferre possit.

Profecto ille, qui suum beneficium alii dat in feudum, non debet alia lege dare nisi, qua ipse habeat, ut, si habet⁵ ‘sibi suisque heredibus’—quod intelligi debet de solis masculis—non debeat⁶ alii dare, ut habeat ‘ipse et sui heredes, masculi et feminae’. Unde quibusdam placet, ut eo ipso feudum amittat, ut Gerardus. Alii: et qui dedit et cui datum est⁷ beneficium perdit. Secundum alios vero tunc domino aperitur, cum masculi defecerint.

benefice.¹ [This is the opinion of] Obertus. Some others and Gerardus say that it has no effect if the alienation is made to a lesser person.²

[§ 3] Likewise, a vassal shall not alienate a fief without the lord’s consent. Nonetheless, he will rightly give it in fief, if the second holder is of such condition that he can render service for the fief. For instance, if he who gives [in fief] is a knight, the one who receives the fief should also be found to be a knight, for the reason that, if needed, he can render service for the fief to the lord just as the first [holder] could. It should be permitted to give this [fief] ad infinitum; however, in some courts, the custom of fiefs³ does not extend beyond the third holder so that, when the fief comes to a fourth holder, the lord can take it away from him.

Undoubtedly, the one who gives his benefice in fief to another ought to give it on no other condition than the one on which he has it. For instance, if he has it ‘for himself and his heirs’—which ought to be understood as only concerning male heirs—he ought not to give it to another so that he and his male and female heirs have it. Consequently, to some, such as Gerardus, it seems correct that he is to lose the fief for that very reason. Others [say that]⁴ both he who gives it and he to whom it is given lose the benefice. According to some others, however, it becomes vacant for the lord only when there are no male heirs.

[§ 4] Si fuerit inter dominum et vasallum de feudo¹ controversia, domino dicente: ‘Hoc, quod tenes, in feudum a me habes’, ille vero negaverit, si quidem prorsus, et² probatum fuerit, ipsum ab eo auferatur. Sed cum dubitanter responsum fuerit ‘Nescio’, minime³ secundum quosdam; sed secundum alios tunc demum privabitur, si fraudulenter, id est sciens, hoc negaverit.

[LF 2.35]

De clerico, qui investituram facit

Clerico investituram faciente de suis bonis, eius successor omnifariam cogitur eam adimplere, cumque de bonis ecclesiae eam fecerit, si possessio rei per beneficium⁴ investitae penes eum fuerit, ipse et eius successor eam⁵ adimpleant, quod etiam in laico⁶ contingit. Ubi vero de alterius feudo fecerit investituram, si quidem pure, non valeat, sed si sub tempore vel conditione, quo feudum sibi aperiatur, valebit investitura etiam sine voluntate vasalli facta. Si tamen ante decesserit investitor, quam feudum ad eum revertatur, successor non cogitur eam habere ratam, aut cum⁷ se vivente feudum apertum fuerit, possessionem tradat et investituram adimpleat. Et ideo sciendum est, archiepiscopum Mediolanensem non posse dare in feudum, quod tempore introitus sui in dominico invenerit, sed, si ei postea feudum aperiatur, ipsum recte dabit. Profecto alii episcopi et clerici ea, quae in dominico habent, et feuda his aperta olim dederunt et hodie dant.

[LF 2.36]

An mutus vel alias imperfectus feudum amittat

Mutus et surdus, coecus, claudus, vel aliter imperfectus⁸ totum feudum paternum retinebit. Obertus et Gerardus et multi alii. Quidam tamen dicunt, eum, qui talis natus est, feudum retinere non posse, quia ipsum servire non valet. Sic dicimus in clerico et in femina et in similibus.

[§ 4] If there is a dispute over a fief between a lord and a vassal, with the lord saying ‘what you hold, you have in fief from me’, and the latter denies it, if indeed [the lord’s point] is exhaustively proved,¹ the fief should be taken away from him. But when the vassal answers doubtfully: ‘I do not know’, according to some he shall not [lose the fief]; but according to others, he shall be deprived [of it], but only if he denies this deceitfully, that is, knowingly.

[LF 2.35]

Concerning a cleric who makes an investiture

When a cleric makes an investiture out of his own goods, his successor is obliged to fulfil it in every way. When he makes an investiture out of a church’s goods, if he is in possession of the thing which he has granted as a benefice, he and his successor are to fulfil it—which also applies to laypersons. However, when he makes an investiture of another’s fief, if indeed he does so unconditionally, it is to have no effect; but if he makes it pending the moment or the fulfilment of a condition by which the fief becomes vacant for him, the investiture shall have effect even if made without the [current] vassal’s consent. Nonetheless, if the grantor dies before the fief reverts to him, the successor is not obliged to confirm the investiture. When, on the other hand, the fief has become vacant while he [i.e., the grantor] is alive, he is to hand over possession and fulfil the investiture. Hence, it should be known that the Milanese archbishop cannot give in fief what he found in [the church’s] demesne at the time of his installation. However, if a fief becomes vacant for him thereafter, he may rightly give it. Undoubtedly, other bishops and clerics have given in the past, as they give in the present, what they have in demesne as well as the fiefs that have become vacant for them.

[LF 2.36]

Whether a mute or otherwise disabled person is to lose the fief

A mute, deaf, blind, lame, or otherwise impaired person² shall retain the entire ancestral fief, [according to] Obertus, Gerardus, and many others. Some nonetheless say that he who is born in such condition cannot retain a fief because he is unable to render service for it. We say the same in the case of a cleric, a woman, and the like.

[LF 2.37]

An ille, qui interfecerit¹ fratrem domini sui, feudum amittat

[pr.] Si quis interfecerit fratrem domini sui, non ideo beneficium perdit;² sed si fratrem suum interfecerit ad hoc, ut totam hereditatem habeat, vel aliam feloniam commiserit, verbi gratia hominem tradendo, ut in curia amplius stare non possit, beneficio privabitur; quia tamen erga dominum non fuerit facta, ad agnatum proximiorem feudum pertinebit, si paternum fuerit, eodem prorsus observando quantum ad ordinem gradus, qui in legibus continetur. Cum autem ad dominum respicit felonia, tunc feudum domino aperiatur³.

[§ 1] Non cogitur vasallus omnino secundum usum Mediolanensem dominum adire et servitium ei offerre, sed, cum ei nunciatum fuerit, tunc domino, si potest, serviat.

[LF 2.38]

De vasallo, qui contra constitutionem Lotharii⁴ beneficium alienavit

Si vasallus contra constitutionem Lotharii regis beneficium alienaverit, si totum, perdet totum; si partem, partem perdet et ad dominum revertetur. Et ideo, si contra unum dominorum, quorum communis vasallus erat, feloniam fecerit, eum forte cucurbitando, eius solius parte privabitur; et si voluerit unius solius partem refutare aliis sibi reservatis, hoc facere poterit, quia vasallus etiam sine domini voluntate recte feudum refutare potest, post refutationem tamen ad serviendum⁵ non tenetur, sed eum offendere non debet.

[LF 2.39]

De alienatione feudi paterni

[pr.] Alienatio feudi paterni non valet etiam domini voluntate nisi agnatis consentientibus, ad quos beneficium quandoque sit reversurum, nec in filiam vasallus feudum poterit confirmare agnatis non consentientibus vel postea

[LF 2.37]

Whether he who kills his lord’s brother is to lose the fief

[pr.] If someone kills his lord’s brother, he does not lose the benefice for this reason. However, if he kills his own brother so as to have the entire inheritance, or commits another felony—for example by betraying a man—for which he can no longer remain in the lord’s court, he shall be deprived of the benefice. Nonetheless, since such a felony has not been committed against the lord, the fief, if ancestral, shall belong to the closest agnate, observing fully what is contained in the laws concerning the order of the degrees [of relationship]. When indeed the felony relates to the lord, then the fief is to become vacant for the lord.

[§ 1] According to the Milanese usage, a vassal is not generally obliged to approach his lord and offer service to him, but when he is given notice, then he is to render service to the lord if he can.

[LF 2.38]

Concerning a vassal who alienated a benefice contrary to Lothair’s constitution

If a vassal alienates a benefice contrary to King Lothair’s constitution,¹ if he alienates it all, he is to lose it all, if a portion, he is to lose a portion, and it is to revert to the lord. Therefore, if he commits a felony against one of the lords of whom he is a shared vassal,² perhaps by cuckolding him, he shall be deprived only of that lord’s portion of the fief. And if he wishes to renounce the portion of only one of them while retaining the others, he can do this, because a vassal can rightly renounce a fief even without the lord’s consent. Nonetheless, after that surrender he is not bound to render service, but he ought not to commit any offence against him.

[LF 2.39]

Concerning alienation of an ancestral fief

[pr.] Alienation of an ancestral fief has no effect even [if made] with the lord’s approval unless the agnates to whom the benefice would at some time revert consent. Nor can a vassal confirm a fief to his daughter if the agnates do not consent or ratify it afterwards. And although alienation of a benefice is pro-

ratum non habentibus. Et licet prohibeatur beneficii alienatio, inter agnatos tamen, si paternum fuit, conceditur. Et si libellum unus alteri fecerit de feudo paterno, non est libellus sed quasi refutatio.

[§ 1] Si inter dominum et vasallum de beneficio fuerit controversia, coram paribus finiatur. Ubi autem dicit vasallus, prius de suo recto feudo se debere a domino investiri, si quidem sine controversia de alio sit vasallus, indubitanter primo investiendus est et postea cognoscendum est, quod sit suum rectum feudum et¹ quod non. Sed si nihil aliud ab eo tenet pro beneficio, nisi de quo controversia est, tunc quoque causa ventilanda² est et sic videbimus,³ utrum postea investiendus sit.

[§ 2] Non est consuetudo Mediolani, ut de felonia aut de infidelitate pugna fiat, licet contrarium sit, quod praecepit lex Lombardorum, ut de infidelitate pugna fiat.

[§ 3] Si a morte dominum vasallus liberare potuerit et non fecerit, beneficio carebit; sed licet potuerit facere, ne dominus in peccatum praecipitaretur, veluti periurium, non tamen feudo privandus erit.

[LF 2.40]

De capitulis Conradi

[pr.] Haec sunt capitula, quae rex Conradus fecit in Roncalia de beneficiis. Constituit enim ut, si post mortem domini vasallus vel post mortem vasalli heredes eius per annum et diem steterint, quod dominum vel heredem eius non adierint fidelitatem pollicendo et investituram petendo, si tale sit beneficium, ut fidelitas sit praestanda, ipsum perdant, sicut et antiquitus fuit consuetudo, sed non Mediolani.

[§ 1] Praeterea ut liceat dominis, omnes alienationes feudi factas nulla obstante praescriptione revocare.

[§ 2] Similiter in petendis hostenditiis. Hostenditiae dicuntur adiutorium, quod faciunt dominis Romam cum rege in hostem persequentibus⁴ vasalli, qui cum eis non vadunt; verbi gratia in Lombardia de modio 12 denarios, in Theutonica terra tertiam partem fructuum, facta computatione fructuum solummodo eius anni, quo hostem faciunt.

hibited, it is nonetheless allowed among agnates if the benefice was ancestral. And if one agnate makes a lease of an ancestral fief to another agnate, it is not a lease but as if it were a surrender.

[§ 1] If there is a dispute over a benefice between a lord and a vassal, it is to be determined before the peers [of the lord’s court]. When, however, the vassal says that he ought first to be invested by the lord with his rightful fief, if indeed he is his vassal for another [fief] over which there is no dispute, he must undoubtedly be first invested, and then there should be an investigation into what is his rightful fief and what is not. However, if he does not hold anything else from him as a benefice except the [thing] in dispute, then the case must be examined and, in this manner, we shall see whether he should be invested afterwards.

[§ 2] It is not the custom of Milan that there is to be trial by battle for felony or infidelity, although this is contrary to what the Lombard law ordered, that trial by battle is to take place for infidelity.

[§ 3] If a vassal can rescue his lord from death and does not do so, he shall be deprived of the benefice. However, even though he can prevent his lord from committing a transgression, such as perjury, [and does not do so], he nonetheless shall not be deprived of the fief.

[LF 2.40]

Concerning Conrad’s chapters

[pr.] These are the chapters that King Conrad issued in Roncaglia concerning benefices. Indeed, he decreed that if after a lord’s death his vassal, or after a vassal’s death his heirs, remain for a year and a day without going to the lord, or his heir, to promise fealty and seek investiture, if the benefice is of such nature that fealty must be sworn, they are to lose it, as has long been custom—but not in Milan.

[§ 1] Furthermore, [he decreed that] lords are to be permitted to revoke every alienation of a fief that has been made, notwithstanding any prescription.¹

[§ 2] Similarly, [he decreed] on the exaction of military aids called ‘hostenditiae’. ‘Hostenditiae’ are aids supplied by vassals who do not join their lords in the royal expedition to Rome—for example, in Lombardy twelve denarii for each bushel, in the Teutonic land the third part of the fruits, only reckoning the fruits of the year in which they are to join the expedition.

[§ 3] Et iterum¹ si clericus, veluti episcopus, abbas beneficium habens a rege datum non solummodo personae sed ecclesiae, ipsum propter suam culpam perdat, eo vivente et ecclesiasticum honorem habente, ad regem pertineat, post mortem vero eius ad successorem eius revertatur.

[LF 2.41]

De controversia inter masculum et feminam de beneficio

[pr.] Item sciendum est, quod si inter marem² et feminam controversia fuerit, masculo dicente ‘hoc est feudum’, femina negante, nisi apertibus probationibus femina ostenderit, non esse feudum, credatur³ masculo, suo iuramento affirmanti cum duodecim sacramentalibus.

[§ 1] Sed si inter dominum et feminam, domino dicente feudum, femina negante, probationibus deficientibus detur feminae sacramentum. [V2 2.41.2]⁴ Quidam tamen distinguunt, ut si magna eorum pars, quae vasallus ibi tenebat, feudum sit, detur domino sacramentum, alibi feminae.

[LF 2.42]

De controversia inter dominum et emptorem⁵

[pr.] [V2 2.41.2]⁶ Item si sit inter dominum et emptorem feudi, si emptor dicat, non esse feudum, domino in probatione deficiente sacramento emptoris finiatur.

[§ 1] [V2 2.42pr.] Domino cum emptore feudi agente, si vasallus iurare poterit, quod ignorans beneficium vendidisset credens proprium, electioni emptori committitur, utrum domino velit ipsum cedere an vasallo restituere.⁷ [V2 2.42.1] Quo restituto id beneficium vasallus retinebit non nocente⁸ venditione eo, quod ignorans alienasset.

[§ 2]⁹ Quod dicitur, alienatione feudum domino aperiri, intelligendum est, cum a scientibus beneficium venditur.¹⁰ Et quod dicitur de venditione, idem est in omnibus alienationibus.

[§ 3] Again, if a cleric, such as a bishop or an abbot, who has a benefice given by the king not just to him but to the church, loses it by his own fault, as long as he is alive and has ecclesiastical office the benefice is to belong to the king. However, after his death¹ it is to revert to his successor.

[LF 2.41]

Concerning a dispute over a benefice between a man and a woman

[pr.] It should also be known that if there is a dispute between a man and a woman, with the man saying: ‘This is a fief’ and the woman denying it, unless the woman proves through unambiguous evidence that it is not a fief, one is to believe the man, who confirms [his claim] by his oath with twelve oath-helpers.

[§ 1] If, however, [the dispute] is between a lord and a woman, and the lord says it is a fief, and the woman denies it, in the absence of proof, the oath² is to be given to the woman. [V2 2.41.2] Some nonetheless distinguish that if the majority of what the vassal held there [where the disputed property lies] is a fief, the oath is to be given to the lord; otherwise, to the woman.

[LF 2.42]

Concerning a dispute between a lord and the purchaser³

[pr.] [V2 2.41.2]⁴ Again, if [the dispute] is between a lord and the purchaser of a fief, and the purchaser asserts it is not a fief, and the lord fails in his proof, it is to be determined through the oath of the purchaser.

[§ 1] [V2 2.42pr.] When the lord brings an action against the purchaser of a fief, if the vassal can swear that he unwittingly sold the benefice, believing it to be his property, it is left to the purchaser’s preference whether he wants to hand it over to the lord or restore it to the vassal.⁵ [V2 2.42.1] If it has been restored, the vassal shall retain that benefice without the sale damaging him, because he had alienated it unwittingly.

[§ 2]⁶ When it is said that a fief becomes vacant for the lord on grounds of alienation, this must be understood as when a benefice is sold wittingly. And what is said concerning a sale is the same for all alienations.

[LF 2.43]

De controversia inter vasallum et alium de beneficio

Si controversia inter vasallum et alium de beneficio fuerit, adversario proprietatem totius vel partem vel servitutem vel aliud aliquid¹ ius sibi vendicante, causa per vasallum etiam domino absente quasi propria ad finem perducatur. Ipse enim solus utiliter agendi et excipiendi habet potestatem, et si pro eo aut contra eum iudicatum fuerit vel cum adversario transegerit, dummodo fraudulenter factum non sit, etiam si post beneficium domino aperitur, tale erit ac si eo agente² iudicatum fuisset, et ideo ab eo ratum haberi oportebit.

[LF 2.44]

Quid iuris, si post alienationem feudi vasallus id recuperet³

[pr.] Praeterea si vasallus ante constitutionem Lotharii regis feudum alienabat,⁴ quod in quibusdam curiis pro parte, in quibusdam pro toto olim licebat, et ipsum postea recuperabat, pro feudo sibi retinebat, hoc est in causam feudi recadebat. Hodie autem, si ipsum recuperaverit,⁵ tamen penes ipsum⁶ non remanebit, utpote domino, ad quemcunque pervenerit, apertum.

[§ 1] Profecto si domini voluntate vendiderit vel per libellum vel aliter alienaverit, si idem postea recuperaverit,⁷ penes eum remanebit, iure tamen beneficii non, sed aut proprio aut pro libello⁸ aut aliter secundum quod idem recuperaverit, dummodo scias, quod si ad libellum domini voluntate id dederit, si quidem pro libello ei datur singulis forte annis, et hoc iure feudi censebitur. Illud vero ius, quod per libellum transtulerit et postea recuperaverit, pro beneficio non tenebit, sed velut alterius rei datae in libellum,⁹ si feudum domino refutaverit, libellum retinebit.

[LF 2.43]

Concerning a dispute over a benefice between a vassal and another

If there is a dispute over a benefice between a vassal and another, and the [vassal’s] opponent claims ownership over the entire benefice, or a portion of it, or an easement, or some other right, the case is to be brought to an end by the vassal even in the absence of the lord, just as if it were his own [case], for he alone has the capacity to bring actions and exceptions ‘utiliter’.¹ And if a judgment is pronounced in his favour or against him, or he comes to a settlement with the opponent—as long as this is not done dishonestly—, even if afterwards the benefice becomes vacant for the lord, it shall be just as if the case were judged with the lord taking part in it, and therefore the outcome will have to be ratified by him.

[LF 2.44]

What the law is if a vassal, after the alienation of a fief, recovers it

[pr.] Furthermore, if, before King Lothair’s constitution, a vassal alienated a fief—which was once permitted in some courts for a part [of the fief], in some others for the whole—and afterwards he recovered it, he retained it as a fief, i.e. it regressed to the condition of a fief. Today, however, if he recovers it,² it shall not remain in his hands, since it becomes vacant for the lord regardless of the person to whom it has come.

[§ 1] Undoubtedly, if a vassal sells, or alienates by lease or in some other way [a fief] with the lord’s consent, and then reobtains it, it shall remain in his hands not by right of benefice, but either as property, or by lease, or otherwise, depending on the condition on which he reobtains it—as long as you know that if he gives it on lease with the lord’s consent, and if he receives annual rents for the lease, this [rent] shall be assessed by the law of fiefs.³ However, that right that he transfers through a lease and then reobtains, shall not be held by him as a benefice, but just as [a right] over another property given on lease, and if he surrenders the fief to the lord, he shall retain the lease.

[LF 2.45]

An agnatus vel filius defuncti repudiata hereditate feudum retinere possit¹

Si contigerit, vasallum sine omni prole decedere, agnatus, ad quem universa hereditas pertinet, repudiata hereditate feudum, si paternum fuerit, retinere poterit nec de debito hereditario aliquid feudi nomine solvere cogetur,² sed in fructibus,³ ut de eis debitum solvatur quo tempore decesserit, secundum quod supra diximus,⁴ considerabitur. Ubi vero filium reliquit, ipse non potest hereditatem sine beneficio repudiare, sed aut utrumque retineat aut utrumque repudiet. Quo repudiato ad agnatos, si paternum fuerit,⁵ pertinebit, et licet alterum sine altero retinere non possit, agnatis tamen consentientibus poterit dominus eum, si voluerit, quasi de novo beneficio investire, quo facto licebit ei repudiata hereditate feudum tenere, nullo onere hereditario⁶ imminente.

[LF 2.46]

An apud iudicem vel dominum quaestio feudi debeat terminari

Ex eo, quod supra diximus⁷ ut, si inter duos de beneficio fuerit controversia, coram iudice vel arbitro finiatur, talis hic fit quaestio. Quodam sine filio decedente alius credens beneficium, quod ille⁸ tenebat, apertum domino esse, ab eo investitus est eius beneficii nomine. E contra apparent agnati, qui feudum sibi vendicant quasi paternum. Est igitur quaesitum, an apud curiam domini vel iudicem sit haec quaestio ventilanda. Et responsum scio, quia ad dominum quodammodo causa spectare videtur, ad quem investitus habebit regressum de evictione, ut coram paribus finiatur curiae;⁹ et licet alter per se non possit alterum trahere ad curiae iudicium, generaliter tamen, si inter duos causa fuerit de beneficio, eos curia vocante non licebit alicui eorum eius curiae iudicium declinare.

[LF 2.45]

Whether an agnate or a son of a deceased [vassal] can retain a fief after disowning the inheritance

If it happens that a vassal dies without any offspring, the agnate to whom the entire inheritance belongs can retain the fief, if it is ancestral, after he has disowned the inheritance, and he is not to be obliged to pay any hereditary debt on account of the fief. However, in respect to the fruits of the fief,¹ it shall be decided, according to what we have said above,² that the debt is to be paid out of them when the vassal dies. But if he leaves a son, the latter cannot disown the inheritance without [disowning] the benefice; on the contrary, he should either retain both or disown both. Once [the benefice] has been disowned, if it is ancestral, it shall belong to the agnates. And although he cannot retain one without the other, however, if the agnates consent, the lord, if he wishes, can invest him with it as if it were a new benefice. When this has been done, he shall be permitted to keep the fief, having disowned the inheritance, without any hereditary burden falling on him.

[LF 2.46]

Whether a dispute over a fief ought to be determined before a judge or the lord

From what we have said above,³ i.e. that if there is a dispute between two people over a benefice, it is to be determined before a judge or an arbitrator, this question is asked. Someone dies without a son; another, believing that the benefice which that man used to hold has become vacant for the lord, is invested by him with it as a benefice. In opposition, the agnates appear and claim the fief for themselves, as if ancestral. It is therefore asked whether this case should be discussed before the lord’s court or a judge. I know that it has been answered that, since the case is considered to relate in some way to the lord, to whom the grantee can have recourse for eviction, it is to be determined before the peers of the court. Although one party cannot bring the other to judgment by the [lord’s] court, in general, however, if there is a lawsuit between two people over a benefice, if the court summons them, neither shall be permitted to reject judgment of that court.

[LF 2.47]

Qualiter dominus proprietate¹ privetur

Ex facto quaesitum scio et ego a pluribus quaesivi: si dominus contra vasallum apertam feloniam fecerit, an, sicut vasallus beneficium amitteret, ita dominus proprietate privetur. Et quidam,² ex omni felonia, qua vasallus feudo privaretur, et dominus proprietate,³ alii, non nisi ex maxima⁴ felonia, alii, ex nulla. Sed prior sententia mihi placet non habita distinctione, qualis vasallus sit, utrum per sacramentum vel non.

[LF 2.48]

De feudo non habente propriam feudi naturam

Si quis ea lege alicui feudum dederit, ‘ut ipse suique heredes et, quibus ipse dederit, id habeant’?⁵ Iste,⁶ qui sic accepit, poterit istud vendere, donare vel aliter, si sibi placuerit, etiam sine voluntate domini alienare, et ille, cui datum fuerit, non habebit pro feudo, nisi sicut ei datum est. Sed qualitercunque ei datum fuerit sive ad proprium sive ad libellum, licet propriam feudi naturam non habeat, iure tamen feudi censebitur, ut ex eisdem causis ipsum amittat, quibus et verum feudum. Ubi ergo sic datum est feudum ‘et cui in feudum dederis’, aliud est, et propriam feudi naturam habet.

[LF 2.49]

De eo, qui fecit finem agnato de feudo paterno

Tres erant agnati vel plures; unus eorum habebat feudum, quod erat paternum, sed alter eorum finem et refutationem ‘ei suisque heredibus et cui ipse dederit’, fecit. Decessit iste sine filio masculo; alter, qui non refutavit, vendicat sibi totum, alter vero, qui refutationem fecit, vult ad successionem venire pacto non obstante. Sapientes quidam Mediolanenses interrogati responderunt, non obstare, nisi feudum ‘omnino’ refutaverit, vel nisi ad hoc refutaverit, ut dominus eum quasi de novo beneficio investiret. Tunc enim secuta investitura nova, quasi novum sit feudum, non succedit.

[LF 2.47]

How a lord is to be deprived of [a fief’s] ownership

I know the question has been asked emerging from a real case—and I myself have asked it to many: if a lord commits a manifest felony against a vassal, whether the lord is to be deprived of [the fief’s] ownership just as the vassal would lose the benefice. Some say that the lord is to be deprived of ownership for any felony for which a vassal would be deprived of a fief; others say only for the greatest felonies; and others say for no felony at all. However, I prefer the first opinion, and I make no distinctions as to what sort of a vassal he is, whether bound by oath or not.

[LF 2.48]

Concerning a fief that does not possess the proper nature of a fief

If someone gives a fief to anyone on this condition, ‘that he, and his heirs, and they to whom he will give it, shall have it’, he who receives it in this way can sell, donate, or in any other way alienate the fief, if he wishes, even without the lord’s consent. And the one to whom it is given, shall not have it as a fief unless it is given to him as such. However, regardless of how it is given to him, whether as property or on lease, although it does not possess the proper nature of a fief, it shall nonetheless be assessed by the law of fiefs, so that he is to lose it for the same reasons for which he would lose a true fief. Therefore, if a fief is granted ‘to them to whom you give it in fief’, the situation is different, and it possesses the proper nature of a fief.

[LF 2.49]

Concerning him who renounced an ancestral fief to an agnate

There were three or more agnates; one of them possessed a fief that was ancestral, and another of them renounced it ‘to him, to his heirs, and to whom he would give it’. The former died without a son; a third one, who has not renounced it, claims the whole fief; the second one, who made the renunciation, wants to succeed notwithstanding the agreement. When consulted, the Milanese experts answered that the agreement does not stand against him unless he renounced the fief altogether, or unless he renounced it so that the lord would invest [the first one] with it as if it were a new benefice: for then, after a new investiture has been obtained, just as if the fief were new, he does not succeed.

[LF 2.50]

De natura successionis feudi

Successionis feudi talis est natura, quod ascendentes non succedunt, verbi gratia pater filio. Inferius vero filius patri succedit et non filia, nisi ex pacto vel nisi sit femineum—tunc succedit filia matri et patri, secundum quosdam succedit nepos ex filio¹ solus et sic usque in infinitum, si feudum sit paternum.² Paternum autem voco, quicunque ex superioribus id acquisivit, dummodo scias, quod si quis habens beneficium quatuor superstitibus filiis decedat, et feudum ad unum eorum solum ex divisione perveniat,³ et iste susceptis⁴ filiis duobus vel tribus decedat, qui patrueles dicuntur, et ad unum eorum beneficium ex divisione perveniat, et similiter iste superstitibus filiis decedat, qui patrueles dicuntur,⁵ ad quorum unum feudum similiter pervenit, sicut etiam ex aliis superioribus vel primis fratribus supersunt masculi, si ille, qui feudum habet, decesserit,⁶ an ad omnes vel ad quos perveniat, quaeritur. Respondeo: ad solos et ad omnes, qui ex illa linea sunt, ex qua iste fuit. Et hoc est, quod dicitur, ad successores⁷ pertinere. Isti enim⁸ proximiores esse dicuntur respectu aliarum linearum, sed omnibus ex hac linea deficientibus omnes aliae lineae aequaliter vocantur.

[LF 2.51]

De capitaneo, qui curiam vendidit, an intelligatur feudum vendidisse

[pr.] Quidam capitaneus in quadam curte sua beneficium militibus dedit, postea curtem⁹ vendidit non habita mentione beneficii. Controversia est inter capitaneum et emptorem, emptore dicente, se curiam cum beneficio emisse,

[LF 2.50]

Concerning the nature of succession to a fief

The nature of the succession to a fief is such that ascendents do not succeed—e.g., a father to a son. In the descending line, however, a son and not a daughter succeeds the father, unless by an agreement or unless the fief is ‘feminine’—then the daughter succeeds the mother and the father. According to some, only a grandson in the male line succeeds, and so on ad infinitum, if the fief is ancestral¹—I call ancestral a fief that any of the ascendents has acquired—as long as you know that if someone who has a benefice dies with four surviving sons, and the fief comes to only one of them after a partition of the inheritance; and this one dies leaving two or three sons, who are called cousins,² and the benefice comes to one of them after a partition; and, likewise, this one dies with sons surviving him,³ and the fief likewise comes to one of them; and males from the other ascendents or first-mentioned brothers survive too; if he who now has the fief dies [leaving no sons], the question is whether the fief is to come to all or to whom. I answer that [it is to come] only to all who are from that line from which this last one came. And this is what is meant by ‘belong to successors’;⁴ for these ones are said to be the ‘closer’ [relatives] in respect to the other lines. However, in the absence [of relatives] from this line, all the other lines are equally called [to succeed].

[LF 2.51]

On whether a ‘capitaneus’ who sold a ‘curia’ is assumed to have sold a fief [located in it]

[pr.] A certain ‘capitaneus’ granted a benefice to some knights within a ‘curtis’⁵ of his. He then sold the ‘curia’ without making mention of the benefice. There is now a dispute between the ‘capitaneus’ and the purchaser. The purchaser says that he has bought the ‘curia’ together with the benefice; the lord counters

domino vero contra dicente, ad illum¹ beneficium non pertinere. Respondetur, beneficium² in venditione non contineri, nisi expressim³ de eo actum sit.

[§ 1] Quaesitum scio⁴ apud me: si filius vivente patre dominum offenderit ita, quod feudum amitteret, si pater decessisset, utrum feudum amittat vel non. Secundum Stephanum⁵ sic, secundum Gerardum,⁶ et Obertum similiter.

[§ 2] Si vasallus voluerit dominum offendere sed non laboraverit, feudum non amittat.⁷ Gerardus et Obertus.⁸ Etiam si laboraverit, non amittit,⁹ nisi insidiatus fuerit¹⁰ et hoc probatum fuerit.

[§ 3] Similiter si quis investitus fuerit de feudo ita, ut ad feminas transiret, et duas tantum filias reliquerit, quarum una filium habeat et altera filiam, utrum post mortem illarum masculus tantum feudum habere debeat? Secundum Gerardus masculus tantum. Obertus contra. Et e converso, si filios ille habuerit.

[§ 4] Filius non potest recusare hereditatem patris absque feudo, propinquus autem potest.

[§ 5] Si contentio fuerit inter filiam et propinquum¹¹ de hereditate et de feudo, cum filia feudum habere non poterat, quia dicat ipsa ‘hoc est de mea hereditate’ et ille dicat ‘immo de feudo’, electio propinqui erit, discernere veritatem iureriurando. Gerardus et Obertus. Similiter si contentio fuerit inter aliquem, qui emisset,¹² et vasallum, quia dicat vasallus ‘hoc est de feudo meo’, ille autem neget, electio emptoris est, veritatem discernere iureiurando, cum pares curtis veritatem non testantur. Gerardus et Obertus.

[§ 6] Similiter feudum datum lege commissoria non valet, id est ‘si ad certum tempus pecunia non solvatur creditori, ut habeat in feudum’. Gerardus. Secundum Obertus valet. [V2 2.51.7] Similiter potest feudum dari ad certum servitium. Gerardus et Obertus.

that the benefice does not belong to him. It is answered that the benefice is not included in the sale unless this has been expressly agreed.

[§ 1] I know that it has been asked in my presence: if a son commits an offence against the lord during the life of his father in a way that he would lose the fief if his father had already died, is he to lose the fief or not? According to Stephanus, he is to lose it, and so according to Gerardus and Obertus.¹

[§ 2] If a vassal wishes to commit an offence against the lord but does not make an effort to do so, he ought not to lose the fief. [According to] Gerardus and Obertus. Even if he makes such an effort, he does not lose it unless he attacks him treacherously, and this is proved.

[§ 3] Similarly, if someone is invested with a fief so that it would pass to women, and he leaves only two daughters, one of whom has a son and the other one has a daughter, ought the male alone to have the fief after their death? According to Gerardus, the male alone ought to have it. Obertus disagrees, conversely, also if the [first-mentioned fief-holder] has [two] sons.²

[§ 4] A son cannot disown his father’s inheritance without disowning the fief; however, another relative can.

[§ 5] If there is a dispute between a daughter and a male relative [of the deceased] over an inheritance and over a fief, when the daughter was not able to have the fief because she says ‘this is from my inheritance’, and the relative says ‘this is from the fief’, the relative has the option to establish the truth through an oath. [According to] Obertus and Gerardus. Similarly, if there is a dispute between someone who has made a purchase³ and a vassal, because the vassal says ‘this is part of my fief’, and the other one denies it, the purchaser has the option to establish the truth through an oath when the peers of the court do not testify to the truth. [According to] Gerardus and Obertus.

[§ 6] Similarly, a fief granted by means of a forfeiture clause has no effect—i.e. if money is not paid to the creditor within a fixed time, he should have [the pledged property] in fief, [according to] Gerardus. According to Obertus, it has effect. [V2 2.51.7] Similarly, a fief can be given for a specified service, [according to] Gerardus and Obertus.

[LF 2.52]

De prohibita feudi alienatione per Lotharium

[1]

Lotharius¹ divina favente gratia² tertius, Romanorum imperator, pius, felix, inclitus, triumphator³ et semper Augustus universo populo.

[pr.] Imperialis benevolentiae proprium esse iudicamus, commoda subiectorum investigare et eorum diligenti cura calamitatibus mederi,⁴ similiter rei publicae bonum statum ac dignitatem imperii omnibus privatis commodis praeponere.

Quocirca omnium fidelium nostrorum, tam futurorum quam praesentium, noverit universitas, qualiter, dum apud Roncalias secundum antiquorum imperatorum consuetudinem pro iustitia ac pace regni componenda consederemus,⁵ omnia, quae ad honorem Romani imperii spectare videntur, sollicite indagantes, perniciosissimam pestem et rei publicae non mediocre detrimentum inferentem resecare proposuimus.

Per multas enim interpellationes ad nos factas didicimus,⁶ milites beneficia sua passim distrahere, ac ita omnibus exhaustis suorum seniorum servitia subterfugere, per quod vires imperii maxime attenuatas cognovimus, dum proceres nostri milites suos omnibus beneficiis⁷ exutos ad felicissimam nostri nominis expeditionem minime⁸ transducere valeant.

Hortatu itaque et consilio archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, ducum, marchionum, comitum palatinorum⁹ ceterorumque nobilium, similiter etiam iudicum, hac edictali lege in omne aevum Deo propitio valitura decernimus, nemini licere beneficia, quae a suis senioribus habent, absque ipsorum permissu¹⁰ distrahere vel aliquod commercium adversus tenorem nostrae constitutionis excogitare, per quod imperii vel dominorum minuatur utilitas.

[§ 1] Si quis vero contra huius saluberrimae nostrae legis praecepta¹¹ ad huiusmodi illicitum commercium accesserit vel aliquid in fraudem huius legis machinari temptaverit, pretio ac beneficio se cariturum agnoscat. Notarium vero, qui super hoc tali contractu libellum vel aliud instrumentum conscripserit, post amissionem officii infamiae periculum sustinere sancimus.¹²

[LF 2.52]

Concerning the alienation of a fief, prohibited by [Emperor] Lothair

[1]

Lothair the Third, by the favour of divine grace emperor of the Romans, the pious, blessed, illustrious, triumphant, and ever august, to all the people.

[pr.] We judge that it is fitting for the imperial benevolence to investigate the conveniences of the subjects and, with diligent care, put a remedy to their misfortunes, and, at the same time, to place the good condition of the commonwealth and the honour of the Empire before any individual convenience.

Therefore, the entirety of our loyal subjects, both future and present, shall know how, while we were holding court at Roncaglia, according to the custom of ancient emperors, to set in order the justice and peace of the realm,¹ carefully examining all that is seen to pertain to the honour of the Roman Empire, we have sought to put an end to a most dangerous plague which causes considerable damage to the commonwealth.

For, through many requests that have been made to us, we learned that, in many places, knights sell their benefices and so, having exhausted them all, they withdraw from serving their lords. We came to know that, as a result of this, the imperial forces have been significantly weakened, now that our noblemen are not able to bring their knights, stripped of all their benefices, to our most felicitous expedition.

Therefore, with the exhortation and counsel of archbishops, bishops, dukes, marquesses, counts palatine, noblemen, and also judges, by this edict, with God’s favour to be forever valid, we decree that no one is permitted to sell the benefices they hold from their lords without their permission. Nor [are they permitted] to devise any transaction contrary to the dispositions of our constitution, through which the benefit of the empire or their lords would be diminished.

[§ 1] However, if anyone, contrary to the provisions of this most beneficial law of ours, undertakes such an illicit transaction, or attempts to contrive anything in deceit of this law, he is to know that he shall be deprived of both the price [of the transaction] and the benefice. We also establish that the notary who draws up a charter or another instrument concerning an agreement of such kind, after losing his office shall sustain the risk of infamy.²

[2]

Imperator¹ Lotharius Aug(ustus) etc. universo populo.

Satis bene dispositum ad utilitatem regni et ad perniciosam pestem destruendam in scriptis inserere curavimus. Quidam miles bina beneficia a duobus dominis, prout solitum est, acquisivit. Qui decedens duos reliquit filios, qui paterna beneficia inter se dividentes alter eorum suo domino pro beneficio, quod ad eum pervenit, fidelitatem nullo anteposito, sicut pater fecerat, fecit, alter vero frater alteri domino suo similiter pro suo beneficio,² quia nullum alium dominum habere videbatur, nullo anteposito fidelitatem fecit. Defuncto posteriore fratre sine filiis, utique feudum in unam, ut prius, venit personam et sic dominus posterior³ talem fidelitatem quaerit, qualem frater eius fecerat. [V2 2.52.2.1] Quas amputantes altercationes sancimus, quod frater fecit, scilicet in dando simpliciter,⁴ nihil superstiti obesse, licet in secundam et tertiam generationem et usque in infinitum pervenerit, si hoc actum erit.⁵

[3]

Imperator⁶ Lotharius etc. Eugenio Papae et universo populo.

Quoniam inter dominum et vasallum nulla fraus nec quodvis⁷ malum ingenium debet intervenire, idcirco per hanc praesentem legem sancimus, si vasallus non dolose per annum et diem steterit, quod a domino sui beneficii investituram non acceperit vel petierit,⁸ feudum non ob hoc amittat. Dolus enim abesse videtur, si iusta causa impediente steterit. Dat. .vi. Kal. Sept. anno a nativitate Domini .mcxxvii., indictione .v.

[2]

The august Emperor Lothair to all the people.

We have taken particular care to put into writing a disposition for the benefit of the realm and the destruction of a pernicious plague. A certain knight acquired two benefices from two lords, in the accustomed way. When he died, he left two sons who divided between themselves their father’s benefices. One of them did fealty to his lord for the benefice that came to him acknowledging no superior lord, just as his father had done. The other brother, moreover, did fealty to the other lord for his benefice in a similar way, acknowledging no superior lord, since he was supposed to have no other lord. The latter brother having died without sons, the fief, of course, came to one person, as before,¹ and so the latter’s lord seeks [from the other brother] the same fealty as his brother had done. [V2 2.52.2.1] To cut off these altercations, we establish that what one brother did, i.e. with a general stipulation ‘in dando’,² should in no circumstance stand in the way of the surviving one, even though [the fief] comes to a second or a third generation, and so on, ad infinitum, if this has been agreed.

[3]

Emperor Lothair etc. to Pope Eugenius and all the people.

Since no deceit nor any malicious trickery ought to come between a lord and a vassal, therefore, through this present decree, we establish that if a vassal remains with no fraudulent intent for a year and a day without receiving or seeking investiture of his benefice from the lord, he is not to lose the fief for this. Because there appears to be no deceit if he so remains as a result of the impediment of a legitimate cause. Given on the sixth day of the Kalends of September ⟨27 August⟩, in the year 1127 from the Nativity of the Lord, in the fifth indiction.

[LF 2.53]

De pace iuramento firmanda, servanda, tuenda et vindicanda et de poena iudicibus apposita, qui eam vindicare et iustitiam facere neglexerint¹

Fridericus, Dei gratia Romanorum imperator, semper Augustus universis suo subiectis imperio salutem.

[pr.] Hac edictali lege in perpetuum valitura iubemus, ut omnes nostro subiecti imperio veram et perpetuam pacem inter se observent, et ut inviolata perpetuo inter omnes servetur.² Duces, marchiones, comites, capitanei, valvassores et omnium locorum rectores cum omnibus locorum primatibus et plebeiis a decimo octavo anno usque ad septuagesimum iureiurando adstringantur,³ ut pacem teneant et rectores locorum adiuvent in pace tenenda atque vindicanda, et in fine cuiuscunque⁴ quinquennii de praedicta pace tenenda omnium sacramenta renoventur. Si quis vero aliquod ius de quacumque re vel facto contra aliquem se habere putaverit, iudicialem adeat potestatem et per eam sibi ius competens exequatur.

[§ 1] Si quis vero temerario ausu praedictam pacem violare praesumpserit, si civitas est, poena centum librarum auri camerae nostrae inferenda puniatur, oppidum vero viginti libris auri mulctetur, duces autem, marchiones et comites quinquaginta libras auri praestent, capitanei quoque et maiores valvassores viginti libris auri puniantur, minores vero valvasores et omnes alii praedictae pacis violatores tres libras auri inferre cogantur et damnum passo secundum leges resarciant.

[§ 2] Iniuria seu furtum legitime puniatur.

[§ 3] Homicidium quoque et membrorum diminutio vel aliud quodlibet delictum legaliter vindicetur.

[§ 4] Iudices vero et locorum defensores, vel quicumque magistratus ab imperatore vel eius voluntate constituti seu confirmati, qui iusticiam facere neglexerint, et pacem violatam vindicare legitime supersederint, damnum omne iniuriam passo resarcire compellantur, et insuper, si maior iudex est, sacro aerario poenam decem librarum auri praestet, minor autem poena trium librarum auri mulctetur.

[LF 2.53]

Concerning the peace to be strengthened by oath, maintained, guarded, and enforced; and concerning the penalty applied to judges who fail to enforce it and do justice

Frederick by the grace of God emperor of the Romans, the ever august, greets all the subjects of his imperial authority.

[pr.] By this edict, to be forever valid, we command that all subject to our imperial authority observe true and perpetual peace among themselves and that [peace] be preserved inviolate perpetually among everyone. Dukes, marquesses, counts, ‘capitanei’, ‘valvasores’, and all local governors, with all the magnates and commoners of all places between eighteen and seventy years of age, are to be obliged to swear that they will keep the peace and help local governors to keep and enforce the peace. Moreover, at the end of each five-year period, all the oaths concerning the keeping of this peace are to be renewed. If, however, anyone believes he has any rightful claim against anyone in respect of any thing or deed, he may go to the judicial power, and through it pursue the right belonging to him.

[§ 1] However, if anyone, with reckless daring, presumes to violate the aforesaid peace, if it is a city, it is to be punished with a penalty of one hundred pounds of gold, to be paid to our treasury. But a town is to be fined twenty pounds of gold. Dukes, marquesses, and counts are to disburse fifty pounds of gold. ‘Capitanei’ and greater ‘valvasores’ are to be punished twenty pounds of gold, while lesser ‘valvasores’ and all other violators of the aforesaid peace are to be obliged to pay three pounds of gold and restore any damage to the one who has suffered it, according to the laws.

[§ 2] Injury and theft are to be punished according to law.

[§ 3] Homicide and mutilation of limbs, or any other felony, also are to be lawfully punished.

[§ 4] Judges, however, and local officials or any magistrate appointed or confirmed by the emperor or with his consent, who neglect to do justice and refrain from avenging the violation of peace according to law, are to be compelled to restore any damage to him who suffered it. Furthermore, if he is a higher judge, he is to pay to the imperial treasury a penalty of ten pounds of gold; a lower judge, on the other hand, is to be fined with a penalty of three pounds of gold.

[§ 5] Qui vero ad praedictam poenam persolvendam inopia dignoscitur laborare, corporis sui coërcitionem cum verberibus patiatur, et procul ab eo loco, quem inhabitat, quinquaginta miliaria per quinquennium vitam agat.

[§ 6] Conventiculas¹ quoque omnesque coniurationes, in civitatibus et extra, etiam occasione parentelae, et inter civitatem et civitatem et inter personam et personam sive inter civitatem et personam, omnibus modis fieri prohibemus, et in praeteritum factas cassamus, singulis coniuratorum poena unius librae auri puniendis.

[§ 7] Episcopos quoque² locorum ecclesiastica censura violatores huius sanctionis, donec ad satisfactionem veniant, coërcere volumus.

[§ 8] Receptatoribus etiam malefactorum, qui praedictam pacem violaverint, et praedam ementibus nostrae indignationi subituris et eisdem poenis feriendis. Praeterea bona eius publicentur et domus eius destruatur. Qui pacem iurare et tenere noluerit, et lege pacis non fruatur.

[§ 9] Illicitas etiam exactiones, et³ maxime ab ecclesiis, quarum abusus iam per longa tempora inolevit, per civitates et castella omnino condemnamus et prohibemus, et, si factae fuerint, in duplum reddantur.

[§ 10] Item sacramenta puberum sponte facta super contractibus rerum suarum non retractandis inviolabiliter custodiantur. Per vim autem et iustum metum etiam a maioribus, maxime, ne quaerimoniam maleficiorum commissorum faciant, extorta sacramenta nullius esse momenti iubemus.

[§ 11] [V2 2.54pr.]⁴ Ad hoc, qui allodium suum vendiderit, districtum et iurisdictionem imperatoris vendere non praesumat, et, si fiat, non valeat.

[§ 12] [V2 2.54.1] Si vero contigerit, allodium aliquod etiam infeudatum conferri ecclesiae vel per oblationem fidelium vel per emptionis et venditionis alteriusve huiusmodi contractum, infeudatus, nisi per gratiam ecclesiae tanquam de novo receperit, feudum, quod habebat, retinere non poterit.

[§ 13] [V2 2.54.2]⁵ Ut autem aequitas, quae in paribus causis paria iura desiderat,⁶ per universitatem totius imperii servetur, firmiter statuimus tam in Italia quam in Alamannia, ut, quicunque indicta publica expeditione⁷ ad suscipiendam imperii coronam regem aut sub rege dominum suum non adiuverit aut eundo cum ipso aut pro quantitate feudi stipendia militiae persolvendo,

[§ 5] However, he who is acknowledged to be unable to pay the aforesaid penalty for his poverty is to endure corporal chastisement with lashes and for five years spend his life fifty miles away from the place where he resides.

[§ 6] We also forbid that conventicles and all sworn associations, within and outside cities, be made in any way—even on the pretence of kinship—whether between city and city, between person and person, or between city and person. We also dissolve the ones formed in the past, punishing each sworn member with a penalty of one pound of gold.

[§ 7] We wish that also local bishops punish through ecclesiastical censure the violators of this ordinance until they come to make amends.

[§ 8] They who harbour criminals who have violated the aforesaid peace, and they who buy stolen goods, shall also incur our indignation and be struck with the same penalties. Furthermore, goods shall be confiscated and the house destroyed of him who refuses to swear and keep the peace, and he is not to benefit from the peace decree.

[§ 9] We also utterly condemn and forbid the unlawful exactions [collected] by cities and towns, especially from churches, the abuse of which has been growing for a long time already. And if they have been collected, they are to be paid back twofold.

[§ 10] Further, oaths voluntarily taken by minors not to revoke contracts concerning their property are to be inviolably observed. However, we command that the oaths that have been extorted, even from adults, by force or justified fear, have no force, especially [when this is done] so that they make no complaint about some committed crime.

[§ 11] [V2 2.54pr.]¹ On the same matter, he who sells his allodial property is not to presume to sell the emperor’s power of distraint and jurisdiction, and if this is done, it is to have no effect.

[§ 12] [V2 2.54.1] If, however, it happens that some allod which is also enfeoffed is transferred to a church either through an offering of the faithful, or on a purchase-and-sale agreement, or through another agreement of this kind, the fief-holder cannot retain the fief he had unless he receives it as it were anew, by the grace of that church.

[§ 13] [V2 2.54.2] So that equity, which in similar cases requires similar rights, be preserved throughout the whole of the empire, we firmly establish, both in Italy and in Germany, that, once a public expedition to take the imperial crown has been announced, anyone who does not assist the king, or his lord in the king’s service, by either joining him or making payments in lieu of military ser-

si de vocatione legitima a domino suo convinci per compares suos poterit, feudum perdit¹ et dominus in suos usus illud redigendi habeat liberam facultatem.

[LF 2.54]

[V2 2.55] De prohibita feudi alienatione per Fredericum²

Idem Augustus universo populo.

[pr.] Imperialem decet sollertiam ita rei publicae curam gerere et subiectorum commoda investigare, ut regni utilitas incorrupta persistat et singulorum status iugiter servetur illaesus. Quapropter dum ex praedecessorum nostrorum more universalis curiae Roncaliae pro tribunali sederemus, a principibus Italicis, tam rectoribus ecclesiarum, quam aliis fidelibus regni non modicas accepimus quaerelas, quod beneficia eorum et feuda, quae vasalli ab eis tenebant,³ sine dominorum licentia pignori obligaverant, et quadam collusione nomine libelli vendiderant, unde debita servitia amittebantur et honor imperii et nostrae felicis expeditionis complementum minuebatur.

Habito ergo consilio episcoporum, ducum, marchionum, et comitum, simul etiam palatinorum iudicum, et aliorum procerum, hac edictali, Deo propitio, perpetuo valitura lege sancimus, ut nulli liceat feudum totum vel partem aliquam vendere, vel pignorare, vel quoqunque modo alienare,⁴ vel pro anima iudicare sine permissione illius domini, ad quem feudum spectare dignoscitur.

Unde imperator Lotharius tantum in futurum cavens ne fieret, legem promulgavit. Nos autem ad pleniorem regni utilitatem providentes, non solum in posterum sed etiam huiusmodi alienationes illicitas hactenus perpetratas hac praesenti sanctione cassamus, et in irritum deducimus, nullius temporis praescriptione impediente, quia, quod ab initio iure⁵ non valuit, tractu temporis convalescere non debet,⁶ emptori bonae fidei ex empto actione de pretio contra venditorem competente.

vice according to the size of his fief, if he is found guilty through his compeers concerning his lord’s lawful summons, loses the fief, and the lord is to have the unrestricted capacity to recover it for his own uses.

[LF 2.54]

[V2 2.55] Concerning alienation of a fief, prohibited by Frederick [I]

The same, august [Emperor Frederick I] to all the people.¹

[pr.] It befits the imperial judiciousness to exercise care over the commonwealth and investigate the conveniences of the subjects in such a way that the benefit of the realm remain unaffected and the status of individuals be preserved unharmed. Therefore, while, according to the practice of our predecessors, we were presiding over a general court at Roncaglia to administer justice, we received not a few complaints from the Italian princes—both leaders of churches and other faithful men of the realm—that the vassals who held their benefices and fiefs from them, without their lords’ permission, had tied them in pledge² or sold them, by some collusion, on the pretence of a lease. Hence, the services due were lost, and the honour of the empire and the support for our felicitous expedition diminished.

Having therefore received counsel from bishops, dukes, marquesses, and counts, together with palatine judges and other noblemen, by this edict, with God’s favour to be forever valid, we establish that no one is to be permitted to sell his entire fief or any portion of it, or tie it in pledge, or alienate it in any way, or bestow it for the salvation of the soul, without the permission of that lord to whom the fief is known to belong.

Hence Emperor Lothair promulgated a law to prevent this solely in the future. We, on our part, providing for a greater benefit to the realm, by this present disposition annul and deprive of validity illicit alienations of this kind perpetrated not only in the future but also in the past, notwithstanding any [long-]time prescription,³ for what was not valid by law at the beginning, ought not to become valid with the passage of time—and he who purchased in good faith is entitled to a legal action against the seller to recover the price.

[§ 1] Callidis insuper machinationibus quorumdam obviantes, qui pretio accepto, quasi sub colore investiturae, quam sibi licere dicunt, feuda¹ vendunt, et in alios transferunt, ne tale figmentum vel aliud ulterius in fraudem huius nostrae constitutionis excogitetur, modis omnibus prohibemus, poena auctoritate nostra imminente, ut venditor et emptor, qui tam illicitas alienationes reperti fuerint contraxisse, feudum amittant, et ad dominum libere revertatur. Scriba vero, qui super hoc instrumentum sciens conscripserit, post amissionem officii cum infamiae periculo manum amittat.²

[§ 2] Praeterea, si quis infeudatus maior quatuordecim annis, sua incuria vel negligentia per annum et diem steterit, quod feudi investituram a proprio domino non petierit, transacto hoc spatio, feudum amittat, et³ ad dominum redeat.

[§ 3] Firmiter etiam statuimus tam in Italia, quam in Alamannia, ut, quicunque indicta publica expeditione vocatus a domino suo, in eandem expeditionem spatio competenti⁴ temere venire supersederit, vel alium pro se domino acceptabilem mittere contempserit, vel dimidium redditus feudi unius anni domino non subministraverit, feudum, quod ab episcopo vel ab alio domino habuit, amittat, et dominus feudi in usus suos illud redigendi omnibus modis habeat facultatem.

[§ 4] Praeterea ducatus, marchia, comitatus de cetero non dividatur, aliud autem feudum, si consortes voluerint, dividatur ita, ut omnes, qui partem feudi habent iam divisi, vel dividendi, fidelitatem faciant, ita tamen, ut vasallus pro uno feudo plures dominos habere non compellatur, nec dominus feudum sine voluntate vasalli ad alium transferat.

[§ 5] Insuper si filius vasalli dominum offenderit, pater a domino requisitus deducat filium ad satisfaciendum domino, vel a se filium separet, alioquin feudo privetur. Sin autem⁵ pater vult eum deducere, ut satisfaciat, et filius contemnit, patre mortuo in feudum non succedat, nisi prius satisfecerit domino, parique modo vasallus pro omnibus suis domesticis faciat.

[§ 6] Illud quoque praecipimus, ut, si vasallus de feudo suo alium vasallum habuerit, et vasallus vasalli dominum domini sui offenderit, nisi pro servitio alterius domini sui hoc fecerit, quem sine fraude ante habuit,⁶ feudo suo privetur, et ad dominum suum, a quo ipse tenebat, revertatur, nisi requisitus ab eo paratus fuerit satisfacere maiori domino, quem offenderit, et nisi vasallus idem-

[§ 1] Furthermore, to oppose the cunning machinations of some who, having received a payment, sell and transfer fiefs to others under the form of investiture, which they say is permitted to them, we forbid by all means that such pretence or any further action be contrived in deceit of this constitution. The penalty, set by our authority, is that the seller and the purchaser who are found to have contracted such illicit alienations are to lose the fief, which is to freely revert to the lord. Moreover, a scribe who wittingly draws up an instrument concerning this, after losing his office is, at the risk of infamy, to lose his hand.

[§ 2] Moreover, if any fief-holder older than fourteen by his own carelessness or negligence remains for a year and a day without seeking investiture of the fief from his own lord, he is to lose the fief once this period has passed, and it is to return to the lord.

[§ 3] We also firmly establish, both in Italy and Germany, that, once a public expedition has been announced, anyone who has been summoned by his lord and recklessly refrains from setting out for that expedition within an appropriate period, or refuses to send a suitable substitute to his lord, or does not provide his lord with half the annual income of his fief, is to lose the fief he has from a bishop or another lord. Moreover, the lord of the fief is to have the capacity to recover it in any way for his own uses.

[§ 4] Moreover, a duchy, march, or county is not to be henceforth divided. But any other fief, if the coheirs agree, may be divided so that all who have a portion of the fief, whether divided or to be divided, are to do fealty; nonetheless, [it may be divided] in such a way that a vassal is not to be compelled to have more lords for one fief, and a lord is not to transfer a fief to another without the vassal’s consent.

[§ 5] Furthermore, if the son of a vassal commits an offence against the lord, at the lord’s request his father is to either bring his son to make satisfaction to the lord or send his son away from him; otherwise he is to be deprived of the fief. If, however, the father wants to bring him to make satisfaction, and the son refuses, once his father has died, he is not to succeed to the fief unless he first makes satisfaction to the lord. A vassal is to deal with all his household servants in the same manner.

[§ 6] We also command this. If a vassal has another vassal in respect to his fief, and the vassal’s vassal commits an offence against the lord of his lord, he is to be deprived of his fief, unless he does so while serving another lord of his, whom he had previously without fraud. And the fief is to revert to his lord, from whom he held it, unless, once required, he is willing to make satisfaction to the higher lord against whom he committed an offence. Moreover, the vassal who is also lord, is to lose his fief if, when required by his lord,

que dominus, a domino suo requisitus, eum, qui maiorem dominum offenderit, requisierit¹ ut satisfaciat, suum feudum amittat.

[§ 7] Praeterea, si inter duos vasallos de feudo sit controversia, domini sit cognitio, et per eum controversia terminetur. Si vero inter dominum et vassallum lis oriatur, per pares curiae, a domino sub fidelitatis debito coniuratos, terminetur.

[§ 8] Illud quoque sancimus, ut in omni sacramento fidelitatis imperator nominatim excipiatur.

[LF 2.55]

[V2 2.56] Quae sint regaliae²

Imp(erator) Fridericus.

Regalia sunt arimanniae,³ viae publicae, flumina navigabilia, et ex quibus fiunt navigabilia, portus, ripatica, vectigalia, que vulgo dicuntur thelonea,⁴ monetae,⁵ mulctarum poenarumque compendia, bona vacantia, et quae indignis⁶ legibus auferuntur, nisi quae specialiter quibusdam conceduntur, et bona contrahentium incestas nuptias, condemnatorum,⁷ et proscriptorum, secundum quod in novis constitutionibus cavetur[,] angariarum, parangariarumque et plaustrorum, et navium praestationes, et extraordinaria collatio ad felicissimam regalis numinis expeditionem, potestas constituendorum magistratuum ad iustitiam expediendam, argentariae et palatia in civitatibus consuetis, piscationum redditus et salinarum, et bona committentium crimen maiestatis, et dimidium thesauri in loco Caesaris inventi⁸ vel loco religiosi: si data opera totum ad eum pertineat.⁹

he does not require the one who committed an offence against the higher lord to make satisfaction.¹

[§ 7] Moreover, if there is a dispute over a fief between two vassals, the lord is to take cognisance of it, and the dispute is to be determined by him. If, however, litigation arises between a lord and a vassal, it is to be determined by the peers of the court, who are jointly sworn in by the lord under obligation of fealty.

[§ 8] We also establish that in every oath of fealty, the emperor should be expressly excepted.

[LF 2.55]

[V2 2.56] What regalian rights are

Emperor Frederick [I].

Regalian rights are: ‘arimanniae’ [i.e., jurisdiction over free men];² public roads; navigable rivers and [rivers] that can be made navigable; harbours; shore dues; trade dues commonly called ‘tolls’; coinage; profits from fines and penalties; vacant goods, and those which have been legally taken away from the unworthy, unless they have been specifically granted to someone; the goods of those who contracted incestuous marriages, of those convicted, and of outlaws, in accordance with what is specified in the novel constitutions;³ [the requisition of] services concerning regular and extraordinary transport, carriages, and ships; extraordinary taxation for the most felicitous expedition of his royal majesty; the power to appoint magistrates for the administration of justice; silver mines and public palaces, in the cities where it is customary; revenues from fisheries and saltpans; the goods of those who commit the crime of lese majesty; half of the treasure that is found⁴ on public or ecclesiastical land—the treasure is to belong to [the emperor] entirely, if he has made effort [in finding it].

[LF 2.56]

[V2 2.57] Quot testes sint necessarii ad probandam feudi ingratitudinem¹

Imp(erator) Henricus Aug(ustus) universo populo.

Si vasallus inhonestis factis, atque indecentibus machinationibus dominum suum offenderit, insidiisque eum clandestinis vel manifestis appetiverit, vel inimicis eius suas amicitias copulaverit, atque in aliis sic versatus est, ut potius inimicus quam fidelis esse credatur, vel si eum cucurbitaverit, seu in campestri bello suum dominum reliquerit, feudo privabitur. Quod non obtinere sancimus, nisi quinque testibus summae atque integrae opinionis probatum fuerit manifeste. Datum viii. Idus Augusti feliciter.

[LF 2.57]

[V2 2.58] De notis feudorum

[pr.] Notandum est in feudo, quod de caneva seu de camera datur,² non debere dari, nisi sit de caneva vel de camera,³ unde solvi possit, vel si ita evacuata sit caneva⁴ sine culpa promissoris, exspectandum est, donec iterum de caneva⁵ vel de camera solvi possit.⁶ Dominum autem feudum⁷ dare posse intelligitur omni aere alieno soluto.⁸ Non enim aequum est, quem⁹ videre egentem, quem prius habuit in coniugem.¹⁰

[§ 1] Quod autem pares tantum debeant interesse investiturae feudi et non alii, hoc tunc verum est, cum dominus vasallos alios habuerit. Alioquin adhibeat dominus, quos meliores potuerit,¹¹ liberos tamen, argumentatione¹² legis de ultimis voluntatibus in Lombarda,¹³ quae dicit:¹⁴ ‘Si quis donationem facere voluerit de suis rebus alicui vel investituram, adhibeat sibi de pagensibus suis,

[LF 2.56]

[V2 2.57] How many witnesses are necessary to prove ingratitude for a fief

The august Emperor Henry to all the people.

If a vassal commits an offence against his lord with disloyal acts and unfitting machinations, or assails him with covert or overt attacks, or joins in friendship with his enemies, or behaves in other respects so as to be seen as his enemy rather than his loyal man, or if he cuckolds him, or deserts his lord on a battlefield, he shall be deprived of the fief. We establish that this does not hold if it has not been manifestly proved by five witnesses of highest and uncorrupted reputation. Given on the eighth day of the Ides of August <8 August>, with good auspices.

[LF 2.57]

[V2 2.58] Concerning some notes on fiefs¹

[pr.] It should be noted, in respect to a fief that is given out of the incomes of a warehouse (‘caneva’) or treasury (‘camera’), that it ought not to be given unless in the warehouse or treasury there is [means] to pay it. Otherwise, if the warehouse has been emptied through no fault of the one who promised [to pay], one must wait until [the sum] can be given again out of the warehouse or treasury: however, it is assumed that a lord can give [such a] fief only after his debts [to third parties] have been paid,² for it is not fair to see in poverty a person whom one has previously had as a loved one [and a friend].³

[§ 1] That only peers ought to be present at a feudal investiture, and not others, is only true when the lord has other vassals. Otherwise, the lord is to summon the best men he can, provided they are free, according to the argument drawn from the title ‘Concerning last wills’ in the Lombarda, which says: ‘If anyone wants to make a donation or an investiture to someone out of his property, he is to summon two or three suitable witnesses among his neigh-

et¹ per eandem legem vivant, testes idoneos duos vel tres’.² Pluralis enim elocutio³ duorum numero contenta est.⁴

[§ 2] Item sciendum est, non esse impedimentum investiturae etsi investituram faciat de re, quam communem dominus habet cum aliquo, quia, si sponte dividere noluerit ille, cum quo habet rem communem, qui investivit, potest cogere per iudicem et ille,⁵ qui investitus est, ut dividat. Item heredes eius necesse habent firmam tenere investituram, quam pater fecit. Item eadem lege et eodem iure debet iste habere rem, qui investitus est, quam haberet, qui eum investivit, cum coherede suo, ut⁶ adaequatio percurrat usque ad quadraginta annos. Item investitura per se et per suum nuntium dari et accipi potest. Quae omnia supradicta colligi possunt per supradictas leges Longobard. tit. De ultimis voluntatibus l. Si quis,⁷ et C. communi dividundo l. i. et ii.⁸

[§ 3]⁹ Idcirco pares sunt necessarii in instrumento investiturae et non alii, ne quid excogitetur falsitatis in perniciem domini aliis testibus inductis, corruptis forte pecunia vel odio vel gratia, quae non sunt suspicanda in paribus.

[§ 4] [V2 2.58.3] Si instrumentum diceretur¹⁰ falsum a domino, daretur¹¹ defensio vasallo, qui afferret¹² instrumentum, ut in Lombarda, Qualiter quisque se defendere debeat l. de chartis,¹³ et auferetur domino, qui veritatem noverit, et iniquum erit, si aliquis ex dono suo conveniatur, cum domini sit defensio ex ordine, cum vasallus non possideat.

[§ 5] [V2 2.58.4] Notandum est, quod de omni controversia, quae inter dominum et vasallum oritur, si pares veritatem noverint, omnino cogi debent a domino et paribus, dicere veritatem. Qui si dicant, se nescire, cum sciant, et

bours, who live under the same law’ (Lomb. 2.18.7). For the expression in a plural form [i.e. of ‘witnesses’] is satisfied by the number of two.¹

[§ 2] It should also be known that even if investiture is made out of property that a lord possesses jointly with another, this does not do prejudice to the investiture, because, if the one with whom he who made the investiture possesses the joint property does not wish to divide it of his own accord, even he who has been invested can oblige him, through a judge, to divide it. Also, his heirs² need to confirm the investiture that their father has made. Also, he who has been invested ought to hold the property by the same law and by the same right by which he who invested him would hold it together with his coheir³—so that an adjustment [of the shares] may be requested within forty years. Also, investiture can be given and received personally or through his representative. All these things can be gathered from the aforesaid Lombard laws under the title ‘Concerning last wills’, law ‘If anyone’ (Lomb. 2.18.7), and the Code, under the title ‘Concerning the division of property owned in common’, laws 1 and 2 (C. 3.37.1–2).

[§ 3]⁴ Therefore, peers are needed in an instrument of investiture, and not others, lest any falsehood is contrived to the ruin of the lord by the introduction of other witnesses, possibly corrupted by money, hatred, or favour—things that should not to be expected from peers.

[§ 4] [V2 2.58.3] Should an instrument [attesting to investiture] be declared false by the lord, defence [by oath] would be given to the vassal who presents the instrument, as in the Lombarda, under the title ‘How anyone should defend himself’, law ‘Concerning charters’ (Lomb. 2.55.32 or 35), and taken away from the lord who knows the truth. And it will be unfair that someone is brought to court on account of a gift he made⁵ when the vassal is not in possession, since according to ordinary procedure defence [by oath] should be given to the lord.

[§ 5] [V2 2.58.4] It should be noted that, in respect to any dispute arising between a lord and a vassal, if some peers know the truth, they ought to be altogether obliged by the lord and other peers to tell the truth. If they declare that they do not know it, while they do know it, and the vassal demands it, the

vasallus postulet, dominus coget eos, iurare et dicere veritatem, ut C. de testibus l. Si quando¹ et in Lombarda tit. De officio iudicis l. Ut iudex unus etc.² et in tit. Qualiter quisque se defend. deb. l. Si qualiscunque causa,³ et tit. De testibus l. Ut quicunque et l. ult.⁴

[§ 6] [V2 2.58.5] Cum datur domino defensio de investitura, quae dicitur a se facta, iurare debet, se investituram non fecisse; cum vero datur heredi vel⁵ successori eius, iurare debet, se non credere, investituram factam esse ab antecessore suo. Si qua investitura facta esse dicetur, semper debet nominare dominum, a quo investitura facta dicitur, cum multum discrepet sacramentum hereditarium a principali sacramento, ut C. De rebus creditis et iureiurando l. Generaliter,⁶ et ut habes de tutore, qui iurat, quod credit et existimat, ut C. de iureiur. calumn. l. ii.;⁷ de conscientia enim sua iurare debet, et non de alieno facto—cum iniquum sit,⁸ iurare de alieno facto—heres vel successor, nec etiam filius, ut Dig. de rerum amotarum l. Marcellus.⁹ Sed contrarium reperitur in Lombarda, quia, licet filius minorem virtutem habeat, quam pater, tamen debet praecise iurare, patrem suum non fuisse debitorem, ut in Lombarda, Qualiter quisque se defendere debet, l. Si contigerit.¹⁰

lord shall oblige them to take an oath and tell the truth—as in the Code, under the title ‘Concerning witnesses’, law ‘If when’ (C. 4.20.19); and in the Lombarda, under the title ‘Concerning the office of a judge’, law ‘That the judge etc.’ (Lomb. 2.52.15); and the title ‘How anyone should defend himself’, law ‘If for any type of cause’ (Lomb. 2.55.14); and the title ‘Concerning witnesses’, law ‘That anyone’ and the last law [of the same title] (Lomb. 2.51.14, 16).

[§ 6] [V2 2.58.5] When defence [by oath] is given to a lord concerning an investiture which is said to have been made by him, he ought to swear that he did not make that investiture. But when defence [by oath] is given to his heir or successor, he ought to swear that he does not believe that the investiture was made by his predecessor. If one shall say that a certain investiture has been made, he ought always to name the lord by whom he says that investiture has been made. Because the oath of an heir is very different from the oath of a person involved directly, as in the Code, under the title ‘Concerning property loaned and the oath’, law ‘Generally’ (C. 4.1.12), just as you have with regard to a guardian, who swears what he believes and considers right, as in the Code, under the title ‘Concerning the taking of the oath of calumny’, law 2 (C. 2.58.2). Indeed, an heir, a successor, and also a son ought to swear to the best of their knowledge and not with regard to someone else’s deed—because it would be unjust to swear with regard to someone else’s deed, as in the Digest, under the title ‘Concerning the action to recover property which has been removed’, law ‘Marcellus’ (Dig. 25.2.11.2). However, a contrary argument is found in the Lombarda, since although a son’s [legal] capacity may be inferior to his father’s, he nonetheless ought to swear in precise terms that his father was not indebted, as in the Lombarda, under the title ‘How anyone should defend oneself’, law ‘If it happens’ (Lomb. 2.55.7).