|
[1.] [V2: 149.1 De alienatione feudi] Summopere mandare curamus, ut, si quis aliquem de beneficio investiverit, quod ille, qui investitus fuerit, non potest per proprium vendere nec pro levissima re locare nec infeudare, nisi maiorem partem apud se retinuerit; et si in desperatione filiorum fuerit, nulla ratione nec quolibet modo dare potest. Quae omnia si facta fuerint, nullius momenti erunt, et eo defuncto omnia ad priorem dominum revertuntur; et si dominus conquestus fuerit paribus, pares auditis rationibus intra anni spatium expedire faciant; vasallo non faciente satisdationem domino dent possessionem salvis suis rationibus, nisi diffinitivam promeruerint sententiam. [2.] [V2: 149.2 De feudis scutiferorum] Feuda scutiferorum, ut ad libitum dominorum possint adimi, rationis non est, dum tamen serviant secundum laudationem curiae. [3.] [V2: 149.3 De conditione feudi non impleta] Ut inter conditionalia et non conditionalia aliqua sit differentia, dicimus, quod, si quis alicui dederit beneficium conditionale, utpote quae dantur propter habitationem, deserta habitatione beneficium amittetur; et etiam cum certo constituuntur servitio, non dato servitio non poterit retineri beneficium. |
Appendix 1 Supplementary chapters by Iacobus de Ardizone [1.]1 [V2: 149.1 Concerning alienation of a fief] We take the greatest care to command that, if anyone invests another with a benefice, he who is invested can neither sell it as his own property, nor give it on lease for a trifling rent, nor enfeoff it unless he retains in his hands the greater part of it. Even if he has no hope of having sons, for no reason and in no way may he give it away. If any of these things are done, they shall have no force, and once he has died, everything reverts to the former lord. And if the lord brings a complaint before the peers [of his court], the peers, after hearing the arguments, are to have the matter settled within an interval of one year. If the vassal does not provide security, they are to give possession to the lord without prejudice to his arguments,2 if they have not [yet] reached a final judgment. [2.] [V2: 149.2 Concerning the fiefs of squires] It is not reasonable that the fiefs of squires can be taken away at the lords’ will, so long as they render service according to the assessment of the [lord’s] court. [3.] [V2: 149.3 Concerning a fief’s condition not being fulfilled] In order for there to be some difference between conditional and non-conditional [benefices], we say that if anyone gives to another a conditional benefice, such as those that are given on condition of residence, once residence has been abandoned the benefice shall be lost. And, also, when [benefices] are established in return for a fixed service, if that service is not rendered, the benefice cannot be retained. |
V2 maintains these supplementary titles as they appear under titles 149–150 in Iacobus de Ardizone, Summa Feudorum, f. 35ra–36va. Title 149 covers what in V1 amounts to chapters 1–25 of the ‘capitula extraordinaria’ by Ardizone; title 150 covers chapters 26–53.
I.e., the vassal’s.
|
[4.] [V2: 149.4 De fidelitate] Quoniam de fidelitate mentionem fecimus, super ea aliquid summatim dispiciamus. [§ 1] Si beneficium est sine fidelitate, et vasallus aliquid, quod sit contra suum dominum, fecerit, amittat beneficium laudatione parium. Hoc idem dicimus in iis, qui fidelitatem iurant. [§ 2] Si cui militi fidelitas requisita fuerit a domino, dominus secundum quosdam librum militi ostendere debet et miles eam facere debet, vel parium laudationi stare intra annum. Quod nisi factum fuerit, miles secundum quosdam de beneficio damnari potest, quod contra praeceptum domini Lotharii regis Papiae datum videtur.1 Librum autem, quod vasallo ostendi soleat, non necessitate fieri, sed voluntate. Est enim quoddam signum requisitae fidelitatis memoriae causa. [§ 3] Et venit aliquando, ut vasallus dicat, domino se facturum fidelitatem, quam pares laudaverunt. Tunc non perdit beneficium, si stat per dominum, quod faciat curiam. [§ 4] Qui fidelitatem iurant, si voluntate utrorumque separatio facta fuerit, fidelitas finitur: si sua voluntate vasallus vel iudicio parium feudum dimisit, fidelitas durat. [5.] [V2: 149.5 Si plures sint domini vel vasalli, an plures fidelitates vel servitia debeantur] Cum plures fratres vasalli paternum habent beneficium, donec eum2 indivisum possident, una fidelitas et unum servitium domino fieri debet. Si vero partitum fuerit, quot partes, tot erunt fidelitates. Servitia vero pro partibus, ne uno primo videantur graviora, et3 pro quantitate beneficii moderanda. Plures autem domini, et si feudum inter se |
[4.] [V2: 149.4 Concerning fealty] Since we have mentioned fealty, let us briefly consider some matters with regard to it. [§ 1] If a benefice is [given] without fealty and the vassal does something that is against his lord, he is to lose the benefice by judgment of his peers. We say the same with respect to those who swear fealty. [§ 2] If a lord requires fealty from a knight, according to some, the lord ought to present a book1 to the knight, and the knight ought to either do fealty or respect the judgment of his peers within a year. If this is not done, according to some, the knight can be condemned with regard to his benefice—which seems to be contrary to the command given by King Lothair at Pavia. On the other hand, that a book should be usually shown to the vassal, is a voluntary matter, not a necessity, as it is a sort of symbol of the requested fealty, for the purpose of remembering. [§ 3] And sometimes it comes about that a vassal says he will do fealty to the lord which his peers have approved: in this case, he does not lose the benefice, provided that the lord allows that he holds court.2 [§ 4] Concerning those who swear fealty, if a separation [between a lord and a vassal] has taken place with the consent of both, fealty is ended. If the vassal leaves the fief by his will or by judgment of the peers, fealty stands. [5.] [V2: 149.5 Whether several [oaths of] fealty or services are due if there are several lords or vassals] When several brothers who are vassals have an ancestral fief, as long as they possess it undivided, only one [oath of] fealty and one service ought to be rendered to the lord. But if the fief has been divided, there shall be as many oaths of fealty as portions. However, services are to be measured proportionately to the parts and according to the size of the benefice, lest they appear more burdensome than the original one.3 On the other hand, even if several lords divide a fief among themselves, in no way can they |
LF 2.52.3.
V2 illud.
V2 Servitia vero non pro partibus, ut unum primum, videlicet graviora, sed.
A book over which to swear, presumably a Gospel book or a Bible.
Lit. if it depends on the lord that he holds court. This passage is rather obscure. Spruit-Chorus (104) suggest that the vassal is not to lose the fief if it depends on the lord that he does not gather his peers’ court. Clyde (1154) purports a similar opinion: ‘if it is due to the superior that no court is convened’. The text outlines indeed a situation in which the content of the oath of fealty, i.e. the explicit terms of the agreement between lord and vassal, must be discussed by the peers’ court, which should be convened by the lord.
V2 However, the provision of services is to be regulated not so that each of them is rendered like the original one, resulting in a greater burden, but proportionately to the size of the [portion of] benefice.
|
dividant, nullo modo nisi unam fidelitatem ex feudo habere poterunt. Servitium vero omnibus non gravitate, sed moderamine faciendum est. [6.] [V2: 149.6 Culpam unius ex coheredibus ceteris non praeiudicare] Cum feudum hereditarium uni ex coheredibus propria culpa auferetur a paribus per iudicium, ceteris non praeiudicat. Hoc autem ita intellegitur, ut vivo eo vel suis heredibus feudum ad ceteros venire non intelligatur. [7.] [V2: 149.7 Ut ratio vasalli prius, quam domini discutiatur] Si contentio fuerit inter dominum et vasallum, et dominus habuerit aliquam rationem contra vasallum et vasallus contra dominum, vasalli ratio prius discutiatur: quoniam pares maiorem iurisdictionem habent de suo pari, quam de suo domino. [8.] [V2: 149.8 De evictione] Generaliter verum est in feudis, dominos de evictionibus teneri, aut1 si quis sciens investituram alterius beneficii acquisierit, eo evicto nullam adversus dominum vasallum actionem habere dicimus, quoniam in acquirendo malam habuit fidem. [9.] [V2: 149.9 De feudis impropriis, quae auferuntur dantis arbitrio] Unum quidem non minus utile, sed satis congruum superioribus adverti, et ex comprobato usu in scriptis bono arbitrio reducere procuravi. Si quis igitur pro vicedominica- |
have more than one [oath of] fealty from that fief, and service must be rendered to all not in a burdensome fashion but with due measure. [6.] [V2: 149.6 That the fault of one of the coheirs does not prejudice the others] When a hereditary fief is taken away through trial by peers from one among several coheirs for his own fault, this does not prejudice the others. However, this is understood as follows, that the fief is not understood to pass to other [coheirs] while he or his heirs are alive. [7.] [V2: 149.7 That the vassal’s evidence should be discussed before the lord’s] If there is a dispute between a lord and a vassal, and the lord has some argument against the vassal, and the vassal against the lord, the vassal’s argument is to be examined first since peers have a superior jurisdiction over what concerns their peer than over what concerns their lord. [8.] [V2: 149.8 Concerning eviction] It is normally true that lords are liable for eviction in respect to fiefs. However, if someone wittingly receives investiture of the benefice of another, we say that the vassal, once evicted, has no action against the lord, since he was in bad faith when he acquired it. [9.] [V2: 149.9 Concerning improper fiefs, which are taken away at the grantor’s will] I have noticed one thing, certainly no less useful, and which is consistent with the foregoing, and, with my best judgment, I have taken care to reduce it to writing from established usage. If, therefore, in return for the duties of a ‘vicedominus’, ‘villicus’, or, so |
V2 at.
|
ria,1 vel villicaria, et, ut ita dicam,2 pro decania vel aliis quibuscunque angariis feudum, quod improprium est, acceperit, nisi specialiter hoc actum sit inter contrahentes, id est nominatim ‘feudum cum honore feudi’, et ita ‘ut non liceat domino auferre, quod datum fuerit, etiamsi administratio illa auferatur’, quod datum est3, penitus ablata administratione sine omni obstaculo auferri4 liceat. Si autem, quod superius dictum est, probare conetur, licet5 quodammodo possidere vasallum a quibusdam credatur, non iureiurando decidi oporteat,6 sed testibus vel instrumento aliisve legitimis probationibus causa firmiter approbetur. [10.] [V2: 149.10 Prius possessionem restituendam esse, quam de principali causa agatur] Si qua contentio de beneficio inter aliquos (prout saepe fieri solet) orta fuerit, si unus dominus vel loco domini habeatur, et alter vasallus vel loco vasalli habeatur, si per pares secundum usum regni iudicium ventiletur, primo de suo recto beneficio investiri debet, et, si possessio aliqua perturbata fuerit, modo restitui debet. [11.] [V2: 149.11 Si unus ex fratribus dederit suam partem fratri, vel domino, vel extraneo] Si alter ex fratribus, qui paternum habeat beneficium, suam portionem dederit domino vel alicui extraneo, dominus vel extraneus tamdiu teneat sine praeiudicio quamdiu ille, qui dedit, heredem masculum habuerit. Si vero sine herede decesserit, alter frater si vixerit vel eius heres sine ullo obstaculo et temporis praescriptione beneficium, quod |
to speak, a ‘decanus’,1 or for any other administrative function, someone receives a fief, which is not a proper fief, the lord is permitted to take away entirely and without any impediment what has been given, once the office is taken away; unless this has been specifically agreed between the parties, i.e. expressly that ‘this fief [comes] with all the rights of a fief’, and thus that is not permitted for the lord to take away what has been given, even if that office is taken away. If, however, someone attempts to prove what is said above,2 although certain people think the vassal is in some way in possession, the matter must not be decided by oath, but it is to be soundly proved by witnesses, an instrument, or other legitimate proofs. [10.] [V2: 149.10 That possession must be restored before proceeding with the main question in dispute] If any dispute, as often happens, has arisen between anyone over a benefice, and on the one hand, we have the lord or someone in place of the lord, and on the other hand, we have a vassal or someone in place of the vassal, and the trial, according to the usage of the realm, proceeds through the [vassal’s] peers, [the vassal] ought to be first invested with his rightful benefice; and, if any possession has been disturbed, it ought to be restored immediately. [11.] [V2: 149.11 If one brother gives his portion [of a fief] to another brother, or to the lord, or to an outsider] If one of [two] brothers who has an ancestral fief gives his portion to the lord or some outsider,3 the lord or the outsider are to keep it without prejudice [in respect to their legal position] as long as he who gave it has a male heir. But if he dies without an heir, the other brother, if he is alive, or his heir, may claim the benefice, which is hereditary, from any possessor without any impediment or long-time prescription4 [standing |
V2 pro vice dominicaria.
V2 et, ut dicam.
V2 omits est.
V2 auferre.
V2 et.
V2 oportet.
These rural offices, often associated with lordship, generally had the duration of one year. Their functions could vary from place to place; in general, however, a ‘vicedominus’ fulfilled political and judicial duties on behalf of a lord; a ‘villicus’ (see Glossary: ‘gastaldus’) was in charge of estate management and signorial taxation; a ‘decanus’ was usually responsible for lesser duties, such as petty justice and policing.
I.e. that the fief is granted with a fief’s full rights.
I.e. a non-relative.
On ‘praescriptio’, see Glossary.
|
hereditarium est, vendicet a quocunque possidente. Hoc idem dicimus et si fratres fuerint, et alter ab altero ex fratribus acquisierit; hoc enim verissimum ex usu comprobato dicimus.1 [12.] [V2: 149.12 Patrem in feudo filii non succedere] Quoddam usui traditum recordationis causa in scriptis ponere procuravi. Si quis igitur habens filium ipsum per dominum investire fecerit, nisi nominatim cum domino pactus fuerit, ‘ut si filius decesserit ante patrem, quod feudum ad patrem2 revertatur’, dicitur defuncto ante patrem filio patrem carere beneficio et domino acquiri beneficium. [13.] [V2: 149.13 De investitura facta marito vel utrique coniugi] Si maritus de feudo suae uxoris investiatur ea absente, nisi nominatim quasi gerendo uxoris negotia, non valet. Secus si acquisierit feudum ea sciente vel iubente.3 Si vero uterque insimul investiatur, pro parte sibi proficiunt, nisi cum iam dicta distinctione factum fuerit. Et dicimus4 etiam, ut, si unus ante alterum sine herede decesserit, quod alterius pars domino acquiratur. [14.] [V2: 149.14 De fructibus feudi] Unum quidem satis usitatum dicimus, quod, si aliquis decesserit nullo in feudo relicto herede, ius feudi ad dominum pertinere dicimus. Fruges autem exstantes non ad dominum, sed ad filias ipsius vasalli vel etiam ad uxorem eius pertinerent;5 et hac ratione creditor eas retinere potest, licet pignus habere non possit, et hoc cum distinctione imperialium constitutionum. |
against him]. We say the same also if there are brothers and one acquires [a portion] from the other brother: indeed, we say that this is absolutely correct based on established usage.1 [12.] [V2: 149.12 That a father does not succeed to his son’s fief.] I have taken care to put into writing, so that it may be remembered in future, a particular matter transmitted through usage. If, therefore, someone having a son has him invested by the lord, unless it is expressly agreed with the lord that ‘if the son dies before the father, the fief is to revert to the father’, it is said that when the son dies before the father, the father loses the benefice, and the benefice is acquired by the lord. [13.] [V2: 149.13 Concerning investiture made to a husband or both spouses] If a husband is invested with his wife’s fief in her absence, and it is not expressly [given to him] in the capacity of administrator of his wife’s business, [the investiture] has no effect. It is different if he acquires it with her consent or at her direction.2 However, if they are both invested at once, each of them will enjoy a share of the fief—unless this has been done with the aforesaid distinction. We also say that, if one dies before the other with no heir, the portion of the other is to be acquired by the lord. [14.] [V2: 149.14 Concerning the fruits of a fief] We say that one thing indeed is quite commonly accepted as usage: if anyone dies leaving no [male] heir to a fief, we say that the right to that fief belongs to the lord. The extant fruits, however, do not belong to the lord but to the daughters of that vassal, or even his wife. For this reason, a creditor can retain them, even though he cannot have them in pledge; and this [is] subject to the distinction of the imperial constitutions.3 |
V2 didicimus.
V1 patrum.
V2 nisi nominatim quasi gerendo uxoris negotium investiatur, sibi acquirit feudum, ea sciente vel iubente.
V2 Et diximus.
V2 pertinere.
V2 Indeed, we came to know from established usage that this is absolutely correct.
V2 and it is not expressly granted to him in the capacity of administrator of his wife’s business, he acquires the fief only with her consent or at her direction.
The same matter is treated in LF 2.28.3 and 2.45, but it is unclear to what constitutions this chapters refers.
|
[15.] [V2: 149.15 An praescriptione feudum acquiratur] In beneficiis, ut in ceteris contractibus, praescriptiones currere, satis humanum et rationi congruum videtur. Si quis ergo feudum alienum bona fide ab aliquo iusta tradi- tione acceperit, licet dominus non sit, cum verus dominus in traditione putetur, longi temporis praescriptione ius sibi acquirit. Si vero malam fidem habuerit, nulla se poterit tueri praescriptione nec etiam de evictione agere poterit. [16.] [V2: 149.16 De probatione investiturae] De ingressu curiae a quibusdam varia ac diversa putantur. Nos autem, quod saepius ac rationabiliter in multis curiis et civitatibus intelleximus, in scriptis bonae recordationis causa inserere procuravimus. Quicunque igitur beneficium per investituram acquisierit sine possessionis traditione, pares ad investituram habeat, ut pro ipso veritas discernatur, cum controversia inde fuerit. Sane si possidet, aliis quibusdam adiuvetur adminiculis. Verumtamen quia milites1 inopes vasalli sunt, per testes vel per breve testatum probatio satis competens esse dignoscitur. [17.] [V2: 149.17 Conditionem tacite feudum sequi] Beneficia conditionalia, quae in maioribus curiis a veteri tempore esse noscuntur, utpote patriarcharum, archiepiscoporum, abbatum, abbatissarum, ducum, marchionum, comitum, capitaneorum sive etiam maiorum valvasorum, si duobus, tribus vel deinceps aliis dantur vasallis, tacite2 conditiones eos sequuntur, nisi nominatim in ipsis traditionibus ipsae conditiones excipiantur. Hoc idem etiam de his conditionibus, quae noviter constituuntur, ad harum similitudinem verissimum fore sapientibus placet. |
[15.] [V2: 149.15 Whether a fief may be acquired by prescription] It appears rather appropriate to human nature and congruent to reason that prescriptions1 proceed in respect to benefices, just as they do in respect to other contracts. Therefore, if anyone receives the fief of another in good faith by a lawful transfer from someone, even though [this one] is not the lord, since at the time of the transfer he is assumed to be the true lord, he [who so receives the fief] acquires a right [over it] by long-time prescription. However, if he was in bad faith, he cannot defend himself on the grounds of prescription, nor can he bring an action for eviction. [16.] [V2: 149.16 On proving investiture] Concerning the access to a [lord’s] court, various and divergent opinions are held by different people. However, so that it may be remembered in future, we have taken care to put into writing what we have very often and reasonably understood in many courts and cities. Therefore, whoever acquires a benefice through investiture without transfer of possession is to have peers present at the investiture so that the truth can be discerned to his benefit when there is a dispute over this matter—if he possesses it, of course, he may be assisted with some other means. Nonetheless, because [many] knights are poor vassals,2 proof through [other] witnesses or certified charter is acknowledged to be sufficiently valid. [17.] [V2: 149.17 That a condition tacitly follows the fief] If conditional benefices—which are known to be in place since times of old in the greater courts, such as those of patriarchs, archbishops, abbots, abbesses, dukes, marquesses, counts, ‘capitanei’ or even greater ‘valvasores’—are given to two, three or, subsequently, further vassals,3 the conditions follow them tacitly, unless those same conditions are expressly excepted in those transfers. It seems right to the experts that, on grounds of similarity with these ones, the same shall be certainly true with respect to those conditions that are newly established. |
Vienna (f. 53vb) quia multi mliites.
V1 tacitae.
On ‘praescriptio’, see Glossary.
Here it is perhaps suggested that sometimes vassals cannot afford to arrange to go to the investiture.
This perhaps refers to the degrees of subinfeudation.
|
[18.] [V2: 149.18 Fratrem fratri in feudo novo non succedere] Si duo fratres in heredes masculos et feminas de beneficio investituram acceperint, altero decedente filia relicta, neptem cum patruo ad feudum venire dicimus, cum unusquisque fratrum suae soboli bene consuluit. Si enim frater suus sine ulla progenie decesserit, feudum non ad superstitem sed ad dominum perveniet, nisi pactum de successione factum foret. [19.] [V2: 149.19 De investitura veteris et novi beneficii] Beneficium intelligitur de veteri et novo, et cum de veteri fit investitura, satis sit si de recto beneficio fiat investitura. Haec autem investitura ab unaquaque persona fieri potest sive saeculari sive ecclesiastica, si antiquitus eorum consuetudo fuerit, haec secundum quosdam et a femina et a minore vigintiquinque annis fit. De novo si fiat investitura, nominatim et de certa re oportet fieri. Haec investitura a muliere secundum quosdam non valet, quibusdam valere placet, quae sententia mitior est. A minore autem 18 annorum non valet, hoc etiam de minoribus annorum 25 asseritur, ut quibusdam placet. A praelatis ecclesiarum vero tradi legitime dici potest, ut iure valeat investitura,1 dum tamen dissipator videri non possit. Quod si aliter intelligeretur, nullum beneficium ab ecclesiasticis personis datum retineri posset. Dicitur etiam, quod, si coniunctae personae gratia vel etiam alicui alteri tale dedit feudum, quod duos consimiles vasallos acquirere posset, inutile est beneficium. [20.] [V2: 149.20 Iusto errore excusari vasallum, qui fidelitatem non fecit] Quicunque paratus est facere bene fidelitatem domino suo, ‘prout pater fecerat fidelitatem patri vel antecessori domini’, dum tamen haec bona fide dicat et non dolose, sed |
[18.] [V2: 149.18 That a brother does not succeed his brother to a new fief] If two brothers receive investiture of a benefice inheritable by male and female heirs, we say that when one dies with a daughter left, this niece comes to the fief together with her uncle, because each brother has properly looked after his offspring: for if a brother dies without any progeny, the fief does not come to the surviving brother but to the lord, unless an agreement concerning such succession has been made. [19.] [V2: 149.19 Concerning investiture of an old and a new benefice] A benefice is understood to be either old or new. When investiture is made of an old one, it is to suffice that investiture is made ‘concerning the rightful benefice’. Indeed, this investiture can be made by any person, whether lay or ecclesiastic, if it is their long-standing custom. According to some, this may be done even by a woman or by someone below the age of twenty-five. If investiture is made of a new benefice, it needs to be made expressly in respect to a specific property. According to some, this investiture has no effect if [made] by a woman; to some others it seems correct that it has effect, which is the milder opinion. However, it has no effect [if made] by someone below the age of eighteen—this is also asserted in respect to someone below the age of twenty-five, as seems correct to some. However, it can be said that [a benefice] is transferred lawfully by prelates of churches, so that the investiture has effect by law, but only when [the grantor] cannot be regarded as a squanderer. Were this to be understood differently, no benefice given by ecclesiastical persons could be retained. It is also said that if [a prelate] has given a fief to favour a relation, or even [if he has given it] to someone else, [and the fief] is of such value that for it he could have obtained two similar vassals, the [grant of the] benefice is ineffective. [20.] [V2: 149.20 That a vassal who does not do fealty is excused by a justifiable error] Anyone who is prepared to properly do fealty to his lord in the same way as his father had made it to the lord’s father or predecessor, as long as he says these things in good faith and without fraudulent intent, but by a justifiable error, can in no way be con- |
V2 A praelatis ecclesiarum vero tradi, et legitime, dici potest iure, ut valeat investitura,
|
iusto errore, omnino condemnari non potest. Cum enim controversia est inter ipsos, per antiquitatem feudi vel per breve testatum vel per testes domino incumbit probatio, alioquin per vasallum veritas inquiratur. [21.]1 [V2: 149.21 Factum fratris fratri in feudo paterno non nocere] Quoddam satis bene dispositum ad utilitatem, et ad perniciosam calliditatem 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 venit, fidelitatem nullo anteposito, sicut pater fecerat, fecit. Alter vero frater alteri domino similiter pro suo beneficio, quia alium nullum dominum habere videbatur, nullo anteposito fidelitatem fecit. Defuncto posteriore fratre sine filiis, utrumque feudum in unam, ut prius, venit personam, et sic dominus talem fidelitatem quaerit, qualem frater eius fecerat. Quas altercationes amputantes dicimus, illud, quod frater fecit, nihil superstiti obesse, licet in secundam et tertiam generationem, et usque ad infinitum pervenerit. |
demned.1 For when there is a dispute between them [over this matter], the burden of proof, whether through the antiquity of the fief, a certified charter, or witnesses, falls on the lord; otherwise, [if he fails in his proof], the truth is to be sought through the vassal.2 [21.] [V2: 149.21 That the deed of a brother does not harm his brother in relation to an ancestral fief] We have taken particular care to put into writing a certain disposition for the general benefit and the destruction of a pernicious cunning. 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, just as his father had done, acknowledging no superior lord. The other brother, however, 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. Having the latter brother died without sons, both fiefs came to only one person, as before, and so the [latter’s] lord seeks [from the surviving brother] the same fealty as his brother had done. To cut off these altercations, we say that what one brother did, 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. |
This chapter has several similarities with LF 2.52.2.
The nature of this mistake is unclear. The heading, a later addition, states that the issue at stake is the vassal’s failure to do fealty, but this does not appear clearly from the text, which rather seems to suggest that the question concerns the content of the oath. Spruit-Chorus (109) see a vassal willing to swear in the same way that, as he wrongly believes, his father had previously done. Therefore, the text would imply that these terms are rejected by the lord, who demands that the vassal swear another oath. Foramiti (col. 1787–1788) suggested instead that the vassal promises to do fealty but then does not take the oath for an excusable error. Likewise, Clyde (1157) saw a vassal ‘who by mistake has omitted to swear fealty to his superior, but who is prepared to do so’. Since the text seems to imply that the lord has the right to decide the content of the oath (supra, Appendix 1, ch. 4), the interpretation of Spruit-Chorus seems correct. However, I have opted to maintain the slight ambiguity of the Latin text.
I have opted for a literal translation, even though the overall meaning, especially the ‘antiquity of the fief’ as a form of proof, seems unclear: the term ‘enim’ implies some consequentiality between the two parts of the chapter, which would be clearer if one assumed that the ‘antiquity’ of the fief is not a form of proof but the matter in dispute—a matter that seems indeed closely related to the suitability of the oath once sworn by the vassal’s father.
|
[22.] [V2: 149.22 De feudo guardiae et gastaldiae] Quod nomine gastaldiae vel guardiae in feudum datur, ablata gastaldia vel guardia iure auferri potest. [23.] [V2: 149.23. De successione feudi] Quidam dominus habens beneficium reliquit duos filios, et unusquisque ipsorum habuit duos vel tres filios. Unus illorum fratrum decessit una tantum filia relicta. Portionem illius non ad omnes superstites, sed ad patruos illius et suis posterioribus pertinere dicimus. [24.] [V2: 149.24 De investitura alieni beneficii] Qui accepit1 investituram alterius beneficii, inutilis est haec investitura. Et qui sciens hoc agit, de evictione agere non potest. [25.]2 [V2: 149.25 Non amittere feudum eum, qui sine dolo cessavit per annum in petenda investitura] Inter dominum et vasallum nulla fraus debet esse et inde potest accipi, si vasallus non dolose steterit per annum, quaerere investituram sui beneficii, non damnabitur. Dolus enim abest, si iusta causa impediente steterit vel etiam cum amore servitium fecerit domino conscio. Dicimus autem, ut,3 si contra ea, quae in fidelitate nominantur, fecerit, beneficio carebit. |
[22.] [V2: 149.22 Concerning a fief of castle-guard and ‘gastaldia’] What is given in fief as ‘gastaldia’ or castle-guard, once the ‘gastaldia’ or castle-guard has been taken away, can be taken away by right. [23.] [V2: 149.23 Concerning succession to a fief] A certain lord who had a benefice left two sons, and each of them had two or three sons. One of these brothers died having left only one daughter. We say that his portion does not belong to all the surviving [coheirs], but to his paternal uncles and their descendants. [24.] [V2: 149.24 Concerning investiture of another’s benefice] [If] someone receives investiture of another’s benefice, this investiture is ineffective. And he who does so wittingly cannot bring an action for eviction. [25.] [V2: 149.25 That he who, without fraudulent intent, has remained for one year without seeking investiture does not lose the fief.] Between a lord and a vassal there ought to be no deception; hence it can be accepted that if a vassal remains without fraudulent intent for a year without seeking investiture of his benefice, he shall not be condemned. Because there is no deceit if he so remains as a result of the impediment of a legitimate cause—or, also, if he renders service with devotion to a lord who is aware of it. On the other hand, we say that if he does anything against what is specified in [the oath of] fealty, he shall be deprived of the benefice. |
V2 Si quis acceperit.
This chapter is very similar to LF 2.52.3.
V2 quod for ut.
|
[26.] [V2: 149.26 Ex delicto vasalli feudum ad dominum redire] Vasallus habens feudum deliquit contra dominum, cui iudicatum est[;]1 agnati cum domino litigant. Quidam domino dicunt pertinere, quidam agnato. Dicimus autem, ad dominum pertinere,2 donec aliquis masculus ex delinquente vasallo superest; alii vero contradicunt. [27.] [V2: 150 De feudis et beneficiis constitutiones imperiales]3 Imperator Henricus, Dei gratia divina favente secundus Romanorum Augustus.4 De militum beneficiis quoniam dubias variasque causas in regno nostro esse cognovimus, ideoque ad rei publicae statum quaedam statuimus. Si quis ergo dominum suum interfecerit vel vulneraverit ipsum,5 se6 suamve domum7 obsederit, vel eum cucurbitaverit, vel contra ea, quae in fidelitate nominantur, fecerit, vel his supra dictis consilium dederit, parium laudatione beneficium amittat. Si vero de supradictis se defendere voluerit, testibus a parte domini deficientibus, cum tribus paribus se expurget, si autem pares habere non potuerit, cum duodecim propinquioribus parentibus se defendat (usu vero curiali solus defendat).8 Si quis autem suorum parium, idoneus tamen, exinde se veritatem scire dixerit et per pugnam eum fatigare voluerit, ut per pugnam se defendat dicimus.9 Si quis autem per annum steterit, quod domino non servierit,10 parium laudatione beneficium amittat, (curiali tamen usu id redimere potest pro medietate, quantum valuerit). Sed si hoc defendere voluerit, duos vel unum saltem parem ostendat, et cum his se serviisse iuret, et si pares paremve habere nequiverit, cum tribus vel duobus propinquioribus parentibus se intra annum servire11 iuret, (usu tamen curiali solus iurare conceditur). Qualiter autem iuret, an solus vel cum aliis, nihil interest, dum tamen servitia nominet. |
[26.] [V2: 149.26 That a fief goes back to the lord on account of a vassal’s felony] A vassal who has a fief commits a felony against his lord, to whom the fief has been assigned, and [the vassal’s] agnates litigate with the lord. Some say that it belongs to the lord, some others to the agnate. However, we say that it belongs1 to the lord as long as any male descendant of the delinquent vassal survive. Others, however, disagree. [27.] [V2: 150 Imperial constitutions concerning fiefs and benefices] Henry the Second, by the favour of God’s divine grace, august emperor of the Romans. Since we have become aware that there are doubtful and diverse controversies in our realm concerning the benefices of knights, we have therefore made some provisions for the [good] state of the commonwealth. Hence, if anyone kills his lord or wounds him, or besieges him or his house,2 or cuckolds him, or does anything against what is specified in [the oath of] fealty, or provides counsel on any of the aforesaid things, he is to lose the benefice by the judgment of [his] peers. However, if he wishes to defend himself in respect to the aforesaid, and there are no witnesses on the lord’s part, he is to purge himself with the support of three of his peers. If, however, he cannot find peers, he is to defend himself with twelve of his closest relatives—but, by the ‘usus curialis’,3 he may defend himself alone. Moreover, if afterwards any of his peers, provided that he is trustworthy, says that he knows the truth and wishes to engage him in trial by battle, we declare that he is to defend himself by battle. Moreover, if anyone remains for a year without rendering service to the lord,4 he is to lose the benefice by his peers’ judgment—nonetheless, by the ‘usus curialis’, he can redeem it for half of what the fief is worth. But if he wishes to defend himself on this point,5 he is to produce two peers, or at least one peer, and swear together with them that he has rendered service. If he is unable to produce the peer or peers, he is to swear with the support of three, or two, of his closest relatives that he has rendered service within the [past] year—nonetheless, by the ‘usus curialis’, it is granted to him to swear alone. But in what manner he is to swear, whether alone or with others, does not matter as long as he specifies the services [he has rendered]. |
V1 cui iudicatum est? The question mark seems out of place.
V2 ad dominum non pertinere; Vienna (f. 54rb) agrees with V1.
MGH, Constitutiones, I, 104–105 (n. 56); the date of the constitution (27 August 1127) does not match with its attribution to Henry II (1002–1024), as the incipit of the text indicates, nor to Henry III (1047–1056), as cautiously suggested by the editors of MGH. The year 1127 points to Lothair III, so that it is well possible that this text is connected to his constitution contained in LF 2.52.3.
V2 Imp. Augustus Henricus secundus.
V2 ipsum dominum.
V2 omits se.
V2 dominam.
Vienna (f. 22ra) omits (usu ... defendat).
V2 edicimus.
V2 Si quis autem fuit, qui domino non servierit.
V2 serviisse.
V2 We indeed say that it does not belong. V1 and Vienna seem correct on this point, as the lord does not give up his right as long as the direct line of descent of the felon can lay claim on the fief.
V2 or his lady.
‘Usus curialis’ seems to refer to the custom of knights, or noble fief-holders: see Glossary.
V2 Moreover, if there is anyone who does not render service to the lord.
V2 But if he chooses not to defend himself on this point. This solution makes sense only if one interprets it as ‘if he chooses not to redeem the fief’. V1 seems more reliable considering the following text.
|
Si autem concorditer cum domino suo se habuerit, dominum saepe videndo, tunc dicimus, ut probet per testes, se1 servitium fecisse, et per se non stetisse. Si autem aliqua inter dominum et vasallum discordia fuerit, vel si domicilia in longinquum habuerit vasallus,2 domino se repraesentando servitium promittat, ut,3 si necesse fuerit, hoc probare possit4 iureiurando, saltem ad finem controversiae vasallo a paribus dato. Si quidem intra annum servierit, quod levissimum fuerit, et dominus aliud servitium imposuerit, quod vasallus neglexerit, unde damnum domino illatum fuerit, usque ad fruges feudi5 parium aestimatione damnum resarciat. De aliis vero culpis, unde beneficium6 non amittitur, parium laudatione defendat se, ut supra, vel emendet. Datum VI. Kal. Septembr. anno MCXXVII. [28.] [V2: 150.2 De feudo ligio] Si quis investitus de feudo ligio, pro quo contra omnes fidelitatem domino debet, Lucio et Titio, ex se descendentibus filiis, sibi heredibus institutis, vita decesserit, divisione facta, si ad solum Titium feudum pervenerit, rationabiliter placuit, eum solum fidelitatis sacramento esse obnoxium, ad quem solida feudi iura transierint. Quodsi ab alio domino Lucius postea feudum per investituram acquisiverit, pro quo similiter ei contra omnes homines fidelitatem fecerit, decedente Titio sine liberis, ad quem devolvatur feudum, quod ex divisione habuerat, an ad alium fratrem, an ad dominum quaeri potest. Et cum placeat, quem ligium hominem duorum esse non posse, videri potest feudum ad dominum pertinere. Sed rectius visum est, feudum, quod per investituram acquisiverit, impedimento ei non esse, licereque ei per substitutum acceptabilem domino priori servire. |
Moreover, if he has been in harmony with his lord, by often seeing him, in that case we say that he is to prove through witnesses that he has done service and that [the delay] did not depend on him. But if there is any disagreement between the lord and the vassal, or the vassal has residences far away, he is to promise his services to the lord by presenting himself so that, if necessary, he may prove this by oath,1 at least when [oath-taking] has been given to him by the peers to end the dispute. If, however, within a year he renders some trifling service, and the lord imposes on him another service, which the vassal neglects, whereby damage is done to the lord, he is to refund the damage up to his fief’s fruits, according to his peers’ estimation.2 But concerning other faults for which a benefice is not lost, he is to defend himself according to the judgment of his peers, as above, or provide compensation. Given on the sixth day of the Kalends of September ⟨27 August⟩ in the year 1127. [28.] [V2: 150.2 Concerning a liege fief] If anyone is invested with a liege fief, for which he owes fealty to the lord against everyone, and departs this life with sons, Lucius and Titius, descending from him, whom he has declared his heirs, and a division [of the inheritance] has been made, if the fief goes to Titius alone, it has reasonably seemed correct that he alone, to whom the full rights of the fief pass, is bound by the oath of fealty. And if afterwards Lucius acquires a fief through investiture from another lord, for which in a similar way he does fealty against all men, and Titius dies without children, it can be asked to whom his fief (which he had by the division) is to devolve—whether to the other brother or the lord. And since it seems correct that one cannot be a liegeman of two [persons], it can be assumed that the fief belongs to the lord. However, it has been more rightly assumed that the fief that he acquires through investiture does not prejudice him and that he is permitted to render service to the prior lord through an acceptable substitute. |
V2 omits se.
V2 habuerint, vasallus.
V2 et for ut.
V2 probet for probare possit.
V2 feudatarius for feudi.
V2 feudum for beneficium.
V2 But if there is any disagreement between the lord and the vassal, or they have residences far from each other’s, the vassal is to promise his services to the lord by presenting himself and, if necessary, prove it through an oath.
V2 and the lord receives damage in respect to his profits, the fief-holder is to refund the damage according to his peers’ assessment.
|
[29.] [V2 150.3 Imperatorem feudum amittere vel alium pro se fidelem dare] Ex facto incidisse scio, Fridericum principem nostrum, cum ab initio dux esset et pro ducatu fidelitatem faceret, divino nutu postea Imperatorem creatum, petita ab eo fidelitate pro ducatu, petenti domino respondisse, non teneri se fidelitatem facere, cum omne hominum genus sibi fidelitatem debeat, et ipse soli Deo et Romano pontifici. Sed cum insistente feudi domino de hoc contenderetur, proceribus prudenter visum est, feudum amissum esse vel alium ducem in ducatu constituendum, qui feudo servire debeat et domino fidelitatem faciat. [30.] [V2 150.4 Ecclesiam fidelitatem non facere] De negotio, super quo nos consulere voluisti, tibi secundum ius curiae et usum feudi breviter respondemus, quatenus pro feudo, quod ab aliquo per ecclesiam detinetur, nulla sit facienda fidelitas. [31.] [V2 150.4bis Non cogi vasallum pro uno feudo duas fidelitates facere] Insuper etiam te instructum esse volumus, quod, si dominus, a quo feudum tenebatur, diem suum pluribus heredibus relictis obierit, vasalli, qui communiter illud tenent, non coguntur fidelitatem pro eo feudo facere, nisi domini illud feudum primo partirentur, quoniam secundum ius feudi non debet quis duas fidelitates pro eodem feudo facere. [32.] [V2 150.5 Filios tantum secundi matrimonii matri in feudum succedere] Mulier, quae feudum secundi viri contemplatione acquisierat, si ex utroque matrimonio superstitibus liberis decesserit, solos ex secundo viro susceptos filios ad feudi successionem admitti, usu curiarum obtentum est. |
[29.] [V2 150.3 That the emperor [has to] either lose the fief or present another vassal in his place] I know, from a real case,1 that it happened that Frederick, our prince, since initially he was a duke and did fealty for the duchy, after being made emperor by God’s will, was asked to do fealty for the duchy. And he answered to the lord who asked it that he was not bound to do fealty, as all humankind ought to do fealty to him, while he himself [should do so] only to God and the Roman pontiff. However, since the lord of that fief insisted and a dispute would have arisen over this matter, it prudently seemed right to the great nobles that either the fief should be lost or another duke should be established in the duchy, who ought to render service for that fief and do fealty to its lord. [30.] [V2 150.4 That a church should not do fealty] Concerning the case about which you decided to consult us, we briefly respond to you in accordance with the law of [this] court and the usage of fiefs, that for a fief that is held from someone by a church no fealty should be done. [31.] [V2 150.4bis That a vassal is not compelled to do two fealties for one fief] Moreover, we also want you to learn that if a lord from whom a fief was held passes away having left several heirs, the vassals who jointly hold that fief are not compelled to do fealty for that fief unless the lords first divide that fief [among themselves], because according to the law of fiefs no one ought to do two fealties for the same fief. [32.] [V2 150.5 That only the sons from a second marriage succeed the mother to a fief] If a woman who had acquired a fief in consideration of [her marriage] with a second husband dies with children surviving from both marriages, it has been decided by the usage of courts that only the sons she had from the second husband are allowed to succeed to the fief. |
No such situation is known to have occurred regarding either Frederick I, or Frederick II.
|
[33.] [V2 150.6 (part 1) Casus, quibus femina in feudo succedit] Si cui militi ad certum servitium feudum fuerit datum, isque relicta ex se descendente femina decesserit, quae id servitium iuxta feudi conditionem non minus decenter praestare possit quam masculus, etsi in investitura minime cautum sit, ut et feminae ad id adspirare valeant, eam tamen admitti, rectum putamus; quin immo hoc casu simul cum masculo in feudo eam succedere, quidam putant. Quod multo magis dignum observantia existimavimus, cum feudum sic datum est, ‘ut nullum pro eo servitium fiat’, ut pleraque hodie feuda dantur. [34.] [V2 150.6 (part 2)] Item si quis eo tenore de feudo aliquo sit investitus, ‘ut in eo succedant feminae sicut masculi’, sive feudum id ad certum fuerit datum servitium, sive pro eo indeterminate fuerit promissum servitium, investito moriente in feudum succedunt pariter et mares et feminae. Quamquam enim superstite masculo ex eo, qui primus feudum acquisivit, feminae excludantur, etsi in maribus et feminis fuerat acquisitum, ut in feudis regulariter tradi solet, sermonem tamen investiturae, nec non vim verborum et sensum contrahentium intuentes, discretionem sexus in eiusmodi feudi successione non fecimus. [35.] [V2 150.7] Iugales a quodam milite simul de eodem feudo investiti fuerant, ‘ut in se descendentesque suos id haberent’. Hi ex se filio et filia superstitibus defuncti sunt, inter quos feudi quaestio agitatur. Masculus enim universum feudum sibi vindicat, femina vero ad parentum feudum pariter cum fratre vocari se defendit. Quidam pro masculo, quidam pro femina pronuntiant. Eorum, qui pro filia iudicant, sententiam sequendam esse censeo, cum filia ex antedictorum iugalium contubernio superest, ex praedefuncta uxore alio suscepto masculo, qui consanguineus ad eam frater sit; in ceteris priorum sententia sane sequenda est. Quodsi sola ex eo matrimonio relicta filia, nullo ex eo vel alio connubio superstite masculo, ab hac luce subtracti fuerint, feudum scindi fert prudentum |
[33.] [V2 150.6 (part 1) Cases in which a woman succeeds to a fief] If a fief is given to a knight for a specific service, and he dies leaving a woman descending from him who could render that service according to the condition to which the fief is subject no less fittingly than a male would, even if in the investiture there is no provision as to the option that also women may aspire to it, we nonetheless think it right that she is admitted. In fact, some think that in this case she succeeds to the fief together with males. We have considered that this deserves all the more to be observed when a fief is given in such a way that no service is to be rendered for it, just as many fiefs are given today. [34.] [V2 150.6 (part 2)] Also, if anyone is invested with any fief on the terms that ‘women are to succeed to it just as men’, whether it is given in return for a specific service or service is indeterminately promised for it, when he who has been invested dies, men and women equally succeed to the fief. For although women should be excluded when a male descendant survives from him who first acquired the fief—even if it had been acquired [as inheritable] by both men and women, as is common, as a general rule, in transfers of fiefs—nonetheless, inspecting the wording of the investiture as well as the meaning of its words and the intention of the contracting parties, we have not made any distinction of sex in relation to the succession to such a fief. [35.] [V2 150.7] Two spouses had been jointly invested with the same fief by a certain knight so that they would have it ‘for themselves and their descendants’. They died with a son and a daughter surviving, between whom a case is raised over the fief because the male claims the entire fief for himself, but the woman defends herself [asserting] that she is to be called [to succeed] to their parents’ fief equally with the brother. Some pronounce in favour of the male, some in favour of the woman. I consider that the opinion of those who judge in favour of the daughter should be followed when the daughter survives from the union of the aforementioned spouses, and another male child was born of a predeceased wife, and he is the daughter’s brother by blood [i.e., born of the same father]. In other circumstances, the opinion of the former ones should be certainly followed. And if they [i.e. the spouses] are taken away from this earthly life with only a daughter left from that marriage and no surviving male from that or another union, the opinion |
|
nostrae civitatis opinio, ut dimidiam quidem partem femina sibi acquirat, reliquam vero dominus aut eius heres accipiat. [36.] [V2 150.8 De feudis habitationum] Feuda habitationum, nisi aliud specialiter cautum sit, morte accipientium finiuntur. [37.] [V2 150.9 Imperator Henricus] Imperator Henricus.1 Si contigerit feudum incuria aut fidelis neglectu consortibus applicari, nullum ex eo levamen detrusus excipiat, ne senioris sui contemtus illusus fiat, ob quem feudum iure dimiserat. Sane qui aliter fecerint, quam quod mens saluberrimae nostrae constitutionis exposcit, beneficio se carituros esse cognoscant, ita ut eis amplius sperare non liceat, seniori danda licentia tam ab ipsis eorumque posteris, quam ceteris detentoribus praedictum beneficium vendicandi. [38.] [V2 150.10 Servos post delatam successionem manumissos in feudum non succedere] Quaesitum scio dudumque apud prudentes fuisse causam hanc, si servi, quibus macula servitutis obstaculo fuerat, libertate donati fuerint, an ad feudi successionem valeant adspirare? Denique post magnas varietates obtinuit sententia distinguentium, quo tempore libertatis donum assecuti fuerint, ut, siquidem eo tempore, quo coheres alter, utpote his constitutis inhabilibus, aut dominus quasi ad se devolutum vindicasset, ab eius successione sint penitus alieni, ne, quod legitime factum est, superveniente facto postea retractetur; qui, si re integra manumissi fuerint, in feudum recte succedere queunt. |
of the experts of our city recommends that the fief be divided so that the woman is to acquire half of it for herself, whilst the lord or his heir is to receive the remaining half. [36.] [V2 150.8 Concerning ‘fiefs of habitation’] ‘Fiefs of habitation’1, unless some other provision is specifically made, are concluded at the death of those who receive them. [37.] [V2 150.9 Emperor Henry] Emperor Henry. If it happens that a fief, by the carelessness or neglect of a vassal, is assigned to [the fief’s] coheirs, the dispossessed man is not to receive any relief from it, lest the disdain of his lord, for which he had lawfully lost the fief, is made an object of ridicule. Indeed, they who behave differently from what the intention of our soundest constitution demands, are to know that they shall be deprived of the benefice so that they may not have further hope [for its recovery]. And the lord should be allowed to claim the aforesaid benefice from these ones and their offspring, as well as from anyone who is withholding it. [38.] [V2 150.10 That slaves emancipated after successors have been designated do not succeed to a fief] I know that this case has formerly been discussed before the experts. If slaves, for whom the blot of slavery had been an impediment, are granted the gift of liberty, may they aspire to succession to a fief? After major disagreements, the opinion eventually prevailed of those who made a distinction as to the time when they have obtained the gift of liberty. If indeed [they have obtained it] when another coheir—suppose because these [i.e. the slaves] have been declared unsuitable—or the lord had [already] claimed it as it were to devolve to him, they are to be entirely excluded from succession to it, so that what has been legitimately done is not revoked by an act occurring subsequently. If they have been emancipated when the matter [of succession] was not decided yet, they are able to succeed to a fief rightfully. |
MGH, Constitutiones, i, 105 (n. 57). The document is ascribed to Henry III (1047–1056), but the attribution is uncertain.
A ‘feudum habitationis’ is a fief consisting in the right of dwelling in a place, or which is given on the agreement that the holder is to reside in the fief.
|
[39.] [V2 150.11 Ut vasalli sumtibus domini servitia praestent] Antiquatum esse ipsis rerum experimentis nos ipsi cognovimus, fideles, nisi aliud contractibus pactiones insertae desiderent, dominorum sumptibus eisdem servitia ministrare. Iustum namque est, ut illi consequantur stipendium, quo tempore suum commodare reperiuntur obsequium, praesertim cum nec quisquam propriis cogatur impendiis militare, maxime cum extra civitatis suae tentoria servitiis exhibendis eos convenit fatigari. [40.] [V2 150.12 Gregorius septimus]1 Gregorius septimus. Si quis imperator[um], regum, ducum, marchionum, comitum vel quarumlibet2 saecularium potestatum aut personarum investituram episcopatuum vel alicuius ecclesiasticae dignitatis dare praesumpserit, ecclesiastica communione privetur. [41.] [V2 150.13]3 Quoniam investituras contra sanctorum patrum auctoritatem a laicis ex multis partibus cognovimus fieri, et ex eo plurimas perturbationes in ecclesia, immo ruinam sanctae religionis oriri, ex quibus Christiana religio4 conturbatur, decernimus, ut nullus clericorum investituras episcopatus, vel abbatiae, vel ecclesiae de manu imperatoris, vel regis, vel alicuius laicae personae, viri vel feminae, suscipiat. Quod si praesumpserint, recognoscant, investituram illam ab apostolica auctoritate irritam esse, et se usque ad dignam satisfactionem excommunicationi subiacere. |
[39.] [V2 150.11 That vassals provide services at the lord’s expense] We ourselves have gathered, based on our experience with these matters, that it has long been the case that vassals provide services to their lords at the latter’s expenses unless agreements inserted in their contracts would require otherwise. It is indeed just that they obtain reward when they are found to offer their due services, especially since no one is to be obliged to render military support at their own expenses, least of all when it is arranged that they exert themselves by performing service outside the territories of their cities.1 [40.] [V2 150.12 Gregory the seventh] [Pope] Gregory the seventh. If any emperor, king, duke, marquess, count, or any secular power or person presume to give investiture of bishoprics or any other ecclesiastical office, he should be deprived of the communion of the Church.2 [41.] [V2 150.13] Since we have gathered from many quarters that, contrary to the authority of the Holy Fathers, investitures are made by lay persons and, from this, many disturbances arise in the church, and even the ruin of holy religion, whereby the Christian religion is confounded,3 we decree that no cleric is to receive investiture of a bishopric, or an abbey, or a church from the hand of the emperor, or the king, or any other layperson, whether men or women. And if they presume to do so, they are to know that, by Apostolic authority, that investiture is made invalid, and they will undergo excommunication until appropriate satisfaction [has been made]. |
Decr. C. 16. q. 7 c. 12, par. 1, Gregory VII, (1080).
V2 quilibet.
Decr. C. 16 q. 7 c. 13, Gregory VII (1078).
I follow here V2. V1 ex quibus censuris religio.
Since it seems likely that ‘tentoria’ (‘military camps’) derives from a misreading of ‘territoria’, I have translated the latter. A literal translation would be: ‘outside the camps of their cities’.
I.e., be excommunicated.
According to V1, the translation would be ‘and from these judgments (!) [our] religion is confounded’. Decr. C. 16 q. 7 c. 13: ‘ex quibus Christianae censurae religio’ (‘from which faith in the Christian judgment is confounded’).
|
[41bis.] [V2 150.14]1 Si quis clericus, abbas, vel monachus per laicos ecclesias obtinuerit, excommunicationi subiaceat. [42.] [V2 150.15]2 Constitutiones sanctorum canonum sequentes statuimus, ut quicunque clericorum ab hac hora investituram ecclesiae vel ecclesiasticae dignitatis de manu laici acceperit, et qui3 ei manum imposuerit, gradus sui periculo subiaceat et communione privetur. [43.] [V2 150.16]4 Maius est possessionem dare, quam sit investituram concedere. [44.] [V2 150.17 Vasallum feudum posse in alium arctiori lege transferre] Nulla iuris constitutione aut consuetudinis ususque longaevi observantia prohiberi sciscitatus invenio, vasallum arctiori, quam ipse habeat, lege feudum in alium ubilibet posse transferre. [45.] [V2 150.18]5 Longinquitate temporis fit saepe, ut non pateat conditio originis, unde iam statutum est, ut professionem suam liberti ecclesiae debeant facere, qua profiteantur, se et de familia ecclesiae esse et eius obsequium nunquam relicturos. His quoque adiicimus, ut, quoties cursum vitae sacerdos impleverit, et de hac vita migraverit, mox cum successor eius advenerit, omnes liberti ecclesiae vel ab eis progeniti chartulas suas in conspectu |
[41bis.] [V2 150.14] If any cleric, abbot, or monk obtains churches by laypersons, he is to undergo excommunication. [42.] [V2 150.15] Following the provisions of the holy canons, we establish that any cleric who, henceforth, receives investiture of a church or an ecclesiastical office from the hand of a layperson, and the person who laid his hand on him,1 shall be liable to demotion in rank and be deprived of communion.2 [43.] [V2 150.16] To give possession constitutes a greater right than to grant an investiture. [44.] [V2 150.17 That a vassal may transfer a fief to another under a stricter condition] After investigating this matter, I find that it is not prohibited by any provision of the law or by the observance of custom and long-standing usage that a vassal may transfer anywhere a fief to another under a stricter condition than the one under which he has it. [45.] [V2 150.18] Due to the lapse of time, it often happens that [someone’s] original condition is not clear. Hence, it has been previously decreed that the freed slaves of a church ought to make a public promise, by which they are to profess themselves to belong to the dependents of that church and that they will never leave its service. To this, we add that whenever a priest concludes his course of life and departs from this life, as soon as his successor arrives, all the freed slaves of that church and they who are born of them |
Decr. C. 16 q. 7 c. 16, Paschal II, 1107.
Decr. C. 16 q. 7 c. 17, Paschal II, 1107.
V2 et ipse, et qui.
Decr. C. 16 q. 2 c. 1, par. 1.
Decr. C. 12 q. 2 c. 64: Third Council of Toledo, 589.
In the ritual of investiture.
I.e., be excommunicated.
|
omnium debent ipsi, qui substituitur, pontifici publicare, et professionem in conspectu ecclesiae renovare, quatenus status sui vigorem illi obtineant, et oboedientia eorum ecclesia non careat. Sin autem scripturas libertatis suae intra annum ordinationis novi pontificis manifestare contempserint, aut professiones renovare noluerint, vacuae et inanes chartulae ipsae remaneant, et illi, origini suae redditi, sint perpetuo servi. [46.] [V2 150.19]1 Liberti ecclesiae, quia nunquam eorum moritur patrona, a patrocinio ecclesiae nunquam discedant, nec posteritas quidem eorum, sicut priores canones decreverunt. Ac ne forte libertinitas eorum in futura prole non pateat, ipsa quoque2 posteritas se ab ecclesiae patrocinio non subtrahat, necesse est, ut tam iidem liberti quam eius progeniti3 professionem episcopo suo faciant, per quam ex familia ecclesiae libertos se esse fateantur; eius4 patrocinium non relinquant, sed iuxta virtutem suam obsequium ei vel obedientiam praebeant. [47.] [V2 150.20]5 Quicunque fidelium propria devotione de facultatibus suis aliquid ecclesiae contulerunt, si forte ipsi aut filii eorum redacti fuerint ad inopiam, ab eadem ecclesia suffragium vitae temporis usu percipiant. [48.] [V2 150.21 Clericatu feudum amitti]6 Et iure et moribus receptum est, vasallum clericali se militiae dedicantem feudum amittere. Scriptum est enim in divinis eloquiis: ‘Miles Christi serviat Christo, milites saeculi serviant saeculo’.7 |
ought to show, in the sight of all, their charters1 to the priest who has filled his place, and renew the public promise before the church, so that they obtain validation of their status and the church is not deprived of their obedience. If, however, they avoid exhibiting the writings attesting to their liberation within a year of the ordination of the new priest or refuse to renew their public promises, those charters are to remain null and void and they, being returned to their original status, are to be slaves forever. [46.] [V2 150.19] The freed slaves of a church, since their patron [church] never dies, are to never depart from the patronage of the church, nor indeed are their descendants, just as earlier canons have established. To prevent the possibility that their status of freed slaves becomes unclear in future generations, and also that those descendants withdraw themselves from the patronage of the church, it is necessary that both the freed slaves themselves and those born of them make a public promise to their bishop, through which they are to declare that they are freed slaves belonging to the dependents of that church. And they are not to abandon its patronage, but offer service and obedience to it, according to their capacity. [47.] [V2 150.20] If any believers have out of their devotion bestowed upon a church anything of their assets, and if they or their sons by chance have been reduced to poverty, by usage they are to receive support from the same church for the duration of their lives. [48.] [V2 150.21 That a fief is lost by taking clerical service] It is accepted by law and by practice that a vassal who devotes himself to the army of the clergy loses his fief, for it is written in the Holy Scriptures that a soldier of Christ is to serve Christ, soldiers of the secular world are to serve the secular world. |
Decr. C. 12 q. 2 c. 65: Third Council of Toledo, 589.
V2 ipsaque.
V2 ab eis progeniti.
V2 eiusque.
Decr. C. 16 q. 7 c. 30: Fourth Council of Toledo, 633.
Decr. C. 23 q. 8 c. 19: ‘breve’ by Pope Nicholas I (858–867).
Ref. to St Paul’s second letter to Timothy (2 Timothy, 2:3–4).
I.e., charters of emancipation.
|
[49.] [V2 150.22]1 Si quis episcopus, saecularibus potestatibus usus, ecclesias pro ipsis obtinuerit, deponatur et segregetur, omnesque, qui illi communicant. [50.] [V2 150.23]2 Illud per omnia interdicimus, ut nullus clericus praebendam suam seu beneficium aliquod ecclesiasticum aliquo modo alienare praesumat. Quod si praesumtum olim fuerit3 vel aliquando fuerit, irritum erit, et ultioni canonicae subiacebit. [51.] [V2 150.24]4 Quicunque militum vel cuiuscunque ordinis vel professionis persona praedia ecclesiastica a quocunque rege seu saeculari principe vel ab episcopis invitis seu abbatibus aut ab aliquibus ecclesiarum rectoribus suscepit,5 vel invaserit, vel eorum consensu tenuerit, nisi eadem praedia ecclesiae restituat, excommunicationi subiaceat. [52.] [V2 150.25]6 Si tributum petit imperator, non negamus: agri ecclesiae solvant tributum. Si agros ecclesiae desiderat imperator, potestatem habet vindicandorum, tollat eos, si libitum |
[49.] [V2 150.22] If any bishop enjoying the friendship of secular powers obtains churches on their behalf, he is to be deposed and banished, and so anyone who associates with him. [50.] [V2 150.23] In all respects, we forbid that any cleric presume to alienate in any way his prebend or any ecclesiastical benefice; and if he has presumed in the past, or presumes at any time, [to do so], it shall be void, and he shall undergo canonical punishment. [51.] [V2 150.24] Any knight, or any person belonging to any class or profession, who receives ecclesiastical lands from any king or secular prince, or from bishops or abbots or other holders of churches1 against their will, or if he seizes those lands, or holds them with their consent [i.e., of secular princes],2 is to undergo excommunication unless he restores those lands to the church. [52.] [V2 150.25] If the emperor demands a tribute, we do not deny it: the lands of the church are to pay the tribute. If the emperor desires the lands of the church, he has the power to claim them, he may take them if it pleases him. I do not give [them] to the emperor, but |
Decr. C. 16 q. 7 c. 14.
Decr. C. 12 q. 2 c. 37, par. 1: Pope Urban II (1088–1099).
Decr. fuit.
Decr. C. 12 q. 2 c. 4: Pope Gregory VII (1078).
V2 susceperit.
Decr. C. 11 q. 1 c. 27: Ambrosius (d. 397), ‘Contra Auxentium’. V1 and V2 failed to notice that the second part (‘quia non ecclesia’ etc.) is a misread excerpt from Decr. C. 23 q. 8 c. 22.
‘Rector ecclesiae’: an ecclesiastical person put in charge of the guidance and administration of a church.
This sentence is ambiguous, as it is unclear to whose consent the text refers. According to some traditions, e.g., Corpus Juris Canonici emendatum et notis illustratum. Gregorii XIII. pont. max. iussu editum (In aedibus Populi Romani; Romae, 1582), i, 1307–1308, the Latin text would be: ‘vel de rectorum depravato seu vitioso consensu tenuerit’ (‘or hold them with the corrupted or vicious consent of the holders [of the churches]’). This variant would fit with the context; the reference edition of the Decretum (ed. Leipzig, 1879; repr. Graz, 1959), however, offers the same text as the one transmitted in V1 and V2.
|
est. Imperatori non do, sed non nego, quia non ecclesia dari imperatori, non pontificalis apex more capitis ecclesiae praeminens potest subiici regibus. [53.] [V2 150.26]1 De his, quae clerici emerint vel vivorum donationibus acceperint, consueta principibus debent obsequia, ut et annua eis persolvant tributa et vocato exercitu cum eis, consensu tamen Romani pontificis, proficiscantur ad castra. |
neither do I refuse them [to him]—because the church cannot be given to the emperor, nor can the pontifical highness, superior by the custom of the head of the church, be subjected to kings.1 [53.] [V2 150.26] Concerning those [properties] which clerics buy, or receive by donations of the living, they owe customary services to princes, so that they are to pay them annual tributes and, once the army has been summoned, they are to set out with them for the military camps, with the consent, however, of the Roman pontiff. |
Decr. C. 23 q. 8 c. 25: dictum Gratiani.
This chapter combines two texts from the Decretum, with the second one being misread, and provides therefore a confusing outcome. The first one ends at ‘sed non nego’, and its translation does not present any particular issue. The second one is an extract from C. 23 q. 8 c. 22, with reference to Matthew (17:24–27): ‘Tributum in ore piscis, piscante Petro, inventum est; quia de exterioribus suis, que palam cunctis apparent, tributum ecclesia reddit. Non autem totum piscem dare iussus est, sed tantum staterem, qui in ore eius inuentus est, quia non ecclesia dari imperatori, non pontificalis apex, qui in ore capitis ecclesiae preminet, subici regibus potest’. (‘A tribute was found in the mouth of a fish, while Peter was fishing. Since this tribute comes from outside the fish, which is plainly apparent to everyone, the church pays it. However, the command is to give not the whole fish but only the silver coin that was found in its mouth: because the church cannot be given to the emperor, nor can the pontifical highness, which rises above the mouth of the church’s head, be subjected to kings’). In the chapter translated here, there is an evident misreading of ‘more’ (‘by the custom’) for the original ‘in ore’ (‘in the mouth’), which distorts the overall meaning of the text but makes it fit, somehow, with the first part of this chapter.