1 Outline of Stella’s book
This book holds, as its main content, a Latin version and a new English translation of the Libri feudorum (henceforth mostly: lf), that most peculiar part of the Corpus iuris civilis. The other parts of the Corpus iuris civilis date from no later than the 6th Century. They were either codified by Justinian (the Institutiones, the Digesta and the Codex) or enacted (but not codified) mainly by Justinian (the Novels). The Libri feudorum came into being roughly between around 1100 and around 1270. They have neither been enacted nor codified by any competent legislator but have been composed by judges, other practitioners and scholars, who recorded in them contemporary practices and customary law, beside some legislation enacted by or attributed to emperors and kings of the Holy Roman Empire and the Lombard Kingdom (9th–13th centuries) and a number of rules derived from Justinian’s Digesta, Codex and Novels, from canon law (the Decretum Gratiani) and from Lombard law (the Lombarda).
The Latin text which Stella translated is Lehmann’s 1896 version of the Vulgata1 (henceforth: Lehmann 1896), by Stella referred to as ‘V1’, including the so called Capitula Extraordinaria, both those that go under the name of Iacobus de Ardizone (Appendix 1) and those that (wrongly used to) go under the name of Baraterius (Appendix 2). Stella added the Edictum de beneficiis Regni Italici of Emperor Conrad ii, 1037, in the version of the Monumenta Germaniae Historiae (Appendix 3). Lehmann’s 1896 version diverges often (in the text, the rubricae and the division in titles and paragraphs, as well as in their numbering) from the standard edition of the lf cum annexis of Eduard Osenbrüggen2, 18403, referred to as ‘V2’. Stella reports the most important divergences from Osenbrüggen’s Vulgata. Additionally, when the Latin text of V1 and V2 is puzzling, he also refers to an early modern printed edition of the lf, part of a Corpus iuris civilis edition with the Glossa ordinaria, Venetiis 15744, referred to as ‘V3’ (in some 11 cases), or to one or more of six manuscripts (in some eight cases).
The Latin text and its translation (p. 55-245) are preceded by a preface and a list of abbreviations (p. ix-x) and four introductory chapters (p. 1-54). In the introductory chapters 1-3 Stella aims at offering a guide through the making of the lf and at showing their relevance to modern historiography. In chapter 4 ‘notes to the translation’ are given. The Latin version and its translation are followed by a ‘synoptic table’, holding the rubrication of the two Vulgata versions and of the so called Antiqua (p. 246-262), a useful ‘glossary’ (p. 263-267), a ‘bibliography’ (p. 268-281) and four indexes (p. 282-300).
2 A debate among historians on ‘feudalism’
Chapter 1 and Chapter 3.3 are devoted to what Stella calls a debate between historians about ‘the question of how a localised body of norms’, i.e. the lf, ‘might relate to developments in society, politics, and law in the various contexts in which these norms were studied and discussed’. From Stella’s point of view, as developed in Chapter 1, such a debate was provoked by Elizabeth Brown’s essay The tyranny of a construct (1974) and was then started by Susan Reynolds’ ‘famous’ (?5) book Fiefs and vassals (1994). Chapter 3.3, under the heading ‘The Libri feudorum and Feudalism: Open questions’, continues this theme. The mouse that these mountains gave birth to, seems to be that there is now ‘general agreement’ on the point ‘that historians should use the “feudal” vocabulary more cautiously, as it is clear how these categories usually rest on modern notions rather than reflect what evidence offers’. This debate concerns ‘feudalism’ as a factor in European social history; it hardly concerns ‘feudal law’. As its outcome would seem to be of little importance for the history of the lf and for understanding their legal content, it will not be further discussed in this recension.
3 Formation of the Libri feudorum and their Glossa ordinaria
In Chapter 2 describes Stella ‘The Formation of the Libri feudorum and Its Context’. The history of the formation of the lf (and that of their Glossa ordinaria) is notoriously complicated, and its description has suffered, over the ages, from gross and minor errors and from the contesting of those errors. It would seem that today the views of Peter Weimar, as expressed and extensively documented in 1990 and 19976, are generally regarded as most authoritative and convincing, even though details may remain open to discussion. This entails that one must now be intent on points where Weimar’s views of 1990 diverge from his masterly survey Die legistische Literatur der Glossatorenzeit, 19737. It is perhaps useful when I summarize Weimar’s views here. These views were based on Weimar’s study of 162 manuscripts of the various versions of the lf, 136 of them accompanied by glosses, 26 without glosses. Stella appears largely to endorse Weimar’s views, and he amply and beautifully situates the formation of the lf against the social background in Lombardy, 11th–13th century8.
Three stages of the formation of the lf have been perceived. In the years from around 1100 until around 1150, a first version now known as the Antiqua (or recensio Obertina) gradually took shape. ‘Obertina’ refers to Obertus de Orto, who wrote some tracts included in this version9. The Antiqua has been identified by Weimar in seven manuscripts10. A second stage runs during the remaining half of the 12th century; in that period a version now known as the recensio Ardizoniana came into being, again in several steps. ‘Ardizoniana’ misleadingly refers to Iacobus de Ardizone: this recensio was available decades before Ardizone was born and Ardizone did not base his Summa feudorum on it11.
The recensio Ardizoniana has been identified by Weimar in 21 manuscripts12. A third stage runs until around 1250; during that stage the Vulgata versio was developed, always by way of expanding the text with new matter and excluding other matter from it. Since 199013, we are prompted to seeing three consecutive variants in this third stage. (1) The first variant is a ‘proto-vulgata’ compiled by Accursius on the basis of the recensio Ardizoniana; it has been identified by Weimar in four manuscripts14. (2) The second variant is the Vulgata proper, an adaptation of an Accursian version which took its final shape from the pen of an unknown glossator, without Accursius’ participation; it has been identified by Weimar in 121 manuscripts15. (3) The third variant is a so-called recensio Accursiana; it has been identified by Weimar in 13 manuscripts16. The Vulgata proper is the one we know from the printed editions with the Glossa ordinaria. The recensio Accursiana is a further enlarged recension of the proto-vulgata from the pen of Accursius, which, however, could no more supersede the Vulgata proper, rooted already in practice (the earlier view, now abandoned, was that Accursius had edited also the Vulgata proper17). Even, however, after Weimar’s fundamental study of 1990, the Vulgata proper is often still referred to as the ‘Accursian version’ or the ‘recensio Accursiana’ – erroneously, but it remains true that Accursius’ contribution to the Vulgata proper is substantial.
The distinction into these versions must not be taken too strictly. It has been qualified as quite artificially made; the later versions should better be regarded as enlargements of the first version, a torso formed already in its essential features18. In particular, Lehmann’s reconstruction of the Antiqua, by means of in- or excluding the numerous variants presented by the six manuscripts which Lehmann based that reconstruction on, has been qualified as ‘open to questions’19. Stella appears to subscribe to Weimar’s views, while admitting that the three versions have ‘to some extent artificially’ been distinguished and agreeing, on the basis of his own analysis ‘of all the manuscripts containing the Antiqua and their differences’, with the judgment about the artificiality of Lehmann’s edition20.
Like the other parts of the Corpus iuris civilis the Libri feudorum were accompanied by glosses, soon enough standardised into the Glossa ordinaria. While Accursius is the author/compiler of the standard version of the Glossa ordinaria for those other parts, for the Libri feudorum the final redaction of the Glossa ordinaria is (again, just as the final redaction of the lf Vulgata) the work of an unknown other glossator, who revised and adapted an elementary version of glosses compiled by Accursius. Accursius himself had compiled that elementary version to accompany his own proto-vulgata, systematising and harmonizing the disparate earlier glosses to the lf, in the same way as he had done before for the other parts of the Corpus iuris civilis. The core of those earlier glosses to the lf is Pillius’ incomplete apparatus (probably dating from 1192 or a little later) to the recensio Ardizoniana, almost entirely recycled by Accursius towards 1225 (the earlier view, now abandoned, was that Accursius had authored also the final version, by slightly revising and expanding an earlier version composed by Iacobus Columbi, built on Pillius’ incomplete apparatus21). Accursius’ elementary version of glosses has indeed been identified in two manuscripts, where it accompanied the proto-vulgata22.
When Accursius later on prepared his recensio Accursiana of the lf, he also made new glosses in order to accompany the new parts of that recensio. The new glosses were fused with the elementary version into an enlarged version of Accursius’ apparatus, after 1228 or even after 1234. Accursius’ enlarged version has been identified in 18 manuscripts, where it often (in 11 of them) accompanies the recensio Accursiana of the lf23.
However, instead of Accursius’ enlarged version of the glosses, the revision and adaptation of the elementary version of Accursius’ apparatus, edited around 1250 by that unknown other glossator (without Accursius’ new glosses), became the standard company of the Vulgata, the Glossa ordinaria to the lf. It has been identified in 118 manuscripts24. Thus, (18 + 118 =) 136 of the 162 manuscripts of the various versions of the lf are accompanied either by Accursius’ elementary version, and/or by Accursius’ enlarged version, or, mostly, by the Glossa ordinaria; the 26 remaining manuscripts are without glosses.
Once the Libri feudorum, in the form of the proper Vulgata, had received their Glossa ordinaria, they found their way into the Corpus iuris civilis, at first occasionally, at Bologna, and soon enough elsewhere in Italy and beyond. From about 1270 standard manuscripts of the Corpus iuris civilis, with or without the Glossa ordinaria, contain the Vulgata25. It was added to the Volumen parvum, until then made up of Books 10-12 of the Codex (the Tres Libri) and the Latin version of the Novels (the Authenticum). The Authenticum had been divided into nine Collationes; thus the Libri feudorum were often called Collatio decima, the tenth Collatio26.
Stella does not discuss extensively how the Glossa ordinaria to the lf has been formed and does not mention, explicitly, that Accursius’ elementary version of it has been finally completed by an unknown glossator, so as to become the Glossa ordinaria of the lf. Stella’s references to ‘the glossa ordinaria feudorum by Accursius’ and to ‘Accursius’s [sic] standardisation of the text [sc. of the lf] and its commentary [sc. the Glossa ordinaria]’ seem to be inaccurate27.
4 Manuscripts of the Libri feudorum and their Glossa ordinaria
Lehmann 1896 listed 141 manuscripts of the lf (1-139, 47a and 101a). Weimar (in 1990 and in 1997) listed 162 lf manuscripts (1-160, plus 80bis and 80ter in the addenda et emendanda 1997). Weimar that way added 40 manuscripts to Lehmann’s 141 manuscripts; conversely, he did not include 19 of them. The manuscripts Weimar added are: two manuscripts of the recensio Obertina, eight of the recensio Ardizoniana, three of the recensio Accursiana, and 27 of the proto-vulgata and the Vulgata proper. Of the 19 manuscripts of Lehmann’s list which Weimar excluded, seven manuscripts covered only one or more ‘ronkalische Gesetze’ (lf 2.53-56)28. Four of Lehmann’s manuscripts may have been regarded by Weimar as irrelevant (e.g., Lehmann’s no. 121 is not a manuscript of the lf but a printed edition of a collection of notes on feudal law29). Of three manuscripts of Lehmann’s list (numbers 20, 21 and 35) the whereabouts are now unknown. The remaining five manuscripts of Lehmann’s list which did not return in Weimar’s list (numbers 25, 26, 28, 63 and 94), had perished between 1896 and 199030.
It follows from the foregoing that in 1896 the lf had been conserved in at least (141 + 40 – 11 =) 170 manuscripts, and that eight of these have perished or otherwise been lost after 1896. According to Weimar (18 + 118 =) 136 of his 162 lf manuscripts are accompanied by the original and/or an enlarged version of Accursius’ Apparatus or by the Glossa ordinaria to the lf.
Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus … To the eminent feudist Gérard Giordanengo happened a mistake when he wrote that according to Dolezalek (Verzeichnis der Handschriften zum römischen Recht bis 1600, Frankfurt am Main 1972) ‘près de 200’ lf manuscripts or fragments are known ‘dont 88 avec la glose d’Accurse’31. Later the error increased: ‘Les Libri feudorum sont conservés dans 200 manuscrits, presque tous munis de la glose d’Accurse’32. In fact, Dolezalek’s data base lists now 187 manuscripts related to the lf; these include five perished manuscripts, but also some manuscripts which do not contain the lf but instead either compendia, excerpta and reconcinnationes of the lf, or only very short fragments of them, and are therefore excluded from Weimar’s 162 manuscripts. Moreover, not ‘almost all’, but 136 (84%) of the 162 manuscripts are glossed. Likewise, the eminent feudist Gerhard Dilcher was mistaken in writing that we dispose of ‘weit über zweihundert überlieferten … Handschriften’ and that Weimar describes and lists ‘160 [Handschriften] zuzüglich 118 glossierte Handschriften’33. Weimar does not list 160 but 162 manuscripts, and not 118 but 136 glossed manuscripts; and those 136 are not zuzüglich to, but included among the 162 manuscripts.
5 The Libri feudorum throughout Europe until 1900
In Chapter 3.1-2 Stella draws a smart and sharp bird’s-eye view of ‘The Afterlife of the Libri feudorum’, from the 13th century until the end of the 19th century34. Very useful is Stella’s survey of the problems concerning the authority of the lf and their relation with court praxis. Apart from the position of the lf in Italy, inside and outside Lombardy, the position in some other parts of Europe are touched upon, such as France, Scotland, England and Germany, ending there up with Lehmann35.
6 Printed editions of the Latin text of the Libri feudorum cum annexis
As I will be referring to a number of printed editions of the lf cum annexis, and as some of them are not easily found36, it seems useful to list them here together.
As editio princeps, the first printed edition of the lf, is regarded their separate edition, with the Glossa ordinaria, published by Heinricus Eggesteyn, Argentorati 1472. Of the same edition also copies sine loco et anno are known37.
Just as the lf from about 1270 were usually included in the Corpus iuris civilis, as appendix to the Novels (‘Collatio decima’), with or without their Glossa ordinaria, they are often found in the many printed editions of the Volumen of the Corpus iuris civilis, onwards from 1476. Separate editions of the lf are few in number.
Iacobus Cuiacius, in his very influential separate edition, rearranged the lf in five books: De Feudis, Libri Quinque, Lugduni 1566, many later impressions. He did not stop at rearranging, he also critically revised and edited the text itself38. His liber primus roughly corresponds to the old Book 1. Cuiacius’ Book 2 holds only the old lf 2.1-22; the old lf 2.23-24 became his Book 3; most of the old lf 2.25-58 became the first part of his Book 4 (divided in titles 1-72). Cuiacius filled the rest of his Book 4 with 39 capitula extraordinaria (titles 4.73-109; title 4.104 includes three capitula), which he derived from Iacobus de Ardizone’s Summa super usibus feudorum39. His Book 5 contains 19 laws of emperors and kings, from the 10th to the 14th century, seven of them taken from the old Book 2, another two from the capitula extraordinaria in Ardizone’s Summa, the remaining ten from elsewhere.
Dionysius Gothofredus published his equally influential Corpus iuris civilis in 1583 (both an edition without annotation or glosses and one with his ‘notae’) and in 1589 (an edition with the Glossa ordinaria revised by Gothofredus); many later impressions until 178140. This littera Gothofrediana has long been the most authoritative Corpus iuris civilis edition. It is the product of a compromise between the many divergent views existing in the 16th century. Thus, with regard to the lf, Gothofredus adopted Cuiacius’ textual changes, but he stuck to the order and division in titles of the old Book 2 up to and including title 58, De notis feudorum. After lf 2.58, without interruption, Gothofredus follows with Cuiacius’ titles 73-109 (capitula extraordinaria), maintaining Cuiacius’ numbering (titles 73-109), as a new final part of Book 2 (therefore titles 2.59-72 are lacking). The lf cum annexis received their place at the end of the work, after the Authenticae seu Novellae constitutiones, before two indices (of all the leges of the Digesta and the Codex).
A famous edition was that of Simon van Leeuwen, Corpus iuris civilis, Amstelodami et Lugduni Batavorum 1663, also known as ‘the Elzevier edition’. It is a further revised edition41 of the 5th revised impression (‘repetitae quintum [sic] praelectionis’, 1624) of Gothofredus’ edition with ‘notae’. Again, the lf cum annexis follow the Novels cum annexis, but they are also followed by Tractatus ad ius varii, before the final indices.
A work which dominated the market between 1721 and 178942, apparently still being used, e.g., in French academic teaching until 1830, is Christophorus Henricus Freiesleben, ‘alias Ferromontanus’, Corpus juris civilis academicum, Altenburgi et Lipsiae, 1721, many new impressions until Coloniae Munatianae [= Basle] 178943. It reproduces in principle the littera Gothofrediana without the ‘notae’; its modest annotation consists of references to loci paralleli and contrarii; it does not give variae lectiones. Here the lf cum annexis follow again the Novels cum annexis, as the final part of vol. 2.
Georg Christian Gebauer & Georg August Spangenberg authored their excellent Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 1-2, Gottingae 1776-1797, the so-called Corpus iuris Gottingense44. Vol. 2 holds the lf Vulgata cum annexis, preceded by the Codex and the Novels. Gebauer alone, without Spangenberg’s cooperation, had prepared the edition of the lf Vulgata cum annexis; at his death in 1773 it was ready for press. Spangenberg, as he wrote in the preface of vol. 2 (1797), felt he could restrict himself to correcting the proofs45. Gebauer had based this edition on earlier printed editions and on five manuscripts of the lf, as Spangenberg quotes Gebauer in the same preface46.
Charles Michel Galisset is the editor of the Corpus juris civilis academicum Parisiense, Lutetiae Parisiorum 1830. It was meant to replace and improve on Freiesleben’s Academicum47. There have been many new impressions of this mediocre book, at least until 1878. Its annotation is as modest as that of Freiesleben’s Academicum: only loci paralleli and contrarii; no variae lectiones. Again, the lf cum annexis are the final part of the book. The Prospectus for Galisset’s book (1830) tells us that the text of the Digesta and the Codex had been collated ‘sur les éditions les plus estimées …, notamment sur celle d’Elzevier de 1663’48 and that the Institutiones had been taken from Cuiacius’ edition. It does not specify the source of the lf text.
Of Ioannes Ludovicus Guilielmus Beck’s Corpus iuris civilis edition, the first volume, holding the Institutiones and the first half of the Digesta, was published at Leipzig, 1825, in an 8° edition. Its final volume did not appear before 1834; it held, after the second part of the Novels et alia, at the end, the lf cum annexis49. This is the first lf edition which included the so called capitula extraordinaria Baraterii. In 1837 followed a 4° editio stereotypa; a number of new impressions appeared later.
The earlier Corpus iuris civilis editions have been ousted by the edition, commonly known as the Kriegel edition, the edition of ‘Albertus et Mauritius Fratres’ Kriegel, Aemilius Herrmann and Eduardus Osenbrüggen, 3 vols., Lipsiae 1840-184350. Its volume 3 was edited by Eduard Osenbrüggen: Corpus juris civilis, Pars tertia novellas et reliqua continens, Lipsiae 1840; editio stereotypa 1843; many new impressions, at least until 1887. It holds, as its final part – again preceded by the Novels et alia – a new, improved, edition of the Vulgata text of the Libri feudorum (p. 843-872), with seven Appendices (five numbered and two unnumbered, p. 873-893). Osenbrüggen took as basis for his edition of the lf cum annexis Beck’s recent edition51. He derived furthermore some variae lectiones from the only manuscript he studied himself, the Codex Hamburgensis with the Glossa ordinaria52. Most variae lectiones, however, he took over from Gebauer & Spangenberg’s edition, as derived in that edition from five other manuscripts and from the printed editio princeps53. Osenbrüggen furthermore derived some variae lectiones from Cuiacius’ lf edition. Finally, he found some variae lectiones in passages of two further manuscripts, published by Ernst Adolph Laspeyres54, and in some other printed works. Osenbrüggen’s edition became soon, and perhaps still is, the standard edition of the lf Vulgata cum annexis.
Francesco Foramiti published his Corpo del diritto civile in cui si contengono le istituzioni di Giustiniano … e i libri de’ feudi, vol. 1-4, Venezia 1836-1844, no subsequent reprints. It is a Corpus iuris civilis edition, accompanied by Foramiti’s translation into Italian. The Latin text is based on Galisset’s mediocre Corpus juris civilis academicum Parisiense (1830), which in turn had been based on the last edition of Freiesleben’s Corpus juris civilis academicum (1789). The lf cum annexis form part of vol. 4. Foramiti’s annotation is not less modest than that of Galisset’s Academicum Parisiense and Freiesleben’s Academicum.
Today the most recent edition of the Latin text of the Antiqua (the recensio Obertina) and that of the Latin text of the lf Vulgata are those of Karl Lehmann: a critical edition of the Antiqua, 1892 (henceforth: Lehmann 1892), and, in Lehmann’s own opinion, a not yet critical edition ‘doch, einen sicheren Text’ of the Vulgata, 1896 (both reprinted 1971)55. Lehmann 1892 adduced six manuscripts which his edition of the Antiqua is based on, as is duly accounted for in the critical apparatus. Unlike this edition of the Antiqua, Lehmann’s 1896 edition of the Vulgata does not offer a critical apparatus for its text56. Lehmann 1896 listed 141 manuscripts (1-139, 47a and 101a); of these the six used in 1892 for the recensio Obertina, 16 for the recensio Ardizoniana, the remaining 119 for the Vulgata. Lehmann informs us (Vorrede, p. ii(72)) that he has examined ‘deren grösster Theil’, but he does neither visibly use them, nor indicate the manuscripts which his deviations from the standard version of the Vulgata are based on57. Lehmann 1896 also mentions a few printed lf Vulgata editions58, but, again, he does not visibly use them in his edition. It is therefore giving Lehmann too much honour when calling the 1896 edition a ‘critical edition’, as Stella (p. 46) does. Though the Latin text of the Vulgata had almost been canonized in the manuscripts onwards from the 13th century and the existing printed editions from 1472 until 1887, Lehmann amended and rearranged it in many places, almost entirely without substantiating his deviations from the standard edition of the Vulgata. His 1896 Vulgata edition thus diverges often from the Vulgata version as it had been part of the Corpus iuris civilis, and had been the basis for study, commentaries and references, for centuries59. An irritating consequence of Lehmann’s choice is that the titles of his Vulgata, in Book 1 after title 10 (titles 1.11-27) and in Book 2 after title 53 (titles 2.54-57), lag one number behind the corresponding titles of the traditional Vulgata (titles 1.12-28 and 2.55-58)60.
7 Capitula extraordinaria
In the footsteps of Osenbrüggen’s and Lehmann’s editions, Stella does also offer, after the lf proper, the so called Capitula extraordinaria61, just as they had been included in these editions, both those that go under the name of Iacobus de Ardizone (Appendix 1)62, and those that (used to) go under the name of Baraterius (Appendix 2). Capitula extraordinaria of the lf are texts outside the lf proper, but nevertheless regarded as so useful that they were added to some manuscripts and some printed editions after the lf proper, together with or without other extravagantes.
Starting from Emil Seckel’s and Peter Weimar’s groundbreaking studies63, and benefiting from his own thorough research on the Liber Ardizonis64, Stella gives, in chapter 2.7 (p. 27-29), a short history of their compilation. Most likely, Iacobus de Ardizone collected and systematised around 1230 a large mass of ‘extravagant material’ (but he was not their author), ‘almost two hundred’ capitula, taken from the Decretum Gratiani, papal decretals, imperial legislation, the Lombarda, the statutes of Verona, some anonymous tracts and commentaries on fiefs, and the Corpus iuris civilis.
A first part of this collection, 11 capitula, became already in the 13th century lf 2.57(58), De notis feudorum, of the Vulgata.
Cuiacius has been the first to insert a second part of these capitula extraordinaria in a printed edition of the lf: his rearranged and amended edition of the lf cum annexis (1566). As mentioned before, Cuiacius offered already 41 capitula; he had derived them from Iacobus de Ardizone’s Summa super usibus feudorum65, but he omitted from that Summa 13 other capitula, holding passages of the Decretum Gratiani. He presented 39 of those 41 capitula extraordinaria in titles 73-109 of his Book 4 (title 104 includes three capitula) and two more in his Book 5. Interestingly, Cuiacius notes in his comment to the first capitulum (Book 4 title 73): ‘With this title begin fragments or extraordinary chapters Ardizone and Alvarottus kept for us, so far neglected by all, but not less fruitful than the books above … Why, however, would their authority not be as great as that of the books above, or why would that of those be greater?’66. Later editors of the lf usually followed this example, but only in so far that after lf 2.58, Cuiacius’ titles 4.73-109 were inserted, as lf 2.73-109 (it is therefore that in these editions no titles 59-72 of Book 2 are found).
Finally, a third part of Ardizone’s collection, eight capitula, found their way to the printed editions of the lf c.a., after the feudists Carl Friedrich Dieck67 and Laspeyres68 had brought them again to the attention of the interested public. First in Beck’s edition (from 1834 onwards), and then in Osenbrüggen’s standard edition (from 1840 onwards), 62 capitula69 are printed after the lf proper, as ‘capitula extraordinaria’. The first 54 of these 62 capitula are the 41 which Cuiacius already offered, plus the 13 he left out, all originating from the part of Ardizone’s collection which Ardizone had included in his Summa. The eight that were added had not been included in Ardizone’s Summa. Dieck and Laspeyres had found them in a work of Bartholomaeus Baraterius, completed in 1442. Therefore they have sometimes erroneously been attributed to Baraterius. However, as has been discovered by that eminent legal historian and feudist Emil Seckel (1910), Baraterius in turn had in fact derived them from Ardizone’s collection70. Stella rightly points out (p. 54) that the subdivision of the capitula extraordinaria into separate parts, attributed respectively to Ardizone and Baraterius, conflicts with their true history, since perhaps all had been collected (not composed) by Ardizone around 1230. ‘For the sake of clarity’, however, because the capitula are still today generally cited according to Lehmann’s edition, Stella has maintained that subdivision. The users of his book will be grateful to him for that.
8 Conrad’s Law (1037)
On good grounds Stella finally added the Edictum de beneficiis Regni Italici of Emperor Conrad ii, 1037 (Appendix 3). As demonstrated in Stella’s excellent chapter 2.1, Conrad’s Law became ‘one of the foundational texts for the development of feudal laws’ (p. 8), ‘whether it established new norms or confirmed a pre-existing custom’ (p. 11).
Stella offers Conrad’s Law in the version of the editions in the Monumenta Germaniae Historiae (mgh Constitutiones I, no. 45 and mgh Diplomata Konrad ii, no. 244). A legal historian places a question mark here. Conrad’s Law had been included in the Lombarda (3.8.4) and has been applied, at least within the Lombard Kingdom, in the Lombarda’s wording. It had also been partly paraphrased, expanded and abbreviated in lf 1.22.2 and 2.34. Conrad’s Law was included in manuscripts of the lf71 (sometimes between lf 2.52 and 2.53). After Cuiacius had included it in his edition (1566)72, it figures in most printed editions of the lf c.a., lastly in Osenbrüggen’s edition, as a further capitulum extraordinarium73. The wording of the Lombarda, the manuscripts and those printed editions is always approximately that of Cuiacius’ edition. That wording, however, differs in many points from the mgh edition (in some cases the difference is not only a matter of formulation, but also of substance). Stella does neither tell us why he preferred the mgh version (dating from 1893 and 1909) over the traditional version, which has been part of the written law in force and discussed for centuries. Nor does Stella report the divergences of the mgh edition from that traditional version.
9 Additional texts not included
Like some manuscripts, most printed editions of the lf hold, after the lf proper, a number of other additional texts. Thus, e.g., Osenbrüggen’s standard edition gives, beside the Capitula extraordinaria Iacobi de Ardizone and the Capitula extraordinaria Baraterii five more Appendices: Capitula Ugonis de Gambolado, Capitula ordinaria passim in codicibus obvia, Capitula extraordinari[a] ex Cuiacii libro quinto De Feudis, Constitutiones aliquot imperatorum in prioribus non comprehensae, and finally Acta de Pace Constantiae. Stella’s decision not to include these additional texts is perfectly understandable, having in mind their lesser importance for understanding the content of the feudal law proper.
10 Stella’s Latin text of the Libri feudorum and the Capitula extraordinaria
With his book Stella aims, as he writes (p. ix and p. 53), at offering, – apart from the introductory chapters – on the one hand, a working, useful, Latin text based on ‘the principal and most widely used editions’ of the Libri feudorum and, on the other hand, an up-to-date English translation of the lf. I will now first address Stella’s Latin text.
As mentioned before, Stella’s new English translation is based on Karl Lehmann’s 1896 edition of the lf Vulgata. In Stella’s view, that edition is ‘the most widely diffused and cited among historians’. Lehmann’s Vulgata is referred to by Stella as ‘V1’. Stella is, of course, aware that Osenbrüggen’s Vulgata standard edition, from which Lehmann’s Vulgata often diverges, was before 1896 the most widely diffused and cited edition among legal historians. Osenbrüggen’s Vulgata is referred to by Stella as ‘V2’. Of course, Lehmann choose for his edition of the Antiqua and Vulgata as his starting point explicitly Osenbrüggen’s standard edition74. Fortunately, the ‘principal divergences’ between V1 (Lehmann’s Vulgata) and V2 (Osenbrüggen’s Vulgata) have at least been reported in Stella’s book. These reports are inserted, either both in the Latin text and in the translation, or in the footnotes to both, or in the footnotes to the Latin text only. The divergences concern (1) single words or phrases of the main text, (2) the rubrication of the text (the names of the titles), (3) the division of the text in titles and paragraphs, as well as their numbering75.
In only two cases of the first category (divergences between V1 and V2 concerning the main text), Stella preferred a V2-element over the V1-text, and then inserted the V2-element, in square brackets, [], in the main Latin V1-text and in the translation. See for these two cases lf 1.14(13).2 and 1.17(16).
In the remaining cases of that first category – where Stella had no preference for V2 over V1 – the V2-element has been consigned to the footnotes to the Latin text, not also inserted in the translation, nor, for the most, in the footnotes to the translation. However, if ‘the … divergences imply a change in the overall meaning of the Latin text’, a corresponding translation has been given in a footnote to the translation. So, e.g, in the opening phrase of lf 1.12(11), ‘Si contentio fuerit inter me et dominum de portione feudi fratris mei defuncti dicendo paternum esse’, translated as ‘If there is a dispute between me and the lord over my deceased brother’s portion of a fief, which I say is ancestral’76. In footnote 6 to the Latin text we are told that V2 holds: dicendo paternum esse et sic me debere succedere; in footnote 8 we are given the translation ‘and I say it is ancestral hence I ought to succeed’.
There are numerous cases of the second category (divergences between V1 and V2 concerning the rubrication of the text, the names of the titles). So, e.g., the rubric of book 1.3 is in V2 Qui successores feudum dare teneantur instead of Qui successores teneantur in V1; the rubric of book 2.26 is in V2 Si de feudo defuncti contentio sit inter dominum et agnatos vasalli instead of Si de feudo controversia fuerit in V1. A useful synoptic table (Appendix 4, p. 246-262)77 ‘highlights the main divergences in the rubrication’, between V1 and V2 (for the entire lf, i.e. lf 1.1-2-58(57)), and also between V1, V2 and the Antiqua (obviously only for lf 1.1-2.24, because the Antiqua ends with lf 2.24).
The numerous cases of the third category (divergences concerning the division in titles and paragraphs, as well as their numbering) are the passages where V1 (Lehmann’s Vulgata) either has no new title or no new paragraph, while V2 (Osenbrüggen’s Vulgata) has one. Lehmann 1896 – quite unnecessarily – has given V1 a numbering of titles and paragraphs which differed from the numbering of V2. So, V2 lf 1 title 11 (with rubric De pignori dato feudo quid iuris sit) corresponds with V1 lf 1.10.§ 1, which is not a separate title and does not have a rubric. Likewise, V2 lf 2.54 (De allodiis) is in V1 not a separate title and does not have a rubric, but is there the last part of title 53 (lf 2.53.§ 11-13). As mentioned before, the consequence is that the titles of V1, in Book 1 after title 10 (titles 1.11-27) and in Book 2 after title 53 (titles 2.54-57), lag one number behind the corresponding titles of V2 (titles 1.12-28 and 2.55-58). Stella has opted, as the basic numbering of titles and paragraphs, the unhappy numbering of titles and paragraphs of V1 (Lehmann’s Vulgata)78, but he does also give the numbering of V2, in square brackets, [], if V1 diverges from it, as it so often does.
11 Other translations of the Libri feudorum
Before I will address Stella’s translation, I may recall, in chronological order, the other existing translations of the lf c.a.. Stella refers to an earlier English translation, made by Lord Clyde, Lord Justice General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session at Edinburgh, and published, without the Latin original, as The Books of the Feus, in 1934, an appendix to his translation of Sir Thomas Craig’s Jus Feudale79. To my knowledge, no other translation of the lf into English exists than Lord Clyde’s and now Stella’s. Translations which are known to me, into other languages than English, are into German, Italian, and Dutch.
Two ‘old’ German-language versions of the lf are known: an abbreviation, authored by Jodokus Pflanzmann, Augsburg 1493 (and one later edition, 1494), as well as a full translation (yet not in the standard order of the lf but rearranged in a new systematisation, reconcinnatio), authored by Lorenz Weidmann, Mainz 1531 (and seven later editions, until 1727)80.
Bruno Schilling made a ‘modern’ German translation, Die Bücher des Lehnrechts, published, without the Latin original, in 183381. He translated the lf Vulgata edition in vol. 2 of the Corpus iuris Gottingense, of Gebauer & Spangenberg, Gottingae 1797. Gebauer had based this edition on earlier printed editions and manuscripts of the lf82.
Francesco Foramiti made the Italian translation of the lf, published, with the Latin original, in 184483. It is part of a translation of the entire Corpus iuris civilis, and it is based on the mediocre Corpus juris civilis academicum Parisiense, edited by C.M. Galisset, Lutetiae Parisiorum 1830. Galisset had meant to replace and improve on the last edition of the very popular Corpus juris civilis academicum of Chr.H. Freiesleben, Coloniae Munatianae [= Basle] 178984.
Lord Clyde used for his English translation of the lf (1934) Beck’s edition85, and on ‘some passages of much obscurity’ he availed himself of Mattheus de Afflictis, Commentaria in Feudorum Usus et Consuetudines Absolutissima, Frankfurt (‘1529’, but read:) 162986. According to Stella, Lord Clyde’s translation of the lf appears today obsolete in many aspects, and clearly tends to assign to the original text modern meanings and legal notions. These objections may certainly be subscribed to; nevertheless, Lord Clyde’s text remains a useful and, at times, inventive attempt at translating into English that peculiar and complex Latin of the Libri feudorum. Today an interpreter of many an enigmatic passage of the lf may still usefully consult Lord Clyde’s translation, alongside other existing translations. As Stella does indeed, e.g., with regard to Capitula extraordinaria Ardizonis 20 (p. 213 footnote 1).
Jop Spruit and Jeroen Chorus (this reviewer) made the Dutch translation, published, with the Latin original, in 201687. This Dutch translation has been based on the standard edition of the Vulgata of the Libri feudorum provided by Eduard Osenbrüggen (1840).
12 Stella’s translation. Delightful explanations
I address now Stella’s translation, which is based on Lehmann’s Vulgata, as mentioned before. This is a sound and solid translation. It is but rarely that some nuance of the Latin text does not return in the translation. Stella is extremely careful where the Latin text is unclear or ambiguous, as often happens; he then argues his choice and provides an explanation, regularly a rich and ingenious explanation. An example at random is how lf 2.34.2 on the alienation of a fief, without or together with the curia, should be understood (at p. 159 footnote 2). Another is the capitulum extraordinarium Iacobi de Ardizone 52(150.25), where Stella detected that the final part is a misread excerpt from Decretum Gratiani C 23 q 8 c 22, with a reference to the Gospel according to Matthew 17:24-27; which led him to adduce the finding of the stater in the caught fish’s mouth (at p. 232 footnote 6 and p. 235 footnote 1). However, there are many other delightful explanations88.
13 Choices in the translation open to discussion
There are, of course, always choices made in a translation which one might make differently. Some examples:
p. 58-59, in lf 1.1.1.4 (1.1.6) ‘nisi Romam in exercitu cum illis perrexerint vel aliquid propter feudum acceperint’ translated as ‘unless [the recipients] set out for Rome with them on a royal expedition, or unless [its grantors] have received something in exchange of the fief’. I do not see why those that set out for Rome should be others than those that have received something in exchange for the fief. Both must be the grantors of the fief (moreover, ‘in exercitu’ is not ‘on a royal expedition’ but ‘in the army’).
The word ‘iure’ has a number of times been translated as ‘rightly’ (e.g., p. 70-71, lf 1.11(12) ‘iure investitum’; or it has been translated as ‘by right’ (p. 56-57, lf 1.1.1 ‘iure successionis’; p. 60-61, lf 1.4.2(3) ‘iure obtinebit’). Implied is then the – in my opinion misleading – suggestion: that we have to do with something like what today are called ‘subjective rights’. In order to avoid that suggestion, I would prefer ‘lawfully invested’, ‘in accordance with the law of succession’, respectively ‘he shall lawfully obtain it’. On the other hand, ‘iure’ also has sometimes, in my view correctly, been translated as ‘by law’ or ‘by the law’ (p. 58-59, lf 1.1.3(5) ‘novo iure’; ibidem ‘iure feudi’).
‘Consuetudine feudi’ has been translated as ‘by the custom of the fief’ (p. 93-94, lf 2.1pr.), ‘usum feudi’ as ‘the usage of the fief’ (p. 93-94, lf 2.1pr.), ‘iure feudi’ as ‘by the law of the fief’ (p. 58-59, lf 1.1.4(6)). Implied is here another – in my opinion misleading – suggestion: that we have to do, not with the general feudal custom, usage, law, but with a custom, a usage, a law which is particular to the one fief envisaged. In order to avoid that suggestion, I would prefer ‘by the feudal custom’, ‘the feudal usage’ and ‘the feudal law’.
14 Translation occasionally a bit too far removed from the Latin text
Maybe a matter of taste: in my opinion a translation should remain as close to the original as possible. Stella, however, not rarely moves away somewhat from the original, further than necessary. I noted some examples.
p. 56-57, in lf 1.1.1(2) ‘ut dignaretur’ translated as ‘that he consider it convenient’; closer to the original is ‘that he should deign’.
p. 64-65, in lf 1.5.9(7) ‘dominus districtum habuerit vel alium honorem’ translated as ‘the lord has the power of distraint or some other jurisdiction’; closer to the original is ‘the lord has jurisdiction or some other power’.
p. 66-67, in lf 1.6.1 ‘quae antiquitus non sit solita’ translated as ‘who has not formerly been accustomed’; closer to the original is ‘who has not of old been accustomed’.
p. 68-69 and 72-73, in lf 1.9 and 1.12(13)pr. ‘per legem Lotharii’ translated as ‘by the decree of Lothair’; closer to the original is ‘by the law of Lothair’.
p. 72-73, in lf 1.12(13)pr. ‘non valebit … non valet’ translated as ‘shall have no effect … has no effect’; closer to the original is ‘shall not be valid … is not valid’. Throughout the translation ‘valere’ has been translated less precisely as ‘to have effect’ instead of ‘to be valid’.
p. 72-73, in lf 1.12(13)pr. ‘Huic consuetudine derogatum est’ translated as ‘this custom was modified’; closer to the original is ‘this custom has been derogated from’.
p. 74-75, in lf 1.14(15) ‘secundum aequitatem’ translated as ‘by equity’; closer to the original is ‘in accordance with equity’.
p. 76-77, in lf 1.15(16) ‘beneficium dimittant’ translated as ‘they are to … surrender the benefice’; closer to the original is ‘they are to forego the benefice’.
p. 80-81, in lf 1.21(22)pr. and 2 ‘sancimus’ translated as ‘we establish’; closer to the original is ‘we decree’.
p. 86-87, in lf 1.26(27)pr. ‘De feudo dato in vicem legis commissoriae’ translated as ‘Concerning a fief that is given in relation to a forfeiture clause’; closer to the original than ‘in relation to’ is ‘by way of’.
15 Errors in the translation
I noted also some errors, unnecessary ambiguities and errata, as follows.
p. 56-57, in lf 1.1.1(3) ‘nisi hoc nominatim dictum sit’ translated as ‘unless this has been expressly said’; and in lf 1.1.2(4) ‘nisi specialiter dictum fuerit’ translated as ‘unless it is specifically said’; read: ‘unless it has been explicitly stated’, respectively ‘especially stated’. ‘Said’ is too weak; we have to do with a ‘dictum’ at the investiture, cf. a ‘dictum’ at the concluding of a sale.
p. 56-57, in lf 1.1.2(4) ‘ut ad eas pertineat’ translated as ‘that [the fief] is not to belong to daughters’; read: ‘that [the fief] is to belong to daughters’.
p. 58-59, in lf 1.1.3(5) ‘fratres patrueles’ translated as ‘first cousins’; read: ‘sons of their father’s brother’. ‘Cousins’ lacks the restriction to males descending from an uncle.
p. 60-61, in lf 1.4.2(3), and throughout the book (almost 40 times), ‘feudum paternum’ has been translated as ‘ancestral fief’ (perhaps in the footsteps of Lord Clyde, who usually did the same in his translation). As, however, the word ‘ancestral’ may refer both to female and to male ancestors, while ‘paternal’ can only refer to male ancestors, ‘paternal fief’ would seem to be the correct translation. In lf 1.15(14) it is explicitly stressed that a beneficium vocatur paternum et non maternum. Footnote 2 to the translation of this passage (p. 75) runs as follows: ‘The Latin text opposes ‘paternum’ (ancestral, lit. ‘paternal’) to ‘maternum’ (i.e. ‘maternal’) and therefore stresses the preference reserved to males in succeeding.’ If that is so, no reason is apparent for exchanging ‘paternal’ for the ambiguous term ‘ancestral’.580 Review essays
p. 64-65, in lf 1.5.4, 6, 9 ‘libellario nomine’ and ‘ad libellum’, translated as ‘by lease’; read: ‘by long-lease’ or ‘by emphyteusis’. Throughout the translation ‘libellario nomine dare’ has been wrongly translated as ‘by lease’.
p. 67, in footnote 1 to lf 1.6pr. the reference should be to Decretum Gratiani C 16 (instead of 17) q 7 c 2.
p. 68-69, in lf 1.9 ‘investitus pure’ translated as ‘invested unconditionally’; read: ‘invested without condition or time’.
p. 70-71, in lf 1.10pr. ‘domini … religioni statur’ translated as ‘the oath of the lord has standing’; read: ‘one has to stay with the lord’s oath’.
p. 74-75, in lf 1.13(14)pr. ‘De marchia vel ducatu vel comitatu … investitus’ translated as ‘invested … with a march, a duchy, a county’; read: ‘invested … with a margravate89, a duchy, a county’. A march is not, a margravate is on a par with a duchy and a county.
p. 74-75, in lf 1.13(14).1 ‘consobrinis’ translated as ‘cousins’; read: ‘first cousins’.
p. 82-83, in lf 1.23(24) ‘neque damnetur’ translated as ‘should it [i.e. apparently: the benefice] be condemned’; read: ‘should she [i.e. the daughter] be condemned’. A benefice can hardly be condemned.
p. 92-93, in lf 2.1pr. ‘In iudicio … quo de feudis agitur’, at p. 93 translated as ‘in a trial which concerns fiefs’ and in footnote 5 ‘Lit[erally]’ translated as ‘in the trial in which it is disputed over fiefs’; read: ‘in a lawsuit in which fiefs are litigated on’. ‘Agere’ is a Roman law technical term.
p. 92-93, in lf 2.1pr. ‘illud legibus nostris contrarium dici solet’ translated as ‘it is common to say what is contrary to our laws’; read: ‘it is common to say that this [i.e. a fief] is contrary to our laws’.
16 Laudatio
Stella’s book is an important addition to and enrichment of the literature concerning the Libri feudorum. On the whole it is a secure aid to understanding the, at times, peculiar Latin of this peculiar part of the Corpus iuris civilis. If the choice of the Latin text which Stella translated, Lehmann’s text, is debatable, the inconvenience of that choice has been compensated by the references given to Osenbrüggen’s standard edition of the Vulgata, which is so often closer to the text which has been used for ages. The translation itself is sound and solid. It is but rarely that some nuance of the Latin text does not return in the translation. If a choice had to be made, where the Latin text is unclear or ambiguous, that choice is always argued and its explanation is often rich and usually convincing. In the fourth introductory chapter some useful notes to the translation are given. The first three introductory chapters offer a good, succinct, history of the formation of the lf and their annexes, and of the social background, both of that formation and of their ‘Afterlife’ until the end of the 19th century. They also sketch a debate, among some historians, which would appear to be of little importance for the history of the lf and for understanding their legal content; here the author might perhaps be said to be a shade too kind for the losers of that debate. The tools provided at the end of the book, after the translation – synopsis of the rubrication of the various versions of the lf, glossary, bibliography and indexes – are convenient and sufficient. One may congratulate the student of the lf, beginning or advanced, who disposes of this book, the fruit of ‘months of remote working [some of these months during the 2020 covid-19 lockdown] in’ a ‘tiny Scottish hermitage’ (Stella, p. ix).
Notes
K. Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht (Handschriften, Textentwicklung, ältester Text und Vulgattext nebst den capitula extraordinaria), Göttingen 1896; reprinted in: Bibliotheca rerum historicarum, 1, Aalen 1971; p. 71-298(i-vii + 1-220); the edition proper at p. 161-298(83-220).
Not: ‘Osenbruggen’, as the name of that author is misprinted throughout Stella’s book.
E. Osenbrüggen, Corpus juris civilis, Pars tertia novellas et reliqua continens (first edition Lipsiae 1840; editio stereotypa 1843; many new impressions, at least until 1887). Infra, main text near n. 50.
Anastatic reproduction in: M. Montorzi, Diritto feudale nel basso medioevo, Materiali di lavoro e strumenti critici per l’esegesi della glossa ordinaria ai Libri feudorum, Torino 1991.
Is ‘notorious’ not a better qualification? Cf. D. Heirbaut, Konfliktlösung und Feudalismus, Kapitel 20 of D. von Mayenburg et al. (ed.), Konfliktlösung im Mittelalter, Berlin et al. 2021, p. 245-261, at p. 257, where Heirbaut describes Reynolds as destructive rather than as constructive: ‘Sie nahm die alte Landkarte des Feudalismus auseinander, ohne wirklich eine neue anzubieten’.
P. Weimar, Die Handschriften des Liber feudorum und seiner Glossen, Riv. intern. d. dir. Commune, 1 (1990), p. 31-98, reprinted in: Idem, Zur Renaissance der Rechtswissenschaft im Mittelalter, Bibliotheca eruditorum, Goldbach 1997, p. 171*-238*, with important Addenda et emendanda, at p. 368*-371*.
P. Weimar, Die legistische Literatur der Glossatorenzeit, in: H. Coing (ed.), Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte, Erster Band: Mittelalter, München 1973, p. 129-260. Such divergences occur, e.g., with regard to passages concerning the LF or their Glossa and their relation to Pillius, Jacobus Columbi, Hugolinus and Accursius, at p. 156, 166-167, 187, 210-211.
Stella’s fine explanations of the social background of the formation of the lf need not be discussed in this recension.
Stella, p. 18-21. – At p. 19 and 20, ‘especially the theory of legal actions’, and p. 20, ‘Obertus referred to a legal action called rei vindicatio’: read instead of ‘legal actions/action’ ‘remedies/remedy’, or ‘civil actions/action’.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 33-35(173*-175*), numbers 1-7.
Stella, p. 21.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 42-46(182*-186*), numbers 8-28.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6).
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 48(188*); these four manuscripts are included in Weimar’s list of manuscripts of the Vulgata proper, p. 54-67(194*-207*), numbers 152, 102, 135 and 133.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 54-67(194*-207*), numbers 42-160; and Weimar, Zur Renaissance (supra, n. 6), Addenda et emendanda 15, p. 369*-370*, numbers 80bis and 80ter.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 51-53(191*-193*), numbers 29-41.
So still, e.g., Weimar, Die legistische Literatur (supra, n. 7), p. 167.
G. Giordanengo, Les feudistes (XIIe–XVe s.), in: El dret comú i Catalunya, Actes … ii.on Simposi … 1991, Barcelona 1992, p. 67-139, at p. 69 (‘assez artificiellement’); M.G. Di Renzo Villata, La formazione dei ‘Libri feudorum’ (tra pratica di giudici e scienza di dottori …), in: Il feudalesimo nell’alto medioevo, Settimane … xlvii … 1999, Spoleto 2000, p. 651-721, at p. 656 (‘abbastanza artificiosamente’).
Giordanengo, Les feudistes (supra, n. 18), p. 69 (‘discutable’); Di Renzo Villata, La formazione (supra, n. 18), p. 659 (‘discutibile’).
So still Weimar, Die legistische Literatur (supra, n. 7), p. 187.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 75-78(215*-218*). Those two manuscripts, as far as the glosses are concerned, originally only held the elementary version of Accursius’ apparatus; it is visible that this was later expanded to the enlarged version.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 78-81(218*-221*).
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 81-97(221*-237*).
R. Feenstra, Deux manuscrits du Corpus iuris civilis au château d’Anholt et un problème de datation, Amsterdam 1972, now in: Fata iuris Romani, Leyde 1974, p. 283-297, at p. 292-297, with ‘notes additionnelles’ numbers 106-111, at p. 398. See also R. Feenstra, Romeins recht en Europese rechtswetenschap, in: J.E. Spruit (ed.), Coniectanea neerlandica iuris romani, Zwolle 1974, p. 101-137, at p. 110.
Stella, p. 25.
Stella, p. 30-31. At p. 32, footnote 13, ‘Hugolinus, Summa feudorum’ is misleading; accurately p. 23, footnote 63: the Summa that has been sometime wrongly attributed to Hugolinus, later wrongly attributed to Iacobus Columbi, is in fact a reworking by Accursius of Pillius’ Summa.
Namely J.K. de Vanckel’s Notata super usibus feudorum, 1486. See, in the data base Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, number 09710.
Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 42(182*) says so explicitly of Lehmann’s manuscripts 26 and 36; see for the other three G.R. Dolezalek’s data base Manuscripta iuridica, https://manuscripts.rg.mpg.de/; last update October 2017.
G. Giordanengo, La littérature juridique féodale, in: Le vassal, le fief et l’écrit, Pratiques d’écriture et enjeux documentaires dans le champ de la féodalité. Actes … Louvain-la-Neuve … 2005, Louvain-la-Neuve 2007, p. 11-34, at p. 14.
G. Dilcher, Das Lombardische Lehnrecht der Libri Feudorum im europäischen Kontext, in: K.-H. Spieß (ed.), Ausbildung und Verbreitung des Lehnswesens im Reich und in Italien im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert, Vorträge und Forschungen … lxxvi, Ostfildern 2013, p. 41-91, at p. 44 with footnote 8.
Cp., e.g., D. Heirbaut, Chapter 23: Feudal law, in: The Oxford Handbook of European Legal History, Oxford 2018, p. 528-548, at p. 535-542, and, for a survey of the situation in the (northern and southern) Netherlands, the introductory essay of the late lamented C.H. (Kees) Bezemer († 9th April 2024), in: J.E. Spruit & J.M.J. Chorus (eds.), Corpus iuris civilis, Tekst en Vertaling, vol. xii Addendum, Amsterdam 2016, vii + 159 pages, at p. 5-8.
But Lehmann’s 1896 edition of the Vulgata may not be called a ‘critical edition’, as Stella does call it (p. 46). See infra, main text near n. 55.
Most printed editions until 1797 are listed in E.P.J. Spangenberg (not to be confused with his father, G.A. Spangenberg), Einleitung in das Römisch-Justinianeische Rechtsbuch, Hannover 1817. Weimar’s list (Weimar, Die legistische Literatur (supra, n. 7), at p. 157 and 167) is very rudimentary (and fails, as far as the ‘Kriegel-edition’ is concerned, to mention the year of its first edition: 1840–1843). Additional information is given in H.E. Troje, Graeca leguntur, Die Aneignung des byzantinischen Rechts und die Entstehung eines humanistischen Corpus iuris civilis in der Jurisprudenz des 16. Jahrhunderts, Köln – Wien 1971, p. 90-103.
Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, numbers 07774 and 07775.
Troje, Graeca leguntur (supra, n. 36), p. 94-97.
Probably from its printed editio princeps, Asti 1518.
Troje, Graeca leguntur (supra, n. 36), p. 90-103.
Spangenberg, Einleitung (supra, n. 36), p. 894, no. 466, remarks: ‘Diese so sehr gelobte Ausgabe ist dennoch nicht von groben Druckfehlern frey; auch ist der Text keinesweges critisch berichtigt. Van Leeuwen’s eigene Anmerkungen sind erbärmlich’,
Troje, Graeca leguntur (supra, n. 36), p. 92.
Spangenberg, Einleitung (supra, n. 36), p. 911, no. 527, remarks: ‘Schlechter Text, aber bequem beym Aufschlagen’. See also Galisset’s negative judgment, infra n. 47.
Troje, Graeca leguntur (supra, n. 36), p. 11-12.
G.A. Spangenberg, in: Corpus juris civilis, vol. 2, Gottingae 1797, fol. 5R: ‘Nam quod ad Feudorum consuetudines attinet, chartis impressis duntaxat priusquam prodirent, corrigendis adhibui manum. Cuncta perfecta dudum erant, exasciata optime cuncta, nihilque reliqui factum, quod posset superaddi’.
See the preceding footnote. The quoted passage is taken from Gebauer’s famous Narratio de Henrico Brencmanno, Gottingae 1764. The five manuscripts of the lf are numbers 57, 31, 17, 18 and 94 of Weimar’s list, now kept at Breslau, Göttingen or München. See also infra, n. 53. The printed LF editions used by Gebauer are: the editio princeps; an impression of Cuiacius’ De feudis; and the ‘editio Leeuweniana’. Gebauer possessed a copy of that editio princeps, sine loco et anno (but 1472). The ‘editio Leeuweniana’ is Simon van Leeuwen’s Corpus iuris civilis edition. Moreover, Gebauer used Ioannes Calvinus (Kahl), Iurisprudentia feudalis, Francofurti 1611, 8°, which follows Cuiacius’ division in 5 Books and even adds a 6th Book, filled with fragments taken from the Corpus iuris canonici; see E.[P.J.] Spangenberg, Jacob Cujas und seine Zeitgenossen, Leipzig 1822, p. 237.
See the motivation for Galisset’s edition in its Prospectus (1830): ‘… le Corpus Juris civilis est devenu fort rare et fort cher; il n’a pas été réimprimé en France depuis 1700; et les étudians [sic] sont dans la nécessité de se procurer l’édition connue sous le titre d’Academicum, imprimée en Allemagne [recte: Switzerland], sur mauvais papier, en 1789 …’ and ‘l’édition Academicum [is also] fautive sous plusieurs rapports’.
The Elzevier edition of 1663 is that by Simon van Leeuwen (supra, main text near n. 41).
I.L.G. (J.L.W.) Beck, Corpus iuris civilis, Tomus ii, Partis ii Volumen ii, Lipsiae 1834.
But the brothers Albert & Moritz Kriegel had died before their vol. 1 (Institutiones and Digesta), published in instalments (‘heftweise’) as from about 1830, had been completed in 1840; and neither of the two ‘Kriegelii’ contributed to vol. 2 (Codex, edited by E. Herrmann), first published in 1843, and vol. 3 (Novellae et reliqua, edited by Osenbrüggen), first published in 1840.
Osenbrüggen, Corpus juris civilis (supra, n. 3), p. vii: ‘De libris feudorum bene meritus est Beck, eumque in plurimis secutus sum’. At p. 896 Osenbrüggen indicates that he used: I.L.G. Beck, Corpus iuris civilis, Tomus ii, Pars ii (recte: Partis ii Volumen ii), Lipsiae 1834, octavo, and the editio stereotypa of the same work, Vol. ii, Lipsiae 1837, quarto.
Osenbrüggen, Corpus juris civilis (supra, n. 3), p. vii. This Codex Hamburgensis is number 73 of Weimar’s list.
These five manuscripts have been specified supra, n. 46 (numbers 57, 31, 17, 18 and 94 of Weimar’s list). Osenbrüggen refers to them as, respectively: Rehd(igerianus), Schw(arzianus), Aug(ustanus) i, Aug(ustanus) ii and Aug(ustanus) iii; see Osenbrüggen’s Index siglarum et notarum at p. 896. Presumably, Osenbrüggen’s references to ‘Ed. i’ are to the printed editio princeps of 1472; it is lacking in his Index siglarum et notarum at p. 895-896.
E.A. Laspeyres, Über die Entstehung und älteste Bearbeitung der libri feudorum, Berlin 1830, reprinted Aalen 1969. These two manuscripts are kept, respectively, at Tübingen and Halle; numbers 7 and 15 of Weimar’s list. Apparently, Osenbrüggen refers to them as, respectively: Tub and Hal; they are lacking in his Index siglarum et notarum at p. 895-896.
C. Lehmann, Consuetudines feudorum (Libri feudorum, Jus feudale Langobardorum), i: Compilatio Antiqua, Gottingae 1892; Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht (supra, n. 1); both reprinted in: Bibliotheca rerum historicarum, 1, Aalen 1971; p. 71-298(= p. i-vii + 1-220); the edition proper at p. 161-298(= p. 83-220).
It offers anyhow but very few footnotes (five in all) for the part of the Vulgata which is a variant of the Antiqua (lf 1.1–2.5 and 2.8–2.24).
If I see rightly, Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht (supra, n. 1) offers just one reference to a varia lectio in a manuscript, namely regarding lf 2.32, at p. 161(239) footnote 2.
Lehmann refers explicitly, if I see rightly, only to six printed editions of the Vulgata: the ‘Ed. i’, the ‘Mainzer Ausgabe von 1477’, the ‘Baseler Ausgabe von 1478’, the ‘Mailänder Ausgabe von 1482’, ‘Cujacius’, the Corpus iuris civilis edition of Gebauer & Spangenberg and, of course, the ‘editio Eduardi Osenbrueggen’. Presumably, Lehmann’s references (at p. 74(152) – 76(154)) to ‘Ed. i’ and ‘Editio i’ (like those of Osenbrüggen to ‘Ed. 1’: supra, n. 53) are to the printed editio princeps of 1472; they are lacking in Lehmann’s list of Abkürzungen, p. iii(73).
J.E. Spruit, Woord vooraf, in: Spruit & Chorus, Corpus iuris civilis xii Addendum (supra, n. 34), p. vi.
I have not been able to detect Lehmann’s arguments for his choice to divert from Osenbrüggen’s edition with regard to the numbering of the titles of the lf and their paragraphs.
Stella translates ‘Supplementary chapters’ instead of ‘Extraordinary chapters’; I do not see why.
Osenbrüggen had presented the capitula extraordinaria Ardizonis in two sets, a first set numbered from 1 to 26 and a second set anew from 1 to 26. But Lehmann, unnecessarily, renumbered them continuously, from 1 to 53 (while Lehmann’s numbers 30-31, 33-34 and 41bis, respectively, replaced the traditional numbers 4-4bis, 6 and 13). Stella follows Lehmann also in this respect.
In particular, E. Seckel, Über neuere Editionen juristischer Schriften aus dem Mittelalter, I, ZSS (Rom), 21 (1900), p. 212-338; Idem, Quellenfunde zum lombardischen Lehenrecht, insbesondere zu den Extravaganten-Sammlungen, in: Festgabe … Otto Gierke, Breslau 1910, 1, p. 47-168(= p. i+1-120 of the Sonder-Abdruck); and Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), p. 36-42(176*-182*) and 68(208*).
A. Stella, The Liber Ardizonis: Reshaping the Libri Feudorum in the thirteenth century, in: Studi Medievali, 3a Serie, 58-1 (2017), p. 175-228.
Probably from its printed editio princeps, Asti 1518 (supra, n. 39).
‘Ab hoc titulo incipiunt fragmenta sive extraordinaria capitula, quae nobis Ardizo et Alvarotus conservarunt, hactenus neglecta ab omnibus, sed non minoris fructus, quam libri superiores … Auctoritas vero cur non et tanta his, quanta superioribus libris, aut cur illis maior? …’.
C.F. Dieck, Literärgeschichte des Longobardischen Lehnrechts bis zum vierzehnten Jahrhundert ihren Hauptgegenständen nach dargestellt, Halle 1828, reprinted Aalen 1969, at p. 394-396. Dieck identified nine such capitula, two of them erroneously.
E.A. Laspeyres, Über die Entstehung (supra, n.54), at p. 430-432. Laspeyres (at p. 53-54, footnote 104) identified yet another such capitulum and corrected Dieck’s error regarding two capitula.
In Osenbrüggen’s edition there are 26 + 26 + 8 numbers, but in his second set of 26, numbers 4 and 6 hold two capitula each, resulting in 62; in Lehmann’s edition 1896 there are 53 + 8 numbers, but number 41 has erroneously been assigned twice.
Seckel, Quellenfunde (supra, n. 63), p. 119(71), concluded already in 1910: ‘Jedenfalls haben künftig die Capitula Baraterii als solche zu verschwinden’, because they appeared with Baraterius in 1442 just as they had appeared already with Ardizone around 1230.
Osenbrüggen mentions two such manuscripts (p. 880, footnote a).
Cuiacius, De feudis, the first law of Book 5.
Usually as title 1 of an Appendix, called ‘Capitula extraordinaria ex Cuiacii libro quinto De feudis’. Lehmann did not include Conrad’s Law in his edition.
See Lehmann, Consuetudines (supra, n.55), p. 23-69(i-ii + 1-45), at p. 24(ii): ‘Ed. = Editiones hodiernae juris feudalis langobardici in fine editionum corporis juris civilis, praecipue editio Eduardi Osenbrueggen (corp. jur. civ. ed. a fratr. Kriegel tom. iii)’; and see Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht (supra, n. 1), at p. 79(1), footnote 1: ‘Ich lege zu Grunde die Osenbrueggensche Ausgabe bei Kriegel’.
Lehmann, Das langobardische Lehnrecht (supra, n. 1), at p. 152-154(74-76), sums up his main reasons for departing from Osenbrüggen’s Vulgata. His arguments for diverging from the traditional division of the text in titles and paragraphs, as well as their numbering, are by no means compelling.
As the word ‘ancestral’ may refer both to female and to male ancestors, while ‘paternal’ can only refer to male ancestors, ‘paternal fief’ would seem to be the correct translation. Infra, § 14.
This table’s full title is ‘TABLE 1 Synoptic table of the rubrication in v1, v2, and Ant.’. As it is the only table in the whole book, the numeration ‘1’ is redundant.
Admittedly, Weimar gave the bad example: Weimar, Die Handschriften (supra, n. 6), at p. 32(172*) footnote 8.
J.A. Clyde, The Jus Feudale by Sir Thomas Craig of Riccarton with an appendix containing the Books of the Feus, A translation, 2 vols., xxxiv + 1212 pages, Edinburgh and London, 1934. The Books of the Feus is found in vol. 2, p. 1079-1183. - Thomas Craig’s Jus feudale, tribus libris comprehensum is the first of the Scottish ‘Institutional Writings’, the only one written in Latin. It had been completed and started circulating in manuscript form about two years before Craig’s death in 1608, was printed at first in 1655, at Edinburgh, reprinted in 1716 (at Leipzig!), and published again in 1732, at Edinburgh. The 1732 edition was in 1934 the edition ‘usually cited’ in court, and Lord Clyde based his translation exclusively on it (p. xviii). A new edition of Craig’s book (not also of the translation of the lf), based on the 1732 version, both in Latin and in a fresh English translation, is on its way. The first of four projected volumes came out in 2017: L. Dodd, Jus feudale tribus libri comprehensum by Thomas Craig of Riccarton, Book I: Translated, edited and annotated (Publications of the Stair Society, 64, xciii + 519 pages), Edinburgh 2017. See now on Craig’s Jus feudale: L. Dodd, Thomas Craig on the origin and development of feudal law, tr, 87 (2019), p. 86-127.
The 1494 edition of Pflanzmann’s book has been reprinted, with a Nachwort of U. Altmann, Leipzig 1989. In fact, Pflanzmann did not himself abbreviate the lf, but he translated passages taken from Jacobus Alvarottus’ Lectura feudorum (1438; printed as from 1477). See R. Feenstra, Kaiserliche Lehnrechte, TR, 63 (1995), p. 337-354.
C.E. Otto, B. Schilling and C.F.F. Sintenis (eds.), Das Corpus juris civilis in’s Deutsche übersetzt, 7. Band, Leipzig 1833, p. 843-974 (preceded by a translation of the Novels c.a.).
Supra, main text near n. 44.
F. Foramiti, Corpo del diritto civile in cui si contengono le istituzioni di Giustiniano … e i libri de’ feudi, vol. 1-4, Venezia 1836–1844 (mentioned by Stella, p. 54).
Supra, main text near n. 47.
Clyde, The Jus Feudale (supra, n. 79), p. xxvi: ‘The text used … is that which is printed at the end of Beck’s ‘Corpus Juris Civilis’ (Leipzig, 1829)’. ‘1829’ must be mistaken, for Beck did not publish until 1834 the last volume of his Corpus iuris edition, holding (at p. 1371-1463) ‘Feudorum libri cum fragmentis’.
Clyde, The Jus Feudale (supra, n. 79), p. xxvi: ‘the ‘Commentaria in Feudorum Usus et Consuetudines Absolutissima’ of Mattheus de Afflictis (Frankfurt, 1529)’; however, the first printed edition of this commentary is that of Venice 1534, under a different title; a first Frankfurt edition appeared in 1598, again under a different title; only the 1629 (and last) Frankfurt edition bears the exact title quoted by Lord Clyde.
Spruit & Chorus, Corpus iuris civilis, xii Addendum (supra, n. 34).
E.g., with regard to lf 2.15pr., 2.25.1, 2.26.14, 2.32, 2.33.1, 2.34.2, 2.50, 2.54(55).6, or 2.57(58)pr.
Niermeyer et al., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, ed. 2002, s.v. ‘marchia’ and s.v. ‘marca’, § 6.
